Clear Lake planning commission approves gas station, convenience store and car wash at Olympic Drive and Old Highway 53

The City of Clear Lake Planning Commission on Jan. 23 approved Conditional Use Permit CUP 2024-02 and the accompanying environmental review (CEQA IS 24-0201) to allow a gas station, convenience store with indoor food service and a drive‑through car wash on three parcels at the corner of Olympic Drive and Old Highway 53 (14975 Olympic Drive and adjacent APNs).

The permit covers a roughly two‑acre site that, according to the staff report, would include a 5,106‑square‑foot convenience store (about 2,000 square feet of it for food service), six double‑sided fuel pumps under a canopy, up to three underground fuel tanks, a roughly 3,600‑square‑foot drive‑through car wash with up to two underground water tanks, about 75 parking spaces, 12 vacuum stations and up to eight electric‑vehicle charging stations. Staff said car‑wash runoff would be collected, filtered and recycled on site and would not route into a special district system.

Why it matters: the project sits near one of the busiest intersections in town and attracted questions from commissioners about traffic operations, driveway placement and public‑realm design that could affect safety and circulation at Olympic/Old 53.

Staff presentation and environmental review Senior staff described the site plan and the administrative record for the CEQA initial study (IS 24‑0201), noting the environmental analysis and mitigation measures circulated to agencies and the public. The project was circulated for review in May 2024 and the initial study was circulated December 3, 2024, through Jan. 22, 2025. Agency comments came from Lake County Environmental Health, Highlands Water Company and local tribal organizations including Elam and tribal representatives; staff said tribal consultation was held “in accordance with the state statutes.” A notice of intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration and a public‑notification mailing to parcels within 300 feet were part of the record.

Commission concerns and responses Commissioners repeatedly raised traffic and access concerns, saying the proposed driveway locations and the planned siting of EV chargers in front of the store could impede turning movements, create stacking issues near the intersection and conflict with customer and accessible parking. Commissioner Stewart said he did not see evidence of a traffic study in the materials and urged the developer and staff to revisit driveway locations and charger placement to reduce conflicts at the corner. Vice Chair Smalley and others recommended coordination with the public works director and city engineer, and asked that stormwater controls be required because the site is not far from the lake.

Highlands Water Company representative Sarah Miller said the utility had answered most questions by email but that the applicant still needed to provide an estimate of anticipated water usage for the car wash; staff told the commission the existing water infrastructure should support the project but that the applicant’s engineers were still refining usage estimates.

Motion and conditions Commissioner Stewart moved to approve the permit with the stipulation that staff return to the commission after working with the developer to address driveway entrance/exit locations, traffic flow and EV charging‑station placement, and to review the project color palette and design cohesion. Commissioner Coker seconded. A roll call vote was unanimous: Commissioner Inglis — Aye; Commissioner Stewart — Aye; Commissioner Coker — Aye; Vice Chair Smalley — Aye; Chair Williams — Aye. The motion carried and the permit was approved.

What happens next Staff will work with the developer and the city’s engineering/public works staff on the specific access, circulation and EV charger layout issues and will report any changes back to the commission. The environmental mitigation measures included in the initial study and the record will remain as permit conditions; staff noted additional site plan refinements remain possible prior to final permits. The applicant was not present at the meeting.