consider my situation and i'm down to my last money for me and my family to stay in business because i love that neighborhood, i want to contribute and for the last 35 years to this neighborhood so i don't want to run from san francisco and close my business and thank you very much. >> one more thing to that note is the fact that i think that what's occurring here is that we all want to be in a situation where san francisco needs to be the city that knows how and this attempt to not only be able to give this man a permit to sell his product and to stay in business and that's the key, we're looking at urban renewal in an area that needs urban renewal and but we're looking at gentrification of merchants and residents who's been there all the time, they can't sustain the new and i think that's really unjustifiable that monies is coming into the city and county of san francisco, hundreds of

millions of dollars to improve an area and those of us who have live ined the area will not be able to sustain in that particular area, physical and physical fight leads to police activities, on the 8:00 news, you may hear about some killing on the third street corridor, it's an ongoing thing so this is one exception and we're hoping you can take what we have spoke here today under consideration and grant him a permit. thank you. >> one more thing i can add, i sent the check for the city, for them to cash the check, when i spoke to the supervisor, they said this check was cashed by mistake, we can give you a refund right away, i said i don't want the refund, i want you to grant me the permit and when i open the organic store can i show it to you, please. >> you're out of time but you

can show us that on your rebuttal time. >> excuse me, one question. your initial comments you said something about 12 days off. >> almost 13 days off the deadline. it was january 18th is when the cap went into play of no more permits in the -- >> in the application, this one? >> yes. >> [inaudible]. >> okay, we can hear from the department. >> lida [inaudible] on behalf of the department of public health. so, i didn't hear anything in

the appellant's presentation that would support reversing the director's decision here. in fact, the director didn't have discretion, the cap in the bayview of 45 permits had been reached. there's 69 permitted establishments so the director couldn't make any exception specific to appellant and -- yeah, i'll stop there. >> good evening, i'm june wine trop, i'm the manager of this regulatory program. this is the first case that you are hearing for the amendments

to 19h that were inbacker enacted in january, and i will say that you are correct, there was no heads-up given really to anybody that the law was going to be passed and that there was going to be a date at which this density level would start to be enforced. it's a complicated law and we are working hard to come up with some consistent guidelines. this case is actually very clear to us though, so it's nice that there is some level of clarity and i'll explain to you why. we -- first of all, you should know, we had approved a tobacco retail permit to mr. imtair to the grocery market in the same complex. >> the timing on that, please. >> we approved the permit

sometime in october, 2013. >> 2013. >> 2013. we never abing humbly issued the permit because he didn't pay, so that is our strategy and once we receive payment, the inspector goes out, delivers the permit and actually explains the rules that go along with the permit. he informed us that he closed the business it changes depending on records i have, but in may of 2014, and in october of 2014, he actually asked us to waive the penalties and fees associated with that because there was never a permit actually issued so this is just at the other business this is not at the designer fashion's location.

when mr. imtair came to us the inspector as well, asking for a permit, we actually spent quite a bit of time explaining to him how the law that had been enacted, it was passed unanimously by the board in december of 2014 and enacted in january, so that was the date. mr. imtair asked us if we could make an exception because of the previous permit and also the closeness to the deadline and we explained that we thought the law was very clear but we suggested that he go ahead and make an application to us we waived the application fee and we said, you know, at the staff level we were not in a position to do any interpretation of the law, we thought it was clear but that we would give him an opportunity to discuss with the director so we timely

disapproved the application which we had told him we would do and went quickly to the director's hearing and is at the hear, dr. aragon actually agreed that in this particular case, the law is clear that we cannot issue to sell tobacco at that location even if the density falls below 45 in the bayview neighborhood, the supervisorial district which is how the density is accounted, this location will not ever qualify because the law is clear that we cannot issue permits to any location that has never held a tobacco permit before january 18, 2015. that's what the law says, so at the hearing, dr. aragon suggested also that mr. imtair could use some of the resource that is available in the city to explore some alternative

methods to improve the viability of him closing the shop. i think it was new to me to see some of the correspondence in the exhibits that showed the correspondence between him and his landlord kind of trying to discuss what was appropriate for that particular location and i also want to just mention that immediately after the hearing, i spent a great deal of time discussing this with mr. imtair and i encouraged him to appeal to your authority since we as affirmed by our director felt that our read of our responsibilities under the law to deny the permit was clear but that this might be a venue. >> okay, may i? >> may i finish? >> excuse me, i thought they were, but maybe not.

>> i just want to make clear that the commission is bound by the law, you don't have the discretion to change the law, the law has a cap and the cap applies to you as much as it does to dph. >> if you two are through, i do have time. i believe part of the appellant's argument was he had a permit which he was then not able to effectively use because he couldn't stay at the market but i understood you to say he never got that permit because he never paid for it. >> correct, and also i would note that was at a different location it's in the same complex. >> okay, thank you. >> they provided a copy of their check and he said something in their presentation about it being cashed.

was that not a formal acceptance by the department? >> my impression of what happened was that mr. imtair, this was after we had cancelled the fees and had cancelled the penalties even, he subsequently appeared at the tax collector and paid the fee and the tax collector accepted the fee. ibacker i don't know why they did, but they said that they realized that they had made a mistake and i'm not sure how they realized that but all of this happened subsequent to -- i can show you. i'm not sure if you can see it well enough. this is dated october 15, 2014, and -- sorry thank you, and

this is between inspector kestle and myself, he's saying the tax collector wants to know if the 2013-14 bill for mr. imtair attached to the account, he close ted business as far as we know in may, 2014 and i don't have my reply here but i went ahead and waived that, weed asked the tax collector to remove the obligation. >> i'm seeing something that's dated in november. >> between me -- >> no mr. imtair received a bill with the charges and it says -- i don't know what it relates to but it's talking about fiscal year 2014-15, then there's date next to it november 3, 2014, and then it shows he issued a check on

november 5, 2014. >> right so that -- >> is that the same check we're talking about? >> i'm not sure because that's a transaction he would have made with the tax collect torx i know the amount due on the 2013-14 bill i have was $240.87. >> we're talking about the same one. >> sorry? >> we're talking about the same one. >> i think we must be. >> so you can see there the h31 tobacco sales that's the type of perm, 13-14 that's the period for which he was billed, the penalty started accruing on 12/1/2013 because it wasn't paid, the fee itself is $108.50, the penalty and

surcharge are exactly those things, and then so the total as you good across that he owed as of i would presume ak humbly december 2013 was $240.87, i don't know why he paid this on november 5th after he had asked us to waive the fee and to close the business, so i don't know the answer to that question. >> do you have any idea whether this check was cashed? >> no i don't know. >> okay, let's go onward with a couple of other questions about this particular change. as i understand from their brief t two locations are right next door to each other, so you're licensing for tobacco

sales is not to an owner it's to a specific location? >> correct. >> okay. >> that's correct, and there's -- sorry to interject, [inaudible] on behalf of the department of public health and there is a provision which provides that a permit cannot be transferred between locations , so what this really comes down to and i think the appellant's going to submission that was apparent was there was an ongoing dispute with his landlord. >> in terms of them your statistics on 69 establishments selling here and only 45 allowed, was mr. imtair one of the 69? >> that is an excellent

question. i don't know the answer to it. i would presume that it wouldn't be because as i said, since he never paid for it, it was never actually issued, so in our accounting, i don't believe that we would have, but i can try to -- >> if you can check, but how are they treated, they're like a nonconforming? >> i'm not quite sure what you mean by not -- >> i'm looking at it from a land use -- >> i realize that, they're either -- the district is either a district that is below the cap or they fall -- the applicant applies for a new permit such as the appellant here for the new location will only be able to obtain a new

permit if he falls within some very limited exceptions that don't apply here. >> presumably there was no grandfather is what you're getting at. >> i guess a form of grandfather but it's interesting that even though he had a license to sell at a previous location he can't get one at this location because they changed the rules on that. >> they indicated he could never get one at this location because there was never one there before. >> right but it's also the fact that he never had the permit because he never paid for it. >> i think they actually are both interesting but -- i'm sorry they're both interesting but they're not related, but we are addressing it because the

applicant brought it up, but truly the fact that any individual has a permit in any other location is not going to affect our ability to grant a permit on a different location. >> especially a location that cannot have one. >> do i stand corrected that even if it falls below i'm asking about the new law the number, you can't get the permit if the location hasn't ever sold tobacco, so let's say it falls below to 20 for some reason, then you're just aout of -- out of luck. >> so then let's look at the supervisorial district where there right now are 69 let's say that 30 of them close over the next five or ten years which is what the purpose of the law is meant to be i think

then you have 39 and which means that 6 are available, so now in deciding whether to grant or deny an application we number one say, is it less than 45 yes. the second question has there ever been a permit at this location, so those -- we would only issue -- it wouldn't be just those 30 because certainly there have been additional establishments that have sold tobacco permits over the years before this slice of time in 2015. the other criteria that are in there also is that even if it was a location that had a tobacco permit and we're talking about a sdrik that has fewer than 45 if it is within 500 feet of a school, we would

deny it and i thought there was another 500 -- so yeah, it's -- and just as an aside we are working on rules and regs we're going the issue for public comment because it's a complicated law. >> so, there's no true grandfather provision then? normally when you change a law and give people about a month you put in some mechanism so folks have either some notice or some way because you're affecting people's livelihoods. >> i agree. >> agreed, and i will say there was two years of discussions with the arab american grocers association which of course isn't everybody in the city but does represent a contingency representing the small grocers that do have their livelihoods

invested in their businesses. i will also point out that the law like i said, it was passed without any heads-up and in fact included a piece that is turning out to not have that much relevance in our permitting decisions but that said that only applications received before december 9, 2014, so at the board of supervisors this was discussed and passed on december 18th and it included in it sort of a backtrack date so it's sort of the opposite of grandfather but what is in there for the grandfather perspective this series of requirements for mentions so we are going to be allowed to issue permits to locations in districts that are over 45, to locations that are

near a school if the current owner the owner of record as of the date of the law passing in december in january of 2015 has owned the business for five years previously and can show due diligence that this is a transaction that they're making in good faith to pass on the business so it's just for your preference, 19h6 through g are the exceptions and i suspect we will be talking about them with you again in the future. >> one more quick question. so does the fact that he was having this sort of back and forth with his landlord does it give you guys any discretion to consider that, or is it simply not something to consider? >> no. >> thank you. >> and i just wanted to clarify

the part about no permit for an establishment that never had one, is that old law or new law? >> that is in the amendment. this was newly amended. >> okay. >> okay, thank you then, we'll take public comment, if there is any on this item. >> no i'm sorry. >> you'll get a turn. >> good evening, again, [inaudible] i'm karen gaboli with the tobacco brief coalition i ask you to deny this applicant, there's a certain retail stores in certain density neighbors, san francisco passed the [inaudible] with the unanimous support of the board of supervisors and signed by the mayor this was a six year process negotiation with community members and grocers

at the grocers association this [inaudible] of tobacco retailers, tenderloin, chinatown and the mission neighborhood, higher density and higher minority populations [inaudible] who are already at risk for negative h*ement outcomes which struck me when the appellant was talking about this business was going to contribute to a healthy community, i have to ask the question how has selling tobacco ever helped a community? as june mentioned, the arab american grocery association a 300 plus family owned businesses was a key partner in developing in ordinance to ensure it was a pro business the aaga came to testify in support of this ordinance, youth advocates led by the youth leadership institute they testified in support of this ordinance and even

collected over 900 endorsements to committee members. i urge you, the board recognizes this as a significant issue facing many communities and has adopted this ordinance for this matter. please support this new law. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello again president and commissioners, my name is natalie and i'm here today as an advocate from brief california to urge you to uphold the retail tobacco license, which exceed 45 permits, in this particular case, there are over 45 tobacco retailers in this area, we want to see a reduction of tobacco retailers and [inaudible] to step back from youth and community led efforts to pass the density ordinance and promote health. this law would pass for a reason in making exceptions for others causing the law to lose its impact. please uphold the law for the

sake of environmental just and for fair business practice. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello bargaining my name is patac and this time i'm less nervous and with what everyone's saying i think you should not allow them to get that permit because they already have 67 in that neighborhood. the chinatown has a lot, the tenderloin has over 75 if you allow this, then someone else in tenderloin would take the same issue and try to open up a new one right next door to what they already own and maybe expand it bigger so if you give them this, it will be open a new door for other people and it should not be allowed because cigarettes is not healthy. how does that help the neighborhood? that's all i have to say. >> next speaker, please. >> hi again so i just want to kind of say about the law, the

reason why it was passed because research shows that higher density leads to higher usage and it has unhealthy behavioral of merging and leads to increased of smoking due to increased access and saturation of tobacco use and advertise ining the community. bayview hunters point already is 21 tobacco retailers over the cap, we don't need to add another one there. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm larry [inaudible] i'm a medical marijuana advocate and i say district 6 in the tenderloin, we have enough cigarette stores there, one thing i want to point out, cigarettes cause cancer, if you look at all the books back in 79 and 78, they had all these great black and women advertising cigarettes, new ports for ginger slim, even the

marlboro man is dead, they need some wholistic, something healthy out there putting another cigarette place out in an african american chinese dominated people of low-income neighborhood, i already got the smokestacks from the chemicals from the navy out there so i think this is not a healthy alternative opening up another store in the neighborhood that's already distressed and remember i was working one night i worked at the [inaudible] i said the world was going to end and it was revelation 24, it said god gave us water and green trees it said take the green tree leaves and use as medicine a man must have said that, they don't read the last chapter of the bible even in genese, we don't use

all the natural stuff cigarettes have a lot of chemicals, those are chemicals that you never know what your body is getting into, so i don't think you need a number 46 cigarette smokers, bayview needs a medical marijuana out there if you're going to approve something, edmund juicy and it's my birthday and bay breakers weekend. >> happy birthday. >> any other public comment? seeing none, then we have mr. robinson and mr. imtair, minutes. >> the response was the license included in the 69, the answer to that question is yes. here's the document right here that's dated from october 12th of -- october 12-15 of this year to october 11th of next year, so the count when you talk about the 69 this man's store was counted part of the

69 dissemination of information, if the board of supervisors approve this in december and went into effect in january, we checked, there was no other merchants that knew about this law that we checked with public radio, we checked with commercial radio no public service announcements, so lack of knowledge we all perish, so i'm not saying that one way is right another way is wrong but for staff quos up here and says, they are not decisive themselves, they're winging it it's law, it's law but the fak that you didn't give anybody a heads up of what to do and not to do, then we're winging it and making decisions, the deck is stacked and i think it's only fair to be able to play both sides of the fence and get an opportunity to talk about the issues, to debate the issues, those are individuals that are against, that's alright, it's ao free country to have a different opinion, but in this particular case,

they did not -- the department of public health did not disseminate information they did not hold meetings and it went into law immediately expeditiously and this man found out about it after it was law and you can hear they're going along ingesting the rules as they're going along because we're in unforeseen waters here, this is the first protest of this particular law that grants this man this permit. we didn't say that selling cigarettes make the neighborhood healthy we're saying there's 106 store fronts, the economic disaster at bayview hunters point can't survive, there's no foot trafficker from the first and the third, when you get the social administration checks, after that, it's a ghost town, we have merchants closing and shutting their shops so here's another merchant who's been in the community for 35 years and his reward is he has to go tao, it's about the urban