i was sympathetic until i thought about all of the offenses, and i think something that turns the light on for me again and the argument that was made is that a lot of these establishments are in the area, open from 10:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m., and i love a good massage. i have a mashad share -- massage chair at my home, but 12:00 p.m. suggests to me that there is other stuff going on, and in his particular matter, you do not even have to guess, given the massage practitioner is without permits, the rooms, the prostitution that has already been found to have taken place,

i would respectfully request that the board really focus in on the offenses. the fact that they support relocation in this case, the appellant has made noise -- they claim that they have been clean for the past 16 months, and i must volunteer to the board that on july 29, the department of public health got a complaint from a customer who was solicited, so this is a situation where, this is not a case where -- i am not sure we have the resources to get a solicitation case every six months. i am not sure that is the best use of resources, but i cannot

let it slide that if you want to go to what their conduct was like the past 16 months, then the department can share with you the fact that on july 29, we got a complaint from a customer who went in for a massage and got solicited, so i do not necessarily think that the appropriate place for the board to go, i really think the board should focus in on what the -- there was ample to support the relocation. when you look at the nature of the violation in this case. president peterson wro: do you remember the time of that complaint? >> i do not have the specific time. i have been told it was in the evening. >> is that hearing considered --

president -- commissioner fung: is that considered to be judicial prince >> no. -- judicial? >> no. it was transcribe from a tape, and it is my understanding that the buttons were not pushed. it is kind of murky, at best. >> -- commissioner fung: because the hearing officer is an md, correct? >> yes, and the is a professor. i believe overqualified.

commissioner fung: not in the legal field. >> corrects. -- correct. commissioner garcia: there were is hidden behind the mirror. >> commissioners, on behalf of dph. i want to let the board know that i have been privileged to be the chair of the task force, and i want to state that i have been to this establishment. it makes this establishment a public nuisance. there is a hidden door, a

hideaway door. it was about 18 and 36 inches, and they hired these women and it is unforgivable for this treatment. some of those rooms do not meet any code. i wish i had a picture. the height itself was less than 4 feet where you have some of these mattresses, so a lot of the rooms were illegal, and this task force consists of many different organizations, and we

documented all of this. .there you go. the zoning administrator. commissioner garcia: why is that unfortunate? >> this is the ceiling of the room. they keep. -- thank you.

the department has bent over backwards to change the mode of operations. we bent over backwards. i also want to say that the should not be allowed to operate in san francisco, and this is why the department has considered all of this that we have gathered over the years, the evidence, to make the recommendation that we made. and i think that the department should be for having ample business. one last thing i'm going to say,

there has not been any violation there in the past months. that is not true. the fact is we try to stay away from their and there are the hearings that we had over a long period of time. this is why i ordered my inspectors. commissioner garcia: i think they still had time, but i think what he is saying are things that bothered me, and this is

sort of pertinent to what you are talking about right now. the hearing was in march of 2009, so, actually, the last incident had been june, so we are talking, what is that, is that nine months? how long did it take for the case to actually come to a hearing? in other words, the department tried to get them before the hearing? >> there were a lot of postponements, over and over and over again, and there was the request for postponement, so that is what it took a long time. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> that has changed. >> in answer to your question, mr. garcia, the notice for the

hearing went out. the case proceeded to an actual hearing on the merits in december. there were no violations between september and december. if the last violation was in june of 2009, there have been no new violations, and the doctor is saying, well, we did not want to come out and inspect the place because there was an ongoing case:. that does not make sense. that we just put something in perspective. the doctor tells the board hear that there was a complaint back in july 29 of 2009 of alleged prostitution. he testified that that complaint came directly from inside sunflower. he said it was one of their employees e street -- employees.

that may have been a disgruntled employee. it was based on pure hearsay. there has been no evidence of prostitution in the past year. now, let me just put something else in perspective. they put up just now a photograph that was one hit in room -- hidden room, and that was in november 2006. the doctor did not tell the members that that room has long since been gone, and it was only one room. there has never, ever been a charge of trafficking of women in this establishments. -- this establishment. yet, he wants you to believe that the establishment was operating in he mainly -- inhumanely. this young lady did not set them

up to hide there. she never traffic in women, illegal women to work in the establishment. that room has been gone for 2.5 years. he has its down and like every other room in the establishment was illegal. if it was illegal, why have they not issued a citation? how come the planning compartment -- department has not come in and said that? the reason is, it has been in compliance. dr. erogan is the one who heard a lot of things about masseuses without proper permits or a tire. there has never been a suspension -- proper permits for attire. that is what this case comes down to that has long been abated.

there were in has been corrected. this lady has made major adjustments. she got rid of the managers that were working there when she was in california with a teenage son. she will cut back the hours and go along with any other suggestions but not an outright relocation. this places now in compliance, and she is asking for a little bit of equity. not impose an hour ride relocation. and you are allowed to do that under the coat of the health code -- not impose an outright korea vocation. r -- evocation. -- revocation. commissioner fung: the owner was at the facility during the course of the first and last solicitation charge. what did she do then? >> actually, it was the first

and second, i believe korea commissioner fung: it was 2007 and 2009. there was not a lot of information in the brief about that. if she knew about the charge? >> the first young lady that was there, when that case was discharged or dismissed in court, and when i say in court, they did not fire on it. after she found out that there was no criminal complaint, she took her back and reprimanded her. when she got sighted again, she went to a program -- when she gota cited, she went to a progm for first-time johns and others, and after that, she did not take her back, and she was dismissed

in 2009 when she got the ticket. she did not take her back. president peterson: did your client participate in the community service the first time, or was it just the employee? >> she did not receive the citation for keeping the house of ill repute. she never received that. and it is not a house of ill repute. commissioner garcia: what are the terms of her fiscal year? police on that property runs from what month to what month -- the least? from which month to which month? another way of asking that would be, when is the least up? is it your to your? -- when is the lease up -- lease

up? is it year to year? >> 2.5 years to go. commissioner garcia: ok, thank you. commissioner hwang: i heard that one complaint was from a customer, and you said it was an employe eat. can i hear from the department on that? -- from an employee. and what year was that? >> it was from a customer. " commissioner hwang: 80. commissioner garcia -- thank you. commissioner garcia: while you are a pier -- did you have more questions? -- while you are up here.

the doctor, is the accurate? has there been a case where someone was either suspended or revoked -- is he accurate? in which there were similar circumstances? counts of prostitution as there are in this case? >> i do not believe that is what he was dating. all of the consequences that this business has suffered to date prior to the relocation were fines. commissioner garcia: oh, maybe i misunderstood. can you respond to that? is a typical when we have these kinds of circumstances that a relocation be asked for, or is it unusual? >> i think the short answer is that this is not typical. it is atypical because we do

not see situations -- commissioner garcia: the preponderant of events. commissioner fung: actually, commissioner, i did see something like this 25 years ago. president peterson: i think of a fairness, you can respond to the recent testimony. -- out of fairness. >> the one doctor said in july, not of this year. we are talking one year ago that they had a call from a customer, and when i questioned him, that question had happened to have

been an employe eat. he said he came from inside the establishment -- had been an employe the -- employee. that was a disgruntled employee. there have been no new incidents here at all. president peterson: wilshire clients informed of customer complaints? we do what is your client informed? -- why sure client informed? w -- as your client informed? >> the doctor said it came from inside the establishment, but they make it sound that a customer called up the health department and said there was ongoing prostitution. that was never the case, and it was never cooperated, here is the name of the person. commissioner garcia: mr. hall, we know that, and we will give it that way, knowing that it is

here say. -- give it that weight, knowing that it is here sayh -- ear -- hearsay. commissioner fung: i hate to go through this too much, but 25 years ago, when i was on this board, we use it to your massage parlor cases, multiple massage parlor cases every week -- we used to hear massage parlor cases. related more to the wacky pressure "-type of establishments that have been popping up in the city, also -- the at keep pressureaccu --

popping up in the city, the accupressure type of the establishments. this is a very difficult business, outside of the sensationalism that you might have seen related to the task force and other things that were made by various public speeches. at the heart of this particular case for me is the number of incidences, and it almost reaches the level of preponderant, and therefore, in this particular -- i need to support the department.

i was going to say, and then maybe i said i would not, but the problem that really swung this is the fact that the appellant was on site, at two different times in terms of the years, early on and later on, and yet, allowed certain things to continue, and, therefore, it does lead me to think that there was something on going here. -- on-going here.

commissioner hwang: might issue and the issue of prostitution is a difficult one, but as far as opz[

have an investment of $1,000, to get skills and educational background. you could have an operator that have people doing things they would absolutely disapprove of. what absolutely was known,

however, was the room. it is a difficult job, probably, being an attorney, to represent something with elements of the case that are probably distasteful, even to that person who has to defend the actions of his client. it does not matter whether there was only one room. there was a room. the purpose of that room, as stated by the attorney, was to hide operators who were not properly permitted. there were not properly permitted as masseuses. there might have been other purposes of the room. you do not need a mattress in order to hide something because there is an inspector from dbi on the premises. it leads one to wonder what else might have been going on.

i am not attacking the attorney. when i read the brief, most of the issues that were raised had to do with procedural issues. he should have recused himself over evidentiary issues. it was here said. i am trying -- it was hearsay. i am trying to remember what some of the other ones were. facts were not proven. the issue came up again early tonight having to do with aegis. how behold the proprietor responsible for something done by someone employed by them. it is your responsibility, to your community, to the people who work for you, to make sure things are done as they should be done. i do not understand why somebody

thinks it is a good approach to attack the processes overall that dictate how decisions are to be made, but in particular to if not vilify, to say that certain individuals that were associated with some of these terminations were cited. she has other people working for her. in these tough economic times, who wants to do anything that will exacerbate unemployment her? these various problems carefully constructed a case around this. the department of public