Board upholds revocation of massage‑parlor permit after repeated health violations and SFPD investigation

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted unanimously on Aug. 21, 2013, to deny an appeal by Nancy Lowe, proprietor of a massage establishment at 311 Twelfth Avenue, and to uphold the Department of Public Health’s revocation of her business permit.

Department of Public Health Inspector Ed Walsh detailed a multi‑year pattern of repeated sanitation violations and noncompliance. Walsh told commissioners the establishment, permitted in February 2007, had been the subject of multiple inspections and repeated re‑inspections in 2013; he said he had returned to abate violations more than a dozen times and that the owner reopened the premises without approval after a suspension. Walsh showed photographs of cracked massage tables, stained shower grout and a cramped hot‑water‑heater room full of personal items and debris, and told the board that efforts to obtain sustained compliance had repeatedly failed.

Virginia Elizondo, representing DPH, said the department had attempted to work with Lowe but ultimately concluded that she was incapable of maintaining the premises in a sanitary and safe condition. "We've made every effort we can to get you in compliance," Walsh said in testimony recounted by Elizondo; "we came to a point where we can't work with her anymore," she told the board.

Brian Piegler of the San Francisco Police Department’s Special Victims Unit summarized a parallel multi‑agency criminal investigation that included physical and electronic surveillance, two search warrants (311 Twelfth Avenue and the owner’s residence) and the rescue of a victim who later cooperated with investigators. Piegler said the investigation produced evidence of activities inconsistent with lawful massage‑parlor operations and that the facility had been observed staying open into the early morning hours. He added that the investigation was ongoing and that no criminal charges had been filed at the time of the hearing.

Appellant counsel Fred Baker argued for leniency and asked the board to impose a suspension rather than permanent revocation, saying the owner had attempted to comply in the past and that no arrests had yet been made. Commissioners, after reviewing the DPH timeline of enforcement and the officer’s account of the investigation, concluded that repeated noncompliance and reopening after a suspension justified revocation. The Board’s decision was to deny the appeal and uphold the revocation by a 5–0 vote.

The Board’s action affirms DPH’s authority to revoke permits where public‑health hazards and repeated failures to comply are documented, and it leaves open the possibility of reapplying for a permit only after the owner demonstrates compliance and suitability to operate.