Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Conditional Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Neighbors oppose proposed massage/acupuncture business at 1014 Huron; commission continues to re-noticed hearing in January

San Francisco Planning Commission · October 26, 2006
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A conditional-use application for a massage/acupuncture establishment at 1014 Huron Ave. drew intense neighborhood opposition citing safety, parking and notice concerns. The applicant said notices were posted; the commission continued the item and set a new public hearing for Jan. 11, 2007.

The Planning Department presented a conditional-use request for a massage establishment at 1014 Huron Ave. during the Oct. 26 meeting. Staff described the proposal as a 1,100-square-foot ground-floor establishment “focusing primarily on acupressure and acupuncture” with three to four employees and operating hours of 10 a.m.–7 p.m. (planning staff summary).

Neighbors and organized groups from the Outer Mission and surrounding blocks testified at length. Speakers said they had not received mailed notice, collected petitions (more than 100 signatures), raised concerns about proximity to schools and parks, predicted parking impacts, and pointed to prior local experiences closing problem massage parlors. Steve Currier of the Ademusha Residents Association said his association found no mailed notice in the immediate vicinity and delivered petitions opposing the application.

The applicant's representative, Javier Solorzano, told commissioners he had posted project notices 21 days prior and offered to meet with neighborhood groups; he objected to an automatic continuance requested by neighbors and argued that a legitimate acupuncture-based business should not be presumed illegal. Commissioners questioned whether an acupuncturist would be present and whether state licensing requirements would be met; the applicant said a licensed acupuncturist would be a partner in the business.

After extensive public testimony and follow-up questions about notice and enforcement, the commission voted to continue and re-notice the application as a new public hearing. The planning staff and applicant agreed to more outreach; the commission continued the item to January 11, 2007, with re-noticing (the commission's direction is recorded in the transcript).