Supervisors clear local code changes to align with state massage licensing, advance tougher enforcement measures

The Government Audit & Oversight Committee voted to approve a non‑substantive amendment to a Department of Public Health ordinance that codifies state law exempting California Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC)‑licensed practitioners from local permits and moved a separate, more enforcement‑oriented ordinance to the full Board with recommendation.

Supervisor Katie Tang, sponsor of the enforcement measure, told the committee her office’s neighborhood survey found at least 30 massage establishments operating in the Sunset District and that the ordinance is intended to address enforcement gaps the city has experienced since the state created CAMTC. "We hope to codify some of the penalties for violations of health codes concerning massage establishments," Tang said, and to add measures allowable under state law, including photo identification for DPH‑licensed practitioners, background checks for establishment applicants, authority to deny permits to applicants with certain convictions, and posting multilingual trafficking‑hotline notices.

Richard Lee of the Department of Public Health told the committee DPH has permitted massage establishments and practitioners under Article 29 since 2003 and currently tracks about 150 permitted establishments and roughly 1,800 permitted practitioners. He said state law has reduced local permitting: "Some of these practitioners and establishments are no longer permitted through us," and DPH reported a roughly 25% decrease in permitted facilities and a 30–40% drop in permitted practitioners since the state change, creating gaps in fee collection and the department’s ability to inspect. Lee described a case where an inspector witnessed illegal activity, issued citations and sought suspension that was later overturned on appeal—an example he said the ordinance aims to prevent by enabling registration and inspections.

The Department on the Status of Women and city advocates urged care in enforcement so that victims of trafficking are not further penalized. Dr. Emily Marasay said San Francisco appears on a federal list of cities with notable trafficking problems and supported the bill’s victim‑sensitive provisions; she recommended fines be imposed on permittees/operators rather than employees: "We don't want to punish the women in those establishments, so we recommend that the fine be applied to the permittee, not the employees," she said.

Lieutenant Trina Waring of SFPD’s Special Victims Unit provided trafficking and outreach figures to the committee, reporting roughly 380 individual victims referred for services, more than 1,300 community members trained to recognize trafficking, outreach contact with dozens of workers, and multiple investigations forwarded to federal prosecutors. "We have...380 individual victims of human trafficking that we've actually received with cases that we've referred to services here in the county," she said.

Deputy City Attorney John Givner advised the committee that the DPH ordinance, as drafted, authorizes penalties against both practitioners and permittees and that the council could remove fines on practitioners while still forwarding the ordinance to the Board. The committee adopted a non‑substantive amendment to avoid conflict between DPH and Supervisor Tang’s ordinances and, after public comment from neighborhood groups and nonprofit advocates, voted to send item 2 to the full Board with a recommendation.

The measures now proceed to the Board of Supervisors. Committee members asked for clarity in the final text about which entity is fined when violations occur and emphasized victim‑protective language; the full Board will consider adoption and any further amendments at its next hearing.