SR-6-Q (5)
A
CA: SSS: se e
Conncll ~'1eetlng OS-27-8fJ
Z &$--017
e
Santa Monlca, Californla
STAFF REPOTZT
b.~
TO:
!'layor ar,d Clty Coune11
MAY 2 7 1980
FRQt1 :
C1ty Attorney
SUBJEC'!";
Request for EPlerqency Orr'hnance AmenCln( Yfassage
Parlor Licenslng Law
IN,!,IWDU~'I'InN
ThlS report requests that the Clty Attorney be dlrected to
prepare an e.'leraency ordlnance amendlna the C1ty 's Hassaqe Parlor
Llcens1ng Law, Santa '1onlca 1I.1unlc1pal Code 62000, et seg., for the
June 24, 1980 COUDCll ~eetlDg. The reason for urgency 1S to allow
the Llcenslng Department to lssue Yf.'newal licenses ,Tul,:, 1. Enforce-
nent of the ordlnance lS currently barred by prel1ill1nary 1DJunctionsi
the laWsults would be dlsmlssed If the proposed amendment are ado~ted.
Staff proposes to replace the "200-hour Massage school" require"lent
for a masseuse permlt, Sectlon 62004 (a) I wlth a quallfYlng test
conducted hy the County Health DepartITlent. .'-1asseuses holding current
llcenses would be glven six months to Dass the test; operators
would be glven three months to complete construction of reaulred
faCll.ltles.
ANAI.YSIS
The Clty'S ~assage Parlor L1cense Law lmposes speclflc conditlons
on the lssuance of massage parlor operator l1censes and ~asseuse ?er-
m1ts.
Sectlon 62004 requlres masseuses to obtaln a permit from the
Chlef of Pollce, WhlCh ~ay not be lssued unless the appllcant has a
dlploMa from an accredlted ~assage school requlring at least 200 hours
of tralnlng.
It lS a ~lsdemeanor for a roassage oar lor to employ a
masseuse who does not have a permlt.
Section 62005 provloes for strlct
6.Q
MAY 2 7 1980
e
e
operatlng procedures for llcensed parlors, lncludlng:
a) No person under 18 years of age may be allowed on
preffilses;
b) Permlts must be posted;
c) Llghtlng and ventllatlon regulations;
d) Regulatlons for tOllet facilitles; and
e) Regulatlon of hours of operatlon.
A prellffilnary In]Unctlon against the enforcement of thlS
law was lssued by Judge Jerry Pacht on several grounds, lncluding
that the law dld not afford eXlstlng llcensees tlme to comply
with t~e educational require~ents.
A recent Court of Aoneal declslon, BrlX v. Clty of San ~afael,
92 Cal. App. 3d 471 154 Cal. Rptr. 647 (l979), and a state enabllng
law, Government Code Sectlon SI030, et seq., dlctate the valldlty
of the substantlve provlslons of the ~assage Parlor Llcense Law.
Sectlon 51Q31 states that cltles may lmpose reasonable stan-
dards as a condltlon upon the issuance of a massage bUSlness llcense,
lncludlnq but not Ilffilted to acre, educatlon, experience, sanltary
conditlons, and hours of operatlon.
Thus, the only bar to the dlSsolutlon of the lnlunctlon and
t!l.e enforcement of the ordlnance lS the lack of a "grandfather clause"
that would permit existinq llcensees to meet the new auallficatlons.
Clty staff and attorneys recently met wlth attorneys for pla~ntlff
massage parlors. A consensus was reached as to the falr bounds of
regu~atlon over these bUslnesses.
as follmv's:
1. As lndlcated above, the lmv 15 valid.
The MaJor pOlnts of agreement are
2. The 200-hour massaqe school requlrement lS valld, but lS
-2-
e
e
not as effectlve as the competency test used In Los
Angeles, and creates the additlonal law enforcement
problem of pollclnq massage parlor schools.
3. EXlstlnq permitees and llcensees shoul~, as a matter
of due process, be afforded condltlonal llcenses and
glven a falr opportunlty to pass the test. The SlX
month perlod used by Los Angeles was agreed to be falr,
as was a 90 day perlod for constructlon of faclllties,
plumblng lnstallatlon, etc.
4. In order to facllltate enforcenent of the ordlnance,
n~~ and renewable pollce per~lts, a prerequislte to
llcenslng may be addltlonally condltloned as follows:
a. Masseuse permlts are valld only for a speclflc
location.
b. ~lasseuses must "rear Dhoto ID cards when ,-rorking.
c. 0oerators must leave thelr ~ront door and cublcle
doors locked.
5. Repeated v1olatlons of pernlt condltlons subJect the
offender to perIlU t and license revocatlon procedures.
6. Rellance on enforcement at lewn conduct laws as a means
of controlllng prostltutlon in massage parlors 1S ex-
tremely dublOUS In llqht of the recent Supreme Court
declsion In ~eople, v. Pryor, ,'7hlCh held that consentlng
acts In prlvate places dld not vlolate Penal Code
Sectlon 647 (a).
7. State and Federal agencies s~ould be responslble for
enforclng Labor Code and IRmlgratlon vlolatlons.
-1-
e
e
8. If the syste~ above lS placed in effect, the lawsuits
should be dls~lssed by stipulatlon.
The Clty lssues renewal bUSlness llcenses on July 1 of
each year.
If an ordinance amendment reolaclng the "massage
school" requirement with a cOJl1?etency test is adopted, anri a
grrir.dfa ther c1.ause apprcNed, the lawsni ts wlll be d lSffilssed.
The Police Department will lSSlle netl, condl tlonal permlts.
The Llcense Department wlll lssue ne~ llcenses and renewal
llcenses subject to passlng the test or completing constructlon
wlthln the prescribed tl~e. The City will avold litiqatlon
and dupllcatlve admlnlstratlve procedures; revenue from
fees will be lncreased.
Ta be effectlve at the commeDcement of the flscal year,
the ord:nance amend~ents must be adopted at the June 24 Councll
Meetlng. ~hlS reqUlres an e~ergency ordlnance passed by flve
afflrmatlve votes.
ALTERN}I.!J'IVES
CaunCll ~ay dlrect that the Clty Attorney draft the proposed
ordlnance, or varlation, ln regular or emergency form, or reject
the ordlnance and dlrect the C1ty Attorney to Maintnln the
current Ilt~gat1on.
RF.COM1>1ENDATIn:'J
It 15 respectfully recommended:
I. That Councll dlrect the Clty Attorney to draft the
proposed ordlnance 1n regular and eMergency form for
adoption at the June 24 Meetlng.
2. That the Clty Attorney be d~rected to enter into a
-4-
,
e
e
stlpulatlon of dlsmissal of the pending lltiqation.
3. That the Llcense Dlrector be authorlzed to issue massage
parlor operator and masseuse llcenses upon stated con-
dltlons.
4. 1'hat the Clty Manager he dlrecten to negotiate a
contract wlth the County for masseuse testing.
PREPARED BY: Stephen Shane Stark
Charles Kent ~cClaln
James F. Keane
-5-