Board upholds 25‑day suspension of Alibaba Smoke & Gift Shop permit for sale to minor
Loading...
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals upheld a 25‑day suspension of Alibaba Smoke & Gift Shop’s tobacco‑sales permit after hearing Department of Public Health evidence that a salesperson sold tobacco to an undercover decoy. Commissioners split on leniency for small‑business hardship but could not alter the disciplinary condition because the charter requires four votes to impose conditions on a departmental action.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on a 5–0 procedural vote left in place a 25‑day suspension that the Department of Public Health (DPH) imposed on Alibaba Smoke & Gift Shop for selling tobacco to an undercover minor decoy.
DPH Principal Inspector Andrew Jin told the board the San Francisco Police Department’s undercover operation on Dec. 20 found a clerk at the shop sold tobacco to a youth decoy; the department’s administrative hearing on Feb. 11 resulted in a 25‑day suspension for violating the city’s tobacco‑sales rules. Jin described the decoy procedures and showed a sample youth identification that, he said, clearly marks provisional/youth status with a blue strip.
Owner Reda Mafoor said the clerk involved was a trainee with limited English and that staff are instructed to check IDs; Mafoor said a 25‑day closure would impose severe economic hardship on him and his family and pleaded for leniency. Community health advocates and youth organizers, including speakers from the Youth Leadership Institute and the San Francisco Tobacco Free Coalition, urged the board to keep the suspension as a strong deterrent to protect minors.
Commissioners debated the district‑wide policy trade‑offs. Some members questioned the statistical claims DPH and youth groups cited (one commissioner asked for more robust sample‑size justification for a drop cited from 28 percent to 11 percent) and expressed sympathy for a first‑time small business owner facing a lengthy closure. Commissioner Garcia moved to uphold the suspension but reduce it to 15 days; the roll call on that motion was 3–2 in favor of the reduction. The board then declined to impose the 15‑day condition because the city charter requires four votes to place conditions on a departmental action, so the department’s original 25‑day suspension remained in effect.
The board also asked staff to follow up on several evidentiary questions raised in the hearing, including whether police incident reports identify decoys by any internal identifier and whether redacted copies of the actual decoy IDs could be provided to the board without compromising youth safety. The board indicated it would accept additional written clarifications from the department if needed.
The decision leaves in place DPH’s administrative penalty. Parties interested in administrative appeals or further action were told to consult the department’s rules and the board’s office for next steps.
