Board of Appeals upholds 60‑day suspension of Paradise Health Center’s permit

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 8 denied an appeal by John Yizhou d/b/a Paradise Health Center and upheld a 60‑day suspension of the business’s massage‑establishment permit imposed by the Department of Public Health (DPH).

DPH presented a photograph taken during a May 10, 2016 inspection and a sworn police incident report by Sergeant Randy Lai that, according to DPH, showed a practitioner and a client in improper attire and in an apparent lewd position. DPH counsel Anne Pearson told commissioners that the city health code makes ‘‘massage establishments shall be responsible for the conduct of all individuals providing massage for compensation on their business premises and shall ensure that such individuals do not wear improper attire or engage in lewd conduct,’’ and described that provision as a strict‑liability standard under which the department sought the 60‑day suspension.

Appellant counsel Paul Horcher and Christopher Hall argued the owner and manager acted with due diligence: Horcher said the practitioner had been certified by the California Massage Therapy Council and had no prior suspensions, and he disputed that the owner ‘‘should have known’’ the conduct would occur. Horcher also criticized public testimony that referenced ethnicity, calling the remarks ‘‘offensive’’ and urging the board not to punish an owner who ‘‘did not know’’ the practitioner would engage in misconduct.

Neighbors and representatives of Peter’s Place Nursery School testified that the establishment’s online advertising and on‑site practices posed public‑safety and neighborhood concerns. Erica Dierksy, a board member at Peter’s Place, urged the board to ‘‘revoke Paradise Health Center’s massage business permit due to the finding of illicit lewd activities at its premises.’’ Other speakers said they had seen staff answer doors in lingerie and that the business was blacked out and operated in ways that worried childcare providers.

DPH program manager Patrick Fosdahl told the board the department conducts roughly one to two inspections per year for an establishment permitted in 2012 and said the penalty sought is consistent with the code and the department’s practice after 2015 amendments. DPH also noted a prior improper‑attire citation for the establishment that did not carry a permit penalty at the time.

Following discussion about statutory text and prior enforcement, Commissioner Rick Swig moved to deny the appeal and uphold the suspension. The board’s roll‑call vote recorded the motion carried; the suspension was upheld.

The decision leaves in place the 60‑day suspension imposed by DPH; DPH representatives indicated the penalty sought was based on code provisions and prior enforcement guidance. The board did not order revocation of the permit.