registering. >> for massage establishment. >> yeah. >> i don't think we have a scoring system for massage establishment what we can do is use our data portal for the inspections out there i think the scoring system i don't know if we have enough evidence like sanitation to come up with a quantify score that make sense. >> i guess according to the scoring but a posting sticker or something. >> we would like to make sure we're able to be transparent and provided the data to the public. >> okay. thank you one other thought maybe following up on commissioner hillis maybe the cu process helps us in the clustering aspect this is part of the problem where we see two or three massage establishment set up on the same block it was in

the neighborhood and similar to the cannabis situation. >> sorry just had one comment in response to commissioner hillis questions for dph as a reminder about 90 to one hundred establishment in san francisco have through the process under that 2006 legislation so if there are any things we can address or change make that easier for you to understand how better we'd out the identity operators you know please let us know for instance, having dph are there violations again as a reminder about one hundred have gone through this already. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you so i wanted to ask on the proposed dph permit is there a notification requirement to even

apply for that permit. >> right now there that isn't public noechgs requirement inform applying for a permit or the affirmative action active hearing we put 3 on our website it is something we've been talking about with commissioner chan's office about you providing public notification for an administration active hearing at the department of public health. >> we're still considering. >> it is broader than just the massage we have 14 different regulatory you programs it is something we not to work on. >> thank you for planning staff in looking at our report you have questions about the sole practitioner exemption. >> the big concern we have a hard time enforcing the number of employees and establishment that's a direction we've gone away from that's itself initial

concern go initially the sole prarthsz allowed up to 4 prargsdz in one establishment we were not clear if there's a larger tag versus 4 other concerns about enforcement i think the issues have been raised to change the definition to allow one sole practitioners in that type of use would be easier for the planning department to enforce on and one table and massage room those are physical characteristics we're not good another counting employees or other operational. >> so you're saying if it's one employee that does seem easier. >> easier than 4. >> than one all right. thank you. >> commissioner richards and i guess i think the intent of legislation is admirable especially nobody you mention can even be able to defend human

trafficking but we have a standardized process that worked for with while it was a two tier process getting back to a standard progress correct me if i am wrong commissioner walker so one or more of the purposes so smoke out the bad actors by rifrg those who don't have cu to step forward and that's through the amnesty. >> so if you're in compounds through the amnesty but the way we're going to try to we'd out the bad actors. >> so the woman that she's been operating now and used to make non-conforming zoning district would be allowed to stay. >> i think that regularly begin brought up additional to figure out a way again, this is pending i don't want to speak for the department if you're no expiates

and wasn't our fault that law changes or 2009 changed. >> perfect i think the intent when i vote for this to off opinion on that the intent to smoke out the bad actors but not put legitimate businesses we have them all over the city a few established massage districts loans they're operating we have a set of criteria i'm all for that i guess i would be interested in understanding if it's at expedited process maybe to the point of those changes for small businesses and how they operate maybe a joint hearing with the small business commission with a great idea to hear what those businesses go through businesses have said a few businesses were

onerous yet in the cu process it is more routine so it shouldn't be considered burdensome so maybe in terms of the issues would be a great idea after we do the transportation commission i think it is great piece of legislation i just don't want to put out legitimate businesses out of business. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i fully support joint hearings of all flags thank you commissioner richards and supervisor tang i have a few questions maybe for you or staff you can answer them maybe of course, i will say we talked about small businesses we have people comment on it i definitely support all middle-income jobs and skill, training to maintain those in

the city they require education for work and not 234e8 require the traditional past that many people take and however we can maintain those jobs great a couple of. >> yes. questions so i'm challenged i agree with the legislation and the direction it is taking i appreciate the work you and your office have done from the prospective of the department of public health but with our land use code and planning department that's a huge lift to try to create a cross that goes across the two i'm challenged i'm thinking about our cu process and this is the first couple of questions i have we have very few actual lefrdz we can pull; right? in terms of looking at when we're looking at a use does the use conform with the spaces and community a highest best use

and all the questions when we get down to brass tacks of answering the primary questions whether to work here we can only look at things like hours of operation the facade of development we have rules around that can we can look at signage and things like that but i hesitate to say we can operate without a license we're talking about licenses and saying whether or not we're looking at a bad actor we're looking at it from a land use perspectives so i think it will be helpful to have the dph process to be done before it comes to the planning commission we have at least that piece of information to have a good actor and look at the police cars of the land use for that piece of land and see if it works in the community

i see that it sound like there is an additional burden on the planning commission someone goes to dph and gets a permit and deferred to the planning department for land use designation 0 it sound like a cu process needs to happen so i was wondering if you or your staff say i have that right maybe a couple of questions after that. >> that probably diego and cindy can talk about but moving forward it is helpful to maybe have a requirement that number one there are a set of criteria that maybe checked off on a box you have your license, you have your requisite training outing hours and to say okay. this

location or this operator may have had x number of violation on record so those are some ways i'm thinking of moving forward but in terms of the current process i think either one of them can speak to that. >> diego sanchez with staff it's my understanding that the referral has a lot of information that your requesting are you in good standing once that's done they check to see if the land use allows the massage establishment. >> so they go through their hearing with dph. >> and this is for all of our permits establishment so for our permitting authority you'll come in and file out an application and look at all the information go to get a planning referral

depending on the business a 3wr5urgd check and get the information and evaluate it and decide to grant or deny the permit for the business so we're the permitting authority so it starts with us and end with us and get all the other city department for example the planning department didn't grant the land use condition that they'll not been able to get a permit or a dbi violation. >> if i may to be clear they start with you with an application but the approval has to come to us before you you give them the actual permit. >> correct. >> there's a process that starts with the department of public health and comes here and goes back for a final permit.

>> okay. thank you. >> i personally see issues how that plays out in real life there could be multiple opportunities especially, if the dph adapts any sort of provisions that allows public noticing i definitely see opportunity for someone to get down the path and come for a cu have a potentially may or may not hearing that could be contention and maybe we approve that they going get through the administration active hearings and not get a permit we have a conditional use for that land use in a particular property so then we add that together with sort of the following requirement that maybe a year or 3 years that is being considered i just so a little bit of this process being out the order the

screening that doesn't work again, the lever we have to pull as a planning commission so again, i support the legislation but really want to be clear is there a possibility for the land use designation which again is not about the operator but the use of land what can we do it make that part come last we'll continue how things are working how give a cu to an operator it technically didn't have their permit. >> that's a condition of the permit and i have a diagram of the permit i'm happy to share and happy to take feedback how to make that more efficient with the businesses i know upon issuing our permit we marshall

make sure you have approval from the fire department and police department we wouldn't hold a hearing until we have the information it's not a policy board so it operates devil it one person making decision not the same as a commission only different regulatory rules. >> one other question i apologize. >> i wish i had a picture. >> oh there's a picture look at that lets see if it's the same thing as in my head. >> it isn't great. >> oh, i'm blind. >> oh i see the same picture as in my head (laughter) yeah. okay question okay. maybe that was for planning staff we issue a cu then maybe the dph

has other reasons not bans the particular property not the fire department or the dbi they deny the permit what happens it remains with the property and no one can operate for some period of time. >> it's been my experience that dennis herrera is waiting for us to give the thumbs up before a moonl or cannabis i've never experienced we say yes and they say no they're typically waiting for us. >> this didn't establish the use as a property so they actually file a permit to establish the monthly establishment once they get the cu. >> ; right? but let's say they do all this stuff and the last will step is the conditional use

hearing; right? >> i think that is possible that a business gets a conditional use authorization and come through the process and have significant amount of health code violations and be denied we should look at that first, it makes sense to evaluate the process to make sure this is sufficient and whether potentially up front screening criteria before it goes to conditional review i think we can do that with our rules and regulations. >> (laughter). >> i feel like this is something pragmatic we can work with the planning department to maintains. >> commissioner if i may the issue the when you grant a conditional use or in this case for the utilities yes, it runs with the land but the dph is

granting the permit it would be a different operator they still have 80 go through the cu whether a massage establishment or a restaurant. >> i'm so sorry everyone mr. sanchez mined of our cu process it runs with the land particular operators goes for a permit and we've issued the cu or approved the cu and then what stops i know i know the answer what stops someone else from popping up not investigating to glow the cu. >> they need to still aaron mentioned getting a permit in conjunction with the cu wherever a new operator wanted to open up a like moonl establishment they

center to state their names and matching up the named with the new referral. >> what is over. >> under name a additional operator b hopefully, we see that a versus b. >> but not get an cu. >> in addition the cu whether expire in 18 months if you haven't received that building permit that building permit is not issued the cu goes away. >> but the cu has a different notification requirement i feel like the reason why we're talking about us having the cu process is because there is a higher level of neighborhood notification that happens with the cu versus many other processes whether there is

neighborhood but the operator didn't that get the cu and the next one comes and goes to dbi that's a different process i don't know if that's the same purpose i'm trying to understand the sequence of what we're doing and making sure it makes sense. >> clearing my head including everyone's (laughter). >> the permitting authority has to come back to the department of public health so that wouldn't skip to the building inspection the process starts over again, if it is a different business. >> but again a different notification requirement i'm setting aside the participation at the hearings and that's in the future that could happen roadway you guys don't have a strong notification for the cu process for the pa planning

department. >> yes. that's why we want the cu process. >> yeah. but i'm trying to look at this. >> commissioner johnson. >> are you concerned that the person that came for the cu wouldn't be the entity. >> the dennis herrera. >> you know have the cu process on getting the dph approval. >> getting back to my you could think so. >> okay. it's not final until you get an approval you can add that to conditional approval. >> i'm really challenged that's an extra effort on the staff for the dph not finalize the cu

won't we have to track the dph properties. >> they'll have to submit a paper saying they have the final permit and we'll finalize the cu. >> okay. my fellow commissioners are accusing me i know that commissioner moore was ask me i know she has questions i am troubled with the skooun issues and we'll have contention cu because the sequencing can help us we'd out the bad actors. >> let's s is if that's right additional comments. >> commissioner moore. >> (laughter). >> commissioner johnson through

through me for a loop but i hope her conversation obey b will be picked that's not clear you have administration active processes that my hinder or promote he each i don't have the experience to say one way or another i'm in sponge support even more today because last week and he at the beginning of this week i got a large number of phrased letters that most people object to the aspects that if i understand you correctly supervisor you've picked up many of them particularly the single practitioners amnesty, etc. that's one having the communication but also the ability to really challenge and i'd like to ask director

from the comments i've received from commissioners and people from small business do you believe that the majority of the broader concerns have been addressed? the between both piece of legislation >> that's with the small business commission. >> the small business commission i think a majority of concerns were being addressed in terms of what needs to help the city and dph in terms of dealing with enforcement the fact that because the city was not allowed to require an establishment permit for establishments that had cam tech assisted therapists was what created that the

commission p is - getting a permit to operate is required for many bayshore's you know for restaurant many, many businesses the faxing fact that the state didn't chose to be with dental or medical offices they don't get a permit to operate but inspections for health and safety; right? that wasn't put in with the first state legislation so the state repassed it and now the state is able to do that we're in support of that where the commission has a great concern we're sdugd the conditional use as a blanket requirement because of the illicit operators and not to say we need to not to deal with them

we need to deal with them the commissions purview is about foster small businesses to what is the conditional use process maple and there's two elements to this. >> just a simple answer because of the time we're already spent on this item you've come closer this commission takes a strong interest in understanding the particular needs of small business to help them whenever we can and again, i think many of us agree particularly let by commissioner antonini's comments i'd like to see this by the medical profession fall there the rules that's in my preference a that's not where we are we're trying to do the best we can. >> to quickly summarize the commission had an a and b the a to have the sole proprietor

exemptions but the commission in terms of the understanding the proprietors as denied in the health code allowed up to 4 operators and to do the b what is more of a expedited process not taking six or seven most for a legitimate establishment and help the practitioners to get through the process and open that's looking at it going forward we support the amnesty. >> i'll support commissioner richards q request at some point the two commissions meet together and to talk about the issues we're k340r7b9d with and clear up those tools to deal with the land use locations such as clustering, etc., etc. to

give us the tools to help you and us 09 thing i want to ask the supervisor is this draft reds as it stand in front of us today talks about the policies that you mentioned and i should ask you, you are the original for we can indeed recommend approval of it today or are we basically do we have 0 recruit everybody. >> we're going to have to make changes for example, the amnesty program has not been 106rd out we want you to support it but the memo outlines it in terms of the practitioner was wasn't in the resolution if you want to support a exemption of one person it would be good to include.

>> okay one thing to ask the supervisor i'd like that to be a discussion between you and some of the siren practitioners i go to practitioners who own the business they use more than one table that's partially i was the methodology or one comes in and another one leaves there's an ability to have two tables. >> awning u you mean the sharing of a room. >> a single practitioner using u using two tables in order to be more proficient in the pursuit of their business that's a subtle single practitioner means single table i want to make sure we have that.

>> the reason we've made the recommendation simple for enforcement but i do i have to have - i had the same experience where one practitioner is practicing on another table we're trying to figure out a way for the department to enforce the practitioner has the quality of the space the department agrees that exempting sole practitioners from a cu is the right thing to do. >> the details to be sorted out. >> i'm in full support of the politicians mentioned today, we'll building read into the record and again, i appreciate this is where it is today. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner antonini.

>> i'm going to try to mansion a motion and summarize what we've got my motion will require the conditional use for all new uses but all new you outdoors have to obtain a permit from dph and this process thereby pubically noticed if possible that would be number one i'll support number 2 with the 3 year review of establishment guidance with the approval with the standards of operation and 3 prohibit all the new establishment at any existing massage that have been closed with violations of any law for 3 years and finally the existence of medical service from the establishments that employ all c a m t certified