SR-701-009
~A
~
F :\atty\mun i\strpts\mjm\massagereport.doc
City Council Meeting 9-27-05
OCT 1 12QOS
M:r 0 j Ji~
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Proposals for Updating the City's Massage Regulations and Request for
Direction
Introduction
This report supplies information on the operations of massage and related businesses
in Santa Monica, the City's current massage ordinance, and its efficacy. The report also
proposes general ideas for revision of the ordinance and requests Council guidance on
the preparation of proposed amendments which would return to Council this year.
Background
In Santa Monica, there are 51 businesses licensed by the City for massage. Some are
licensed exclusively for this service; others offer massage as an accessory service. The
latter category includes spas, salons, chiropractic and acupuncture practices, and
health clubs. There are 785 massage technicians with permits to work in the City.
Obviously, a substantial portion of the businesses and technicians operate legitimately
and provide valued services. However, a significant portion does not. Police and
prosecutors estimate that over 25% of the businesses engage in unlawful operations,
notably prostitution. Moreover, on July 2, 2005, the Los Angeles Times reported an
announcement by federal authorities that criminal syndicates are smuggling hundreds of
1
oc~~oo~
-%e:-
il'rtl1i1JAA
women into the United States, frequently from Korea, to work in brothels in the Los
Angeles area. Additionally, residents have complained about illegitimate "massage
parlors" in their neighborhoods which employ only female technicians, refuse to make
appointments for women, and otherwise appear to operate as houses of prostitution.
Reports from the Santa Monica Police Department's Vice Squad confirm the neighbors'
suspicions.
This problem has existed in the City for many years and has proven resistant to the
City's ongoing and concerted enforcement efforts which include both prosecution and
revocation. Individual "massage technicians" who are prosecuted or whose permits are
revoked are swiftly replaced with new "girls." Business operators facing enforcement
transfer their businesses to family members. Moreover, the businesses and individuals
are represented by attorneys who specialize in representing "massage parlors."
The current massage ordinance was adopted in 1986 as Chapter 6.104 of the Municipal
Code and was amended in 1995. When the amendments were presented to the City
Council, legitimate massage technicians and operators complained that their
businesses were being unfairly lumped together with illegal businesses. In response to
their concerns, the ordinance was revised to attempt to distinguish between legitimate
and illegitimate massage. That attempt has met with only limited success.
The current law establishes business license and police permit requirements and
conditions for both massage operators and massage technicians. The requirements
and conditions are intended to protect legitimate massage and guard against illegal and
unhealthful practices. The law contains an exemption provision, originally intended to
2
assist in differentiating between legitimate and non legitimate massage. Under this
provision, some requirements of the Chapter are excused if the massage technician
applicant meets specified qualifications including certification of hours of professional
training and membership in a professional organization which meets certain standards.
Currently, this exemption applies to 85% (668) of the technicians in the City. It excuses
them from testing and fingerprinting because they have provided documentation of
completing at least specified hours of training and membership in a professional
organization. The other 15% (117) are non-exempt. They have passed a City-
administered exam and been fingerprinted to check for criminal history.
Discussion
The current system needs to be updated. Some provisions are obsolete. Others may
be legally problematic. Experience has shown that criminal prosecution under certain
provisions of the Massage Ordinance relating to lewd conduct is problematic because
those provisions may be preempted by the provisions of state law. In contrast,
prosecution under the health and safety standards of the ordinance is effective. Such
prosecution would actually 'be facilitated by eliminating problematic provisions of the
ordinance.
At the same time, the ordinance could probably be strengthened by adding additional
civil remedies. One possibility would be civil fines for violations of health and safety
provisions.
Moreover, the present exemption provision needs to be examined and reconsidered.
While it was intended as a laudable attempt to protect legitimate massage businesses
3
and technicians, it has created a loophole often utilized by persons engaging in criminal
conduct. Therefore, members of the Police Department and the head of the Business
License Division recommend eliminating the exemption, Instead, they recommend that
operators and all technicians be fingerprinted and that all technicians be tested, utilizing
the test administered by Los Angeles County. Additionally, they suggest new reporting
requirements and new permit and permit display requirements. These proposed
changes would significantly facilitate enforcement but not unduly burden legitimate
businesses. Any impacts on those businesses could be ameliorated by, for example,
allowing time to comply with new requirements. For instance, technicians could be
given 6 or 9 months to take the County test, which is given quarterly. The City
Attorney's Office concurs.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council consider the information provided in this report along
with any public input and give direction to staff regarding the preparation of an
ordinance,
PREPARED BY: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
4