Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Revocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds revocation of Lee's Oriental Massage permit amid screening and latches disputes
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals upheld the Department of Public Health's revocation of the massage-establishment permit for Lee's Oriental Massage, rejecting arguments about internal City Attorney communications and delay. The vote to uphold revocation was 4-0 after Commissioner Knox recused himself for this item.
President Frank Fung and the San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 20 upheld the Department of Public Health's revocation of the permit for Lee's Oriental Massage at 1284 Mission Street, concluding the record supports permit withdrawal.
The board heard extensive argument over two procedural fronts before addressing the merits: appellant counsel pressed that a declaration filed late and other communications within the City Attorney's Office rendered the process unfair, arguing the "screen" between prosecuting and advisory teams was ineffective and that delay in bringing older incidents (19992001) prejudiced the defense (a latches argument). Deputy City Attorney Cecilia Mangoba told the board the office's declarations and screening memorandum show there was no disqualifying communication and that the Board reviews the record de novo.
On the merits, the Department summarized multiple investigative findings and undercover solicitation incidents, and cited Health Code and Penal Code provisions as bases for revocation. The Department's presentation highlighted repeated instances in which unlicensed practitioners were found and structural alterations (false walls and hiding places) the city said indicated owner knowledge. The City introduced live investigator testimony summarizing searches for witnesses and identifying additional contact information that appellant investigators had not pursued.
Appellant counsel asked the board either to exclude the investigator's late testimony or to continue the hearing so defense investigators could review it; he also urged the board to discount older incidents as prejudicial. Commissioners pressed both sides on case law about screening for government attorneys and on what evidence the hearing officer had relied on below.
After deliberation, and with Commissioner Knox recused for the item, the board voted 4-0 to uphold the Department of Public Health's revocation. The board's decision reflects the commission's view that the declarations and record demonstrate adequate screening within the City Attorney's Office and that the evidentiary record (including more recent incidents) supports revocation.
The action taken is a final decision of the Board of Appeals; parties retain the right to seek further review as permitted by law.
