SR-8-A (47)
"J
f ~
.
,
.
AD/) fa }-A-
JAN 2 R I.
_AW C FF'CES
KATES, SCHWARTZ & DAV] S
235::)1 ==AP'{' 50RR!::~TO,SuIT~ 212
TEl..EPI-\ONE
f8la~ eB7-5~OO
KATES AND SCHWARTZ
A p~crESSIONAl. CO=tF=GRA-nJN
NORMAN SCHWA'OTZ
ROY A I<ATES
ROBERT J DAviS
CALABASAS. CALIFORNIA 91302
REFER TO OUR FILE NO
January 28, 1986
Cl ty Council
Cl~y of Santa Monlca
16~5 Maln Str~et
Santa Monlca, CA.
RE: PROPOSED MASSAGE LICENSING ORDINANCE
Dear Clty Councll Memoers:
ThlS office contlnues to represent the owners of the fallow~ng
massage estaOllshments located wlthln the Clty of Santa
Manl ca :
Orlental Spa j2
621 Broadway Street
Santa Monlca, CA. 90401
Tokyo Health StudlO
817 Pleo Boulevard
Santa Monlca, CA. 90405
FUgl Orlental Massage
1439 Llncoln Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA. 90401
ShlnzuKu f.lassage
1913 Santa Monica Boulevard
Santa Monlca, CA. 90404
Orlental Spa #1
2104 Wllshlre Bou1evara
Santa Monica, CA. 90403
Gln]a Massage
2512 Wllshlre Boulevard
Santa Monlca, CA. 90403
/1 DD -f~ i-A
.!!;fj 2 8 1_
...
e
e
Ordlnance No. 1l6l, Sectlon 6201l of the proposed ordlnance),
even though they subsequently applled for and were denled renewal
pernlts. (A change has been made ln the proposed ordlnance to
provlde that the exemptlon wlll apply only to eXlstlng permlttees
who otherWlse quallfy for permlt renewal.) There is a further
problem concernlng whether, as to such persons, the commlSSlon
of an "1l11r.loral" act lS grounds for refusing to renew a permlt
pursuant to Section 6120 of the Munlcipal Code.
It lS proposed
that the Clty Attorney's office conslder these and related
questlons concernlna the standards appllcable to pendlng appllca-
tlons ror per~lt renewal and develop, wlth the Llcense ReVlew
Board, a polley for deallng wlth these cases ad~lnistratlvely.
(See attached lnformatlon ltem and memorandum.)
ALTERclAT IVE S
There lS no exenptlon contalned In the ordlnance for
buslnesses, such as acupressure centers, WhlCh ~ay fall wlthln
the statutory deflnltlon of massage, but may not requlre the
sane klnd of regulatlon. Hlth respect to such buslnesses, the
requirements of the ordlnance, partlcularly those regulatlng
facllitles, ~ay be onerous and uncalled for. The Councll may
wlsh to consider lnclusion of some klnd of varlance procedure
WhlCh would per~lt exemptlons to be granted adminlstratlvely
on a case by case basis.
-7-
~
,~ .. .;
,-A.~V CFFIC~5
KATES, SCHWARTZ & DAVIS
Page Three
(1) Sect~on 62003 and Sectlon 62008. 30 days lS stl11 too
lengthy of a tlme perlod especlally lf the Clty 15 1nslstent
upon llmltlng tne numoer of technlClans which may worK at any
one estaolishment. Presently, certaln estaollshments are only
allowed to have 1 or 2 techniclans. If one qUltS, leaves or
is flred, lt lS extremely dlfficult, li not imposslble, to
Keep the DUSlness In operation If the operator has to wait for
a perlod of up to 30 days to secure the services of a new
technlcian. Perhaps an interlffi permlt can be glven the
~echnlclan If they meet the educaclonal requirements sUDJect
to ultlmate approval wlthln the determlned period of tlme, or
pernaps the 11mltation upon the numoer of allowed technlcians
can De removed or lncreased to a mlnimal amount liKe 5 or so.
(2) Sectlon 62007(e). Tne word oral myster10usly appears for
the first tlme. OD~iouSly, one wonders why especlally Slnce
Government Code Sectlon 51031 appears to authorlze only a
practical examlnatlon and not an oral or wrltten one. It lS
common Knowledge of the City Attorney's Offie and Santa Monlca
Pollce Department that most, 1f not all, the massage
technlclans employed at the estaol1shments I represent speaK
limited Engllsh, at best. It is our hope and expectation ~hat
th1S ~s not a thinly dlsgu1sed attempt to preClude passage of
a test oy my cllents. It ~s st~ll our concern and our
oojectlon after meet~ng w~th the City Attorney's Office that
Secc~ons 62007d) and (e) are 1nconsistent w1th each other for
the reasons as prevlously suomltted and that there are
1nsuff~clent gU1dellnes present for the test such that it is
qUlte convelvaole that the test could De designed to once
agaln preclude passage.
It 1S my understand~ng that most of the presently l1censed
techn~Clans completed their school1ng somet1me ago. It
appears that compl1ance w1th passage of a test w1thln the tlme
frame as set forth (62007(e) and 62017(c)), places an
unconsclonaole burden upon the eXlst1ng llcensed technic~ans.
_ It is hard enough to taKe an eXam1natlon in a forelgn
language, wrltten or oral, even if, assum1ng chat to De the
case, lnterpreters are allowed, out coupled w1th naving to
rememoer speciflc school1ng WhlCh may have occurred 5 years
ago maKes It such that expect~ons are that very few, lL any,
W1Il De aole to pass the test 1n the t~me allowed.
....
1,. --.. "
LA",A' C:-;::-ICES
KATES I SCHWARTZ & DAVI S
Page Four
It ~s requested that e1ther the passage date be extended for
an add1t~onal s~x month per10d of time or Lhat those presently
11censed oe exempted from taK1ng the exam1nat1on.
Addit10nal concern ~s expressed w1th the 90 day per10d of time
one must walt before taKlng the test another t1me. DOVlously,
no Jon app11cant 1S g01n9 to walt around 90 days to take a
test a second tlme especlally where, at least with the
proposed oral part~ 1t may De a sUDJect1ve one. What If a
person m1sses passage DY 1%, and the questlons missed
concerned theory rather than someth1ng of suostance, must
that person walt 90 days? A perlod of 30 days, maX1ffium, would
seem to De much falrer to the appl~cant and also achIeve the
C1ty'S desIres.
(3) Sect10n 62010(P). PrecludIng mats elim1nates a very
prevalent form of acupressure and/or Shlatzu massage. It is
quite readily Known that greater pressure may be exerted on a
person DeIng massaged where lt IS performed on a mat on the
floor versus on a taDle.
(4) Sectlon 620l4(e}. It was my understandlng that this
sectlon was to De amended conslstent w1th the concerns as
expressed on page 8, Sectlon 9, of our letter to the City
Councll dated Novemoer 22, 1985. In our letter, we stated
~(T)he sect~on 1S inconsistent 1n that if the t1m1ng of the
suspen510n 15 sucn that i~ occurs durIng the renewal per10d
and thus lapses ~t then Decomes a revocat10n and the penalty
~s thus increased dramatlcally oy admlnlstratlve proceedings
rather than oy the acts compla~ned of. For ~nstance, If place
X after hear~ng has ~ts lIcense suspended for a 30 day per10d
of tIme commenc1ng June 2, the actual perlod of closure would
De far greater ~n that 1t would taKe ~n real~ty at least 30
days to process the new appllcatlon and ~here would De no
assurance that same would oe granted.
(5) Sect~on 62014(f). There IS no provls~on for a hearlng
conta1ned w~th the sect~on. Furthermore~ the wording seems to
imply that w~th two or more vlolatlons, a suspens~on or
revocat~on would De automatic regardless of the type of
VIolation and regardless if they are satisfactorlly proven.
:)
"~ --;>- ~
.;...AV.' O==-'CES
KATES, SCHWARTZ: & DAVI5
Page Five
Many of the prov1sions conta~ned, for 1nstance, 1n Section
62010 are ffi1nor 1n nature and could or should not support nor
oe che oaS1S of a summary revocat10n or suspension.
It 15 hoped that the forego1ng W11l De rev1ewed, con51dered
and adopted in order that any new ordinance as it may affect
my clients 15 one that 15 fa1r for all partle5 concerned and
invol ved.
\--..very truly "yours,
'- - --
1
cc: Robert Meyers, C1CY Attorney
MESSENGERED