and valid certification practitioner permit prior to that same date. they have been functioning in the state before that same date. there are no open violations. enforcement issues, 53 dph, department of planning at the time of permit approval and they must have submitted an application for the dph permitting process for their site within 90 days of the effective ordinance. of course we would outreach to as many establishments as possible. this is important. we felt this was the most easy clear way to be able to grandfather in all of those existing establishments without making it too confusing because originally there was a proposal that would change to medical use and this would capture the bulk of the businesses in existence right now. the issue that will arise

though, however is that there are some neighborhood corridors that they flat out prohibit massage uses in those commercial corridors. you know that ms. drikzey sent out that information to you already. we wanted to visually show you that in many neighborhoods medical use maybe allowed but massage is not allowed. when establishments received the exemption they became under the definition of medical use. but in some of those neighborhoods, again massage was flat out prohibited. so whoever was the district supervise at that time made a very conscience decision. there was a very conscience effort to prohibit massage in certain neighborhoods. we wanted to show you that as a visual.

>> it's possible that was a neighborhood group that went to their supervisor as well, right? you don't really know what the original -- origination of the zoning restriction was. if you realize that a massage that they didn't object, suppose there is a business that is open and objectionable to anybody because it's completely legitimate, the process to amend the zoning requires a typical process where a community group would come to their supervisor and say this is zoning prohibited and they can take it to their planning? >> yes. we are going to be doing a lot of that outreach to the district supervisors. we are going to be pointing out where there may be issuesch we're going to give them full

information so if they decide they want to allow in certain areas, they have the opportunity to do so. just as a visual to sf govtv to show the spreadsheet here. as you can see where there is a c pound, one column is establishment for permitted and some are not permitted and the next column for medical services. for the most part they are permitted but there are other exceptions as well. we are going to be combing through these list to show that in those neighborhoods they are appropriately district with their supervisors and make them aware of the situation and if they decide they would like to take additional steps to zoning they can do so. it's complicated in terms of the amnesty program.

this is the best solution to come up with to capture the most people and they would be allowed to continue in operation. >> depending on how this goes, if we get to this point where legislation is enacted and the zoning precludes it, what happens day one. am i out of business or do i have 18 months for remediation. what happens? >> that is something, the legislation does take effect within 30 days right after passage of the board. i think we are going to do our very best. we are still trying to comb through the list of what businesses those involve. so once that happens, once we have that information we are going to try to figure out what that plan will be. you talked about or you mentioned non-conforming uses. we

actually thought about can we just lou -- allow some of the establishment grandfathered in for non-conforming uses. these businesses had to have been legal at the time than whatever the current zoning was in place. unfortunately some do not have the proper permits. so again, we believe that what we just presented will be able to at least capture the majority of establishments. >> right. i commend you in your efforts to work your way through this. you can't break laws in the process because there are laws. so you would have to change the law in order to accommodate the exception or you would have to not be breaking the law to accommodate the exception. you are weaving your way through all kind of exceptions here. thank you for that. it's complicated. >> yes, very complicated. so

that concludes the general direction of whenever we are -- where we are going for the planning substitutions. we'll get staff to answer your question about if massage came first and another use came afterwards, but my understanding is it still would require a conditional use permit because you are no longer a principal place of business, you are now an accessory. >> commissioner adams? >> i want to thank you tonight for giving the presentation on this. i really like your common scenarios, this is what i actually needed to grasp it all. so, i just want to say and i know you've been talking and working with the massage community out there. i totally understand why you are doing this. and i really appreciate your outreach to that community because when we heard this item last month,

the one thing they did say is she is reaching out and talking to us. i really appreciate that, so thank you. >> okay, thank you very much. >> any other questions? >> okay, in terms of the health piece. we will have to make a few tweaks. there is nothing major changing. we are just making a set of amendments that again have been suggested by the massage community. one of the outstanding issues that we had not yet made a final decision on has to do with the requirement for education. right now dph requires 250 hours of training. camtc requires 500 hours. i was approaching this with more caution because i did not want to create more barriers for practitioners to

become more certified, however this is to require 500 hours. i think you can speak to that but that would be amenable as well. >> all right. should we have ms. conford give herpes? -- her -- piece. >> good evening. department of public health. last month there were proposed changes about the 500 hours and we are going to put forth that as amendment into the health code. we do want the practitioner certification to the equitable. we want them both to be held to the same standard. one seemed severe than the other. we'll uniform that. the

other couple of changes that we are going to make was also suggestions from the massage community around our enforcement practices. so these originally we had a set time of a year when we had -- either revoked a permit and people wanted it to be 3 years. we will propose if something had a suspension or revocation of any health permit with grounds for denial that a business could not locate in that area for 3 years instead of 12 months. those are major changes right now. when we spoke of it last month with the planning commission that we would have a permitting system for all massage establishments is what we moved forward with. those are the only changes. i also can answer a little bit

about the accessory and principal use if you want. >> yes. >> normally the principal use is the first use of business and the accessory use is the use that support the same kurms and the accessory use is determined by the bulk size and density. so the planning department would have criteria. if that were to become based on that criteria and maybe parking, floor space, if that becomes bigger then the principal use, then it switches and that becomes the principal use. that's how they are defined within the planning code. >> okay. that clarifies it for me. >> the one other thing that i would like to talk about is the implementation of the permitting process. one thing we heard that the massage community thought it was very cumbersome that we have to get the referrals from the fire and police department. i did speak to those departments and unfortunately

they are not willing to wave those inspections. it's when they go to the facility and inspect safety and fire and with respect to electrical and plumbing and the police department does want that background check. unfortunately we are not able to wave those deferrals or fees. if we had a business that was previously permitted by dph and tax exempt and now coming back into system that we would try to reduce the fee it would be nominal because we would have to recover our cost by 10-15% to help them out a little bit. >> okay, has there been any further discussion of this notion of the door being unlocked or locked for security purposes. single family house --?

>> there has not. we have changed the rules to the doors. >> some conversation whether the police have a means to communicate through a locked door for security reasons because obviously there are neighborhoods where someone whose there alone with a client is going to feel at risk. that's a totally different. >> if they are -- alone with a client they are permitted to lock the doors. if they are there with one client they are allowed to close the exterior doors. >> okay, if there is no other questions, thank you very much. >> thank you very much. city clerk: shall i call for public comment? >> now we have public comment. city clerk: public comment is 3 minutes. i will call the first

three names. so there is sasha cardenas, corey howe's, and amanda lightner. come up, but i need to get the timer going. okay. my name is sasha card no response, a cmatc massage therapist and owner of in line body establishment for other practitioners. i have dedicated my adult life to the legitimate body work and treat chronic and

acute pain disorders, many of them referred to me by physicians and surgeons. i have invested thousands of dollars and thousands of hours to my training and certification and on going education and study. yet because i provide hands-on therapy, city officials that despite going through background checks and certification, i'm a prostitute otherwise and it can seem to have a negative impact on the community. i have witnessed firsthand the laborious process can be for a business. i went into business myself 5 years ago after the place i worked with struggled to get a conditional use permit. it forced to assume the burden of hours and to obtain this permit. i will most

certainly lose my business and livelihood and as more legitimate establishments follow suit. although i don't condone illegal businesses. i should be able to operate my legitimate business. it's discriminatory and wrong. i asked the small business commission's assistance to protect my livelihood and my community for what i have worked so hard to work. i ask for the grandfathered program for established businesses. >> thank you.

>> good evening commission. i stand before you today to say my piece about the current ordinance being discussed and how i feel it will affect the massage profession. currently i'm a student at the institute. i'm also a u.s. veteran who served in the marine corp for the past 8 years and looking for another career. i have a strong passion for this career and for medicinal purposes is more evident and it will be seen in the rank with other businesses in the future. i don't see a significance and established massage therapy businesses in

maintaining a business. most students wishing to start a business have to come out of pocket and who already have an accumulation debt to their name and now for the amount of time the puc will take the process to be used for entrepreneurship caused by those that cheat the system already not to only generate the profit that they can take aside from massage parlors. believes the problem well intact. this is an aside to prostitution rings. please don't add hardship to becoming or becoming successful in this career. i asked that the process, excuse

me, i ask in the process of creating this ordinance that you take into consideration the effects on those in the practice, those that are beginning their practice and last but not least, those that last but not least consider the effects on the future of massage therapy. >> thank you, awesome by the way. that's two great public comments. you both have scripts even when you tripped you got back on track. way to go. next up. >> hello, my name is amanda. you may remember me from the last commission i spoke as well. i don't have an exact script because this is the first time we've heard the amendments that have been proposed on these two legislations. i will do my best to stay on point with you. i really appreciate hearing that there have been

some exemptions that the planning commission and supervisor tang's office and the health commission everybody is taking into account especially the sole provider exemption from the cup process that allows someone in my position a small business to be able to continue practicing. i don't think that the legislation as proposed is ready for approval yet. there is still certain things that really prohibit legitimate businesses from being able to practice. one i appreciate that there are still four providers allowed to be exempt from the cup process. however if each one has to go through solo establishment permit process that is actually a really large process

in and of itself. i know that because i have gotten my building inspection permit recently and it took over 5 months, it took a lot of money and it took providing architectural drawings, inspection, so many different minutia. 13 different visits. if each person of those four have to go through that process, that's causing the city a lot of excess work and it's causing each practitioner access work. so i really propose that the four people could actually share a solo establishment permit to cut down on just excess labor and excess inefficiency. as well i think it's important to

consider that not everybody knew that they had to have this piece of paper signed for camtc exemption. it's not clear. if you have a certification you do not have to get extra permitting. people didn't get their businesses signed off on. we need to take that into account and how do we actually define an existing establishment that we really need to broaden that definition. so i really thank you for considering all of these points and considering that the cup process is not a way to wheed out actors in the beginning. >> all right the xt set of speakers is beverly may, stacy degoir and london

louis. >> i will try not to repeat. i'm beverly may from the massage therapy council. i will try no the to repeat my prior comments. i'm pleased to see the on going conversations regarding this ordinance and at least with the few massage therapist and business owners who are aware that this is even going on. most massage therapist and business owners in the city, i have a feeling are not even aware that anything is being considered. i was involved when sb 731 was passed and most of all anger and humiliation rebellion at the anger and humiliation of being

subject to regulations they were only drafted for the sex industry, not for professional massage which much was made during the sunset hearings last year of our law that unintended consequences of the law. yet the bill authors in both business and professional communities were aware of respected consequences of onerous regulations and fees putting certified massage therapist and most sole proprietors for know more than 4-5 clients a day and fierce competition. there is little room in san francisco for businesses and establishments for conditional use permit. los angeles county is amending their

ordinance and afc next year will require certification of anyone practicing massage. their planning department decided they don't want conditional use permits. the city attorney for modesto has referred to a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem. i think that's true for a san francisco demand. a bill drafted into the bill with stakeholders work together to being mindful to the needs of the profession and business owners especially the sole providers. i hope san francisco considers this especially i have only seen two sole providers engage in this process. thank you. >> thank you, beverly.

>> good evening commissioners and everyone. i'm stacy degoir, a small business owner as a sole provider in the city. i was very happy and thank you supervisor tang for that layout of the different establishments. part of what's been mentioned is this is a very complex issue. i had a handout describing the four different establishments. the first one being general, the second one is this category of declaration of exemption group and then we have the sole fix or out call establishment and out call only establishment. this currently exist in the code right now. what i would like to propose so that

this regulation will not just address human trafficking but will address compliance of massage therapist who are being treated as professionals. this category the declaration exemption group become certified establishment category. they will be zoned as medical and only for those that are camtc owners and providers. this is what other cities are doing and it creates that, takes care of some of the zoning issues, a lot of what impedes massage professionals from wanting to step forward. right now the group of people that are willing to step forward and speak at these meetings is shrinking because everybody is afraid if they stick their head out they are going to get slammed with a puc which is

like a moratorium because it takes from 6 months to a year to get this. as you heard from amanda, has to cross many desks. on the provider part that currently gpa is general practitioner permit is only 100 -hour criteria and advanced is 200 -hour criteria. right now the bar is very low in san francisco. perhaps that's part of the problem why we've had a proliferation problem. the san francisco council of certificate holders are considered division two health care providers and should be treated as such. thank you very much. >> you have 23 more seconds. >> okay, so i really look forward to more collaboration where the

supervisors offices can work with the massage industry to improve this legislation so that we can support it. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> take a deep breath. >> hi, i'm london alice. thanks for having us here today. i want to touch on a touch things i heard today. people are terrified. they are walking away. their plan is not to come forward and not to tell anyone what they are doing. that's really sad because i would like to see everyone coming forward and to support our businesses and be recognized by the city. so, i have e-mails coming through our group continuously, we are not coming forward, we are not signing

letters. we want nothing to do with this. keep that in mind. the second thing is a volunteer exemption. i didn't send for an exemption for cmtc for my skin care business because it said it was volunteer. it did not say anywhere in the website that i had to. you are going to have people with that problem. under what supervisor tang is saying to us today is great she's going to have a grandfather but it doesn't apply to anyone like myself because we didn't sent in that paperwork. it was voluntary. i say conditional use permit is really awesome if someone is already busted for something. it would be great for an environment for the public to say yes, we would like these bad actors out of our neighborhood. forcing people through them is making them

hide and second, people are not going to get through it. my building won't. not just me, but i have three other small businesses that don't go through conditional use but will be hit by department of building inspectors because we are all under one roof with the same landlord. if you are a business, how many businesses would you like to get hit with fines and/or who else has to send in more architectural maps. this is not going to affect one small business under one roof. my landlord doesn't want to renew my lease now. i have been in business for 10 years. i have contractors working for me, not even employees. single women trying to survive in this city. what about them? i don't think it applies to the small businesses trying to