Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board trims 7‑Eleven permit suspension to 15 days after appeal over decoy procedure
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals reduced a 25‑day suspension of a 7‑Eleven tobacco sales permit to 15 days on the basis that it was the appellant’s first offense, after debate over whether the city used an out‑of‑guideline 17‑year‑old decoy in the enforcement sting.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 8 voted to reduce a 25‑day suspension of a tobacco sales permit for a 7‑Eleven at 43 Drum Street to 15 days, after hearing a challenge from the permit holder and arguing parties about the procedures used in the enforcement sting.
Appellant Monesh Joosan, doing business as 7‑Eleven, through counsel Julia Jane argued the enforcement operation used a 17‑year‑old decoy in apparent conflict with the Business and Professions Code guideline that decoys be 15 or 16. Jane told the board the use of a 17‑year‑old decoy raised a legal preemption question under Penal Code section 308 and said the owner had invested in signage, employee training and an electronic register that prompts ID checks, arguing a suspension of the franchise’s permit would be disproportionate.
Deputy City Attorney Sherry Kaiser and Department of Public Health staff said the city proceeded under Penal Code section 308 and Health Code section 109.61, and that the permit‑holder is administratively responsible for sales to minors whether the sale is by an owner or an employee. Kaiser said DPH’s approach focuses on the act of the sale and the public‑health standard reflected in the noise and tobacco‑control enforcement scheme.
Owner testimony emphasized financial harm: the permit holder told the board that “40% of my total sales come from tobacco product” and that a 25‑day suspension could cause losses exceeding $40,000 and threaten the business. Counsel asked the board to impose a lesser sanction or a fine instead of the full suspension.
Commissioners discussed patterns in enforcement and noted that many underage‑sales cases arise from employee actions. Commissioner Frank Fung moved to reduce the suspension from 25 days to 15 days on the basis that the appellant’s business had no prior offense. The board voted 4–0 to adopt the reduction. The reduced suspension stands as the formal outcome of the board’s action.
The board’s written order will reflect the reduction; any further legal arguments about decoy age or preemption would need to be pursued in subsequent proceedings or judicial review.
