Laserfiche WebLink
AB 1147 Assembly Bill-Bill Analysis Page 2l of 35 <br /> According to the AMTA-CA, consumers do not know the difference <br /> between a purchased certification and a certification that <br /> requires a specific amount of training. Different jurisdictions <br /> have different standards which would indicate that there is no <br /> local government agreement about what standards are necessary and <br /> sufficient. <br /> b) Prior Law and Regulation in California Cities and Counties <br /> AB 1147 <br /> Page 28 <br /> of Massage Businesses. AB 3325 (McAllister, Chapter 1352, <br /> Statutes of 1976) enacted the prior local authority to <br /> regulate the business of massage. In an analysis of that <br /> bill, it is stated that the purpose of the bill is to clearly <br /> state that local governments have the authority to regulate <br /> the operation of massage businesses through licensing <br /> procedures if they so desire. <br /> The law allowed cities and counties to condition the issuance <br /> of a massage license upon proof that the massage personnel <br /> and the owners or operator of such businesses have not been <br /> convicted of certain sex-related crimes. It was argued by <br /> some that this legislation was enacted to deal in part with <br /> the adult-oriented sex business, but in doing so, legitimate <br /> massage businesses were subject to local ordinances that <br /> inappropriately and oppressively regulated them as "adult <br /> entertainment." Some examples are restrictive zoning, <br /> excessive fees, VD tests, required showers and separate <br /> restrooms, and prohibited home visits. Because local <br /> jurisdictions controlled the regulation of massage, local <br /> ordinances could be vastly different. <br /> The perception of massage as a vice resulted in many cities <br /> requiring expensive conditional use permits. Restricting <br /> massage businesses from opening within 1,000 feet of schools, <br /> churches, or residences effectively zoned massage out of many <br /> small cities. Proponents of state regulation argued that <br /> local regulation treats professionals and "massage parlors" <br /> alike and that consumers have a problem knowing how to <br /> distinguish legitimate massage practitioners from "massage <br /> parlors." <br /> 3.Current Regulation of Massage Therapists and Their Businesses. In <br /> February 2003, Assembly Member Kehoe introduced AB 1388 , which was <br /> sponsored by the AMTA-CA. As introduced, the bill would have <br /> established the Massage Therapy and Bodyworks Commission in the DCA <br /> to register and regulate massage therapists and bodyworkers. It was <br /> referred to the Assembly Business and Professions Committee; <br /> however, it died in that Committee without being heard. Although <br /> there was significant discussion surrounding the issue of state <br /> regulation of massage therapy, interested parties could not reach <br /> any type of agreement as to what the regulatory scheme should be. <br /> In January 6, 2005, the issue of whether California should shift the <br /> regulation of massage therapists from the local level to the state <br /> level and what type of regulatory oversight should be provided was <br /> AB 1147 <br /> Page 29 <br /> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_1101-1 150/ab_1147_cfa_20140620_111115_sen_comm.html 7/3/2014 <br />