Please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other Electronic Devices are prohibited. Out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to the clerk. Speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. The board welcomes your comments. There are Customer Satisfaction forms available. If you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. Dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. Thank you for your attention. Well conduct our swearing in process. Thank you for your attention. Well conduct our swearing in process. If you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i raise your hand say i do after youve been sworn in please stand do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Thank you item general Public Comment this is an opportunity to address the jurisdiction but not on tonight calendars any general Public Comment seeing none, item 2 is commission comments and questions. Nothing commissioners no. Like to mention and acknowledge my wonderful female comrades National Womens day thank you any Public Comment on item 2 okay. Seeing none then call item 3 the dodgers and unless easing to those minutes may i have a motion the last line needs to be corrected. Oh, are you sure i wasnt there. I was here in spirit would i. With that correction move to adopt. Any Public Comment on item is minutes. Seeing none, we have a motion from the Vice President to adopt the minutes as corrected on that motions commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig thank you that item passes move on to item number 4, which is a you rehearing request. Subject property at 37513753 20th street. Appellants are requesting a rehearing for raisner versus dbi decided in 2017 the board voted to one something with an a little bit that the comply with the codes and provide a Monitoring System at no cost to the joining neighbors and any fencing no higher than the window sidelines that the project so code compliant and it is a new 3 story rear new living level and below grade garage and have aluminum windows and woolths windows with sashes were indicated new living room and bedroom and bath and please note after the public hearings of this request on february 2015 the board and commissioner lazarus and commissioner wilson absent to allow the missing Board Members to participate at the time of the last hearing commissioner Vice President fung moved to grant the request with no new evidences it failed with commissioner swig dissenting and commissioner wilson and commissioner president honda was missing so they continued the matters before you if i can have the two commissioners so say theyve viewed the materials and video. So commissioners unless additional questions or other information you want from the parties we can return to deliberation and see if there is a motion to be had but any questions for the parties this is the time to ask. So we can entertain another motion than for further deliberations. You want to ask allow them any discussion at all . I mean everyone has read the briefs prior we should go into the deliberations. I had brought forth that i felt there was new information therefore i asked we consider granting the rehearsing the issue was recommended to the measurement of height that was being challenged and therefore i felt that we should grant the rehearing request. You guess my question not was that raised at the first hearing. Why does it come under information. I guess in my opinion was that that wasnt quite clear and therefore i thought that we should allow a full discussion on that particular item. I think as as you recall commissioner the project sponsor didnt have plans present at the time of the original hearing although that was discussed lighting i honestly we didnt delve into it and the rehearing request. Was based on that. And i felt that it was under fully discuss and accurately i mean and the project was discussed thats basically the reason for todays. I think i summarized it the position yeah. Ill make a motion im going to move to grant the rehearing request. On the basis that new information has been provided. Do you want to wait and see if the motion passes before a new date to grant the request on new information commissioner lazarus marry no commissioner president honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig no, that motion does fail bargain any other motion well move on to the next motion the request is denied we default and move to item 5 tian yi ahao dba Paradise Health center vs. The department of Public Health at 242 balboa street. The subject property at 37513753 20th street appealing a 60 day suspension of a massage establishment permit so well start with the appellant. 7 minutes to present your case good evening and welcome. Good afternoon Christopher Hall and paul the two of us are appearing on behalf of the paradis Health Center on 242 balboa street in San Francisco im sure all Board Members have read the brief by the appellant nicole and what id like to briefly directing your attention to the timeline the timeline nicole is the following on may 10, 2016, before 9 oclock in the evening at the massage establishment there was a male customer that came into the front door and he walked down a hallway and met with the manager teresa the clean up lady 9 oclock and he asked for an hour massage the manager told him we cant that long we close the doors other 9 30 she told him thank you want a massage it is thirty minutes he said okay she quoted him 50 he endeavor 50 and took the customer to room number one, and took the customer inside and told him wait your your massage sole practitioner at this point teresa the manager left the room went back to the front desk she was working and logged in the money put the time down on the log sheet within three or four minutes later the police entered the establishment the sole practitioner sobered room one and closed the door that it was the police calm with the department of Health Inspectors and went to room number one, opened the door and they found the male customer naked and they found the female sole practitioner gao naked the police interviewed both of them the male customer told the police randy lee that neither he nor her engaged in any Sexual Activity was interviewed by the attorneys be nicole and he is specifically said he overcame himself and disrobed to the female sole practitioner i bring up this timeline ways the police had entered one maybe 3 minutes of the customer going into room number one, and the question is what could the management have done at this point should they have known what was going on behind closed doors the young lady had been working for the establishment for 6 months and was serviced by the state of california with a massage california therapy counsel since the permit in the 4 plus years never had an arrest incision or never had her cpmc permit suspended the management the owner of the establishment her back in january or december 2015 and went on her reputation as a legitimate licensed massages without a criminal record and the practitioner had worked theyre up until the time of the incident without problems i ask each of the Board Members because the aspire seems to have a car sharing case like this under the code section 2933 of the Apartment Health code it puts a duty that on the owner and when i say duty no one should have known about the improper activity within the male consumer in room number one, with the sole practitioner that is laid auto what could the management teresa who was there acting as the midnight or the evening manager can e what could she have dunk short of opening the door and watching the two of them engaging in a massage she took the customer to the room the door as shut teresa logged in the money and within 3 minutes the police automate with the Public Health department to do their inspection i submit with Due Diligence the owner hired a certified practitioner with an unblemished record so, i say what could the young lady and manager done to known and realized that that Something Like that improper activities improper attire they were interviewed by the police and the two of them told the police not engaged in any type of Sexual Activity but the male customer disrobed this young lady youre here to make a decision whether you wouldnt days is warranted the matter was hardly never inquired about the issue of Due Diligence should the management have known what was going to happen in that room ahead of time and that was never discuses it was never decided upon by the hearing officer he made the discussion a blanket decision because two adults and that they were improperly dressed therefore the owner should have common or known what was going on were asking you to make a fair adequately decision and not impose the 60 days suspension that never had the license permit every suspended in the past since opened in the last 4 years . The first time theyve had an incident of this nature thank you. Counselor i have a question counselor. Yes. So the timeline that you given us is three to four minutes and a disrobing of the comply and the sole practitioner. I say two to three minutes from the time that the male customer came into the establishment and entered at 9 oclock in you look at the exhibit it is 905 the police entered. According to what was turned in as the statement says the inspector kim accompanied on inspection by randy selfconfident San FranciscoPolice Department according to the incident report upon entering we saw the maurj stranding a customer in an apparent sex act. In an parent so straddling someone separately are two Different Things in my opinion. She was not charged with engaging in any type of Sexual Activity and thats what we he surmised in you look at the photograph it didnt show that activity occurring she searched im sure the Due Diligence officers at the time they searched the room for any condoms and light bulb canned that was absent in the case thank you counselor thank you. You any other questions. No. Good evening, commissioners this is one of the cases i know that a picture speaks about one thousand words the picture is attached to exhibit a to the inspectors im not going to put it on the picture it was shown at the public at large but ask i what occurred in the paradis in 2016 and depicts a maurj and client entirely in the indoor if this picture werent enough it is but have the Police Incident are right that was sworn in the penalty of perjury by sergeant lee the inspection and walked into the room immediately before that photo was taken according to his report he found them indoor with the sole practitioner engaging in a sexual act and from the photo and the Police Report were not enough some of the neighbors from the community have submitted letters of concern they represent people from a preschool that is on the same block and expressed genuine concern about the neighborhood and the children they serve and is women that work there their letters attest that the door remains locked except for the men that get therapy they share with you, you photos screen shots of website for the paradis is that a i look at this morning this is the excludes u includes lawn beautiful sexy aimg women to pla flu you with table showers and other things stloursz simply no question that the violations with the health code it was clearing a violation of law that prohibit people from improper attire no attire is improper attire and clearly evidence there was a lewd act that occurred based on the photograph evidence and the scorn testimony of sergeant lee ill remind you not hearsay so in contrast of the oh, my godly evidence to impose the 60 day suspension and one remark that the notion that the noosht moosht the owner is absolutely responsible for the conduction of sole practitioners and read from the code the massage establishment shall be responsible for the conduct of individual for compensation on their Business Premises and shall insure they dont wear exposure attire it is a strict liability theyre responsible for making sure that happens in training whether through screening whatever it takes theyre absolutely responsible and it didnt xoornt how much time between the time they walked into the massage room and the inspectors no excuse for this in one of the establishments thank you i have a question. Yeah. So in the past how many times has this establishment been inspected. I dont know in total. How often does your dph make those inspections. I cant speak to that there be inspectors i previously found improper attire but inspections. Maybe after one question look that up or call someone on the staff et seq. Question what is the standard for dph so for this type of violation anyone else out of massage place that you inspector that have violation whats the general practice Felt Department far as discipline. Well the department follows the procedures that are set out in the health code which require the notice of violation and sets forth the personality that are appropriate under the circumstances and 60 days is thats not the question. Im sorry, i miss united on the first violation is it standard for dph to ask for this type of penalty. This is the penalty that so forth for the first time violation under the act. So thats the stated standard a i can ask the department this is the code i can confirm with them. Thank you. Can you read us that that section on the penalty. Sure. I didnt see the specific visitation on the code theyre in 2945 generally, the department has the authority to suspect or revoke permits they think that appropriate section 2945 is the penalties for violations that are guidelines and their violations that issued here for penalty for two violations for the improper attire and for the lewd act so improper attire is 2945 a8 and for a permit penalty for the finance instance this is have not the first instance in the declaration repeat violations have a 60 days permit suspension per person the massage permit are so for repeat it is a 60 day violations for a lewd act that is 29. 45 a12 the first violation 68 suspension for a massage establishment permit. You consider this a repeat act that the owner is not necessarily the same my understanding this is the first violation of a lewd act provision. Im talking about the clothing. Yes. This is a repeat act. Yes. The names of the owners were a little bit different okay. I will point out the only 60 days have been so you get thats the penalty if we were only seeking a penalty. In my question is the owner is the same. I dont know if the ownership has changed any other questions. Sure let me make it clear for myself so im understanding that as a big in the food and beverage in if a banter services a minor no discussion i lose my license if you put it out there you lose our license is this somewhat of that motion. It is. Any other questions. Thank you you will look up that information. I will well take Public Comment first now before we rebuttal any Public Comment on this item . Please step forward. My name is a eric can a member of the board of directors on balboa park street addressed a parent of children attending the school i ask you to revoke this permit due to the finding of lewd activity at the premises im alarmed by paradise ervin darment advertised a ifp tolerant theyve done this in close prompt i didnt including the nurse school and athletic practice and a childrens scientific Education Program in the nearby block their disregard for the business permit is cause for serious concern about ability it may have to provide legal Massage Services that is well known theyre associated with increased risk for Human Trafficking for minors and dulls San Francisco is already one of 5 with the great number of Human Trafficking paradise engagement in loyalty lewd activity is not welcome i urge the board of appeals to revoke the massage establishment permit. Any other Public Comment please step forward. Other people that plan to speak if you can step forward and speak that would be helpful. I lived in the neighborhood for the past 13 years and what id like to say that despite the fact this is stated and a one time situation where someone was unrobed i have personally been in the neighborhood with the establishment across the street ive seen men come to the door and a female massage therapist answer the door to luingerie this is something that the neighborhood is very aware of im sorry this is not better port here today and think that what id like to say if you saw that establishment it 3w4r5kd out the donor is intended black a huge Security Camera and a doorbell if i understand recently an article written about a massage parlor