Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Health Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds DPH order and fines for unlawful tobacco sales at Union Square location

San Francisco Board of Appeals · February 16, 2022
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Appeals denied an appeal by the owner of Union Square Wine & Spirits challenging Department of Public Health enforcement of San Francisco tobacco‑sales rules and $1,800 in administrative penalties. DPH said the business continued sales after a Dec. 2020 permit denial; inspectors documented multiple site visits and refusals to cooperate.

The Board of Appeals on Feb. 16, 2022 denied an appeal by the operator of Union Square Wine & Spirits (522 Sutter St.) challenging a Department of Public Health director’s order and $1,800 in administrative penalties for sales of tobacco products without a DPH tobacco sales permit.

Appellant Jamal Taha said he believed his state Retail Tobacco License and an alcohol license authorized sales; DPH counsel Valerie Lopez and program staff explained that a California tax/license does not substitute for a San Francisco DPH tobacco sales permit and that the proposed new location failed DPH standards (within 500 feet of an existing permitted tobacco retailer, supervisorial‑district cap and not a location previously occupied by a permitted establishment). DPH said staff made multiple documented inspection visits and outreach attempts; program inspectors described confrontational interactions and the owner’s refusal to cooperate during several visits.

Commissioners asked DPH about outreach and whether state documentation could be clearer; DPH said it has produced a business booklet showing required city and state permits and that the department has coordinated with the tax collector and supervisors’ offices. After deliberation the board found no basis to overturn the DPH Director’s Hearing Order or the administrative penalties and voted 5–0 to deny the appeal.