Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Massage Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals overturns DPH denial, orders permit for Pressure Point Massage
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals granted Jack Strong’s appeal and ordered issuance of a massage-establishment permit, finding key factual bases for the Department of Public Health’s denial were not proved in the hearing. The board voted 5-0 after hearing testimony from the appellant, DPH counsel and investigators.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5-0 on Aug. 16, 2017, to grant the appeal by Jack Strong, doing business as Pressure Point Massage, and to issue the massage-establishment permit that the Department of Public Health had denied.
The board’s decision followed testimony from the appellant, DPH counsel and DPH investigators about a 2015 application, inspection procedures and alleged health-code violations. Jack Strong told the board his business submitted a complete application in 2015 and that DPH failed to notify the business in a timely way; he said inspectors had entered aggressively and, regarding an allegation of lewd conduct, that “there’s no video evidence. There’s no photographic evidence.”
Deputy City Attorney David Rees, representing DPH, argued the department could not issue a permit because the applicant had not provided a file-complete application the department could approve and because inspections had revealed multiple health-code violations. Rees cited Health Code Section 2,929 and said issuing a permit would “violate that section” if the Department could not be satisfied the establishment would comply with applicable laws.
DPH investigator Jorge Montel described prior complaints, undercover and decoy procedures and an on-site inspection. Montel testified investigators identify themselves on entry, said staff use a language line when needed and described counseling and referral steps DPH takes when they suspect coercion.
Commissioners pressed DPH on the timeline for the department’s contact with the applicant and on what documentary evidence supported unsanitary-condition allegations. Appellant counsel produced receipts and records to challenge the department’s chronology. A public commenter who identified himself as a longtime customer said the inspection entry was abrupt and contested the lewd-conduct finding.
After questioning and rebuttals, board members stated they were unpersuaded by the two findings (a locked door and lewd behavior) that formed the basis for the denial. Vice President Frank Fung moved to grant the appeal on that basis; the motion carried 5-0. The board directed staff to issue the permit consistent with that decision.
Next steps: the Board’s order directs issuance of the permit; any further enforcement or compliance checks remain with the Department of Public Health.
