Planning commission continues hearing on Yucaipa's proposed car-wash ordinance after recusal, lack of quorum

The City of Yucaipa Planning Commission on April 15 opened a public hearing on Ordinance No. 479, a City Council-initiated proposal to add car-wash facility standards to the development code and to impose a 1,500-foot buffer limiting where new car washes may be sited. Planning staff told commissioners the city currently has 10 operating car washes and two under construction and that Council directed staff to pursue a buffer-based approach.

Planning staff said Ordinance 479 would add design and operational standards for car-wash facilities in commercial and industrial zones and would apply a 1,500-foot separation that staff and Council believe would substantially limit future new sites. "We overlaid 500-, 1,000- and 1,500-foot distances and Council selected the 1,500-foot option as the direction they wanted to pursue," planning staff said.

The proposal prompted questions from commissioners about how the buffer is shown on the map and what areas would remain available. Staff clarified the gray shading on the map shows commercially zoned properties where a conditional use permit (CUP) could allow a car wash and that the red/pink circles indicate areas where a 1,500-foot buffer would prevent new car washes.

Commissioners and staff estimated the ordinance, as drafted, would leave room for only "three or four" new sites given the existing inventory and the proposed buffer. One commissioner cautioned that a rigid buffer could preclude prime freeway-adjacent gas-station sites from hosting national-brand car washes and suggested a possible carve-out for freeway-corridor parcels.

Staff outlined alternatives Council previously considered: an outright citywide prohibition, a numerical cap (citywide or by subarea), a buffer separation (recommended), or relying on CUPs with Council-level appeals. Staff also noted a CUP would continue to route applications through this commission as a recommendation to Council unless the code is changed.

During the discussion a commissioner announced the need to recuse from the item because the buffer area overlapped property where the commissioner has a working relationship; the commissioner said they were not an owner but do business with that property (referred to as the Pumpkin Patch property). Legal counsel advised the commission that, because of the recusal, the body lacked a quorum to take substantive action on the hearing and that the prudent step was to continue the item to a date certain and re-notice it rather than proceed.

A motion to continue the hearing to the commission's May 6 regular meeting was made, seconded and approved by voice vote. (The transcript does not identify which commissioner moved or seconded the continuation.)

What happens next: the ordinance will be re-noticed and return to the Planning Commission on May 6 for further hearing and a possible recommendation to City Council. If the commission issues a recommendation, City Council will make the final decision.

Authorities and actions: The item was introduced as Ordinance No. 479 (car wash facility regulations). The commission approved a motion to continue the public hearing to May 6; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The consent agenda earlier in the meeting was approved by voice vote, 4-0.