Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tobacco Enforcement Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board modifies or upholds multiple tobacco‑sale suspensions; penalties range from 15 to 45 days
Summary
The Board of Appeals reviewed four appeals of Department of Public Health suspensions for selling tobacco to minors. One 45‑day suspension was upheld; three other suspensions were reduced (two to 20 days, one to 15 days). All actions included unanimous roll‑call votes where recorded.
At its Feb. 16 meeting, the San Francisco Board of Appeals heard four appeals of suspensions imposed by the Department of Public Health (DPH) for selling tobacco to minors and issued mixed outcomes.
Pearl Market (1201 Divisadero) — Appeal denied, 45‑day suspension upheld: Appellant Makana Askandafi acknowledged a recent sale the board found to be the second citation following 02/19/2008. DPH inspectors and Dr. Johnson Ojo testified the record supported upholding a 45‑day suspension. The board voted to deny the appeal and uphold the 45‑day suspension (roll call 4–0).
Variety Convenience (1546 Market) — Suspension reduced to 15 days: Pei Xia Fang acknowledged failing to check ID; DPH corrected a typographical error in its paperwork. Commissioners noted prior precedent and reduced the 25‑day suspension to 15 days, voting 4–0 to modify the suspension.
House of Cigarettes (912 Geneva) — Suspension reduced to 20 days: Counsel for Abdelkhalim Fadi argued economic hardship and first‑offender status; DPH cited San Francisco Health Code provisions authorizing up to 90 days. Commissioners discussed the decoy photo and precedent; the board voted 4–0 to grant the appeal in part and modify the suspension from 25 to 20 days.
JAKS Market (471 Third Street) — Suspension reduced to 20 days: Appellant Christie Mohammed acknowledged the sale and requested review of the decoy photo. DPH said 25 days was reasonable but agreed to accept a 20‑day modification; the board voted 4–0 to reduce the penalty to 20 days.
Why it matters: The decisions show the board balancing enforcement consistency and individual circumstances — including prior violations, whether an ID was checked, photo evidence of the decoy, and economic impact on small retailers. The board treated a case with a prior citation more severely than first‑offender cases and cited internal precedent when reducing penalties.
The board took closed session(s) in at least one matter to review decoy identification photos; where closed sessions occurred, the board voted not to disclose the contents.
