ITEM NO. 8
![]() |
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT |
| TO: |
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council |
|
| FROM: |
Arron Brown, City Manager |
|
| BY: |
Steven Graham, City Attorney |
|
| DATE: |
03/11/2026 |
|
| SUBJECT: | (1) Introduction of Urgency Ordinance No. 272 - An Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Canyon Lake, California, Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 Establishing a Forty-Five (45) Day Moratorium on the Establishment or Expansion of Beauty Establishments Within the City of Canyon Lake; and (2) Direct the City Clerk to Place an Extension of the Moratorium on the Agenda for the Next Regular Meeting of the City Council
|
|
Recommendation:
(1) Introduce and adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 272 establishing a forty-five (45) day interim moratorium on the establishment or expansion of beauty establishments within the City of Canyon Lake; and (2) direct the City Clerk to place an extension of the moratorium on the agenda for the next regular meeting of the City Council.
Background/Analysis:
The City of Canyon Lake contains a limited amount of commercial space intended to provide a balanced mix of neighborhood-serving uses, including restaurants, retail businesses, professional offices, and personal services. Maintaining a diverse mix of commercial services supports the needs of Canyon Lake residents and visitors and promotes the long-term economic vitality of the City’s commercial areas. The availability of a variety of businesses within the City’s commercial areas helps ensure that residents have access to everyday goods and services and contributes to the overall functionality and vibrancy of the City’s commercial environment.
The City has observed a proliferation of beauty establishments, including but not limited to nail salons, hair salons, barber shops, eyelash studios, esthetician services, permanent makeup studios, and similar personal care establishments. Over time, these types of businesses have increasingly occupied a significant portion of the limited tenant spaces available within the City’s commercial areas. The City’s relatively small commercial base means that the concentration of similar uses within a limited number of tenant spaces may reduce opportunities for other types of businesses that provide essential goods and services to the community. A continued increase in the number of similar establishments may further limit the availability of commercial space for other neighborhood-serving uses that contribute to a diverse commercial mix.
The City’s current zoning regulations do not specifically address the number, location, or concentration of beauty establishments. While such establishments are permitted under the City’s existing zoning framework, the regulations do not presently include standards governing the distribution or concentration of these uses within the City’s limited commercial areas. As a result, additional beauty establishments could be approved under existing regulations even while the City evaluates whether additional regulatory tools or zoning amendments may be appropriate to address the concentration of similar uses.
Government Code section 65858 authorizes cities to adopt an interim urgency ordinance prohibiting certain land uses that may be in conflict with contemplated zoning or General Plan amendments that the City intends to study within a reasonable time. An urgency ordinance adopted pursuant to Government Code section 65858 requires a four-fifths vote of the City Council and may initially remain in effect for forty-five (45) days unless extended in accordance with state law. The statute is intended to allow cities to temporarily maintain the status quo while evaluating potential land use regulations and considering whether amendments to the City’s regulatory framework may be necessary.
The proposed urgency ordinance would temporarily prohibit the establishment or expansion of beauty establishments within the City for a period of forty-five (45) days while staff evaluates potential regulatory options. During this time, staff may review the number and distribution of existing beauty establishments, assess the concentration of such uses within the City’s commercial areas, and consider whether amendments to the City’s General Plan or zoning regulations may be warranted. The intent of the moratorium is to allow the City sufficient time to study the issue and determine whether regulatory changes are appropriate, while preventing additional establishments from being approved under the existing regulatory framework during the study period.
It is anticipated that City staff will need additional time to complete this review beyond the initial 45-day moratorium period. To extend the moratorium for up to an additional 10 months and 15 days, the City Council will need to approve an extension at the next regular meeting as part of a noticed public hearing.
The City has observed a proliferation of beauty establishments, including but not limited to nail salons, hair salons, barber shops, eyelash studios, esthetician services, permanent makeup studios, and similar personal care establishments. Over time, these types of businesses have increasingly occupied a significant portion of the limited tenant spaces available within the City’s commercial areas. The City’s relatively small commercial base means that the concentration of similar uses within a limited number of tenant spaces may reduce opportunities for other types of businesses that provide essential goods and services to the community. A continued increase in the number of similar establishments may further limit the availability of commercial space for other neighborhood-serving uses that contribute to a diverse commercial mix.
The City’s current zoning regulations do not specifically address the number, location, or concentration of beauty establishments. While such establishments are permitted under the City’s existing zoning framework, the regulations do not presently include standards governing the distribution or concentration of these uses within the City’s limited commercial areas. As a result, additional beauty establishments could be approved under existing regulations even while the City evaluates whether additional regulatory tools or zoning amendments may be appropriate to address the concentration of similar uses.
Government Code section 65858 authorizes cities to adopt an interim urgency ordinance prohibiting certain land uses that may be in conflict with contemplated zoning or General Plan amendments that the City intends to study within a reasonable time. An urgency ordinance adopted pursuant to Government Code section 65858 requires a four-fifths vote of the City Council and may initially remain in effect for forty-five (45) days unless extended in accordance with state law. The statute is intended to allow cities to temporarily maintain the status quo while evaluating potential land use regulations and considering whether amendments to the City’s regulatory framework may be necessary.
The proposed urgency ordinance would temporarily prohibit the establishment or expansion of beauty establishments within the City for a period of forty-five (45) days while staff evaluates potential regulatory options. During this time, staff may review the number and distribution of existing beauty establishments, assess the concentration of such uses within the City’s commercial areas, and consider whether amendments to the City’s General Plan or zoning regulations may be warranted. The intent of the moratorium is to allow the City sufficient time to study the issue and determine whether regulatory changes are appropriate, while preventing additional establishments from being approved under the existing regulatory framework during the study period.
It is anticipated that City staff will need additional time to complete this review beyond the initial 45-day moratorium period. To extend the moratorium for up to an additional 10 months and 15 days, the City Council will need to approve an extension at the next regular meeting as part of a noticed public hearing.
- Fiscal Impact Yes/No:
- No
Additional Fiscal Information:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the adoption of the proposed urgency ordinance. Any staff time associated with evaluating potential regulatory amendments will be absorbed within the existing budget.
.png)