Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board pauses enforcement votes in two tobacco‑sales suspension appeals; hearings continued
Summary
The Board of Appeals heard appeals from storeowners after DPH imposed 25‑day suspensions for sales to underage decoys. The department urged upholding 25‑day suspensions (statutory maximum for first offenses is 90 days) while owners argued economic hardship; commissioners ordered continuances so absent members can vote and to allow final deliberation.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals considered two separate appeals from Department of Public Health suspension orders that each imposed 25‑day suspensions of tobacco‑sales permits after undercover decoy buys.
In the case of Quickstop Market (1072 Market St.), a DPH representative summarized that a minor decoy purchased cigarettes on Oct. 14, 2009, the clerk did not request identification and a citation was issued. Johnson Ojo, representing DPH, said the health code, section 1009.66, allows up to 90 days for a first offense and that the department considered a 25‑day suspension reasonable in light of the circumstances. The proprietor, Salem Kalei, said his clerk was fired and that cigarette sales make up a large share of his revenue; he argued 25 days would impose severe hardship. Commissioners discussed revenue estimates, the department’s observational methods for estimating sales composition, and the use of graduated penalties; one commissioner urged a lower penalty for small, first‑time operators.
Because overturning a DPH director’s action requires four affirmative board votes, commissioners opted to continue Quickstop Market to July 14 to permit the absent president to participate; the suspension stayed pending the final decision.
A similar pattern occurred in the Martell’s Liquor appeal (5615 Gary Blvd.). DPH described the decoy operation and the department’s decision to suspend for 25 days; store representatives and the clerk described circumstances (busy hours, a potentially hard‑to‑read ID, and the clerk’s vision concerns). After closed‑session review of the decoy ID as permitted under the board’s rules, commissioners again debated proportionality and ultimately continued the matter to July 14 so the full panel can decide. In both matters the board emphasized that the code authorizes much longer suspensions but that boards typically weigh mitigating factors and business hardship when exercising discretion.
