Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission recommends car-wash ordinance with 1,500-foot buffer, 3–2
Summary
The Yucaipa Planning Commission voted 3–2 to recommend Ordinance No. 479 to City Council, endorsing a 1,500-foot buffer and performance standards for new car washes while forwarding suggested amendments including a traffic study requirement and an appeal right to the Planning Commission.
The Yucaipa Planning Commission voted 3–2 on May 6 to recommend Ordinance No. 479 to City Council, a draft ordinance that would impose a 1,500-foot separation buffer and new site- and performance-standards for new car-wash developments.
Why it matters: City staff told the commission Yucaipa has about 10 operating car washes and two under construction; the ordinance is Council-directed and intended to prevent clustering and add architectural, operational and environmental standards for new facilities while preserving the conditional-use-permit (CUP) review process.
Staff presentation and proposal Ben Matlock, speaking for planning staff, said the draft ordinance follows City Council direction to set a buffer (1,500 feet in the draft) around existing car washes and to add performance standards for site design, architecture, lighting, noise and operations. Matlock said staff framed the draft so that it aligns with recent approvals and would be presented to council as the commission's recommendation.
Key amendments and debate Commissioner Donna Snodgrass urged stronger protections against clustering and proposed several amendments, including a one-mile buffer, mandatory right-in/right-out access on major arterials, required traffic and parking studies to support access decisions, and stronger landscaping and water-recycling language. Snodgrass said, "I would like to increase that to 1 mile between car washes to prevent clustering and protect small businesses and residences." (Commissioner Snodgrass)
Several commissioners cautioned that an overly restrictive ordinance could harm business attraction and property-rights expectations. Chair Miller said he opposed the ordinance as submitted, arguing the city's general plan already regulates allowable uses and that some limits risk deterring new investment.
Compromises and procedural changes During discussion commissioners agreed to forward several suggested edits to council rather than attempting to rewrite the ordinance on the spot. The commission supported adding a requirement that applicants supply a traffic and parking study where access or queuing might affect public streets, and to make certain City Planner determinations (for example, about vacuum/noise attenuation) appealable to the Planning Commission so a single staff determination can be reviewed.
Vote and next steps On a motion to recommend Ordinance No. 479 to City Council, the commission recorded a 3–2 recommendation in favor, with the staff's ordinance text amended to reflect the traffic-study clarification and an appeal mechanism to the Planning Commission. The recommendation will be transmitted to City Council, which retains final decision authority.
What was not decided The Planning Commission's action is a recommendation; it does not adopt the ordinance. The commission considered, but did not adopt, the one-mile buffer proposed by Commissioner Snodgrass. The final buffer distance, specific operational limits, and any numeric noise or decibel thresholds will be set by the City Council or in subsequent rulemaking, and some operational controls (such as CUP conditions) may be applied case by case.
