Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Tobacco Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds 45‑day suspension of AMPM Market tobacco permit

San Francisco Board of Appeals · August 11, 2010
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Appeals unanimously upheld a 45‑day suspension of AMPM Market's tobacco-sales permit after Department of Public Health presented evidence of a second sale to a minor decoy; owner argued employee error and financial hardship but commissioners found the penalty reasonable under the health code.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 11 upheld a 45‑day suspension of the tobacco-sales permit for AMPM Market at 5898 Mission Street after the Department of Public Health presented evidence that a clerk sold cigarettes to a minor decoy on Jan. 23, 2010.

DPH attorney John Cena Ojo told the board the sale was a second offense within 12 months for the owner’s store and cited San Francisco health code section 1009.66, which authorizes suspension for repeat violations. "45 days is a very reasonable amount of time for suspension as recommended by the director of public health," he said.

Owner Naifeh Azar and family representatives acknowledged the sale occurred but argued the clerk — identified at hearing as Samuel Arias — made an inadvertent error despite training, point‑of‑sale safeguards and posted signs. Azar said the penalty would cause financial hardship and threaten employees' jobs: "We have 14 employees, and it's a 24‑hour site. The restrictions will cause us more obligations that we're not able to handle." He disputed some details of the police interaction and described efforts to strengthen training.

Commissioners reviewed the record, noted that the earlier citation in 2009 resulted in a prior suspension (which went unchallenged), and said owner responsibility for employee conduct is a standard enforcement principle. On a motion from Commissioner Huang to uphold the department's decision, the board voted 4–0 to sustain the 45‑day suspension.

The board’s action means the market must serve the suspension period directed by DPH; the decision reflects the department’s view that licensees bear responsibility for agents acting on their behalf, particularly after prior citations.