>> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. so the proposal here of this permit seeks essentially to change the railing from a previously approved deck and also add a spa or standing spa. it does not expand or change the footprint of the deck. so it's relatively discrete matter. the project does comply with the planning code. it was properly reviewed and approved by the planning department. the appellant in the brief submitted a copy of the draft, and actually it is a draft of our draft guidelines. it is not even what we essentially submitted to the planning commission as our draft guidelines. so this draft that was included by the appellant, i am not sure how they obtained it because it wasn't ever to my knowledge submitted to the public, but it does state we would regulate hot tubs and those types of features. that is not what the department decided to do. that is not what the department put forward to the planning commission last summer. and yet the guidelines are still a draft and have not been

adopted by the planning commission. in what went forward was the removal of restrictions related to those features and those elements, so it became more agnostic as do the features that would be on the decks and focused on the footprint of the deck. this is a previously approved deck and they are simply changing the railings out from an open railing to what would be a solid railing but transparent glass as i understand it. it is completely code compliant. these issues are not uncommon. the board has seen these items before and the issues before and the concerns about the impacts and the design guidelines don't address them perfectly for our situation. in this case we have property two doors down which is enjoying substantially their view of downtown san francisco, so they have opened up that side of the property. not every property in san francisco would do that or have need to do that, but they are taking advantage of that view. obviously they are having

impacts now perceived or potential impacts from the proposed existing deck and the proposed tub. again, it is code compliant up to planning code, but this is a denovo hearing before the board and you can exercise your discretion in what is appropriate rooftop features for the deck, but it does comply with planning code guidelines and with the proposed rooftop guidelines because we do not restrict the type of features that are on the roof decks. >> i am available for questions. >> can you comment or clarify, please, again, the lighting issue. the claim was illegal lighting or lighting put in without being code compliant or acknowledged in the plans. >> the planning code does not specifically regulate lighting and if it's illumination for signs. there is a general provision where no use can be noxious odors or fumes or glare, but we

don't specify specific types of fixtures. there are many municipalities that do. they will specify the dark sky requirements, and all lights have to be down light, but we don't have those regulations in our code. i don't believe building department has them in their code either. if they have light fixtures that were installed without benefit of permit, then they should address that with department of building inspection and they should obtain the appropriate permits that maybe need the electrical permits to install the light fixtures. certainly if you are on a roof deck having just a bulb doesn't make any sense. i would say that is quite rude. there is no reason that you can't just have the light focus down on the deck. i would hope that if it is just an exposed bulb out there, that the permit holder will rectify that and put appropriate fixture and make sure they have the appropriate permits from department of building inspection, but it really only makes sense to have a down light that shows on the deck. there is no point having the light shine up in the sky. it doesn't serve anyone any

purpose. >> can you help my senior memory recall a few short months ago, probably a year, we had an item from sea cliff. >> fish bowl. >> there was a fish bowl on the roof. and the big issue there was or one of the major issues -- there were a few -- was the fact that this would sit -- this was a deck and it wasn't enclosed. that was a problem right there. but regardless of that, this was a deck that would be fully lit and it was going to be a beacon of light or a beam or whatever we called it. and what did we work out there? i know we rejected it badly. but -- or we rejected it hardly, sorry, not badly. >> an i think we restricted the features and elements that were added. there was a lot of storage for a bunch of other stuff that we conditioned the permit they were not allowed to have those features or elements.

>> did we talk about -- one of the issues was that it was going to be a beacon of light that was going to cause a change of condition in the general neighborhood. can you help me with that? >> from what i recall, it was like an apple store on the roof of the building and glassy and open and that was the feeling in the impact. and i thought that kind of general direction that the board went kind of didn't need to address the lighting any further because of the changes that you had required of the project that kind of further restrictions on the lighter wasn't necessary. but i remember -- i don't remember all the details of the project. >> let me ask you. i was hoping to stop the questions with that and get what i needed -- what -- nothing wrong with your answer. i just didn't get what i really needed.

in consideration of one of the things we always focus upon and it was brought up in tonight's commentary by the appellant, is that a change of nature in the neighborhood. this is inconsistent with neighborhood, with the neighborhood. and we have had consistent, not necessarily decks -- we've had decks, but decks and other stuff where it's been clearly inconsistent with the neighborhood and created a problem with the overall condition and feeling of the neighborhood. with this lit deck or mis-lit deck or other like situation where is somebody decides to put a deck on and then light it up and that happens to be the only one in the neighborhood, does that fall into the umbrella of under the umbrella of changing

the general -- being a significant deviation from the conditions in the neighborhood? >> it could be. and it's up to the decision makers to make that determination. so this matter is before you. it's a de novo hearing. we determined in terms of the department review it's met the code requirements. we don't have any greater level of discretion that is built into our codes. we have residential design guidelines and we have proposed or draft roof deck guidelines, but that would still allow a roof top spa that they are seeking. but certainly as the body hearing this, you could decide that it's not appropriate for the context here, and you could restrict it and you could remove the spa if you felt that that was a feature that was not appropriate for or would we de

tract from the character of the neighborhood if that is the decision of the board. i think you have the ability to strike the spa from the roof if you feel that's necessary. >> that triggers another question. sorry, gang, that we had another item where a significant amount of air conditioning equipment was going to be placed upon a roof creating an abundance of noise and it would. and i think that we ended up moving to commissioner fung's question, we ended up moving that air conditioning unit into the garden because it was room for it. therefore, mitigating and stopping the noise from even having a chance of being an issue. did we do that? >> yes, i remember that project. >> neighbor -- at the same time, the neighbors were going at each

other. and i believe we determined that they put that air conditioner specifically in that spot, potentially -- >> potentially spiteful. and the full stair to the roof to service the air conditioner. but the planning commission had previously denied a deck on that property. >> thanks. >> thank you. so just to be clear, the planning department has -- it does need approval in regards to the fixtures or appliances -- >> we often won't see the addition of lights and it will be a permit that will be an electrical permit. >> light the hot tub specifically. >> we don't necessarily specify specific lights. it is not a typical part of our review. but certainly down lights. that would be at least a minimum. but we wouldn't specify much more than that.

the light should be designed in a way to not shine on neighbor's property. >> i am talking about the hot tub, mr. sanchez. is it required to get planning approval to install a hot tub? >> we did approve this. >> thank you. >> i have a few questions. just quickly, who in the city manages the noise ordinance or the noise complaints that were referenced by the appellant? >> multiple city agencies implement the noise ordinance depending on the type of noise. if it is department of public health, construction is department of building inspection and entertainment commission for entertainment-related uses and police as well. and i understand some of the issues raised by the appellant were kind of the voices and human voices, so unamplified human voices are not subject to the noise ordinance, but the kind of thick source noise from rooftop mechanical equipment would be. it's usually not an issue that we see in residential districts. usually it's larger and something like 42 decibels is

not much. i have an air compressor that is more. >> if there were an issue that folks were having a party and lots of noise, is that something that would be referred to the police department to say you are having too much noise? during such and such hours. >> that would be -- if there is a nuisance issues, police department would be where you would typically call, yes. >> the appellant made reference to air bnb which i believe the city has ordinances to limit if there were an air bnb type of use to 90 days a year total if the property owners were not present at the property, is that correct? >> that's correct. i did review the record and i did not see an air bnb or a short-term rental certificate for the subject property. they don't have authorization currently to use the property as a short-term rental. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, regarding the latest guidelines at planning for roof, what would it say

about the penthouse? >> the penthouse would be -- the roof deck ordinance and focus is on the roof decks, but across the board, we do want to see the stair penthouses be minimally designed. the stair penthouse is part of the project was reviewed and approved previously by the planning department and approved before we were even developing the current roof deck guidelines. but the roof deck that they have meets planning department and the roof deck they have meets the planning department requirements as they were in place at the time and they sought the permit for that roof deck as does the stair penthouse. >> an i thought i saw something in the guideline related to -- let's see. penthouses. >> we typically want the stair penthouse to be minimal. again, if they can do a hatch,

would be preferred. but the staircase, roof hatch, only for single family dwellings, which this is. minimal stair penthouse when required by building permit code for multi-unit buildings and this was reviewed and approved before the draft guidelines which have not yet been adopted. >> understood. i am just saying if they had been adopted beforehand, i thought there was something in there related to penthouses. >> then we might -- had this been adopted, there may have been direction from the department to do a hatch rather than the stair penthouse, which the stair penthouse photos from the adjacent property owner does seem to be the primary impact on their property and the windows, near the property line windows. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the

department of building inspection. >> mr. sean duffy, d.b.i. the subject building permit was reviewed by d.b.i. on planning as you heard, and it does meet code. i actually spoke to the appellants when the permit was issued and they were upset about the work and we guided them towards the board of appeals because when it meets code, obviously some of the issues they are bringing up are more quality of life issues which given in this forum and that is probably why we're here tonight. the main project itself is moving along. they have had over 15 building inspections and the contractor, i have been at the property early on, and they were very good about contacting us with some -- i think it was a wall that was inferior. we went out and had a good meeting and they did it the right way. in other words, rather than go ahead and do something that wasn't part of the project. they were very responsive and we've had a good history at the

d.b.i. so far with the project. i just thought i would mention that. it may help or not. other than that, i don't have anything to add. maybe the lighting would be under electrical permit. not subject to anything under the building code, but will be part of the electrical. we don't have any requirements as to how bright they are or anything like that. just thought i would mention that as well. >> was there a notice of violation issued for the lighting installed without a permit? >> no. there was an electrical complaint in february that got closed. >> that is what they stated. >> i don't know. there was an electrical permit on the project. i am sure that includes all lighting, but there is no notice of violation from the d.b.i., no. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, we will move on to rebuttal. we will hear from the appellant.

>> you have three minutes, sir. >> thank you very much. commissioners, in the immortal words of star wars, obi wan, you're our final hope. we are not here tonight to try to edebate the original permitting of the deck or the loss of visual stuff due to the roof portion of that. instead, we are really here trying to say what we have is when the permit was initially issued, we had decided that we wanted to be good neighbors. we really didn't object to what they were trying to do. and didn't come in and try and fight that. we looked at this and said there is the way this is designed, this is not going to be the most invasive thing possible that could happen here. and again, you wanted to be good neighbors. at the end of the day, though, you begin to start layering on problems and you begin to start having an equity issue that we

would ask you to consider tonight. and that equity is how would you feel if somebody was building a hot tub 25 to 30 feet away from where you're trying to sleep? and trying to put in lights, trying to put in noise, having parties up in it. and engaging in it in the middle of the regular basis in the middle of the night. these are the only things that you all can help us with in terms of trying to address the equity of the situation as well as the legality of it. and that is what we really come to you tonight to ask for your help with and try to resolve this problem now before it becomes an ongoing issue between whoever is in our location, whoever is in their location ongoing from here on. this is something that, again, we hope that you and the wisdom of the commission have the ability to sit down and say, great, we are not going to permit a use that really is going to continue to have problems between neighbors on an ongoing basis. that we hope for your consideration tonight to

basically deny this permit and to leave the situation exactly as it is right now. thank you for your consideration. >> i've got a question for you, sir. >> yes, sir. >> it went from wire railing to glass and the rail height is 42 inches. would it make a difference if that glass was opaque or is presented as clear now? >> we've concern about the glass in general. the way that the light works in terms of the sun on our part of that hill and the sun comes over the property and recently installed a solar farm that takes up approximately 30 to 40 percent of the roof. the way it is oriented, it goes right into our bedroom. we've not yet seen how that is going to work out when the sun begins to come out in san francisco, but we will find out that very shortly since it's been raining the last several months. >> the question is, would you have a preference over opaque or clear? >> we would prefer to have the wire railing that was originally designed. >> that wasn't the question,

sir. >> i understand, but -- >> and you have no preference? >> the preference would be the clear as long as they can maintain in a clear manner. the opaque would -- and one of the problems with the glass is that it will reflect sound as well as potentially reflect light. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a question. do you have a light on your deck? do you have a light on your deck? >> yes, i believe we do. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the permit holder. >> good evening. my husband and i are the owners of 710 wisconsin and we have been in the process of over five years and spent a year before that -- >> and still marryed? >> and we have a six-month-old as well. we spent a year before that working with architects to design a home that would be more cohesive with san francisco's architecture and fit in to the

neighborhood character. at every stage of the project we have entertained every single neighbor request. we lowered the parapet walls on the roof by 2 1/2 feet at the request of neighbors. we paid for sun studies to be done for neighbors after we started construction. we had a request from a neighbor to change the morning start time which we absolutely entertained, which i would guess is probably rare in the city. and it's really important to us to have really harmonious relationship with our neighbors and we've tried to include that as the letters of support that i have in our brief and this really shows. and john states the appellant states that he used my text message saying i sympathize with his position over their view. and i spent over eight hours researching a resolution for this stair penthouse they offered and i found by calling d.b.i. and planning department that it wouldn't be possible to do what they did or what they were offering. but our permit represents two small changes.

the change to glass is an improvement for them, i think, but we are asking for this because we have a six-month-old and because we lowered our parapet walls, we see the hog wire now because i wasn't even pregnant when we started this project, but we see the hog wire as a really tempting climbing feature for a small child, and we think glass would be a lot safer considering the exterior around the deck is much lower than what we started with. the addition of the hot tub is primarily for rehabilitation. the argument hinges on nighttime use. and i don't see anything inherent about a hot tub being for night. nothing specifies that a hot tub is for night. i was in an accident 10 years ago and i have a letter from the physical therapist if you would like to see it that 10 years ago in an accident and five years ago when we started this permit process, i never would have imagined in 2019 i would be experiencing as much pain and constant rehab as i continue to, and hence, adding the deck to the roof where we think it's safer and out of reach of children. the backyard aside from being small, we plan to have open

doors and a roof tech we can much better contain for the safety of children. and we have never heard from the appellants on this issue. this appeal was the first time that we heard about this. the appellant also states something about my personal attack of them when they spoke. i am not exactly sure what they mean, but they have been photographing us on the roof and gave my husband along with our six-month-old the middle finger. i have an email showing that i reached out to the architect right after that. we would be more than happy to remove the lights they are speaking of and with the lights they are talking about. >> thank you. your time is up. >> i have a question. could you clarify, i thought i read something about two small down lights. >> yes. they brought up -- may i use the projector? >> to answer the question, yes. >> u a they talk about the explained -- >> overhead please. story. >> they talked about an exposed bulb in the stair penthouse. this is the light -- that is the

light that is currently installed. the contractor is here and can speak to that. i am not sure what lightbulb and everyone talking about the light shining on them, but this as everyone can clearly see is a metal shape -- >> that is what is existing. >> and you are proposing two additional lights? >> two additional lights were added completely without our knowledge and we are more than happy to remove them. they are at the front and about 2 1/2 inches of l.e.d. pointing down. we, again, if as long as the code allows, we will remove them. we think they are very minimal and just to illuminate just below the roof parapet because there isn't anything beyond that. that is what the architects added for roof safety, but we will gladly remove that if the appellants would like. >> are you currently inhabiting the house? >> we are not. we are under construction. >> i've got one question. >> please. >> it was mentioned a couple of times therapeutic and i get it. so this is not -- this is more

just for therapy rather than entertainment? >> correct. >> i can't promise there won't be another person sitting in the tub at some point, but yes. >> if just by chance if we conditioned this permit not to have other fixtures and bbq, tables, and chairs, would you have a problem with that? >> the tub is just a small portion of the roof deck, and we've originally added the roof deck for recreational use and added the tub to take up a small portion of the deck. the deck isn't for therapy. >> potentially this could be an entertainment deck. >> yes, but we have a six-month-old. not a party deck as they claim. >> thank you.

>> that you can't have more then

the amount of lights that is required for safety and exiting. >> yes, we would agree to that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, anything further mr. duffy? anything further? commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> we are working on a concept. i'm sure all of my fellow commissioners will bring up the fact of how i react to it. >> it is you to me -- it is new to me so i'm looking forward to hearing it. >> it is interesting that that spot go on the roof decks that used to be in the backyard, the

structure is also interesting that there is a fabulous view here, and i can understand the desire to have such an amenity, what i would be cautious of is how such an amenity then creates potential problems, which is what the neighbors are concerned about, and the only thing i can think of was, in some way, to make sure that this doesn't become a party deck, which is why i brought up the issue of potentially limiting how much lighting could go up there, except for what would be required for life safety. >> i would agree with that. >> so clarify for me why the addition of a hot tub makes it

more then a party deck than just a deck itself. >> i think both do, you're right >> the horse is out of this barn because the deck isn't approved, how i see it. >> well, my comment was related to in general. i was not necessarily being so specific to this permit, but if you have a different opinion, you make your own motion. >> i mean, with property values going as much as they are as was indicated, we hear a lot of cases sometimes where the appeal is one thing, and it's really about something else, seeing the amazing view, this potential for that in this particular case. we have had many deck cases where we have limited them or restricted them, in this particular case, the deck has been approved. it makes perfect sense to me,

granted my kids are 30 and 17, i don't really want them climbing three stories up in the air, potentially, that is a big concern. the deck has been approved to help mitigate with the neighbors i don't mind conditioning the lighting. i could go either way, but again , the deck has been approved already. the railing has been approved. we are just changing how it is presented and having glass will help the noise stay on one side or another, where as having having the wire mesh, the noise transfer will be more significant. because it is slightly lower, noise transfers up. >> i'm sympathetic with the appellant, especially around the noise issue in particular. i think that the project --

product sponsors have prevented a project that on a deck that is existing in already approved. i think i'm more sympathetic to the idea of nuisance being created by noise in nighttime hours as something that would be challenging, and so if -- i'm not sure in terms of the standard of lighting for light safety if that is a building department determination, or who makes the determination of it if more lights can be added or the lakes that exist are already what is required, or how that looks, so i'm not sure what that means tangibly, and who enforces that standard of just enough light for light safety, where does that come from? is that you, inspector duffy? >> who is deciding what that standard is? >> they do have a quantitative

-- so many foot candles would be allowed for life safety for exiting purposes. >> i am in sync with the noise issue and the concern for the noise, also the lighting issues. on items like this, not only am i concerned when we are trying to resolve and try to find a compromise, my concern is not for the immediate completion of the building and the immediate -- on the current occupants of the building, that for the long term, and i think we have to be careful of about what restrictions he placed upon this that has to do with the lighting it has more to do with every other restriction, the

restrictions that we place upon -- because this is an in perpetuity, who will hold the next owner accountable, or well that show up in the other stuff that you get in a transaction? i wish the owners a long life in their home, but trust me, you are going to move one of these days. so i don't know -- i am sympathetic to the noise issue, i am sympathetic to the noise issue. i do not want to place a restriction that cannot be upheld. >> i think those restrictions are reasonable. we have conditioned permits where they are not allowed to put lighting fixtures, barbara cook -- i recuse, chairs, we have done that many times. i think we are allowing whatever we want to put on, just to keep

it from becoming potentially a party situation. >> right. >> that is your ball, president. >> you brought up something which i hadn't brought up, which is barbecues and other things. >> i'm not the one who restricted on this one. i am not willing to restrict on this one, but i am not willing to do it on this one. >> it appears that some concurrence up here are resolved only on the lighting. >> i think the glass is already supposed to be clear so there is no need to condition that. >> the glass already is proposed to be clear, so there is no need

to condition that. >> i was surprised to that. >> i would have preferred the opaque. >> all right, then i will move that we grant the appeal and condition the permit that the lighting on the deck be restricted to only that amount as required for life safety exiting. >> okay. on what basis? >> is there anything further, neighbourly love? >> preventing a nuisance? >> i would suggest, if i may, i would suggest on the subject of changing the general care to the neighborhood with lading.

>> minimizing the impact on the neighborhood? >> yes. >> and rb going to require the submission of revised plans, do we need d.b.i. approval? >> mr. duffy? would you like to approach. >> are you winking at me? >> sorry, commissioners, i missed that. do you want plans submitted to show the lighting? >> to be minimized, only at the level of the handles for life safety. >> typically lights would that -- would not be shown on plans. >> okay. >> i mean the minimum requirement, sometimes the minimum code requirement, and i was looking it up as you were speaking, i can't remember what that is.

>> ten or something. >> i can look that up. >> okay. >> but the minimum code requirements for egress lighting >> yes. >> i don't think we -- i don't think the plans would be required,. >> okay. do you want me to change the motion just a minimum code requirements for egress? okay. we have a motion from president fung to grant to the appeal and issue a permit on the condition that it be revised to require that the lighting be restricted to the minimum code requirements required for egress on the basis that this will minimize the impact on the neighborhood. on that motion... [roll call] >> that motion carries. thank you. this concludes the hearing. >> this meeting is adjourned.

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. [ ♪ ].

>> shop and dine the 49 promotes loophole businesses and changes residents to do thirds shopping and diane within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services we help san francisco remain unique and successful where will you shop and dine shop and dine the 49. >> my name is neil the general manager for the book shop here

on west portal avenue if san francisco this is a neighborhood bookstore and it is a wonderful neighborhood but it is an interesting community because the residents the neighborhood muni loves the neighborhood it is community and we as a book sincerely we see the same people here the shop all the time and you know to a certain degree this is part of their this is created the neighborhood a place where people come and subcontract it is in recent years we see a drop off of a lot of bookstores both national chains and neighborhoods by the neighborhood stores where coming you don't want to - one of the great things of san francisco it

is neighborhood neighborhood have dentist corrosive are coffeehouses but 2, 3, 4 coffeehouses in month neighborhoods that are on their >> 2019. the meeting is being called to order at 2:02p.m. the small business commission thanks media services and sftvgov. which can be viewed on channel 78 or live streamed. member of the public please silence your phones and other electronic devices. public comment during the meeting is limited to three minutes per speaker, unless otherwise established. speakers are requested but not required to state their names. completion of a speaker card while optional, will help ensure proper spelling of the speaker's names and the written record of the meeting.

please, place s