Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tobacco Permit Density topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds DPH denial of retail tobacco permit for The Jug Shop at 1648 Pacific
Summary
The Board of Appeals on Oct. 11 denied The Jug Shop’s appeal of a Department of Public Health denial to issue a retail tobacco sales permit at 1648 Pacific Avenue, citing health‑code density and location limits; the vote was 3–1. DPH said the new address never previously held a tobacco permit and no exception applied. DPH will review records to help the business seek reinstatement at its original address.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 11 denied an appeal by Michael Priolo of The Jug Shop seeking to overturn the Department of Public Health’s Aug. 18 denial of a retail tobacco sales permit at 1648 Pacific Avenue. The board voted 3–1 to uphold the denial.
Priolo, who described The Jug Shop as a family‑owned business established in 1965, said the business relocated temporarily after being displaced from 1590 Pacific Avenue by redevelopment and sought to continue tobacco sales while awaiting return to its original location. “We are in hopes that the board will rule to overturn the denial of our retail tobacco sales permit,” Priolo told the board.
DPH representatives told the board the health code contains density and distance restrictions designed to limit concentrations of tobacco retailers. Janine Young, senior inspector with DPH’s tobacco program, explained the 2015 ordinance that set a density cap (45 permits per supervisorial district) and other criteria that prevent issuance in certain circumstances, including when a new location has never previously held a DPH tobacco permit. Program supervisor Larry Kessler said the primary reason for denial was that 1648 Pacific has not had a retail tobacco permit in the past and no available exception applied.
Commissioners discussed whether narrow exceptions exist when businesses are forced to relocate for seismic or redevelopment reasons. Several commissioners expressed sympathy for the legacy business and concern about inequitable results; Commissioner Lundberg moved to grant the appeal on equity grounds but later withdrew the motion following legal guidance that the board must apply the code as written. The city attorney advised that changes to the health code should be pursued legislatively rather than by the board in a single case.
On a motion to deny the appeal and uphold DPH’s denial, the board voted 3–1. DPH said it will re‑examine records (including tax‑collector and permit records) to determine whether administrative errors affected the business’s permit history and pledged to work with the owner concerning reinstatement at the original 1590 Pacific address if appropriate.
