Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tobacco Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals continues Save More Market appeal as city agencies weigh permit exception
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued an appeal by Save More Market over the Department of Public Health’s denial of a tobacco-sales permit to June 20 to allow the store to get a written DBI determination on whether seismic work at its prior site would permit relocation under Health Code Article 19H.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 6 continued an appeal by Save More Market after hearing arguments from the Department of Public Health, city economic-development staff and neighborhood advocates about whether the store qualifies for a relocation exception to the city’s tobacco-permit limits.
Department of Public Health Assistant Director Patrick Fozdahl told the board DPH relied on three independent provisions in Article 19H to deny a new permit for 4522 Third Street: the district density cap (45 permits per supervisorial district), a 500-foot proximity restriction to other permitted tobacco retailers, and a prohibition on issuing a permit at a location that was not previously occupied by a permitted tobacco retailer. “There are essentially three provisions in the San Francisco health code Article 19H which bar the Department of Public Health from issuing a new permit for 4522 Third Street,” Fozdahl said.
Janine Young, acting principal inspector for DPH’s environmental health branch, showed quarterly permit-count graphs and said the density cap is applied uniformly: “The density cap is at 45 for every district.” She said District 10 currently had about 57 existing tobacco permits, one of the reasons DPH concluded it could not issue the Save More permit.
The city’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development’s Bayview project manager, Larry McClendon, described Save More’s enrollment in the Healthy Retail SF conversion program and said the program typically invests about $35,000 for a Tier 1 conversion, including equipment and marketing. He said participating retailers commonly see revenue gains, though those gains may not fully offset loss of tobacco-driven foot traffic for a store that relocates.
Jeremy Paul, attorney for the Save More owners, described the business as a long-standing neighborhood anchor and said that after losing its lease the family sought to relocate 40 feet up the block. Paul cited the Board of Supervisors’ 2016 ordinance that provided an exception for a very different retailer (the “humidor” case) and urged the appeals board to consider relief where the facts and hardship differ. He supplied sales figures showing April gross sales declined from roughly $97,400 in April 2017 to about $41,000 in April 2018.
Board members focused on a narrow procedural question: whether seismic retrofit work at Save More’s prior location (4500 Third Street) would qualify under existing code provisions to permit relocation of the permit. DBI Senior Inspector Joe Duffy told the board that whether seismic work is required depends on the change-of-occupancy and occupant-load calculations and recommended the applicant request a written determination from DBI Technical Services. DPH said it would reconsider the application within about a week if DPH receives a DBI determination documenting a seismic-triggered relocation.
Vice President Rick Swig moved to continue the matter to June 20 so the appellant could obtain a DBI technical-services determination; the board voted to continue the appeal.
Next step: the Save More team is to request a written determination from DBI Technical Services on whether the proposed conversion of the prior location triggers seismic upgrades that would allow relocation; DPH said it will reevaluate the application once it receives that documentation.
