Canyon Lake council hears hours of public opposition to proposed moratorium on beauty businesses

The Canyon Lake City Council spent more than three hours on a special meeting to consider an urgency moratorium intended to pause growth of beauty‑service establishments in the town center while staff studies whether regulatory changes are needed. Dozens of business owners and residents turned out to oppose the measure, and the council did not move to adopt the urgency ordinance.

The city manager told the council an urgency ordinance would take effect immediately and provide a 45‑day window for staff analysis and community outreach, then allow time for any ordinance revisions to come back as formal readings. The city attorney read the city’s procedure on reconsideration and explained that existing, lawfully established uses would remain ‘‘legal nonconforming’’ if a moratorium were adopted.

Why it matters: Council members said the issue touches economic development and the city’s limited revenue base — council members repeatedly linked the town center mix to efforts to increase local revenue for public safety services. Opponents say the draft ordinance singles out one industry and would deprive small entrepreneurs of opportunities to start or expand businesses.

During public comment, salon owners, suite operators and their customers said the town center’s beauty‑service businesses drive foot traffic to restaurants and stores and provide an accessible path to entrepreneurship for residents. ‘‘Canyon Lake gave me the opportunity to start immediately,’’ said Tricia Strong, a nail technician who described using a salon suite to support her family after moving to town. Merchant association president Gus Slickty said a petition signed by 88 owners opposed the moratorium and called the proposal ‘‘an attack on the beauty industry.’’ Alex Cook urged the council to table the measure and direct staff to prepare a fuller plan.

Supporters of study urged caution. The council asked staff to explain how the moratorium would operate and whether it would prevent existing businesses from replacing tenants or moving within existing square footage. The city attorney and manager answered that the draft specifically allows change of ownership or tenancy where gross square footage devoted to the use remains the same, and would not bar transfers or filling existing built‑out suites. What the ordinance would curb, they said, is an increase in the total gross square footage devoted to beauty uses in the town center.

Council members disagreed on next steps. Some said a short moratorium — the draft proposes 45 days, extendable by noticed public hearing — could buy time for staff to gather data. Others said the council should instead direct staff to research and return with a proposal at a later date (council discussion focused on June or later to allow staff time around the budget work). Mayor Smith summarized the meeting as an educational public process and, with no motion made, the item died for lack of action.

No formal vote was taken on the ordinance. Several council members said they want staff to work with the merchants association, the Chamber and other stakeholders to develop options that protect existing businesses while seeking a more diverse tenant mix that could increase tax and other revenues. The city manager said staff can return with counts of gross square footage, numbers of brick‑and‑mortar versus suite operators, and draft regulatory approaches for council consideration.

The council adjourned without adopting an urgency ordinance; members signaled they expect further study and return of the matter as a future agenda item.