the cost of doing business special fully san francisco. but with cu and the rents rising and the landlords having the opportunity to rent to so many people, the c u is a place for business. i know supervisor tang you have done an amazing job on your outreach. i wonder if we can explore that further. >> to expedite the program, they had set certain types of businesses or types of businesses to be able to go through that expedite process. currently massage is not in there. we are happy to continue that conversation, it's not part of it right now. i think the larger picture with the planning department today in general is how is it that you are really better support the

smaller businesses citywide across the industries. that's something they have been looking at. they hired additional planners, like a dozen of them and they have programs for small types of businesses that maybe don't have to go through commissions. so i'm very interested in looking forward to that bigger conversation where again, massage would be included as part of that. the second issue is that you spoke about in terms of outreach in making sure people are aware of this proposal for conditional use process. this has been the process for many many years until 731 came into place. the other thing i want to highlight about it is that our office actually sent out a letter to 200 establishments about this and talked about the conditional use permit. by law i'm only allowed to

send out 200 so we are missing 50 establishments. this is more outreach that i have done on any piece of legislation. i have never sent out 200 pieces of mail about a legislation. we have gotten a few phone calls and inquiries about what this would mean for their businesses and tried to walk them through it. after these calls they are okay and not impacted because many of them are sole practitioners. i was hoping that more different businesses would come out. i have not seen them. again the ones who have been different and calling us, we've been trying to address their questions as much as we can. so in terms of outreach, i have tried. you know, they choose whether they want to show up or not and i understand there may be some fear but that's the only way we can have a two way conversation on this. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner white? >> yes, my question again goes

back to the amnesty program because i'm trying to think in my head, if i signed a ten year lease and i can't get my permit to pass to complying, what will happen to the small business owner that is stuck in that lease? like what's going to happen to that individual? >> our legislation does not address that. fortunately and unfortunately we are not able to address the private contractual agreements between the landlord. i'm hoping that situation never arises. i can't not speak to it from a legislative perspective. except wore wer going to try to everything we can to make sure the legitimate process follow this business. >> it seems like there should be some

sort of -- >> it's not something we can legislate because it's a contractual agreement. >> is that enough time to get all the permitting done? >> just to submit the application. >> so there is no limit. this is my question, so how much time do they have to actually, they turn it in in 90 days but if it takes an entire year to get a cu, they are still able to operate senate #2ksh -- at that time? >> we hope it doesn't take a year, but our goal is to get people efficiently through this. >> okay. any other commissioner comments? >> i had just a question supervisor.

you mentioned 200, you had an outreach to 200 establishments. so there are 250 in the city licensed establishments? >> roughly at least in the data base they have. they could have been permitted through dph or filed an exemption because they were cmtc certified. it's a mix of the two. obviously we've been communicating at the mail with the stakeholders. but we did try our best. if they want part of this discussion through a mailed letter to these businesses. >> how many licensed individual practitioners? >> maybe you can answer that? >> again, i would just emphasize that the numbers we have are the people who complied and filed other exemption or permits through dph. this is one main goal of our legislation is to

get everyone in the system which currently we do not have. >> thank you. >> you know, outreach is extraordinarily difficult. whether it's my class of business manufacturing. i know whenever we have a group of professionals that are affected by legislation, it is very common that only a small percentage of them actually engage and understand what's going on. it's vitally important that you as the leaders of your profession outreach beyond that. as we heard, 200 letters is not a lot. there is a supervisor asking for something i don't care about and you pitch that letter, you miss that communication. so i think it's a little short sided to think there is going to be punitive

action against someone who wants to engage in the process and understand what the impact is on their business. i encourage you to encourage your colleagues to engage. what if all the seats were filled here and what if everybody was, you know, making cogent points about the topic at hand? that's what democracy is all about. so don't go and hide and don't say i'm too busy to get engaged. that's the common frame of a small business owners. i'm too busy. guess what, we are all small business owners and we are volunteering our time to be here. you are small business owners and volunteering your time to be here. that's the way we engage. no one is an expert in your field. we are experts in our own field. we have dived into this to

under your business and in the supervisors office, we had a meeting and i thought i was a heart is -- smart guy and i got schooled. i didn't know that the supervisor can only send out 200 letters. we have a couple more questions from our commissioners. commissioner riley? >> i'm just going to go back and answer questions about the practitioners. these are rough estimates. i believe the department of public health has issued 1300 practitioner licenses and we have requested that from cmtc, they had approximately 1700 but there is duplicates. they are more difficult because they have the home address of the practitioner and they don't always know where they are practicing if their information is not updated. that's my rough estimate on the

practitioner. >> most of that class is not affected by what we are discussing here today. they subject to the existing laws which they may not be in compliance with, but this, we are talking about here today does not affect because of the work by the supervisor and the department of public health to exempt the sole practitioner. so the bulk of them are not. we are talking very specifically about a group of 200-250 which the supervisor has attempted to outreach. i think it's important to acknowledge the people who are not engaged may not need to be engaged. there is not going to be any surprises for them, but it is vitally important for those who are affected are engaged. commissioner riley? >> yes, my question is what kind of authority does the dph have over these massage parlors? i know you can shutdown a restaurant if they are not in compliance, can you do the same

thing? >> so previous to the state law, the dotdz had department of public health was permitting and we had authority to revoke or spend them. when sb 31 went into place it took away the authority for businesses who had cmtc certified practitioners. now we would he about able to go in there and close it if there is something illegal. >> if there is something illegal you would follow up on that. >> if there is a high risk violation we would bring in the staff for administrative hearing and we would have to hear testimonies from

the police department and the establishment and we would hear that process and if there is evidence we would revoke their permit and they still have an at some point to go to the board of appeals and appeal that division. it goes through an entire administration process. >> if there was crime involved would you do the initial inspection? >> usually what happens when we get complaints about illicit activity or human trafficking that gets on our task force. we go out with the police department and fire department on these random task forcen expectations. at that time the police is is there. they don't typically arrest the people but they are attempting to building larger cases against human trafficking. we are not trying to be punitive to people who are being exploited and victimized. we are trying to build cases

against these organizations to close down establishment. >> you are the first line of offense and you call in other agencies as required? >> of course. >> okay. any other commissioner questions or comments? all right. so, >> so commissioners, >> this is the point where we would make some recommendations. i think what my important take away from the discussions i have been having all day today and now here is that one, it is a work in progress. a lot of stuff is probably decided or kind of immutable because the planning department has their way of doing things, the health department has their way of doing things and people have got their opinions about what's going to happen and what's going to come down. but it

isn't a law yet. it isn't finalized yet. in fact my understanding is that legislation has been, there has been a delay to work out some more details, good news. okay because slowing down the process a little bit so everyone can engage and make themselves heard and so we can learn more is very important. at this point i feel i have to say a little bit more comfortable than last time. i felt that i was chasing a train down the tracks, i maybe standing in front of it, i'm not sure. but i feel that we are being heard both the small business commission and the massage professional is being heard. i don't know where we go from here in terms of the process for you supervisors, maybe you could inform us because i think, you know the worst part is the uncertainty. we don't know -- all know how to

legislative process works. >> we are looking for a recommendation here. if you agree with it or part of it, we would love to hear that. we explore every alternative that we could. the next step from here is it will go to land use committee. scheduled for april 20th and most likely may and then go to the board of supervisors for two readings before it takes effect. >> what open issues do you see at this point? what are you still working on? >> we have largely tried to shape the amnesty program. for the large part what we have shared with you today already shared at land use committee in terms of the conditions. in terms of the conditional use requirement i have her the from the businesses if

there is owner ship that is also cmtc certified there may be some exemption for the process for them. unfortunately we are not able to pursue that because there are also establishments out there that have exactly that structure and have violated the laws. it's not as easy as saying the legitimate ones we'll apply the standards to you and the illegitimate ones we'll apply different standards for you. >> did you talk about that or in general agreement? >> yes. we've explored. i can't tell you how many different permutations of this legislation already. >> okay. now build into legislation is the notion of a 3-year review, is that correct? >> that's correct. so this is not, i know we got some calls where people were concerned that this meant

you are on a probation period for 3 years, that's not the case. if you were granted a permit from the planning department you are subject to after 3 years they look at check to make sure there are no violations in place and make sure you are up and up and it's not that you are on probation for 3 years. >> is there a contemplation that in 3 years after the passage of this legislation there will be an evaluation as to whether this is really solving the problem. because a possible outcome is it's not solving the problem and let's put more regulations in place or this is not working or maybe at that time there has been developments at the about making a division to exception or -- something like that to come back and look at the legislation.

>> if i'm still around, i will be happy to reevaluate. >> maybe this is a way to help that. okay. >> so, commissioners, a couple things. so supervisor tang had, if we go with the department -- the health code legislation, she's proposed two amendments, correct, two amendments which are the requirement for the education be 500 hours so eliminating the 250 requirement and making the set standard of 500 hours and also to revoke a permit for 3 years from being able to reopen. those are two things that will be amended in the health code regulation and apart from that, other than than not having a specific designation for establishments to meet division 2, i think then pretty much there will not be any other

changes to the health code recollection, correct? or will there be amnesty in regard to the grandfathered code. >> amnesty is in the planning code. the last one i mentioned the last time we were here. >> it might be good for the record if you can present those. >> substitute for legislation in the finding section we are going to acknowledge the usefulness validity of massages of profession as suggested by the community and ensure the health and sanitation are realistic practice and not burdensome and to provide

reacceptables for towels and make sure that we have not list of offenses. only if you are convicted, not just currently charged with but convicted of crimes. we are planning to add the definition of the sole practitioner to clarify. currently in the health code it says a sole practitioner establishment, but it doesn't say what a sole practitioner position is and we are going to remove the tier general and advanced practitioner license and just one that will require 500 hours of training and remove the temporary permits excepts those from out of state. if you have an out of state temporary practitioner permit you have a 60-day maximum which is in the code. we would remove the provision allowing for trainee permits. in terms of the massage practitioner certifications

they no longer have to be posted in a public area, however they must be made available from a request from a health inspector as per state law and extend the length of time the health director has provided evidence against practitioner or establishment when requested from 2 business to 5 calendar days. we are requiring a notification to the police department of all denied permit application. also the health director may hold hearings for cmdtc for restrictions for hearings and permits for over 60 years old and who do not employ others from employing the license fee. we are saying no, you will need to go through proper process. as

pointed out again by members of the massage therapy community. in terms of the planning code, again, we are making the amendments to the amnesty program as outlined earlier, we plan to exempt the sole practitioners and establishment owners of conditional use process up to four using the space and extending the time when establishment has to be shutdown due to any violations as mentioned currently it's a 1 year requirement but require 3 years before the new establishment can open. those are in a nutshell the amendments that will be contained in the substitute legislation. >> thank you very much for that review. >> so, commissioners upon that file you can either take official action tonight. supervisor tang did say that the likelihood is that these

two items will go before land use committee in early may. we have a commission meeting on the 27th if you want to reserve making a final recommendation upon reviewing the revised legislation once it's substituted, but it would be helpful to at least put some statement on the record for me to at least be able to provide something for the supervisor and to the other supervisors in terms of what you support in terms of the direction of the amendments being proposed. >> okay. >> commissioner dooley? >> i think that we can kind of separate these two out. the 2 pieces. i feel that the health code part seems like you've done a lot of work and it seems like it might work but

personally i have grave reservations about the planning code. the part specifically that will require massage establishments to get a cu. as a small business owner myself, i know that is incredibly torturous and difficult and if there is no violations, i just cannot recommend that that now be part of the cu process. >> i would say we make a motion to deal with the health one first. >> i think you mentioned about no violations to allow to go forward with a cu. we don't have the violations on record. >> i want to make another note is that

you can also provide while it may not necessarily be specifically related to the specifics in the legislation, but and it can be something that is a separate document for each of the legislations, but some direction that you would like to provide the city. so in relationship to while we have the amnesty program but a direction to the dbi or the planning department that the city is going to have businesses coming through the office and help them prepare for that and ensure that process and we can invite the department of building inspection and ask are they going to be requiring blueprints for these very small entities. i shouldn't say small, but some of the places are not that

big or their tenant improvements. a lot of the tenant improvement don't involve major construction. what are going to be the requirements to help these business through but you can provide some direction to the department about some expectation you would like to see to help the businesses through this process. >> i mean it's a universal truth that conditional use is a burden of both time, money and effort on any small business regardless of the profession. i think as commissioners here we would never advocate for increasing the burdens on small business to open and operate. that being said, the conditional use process exist for a reason and there are good reasons for it. and i think there is, you know, this is not great consolation for any specific group, but there is

general acknowledgment here in city hall that the conditional use process needs to be looked at very carefully and stream lined and made lesson -- onerous for everybody. the planning department doesn't like it either. they all have to recover their cost and more time and effort on their parts. i think we are always balancing what is in the public good and what is good government with what is kind of in our best interest as business owners. i don't want it to be miss construed that the commission is endorsing something to the disfavor of small business but that we are sometimes just making good policy decisions that are a balance of what we want as small business owners or on behalf of our constituents of

small business owners and what represents good govens. -- governance. we are always here to try to make better law and compliance of the laws. there have been modifications that are amenable to and in fact been recommended by the constituent group here and that you've made every effort to incorporate those suggestions. i think there is still a window of opportunity that maybe some finer points that the supervisors and the department of public health should know about, do it now. little things. it sounds almost trivial, you don't have the waste basket for towels and then it's someone crying that it shouldn't be there. go through

it with a fine comb. >> i want to keep them separate from item no. 3 and item no. 4. in the public comment i heard it was more about the planning issues and not so much the health issues. i think that they did get those right and they did listen and increasing it to 500 hours. i would second commissioner dooley's recommendation on item 3 that we support the supervisor on item no. 3 separate from item no. 4 with the health code amendments that they are putting forward. since we are going to have to vote on two any way let's tackle one before we tackle the other. >> so, commissioners, so the motion before you is to recommended to

the board of supervisors approval for the health code legislation with the proposed amendments. >> okay. and it's been second. >> seconded. so that was supervisor dooley first and seconded by commissioner -- dooley and all right. i will do a roll call. commissioner adams, aye, commissioner dooley, aye, commissioner dwight, aye, commissioner ortiz cartagena, yes, riley, yes, sarkissian, yes, white, yes. that passes 7-0. okay. so item 4 concerns the planning code provisions. i think that

as we have already noted that we commend the efforts to adjust the planning code as it refers to this sole practitioner and the ability for four up to four sole practitioners to share a space and that is what the supervisor is recommending but we won't know whether it's finally approved from the planning commission until they do so. i'm supportive of that. the question, the crux of this is the conditional use for certified legitimate practitioners. we have had a lot of discussion about that and there is a lot more discussion outside of this room with that and it sounds as though it's intractable at this time that there