specific standard of performance defined in the criteria. >> if it building does require a soft story permit, they would have to do this permit and take out an additional permit to do the soft story. >> yes. unless they have proven their in compliance, that's one method otherwise they need to comply with the requirements of the ordinance. >> to your knowledge, when was the posting done for the revised permit? >> we have the notification by our central permit bureau staff that was required on 1/16/13 and we received the affidavit that it was done on june 2013. >> on the permit? >> one last question. this

permit now appears to have a lot of retaining wall as part of it which then involves a shoring of the structure above and everything else . you don't consider that to be a significant alteration? >> no, the criteria the engineers have used is evaluating the load bearing building elements with the method that they would use and again, it's going to be a case by case basis in terms of the analysis and the plans. we have an engineer sitting across from the engineer and they are going to discuss what is going to be required to meet the code requirements. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item? >> okay. seeing none, commissioners, the matter is yours. >> i don't know, you know, we have so many lawyers here. i

don't know whether this is just a clear administrative record before they proceed onward or not. there are a number of things that i probably not going to get into what this board can and cannot do with respect to construction process. however, in my opinion the amount of work that is represented by the permit is significant, and probably should have had a proactive notification to clear. >> i would concur. you know, -- i will just stop there. but generally my leaning is that this is notice that should have been provided and i was trying to understand the code section

that would define that and it makes sense to me that there is some discussion afforded to the building, department of building inspection, but this should require notification. >> i do agree with both the fellow commissioners, but add one more thing that this is the health and safety and they are going to have to comply with a soft story retrofit that probably should be worked into their initial work. because then, they are going to again get in and say that soft story is required. that's my opinion. >> well, i guess for me, this was exactly the issue that was determine tive for me as part of our discussion from what

this board can and can't do with regard to tenant rights. but the relevant issue is whether this building code section applied for this permit and i'm not sure whether this was significant work, structural work, but i am persuaded after hearing my fellow commissioners that it is. so given that the notice requirement applies, then i would move that we grant the jurisdiction request on that basis. >> thank you. >> we have a motion from commissioner hurtado to grand this jurisdiction request. on that motion, commissioner fung, aye, president haung,

>>, aye, lazarus, honda, the motion is 5-0. these grant ors have 5 days to appeal. >> item no. 5. item 5: appeal no. 13-061 nancy luo dba "clement service center", appellanttss vs. dept. of public health, respondent 311 12th avenue. appealing the revocation on may 13, 2013, of massage establishment permit. director's case no. msg-13-23. for hearing today.>> item no. 5. item 5: appeal no. 13-061 nancy luo dba "clement service center", appellanttss vs. dept. of public health, respondent 311 12th avenue. appealing the revocation on may 13, 2013, of massage establishment permit. director's case no. msg-13-23. for hearing >> item no. 5. item 5: appeal no. 13-061 nancy luo dba "clement service center", appellanttss vs. dept. of public health, respondent 311 12th avenue. appealing the revocation on may 13, 2013, of massage establishment permit. director's case no. msg-13-23. for hearing today. >> we will start with the appellants. you have 7 minutes to present your case. >> can i state appearance for the record. i'm fred baker, attorney and this is shawn salehih behind me. miss nancy

lou would like to address the board. >> dear members of the commissioner -- >> could you speak into the microphone so we can hear you better. >> yeah, okay. before i come to this country i went to school one 1/2 years in china. when i come to this country and life is hard for me. i was really depressed and i have to work in the restaurant in the sewing factory. when i worked in the sewing factory i didn't know how to sew the clothes. the needle go through my nail and through my finger. it was really difficult for me. when i lived in the center, i had a massage license. i never worked in the massage, when the girl was there and i told them, they can never stay over night in

the service. they are homeless and they are really messy, they are younger and stronger than me. it was really difficult for me to manage. i was trying my best and i can't. if you give me another chance, i will try to work with my lawyer fred segar, i will try to keep the place clean. thank you. >> yes, good evening, members of the commission. there is a number of allegations here and i never knew anything about

this woman or about this establishment until a couple of months ago. it seem like the things that are proven the most are it's unsanitary and it does not have proper supervision of the people there. as far as i know, and this is just based on what i have read, as far as i have known, there has been no arrest for human trafficking or anything connected with it. yet the allegations seem to be that's what's been going on here. so under the circumstances, i think the ward should give this woman another chance to comply with the terms of the health department. i never represented her before, but i assure the board if i do, i will do everything i can to comply with the health

department's requirements of her. there is these vague allegations that something else is going on there. but as far as i know there has been no arrest. it's just people not having their badges properly displayed. i would ask the ward to -- i mean certainly the board based on these allegations says the authority to revoke her permit, this authority that is discretion to give her another opportunity to continue to operate. i would urge the board to do so. i think if the health department checks any business, any residence in san francisco, they are going to find some violation. i have seen this woman has been opened since 2007. she's made a number of efforts to comply with the health department but lapsed

again. i think apparently they are out of control. these people operate independently of her. if you give her another at some point and i represent her, i will work with the health department and make sure she complies with whatever their standards are and as you can see she's a very sincere sort of person and is doing the best to survive. i have seen too many people a little bit older than her making their living in garbage cans. this woman is sincere, hardworking, she seems to be somewhat depressed which will do anything she can to comply with the health department as long as i'm representing her >> mr. baker, i have a question. your briefing seems to focus on the unsubstantiated

allegations, the on going investigation which is in my understanding there has been no criminal charges against your client? >> not that i know of. i believe the in specter involved in this is present. >> okay, given that and the fact that your brief focuses on that issue exclusively, can you address the other six basis for revoking the permit? >> as far as unsanitary conditions? >> well, i'm looking at, i'm sure you have it as well. i'm looking at the department of public health findings and they list 1-7 basis for revoking the permit. it includes operating without permit, operating after

10:00 p.m., people living on the premises and reopening on march 21, 2013, without approval from the department. i would really like you to address those because to me those are more determinant than what the criminal investigations are going on. >> i tried to address those directly. which is i can't tell the board that they have no reasons to revoke her permit because apparently it's been inspected over and over. the great problem is her lack of supervision so far. all i can do is assure the board if it exercises it's discretion to give her another chance, another opportunity. i will work with her and the health department to keep any problem people out of there and to keep

it in a sanitary state. certainly i'm in no position to deny that it hasn't been sanitary and that at one time or another somebody has over stayed the hours. you can find that to be true in any business in the city. certainly she's been lacking there as far as i can see since 2007. also, according to these records that i went through, she's made various efforts to comply with it. to me she seems like a very, i have only known her a couple of months. she seem like a very depressed, uneducated person that makes her best efforts to comply with this. she's indicated there is people younger and stronger than her inside this place and they are the source of the problems. if i give her another opportunity, i will work with her in the health department and if

necessary the police department to make sure these situations don't occur. >> let me ask you one more thing. it seems since 2007 since this license was issued, there has been violations every year. what do you think is a provision that has been given for many years, what do you think sanctions are appropriate at this point? >> i think suspension and not revoking her license is a good sanction and i will work with the department of health and the police department to have her comply with this. >> i'm not sure how if it's a supervision issue unless you are suddenly the supervisor

there how that's going to work out. if this is a supervision issue and your client is the supervisor, when you say you are going to work with her and the department, you don't have to go into it now, but it doesn't seem realistic because you are not going to be there day-to-day unless you are staff. >> well, the presence right, i'm not going to be the supervisor but i will work with her and try to ensure that whoever she does bring on that premises in any situation is not going to be in violation of the law >> you are not going to be there to be sure that someone doesn't over stay or cleanse up after themselves. the argument that you are making will not work. >> it could work because i can make sure she gets someone to help her. to me she seems like a depressed person, uneducated.

>> okay. thank you. >> two questions: have you spoken to the police department about their view towards this case? >> mr. sally has and i have read the transcript of the hearing that he went to with the director of the public health. no, i have just been involved since she got notice of the revocation. i would be happy to speak with the police department if she's given another chance and try to comply with whatever the police and health department wants her to do. i will be more than happy. maybe mr. sally can. i just met her 3 months ago. >> the second question is that you make a constitutional argument in your brief that there is no nexus between her -- particular issues as cited

versus what the department has done for revocation. do you have specific information? >> if that's your reading, if i said that, i'm sorry, i did not make that clear. the president just asked me. i'm sure she's been involved, there has been violations here. i'm sure that the board that is authority to revoke that -- >> that wasn't my question. my question was the way i read your brief you indicate one could make the argument that this penalty exceeded what the department would normally do for these violations. >> okay. yes, put it that way. i think she's being revoked or she has been revoked primarily because of the allegations of

very serious violations which starts with item a, i don't think it's with unsanitary conditions or being open late hours is what someone would be ordinarily revoked for. there are more serious violations and that's what i meant by that nexus argument. so far as unsanitary violations i don't think that's why someone is revoked for. when miss hurtado asks what i thought would be an appropriate sanction, suspension would be appropriate. >> thank you. if you can sit down we can hear from the department of public health now.

>> good evening commissionerscious , this is virginia from the department of public health. the reason that the department of public health wants to revoke her permit is in fact because she seems in capable of maintaining the facility in compliance. we have pictures of the premises to show you. the fact of the matter is that he's been out there 33 times to work with nancy lou to manage the premises and advise her on what she needs to do. without feeling his thunder, he's at the place. whether or not she can control this or whether she stays compliant long enough to pass a reinspection is either way that is not a good answer because as the permit holder

for the establishment it is her responsibility. she's acknowledged that she can't take responsibility for the facility. the officer from the san francisco police department has can address these matters. >> good evening commissioners ed wallch health department. miss nancy lou at the establishment was issued a permit and this is the timeline that i have. it was issued in 2007 and during that time period i have conducted 14 routine inspections since january of this year. and, i

have had to return on 17 different occasions to an abate violations. the violation that have occurred are during these inspections go from unsanitary conditions to employing unlicensed practitioner to employees living in the quarters and employees not properly dressed and these have been repeated over again over the last 5 years. there have been occasions where i have gone in there and there hasn't been anybody m charge and we have the practitioner call nancy and she'll come to the facility and i will explain to her what needs to be done and i will come back a week later and it's not done and i will call her again and she'll start cleaning herself to get this up

to code. i have done this on numerous occasions. not too long ago in january, we issued a suspension to close until she complied with the health code violations. i went back there in march to see if anything was done, she had reopened without the approval from the health department. it was clearly stated do not open until you get clearance from the health department. we posted a sign saying you are suspended. she removed the sign from the front door. i said why did you remove the sign? she said i don't want my customers to know that i'm suspended. you are repeating these violations over again. i came to a point where we can't work with her anymore. so that's why we revoked the permit. for the record, i would like to show you some of the pictures that were taken over the years at her facility. this

is a typical massage table. you can see all the cracked vinyl. this is the massage room. after the massage place is closed they will put blankets on the table and they will sleep there until the next day and reopen again and provide massage. this is a picture of the hot water heater room. when i come here and do inspections and there is a lot of stuff, this is where it winds up in this room. all the personal items and junk winds up in the hot water room. it's a safety hazard. the shower room, the grout, this is typical. mold on the grount between the tiles. this is a floor, the floor in the shower room. you can see all the dirt around the edges where

the water hits the floor by the drain is clean, but around the edges it's never clean. these are typical violations i find at miss nancy lou's place. i have run out of my patience to get her to comply. >> could you just stop the clock for one second please. i have a question about the suspensions. did you say you suspended it? where is that on the timeline? i have got it. it was attached to your papers. i'm looking on your timeline for suspension. >> yes, 2011. >> i'm just wondering did you

go from inspect, inspect, inspect to revocation? >> the conditions were so bad one evening that we had to close the place. i told her to, i gave her a list of things to correct. >> do you have a date? >> was it after the july 13, 2011, hearing? >> yes i believe it was. >> it was ordered closed on june 16, 2011. i was working with miss nancy lou. she called

and said everything was done and i verified all the unsanitary conditions were abated. >> okay. thank you. >> you want to have your witness? sure. >> good evening, brian teeg ler, san francisco police department. i was informed by council there was two 2 minutes i have to speak. i tried to convince some facts into for you this evening. first of all this is not the same nancy lou

that i know. in december of 2012, i received a direct of exit from the chief of police that we have problems at 311, 12th avenue which is a blue sky center slash clemente street service parlor and could you check it out? so i began an investigation that day. first thing you do is certain public computer queries. numerous indicators, hundreds of indicators which led me to believe this is a commercial sex establishment fronting as a massage parlor in the county of san francisco. i established myself along with other members of the sfpd and as the gentlemen mentioned this is an on going multi-investigation which i can't speak to certain facts of that investigation. we

established electronic surveillance of that facility. nancy lou was there everyday after 2:00 p.m.. we also established surveillance at her house and we can pretty much time where she would wake up about 2:00 and go to the facility. nancy lou was not depressed at that point in time. restaurant, library, driving around town and at the facility supervising on a daily basis. my physical surveillance where i can speak to myself which went on for quite some time at all hours of the day and night. they stayed open until 2:00 a.m., 3:00 a.m., some of the women you can see them come out for breakfast the next morning. the electronic surveillance i spoke to are video, photographs. these are things i can talk to in front of the council. it's public

information. scantly clad women. to make a long story short, i established enough probable cause. i established three search warrants. a substantial amount of evidence was taken there, speaking about charges, we have a statute of limitations which is years. that investigation is on going. the execution of the search warrant, i'm going fast to try to get this in. there was one victim inside the facility who decided to cooperate with the investigation and we rescued her. we brought that woman into a non-governmental facility where she can get help. this woman was in her 20s with a mind of a 12-year-old. we also had two statements from clients also known as john's, which have explained under the

miranda rights stated they were there for sex from the women who worked there. i invited ed, from the department of public health to come along with us to do the investigation and ed, on his side of the shop, shut down the facility for pending the first hearing at across the street. also there we found, i found one naked man we got a statement from, we got two statements from clients. a ton of evidence and the woman who went with our people from the ngo suddenly within three or 4 days became a missing person. never heard from that woman again, couldn't find her. i get another call for a numerous complaints from citizens in that area that this