Item No. 15
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 27, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steven Graham Pacifico, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Discussion Regarding an Ordinance Limiting Car Washes in the City of Yucaipa RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council discuss the policy options below and provide direction on a preferred approach to limit car wash proliferation citywide. Based on Council feedback, staff would draft a zoning ordinance amendment and present it to the Planning Commission for discussion and recommendation, followed by City Council consideration.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Yucaipa currently has 10 operating car wash facilities, with 2 additional facilities under construction.
These include accessory washes at fueling stations, "full -service" car washes, express tunnels, and coin-operated/self-serve sites. In response to the City Council's request to explore an ordinance controlling car wash proliferation, based on growing interest in managing auto -oriented uses, water use, traffic, and neighborhood compatibility, staff recommends that the City Council consider four land -use strategies for managing the development of future car washes:
• Citywide Prohibition on new car washes;
• Numerical Cap (citywide or sub -area);
• Buffer/Separation between car washes (with typical design/operational standards); or • Conditional Use Permit for establishing a car wash (perhaps with City Council approval).
Car washes can contribute to auto -oriented clustering, visual/noise impacts (blowers, vacuums), queuing/traffic spillback, and stormwater compliance concerns; some subtypes do not generate any sales tax (service use), raising long-term fiscal/land-use tradeoffs. Modern tunnels often include water - recycling systems and BMPs, yet the cumulative water demand and MS4/stormwater compliance still remain as additional planning considerations. Ca1WEP has long cataloged performance practices for water -efficient vehicle wash systems. The City may regulate car wash uses under its police power.
Existing, lawful car washes would become legal nonconforming if Council limits the use and projects under construction typically retain vested rights.
Option A: Prohibit New Car Washes Citywide
Under this approach, the Development Code would be amended to remove car washes (and can be all, or tailored specifically to stand-alone, tunnel, in -bay automatic, self-serve/coin, full -service, or accessory to fueling stations) as a permitted or conditionally permitted use in all relevant Land Use Districts. The practical effect is to freeze the current inventory in place: the ten existing facilities would continue as legal nonconforming uses, the two projects now under construction would proceed consistent with their vested approvals, and any future proposals would be disallowed. The chief advantage of a prohibition is clarity. Applicants, neighbors, and staff all understand the rule and avoids case -by -case exceptions. A prohibition also curbs further concentration of an auto -oriented use that can generate queuing, blower noise, and visual clutter, while preserving commercially zoned frontage for alternative uses that provide greater fiscal or place -making value. The tradeoffs are reduced flexibility and the loss of an avenue to approve an unusually well -designed project on an exceptional site. Implementation is straightforward: define "car wash" (either comprehensively or by specific sub- type) and prohibit the use in all Districts.
Option B: Numerical Cap (Citywide or By Area)
A numerical cap would allow the use in principle but limit its total number, either citywide or within specific planning areas or corridors. For example, the Council could set the cap at the current inventory, effectively holding the line, or allow a modest increment to accommodate a geographic balance through the community. The primary benefit is calibrated control: the market retains the ability to propose projects, while the City ensures that new approvals do not push the use beyond a defined ceiling. This can be refined to promote better outcomes, for instance, establishing criteria that award limited "slots" to proposals with superior water recycling, traffic management, architectural quality, and neighborhood compatibility. The principal drawback is administrative complexity. Staff must maintain a live inventory, specify how capacity is allocated (merit -based scoring, time -window lotteries, or first -in -time after an application is deemed complete), and manage "use -it -or -lose -it" timelines so that approvals do not tie up capacity indefinitely. The policy is strongest when the City ties the number to evidence of existing concentration, corridor character, and infrastructure or environmental constraints, and when allocation procedures are objective and transparent.
Implementing a cap requires an ordinance that establishes the cap, a published tracking method, clear application windows or scoring protocols, companion conditional use findings, and environmental documentation demonstrating that the constraint reduces rather than expands potential impacts.
Option C: Minimum Buffer/Separation Between Car Washes
A spacing standard would allow new car washes only when separated from existing facilities by a minimum distance measured parcel -line to parcel -line, potentially supplemented with buffers from residential districts, schools, or parks and with objective design and operational standards. The benefit of this approach is targeted dispersion: it addresses over -concentration on key arterials and intersections without foreclosing the use everywhere. It also provides a predictable framework for applicants and neighbors and can be paired with technical performance measures, such as queuing plans that avoid spillback into the public right-of-way, maximum sound levels at property lines, blower orientation away from sensitive uses, and screening or architectural requirements, to mitigate typical conflicts. The chief limitation is geographic: depending on the chosen distance and the City's size and
parcelization, opportunities may become scarce in practice, creating a "soft ban." Implementation requires precise measurement rules (e.g., how to treat comer lots and cross -street frontages), explicit applicability to both stand-alone and accessory washes, and clear objective standards enforceable through project conditions. The implementation also does not target certain areas where such a use may still be undesired, even if it meets the distance requirement.
Option D: Conditional Use Permit with City Council Approval This option would regulate car washes through a discretionary Conditional Use Peiniit that culminates in City Council approval after Planning Commission recommendation. It should be noted that, under the current process, new carwashes are subject to a Conditional Use Peiiiiit that only requires Planning Commission approval. The City would retain the ability to approve or deny projects case -by -case based on codified CUP findings that address land -use compatibility, corridor character, traffic and queuing management, noise control, water use and stormwater compliance, hours of operation, and architectural and landscape quality. The principal advantage is maximum flexibility. The Council can evaluate site -specific circumstances and approve only those proposals that clearly demonstrate superior performance and neighborhood fit, while denying projects that do not. This process would remain (as it currently is established) structured to require objective submittals, such as a licensed engineer's queuing analysis, a noise study with enforceable dBA limits at property lines, and a water - recycling plan with verified performance, so that decisions are evidence -based and conditions are measurable. The drawbacks are predictability and workload. Applicants face timing and outcome uncertainty inherent in discretionary review, and staff resources are required for each application to evaluate technical studies, and manage public hearings. From a legal perspective, discretionary CUPs are a familiar tool and generally defensible when the findings are supported by substantial evidence and applied consistently; however, absent additional constraints, a pure CUP regime does not by itself prevent clustering or saturation if multiple projects happen to meet the findings in the same corridor.
If Council selects this path, staff recommends pairing the CUP with new objective development standards and, if desired, either a citywide cap or a minimum separation to ensure an appropriate distribution.
Comparative Implementation Considerations
Across all four approaches, the City should consider how to address the ten existing facilities and the two currently under construction. The standard practice is to recognize lawfully established uses and vested projects, while limiting future expansion or intensification unless new findings are made.
Regardless of the selected option, staff recommends that any ordinance include clear definitions, objective performance metrics for queuing, noise, hours of operation, and screening, as well as unambiguous measurement rules for any spacing standard. The administrative burden ranges from minimal for a prohibition to moderate for spacing to high for a numerical cap or discretionary CUP system.
If the Council wishes to avoid a potential rush of applications during the study period, the City Council may also direct an interim urgency ordinance be prepared (a temporary moratorium).
FISCAL IMPACT:
The recommendations do not result in a fiscal impact.
Approved