>> u a they had inventory that now is not sellable because they have made an investment in inventory which we outlawed, so they got stuck with it. and no transition to say you have an opportunity to dedeplete and they loaded up on it and were stuck with it because it was then illegal to sell it. >> okay. let's talk for a minute about the $200 a day loss. and my eyes were drawn from that with a small simple set. i picked that because it was the smallest reported but we don't have an economic impact study that's been direct bid the city

to refer to. >> is there one being planed? >> not to my knowledge. >> commissioner: so 200 times 365 cams out to -- >> $72,000. >> actually, i think it comes out the o a slightly different number, doesn't it? multiply $250 by 365. and we're picking the number even though they said the smaller number. >> i am going to attribute that to sleep loss. >> it is referencing -- so the small business owner who was quoted was an article in "the chronicle" was $200 to $250 per day and still on the smaller side as compared to other individuals who have reported

losses. >> about $70,000 to $90,000 a year anyway. >> yes, thank you. >> commissioner: i would be interested to hear more real data. >> i would, too. >> about what the actual economic impact to commissioner dwight's comments and points before and this feels remarkably imprecise and -- and finally, it does seem just based on the c.d.c. data which sort of curious to how they got to a local sample and i would be curious to what the survey was and -- >> i can provide you the entire survey. i can provide you with the number of those who were participated in the survey.

it's extraordinarily complicated and wonky and nuanced, which i am sure is being reflected. >> i would enjoy reading it, but to that point, it does seem like there was a drop recently in san francisco which i think it's fair to attribute to the ban. >> it wouldn't be reflective of the ban due to the fact that the ban didn't go into effect in 2018 and 2019 data will best reflect the numbers and that could have been potentially impacted by flavored tobacco ban. and those numbers are most likely due to the increase in the min pum purchasing age to 21 plus. >> i'm sorry, that is what i meant to refer to, not to the ban but raising the age. and essentially saying that regulation worked. >> that is right. >> i have a 14-year-old son who's been caught vaping once.

much to his dismay. and i interrogated him inned a vance of this hearing and asked him, what is the source? and where are your friends getting this? he relaid and i am just sharing this for the benefit of the fellow commissioner who is may not be as unfortunate to have a young teenager, but he said that they're buying and selling it on social media. and that's where they're getting it. it's older kids who get it from slightly older kids and a chain of -- sounds familiar. and so i think there is the question for me and it is a question and i don't know the answer. but what is presumably there's somebody at the -- just above the age threshold and previously

it was 18 and it makes sense that raising it to 21 would dry up the supply for the younger kids because the conduits down to the 14-year-olds get a little more difficult. but i am curious and i am wondering if there is some way to find out whether the source of the 21-year-olds that are buying it and number one, are they going into stores and buying it and some feel the answer to that is no and may well be the case and could it be that we could as part of the legislation gather some of that data? and useful to find out is in a single transaction and one thing for somebody to come in and buy a single juule cigarette and it is another thing if they walk into a store and walk out with 500. i see $200 a day in sales and

$72,000 a year out of a single store, is that a lot? is that a little? hard for me to tell. but i would -- i would think that the city could ask for the minimum and maximum number of units sold per transaction. are we just selling one or two at a time? or are we pushing over whole boxes like it's costco or something? that seems remarkably -- those seem hike two very different things. we could then get some sort of -- i would ask the same thing of those that are selling it online which seems to be another possible source for these folks to get it. and i would like to understand, are folks buying 100, 200, 500 at a time? and enough for their personal use? seems material given how the kids are getting it and definitely from my perspective and what i have seen with my own children, a very serious and

real problem. and i'm concerned. >> president adam: commissioner dwight. >> commissioner: i'm sort of like i didn't hear what i expected to hear tonight. i think i heard that there was a spike in trying it and now it's trailing off. and yet reading the media, i would be innuanced that it's a scourge on our youth throughout the united states. i feel like i am in a climate denier's conference here and some people are saying there is no climate change and others are saying, of course, there is. you can feel it. my kids are older so i am not dealing with this on the front lines with teenagers -- they're in their 20s. but i'm just, like, all this isn't adding up to me. i don't know what's real and what's not right now. >> anecdotally it's not matching up with reality for my family and what my kids are seeing. >> so i would like to clarify that the city and county of san francisco and again, i don't

work for the san francisco department of health. i know what i know from reading and researching and coming to my own understanding. we have some of the strictest tobacco control laws not only in the state of california but also in the country. i think that the c.d.c. local to san francisco data reflects that and our averages are consistently lower than national averages no matter what the substance and i think that that's important to consider. the regulation that we do have has been working, so keep that in mind and 41 states that sell to 18 to 21 year olds. and that's outside of the realm of our control. so i think when you are looking at the data and when you are

reading the articles and seeing the media, keep that in mind because the media is referring to national averages. they're not referring to san francisco data points. >> director? >> thank you. i was about to highlight the fact that the national data is reflecting and so there is a large youth mark out there with 41 states who are able to sell to under 21. i also just in regards to your comments, commissioner laguana, is that also if you look at the chart that she provided in regards to cannabis use, cannabis use is higher than e-cigarette or cigarette use, and so could we and would we want to apply that same sort of concept if you are sort of going

down the road of saying, we'll cap the amount of e-cigarettes a consumer can purchase at a retailer, but yet we are -- the data shows that the cannabis is a much higher use for youth than cigarettes and e-cigarettes, so what kind of regulations would we equally apply to the cannabis retail environment? i want to keep in mind when we're -- keep in mind just as we're starting to really wanting to preserve the youth and access around access. how we sell this product in relationship to other products

that youth are getting and that we have determined they should no t be consuming. i wanted to highlight that. >> an i wanted to say that the amount of security and double, triple checking that cannabis dispensaries are required to do. no one under 21 gets in. that's out. we have everyone has to have a valid i.d. showing that they're of that age or older. also, there's a cap on any sale to purchase only a limited amount of this product on a daily basis. it slashes a different color like, nope, that person wanted to buy more. it's highly regulated compared to e-cigarettes. >> commissioner ortiz.

>> commissioner: first of all, thank you. this was amazing. very, very thorough. and you're doing an i a maizing job obthe first time presenting, so good job. i wanted to kind of come back to commissioner laguana and regarding the eye test. and obviously the nonprofits that i serve in and help or work with are primarily locate and help constituency in probably is most disenfranchised neighborhoods in san francisco. i'm constantly in the neighborhoods and attest to the eye test of the menthol man had a direct impact to the black market and selling menthol like it was crack in the 80s in the projects. the unintended consequences of moving a legitimate business and the taxation that comes with it and disrupting small businesses because they are having humongous impact and specifically, i know mental and targeted to -- targeted to minority unt xh communities, it

is with the cash business come crimes, etc., and just like drugs. even in the cannabis industry with the overtaxation of local and state laws, again, that i have never seen since i was in high school -- starting to see people sell weed again on the streets. and getting a 10 sack. what i am trying to get at is i want to be mindful because we're playing with a delicate fabric which is small businesses and the retailers and the corner stores rb serving neighborhoods and the disenfranchised and i know they sale alcohol, but also perishable goods, some groceries, milk, necessities, that otherwise you would have to go in very, very what we call food deserts, right? they are serving the food deserts and this revenue sometimes augmented them and enabling and being able to help the community. i just wanted to put that out

there. >> commissioner yee riley? >> commissioner: thank you for gathering all the information and putting it together to understand and know what is going on in the market of e-cigarettes. thank you. >> president adam: commissioner laguana. >> commissioner: i wanted to respond in brief to, as as far as regulating cannabis versus tobacco, obviously cannabis isn't in front of us right now. it's the e-cigarettes, but larger point, what i noticed was number two and is physically addictive and cannabis has not been shown to be physically addictive. so i think from the to protect

youth from starting on the cycle of getting addicted and people paying attention to camel cigarettes that looked like cartoons and the marlboro man and now it's very hard to stop. and the cessation smoking aspect is also an important part of this. it is something that's been shown to help people reduce the amount they are smoking and i recognize that part of it, too. that is why i think there is insufficient data and looking at this and seeing a lot of things that are missing in terms of

being able to make a proper decision. i don't see what the impact is. i don't have any genuine sense of what the impact is to the merchants and lacking data about where the kids are actually getting the stuff from. personally as a father of two kid, i support the legislation. i would love to see less kids getting addicted to nicotine. it is w one of the most addictive substances on the planet, but there's challenges in terms of and that i knew nothing about e-cigarettes a week ago.

>> it does not effect the marketing and why there is a good black market is that population is still being advertised to. the city does have a ban on brick and mortar being able to put up marketing and these are old laws before online existed and getting it from social media and there is a lot of marketing probably happening on the social media. it's important because we are talking about a small number of individuals and while that's not good, who try and daily use

e-cigarettes. we did discover from the department of health data and going and doing the enforcement measures that there are a couple of businesses that have repeatedly sold to underage through the sting operations and again, can we be more targeted to getting at that small number than a blanket ban that is predominantly affecting 21 and over adults. >> can i offer two points for clarification? to your point and from the f.d.a. and the question regarding how the survey is

administered and whether those who replied they have ever used or currently used cigarettes and those that have have r or currently use are not two separate camps. and knowing how the survey was administered more understanding the data points as they get thrown around and we can per chi pick data points until all the days. so that being said, migraine of thought is ros. >> thank you for electricing all that data.

this is part of the problem and the due diligence and the economic impact report. and the industry data and that is part of the problem. there are some different data from merchants that we can share, but we don't have data on the cumulative amount of sting operations and we do know that there's a high compliance rate and i can say that the state and the sfpd partners with multiple third parties and are nonstop in the industry. and highly regulated as shown from the data with the compliance rate.

and the city hasn't shown us that data which would prove that we have the mechanisms already established towards this health goal. i would like to make a notion. so we need to have public comment first. >> i will save the rest of my comments first. >> and essentially my mom passed away from a lifetime of cigarette smoke. but if life long and now in the black market, there is no i.d. check and of course i am not going to sell to underage kids because i could lose the alcohol license and get fine and is a reverse effect and we disrupted

that area. and i am out there in the neighborhoods that this is intended. i am really out there and born and raised and making it worse and i would be very, very surprised if this data doesn't spike upward in the near future. >> that's it. >> and with that, i am going to go into public comment right now. so if we have any members of the public, come on up. line up against this wall here. we'll talk -- give her a min to get the thing ready. >> good evening. i am with t.h.c. policy and possible policy and by the way,

for the first presentation, that was pretty excellent. and the f.d.a. and timelines and everything else and the supervisor walton ordinance and even though the city's density is far below the national average, the compliance to prevent sales is extremely high and other ways to present the use and to engage in the conversation and prohibition never works. the most prohibition on sales of vapor products is nothing short of mind boggling and contrary to the harm reduction and the city

denies access to a life saving technology, that has work and with the city prefers they don't with the city being proud of with thor damaging efforts and with the deadly increase and the abatement fees that the city has and i spend a lot of time in the areas. from homelessness to lack of affordable housing and the deteriorating infrastructure and

banning legal producted aimed and marketed is a priority. with a that is like being an extra and the to send this policy to the trash can and this is not a policy the city should adopt. >> and i felt that it was important enough to let you know my story as the one that does

vape. i smoked for 35 years and started smoking when i was 15 years old. and actually continued through the military and all the way through. and vaping helped me stop smoking. and i tried smoking cessation products like gum, which tastes awful. the patches don't really work and they fall off if you perspire and maybe the mental thing about having something in your hand. and if this should pass, deprive those who are smoking that want to stop is very effective for

myself. i don't think that anybody in the room thinks vaping products should be sold to youth and we can all agree and the state has a legal age of 21 and i can't imagine why it would be easier to fall back and purchase alcohol. and given the work and with this to go into effect. and is overkill and it ended up in the news story that couldn't die. and if we can regulate it and for example, why could that the no be enough? and a lot of your websites that do sell the products have tightened up since f.d.a.

started giving the warnings and posts on reddit where people are of age and can't get it throughed mail order because they don't have a credit card, so we are headed in the right direction. if we block it completely, we leave smokers with the old options that we had before that are not very effective. that is pretty much all i have to say on this. in regard to the zero nicotine, there is zero nicotine vape juice and they are working their way down the chain to go along, and one last quick thing -- >> thank you. your three minutes. >> okay. just that -- >> three minutes is up. thank you. next speaker please. >> good evening, commissioners.

i am christopher chen and i own a vape shop in san francisco and that is all it is is a 100% vape shop. this ordinance will put me out of business 100% and no food items and nothing else to sale. i am done with. if this goes through, that $72,000 was something i did in a month and a half, maybe two months at most. the lease, i am still on the hook for a lease for a year and a half. is the city going to help me get out of that? with the tobacco license and $397 for tobacco license. so i may be from the high end, but i am providing a good service to people who want to get off carcinogenic cigarettes. i have a clean record and i have no sting operations. no one has complained.

i don't sell to anyone under 21. i card everyone that comes through. and here's an anecdote that i talked to one of my customers and said, you're not going to be able to buy online electronic cigarettes. and they are like, what? if you live in san francisco, you can't have it mailed to you. well, i live outside the city. i am just going to buy it in bulk and deliver it to my house and sell it to the coworkers. as you can see, they are already thinking about ways around that. the city is losing out on revenue and tax and getting this stuff into the city. this is through adult and corporate businesses.

products out there. there's flavored weed, there's flavored alcohol. i don't understand why it's such a problem with tobacco, especially e-cigarettes. so many of my customers have quit because of it. they don't want to smoke cigarettes anymore. i'm like here, you get the sensation of smoking because people who are addicted, they

have this oral fixation. they have to have this feeling going into their mouth. and on top of e-cigarettes, the 7,000 ingredients in cigarettes, in e-cigarettes, it's glycerine, which is cooking oil, and nicotine. i understand it's addictive, and there's different levels of nicotine. it goes from 24 to zero, and the people who mostly use zero are my younger customers who actually just like the sensation of smoking yeah. and as far as that number goes, my store in san francisco alone, that number is way off. i've lost anywhere from 1,000 to 1500 a day, and that's crazy. and a lot of people do say yeah, i'm going to go buy it from somewhere and just sell it

to my co-workers or customers, or people on the street, so that's revenue that san francisco is losing out on. on top of e-cigarettes, they've already got the cleanest butt tax, so it's like people are trying to save money. they're stressed out. they need an alternative, especially a lot of them don't end up drinking. and with cigarettes, especially e-cigarettes, water vapor that's coming out of your mouth. that's water vapor coming into the air, and they've even done little tests on youtube where you can see the effects on the lungs are minimal, very minimal, and anywhere in your body, it's very minimal. the only thing bad about it is nicotine, but you can fix that. okay. you can bring it down. okay. i'm going to stop talking. >> okay. next speaker, please. >> hi. steven cornell.

i just want to comment on this report that was given. i think it's very signature if for this commission. i have been with this commission in one form or another since its inception, and this is the first time that i can remember the commission initiated a report looking at how it affects small business and the preservation of business in the city. that's what the commission's supposed to be and this seems to be the first time that's ever happened, and it seems to be a very good report, so i just want to point that out and say thank you and thank you to the director. >> thank you. any other members of the public? [inaudible] >> no, you already had -- i can't let you come up twice, unfortunately. okay. public comment is closed. so what this is right now is just -- because the legislation

does not come before us yet, this is to make a recommendation. >> well, one, wanted to have -- have -- first, to have the commission to have the opportunity to really hear the data, be able to hear it and digest it? supervisor did want to present so we have it scheduled on the 22nd as an action item? we are meeting with him on wednesday so if there's any kind of direction you'd like to, you know, work towards, then that's feedback that would certainly be welcomed by me to say that the commission is not necessarily a support with the legislation as you did with the previous two legislations but to work towards a direction perhaps. >> okay. commissioner zouzounis? >> yeah.

given the need for more data and local compliance and the level of data collected from here and our business testimony showing that this isn't a point of retail compliance issue, i would like to make a motion to have the director discuss the work that we've compiled today with supervisor walton, mayor breed, department of workforce development and youth commission and discuss with them the statistical findings and the merchant input. and you know, as sound reasoning to exempt san francisco tobacco retail permit holders from this ordinance. and i hope that we can agree, you know, that it's important to close the loophole with on-line retailers and third-party delivery systems, and maybe there's a way we can make some compromises here if

we're to propose an exemption for brick and mortar retailers, license holders, that we can decrease tobacco advertising, if we can increase penalties for sale to minor infractions. so that's my motion. >> okay. commissioner dwight with a motion on the table from commissioner zouzounis. >> so just to understand, you're suggesting that we direct them to give an exemption to current tobacco retail establishments? >> i'm -- i'm making a motion that our director discuss the data and analysis we've had with -- as a sound -- you know, as sound reasoning for an

exemption to -- >> can you add an economic impact study on that, as well. >> yeah. that's a great idea. that warrants both an economic impact report from the controller but also looking into what an industry economic impact report would look like and who would administer that. >> my only question is giving an exemption to tobacco retail establishments, this legislation, as i understand it, is specifically to prohibit tobacco retail establishments. so basically what you're saying is take this and throw it away because that would obviate this legislation, unless i understand differently. >> it's -- actually, i have to appreciate our city attorney and supervisor walton because unlike the flavored tobacco, the -- the definitions of sale does include on-line entities. it does not include maybe third party entities that might be

like an instacart type of app that might go and pick up. >> you don't need to dramatize it for me, i understand what you're saying. this is brick and mortar, maybe some other modes of commerce, but the proposal would be to give an exemption to brick and mortar establishments -- existing brick and mortar establishments. >> and also conduct an economic impact study. >> the main premise of my motion is that i'm -- i want to direct our staff to have these conversations with the real data with, you know -- >> that's fine. but it's -- having the discussion is separate from the recommendation of -- the legislative recommendation. and my concern is if you lead

with hey, we want you to discuss this, but our intent is that you're basically going to gut this legislation of one of the primary modes of commerce that you're trying to address, then i don't think you're going to get very far. i'm just trying to make sure that whatever recommendation we do make leaves it open that we're asking them to discuss and listen. i mean, that's like saying -- kind of saying well, you're grounded, but we need to have a conversation about your behavior. well, i'm already being signalled that i'm going to get the punishment before i get the discussion. >> i think we're more asking them to provide the substantive local data that makes their policy case. >> well, i think to kind of bridge between commissioner zouzounis and what you're saying -- >> i'm just asking the question. >> -- right. it's certainly within your purview to say to me i do want to specifically go to the

supervisor or city attorney and say this is the direction that we would like to see the legislation go in and work towards that so when it comes back before you on the 22nd, hopefully, it will be in form that we're able to make our case to say that we can still meet the policy goals of what this legislation is intended to do by exempting our brick and mortar licensed tobacco holders from this regulation. >> i mean, i am skeptical that prohibition of this type is going to have the directed out come. this policy is directed towards youth -- prohibited something that is otherwise legal elsewhere -- we don't have a walled garden.

it seems like a fool's errand, however, i want to be sensitive to their objectives and say, you know, maybe we can get to someplace that doesn't have an out and out ban in our city which probably is impractical and has an economic impact on small businesses selling the product. if it's all you do, you're out of business in 30 days, and then, you're stuck with a lease. there's something that's not quite right about that, so i think there's a lot of polishes -- well, i think that the data is not very well flushed out yet, and i think that the policy is not nuanced enough yet to handle the likely outcomes as it's laid out here. it's a little too simplistic.

>> teacher: we've got to go on. >> -- >> we've got to go on. >> we've got a motion. >> we've got a motion. commissioner liguana. >> i've got to say, it's really important to hear from you. it changes the analysis, it does. commissioner dwight, to your point, which i think it is spot on, that in these situations -- there's a quip about government that if you're not on the table, you're on the menu -- did i reverse that? well, regardless, i think, you know, we may want to think about what are some middle ground recommendations that can be made, number one. number two, i'm strongly in favor of urging the supervisor

proposing legislation to gather more data. i simply find this data insufficient to make an educated decision and that seems like a small ask, given the level of, you know, what you're asking local businesses to take on. i think it's reasonable that they should assemble a bit more data to, you know, make their case. and third -- i agree with you. prohibition generally is -- >> i've already seen what that does, the prohibition of alcohol. >> it's not the way to achieve policy outcome, which the policy outcome is how to get youth to stop smoking as much. so let's get the data to focus on that. in terms of the middle ground, i'm thinking, you know, some sort of perhaps, announced

sunset clause or a cap on how much -- there's all sorts of different middle ground proposals that you can make over a number of years. you can sell x amount, and such and such amount each succeeding year. so i -- shorter steps, smaller steps should be taken, i think. >> okay. commissioner dooley? >> i just wanted to suggest a friendly amendment that we would say that we urge them to consider other alternate tiffs that would have the same desires effect with it not -- alternatives that would have the same desired effect with it not being painted with the same broad brush. >> okay. so you have a motion, if you want to repeat your motion. >> i'd like to direct -- i'd like to have our director discuss the work that's been --

and data that's been presented here with supervisor walton, the city attorney, mayor's office, d.p.h., and the youth commission, and direct them to correct more data, ask them to correct more data, conduct an economic impact report, a -- collect industry data, whether that requires the city to contract a third party, and engage other -- >> they're alternatives. >> -- other alternatives than a ban on our brick and mortar retailers, given that this has been shown that this is not a point of sale issue. i mentioned expanding the advertising police code governing advertising, potentially looking at more n

stringent penalties for those who violate the sale to minors. >> okay. do we have a second? >> second. >> motion by commissioner zouzounis to direct the director of the office of small business to discuss the legislative analysis of board of supervisors file number 190312 with supervisor walton, mayor's office, this department, and any other relevant city agencies and encourage the development of an economic impact analysis reflective of the possible impact that this legislation could have on tobacco retail establishments and could consider other measures that

would meet the same policy goal. >> yep. >> great. seconded by commissioner dooley. roll call vote. [roll call] >> motion passes, 7-0. >> great. thank you. next item, please. >> where are we? item number seven, determination regarding eligibility of original joe's four legacy business registry. the legacy business registry applicant original joe's was closed for a five-year period from 2007 to 2012 due to a fire and relocation. for the legacy business registry, a business must have operated in san francisco for 30 or more years with no break-in san francisco operations exceeding two years. in the rules and regulations for the legacy business

registry, the small business commission defined that as no break competing to years in the existence of the business as evidenced through the business registration and no break-in physical operations exceeding four years. exceptions may be made for exceptional circumstances as determined by the small business commission. small business commission shall determine whether the fire is considered an exceptional circumstance, discussion and action item. presenter is rich kurylo, legacy business program manager, office of small business. >> good evening, commissioners. original joe's is an italian restaurant located at 601 union street in north beach. it was founded in 1937 and originally located at 144 taylor street in the tenderloin. in october 2007, a devastating

fire destroyed the building and closed the business. according to the owners, the ensuing years before they opened again in north beach were some of the most important year's of the restaurant's life. original joe's was actively involved in lawsuits to protect the name and restaurant with a clear intent of rising from the ashes. there was also a long legal battle with their insurance carrier that made finding a new home a necessity. in finding a new home that properly aligned with joe's culture and brand was no easy task. when they found a new place, there was the pain staking process of bringing everything they could salvage from their taylor street location. this was done to properly ensure they represented their history with integrity and authenticity. construction of the new location started in october 2010, less than three years after the fire, and they opened

in north beach in january 2012. office of small business staff recommends that the small business commission determines the fire to be an exceptional circumstance so that original joe's would be eligible to apply for the legacy business registry. thank you. >> okay. commissioner dwight? >> there is no question in my mind that this situation warrants an exception to the two-year rule. end of speech. >> commissioner ortiz? >> original joe's is san francisco. i mean, if anybody, they should have been one of the first businesses on the legacy registry, so -- >> commissioner dwight, or was that a mistake? [inaudible] >> commissioner dooley? >> i agree. original joe's is clearly an icon in this town. there's no question that they should be included in the legacy business program. >> commissioner dwight?

>> i don't think we're in any argument, and i don't think that the point is whether they are an institution or not. i think that they are -- that the exception is based on the fact that they are engaged in a -- they were engaged in a bona fide effort to open, and that effort took longer than two years, but it was complicated by efforts complicated by the standard opening a business. therefore, i think the circumstance is warranting on the logistical merits and no other merits whatsoever required. >> okay. any other comments? public comment, do we have any member of the public that would like to speak on this? [inaudible] >> did it go your way yet? [laughter]. >> i'd like to thank you for waiting through all that. >> you've been here three hours. >> at least you know where to have dinner. >> i've got to come up after

waiting three hours. all of a sudden i feel very lonely. thank you for everything that you guys, the whole panel just said, and on behalf of my mom and my sister and my dad, thank you very much. they're not here, but the -- i thought we would be the most tenured restaurant spoken about tonight, but the akamura family with ben kyoto opened in 1906, so to be associated with them in some small way tonight, an honor. i appreciate what we bring to san francisco every single day. i don't take it for granted, and we will continue to honor the city and this board in the proper manner, so thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to grant an exceptional circumstance for original joe's? >> i move to approve the

exception. >> seconded. >> seconded. >> okay. that's an easy one. >> motion by commissioner dwight to approve. >> that's all i need to say. >> seconded by commissioner liguana. roll call. [roll call] >> motion passes, 7-0. >> great. >> good. >> we look forward to seeing you here again. [applause] >> next item, please. >> clerk: item number 8, board of supervisors file number 190310, public works code waiver of temporary street space occupancy permit fee,

small business week sidewalk sales. ordinance waiving the fee required by public works code section 724.1-b for temporary street space occupancy permits on certain designated city streets on saturday, may 11, 2019, to propose small business week, discussion and action item. presenter is director dick andrizzi, director of small business. >> so commissioners, i will be brief. this is the 13th annual waiver that we draft on behalf of the merchants for the city. >> which supervisor is sponsoring it? >> supervisor brown that is sponsoring it. i tend to approach the supervisor that has the most merchant areas participating, and it does turn out it is district five. >> good. >> so it's our annual fee

waiver ordinance that we do. there will be two merchants that will be added during committee meeting, glen park and a few blocks on third street, but it's a total of 246 block spaces, and a fee waiver of $17,304 that the office is sponsoring. >> commissioner dwight? >> likewise. i think it is a no-brainer. the economic impact is -- is minimal, and we approve it every year, and i think we should open it up for public comment. >> okay. any other comments from commissioners? seeing none, any members of the public like to comment on item number eight? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion? >> move to approve. >> second. >> motion by commissioner dwight to approve, seconded by commissioner yee riley. roll call vote.

[roll call] >> motion passes, 7-0. >> thank you. next item, please. >> item nine, resolution urging the mayor and san francisco board of supervisors to adopt the small business commission's recommendation for an economic transition assistance program for small businesses impacted by the ban on sales of tobacco products, discussion and action item. >> okay. we have a resolution here that's been typed up. any questions? commissioner dwight? >> in light of our recommendations of -- about the legislation, is it -- i wonder whether it's prudent at this time to make this policy -- make this recommendation because it assumes an outcome that we are trying to actually alter -- it assumes the out

come is a ban. we're trying to alter and so by doing this, we sort of preempt our discussion. just my thought -- oh, sorry. >> commissioner zouzounis? >> i'll let -- okay. what i was going to say in response to that is this -- i was part of some stakeholder meetings with the sponsor and -- both this time around and during the ban on flavored tobacco, and a parallel mitigation process was proposed and kind of agreed upon, and so this account for not just this current legislation, but the last couple laws in which the mitigation -- kind of adjustment assessment plan wasn't conducted? so this is relevant for losses that are currently happening and despite of the current

legislation. however, i do hear what you're saying, but i also want to make sure that we as a body are prompting the city to have -- if they're not going to include substantive amendments to include legislation in this mitigation, they need to have a transition point. >> i would -- this is -- this actually parallels what we're hoping to glean from all this other discussion, you know, what are the real numbers, what is the real economic impacts? before we ask the city to make compensation to someone, we better know really well what the compensation is we want so that -- so that we can assess the economic impact to the city because we don't want to put a -- we don't want to be, you know, naive and put a burden on the city that they couldn't

meet. >> okay. commissioner liguana. >> i concur. i think we need more data. it seems premature to move forward without understanding what we're compensating for, what is the cost? it's difficult to advocate for something -- but, i mean, we've got a rough draft. it's something to work for, but we've got to flush it out, knowing that we've at least loaded one chamber. >> perhaps there might be, to commissioner zouzounis's point, a way to send a smoke signal to put the city on notice that, look, you know, if you're going to put out that much harm, you know, then there's, like, a second shoe that might