Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council committee calls public hearing to add "massage parlor" to certificate-of-use rules amid trafficking concerns
Summary
After legal staff reviewed code provisions and enforcement tools, the council’s development committee voted to call a public hearing (Oct. 27) to add massage-parlor businesses to the city’s certificate-of-use framework and seek documentation verifying ownership, operator identity and licensing.
The Board of City Development and Planning voted to call a public hearing on Oct. 27 to consider amendments that would include massage parlors (and analogous health-and-wellness businesses where massage is provided) in the city’s certificate-of-use requirements, a step staff described as a regulatory measure to confirm legitimacy and guard against illicit activity.
City legal staff told the committee that the city already defines massage activities in its code and that adding massage parlors to the certificate-of-use regime would require applicants to provide ownership and operator information, licensing and documentation. The law department cited the existing certificate-of-use application requirements — including “copies of documentation identifying all owners and operators of the business, including passport, driver's license, immigration or citizenship records, tax registration, identification certificates for the business or any owner or operator” — as part of the existing review process for certain regulated uses.
Legal staff also noted that state law requires licensing for massage practitioners and sets immigration or residency requirements for licensure. The staff presentation framed the change as a way to ensure businesses are legitimate and licensed by the state, and to provide the city with a mechanism for enforcement, including fines and certificate revocation for noncompliance.
Council members asked clarifying questions about the application requirements and PII handling; legal staff said the information is used to verify owners/operators and that personally identifying information would not be produced casually — release would be subject to FOIL and privacy safeguards. Some members said they want to review whether the certificate-of-use language should be changed (for example, to avoid asking for immigration status explicitly) and asked for time to consider edits prior to the public hearing.
The committee voted to call a public hearing on Oct. 27; staff recommended an implementation window comparable to previous ordinance transitions (for example, a 30-day education period before enforcement could begin). No moratorium was enacted; instead the committee moved to proceed through the certificate-of-use amendment and public‑hearing process.
