statewide programs. to bring it back to your question, m.c.e. is running programs that are funded through this pot of state rate payer funds. sonoma clean power runs programs, but i believe almost all of those are grant funded or rate payer funded through the generation service that they provide. >> commissioner pollock: so just one question. so then, when there was a request to create an independent energy efficiency program, was that approved by the cpuc? o >> i think what the question is there was back in 2015, an idea that we would create -- that the local governments would create their own statewide program and submit a business

plan for it? that got rejected by the cpuc. >> commissioner pollock: yeah. do you know if there was any progress on using prop c funds that was the housing trust funds on energy efficiency? >> i am not aware. i have no information on that. >> commissioner pollock: okay. >> okay. it's a great question. >> commissioner pollock: okay. it's 2012 of prop c efficiency? >> okay. >> commissioner pollock: it was a housing trust fund and there was -- i know that supervisor avalos had talked about potentially there could be funds in that that could be used for energy efficiency. >> i am going to find out. i did not believe there were any. i do not believe staff has gotten any of those funds. i like the way you're thinking. thank you. >> commissioner pollock: the other question i have is were the programs that -- have

programs come out of the energy efficiency task force? is that still happening? >> that's a great, very timely question. the energy efficiency task force has completed its work. they completed a report. i have read the report. it's outstanding, and i believe they would like to present that report either to our commission, to you, to the board of supervisors. we're working with them to figure out just how to do it. their recommendations are -- they're interesting. they're very much about ramping up and scaling and fast, and a fo fork -- focus on low-income and disadvantaged communities. there isn't anything in that report that wouldn't be reflected in my story in our focus. >> commissioner pollock: i think it's so important to highlight the findings from that task force just because of the inclusion of community groups like poder, and i think

it represents rate payers in a different way and builds in equity, and that's something i feel like we want to have baked into every program. >> and i hope that my presentation showed you how much we take that seriously? and your point about that report coming out of such a diverse group, such an intentionally diverse body is a good one, and that speaks to the importance. i believe they're going to be presenting on the commission to the environment, and we can see how much more we can get those fundings out. >> commissioner pollock: okay. my last question has to do with the timeline. when we heard from the department last, there was -- there was thoughts that the timeline of the launch of cleanpowersf would coincide with the timeline of those rate

payer funds. >> we did hope that. >> commissioner pollock: so now where we are with cleanpowersf, what does the timeline to look like to really have, you know, a strong partnership between department of the environment and the sfpuc to really utilize the energy efficiency programs to help cleanpowersf rate payers? >> so back when -- before cleanpowersf was actually launched, i think the department was a little bit overly optimistic and ambitious when revenue dollars would come in and time would be allotted to set it up. it turned out this launches was a big endeavor and continues to be? i think we're at a time where the end of full enrollment is in sight? cleanpowersf staff have told us that they feel like the timing is right for them to work on this intentionally? they have asked us to give them

in the next two weeks a deeper analysis of what it would take to file a business plan, which is the heavy lift that they need to do? so i would actually expect -- when we look at what happened in the city of marin and lancaster is another county that applied through the cpuc. s how long they sit on it, that's hard to tell. so we have done our own business plan through the bayren program so we have some experience how to do it. we'll be working closely with the sfpuc to work with the consultants that they bring in because it needs to be done through sfpuc. they are the ones, not us, but we are there to serve at subject matter experts and hopefully implementers at the end? so my conversations with barbara hale, michael hyams

make me incredibly excited that this is not going to be on the back burner of our plate? >> commissioner pollock: i just ask that we be apprised of the timeline and how that changes. i know we had a sort of rolling timeline where we were looking at the launch, if we could be kept up to date on the energy efficiency programs. >> we can do that. >> commissioner pollock: the last question is do you know when the updated climate action plan will be released. >> so i'll tell you what -- our story arc, our work for 2019. we have supervisor mandelman and many of his colleagues just introduced an emergency climate resolution. as soon as it passes, we will hold a hearing. after that, we will be looking

for changes to chapter nine, the environment code which is railroad our goals with codified? once we get that, we will look at our climate action strategy, which will be a community-led process? so i'm hoping by 2020, which is when we need to have our next update, we will have our next climate action plan. it doesn't mean everything would be done, but that's when we can publish it. >> chair fewer: colleagues, any other comments? questions? you know, debbie, i have one question just related to the fact that we're looking at transportation and that we have to not rely on fossil fuels anymore and that would mean going electric. so that would mean privately going electric or even our public vehicles. now there has been a lot of research on the use of cobalt,

in these electric cars and all of our cell phones, and what is happening to exploitation of people in the congo, which holds two thirds of the world's reserves of cobalt. there has been a lot on the exploitation of those people in the mining almost in the same way that we're looking at blood diamonds. so i'm wondering, do you have any suggestions for us as a city as we're moving towards electric vehicles and how we can purchase this responsibly and not hurting another country. in fact, this part probably of the world is so mineral rich, it should probably be the richest country in the world and yet, it is amongst the poorest. so not to add to a world exploitation but to move us

toward a climate action goals. is there a way we can move to zero emissions without endangering the rest of the world? >> i don't have an answer for

you. >> -- individual cars, so that's part of it. you can do that, and that can be part of the plan right away.

i wanted to highlight something that might have gone overlooked in debbie's excellent presentation about this great program work that they've been doing, and that is the importance of getting these funds down to the local community under cleanpowersf and potentially under a public power system. as debbie said, you have to separate are yrenewable funds energy efficiency funds. as commissioner pollock noted, microgrids, all these things need to be installed together and they become much more cost effective and energy efficient. so we need to draw those funds down to the local level so we

can combine these things together when we do these installations, and that's get to the next item, which is the importance of getting a sydney style local build out plan and hired experts to make that happened so integration can be planned out as if it's a big always on power grade for the city. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> thanks, chair fewer and commissioners. jed holtson. senior analyst for 350 bay area. i think we do a lot of work at the bay area quality management district, first of all, thank you to the department and debbie for her presentation and these data. getting actual gas out of existing buildings is really kind of the building piece that no one knows how we're going to

get at. certainly compared to the rest area, san francisco has a very hold housing stock. i've lived here for 20 years and i don't think i've lived in a house newer than 1910. the incentive structure for even pushing through energy efficiency is pretty much absent. i would also say anywhere we measure normal gas emissions, they're lower than expected, and so getting natural gas out of buildings has to be seen as part of energy efficiency, which debbie's data, it makes clear so anything that the city and county can do to get cpuc or funds at the state legislature, i think that's key getting to where we need to go. i would also say the presentation showed that

there's an outstanding need for policy framework for the heating electrification which is basically building, water, and space heating, natural gas. something we've suggested that the air district institute future effective dates to ban the sale of natural gas furnaces in the bay area to basicy put the marker down by x year, we're going to need to be total electric? that is something we can do at the local level while we are getting our ducks in a row, and i would suggest that we pursue that. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other public speakers? seeing none, public comment is now closed. thank you very much, director raphael for this. i have one question for you, and this is just something that just triggered my thought was that are we by any means promoting the discontinuation of water heaters, those really big gas ones that everyone

installs in their homes or are we going -- i have one of these water heaters. we had one of those things that was heating water continuously. and now, it's an electric things that goes through the pipes. like, they do it in germany and japan and everything else. and what are we -- are we doing anything about that? >> thank you for the question, chairman. we are. so with the bayren program we have a pilot where we're using district money to try to persuade a certain number of single-family homes as well as 250 multifamily to convert from natural gas water heating to heat pump electric water heating, and that was a pilot

that just started in january and we're actively recruiting interested test homes. >> chair fewer: so i would love to work with you in my districts because they have a lot of single-family homes, and they have these big water heaters. we converted maybe about seven years ago i guess to this new heating system, but i just think is so -- which i just think is so much more efficient. but i would love to partner with you if you're doing an upgrade in my district. >> i just want to say, we're also looking proactively at our building codes to try and make sure that we can have the latest version -- the best and most strict building codes so that as people do major remodels and as we have major construction, we're moving this in. it's a multipronged, but it's

definitely coming back to the board of supervisors. we're going to need legislation and leadership to lead up to that. >> chair fewer: i would love to work with you on that. there is another public commenter. did i close public comment, mad madam clerk? >> clerk: you can reopen. >> chair fewer: okay. we can reopen public comment. >> i know tha lot of things in getting things like mcdonald's and burger king to add to alternative power activities in the community. i wanted to know if the city had any feelings about that or willingness to work with those

businesses or others on seeing through a vegetable diesel component to alternative energy experiments or funding of some sort in. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. and thank you for your presentation. madam clerk, can you please call item five? >> clerk: yes. and just for the record, no action was taken on item four. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: mr. goebel, i think you have a presentation for us. >> yes. brian goebel, chief executive officer. today, i am asking for your request for qualifications for

a renewable energy expert. as the sfpuc start developing their local energy access and a build out of local energy projects, this would allow us to have an energy expert in place at lafco to help provide effective oversight feedback and what i hope are going to be some really graeat ideas. that person would work with lafco, community groups and other stakeholders to provide feedback during the capital planning process at the p.u.c. in an effort that supports clean energy for all san franciscans. this firm or person would ideally also have some experience on power issues to assist us there, should the need come from lafco.

sfpuc staff, mike hyams who's here today are supportive for extending the m.o.u. for this purpose. i had a really great meeting with general manager harlan kelly, so i would work with commissioners, the advocates, other stakeholders to develop the r.f.q., and i have one slight change to my recommendations. in your memo, i ask for authorization to issue an r.f.q. for cleanpowersf consulting services. i'd like to request we broaden the title to renewable energy expert. this gives us a little more flexibility in case we want to call on this person to advise us on energy issues outside of cleanpowersf. so with that, i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> chair fewer: sure. commissioners? commissioner pollock.

>> commissioner pollock: sure. thank you -- excuse me. thank you, mr. goebel. i'm really excited that you want to broaden the scope just a bit? we learned a couple meetings ago that cleanpowersf could potentially buy energy from a hetch hetchy project that is built out of renewables -- out of hetch hetchy and clean po r cleanpowersf. and i think if we have the scope so narrow, maybe we're missing that has to do with the operation which is included in the -- in the m.o.u. language but could be missed by just having it as a cleanpowersf consulting services. >> thank you, commissioner pollock, and i'll be happy to work with you on the r.f.q. and

the language to make sure it's comprehensive. >> commissioner pollock: is there a reason that we're doing an r.f.q. instead of an r.f.p.? >> i think this gives us the option of potentially having a few experts if we want them, so we would qualify a firm or person to do work and then hand them a specific project. >> commissioner pollock: and then, could you just summarize for us any amendments or feedback that you got from the sfpuc on this proposal? >> well, i will just tell you that the memo that i gave you was done with feedback from the p.u.c., and they particularly wanted me to address in the memo providing feedback on the integrated resource plan, which is really their road map for cleanpowersf going forward. and the job description that you have in your memo, as well, that was also -- that was

also -- i got the advice of the p.u.c. on that, as well. >> commissioner pollock: okay. thank you. i know there are a number of updates that you receive from the p.u.c. just to keep this commission apprised of what's going on? and i think that the addition of this subject matter expert could help in the way that you update commissioners on just the progress of the program so we aren't so reliant on the p.u.c. to give us incremental updates. >> for sure. thank you. >> commissioner pollock: if no one else has comments, i would like to move that the commission adopt and authorize the r.f.q. for executive officer to develop -- or to issue the request for qualifications for a renewable energy expert. >> chair fewer: thank you,

commissioner. before we take a vote on that and make a motion, i think we should open it up for public comment. >> commissioner pollock: okay, my apologies. >> chair fewer: is there any member of the public that would like to comment on these items? >> one more time, eric brooks. so i just want to stand in strong support of this motion. it's crucial that we do this first contracting process to get the ball rolling on a citywide and county wide local build out for renewable energy. so -- and i would also support expanding the scope because that's crucial. if we add public power. that totally changes the game and we've got to be able to have consultants to tell us what to do on that. just as a side note, if we adopt public power, we've got

to make sure we're mandating these things. this is what we're going to do on clean energy under the public power system. i would just like to reiterate what i and many others have said over and over at this podium for last decade. it's great to have consultants advise the p.u.c. on what to do with their integrated resource plan and what to do with their projects, but we need to make sure we're couching that within the vision of a sydney, australia style green new deal vision so that sfpuc vision is just a component. it leads to a whole thing in an integrated way as i just said on the last item so we're

creating what's called a virtual power plant. the goal needs to be what's called a virtual power plant and that means you're implementing so many different types of energy, efficiency and battery storage it's like you've always got a 24-hour always on power plant. >> chair fewer: thank you. next speaker, please. >> jed holtsman. i would -- i do support this, and i'm sorry, i haven't gotten around to reading the proposal. -- that we need to meet our greenhouse gas targets as well as our kind of vision for

workforce development and green jobs and local resiliency from earthquake, storm surge, sea level rise, etc. that we've all talked about or not. and just feeding into existing processes or not, i think, is -- is not necessarily representing the discussion at this commission, i would say. i think the commission or the board of supervisors and/or the public of san francisco might already or at time goes on have a broader ambition or driving to take care of energy or climate issues than are being handles through existing sfpuc processes? so i think that this commission and this consultant or set of third parties needs to be able to analyze kind of the big picture of what it would take the city and county to get where it needs to go up to and

including changing the charter in various ways. not suggesting that today, but very much dedicated to the goal -- excuse me -- to the goal rather than the process and kind of setting the process up to meet the goal that we want to meet most effectively. so i would hope that -- that part of the advising and feedback to the sfpuc is be kind of a gap analysis of where we want to get to and what still needs to be done by on folks. thanks so much. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. >> good afternoon, madam chair. my name is bruce wolf from the haight-ashbury council. we're a members of san francisco advocates and californiians for energy choice. i agree with all the previous commenters, my colleagues, and just want to say it's an interesting and smart idea to do the r.f.q.

that way, i agree, if you have -- can develop multiple projects and you have them all at the same time or close together so that we can achieve the goals faster. so i urge your aye vote. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other public speakers for this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i believe there's a motion on the floor now. i'd like to second the motion by commissioner pollock, and if we can take that without objection, thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you please call item number six. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. mr. goebel. >> commissioner goebel: thank you, madam chair. brian goebel, executive officer. i'd like to update you on the study of on demand workers in

san francisco. i've told you that our survey which will be the largest survey to date of on-demand workers in the u.s. is estimated to cost about $300,000. that figure was based on feedback from the washington state department of commerce which is conducting a similar survey? our survey will happen in three phases, and this body has allocated $55,000 for the first phase. that will allow the contractor to work with us to develop the methodology and questions and what type of incentives we're going to offer to workers. the update is that this week, i had some very positive discussions with a local foundation, and there was strong interest in helping us close our funding gap for this survey. i can't really say much more than that, but it is encouraging. we are expecting proposals from some really qualified bidders who are ae reached out -- what have ae reached out to express

interest, and i've been working with them to get their answers. this is taking a little more time. today was the deadline for proposals, but i've now extended the deadline to march 29 and now expect to award a contract by the end of april. so that's the update on our labor survey. and then finally, i've provided, as i do as every meeting in your packets, an expenditure update. really no surprises there. next month, i will be bringing a draft budget for the next fiscal year to you for your approval. and that's it. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions for mr. goebel at all, or comments. thank you. there's no action taken on this item. mad madam clerk, can you please call item number seven. >> clerk: number seven is

public comment. >> chair fewer: are there any members of the public that would like to speak during public comment. >> hello, again. eric brooks, our city san francisco. just wanted to touch on something that got raised in the environment department report but that is a tangential issue that's really important that no city agencies or committees have dealt with yet, and it has to do with these big water -- gas powered water boilers in large old buildings, like the one i live in, which is why i know about this problem. as you know from reports in the news from meteorologists, it's getting hotter, and it's getting a lot hotter. and i don't know if you've ever lived in one of those buildings that has piped water heat, but during the summer, the way you have to time the turn on and turnoff of those big boilers, you will get 80, 90, 100° temperatures, and the hot

water's also running, and the building becomes an oven, and especially people with compromised immune systems, and people with other problems. it's gotten to where every summer, i have to put a fan in my window and pull air in from outside. i'm thinking of getting an air conditioner. so at some -- at some future agenda item as we're deal wg this issue of the boilers and -- dealing with this issue of the boilers and energy efficiency, we need to solve this problem before the temperature gets so high and combines with this crisis that it kills people. it could actually be a scenario like the one that happened in europe when they got that big heat wave. these buildings are really dangerous in that respect and we need to address that. no agencies or committees have done so yet. thank you very much. >> chair fewer: thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed.

madam clerk, can you please call item number eight. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: commissioners, are there any future agenda items to note? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. hello, mr. brooks. >> last time, i promise. eric brooks, our city san francisco. so this is about treasure island. we -- there was a report in the examiner today that was really good about treasure island. treasure island is opening up to become exactly the same sort of crisis that we're experiencing in the bayview-hunters point. as i said last meeting, a key part of the treasure island problem is the agencies and especially the treasure island development authority, which is sort of an independent rogue agency that is acting very badly, and its director, bob beck, has gone around literally telling all your offices that, for example, tetratech didn't

do any cleanup work on treasure island, which is totally false, and i can send you the documents to show that. so that's -- i think it's a perfect position for lafco because tida is a separately independent agency. it's a perfect thing for the lafco to have part of one of its future meetings to be about tida's roll and how it's caused this chaos on treasure island, and whether we need to disband tida and get some elected access like that or maybe what we do with lafco, appoint supervisors to run the treasure island authority so we've got real democratic oversight. i don't see other agencies doing that or other committees talking about this, and it seems to me that lafco would be the perfect place to talk about the role of tida and what it's

doing wrong and how it probably should be replaced with a public process. thanks. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, is there any other business before us today? >> clerk: that concludes the business before us today. >> chair fewer: our meeting is adjourned. thank you.

good morning. thank you all for being here and i'm happy to be join bid supervisor from district ten and our new director of the department of public health. also here are the people from my office working tirelessly to help protect another generation of san francisco youth from becoming addicted to ecigarettes. that has been lead my chief deputy and chief of strategic advocacy, sarah eeisneburg. in december, the u.s. surgeon

general, jerome adams, issued a warning of the epidemic of ecigarette use and called this a cause of great concern. know the risks, take action, protect our kids. he was absolutely correct and we're heeding that warning. today we are taking action to protect our young people. the steps we are taking are necessary and all the more urgent because another arm of the federal government has failed to do its job. the food and drug administration is the entity responsible for revealing new tobacco products to determine whether they are appropriate for the protection of public health. by law, before a new tobacco product goes to market, the fda is supposed to conduct a review to evaluate risks and benefits of the product on the population as a whole. that's common sense. if the fda determines this poses

a threat to public health, it should never hit the shelves. inexplicably, in the case of ecigarettes,s that has not happened. despite the fact in 2016, the fda deemed this a product subject to the jurisdiction. these products were on the street even though the premarket reviews have never been done. in fact, fda has given the ecigarette industry a pass. for no clear reason, they have given the nicotine companies until 2022 to apply for a premarket review. the result is that millions of children are already addicted to ecigarettes and millions more will follow if we don't act. until recently, we had made great strides in reducing youth tobacco use. the percentage of youth was an all-time low in 2017. there had been a generation of success, kid wer kids were gettf

of nicotine. but last year, according to the centre for disease control and prevention, tobacco use among youth rose for the first time since the 1990s. this dramatic reversal is directly attributable to the nation-wide surge in ecigarette use by talents. adolescentses. the use in 2016 increased 14% and 4.9 million america students reported they were using tobacco products up from 3.6 million students in 2016. use of ecigarettes increased by 27% for high school students and 48% for middle school students. nearly five million american students were using tobacco products. that's a generation of kids, addicted kids facing lung cancer

and heart disease and thousands will likely die of preventible diseases if we don't act and that's not high perso hyperbole. tobacco kills more than 480,000 people a year. that's more than aids, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined. that is why we're acting now to reverse the tide of ecigarettes. let's be clear, they're product is addiction. they're in the business of getting people addicted or keeping them addicted. a relatively small number of adults may switch switc from ant useful to turn another generation of kids into addicts and it's up to a government like

san francisco to protect our children and today we are announcing we're taking four concrete step. first, san francisco along with the city of chicago and the city of new york sent a letter to the fda that demands that the fda do it's job. we are jointly telling fda to immediately conduct the required public health review of ecigarettes that by law was supposed to happen before these products were on the market. a companion letter includes a rey for the fda to turn over records to my servic office so n francisco can determine if we need to take legal action if they don't take the public required health review. second, we can't wait on the fda to act. so in coordination and partnership with supervisor walton and i want to thank him for his leadership and vision on this issue, we are introducing today ground-breaking legislation at the board of supervisors to prohibit the sale in san francisco of any

ecigarettes that has not undergone pre-fda market review. my ecigarette that has not received fda premarket review cannot be sold at a store in san francisco or bought online and shipped to a san francisco address. this is not an outright ban on ecigarettes. it's a prohibition against any ecigarettes. so far none have been through the review process required by law. this is a prudent step to know the health and safety implications of products sold here. if the fda has an not approved it and reviewed it, it shouldn't be sold in san francisco. third, on a more local level, we're introducing a separate piece of legislation today, again in card natio in coordinah

supervisor walton. this would protect the sale and manufacture of all products including in sanfrancisco, including port property. fourth, my office as part of our review of juuls, operations sent notice to juul seeking an explanation for why juul holds a license when it maintains it does not engage in sale or cigarette products on the premises. san francisco has never been afraid to leave and we're not afraid to do so when the health and lives of our children are on the line. with that, i would like to turn it over to supervisor walton, who has been a fearless partner and visionary leader both on the school board and now on protecting our city's youth.

>> first, i want to thank the city attorney for his fierce leadership on this. i am really sick and tired of the predatory practices for our young people where people are tryintrying to set them up for d habits for a lifetime. this has to stop and ecigarettes are contributing that. when we passed prop 10 in 19198, which wa1998go out and educate t preventing tobacco use, preventing nicotine addiction and we showed record numbers that we were able to do that and accomplish that. and now we have more predatory practices going after our young people and this, again, has to stop. so i want to thank the city attorney for his leadership on this. as you know we're going to be announcing legislation at this afternoon's meeting. you've heard a lot of the data in terms of the change and shifts from winning people off

tobacco to having more and more young people using tobacco and nicotine products. i want to say this, that ecigarettes have been targeting our young people with their colours and their flavours and enticing adolescentses and this is pulling them forked nicotine addiction. we have people addicted to nicotine who would never have smoked a cigarette had it not been for the attractive products that target our young people. so we can see and understand why it's so important to make sure that if things are not approved by the fda, if products have not been given the stamp of approval by the government, then we know they're not safe and until the fda does that, we have to make sure that these products are not sold in our stores here in san francisco. the city has already enacted ordinance 140-117 prohibiting retail establishments from selling flavoured tobacco

products. ecigarettes are flavoured nicotine products. nicotine is what addicts all of our young people and addicts everybody. it is the addictive chemical in tobacco and nicotine and the effect of nicotine is what we have to combat as well. until the fda rules on approval of ecigarettes, we need to prohibit all sales for anyone under the age of 21 and anyone here in the city and we need to make sure that we have a ban on selling products, vaping products on any city property here in san francisco. what juul is doing is irresponsible and claimed to not be a part of the tobacco industry. i meant with them and they swore up and down they were not connected to the tobacco industry and a week and a half later, they merged with a tobacco company. therefore, not only are they not

truthful but irresponsibly focused and working to addict young people on nicotine products so they will be long-time users of nicotine products to make a profit and harm their health. we won't stand for that and that's why we'll fight har in san francisco to avoid predatory products to our young people. i want to thank you all for coming out and we will combat this towards our young people. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor walton. i would like to ask our new director of the department of public health, dr. grant kofax to say a few words, as well. >> well, thank you. i just want to reiterate this is a major step forward for public health in san francisco, continuing the leadership that san francisco has historically shown in addressing major public health issues. i want to offer my gratitude to city attorney herarra and we know this has been reiterated in

the remarks today, that mechanic teethat nicotineaddiction is das damaging affecdamaging effects s brain and it's attracting a whole different generation the youth to nicotine. we know that tobacco is the greatest cause of preventible deaths in this country. ecigarettes are responsible for the increasing levels of tobacco use that we're seeing in youth. we know that we need to do better. we need to turn this epidemic around. ecigarettes are a gateway drug to tobacco use and that has been shown in numerous studies. so we're here not only addressing the numerous affects being addicted to a substance, the direct effects on nicotine

but taking a major step in that gateway from ecigarettes addiction. this is going to save hundreds, if not thousands of lives in san francisco and is a major step forward in breaking this epidemic. again, i'm grateful from the health department's perspective. this is a move in the right direction and major policy advance and the health department is very supportive of that. thank you. >> thank you, dr. kolfax and with that, we're happy to take any questions anybody has. >> is won't happens to the establishments that has the products on the shelves? do they take them down? >> we have to go through the legislative process and i have every confidence that supervisor walton will sheppard this legislation through as quickly

as possible. once that legislation passes and works with the final product, then, yeah, until such time as the fda gave its premarket review and approval, there would not be allowed in either a hard brick and mortar store the sale of distribution manufacturer of ecigarettes and you wouldn't send it online until one or the other products had received the premarket review by the fda. >> so would this be two months, six months? >> it will be introduced today and we'll be working hard with colleagues to make sure this becomes law. when it does become law, it will take affect 30 days after this is complete. with that said, we'll be working hard to move as fast as possible. i can give you a better answer and response in a couple of weeks.

>> why do you all think that the federal government has given a pass to ecigarettes so far and what is the power in strength in numbers? san francisco and chicago all pleading with the ftda to crack down on this. >> i can't answer for the fda but it's pretty darn expoliticcable they have failed to act. the tobacco control act was passed in 2009 and in 2016, the fda said that these products were subject to fda jurisdiction. yet, they said that they didn't have to first file their premarket review until 2018. and then they extended that to 2022. in the meantime, we've known that ecigarettes, we're talking about 15 years with no premarket review for a product

that we know is addicting our kids, a whole other generation of kids to a deleterious drug threatening public health and safety. it is inexplicable and inexcusable to me that the fda has failed to act. the fact that we got chicago and new york to sign this letter in no time should be a message to the federal government that municipalities and localities are not going to tolerate this and we're going to act as quickly as we can to protect our young people. i have no doubt that as a result of today as action, both that letter and legislation, you will see other jurisdictions step up to demand action from the federal government. if we can't expect that the fda will protect the health and safety of our young people, then i don't know what the function of the fda really is. so hopefully they'll get the message.

>> in terms of targeting juuls, would this grandfather them in? will they continue do what they do there. >> good question. under the terms of their -- they have a sublease down at the port and they have said that they are not manufacturing, distributing, doing anything through that facility. at this point, we don't have any evidence that they are in violation of the terms of their lease agreement. but that's why i sent the insmith demantheinspection demae it's areas they havit's curioust doing any sale on property. if i find they're in violation, i would take action of breaking the terms of their lease. but the legislation that supervisor walton is championing

with respect to what is occurring on port property will enshire we will never have a similar circumstance that we have a company like this operatinoperating on similar pr. >> this should be a message to juul or any other corporation that thinks they can come into san francisco and operate in accordance that is against our values here as a city and so, this legislation is going to be focused, of course, and making sure this never happens again on any city property but it's also a warning to juul. it's also a statement to juul that we don't want them here. we don't want them in our city and so we're going to be fighting to make sure that we figure out and learn if there's anything that they're doing that is not in accordance with san francisco laws and regulations. >> would you eventually want to see juul leave the city? >> i would like for them to have been gone yesterday. we have been clear about that and our neighbors have been clear about that and we

definitely would like for them to conduct business somewhere else. >> so excuse me, when the city signed a contract with juul, did they not know what the company did or why did they enter into a contract with the company? >> the city didn't enter into a contract. there's a massive lease developer at pier 70 that had a lease with another tenant and as part of that, there was a sublease between juul and that tenant and under the terms of the agreement that we had with master developer, there were certain rights that were given up by the city unless there was certain milestones and square footage. so we didn't know about it and weren't aware about it but it has been a lesson learned about how it is that the city engages with massive developers. i can assure you and i'm supervisor walton will, as well, this is a circumstance that will not happen again.

>> any other questions? >> thank you very much. [ ♪ ] - working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world-class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor

on the west coast. - our 28,000 city and county employees play an important role in making san francisco what it is today. - we provide residents and visitors with a wide array of services, such as improving city streets and parks, keeping communities safe, and driving buses and cable cars. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco.

>> good afternoon and welcome to the march 19th, 2019 regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. please have a seat. madame clerk, please call the roll. >> thank you, mr. president. [roll call]