SR-0 (39)
"
e
;267-$-0/7
CA:SSS:SC:bl
Counell Beetlng 07-22-80
Santa Monlea, Callfornla
STAFF RepORT
TO:
Mayor and Clty Councll
FROll:
Clty Attorney
SUBJEC'I':
Ordlnance Repeallng and Relntroduclng Massage
Parlor Licensing Law
INTRODUCTION
ThlS report ~ransmlts for relutroductlon revlsed emergency
and regular ordlnances amending the massage parlor llcenslng law.
Faced wlth the necesslty of aMendlng the law before the July 1, 1980,
deadline for buslness llcenses, Emergency Ord1nance No. 1161
was adopted and a regular ordlnance lntroduced for flrst readlng
on June 25, 1980.
Regular Ordlnance No. 1165 was adopted, as
a~ended, after second readl~g on July 8, 1980.
It was noted upon
second readlng, however, that effectlve lmpleMentatlon of the
new competency test requlrement for a masseurts permit would
necessltate reV1Slon of the appllcatlon fees to cover the cost of
admlnlsterlng the test and of the appllcation process to permlt
recelpt of the fee by the Clty prlor to testlng. Accordlngly,
the Couuell dlrected that new energency and regular ordlnanees
lncorporatlng the revlsed fee schedule and appllcatlon process
be relntroduced at the July 221 1980 meetlng.
In addit~onr subsequent discusslon wlth Messrs. Lopez and
Brown of the Pollce Department have demonstrated the need to flll
the gap left by the deletlon of the "good moral character"
--
permit requlrement by the addltlon of more speclflc conduct
requlrements for obtainlng and retalnlng pollce permlts.
In order to accompllsh all of these changes in a clear
and convenlent nanner, It was consldered preferable to repeal
the eXlstlng ~assage parlor llCenSJng law, as aMended by
Emergency Ordlnance No. 1161 and Ordlnance No. 1165, and to
introduce new e~ergency and regular ordlnances reenactlng
the massage parlor licenslng law In its entlrety as a slngle
unifled ordlnance. Agaln, for convenience, the proposed
ordinance has been renumbered.
The following analysls wlll dlSCUSS only those changes ln
the proposed massdge parlor llcenslng law WhlCh were not pre-
vlously contalned In E~ergency Ordlnance No. 1161 and Ordinance
No. 1165.
A:--JALYSIS
1. Two addltlonal grounds for denlal of an operator's
perrnlt have been added to Sectlon 62003, WhlCh grounds are also
appllcable to denlal of a masseur's perrnlt pursuant to Sectlon
62005 of the proposed ordlnance. Under Sectlon 62003 A(3) of
the proposed ordlnance, a permlt may be denled If ~he applicant
or any person who wlll be directly engaged or employed in the
~assage parlor operatlon has cO~ltted an act WhlCh, If done by
a permittee under the law~ would be grounds for suspenslon or
revocatlon of the permlt; under Sectlon 62003 A(4) , a permlt nay
be den led If such person nas cOmTIltted a~ act lnvolvlng olshonesty,
fraud, or decelt, or an act of vlolence, VhlCh is substantially
-2-
the C~ty w~ll have recelved a sum sufflclent to pay the costs
of aamlnlsterlng the exa~lnatlon before these costs are
lncurred. (An additional fee In an as yet undeterm~ned amount
~s to be requlred lf retesting lS necessary.) The followlng
procedure is speclfled: The appllcant wlll submlt an appllca-
tlon and the appllcatlon fee to the Pollce DepartMent WhlCh
wlll, after lnvestlgatlon, inform the appllcant either that the
permlt wlll be granted pendlng satisfactory completlon of the
examlnatlon, or denled on one of the grounds specifled ln the
ordlnance. At that pOlnt, dependlng on the declsion of the
Department, the appllcant will either take the examlnatlon or
may appeal frOM an adverse declslon denYlng the permlt. If the
appllcant does not take the exa~lnatlon, the approprlate portlon
of the $175 appllcatlon fee wlll be refunded.
4. An addltional conditlon has been added to the masseur's
permit requirlng that, ln the event a perMlt holder changes his
or her work locatlon, lt wlll be necessary wlthln one week for
the permit holder to obtaln a new photo ldentificatlon card
from the Police Department at a cost of $10 (Sectlon 62005 C(2)).
5. Sectlon 62010, regarding the duratlon of permits, has
been aMended to provide that permlts wlll be lssued on the basls
of the flscal, rather than the calendar, year. This accords
wlth present practlce. The grounds for refusing to renew or
for suspendlng or revoking an eXlst1ng per~lt have been amended
to lncorporate the standards set forth In Sectlon 6120 and 6123
of the Munlcipal Code.
-4-
e
e
IlWL:rr-!E:;rTA TION
Competency Test - It 15 antlclpated that the Clty wlll enter
luto a contract wlth the County Department of Health to admlnis-
ter and grade the com?etency examlnation for a nasseur's permit.
A copy of a draft contract patterned on the contract between
the City of Los Angeles and the County 1S attached for your conslderatlon
and approval. It provldes basically that the County wlll admlnlster
tests, as requlred, but at least once a month, for a fee of $125 per
examlnatlon to be billed quarterly to the Clty. If thlS form lS
acceptable, a flnal contract will have to be negotlated wlth
the County Board of Supervlsors. It has been suggested that we
handle the lOglStlCS of the contract negotlatlon by asklng
Supervlsor Yvonne Bralthwalte Burke to a?prove and then sponsor
the contract.
Llcenslng Procedure - In accordance with present procedure,
the Llcensing Department wlll collect llcenslng fees pursuant to
SeetloD 6240 of the HUDlclpal Code from those \.nshlng to
ooerate a massage parlor and fron those seeking a masseur's
pernlt, and wlll lssue eondltlonal llcenses pend1ng the
securlng of a pollce permlt pursuant to the proVlslons of the
ordJ..nance.
Certaln problens have ar1sen with respect to the appllcation
of the proposed ordlnance to persons holding pernJ..ts at the
tlMe Emer~ency OrdJ..nance No. 1161 went lnto effect. ~hese
persons arguably cone wlthln the term of the slx-mor,th
exemption for eXlstlng permlt holcers (Sectlon 62010 of
-6-
...
e
e
Ordlnance No. 1161, Sectlon 62011 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 wl11 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 POllCY 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-
tit
e
RECOHHENDATIm~
It ~s respectfully subm~tted that the attached e~ergency
ordinance be approved and the regular ord~nance ~ntroduced for
f~rst read~ng and publ~c hear~nq ~n ~ts present form, and that
the C~ty l1anager be author~zed to execute the attached
Agreement between the C~ty and the County Department of Health
Serv~ces.
Prepared by:
Stephen Shane Stark, Act~ng C~ty Attorney
Susan Carroll, Deputy C~ty Attorney
-8-