Monday, February 2, 2015,  11:00 am - 12:30 pm

Present: Stephany Ashley, St. James Infirmary; Samira Causevic, SFDPH Newcomer; Linn Chiu, Legal 

Services for Children; Cristy Dieterich, SFDPH Newcomer; Semuteh Freeman, Legal Services for Children; 

Kate Horton, UCSF; Minouche Kandel, DOSW; Carol Leigh, Bayswan; Alix Lutnick, RTI; Carolina Morales, 

CUAV; Cyd Nova, St. James Infirmary; Celia Roberts, St. James Infirmary; Lidia Salazar, CUAV; Hediana 

Utarti, Asian Women’s Shelter; Rachel West, US Prostitutes Collective

Massage Ordinance 

Supervisor Katy Tang discussed the history of massage establishment regulation in San Francisco and 

highlighted the major changes in the legislation that she has introduced at the Board of Supervisors.   

Many of the new requirements, like the number of instructional hours that massage practitioners must 

have, or the rules on appropriate attire are mandated in the state law, and San Francisco cannot change 

There was feedback around the following sections of the ordinance:

 Consideration of applicants who have been charged with crimes in addition to convicted of 

o Supervisor Tang agreed to look at this language

 The requirement that practitioners publicly post their massage practitioner identification card.  

This could put them at risk of stalking.

 Concerns about language in the findings and purpose that appear to stigmatize sex workers, or 

that include statements about the impact of massage establishments on the health and safety of 

a community that may not be grounded in data.

 Concern about language that it is “unlawful” to practice massage for compensation without 

obtaining proper permit, and whether this would further criminalize sex workers.  

o Supervisor Tang agreed that it might be possible to change this.

o Supervisor Tang agreed to look at this language

o Supervisor Tang noted that her intent is not to penalize the persons working in the 

establishments, and that her focus in this ordinance is on the permitting and public 

health department response, not the criminal justice system intervention.

 Concern that permits are prohibited for persons convicted of “any offense related to human 

trafficking” as “related to” has sometimes been interpreted to include prostitution. 

 Ordinance requires DPH team that inspects massage establishment to include health outreach 

workers, who can educate massage practitioners about their workplace rights (minimum wage, 

human trafficking, etc.) as well as link them to health care and services in the community

o Supervisor Tang noted that intent was to focus on human trafficking, not prostitution, 

and would look into whether it might be possible to clarify

o DPH intends to hire bilingual workers who will collaborate with community groups 

serving this population; 

25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 240 | San Francisco, CA 94102 | sfgov.org/dosw | dosw@sfgov.org |415.252.2570

 There was a question about fees paid for a permit application that is eventually denied, and 

whether it is possible to get a refund;

 There was discussion about incorporating voices of person who work as massage practitioners.  

Supervisor Tang has heard from some massage practitioners in her district and others, and is 

open to others who want to give input;

 There was a question about whether there has been any analysis of enforcement in past few 

years that might provide instructive data.  

o Supervisor Tang will check, although often fees pay for the administration of the 

permitting process, which takes staff time even when it is denied. 

o Supervisor Tang has some information from DPH – and can get from Planning 

Department.

Timeline:  The Legislation will be going through the Public Health Commission, the Planning Commission 

and the Small Business Commission before it gets heard in Committee at the Board of Supervisors – 

most likely the Land Use Committee sometime in early April.

If people have more feedback they can provide directly to Supervisor Tang, or through Minouche. 

Immunity policy for Sex Workers

There was update on new captain at Special Victims Unit.  It is unclear if he will be following up on policy 

that Capt. Gracie was working on.  Minouche is scheduling a meeting with him, and will bring this up.

There was a discussion of best strategy to take and whether better to try to legislate through Board of 

Supervisors if we are running into a brick wall.  There was also discussion about how important having a 

protocol from the Public Defender’s Office is, as this seems to be extremely important to the Police 

Department.  There seemed to be consensus from community providers that the big barrier to sex 

workers reporting violence is fear of arrest and not fear of being mistreated if they testify in court, so 

Public Defender policy would not be essential.

The group decided to first try to bring up the policy at a meeting with Police Chief Suhr that the 

Department on the Status of Women periodically schedules.  If that does not generate some movement, 

then it may be time to try to get language passed through an ordinance at the Board of Supervisors.

Case File Review with SFPD

Catie has asked Tony Flores to set up a meeting with Capt. Santos – to get stamp of approval to do case 

Next meeting:  March 30, 2015 from 11:00 am – 12:30 pm at DOSW, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 240, 

San Francisco, CA.