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-