Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee accepts amendments to massage and body-art ordinances, continues measures for further review
Summary
Supervisors accepted substantive amendments to a massage-establishment ordinance (background checks, ID, anti-trafficking notices) and advanced state-conforming body-art rules (tattoo/piercing), with DPH and industry urging additional refinements; both items were continued for follow-up.
The Rules Committee on Oct. 3 took up two sets of health-code changes aimed at massage establishments and body-art (tattoo and piercing) facilities.
Supervisor Jane Tang (author) described an ordinance to tighten rules for massage establishments: require photo identification for practitioners, authorize denial of a massage-establishment permit for applicants with specified convictions, add a background-check requirement, prohibit alcohol and illicit-drug activity on premises during business hours, notify property owners of health-code violations, bar establishment reapproval at the same site for 24 months following a revocation, and require posting of state-provided resources for victims of human trafficking. Supervisor Tang said the amendments codify state changes and clarify local enforcement.
The committee accepted the amendments by consensus and continued the ordinance for additional review because the revisions were considered substantive.
Separately, the Department of Public Health presented an ordinance to conform San Francisco's body-art code to state law (including registration and permitting of practitioners and facilities, hepatitis-B vaccination guidance, bloodborne-pathogen training, infection-control plans, mobile-unit regulation and inspection fees). Industry representatives supported robust regulation but asked for tweaks. Paul Stull, owner of Body Manipulations, told the committee that the facility-permit fee as written was "outrageously high" and urged the city to require better experience standards for first-time practitioners or a documented practical training period before independent practice.
Deputy City Attorney John Gibner and DPH staff said they will work on the recommended clarifications; the committee agreed to accept technical amendments and continued the measures to allow staff and industry to refine fee and training language before forwarding to the full Board.
Next steps: DPH and industry will meet with supervisors' offices to refine training and fee language; both items will return to committee before the Board votes.
