Loading...
SR-6-D (13) . . .. . ;ZC?J-O/r - 60 . . AUG 1 2 '980 CA:SSS:SC:bl Counc~l Meet~ng 8/12/80 Santa I'lon~ca I Californ~a STAFF REPORT TO: Mayor and C~ty Counc~l FROH: C~ty Attorney SUBJECT: Bass age Parlor Llcens~ng Law INTRODUCTION Thls report transmlts for second readlng an ord~nance regulatlng b12 1lcenslng and operatlon of massage parlors and the llcenslng of Masseurs. BACKGROUND This ordlnance was adopted In emergency forTI I as ar.1ended I as agenda item 8E at the July 221 1980 Pleetlng. As lS the usual procedure In such casesl It was lntroduced in regular for~ at that tlDe as agenda ltem 8C. The Clty Attorney's offlce was dlrected to amend the regular ordlnance to conform to the Councll's amendnent to the emergency ordlnance. ANALYSIS A clause has been added In Section 62003A to provlde that the flndlngs whlch way be made pursuant to that seetlon as grounds for denlal of a permlt must be made "by a preponderance of the eVldence. " ~.D AUG 1 2 1980 '- , L~ - ,// ~;rk' .t1J.- . ~ . . - DISCUSSION There was some d~scuss~on by the Counc~l as to the appl~cat~on of Sect~on 62003A(4) which perm1.ts a perm1.t to be den led if the appl~cant has comm~tted an act involvlng dishonesty, fraud, or dece1.t, or an act of vlo1ence substant1.ally related to the buslness of massage. Although thlS provlslon 1.S framed broadly, It should be understood that a permlt wlIl not be refused on thls basls unless the act In questlon 1.S suffl.ciently serious to justlfy the denl.al. The legal ]ustlfl.catlon for permlt denlal wll1 probably have to be established by l.nformal dlscussl.ons between this offlce and the Pol2ee and L2cense Departments. RECmlIvIENDA TI ON It is respectfully recommended that the ordlnance be adopted, as amended. prepared by: Stephen Shane Stark, Acting City Attorney Susan L. Carroll, Deputy Cl.ty Attorney -2- . ;2-P 1/ ~tCJ/" cf B-~ . ~JUL 2 2 198(' . CITY OF SANTA MONICA INTER-DEP ARIMENT MEMO DATE July 22, 1980 TO. Mayor and City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Information - Administrative Handling of Pending Applications for Renewal Permits Under Massage Parlor Licensing Law Attached hereto is a copy of a memorandum from this office to the Police and Licensing Departments and the License Review Board outlining a policy for handling applications by masseurs for renewal permits which are presently pending approval. Hopefully, this will resolve the problems alluded to in the Staff Report accompanying the proposed massage parlor licensing law concerning the application of that law to pending applications. ?8~ ~JUL 2 2 1920 -------- . e ... CITY OF SANTA MONICA INTER-DEP ARIMENT MEMO DATE. July 22, 1980 TO John Jalili, J. ~vilbur , Chlef J. Keane FROM City Attorney ~.~ SUBJECT: Procedure for Handling Pending Appllcatlons for Renewal Permits Under the Massage Parlor Llcenslng Law As you are aware, a number of problems have arisen with respect to certaln applicatlons for masseurls renewal permlts WhlCh were flIed at the tlme the Emergency Ordinance (No. 1161) was in effect and were subsequently denled under Section 6120 of the Code, on the grounds that the app1lcant had commltted "1ITUUoral acts" ln the presence of an undercover agent. Several of these appllcants have appealed from the denlal of thelr renewal permits and are awaiting hearlng by the Llcense Review Board. In addltlon, several have Slnce flIed for exemptlons under Sectlon 62010 of the Emergency Ordlnance as eXlsting permlttees (at the time the Emergency Ordinance took effect) , entitled under that sectlon to a SlX month condltlonal perrnlt pendlng recelpt of a regular permlt ln accordance wlth the requlrements of the Ordlnance, lncluding successful completion of the competency examlnatlon. Two maJor problems are presented: (1) Whether such app1lcants are entltled to exemptlons; and (2) whether, under the EMergency OrdlDance and the new Emergency and . e - Regular Ord~nances, wh~ch were subm~tted to the City Councll on July 22, 1980, the COWffi1ssion of "lmmoral acts" lS grounds for den1al or revocatlon of a permit. Sectlon 62011 of the new July 22, 1980 Ordlnances provldes that condltional permlts wll1 be available only to persons "operatlng under an eXlstlng ~asseur's permi t and otherwis,e meetlng the requ1rements for permlt renewal. II However, the under11ned sentence lS not - lncluded ln the exemption provls1on 1n the eXlstinq Emergency Ordlnance. Accordlngly, lt would appear that any permlt holder whose appllcatlon for a renewal permit was pending on or after June 25, 1980, when the Emergency Ordlnance beca~e effeetlve, is entitled to an exeroptlon under Sectlon 62010 of the Energency Ordlnance and should be granted a cond1tlonal permit under that seetlon. It would seem the better po11cy, therefore, to lssue condltlonal permlts to appllcants qua11fYlng for exemp- tlons under the old Emergency Ordlnanee. These permits should be condltloned, however, in accordance wlth the requirements of Section 62005 of the July 22, 1980 Ord1nance. Further, these appl~cants should be adv~sed that the letters denying thelr appllcations for renewal permits are lneffectlve and the pendlng Llcense Revlew Board proceed1ngs rendered moot. As a matter of conslstency, condltlonal permits should also be granted other applicants In a si~ilar posltlon even lf no formal claim for exemptlon has been flIed. -2- . e Hhlle we are foreclosed from denYlng renewal permlts to appllcants meetlng the exemptlon requirements under the old Emergency Ordlnance, no reason appears why the conditlonal perm1ts so granted may not be revoked 1n accordance wlth the provislons of the new Emergency Ordlnance WhlCh will take effect, assuming adoptlon by Councll, on July 22, 1980. Thus, as soon as the new Emergency Ordinance goes into effect, the app11cants In quest10n may be given notice of the lnstltut10n of proceedings to revoke thelr condltlonal permits. The grounds of revocation should be referenced to the new Ordlnance WhlCh, at Sectlon 62010 D, provldes that a llcense may be revoked because of v1olat1ons of permit condltlons lncludlng, lnter alla, that masseurs may not expose themselves or make lntentlonal contact wlth the genltals of another person. It should also be stated in the revocat1on notlce that the acts on which the alleged vlolatlon lS based also constltute grounds for permlt revocat1on under Seetlon 6123 of the Code. Seetlon 6123 provldes that a permit may be revoked where lt appears that lithe purpose for WhlCh the permit has been issued, 1S belng abused to the detrlment of the publlC, or that the permit is belng used for a purpose different from that for Wh1Ch lt was lssued. It These Code provlslons were in effect and controlllng under the old Ordlnance WhlCh made no express provlslon for permlt revocatlon. -3- . e e - Although the burden of proof w~ll be heav~er ~n a revocation proceed~ng as opposed to an appeal from denial of a renewal permlt, presumably the Pollce Department has eVldence suff~c~ent to susta~n its pos~t~on. Apart from th1S Shlft 1n burden of proof, the effect of the above-outl~ned procedure will be to afford pend~ng appl~cants the~r rlght to an exempt~on under the old Emergency Ord1nance, but otherw~se to place them, as nearly as poss~ble, in the same posltlon as those seeklng to quallfy for exemption after the effect~ve date of the new Ordinance. W~th respect to fees, lt 1S suggested that all exist- ing permlttees seek1ng an exempt~on and cond1tlona1 permit be charged the appropr~ate renewal fee ($10 lf the application was f~led prlor to July 22, 1980, $20 ~f flIed after that date) / plus the costs of finger- prlntlng, etc.; these fees would then be set off against payment of the new $175 =ee at the tlme the applicant applles for a regular permlt ~n accordance with the provlsions of the new Ordinance. Recommendatlon. We should probably meet wlthln the next few days to discuss thls at greater length and to hammer out the detalls of the proposed revocation proceedlngs. -4-