20030513_m



COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence


DATE:				May 5, 2003
BOARD MEETING DATE:				May 13, 2003

TO:			Honorable Board of Supervisors
FROM:			San Mateo County License Board
SUBJECT:			Appeal of Decision of the San Mateo County License Board Denying Application to Renew License to Operate a Massage Establishment at 93 Fifth Avenue, Redwood City (Owner: David Hai Tran, d.b.a. Serenity Spa).

Recommendation
Reject the appeal and uphold the decision of the San Mateo County License Board denying the application to renew a license to operate a massage establishment at 93 Fifth Avenue, Redwood City (Owner: David Hai Tran, d.b.a., Serenity Spa).

Background Under section 5.44.030 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code ("SMCOC"), any person proposing to engage in the business of operating a massage establishment must obtain a business license. The License Board is responsible for issuing and renewing massage establishment licenses. (SMCOC section 5.04.180.) On February 25, 2003, the License Board convened a hearing on Mr. Tran's application to renew his license to operate a massage establishment at 93 Fifth Avenue, Redwood City. After considering extensive evidence, the License Board denied the application on March 10, 2003. Mr. Tran has appealed that decision.

The procedure for the Board in its consideration of this appeal is as follows:

	1.	Consider the information contained in the record of proceedings before the License Board (the information is summarized below).

	2.	Consider any facts that the appellant may wish to present at the hearing as to why the application should be granted.

	3.	Hear testimony of any other persons as to why the license should be granted or denied.

	4.	At the close of the hearing, or within thirty (30) days thereafter, determine whether the decision of the License Board should be upheld, modified or reversed, based on evidence presented at the hearing.

Staff intends to submit this matter on the testimony and evidence that constitutes the record of the hearing before the License Board. It is not known whether interested members of the public may wish to speak at the hearing, or whether the licensee will present additional witnesses or evidence.

Summary of Record
The record in this case consists of the documents set forth in the Attestation of Jim Eggemeyer, Chair of the License Board, and in the transcript of oral proceedings before the License Board. In summary, the evidence established the following:

	1.	Four health inspections were conducted at the licensee's premises, on December 12, 2002 December 31, 2002, January 30, 2003 and February 11, 2003. These inspections disclosed unhealthy and unsanitary conditions. (Binder, Tab II.) Semen samples were found on the walls and floors in various rooms throughout the establishment. Photographs of the spa interior showed the location of semen stains and other unsanitary conditions. Selected photographs, along with a CD of over 150 photographs of the spa taken during the course of the various inspections, were received by the License Board. (See, generally, Testimony of Christopher Day, Environmental Health Specialist (Transcript ("Tr."), p.3-9); Cindy Fung, (Tr., p. 17-20).)

	2.	Peace officers testified that since July 2001, they had made four arrests on the premises for prostitution and related activity by spa employees. (Binder, Tabs III, IV, V and VI.) Officers also testified about the nuisance and impact of the spa as perceived by residents in the area. An officer also stated his opinion that since the spa appeared to have an exclusively male clientele, that was indicative of prostitution activity, rather than legitimate massage activity, which generally draws both male and female customers. (Testimony of Officer James Bertellotti, (Tr., p. 24-26), Detective Keith Maher (Tr., p. 48-49), Officer Mike Reynolds (Tr., p. 21-22), and Lt. Tom Maloney (Tr., p. 26-28).)

	3.	The licensee, Mr. Tran, testified that he took over operation of the business in May, 2002. He told of his efforts to clean the premises and blamed the prostitution activity on a prior licensee. Only one prostitution arrest occurred after he became owner. Trial in that case is set for May 27. However, Tran admitted that he allowed one of the spa employees who was arrested in March 2002 for solicitation of prostitution to resume working at the spa after her criminal trial resulted in a hung jury. (Tran Testimony, Tr., p. 29-48.)

	4.	The Board considered and rejected the licensee's various objections to evidence and complaints of lack of notice.

After considering the evidence, the License Board found that the business is or was apt to become a public nuisance. The Board denied the license renewal pursuant to Section 5.04.210(1)(b), and notified Mr. Tran of the denial by letter of March 10, 2003.




_______________________________________ Jim Eggemeyer Chair, License Board Enclosures: 1. Notice of Appeal 2. Attestation of Jim Eggemeyer 3. Record and Appeal 4. Transcript of Proceedings before License Board, February 25, 2003

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Summary of Record

The record in this case consists of the documents set forth in the Attestation of Jim Eggemeyer, Chair of the License Board, and in the transcript of oral proceedings before the License Board. In summary, the evidence established the following:

1.

2.

3.

4.

The Board considered and rejected the licensee's various objections to evidence and complaints of lack of notice.