>> clerk: okay. so that matter is submitted. commissioners. >> commissioners? >> i support the permit. >> no, it's over with, ma'am. >> well, perhaps i could just quickly summarize all the points that we've heard and where we might want to stand on. >> yes. >> four issues raised by one appellant. the shoring drawings have -- and design has been sent to her. they've hired a -- a surveyor to do the elevations. she'll have to decide whether she wants to let them in or not. so two of the four have already been accomplished by the project sponsor.

the third one, i think it would be smart of the project sponsor to submit the flashing details. i mean, that's something that needs to be done between two congenial neighbors. the fourth one regarding pavement of the engineer stuff, i'm not touching. the other two appellants are dealing with the issue that relate to the mass of the building and the demolition of the existing building. based upon the extensive amount of changes to the joints, i find that the current design is not massive, and the mass is appropriate for that neighborhood. >> you want to make a motion?

>> no, you go ahead. >> i'm going to move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on t permits on the basis they were properly issued. >> clerk: okay. and these are for the four appeals. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeals and uphold the permits on the basis they were properly issued. on that motion -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: okay. that motion passes, the appeals are >> clerk: welcome back to the april 25, 2018 hearing for the san francisco board of appeals, and thank you very much for your patience. the next item is item number

eight, appeal number 18-030, abdallah faiz joseph, doing business as "save mor mart," the subject property is at 4522 third street, appealing the denial on march 2, 2018 of a tobacco sales permit pursuant to article 19 h of the san francisco health code. this is id knob 76038, ehdid number. so first, we will hear from the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. jeremy paul. very sorry about the late time we're getting started on something of this magnitude because i've got a lot of people here that want to talk to you. and there were a lot more people here earlier that had to leave and go home to family

responsibilities. i've spoken to them in the hall and asked them to be brief in their remarks, but i just want to begin by asking everybody that's near in their support of save mo save -- "save mor mart" to please stand. i appreciate that. this would have been a good case for an earlier format that the board of appeals followed but t where the agencies described because i'm not the best one to describe item 19 h of the public health code and what it means and what it intended to do. i'm sure you'll hear about that from the agency. i want to talk to you about how it's affecting one neighborhood in the bayview.

the "save mor mart" was at the corner of lasalle and 3rd for 40 years. they have been a great member of the community. there's a reputation of corner grocers that people hangout outside. that never happens at save mor, that there's garbage collected outside. they sweep three times a day at least. everybody knows the joseph family, and there's always members of that family there, from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. they've always employed members of the neighborhood, and it's always been a place that people hung out and places kids could go during the winter. when school lets out and the

bus drops them off, and it's dark, it's a place where they could wait until their family picked them up. you're going to hear from the neighborhood about what this store means to them and why it's worth taking the step of overruling a correctly issued violation in order to undo an injustice, and i think that's what you're going to have to decide on today. save morw was served with a vey sudden eviction notice last year. they had to move out of a place where they were for many years in about six months. they closed in november . they just recently opened up two doors up, less than 50 feet away from the doors of their own place, but you cannot trns

po transport your liquor or tobacco license to another location, even a stone's throwaway. we went to the planning commission for the conditional use to get a new liquor license, and the planning commission heard from the community, heard how much they like this store and how much they want this store to succeed, and the planning commission unanimously granted it. and in doing so, president of the planning commission said look. you know, there's -- are a lot of liquor stores along this stretch of 3rd. there are a lot of cigarette stores along this stretch of 3rd. there are a lot of bad guys and a lot of bad operators, but these are the good guys. these are the guys we want to help, and these are the guys we want to succeed. what the joseph family has done in moving two doors up the block is they're trying to create a different kind of

grocery store, small grocery. they've entered the healthy sf program, they've started selling produce. they've got a new produce indicates coming in soon. they're moving as much as they can to a fresh and healthy food model, but economically, they need to provide to the neighborhood the things that the neighborhood's always gone to them for. they need to keep having the things there that they're looking for so their long time customers will keep coming back to them, and when they stop in for cigarettes, they're going to pick up some fruit, some vegetables, some healthy food to pick up and take home to their family, as well, because we know they're going to keep going to buy the cigarettes. they're just going to go four blocks away to get them. save mor is really a different kind of store, and you're going

to hear about that. it's clean, it's bright, it's safe. they take care of their neighbors, and they've never had any violations of how they sell tobacco or how they sell alcohol. the only ones on this strip of 3rd street that don't have any violations of sales to minors or sales to alcohol of minors or consumption on premises. when department of public health started a program to get tobacco sales signage out of the stores, they were the first ones, if i can go to the overhead, please, to get the department of public health beautification award because they were the first ones to realize to have it out of kids line of sight. they don't need to see this kind of advertising.

but what are we asking for you? we are asking you to ensure the financial security of this family and this business; that they should have the staples that the neighborhood has gone to them over the 40 years. they'll still go to them, they'll buy other things. it's going to need an exception from this 19 h rule, it's going to need the board of appeals to realize that 19 h wasn't intended to do harm, it was intended to go good, and the las of avloss -- loss of "save mart" will be a loss to this neighborhood, and see into the heart of what the bayview wants and help them out here. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the department of public health. >> good evening, board members. i'm the assistant director requewith the environmental health

branch, and i'll be representing the department of public health case regarding "save mor mart" this evening. i'd like to quickly summarize a few points of the brief. as was pointed out in san francisco health code 19 h.8, the tobacco permit cannot be transferred or assigned, so when "save mor mart" moved, the permit couldn't move with them. that put them in the position of needing to obtain a new permit for the new location, which they applied for, and the department reviewed. the department ended up denying that permit for three reasons, any one of which would have constituted a reason to deny the permit. the first was that health code 19 h.4 f 5 specifies that no new permits can be issued in supervisorory districts where there are 45 or more establishments with tobacco

sales permits. this address is located in district ten, which was last reported to have 57 existing tobacco permits. the second reason is that the health code 19 h.4 f 4 states that no new tobacco sales permits shall be issued within 500 feet of another permitted tobacco retail store. there are currently four permitted tobacco retail stores located within 500 feet of the property. and the last one is the sh prevent dph from issuing permits to locations which were not previously occupied by a permitted tobacco establishment. since the proposed location at 4522 third street was not a previously permitted tobacco establishment, we were not able to issue the permit for that reason. as i said, any one of those three would have caused us to have to -- to deny the permit

application. i think it should also be noted that according to appellant's brief and the testimony, they're in agreement that the department of public health has correctly enforced the letter of san francisco health code article 19 h. so i think the issue of san francisco department of public health's determination to deny the permit does not seem to be in question tonight, and that's the department's case. >> under the first 19 h, where you can't -- if you're more than 45 or more -- [ inaudible ] >> is that better? can you hear me? okay. why doesn't the fact that they

already had the existing license -- why doesn't that count for something? and i understand as a lawyer, the letter of the law, but i also understand the spirit of the law. >> sure. >> so why doesn't it count in any of these that they have had this license th, that they've never been in any trouble with the license, that they've been a model of the community. where does that fit into the spirit of the law? >> yeah. i think if the law had been written that way, we would certainly be enforcing it that way. but as i said at the beginning, when you change locations, the permit doesn't move with you, so that permit then is closed at whatever location it was previously at. so the new location is -- is viewed as a brand-new location, requiring a new permit, and we look at it, we view it in that light. >> so they would have had to

figure all this out before they picked their spot, picked their spot, making sure they didn't fall into any of these categories. >> yeah. >> and they're just out of luck? >> yeah. i am completely, you know, sensitive to -- to the issues that are being raised here tonight. i think it sounds like this business has been a model business, and the owners have certainly added a tremendous amount of value to the neighborhood that they're in. when we enforce the san francisco health code, we have to just look at the law and follow the law. we don't have discretion, we just need to enforce the ordinance as it's written. >> so -- all right.

new system. so i hear what you say, and i hear some sympathy in your voice. and i -- and i think i see you still sitting in the room, and we are friends for a long time from sitting on the redevelopment agency. many times, miss vinson and many stalwart citizens in the bayview and along the 3rd street corridor talked about growing that corridor, solidifying that corridor and supporting good businesses and with the support of those good businesses, to attract other businesses who would make a commitment to a previously blighted neighborhood to enhance that neighborhood and stablize that neighborhood. and countless businesses have gone in there and failed.

pioneers get shot, unfortunately, sometimes. and now -- and i don't know how much money on the redevelopment agency that we approved for just this purpose, to support retail along 3rd street. and now, this statute -- and i understand the law, but this statute completely undermines at least seven years of my work and previously decades and decades of miss vinson's work and other great citizens who have done everything possible to stablize that neighborhood. is there a waiver process? is there a way to deviate from these statutes after -- after the city has spent lots of dollars to do exactly the opposite of the effect of what this is going to cause, which

is to pull the rug out of a great business, create a big hole in the block, and set that corridor back yet again? is there a waiver possibility? is there a possibility of a deviation? >> yeah. not under the current ordinance, there isn't a waiver possibility. >> perhaps, commissioner swig, the question may be not a waiver process, but there are quite a number of exceptions. like, now, the appellant's representative didn't bring forth any of this. i'm wondering if any of those could potentially apply. as an example, one exception deals with if the ownership of a -- of a store changed. i'm not sure whether it occurred here. it did mention that the parents

have retired, and that the kids now run it. is that an example? that is an exception in there. i don't know if those exceptions apply only to the existing location and are not applicable when -- when you move. >> yeah, that is -- that is correct, that is my understanding. if they -- what happened here was the appellant moved, so as i said, the existing permit at that point was -- was terminated at the -- at that location. the new location that they moved to then starts that process all over again. i have senior inspector jean young who's been doing this a long time. she went through this application thoroughly, and that's one of the things that she checks for are exceptions.

>> jean has been in front of us many times. >> what's that? >> she's been in front of us many times. >> yeah. >> i think it's the same legislation for the mcd's, correct, that they're permitted, can't be moved up or down, left, right, as well, but i believe that is even being considered and potentially changed, as well because it gave the landlords kind of an unfair advantage over that. >> and that could be. i don't know. >> go ahead. >> so there is an exception where if the previous location had asked them to leave so they could do seismic retrofitting, correct? >> right. >> okay. i'm just wondering if we can, at some point, get a little creative at that. >> we figure if it's a new building, it's going to be seismically retrofitted. >> well, what they indicated is

the currently landlord or property owner is converting it into a youth center. i don't know if that requires structural upgrade as part of its permit. >> what -- may i follow up? >> of course. >> you would need to see some documentation of that in order to grant the exception? >> yes. >> okay. and all you saw, i assume, was something that said that the former landlord was turning this into a -- what was it, youth center? >> is that a youth center? >> yeah. i think probably at this point, it would be best if i had jeanine young, senior inspector young come and speak to that. >> okay. >> good evening, please fung and commissioners. i'm jeanine young. i've been with the environmental health for 25 years working for the department and actually doing the retail tobacco program since 2010. so thank you for bringing up the exception.

so we did indicate to the applicant to provide us with proof from dbi that the former location was being seismically upgraded so that they could see -- have that seismic upgrade exception under, i think it's the building code chapter 34(b). so they did not -- we gave them a couple of weeks to provide that documentation from dbi. they did not provide it to us, so we had to move forward with evaluating based on the information that they gave us, and the information they gave us in the application was that the building was being converted by the property owner to a youth center, so it was a change of use permit, because dbi issued a seismic retrofitting notice. >> it sucks. our dbi guy left already, huh?

>> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> the old days, a change of use required a structural upgrade. >> i would imagine. >> okay. we' we're going to move onto public comment, if you would like to provide public comment, can you please lineup against the wall there, and if you had a chance to grab a speaker card. okay. great. >> and the first person come on up. >> clerk: and we're going to limit public comment to two minutes. >> because of the time. >> clerk: yeah, given the late hour and the number of people. thank you. >> yes. good evening. my name is bob gordon. i serve as cochair for the san francisco tobacco free coalition. we are a coalition made you be -- up of a number of coalition, including youth leadership institute, the african american tobacco control leadership council, and in sunnydale, samoan community

development center and many other youth, health, and neighborhood groups serving in the city. there is no shortage of tobacco retailers in our city. there are over 800, and as you just heard there are plenty in the bayview. just close to this store or very close. a little history. so we understand what -- how this came about, that youth leadership institute and their allies with the tobacco coalition sought to reduce the ubiquity of tobacco retailers. the yung people surveyed their families, they became experts on the harm that tobacco use has in people of color and our low income neighborhoods, such as the bayview, tenderloin, the western addition, the mission and chinatown. they then presented their findings to the board of supervisors. the youth learned, they came up with a tobacco density policy

to protect their fellow young people. we're so proud of these youth. they worked so hard to make the sustainable change for their san francisco communities. please do not grant the exemptions the tobacco density is law. it must be allowed to stand on its own to improve the health of the neighborhoods and communities most hard hit from the tobacco industry, its addictive and deadly products. thank you so much for your consideration. >> clerk: thank you. >> hello, commissioners. my name is doris vincent, and i echo what the gentleman said, but we're putting this market in an economic bind. if i'm a cigarette smoker, and

i'm coming in to save mor, and i can't get cigarettes, i'm going to go to one of the 57 others. save morloses my business. it's an economic thing that i'm fighting for here. if i had my way, nobody would be able to buy cigarettes, but this business needs to be able to not be side tracked because they can't do what the other 57 other businesses is doing. so i urge you to support this. i'm part of edot, economic development on 3rd street. we're trying to keep businesses. and we really should be giving them an award, rather than taking away from them because what they do in the neighborhood is more of a ministry than it is selling goods. if i needed something, i could

go to them right now, and they would help me as best they can, and that's what they've been in the neighborhood. we're not talking about cigarettes, we're talking about economic liability -- you know, stability. >> clerk: thank you. >> good evening. my name is craig, and "save mor mart" has been in my neighborhood -- i live right on the corner from "save mor mart." i don't want to say homeless, i want to say people down on their luck. they will help, do anything for people, families in need at "save mor mart," at "save mor mart." but i'm just trying to -- i'm

just trying to say that that neighborhood, i know it's a depressing part of town, but we love our neighborhood. the store is our outlet, far as if you need something, you know, like some people might even have been in there and seen people -- you know, we'll see you tomorrow. thank you. but my son, he's always been going to the store, 'cause like i said, i live right around the corner. but one night, friday, i told him to go to the store for me, but he said daddy, they don't have it. so he goes up on crusader. and the next thing i hear, my

mother told me that my son just got shot because "save mor mart," that would have saved my son's life, you know, if they would have just had the necessities like they supposed to have. 'cause it's a healthy store, and it's a caring store for the community. and this is the only bag i've got. it's from the medical examiner, but thank you. >> clerk: thank you, sir. >> my name is vanessa banks. i'm sorry. i'm clean vanessa banks. -- colleen vanessa banks. i changed my name and clean

forgot. you just heard the gentleman say he lost his son because he couldn't help him. i don't want to die on 3rd street, but they are the only safest store we have, so please help us get what they need because some of us don't go past kennedy's, and that's -- and that's on mckinnon. we need them to thrive so they can stay in the community with us. i've been in the community since 2001. i moved back from elk grove, california. they've been helping me ever since i moved back to my hometown. please help them so they can thrive and be taking care of they children and their families. we will help keep our area safe so we will have no more tragedies like what they had on

crusader. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm michael nunley. i just recently moved back from texas, and since i met the guys at "save mor mart," we've been like family, and i watch out for them, they watch out for me. and just -- when i found start

new process of items that are

at hand. the 19 h -- and i understand, but it seems as if when this legislation, excuse me, was created, it thought of the process of no one moving, ever. i mean, we're in san francisco. we know an earthquake can cause buildings to be demolished, so does that ruin a lifestyle of a family in a community because of these types of items happening? natural causes. so it's just -- i think the thought of what is in place should be maybe thought upon having some change brought. i mean, you're asking us to change and understand that change, but a lot of us don't. we're not political. we have our every day needs. they assist us with our every day needs, and we're hoping

that we could get app understanding that they are needed in our community. yes, cigarettes sell, and we understand -- i'm not a smoker. i have no design for cigarettes, but i know quite a few people who do, so it is a monetary thing that is being taken from the store to survive. >> clerk: okay. thank you. your time is up. next speaker, please. >> good evening, everyone. my name is leon walker. i've been in the community fore years, but i'll take my -- >> excuse me. you can put the microphone up if you want. adjust it. you're a big guy. >> i take my children to this store because i feel comfortable taking my children to the store. i've got a ten-year-old and a five-year-old. i'm a single parent, and it's been hard to raise two daughters on your own, but

these people right here that helped me with a job, gave me employment because it was hard for me to find a job. i'm a father filling out applications and trying to do well, and trying to survive out here, and it's hard. i mean, you living in a decrepe

into it. either. so now, he hayou have a block is essentially empty. and the store just moved into a couple of doors down, but you have the block empty basically on both sides, and the next block, at least five out of the seven buildings are empty or

storefronts that don't actually open. there's a problem, of course, with liquor and tobacco in the bayview, but it's no more than any other community, and i feel like especially with save more mart being the only store that's open past midnight, there is no option in the community other than save more mart, amore -- save more ma, it's the onl store that's save. i believe that you're really doing a disservice to the bayview community, and it is he he -- it's a little bit of bias in my sense of thought, but to not have this store would be a big disservice to the community that is already lacking safeways and any store at all in that community. there are no stores. that's what people also don't

realize. there are no stores in the bayview. there is no major supermarket, period. so lacking that, we wouldn't have those resources. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> honorable commissioners, thank you for having us. my name is miriam zouzounis. my family has a store not too far from here. we're members of the arab american grocers. i'd like to say 19 h, the amendments, in 2015, i talk to businesses every day that are trying to sell, and can't find prospects because their business has been devalued, one that they spent their entire life in. the transferability of that is what allows us to stay in this

community. this is going after a particular community, a demographic that is a part of the community, not juxtaposed to it. we have redundant policies that are going after this sector in particular, trying to ban this sector. supervisors aren't talking to each other. they've created a legislative quagmire. there's been a law made -- supervisor peskin, i think had to made a law, specific exception for the humidor to move to embarcadero, so i feel it's very classist that this is happening, but this exception isn't happening. these are community serving businesses. we pay redundant fee processes on these licenses that other stores, including formula retailers don't pay, our alcohol license, as well, and there has been no accountability or streamlining of these laws, many that are outdated, so yeah, i would just like to say that we need -- we need to look at streamlining

some of this stuff and looking at these vulnerable sectors of small businesses in the city. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is mary armstrong. i've known the joseph family for 40 years, and i'm going to read a letter from the merchants of butchertown associates and auntie april's waffles house. dear president fung and honorable members of the san francisco board of appeals. i wish to express our strongest possible support for the tobacco license at 4522 3rd street. safe more ma save more mart has been a vital support ent supporter of our community for decades. during their current transition from a corner store to a market with healthy food and financial

cushion with sales of the products that neighborhood folks have always gone to save more mart will be critical in their survival. business is tough, and our community wants to assist our most productive and contributing members with every advantage possible. if the new save morfails, we loose a lot more than the imageery that the joseph brothers bring. we will have one more boarded up storefront and much less traffic to support the other community businesses. city hall needs to listen to the members of the bayview community. please overturn the health board disapproval of this tobacco sales permit. thank you, april spears, and i ditto all of that. >> clerk: thank you.

>> as all of you supervisors know, that area needs a business. we are losing businesses. i saw many, many people try to sustain a business in that area. many of them have failed. this family has been there for 40 years. any certificate, any license should be given to them so they can continue to sustain their business. we need that business in the neighborhood. i'm not going to speak long, but i'm sincere about saying to each and every one of you, we need businesses in that neighborhood, so please give them their license or their certificate. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. no more public comment? so we will move onto rebuttal. we'll hear from the appellant first. you have three minutes.

>> jeremy paul for the appellant. if you haven't been to auntie april's, she makes the best fried chicken in san francisco. chicken and waffles changed my life. president fung, your point about the requirement for the seismic upgrade for the change of occupancy is correct. the applicant submitted an application, has not submitted any revisions. i don't know whether it's true that they don't intend to follow through with it, but the building department could not provide the verification that this was going to be required until the applicant supplied the engineering for the changes necessary for the change in occupancy. so that's why we did not ask -- we did not present anything showing that there was a seismic upgrade involved under

34(b). in terms of the statements of the department, department of public health and the situation with the the way 19 h is written, and the way 19 h.6 doesn't give us an exception that we can shoe horn this into and why we're here at the board of appeals asking for you to take your de novo powers on this and see that it's the right thing to do for the neighborhood. the department wants us to adhere to the letter of 19 h, they want us to adhere to the letter of the law, the letter of the ordinance. now the ordinance that provides a charter for the board of

appeals are equally important. i'm going to set here page four of the brief provided by the health department, and here, it says, this is their proof of service. it says, served by electronic mail. now, the charter of the board of appeals is very specific. needs to be served to every party by hand. i serve mine directly to the health department, but they didn't think that this was really an important enough rule that it mattered here. so they served me a document that said, look, we always have to follow the rules by not following the rules. so i'm asking the board of appeals to look at what's really needed here for this community. use the powers that the board of appeals has. use the boost it needs to feel secure and secure this neighborhood for another ho years. "save mor mart" needs the help, and they're struggling at their

new location with its products. we don't want to hear another story like mr. thomas about losing his son last week because he had to go four blocks away to buy a pack of cigarettes. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. you'll now hear from the department. >> i think it's obvious the number of people that stayed late tonight to testify as to the importance of this market in their community, that it goes without saying that it is an important element of that community. but as i said earlier, what the health department has is the san francisco health code that we're required to enforce. we don't have discretion in cases where markets or businesses are beloved by the

community, we have to follow the same law regardless of who it is. if this was a legal reason for granting a permit, i can assure you we would have done that as inspector young testified earlier, she spent time with the appellant going through it, and if there was some reason for issuing the permit, we would have already done that. where we're at, at this point, is that the department of public health, i can't break the law to meet a community need. i have to enforce the law as it is. to issue a permit in this case would require us to break our own code, and that's kind of where we're at this evening. >> question on either you or miss young, the 50 -- does 45

represent the density cap established in 2015. you are required to review that density cap every two years. what did 2017 show? >> so we work in conjunction with the -- another branch within the health department, and they have not submitted a report about the 2017 -- about the cap yet to my understanding. >> any idea when that report will be available? >> unfortunately, we will have to look into -- to answer your question, we would have to contact the -- the other branch. >> can i have a follow up question on that? follow up question to you, please -- or either of you. i don't care.

because of the inaction of the health department and the inaction not to follow your own statutes, we're talking about today the argument that you're proposing is that we're not following the law. i understand that. but you have a statute, you have a responsibility to file a report in consideration of a current community need, whether it be a health need or whatever, and you have not done that. does that not undermine the valui validity of the law? and it's just like when we sit here, and the z.a. gets mad at us because we say, you know, you blew it, man, you didn't get the report out. you didn't -- you erred in your review of this. well it seems to me that the health department by being

negligent in putting out this report, which would potentially update and validate the law has erred, there by undermined the law and rendered it invalid at this time, because how do we know in late 2017, you wouldn't have made this review and you wouldn't have expanded the cap, and we wouldn't even be here? i kind of think that the health department is in error in -- but because they undermine their own statute, and the law is no longer valid in this particular case. is that possible? >> so i do not know whether this report exists or not 'cause it's not out of environmental health. i would have to go and do some research to find out in the branch that probably the report would be responsible for this report. i would have to contact that branch, and then, we could be able to get back to this

commission. >> yes, but understand, here's the seriousness of this. i don't take those lightly because i spent, again, i see miss vinson back there. i feel that we've been to war together because -- because on the redevelopment agency, we went to war to save 3rd street. we went to war to save the bayview. we committed significant city funds to do exactly the opposite that would happen here if we allowed this store to close, and which would undermine health -- it would undermine the entire neighborhood and put at risk the entire health of the neighborhood and further perpetuate the zidisintegratio of that neighborhood and therefore -- you know the result. why did i spend seven years on the redevelopment agency.

you look behind the law, which is to protect the health. yeah, in this case, i don't believe that you're -- you're looking down the statute, but you're not keeping that statute up to date, and therefore, are irresponsibly, i'm not attacking you -- irresponsibly creating the opportunity, because the statute has not been maintained, to have a store close because that cap has changed, and the domino effect of that store closing is that the entire neighborhood suffers badly and there are health issues, which we're in conflict with the department of health. >> so commissioner, i will need to look into this matter for you and get back to you as soon as we can. i just don't have the answer for you tonight. >> also another issue which that's not the only provision of the ordinance that's applicable here. there were three different sets of circumstances that didn't fit. that's one of them. >> that is correct,

commissioner. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. so this matter is submitted, commissioners? >> well, if we find on the face of the law and break the law, then we break the law. if we -- the other -- as i just went on my harangue where i went. >> yeah. >> and there was a man who maybe kept his son alive because he didn't go into the other store, there's going to be someone in here next week, saying hey, how come i don't have a liquor license, too, and hey come i don't have a liquor license too? that's the risk. i'm aware of this. but at the same time, i'd do anything to save this store because i know the importance that this is the glue that is

keeping the very fragile infrastructure of 3rd street together, so i'd like to figure something out. >> i guess i'll go next. as a long-term resident of the city, i've been in bayview for probably 40 years. that's one of the few constants that's on bayview. there used to be two ticktocks on 3rd. there used to be a lot of stuff on bayview that's a constant. i always noticed i was there early in the morning, making deliveries, late in the evening, and funny thing, i delivered cigarettes. that was my job when i was 18, and so 3rd street was kind of rough in the morning, rough in the evening, but that -- that location was always clear. i commend the ownership -- i mean, we have a store in japantown that was a very successful store. that next generation didn't

want to run it. it was a successful store. the kids did not want to run it. the fact that this is a generational place, there's always room for exceptions. there is no absolutes, except that i'll meet my maker, eventually. i think that when you have something in the community that means so much -- i mean, these folks waited five, six hours. i mean, we're getting paid 75 bucks. i know why we're here. to me, i think there's room for something. this board, evidently has some feelings, and as they always say, board of appeals has wide and broadening powers, so i'm in support of anything that would -- would keep this family in the community, keep this business aflowed at here in th

bayview. >> i'm certainly open to suggestion because it's hardly my intent to close down a store, particularly one that's joined the healthy store coalition and is making that effort, but somebody's going to have to point it out to me because unfortunately the law is the law and as commissioner swig or somebody just said, you start making one exception, and the next thing you know, a store comes in that you'd rather see closed, and they're in the same situation and then we've set a precedent. >> also someone said earlier that the property that they moved out of needs a ton of work. that has to be the fact that there's structural reinforcement, which i believe is the only exception around. i mean, you know, other businesses have other outs. i mean, i knew of an ace hardware that was at a property for 28, 30 years. he lost his lease. he happened to have to move six blocks away. he'd been in business for 30 years, but because there's more than ten ace hardwares, he'd

have to go for formula retail. this man pretty much almost lost his livelihood, but for the fact ecoget a cu f-- he cot a permit for his formula retail. there's going to be the rule for some business -- this may be the one off where this store is such a fantastic thing, but there is no absolutes. there's got to be some exception here. so i mean, could we rule that the other building meet a structural engineer, and that structural reinforcement or whatever, and at which point, that's the reason why the license is being moved over? >> i'm going to look at my president 'cause he's -- he usually has an answer for everything. >> sometimes not a good answer, but