Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Porterville council revokes three massage parlor business licenses after police prostitution investigations
Summary
The City Council revoked three business licenses for massage establishments after February 14 police investigations resulted in arrests and showed operators or onsite workers lacked required California Massage Therapy Council certifications; each revocation passed by a 5-0 vote.
The Porterville City Council voted to revoke business licenses for three massage businesses after staff presented findings from police investigations. Finance Director Rodriguez told the council that “on February 14, 2026, an investigation conducted by the Porterville Police Department … resulted in the arrest of an individual for prostitution,” and that investigators determined the arrested individuals either lacked active California Massage Therapy Council certification or were operating without a city business license.
The revocations involved Rose Massage (188 W. Olive Ave.), Star Massage (1365 W. Olive Ave., Suite F) and Diamond Massage Spa (1531 W. Olive Ave., Suite A). City staff said records showed no city business license was issued for the worker(s) arrested at Rose and Star; at Diamond Massage Spa the arrested individual did hold a state certificate but city records again showed no local business registration. Council members repeatedly framed the items as a public-health and licensing enforcement action.
Council discussion emphasized enforcement of existing local registration and inspection steps. Vice Mayor McCurvy asked whether staff could tighten permitting and screening to prevent repeat incidents at the same locations. The city manager and attorney noted the municipal code provides a registration process, periodic inspection authority and a prohibition that can block re‑opening at a location following serious violations; council directed staff to apply those tools.
Each revocation was moved, seconded and approved by a 5-0 vote. The council record shows the motions passed unanimously for the three items; staff noted revocation can include a prohibition period to limit immediate re‑use of the same premises for the same business type.
Council members said the action was intended to protect public safety and to send a message that unlicensed or illegal conduct will be addressed through licensing revocation and the statutory authorities available to the city. The council did not adjudicate criminal guilt; the revocations were based on the administrative evidence presented in the hearings and the licensing code cited by staff.
What happens next: revoked locations are restricted from operating in the same manner while the city’s administrative restrictions and any state-license consequences run their course; affected parties have the right to appeal per municipal code processes outlined by staff.
