Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Massage Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Citrus Heights council backs most proposed massage‑establishment code updates but drops 1,000‑foot spacing rule
Summary
Council directed staff to advance nearly all of 19 proposed code amendments to massage‑establishment rules—licensing, criminal history disclosures, insurance, advertising restrictions and enforcement changes—while declining to impose a 1,000‑foot separation requirement that staff had proposed.
City staff presented a comprehensive review of Citrus Heights’ massage‑establishment ordinance and council members gave direction to pursue most of the proposed amendments while pausing on a proposed 1,000‑foot separation (density) requirement.
The presentation: Lieutenant William Dunning (Police Department) and Senior Planner Allison Bermudez (Community Development) summarized a draft package of 19 potential updates intended to balance recognition of massage as a legitimate health profession with stronger tools to deter illegal operations. Staff said the review aligned the city’s code with recent updates from neighboring jurisdictions and the 2025 California Massage Therapy Act (CAMTC changes).
Key proposed changes staff presented included: - Expanded licensing and application requirements: broader criminal‑history disclosure (charges in the past 10 years, convictions since age 18), owner/operator declarations for therapists (employee vs. independent contractor) and timelines for incomplete applications. - Insurance and liability: staff proposed standardizing recommended liability insurance at $1,000,000 (staff noted a definition reference in the existing code that still listed $2,000,000 and proposed harmonizing to $1,000,000 consistent with industry practice and CAMTC guidance). - Location/density control: a proposed 1,000‑foot separation rule to prevent overconcentration (staff said the rule could affect roughly half of the city’s 35 currently permitted establishments if locations closed and new applicants sought to open); owner‑operators working alone were to be exempt. - Operational standards: prohibit residential living quarters at commercial massage businesses; clarify therapist attire and prohibit transparent or exposing attire; expand prohibited conduct definitions; allow interior security cameras at reception or rear exits (not exterior cameras or door chimes); ban “table showers”; require posting of victim‑rights and human‑trafficking information. - Enforcement refinements: categorize violations as correctable or noncorrectable and permit immediate notices for noncorrectable violations (staff compared the Roseville approach to Sacramento County’s approach and recommended a model similar to Sacramento County for reasonable enforcement flexibility).
Public comment and council direction: A licensed massage therapist who trained locally (Lauren McLaughlin) urged the council to treat massage as health care and warned that a strict 1,000‑foot separation rule would penalize sole practitioners and shared‑space arrangements. In response to public workshop feedback and comments from members, the council signaled that it preferred to move forward with the package of changes but exclude the 1,000‑foot density control. Council members generally favored an enforcement approach aligned with Sacramento County’s use of correctable/noncorrectable designations rather than Roseville’s immediate on‑site notices.
Next steps: Staff will revise the draft ordinance consistent with council direction (advance the 18 other proposed changes, drop the 1,000‑foot density requirement, and adopt an enforcement model similar to Sacramento County) and return with a formal ordinance for later consideration and adoption.
Quote from public comment: “The state now recognizes those of us that are CAMTC‑certified massage therapists as health care providers,” Lauren McLaughlin told council, urging staff to consider current practice and shared spaces when drafting code changes.
Reporting note: The council’s direction was to refine and return with a formal draft ordinance; no formal vote to adopt code changes occurred at this meeting.
