Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Massage Use Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves massage establishment with strict operational limits; two commissioners dissent
Summary
The commission approved a conditional use permit for a massage establishment at 23811 Bridger Road, with the applicant’s revised narrative and floor plan limiting massage to one room and incorporating the narrative into the resolution; two commissioners voted against the approval.
The Lake Forest Planning Commission on June 5 approved a use permit to establish a massage establishment at 23811 Bridger Road, suite 100, with conditions that incorporate the applicant’s revised project narrative limiting massage activity to a single room and describing operational restrictions.
Ron Santos, who presented the item, told commissioners the application had been continued from prior hearings and that staff met with the applicant to obtain a revised project narrative and floor plan. "The narrative and the plan both specify how each of the three rooms would be used, including limiting massage to only one room," Santos said, and staff included the revised narrative as an attachment to the draft resolution.
Applicant Alexander Choi said the revised narrative describes the business as a wellness center, not a massage parlor, and stressed restrictions on disrobing: "We are not a massage parlor. It's a wellness center, and, restricting it to 1 room and, no one's fully disrobed," Choi said.
Commissioners asked how the city would monitor compliance. City Attorney Miguel (first name not specified) explained that the resolution incorporates the applicant’s narrative by reference, which gives the city enforcement options; the municipal code also provides procedures for revocation of a use permit following notice and hearing. Santos confirmed that annual renewal of a massage license triggers an inspection and that staff can inspect establishments on complaint.
Several commissioners praised the applicant's voluntary restrictions as "belts and suspenders" that provide additional assurances, while others said enforcement ultimately relies on complaint‑driven inspections and code processes. Vice Chair Stannard and Commissioner Vilwak voted against the resolution; the motion carried with a majority.
The resolution requires that the business be maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans and the project narrative, and it makes the narrative enforceable as part of the permit conditions. The commission noted that if the use is found out of compliance, procedures under city code may lead to revocation of the conditional use permit.
