thank you. >> dr. ocho, you also have a rebuttal? nonen? then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i'm going to start. for the record, i am a bernel heights resident and have gone into the store. i would -- i could vouch for the fact i didn't know they sold cigarettes either. and i've gone in the store maybe twice to buy things other than cigarettes. but i think, and i have the same question that my co-commissioner peterson had about the odd look and shape of the new card and why it wouldn't cause someone to pause. and normally i'm very inclined to impose the department's recommendation on a suspension, but under these circumstances, i think many of the facts that compel me to think the situation is unique in that the child, or the decoy was associating with children -- i mean not children, but young adults, and the distractions and the effort that i believe the appellant made in trying to do that while running the store , to do the calculation of math, i can see that under these particular circumstan

thank you. >> dr. ocho, this is the first time i've heard of the employee actually going to some type of a hearing. >> the hearing he's referring to is the citation the department just went to the hall of justice for the hearing for the citation because he's required that they appear. >> so every employee that has been on every case here also attends a hearing in addition to the owner of the store? >> yes, commission. >> and that is separate from the issue of the permit holder. >> i have another question on the subject that president goh raised on the enforcement efforts. does the department or would it be local police station that would issue a letter of hey, we tried to nail you and you passed, i mean, the type of letter that concombrats -- that congratulations a merchant for not having -- >> i've never heard of that except if he's referring to his food permit. do you sell food? ok. we do have a certification that we issue to restaurants and grocery stores that sell food, not really a grocery store with f

commissioner hwang: dr. ocho, does the fact, whether it is true or not, that the individual who sold cigarettes to a minor was an employee, is that of any relevance to the department of determining culpability? >> not at all. commissioner hwang: thank you. vice president garcia: occasionally, i think the public tries to ascertain if there were mitigating circumstances. if it would be well known to the department that the story presented was accurate, would that have influenced dph? >> say that again? vice president garcia: i am sure at times dph takes into consideration mitigating factors, and it was well known but this gentleman did not work there and the story presented by the other was absolutely factual, that might have mitigated the that was imposed, correct? >> i am not too sure if the department, at if the director considered that during the course of the hearing. there are other factors that would normally consider to reduce the penalty that would have been levied on the appellant. whether or not the pers

thank you. >> dr. ocho, you also have a rebuttal? nonen? then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i'm going to start. for the record, i am a bernel heights resident and have gone into the store.

. >> dr. ocho? >> commissioners, good evening. representing the san francisco health department. there's no doubt that the appellant did sell cigarettes to a minor. i was looking at her briefs. the argument that she presented in her writeups saying that she does not display any cigarette, no signs and no ads, and i'm afraid how -- her customers are able to know that she's selling tobacco, to claim that 30% of her sales are from tobacco is very difficult for d.p.h. to believe. it is true that section 1009.66 of the health code allows the department to suspend the permit for up to 90 days for the first offense. we only suspended it for 25 days. i think the department has been very generous. it is the appellant's responsibility to make sure that she checks the i.d.'s properly before the sell. apparently the minor looked her age at the time she went to the store. whether or not the appellant is distracted is not something the d.p.h. wants to ascertain. so i think the 25-day suspension is reasonable. the department will respectfully ask the board deny the appellant and uphold the 25-d