Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tobacco Permit Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues Save More Mart appeal after DPH denies tobacco permit for new Third Street location
Summary
The Department of Public Health denied a tobacco-sales permit for Save More Mart’s new location under Article 19H because the new address falls within a district density cap, lies within 500 feet of existing tobacco retailers, and was not previously occupied by a permitted tobacco retailer; the board continued the appeal to June 6 to allow DPH to supply updated density analysis and related documentation.
Neighbors, business-group allies and the appellant asked the Board of Appeals on April 25 to overturn the Department of Public Health’s denial of a tobacco-sales permit for Save More Mart’s relocated Third Street storefront.
DPH assistant director Patrick Fosdall told the board that under San Francisco Health Code Article 19H the department must deny a new tobacco permit if a supervisory district already exceeds a retailer density cap; District 10 reported 57 active tobacco permits against a cap of 45. DPH also cited a 500‑foot proximity restriction — the proposed location is within 500 feet of four existing permitted tobacco retailers — and a provision that prohibits issuing a new tobacco permit at a site that was not previously occupied by a permitted tobacco establishment. "Any one of those three would have caused us to have to deny the permit application," Fosdall said.
Appellants and dozens of neighborhood speakers described Save More Mart as a 40‑year neighborhood institution that provides groceries, employment and late‑night safety. Appellant counsel Jeremy Paul said the family recently lost its prior lease and reopened two doors down but could not transfer the prior tobacco permit; he urged the board to exercise its appellate authority to avoid closing an important neighborhood resource.
DPH inspector Janine Young testified the applicant was invited to supply DBI documentation showing the former location was subject to seismic/occupancy work that might trigger an exception; the applicant did not provide that evidence before DPH’s decision. DPH said its inspectors reviewed available exceptions and found none applicable based on information in the application.
Given the competing claims and a pending internal update to DPH’s district-density review, the board voted to continue the appeal to June 6 and asked DPH to provide the updated analysis (and any applicable exception documentation) for the panel’s consideration. The move gives the appellant time to supplement the record and DPH time to confirm district counts and any applicable exception.
