Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, good afternoon. This is a meeting of the Redlands Planning Commission for May 12th, 2026. We do have a quorum present. Do we need to take a roll call?

Commissioner Dominguez? Present. Commissioner Yellenhammer? Present. Commissioner Swish?

Present.

Commissioner Smith?

Present.

Commissioner Stanson?

Present.

Vice Chair Elliot. Present. Chair Shaw.

All right.

Roll call is complete. Thank you. Are there any public comments on items that are not on today's agenda? Seeing none in the room and seeing none on Zoom. We'll proceed. We have no presentations today, so we'll move on to the consent calendar. Are there any public comments on the consent calendar or any speaker slips for items on the consent calendar? All right. For our commissioners, are there any items that you wish to poll and discuss?

All right.

Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

I motion we approve this consent calendar.

Second moved by Commissioner Stanson and second by Commissioner Dominguez. Could we have a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Dominguez, yes Mr. Gallen hammer. Yes, mr. Swish Commissioner Smith. Yes, Commissioner Stanson. Yes vice chair Elliott.

Yes We have no old business So today we'll be moving on to new business and our first item is 5 a says a public hearing to consider an application for conditional use permit number 1, 2, 2, 0, a request to establish a tattoo art studio and a multi tenant commercial center located at 9, 22, New York street in suite a. I will now open the public hearing for this item and welcome Mr to give us a presentation. And I apologize. Has any of the commissioners had any ex parte communications with the applicant? All right. Thank you. We can proceed.

Thank you chair and members of the commission. The applicant Jeffrey Mays, Jr is proposing to establish an approximately 1365 square foot tattoo studio at 922 New York street. Unit a. The studio will go into an existing suite that is towards the rear of a property of a multi tenant property north of the bowling alley empire bowl. The general plan designation is transit village surrounded by some low density residential and some commercial industrial. And the zoning is the transit village specific plan village general district. Also surrounded by some transit village specific plan as well as single family and commercial. Here's a site plan that shows where the suite is again. It's towards the north of the bowling alley. As well as north of the property. Now, during the proposal's parking analysis, staff determined that For similar uses, such as office, one space is required for every 250 square feet of studio space. Based on this calculation, the suite would only need six parking spaces. Staff then did a site visit and reviewed available parking spaces compared to those occupied. As shown in the table above, it should be expected that there will be sufficient spaces for the studio throughout the plaza's parking. Additionally, many of the daytime uses closed collectively around five, leaving more spaces free later throughout the afternoon or night. The operational characteristics are three tattoo booths with operational hours from 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. Tuesday through Thursday, as well as hours from 12 p.m. to 9 p.m. Friday and Saturday. The studio is closed Sunday and Monday. Under full capacity, it is expected to be around 15 people. This is the floor plan with the entrance and exit coming off of the south. This is the suite itself, and here are some site photos showing just some of the different parking spaces inside conditions. Right there you see empire bowl. Findings for the conditions permit are that the proposed development will not adversely affect applicable land use plans for the city. That the proposed development lobby detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. And that the post development will comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the city's general plan, the applicable zoning district and the city's development standards and the pros of element is appropriate at the proposed location. The proposal is exempt from per section 15, 301 for existing facilities. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 1750 to approve conditional use permit 1220 based on the analysis and findings in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval. Should the Planning Commission deem it appropriate, the following motion is provided. Thank you. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you so much. Are there any questions of the Commission for staff? All right, seeing none, does the applicant wish to make a statement or presentation? You don't have to, but if you want to, you're welcome to. Okay, you're totally on the spot. All right, great. Is there anyone in the audience or on Zoom or any written comments, wish to make public comment?

No written comments.

No comments on Zoom? All right, perfect. Then we will close the public hearing for this item and move into commission deliberation.

It's about as straightforward as you can get. I like the location. I'm good with it. Let's do it.

Yeah, not a problem.

I can make a motion. I move that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 1750, approving conditional use permit number 1220, based on the findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval.

Second.

All right.

So that was moved by Commissioner Swish and seconded by Commissioner Smith. We'll take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Dominguez? Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Gelenhammer?

Yes.

Commissioner Swish?

Yes.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner Stanson? Yes. Vice Chair Elliott?

Yes. All right. Again, it has been moved by Commissioner Swish, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve conditional use permit number 1220. Thank you. Moving on to item 5B. This is a public hearing. for consideration of a recommendation to the city council regarding ordinance text amendment number 372 to amend the city's zoning regulations to prohibit new warehouses and logistics distribution facilities as defined and allow existing warehouses to remain as permitted or conditionally permitted uses, as well as adopt new rebuild provisions for existing warehouses. I will now open the public hearing for this item. Any commissioner had any ex parte communications regarding this item? And we will welcome Mr. Foote for the staff presentation.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, commissioners. So this item is returning to you after. Previously been discussed by the commission. I'll just start briefly with some brief background as well as some brief background on the existing warehouse ordinance. And then we'll discuss some of the revisions that were suggested at the previous planning commission meeting. So going back to April 18th, 2023, ordinance number 2955 was adopted. That's what we refer to now as the existing warehouse ordinance. Subsequently, in October 2025, the matter was agendized for discussion, and the commission at that time recommended potentially amending the ordinance further. Subsequently on November 18th of last year the council had further discussion of potentially amending the existing ordinance and at that time directed staff to go ahead and prepare some revisions to the ordinance as suggested by the council And the matter was agendized for the Planning Commission here most recently on April 14th of 2026 so We are returning to you with your suggested revisions. I

Quick question. What were the triggers for those, um, the October 14th and November 18th discussions?

Uh, a commissioner, uh, and the chair asked that the matter be agenda is for discussion. And so after a period of time, it was, um, placed on the agenda for the, um, items that they wanted to cover. Okay, so briefly, a little bit of background on the existing warehouse ordinance. We do have a definition of warehouse, and essentially what it boils down to is a structure with 50,000 square feet or more of gross flow area. or contains six or more truck docks or dock high-loading doors. The 50,000 square feet is a fairly low threshold. Most of the larger logistics distribution centers are upwards of 200,000 square feet, but the commission and council decided that 50,000 square feet would be the threshold for the purposes of the city's ordinance. I won't read the entire definition to you unless you really want me to. And then it includes a few examples of what these types of facilities are. For example, parcel delivery terminals or truck terminals, cross dock facilities where there's truck docks on both sides of the building for purposes of receiving trucks, resorting the inventory, and then shipping the inventory back out. It could be parcel allocation, so end-of-mile types of distribution to individual carriers and their personal vehicles. They come to the logistics distribution facility and offload for the last mile delivery locally. Could include freight yards or forwarding terminals, what's referred to as high-cube distribution centers, which is the typical logistics distribution center, or just simply calling a warehouse for purposes of the ordinance. So a few examples listed here. Then we also have a definition of ancillary warehousing. So for instance, a manufacturing facility. Of course, they're gonna store the products or the things that they produce on site, so that's to be expected. That is not the same thing as a logistics distribution center. Also, there's other types of businesses that may have storage on site for whatever reason. It may or may not exceed 50,000 square feet. For example, any number of commercial service type facilities, let's say an HVAC service type of business, they may store inventory and equipment and products on site, and it may be a large portion of their floor area. But again, that does not necessarily make it a logistics distribution center. So what it boils down to is not having more than five truck docks in the facility. And then we also consider the primary use of its manufacturing or commercial services or other types of uses that are clearly not logistics distribution. So those are permitted, not subject to the ordinance. And just an overall high-level view of the current development standards in the warehouse ordinance, there's generally five categories. They pertain to screening and buffering from adjacent sensitive receptors, truck patterns and truck traffic signage requirements, on-site and off-site, sustainable energy or energy efficiency requirements for the facility, operation and construction requirements, and lastly, site location requirements, which would pertain only to any new proposed warehouse. And we'll come back to that in just a minute in a few more slides here, but it was just important to highlight the five categories of development standards currently in the city's ordinance. So the applicability of this proposed code amendment would be within the commercial manufacturing CM zone, light industrial and general industrial M1 and M2 respectively, and then industrial IP zone. There is also planned industrial MP zone, but that does not list warehouses as a as a use. So it's submitted. Also, there are some specific plans in Redlands, namely, or the largest of which is the East Valley corridor specific plan. includes districts such as commercial industrial or that's denoted EV slash IC and there's some other zones or districts industrial regional that's denoted EV slash IR and then there's other districts that may potentially allow warehousing so Those would be included, of course. And then there's other specific plans that do allow for warehousing or distribution types of uses. Those are listed on the screen. East Valley Complex, Centennial Commerce Park, Redlands Research Park. Those are mostly built out currently for the most part. The exception would be Redlands Aviation Park, which is not built out. And then the concept plans and plan developments, which are within the umbrella of East Valley Corridor-specific plan, the larger plan, what we refer to as concept plans and plan developments essentially act as the zoning for the subject properties. And so if you look at the city's zoning map, you'll see indications of CP-1, that's concept plan number one, or CP-2, that's concept plan number two. And same for the plan developments, PD-1, plan development number one, and so forth. And this is a map exhibit showing the affected zones and districts and specific plans. As you can see, it is predominantly The westerly side of Redlands, the southwest quadrant, and the East Valley corridor specific plan. Northwest quadrant, which is also predominantly East Valley corridor specific plan, and then the donut hole area. And of course, this ordinance would not apply to the donut hole area. The county unincorporated area, I should say. So the text of the amendment in the various zones and specific plans that I just mentioned is essentially this, and this would be listed under permitted uses to allow for existing warehouses to remain as permitted uses. So warehouses are logistics distribution centers that are existing as of the effective date of this proposed ordinance. With 50,000 square feet in gross flow area or more, or having more than five truck docks or dock loading doors, that are legally established prior to the effective date of war-dense number. Such warehouse facilities shall be subject to the rebuild provisions contained in section, it's a new section that's proposed in this amendment of this title, so the zoning regulations, Title 18 of the Redlands Municipal Code. And we'll go into this in a bit more detail in just a moment here. For the industrial IP zone under conditional uses and as well as the M2 permitted uses, it's the same definition except it includes in parentheses or the subject property has a valid conditional use permit approved prior to the effective date of the ordinance. So there are, I believe, two properties that have a valid entitlement to build the new warehouse facility, but they're not yet constructed. not physically existing at this time, but because they have a valid land use entitlement, they are to be treated as if they are already built and they'll have the same rights and responsibilities as any other existing warehouse that's physically existing as of the effective date of the ordinance. Okay. So the rebuild provisions that are a new subsection essentially state that existing warehouses can be rebuilt to their previously existing square footage and their previously existing height, as well as previously existing other physical characteristics, such as truck docks, for example. So they can just be rebuilt in their entirety up to 100% with a building permit. The ordinance would allow for ordinary repair and maintenance. The ordinance would allow for technology improvements and upgrades or efficiencies within the existing building, so long as they do not increase their footprint, their square footage, or their existing building height. And as I just mentioned, if for some reason the property needs to be rebuilt up to 100% voluntarily or involuntarily, then that would just be permitted with a building permit. And I'll explain the distinction here in just a moment in the next slide. I suggested the previous planning commission meeting. There's now a definition of alteration included, and that simply mirrors the California building code. Essentially, it's any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than repair or addition. So we know what addition means that additional square footage. It's not that and it's not repair and we'll also use the definition of repair from the California building code. So it includes any reconstruction replacement or renewal of any parts of an existing building. So again, not increasing the square footage and not increasing the building height. We'll get to that in just a minute. Okay, now for the recommendation from the Planning Commission in the April meeting to include a provision to allow a slight increase to existing building height, which we are interpreting as interior ceiling height, not including parapets or roof screening, to allow for up to a 15% increase to the existing building height, interior ceiling height. And then there's five criteria that are gonna be suggested for that to happen. A, this property meets applicable criteria of the previous section that's listed there, and that part B section essentially says that the existing warehouse use was legally established and it's legally continuing, and it may continue legally. And that will be determined by development services staff or the director. B, They apply for a conditional use permit if they wish to increase the building height or increase the number of truck docks. As you may be aware, conditional use permit is a discretionary action, and that would be a permit that comes before this planning commission for approval or otherwise. Part C, construction or redevelopment involving additional height. Includes the feasible provisions of and then the sections listed there are the existing warehouse ordinance So going back to the five categories of development standards that I previously mentioned sustainable energy or energy efficiencies screening and buffering from adjacent uses or sensitive receptors truck routing plan and traffic analysis and then operation and construction requirements the Commission would have an opportunity to decide if which elements of those are feasible and then those could be attached as conditions of approval or built into the project. Not everything may be applicable, not everything may be feasible or cost effective. It would be incumbent on the applicant at that time to explain why or why not. They can do what's feasible and then ultimately the decision rests with the commission on that matter. And if someone needs a definition of feasible, we're going to use the definition from California Code of Regulations, which is essentially the California Environmental Quality Act. It discusses what is a feasible mitigation measure, what is feasible in terms of reducing environmental impacts. We're going to follow that definition. Part D, if there is environmental review required, then the applicant at that time would comply with The procedure, whether that's requiring an initial study or a mitigated negative declaration or whatever the case may be, we'll use existing state law for environmental review. And common triggers would be specifically here in the ordinance, increase in building height, increase the number of truck docks, or a change from non-refrigerated space to refrigerated space, which can at times trigger other environmental considerations. Uh, lastly party, the commission may require 1 or more of the following if it's determined that additional study or analysis is necessary. So circulation study or traffic study, in other words. Uh, maybe required, uh, landscaping and tree planting and maybe required. That's fairly common. Or lastly, if needed, there can be an economic feasibility report or a market analysis prepared by the applicant to justify the need for increasing the building height or increasing the truck dock positions or other changes they wish to make. Also there was a suggestion to reiterate the provisions for properties that have a valid land use entitlement that they're to be considered the same as a physically existing warehouse as of the effect of the ordinance and that they would have the same land use rights and responsibilities as if the structure had already been built. I believe that only applies to two properties. For purposes of adoption of this proposed amendment, the ordinance and related resolution would be exempt from environmental review in accordance with the three sections mentioned there, 15061B3, 15308, and 15378B5, as there's no potential environmental effects from simply the adoption of the ordinance or resolution. And with that, that will summarize my presentation. Staff is recommending that the Commission adopt a resolution and recommend that the Council approve Ordinance X Amendment Number 372 and their related specific plan amendments. And there's the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Foote. Are there any clarifying questions of the Commission for staff? Commissioner Swish?

Last time, I think we discussed the component regarding increasing the number of docs. So, in one of the slides, the limitations that listed in there is the height, the square footage, but did not explicitly mention the docs, but you mentioned the docs during that slide. If we can go a couple of ones back.

It was in the definition.

Yes, if we can. We're back one more. One more keep going right here. So the rebuilding provisions, right? Rebuilt to previous existing square footage, previously existing building high. But it does not really mention the docs and the docs is a critical component because that is a component that has significant impact on environmental impact, traffic impacts, other things like that. And I was wondering, where does it exist?

I believe I may have skimmed over that in the PowerPoint slide, but in the draft ordinance, it is mentioned specifically previously existing height, previously existing square footage, building footprint, and previously existing number of truck docks, if the subject property meets the following criteria. So that's in subsection 970, part B. So we did specifically mention that in the draft ordinance language, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Fulton.

Um, I'd like to go over the, um, like, in the slide of the 15% height. So I wanted to ask just for clarification. Should it be like, shouldn't we read it as for up to 15% additional height. To the existing interior ceiling height, but not to exceed the maximum building height in the applicable land use district. And why I say that is because I researched the 6 parcels and 5 of the 6, the maximum for the zoning districts or zoning code. Um. It's Evie dash 1 C is the code and that Max height is 50 feet. So, 5 out of the 6, maybe 50 feet max can't exceed that. But the 6 parcel there. The zoning code is in 1 P or IP and there's no max. However, there was, can you explain that? How you explain that to me? Right?

Sure.

I have a point to it, but. Just wanted to share, like, context.

The property I'm thinking of, IP, is 301 Tennessee Street, which has an existing entitlement, a commission review and approval, and a conditional use permit for a new warehouse facility. I believe it's 197,000 square feet, roughly. So it's an existing entitlement, and so they have an approved set of plans, conceptual plans, and my recollection is the maximum height per the entitlement is 39 feet per the approved plan. So what they build... can be up to 39 feet, and that must comply with the approved entitlement plans. So you're correct, the zone IP, industrial zone, in the zoning regulations does not specify a maximum height limit. It is limited to lot coverage, 50%. However, in this case, in the particular property of 301 Tennessee Street, that or those properties are essentially limited, capped at 39 feet as per the entitlement, yes.

Why I bring it up is because the other five are, their cap is 50. And yet this parcel, right, the sixth is at 39. So I'm just asking us, instead of like honing on this 15%, they cannot exceed 50 feet.

But I think that that's what, isn't the ordinance saying that whatever the current maximum height is, it couldn't exceed that? So if they were already at 49 feet, they wouldn't be able to go 15% higher than that, right? That's correct. So I don't think it's really a problem.

No, but I'm just saying like the uniform, like, you know, just picking in a blanket where, because I'm just trying to figure that out, like in terms of the zoning code to go back to being in conformance. And the fact that. The, you know, you want, I mean, I was told not to, like, bring up certain parcels, but let's say, like, 1 of the parcels off California street, they built their existing structure at 50 feet. So they couldn't obviously, like, exceed that. They're done right?

Like, when they rebuild itself, if that's what the maximum, I mean, according to what I've read, if that's the maximum height, then you wouldn't be able to you wouldn't be able to get a bonus to go up higher than 6 than 50 feet.

Correct so, but what I'm saying is that now, like, I mean, not that I want, like, this 6 parcel to be at 50 feet, but they're not allowed more than 39. Why? I'm just like, wonder, you know what I mean? It's just interesting. Like, when we're having this conversation. And I don't want I don't want to see 50 feet buildings.

I'm not saying that, but we don't like 39 feet.

I'm just saying, like, out loud, you know, just like, as a discussion, I just wanted to bring up that point since, like, we, like, in this in this revision, it would state that even though it doesn't state it in here, it doesn't. So I'd like to see that if that's possible.

I see. So if I could summarize that. We should include language with respect to any applicable project entitlement in this criteria.

In the land, like what did it say? The applicable land use district as well. And it does state it here, it just wasn't there, so.

Any other questions for staff?

Just a quick question regarding, um, when we first introduced this, and then we kind of, uh, uh, revisited it multiple times during all of that time. None of that is the date of the revision. Right? So, during that time, the last since last year, I guess, when we started discussing the, um, uh, the rebuild. Right anybody who wanted to rebuild can still rebuild without these, uh, these provisions. And the reason why I'm asking this, I know that we want to deliberate this more and there are some things that we want to add, but I wonder if there is benefit to maybe. Getting it through and then revisiting it later if we need to. Because I worry about this continuing to move forward.

Okay, I don't are there clarifying questions for staff.

I have 1 more just to clarify in the definition of alteration. I believe I just have a question regarding. Um. The resurfacing, so when it defines the existing structure, I looked up and, like, the California building code, what structure. But the definition of a structure is, and it does say, like, a building, but then it goes into if you look into the, if you look in the definition, it discusses circular circulation past or vehicle vehicle or ways. So, is that inside the building or is that outside the building? And is that does that mean, like, the property and not just the building? Because it seems like if you're going to discuss resurfacing circulation paths, that it's the property and not inside the building. Or is it for forklifts? You know, like those vehicular ways, I guess, inside the building? I just want to make sure we're clear of the definition. Because it's not then the existing structure as a building. It's the property.

That's the way I would read it.

The property? Okay. Yes, the property maintenance doing maintenance, but it says any construction or renovation to an existing structure. Other than repairing, you know, just states that other than repair.

So that's what they're talking about. It's repair. They're repairing resurfacing. The parking lots are talking about the circulation pass and parking in that commissioners.

Can I ask staff to answer? Yeah, please. Sorry question.

I know it's a nitty gritty, but I'm just I'm just wondering, you know, like, because then it's like the property, not exactly just the structure.

Well, that's yes, that's the definition from the building code is resurfacing of circulation path through vehicular ways.

So, it's the property.

Well, the intent of this is to allow for normal maintenance. So if the property is completely essentially demolishing and rebuilding the parking lot, that would probably fall into the realm of alteration to some extent. If it's simple maintenance or slurry seal or restriping, that's not the intent of this definition, the intent of what we're trying to accomplish with the ordinance.

Okay.

If the definition is problematic we don't necessarily have to have this definition our ordinance because this definition is already in the building code I Bring it up because I think it also stated that like in the slides the alteration repair with the same definition I think I read that in this And it's that's why I wanted to be a little more clear I Um, so the revised ordinance includes definitions for the terms alteration and repair alteration and repair will have the same meaning as defined in the California building code. So that's why I wanted to make sure, like, are we, you know, like, are we discussing the building and existing structure or the property? Because just just I'm just asking because just resurface, like, you know, discussing. alteration or repair for resurfacing of a circulation path or vehicular ways. That's regarding a property, not an existing structure. I don't know.

Well, the intent of this, from my understanding, was the building.

It was the building.

The building, yes.

Does that make sense to you? Resurfacing the building of circulation paths or vehicular ways? Are we just saying the building is the property?

We can certainly remove it if it's problematic.

Well, I think it's kind of confusing the way she brings it up and the way you explain it because I thought it was for the repair and maintenance of the facility outside, inside, whatever. But you're saying it's for the building. In that case, that is kind of confusing.

Well, the overarching goal here is to allow existing facilities to remain with their existing square footage, so not to facilitate an expansion in terms of square footage.

I get that, but I think this makes, it just makes it confusing because it just talks mainly about maintenance more so than it does about expanding the building, so.

Commissioner Swish.

It says building or facility, right? And is the intention the overall intention of this is warehouse facilities. Because if it is, then it does include all of the other things that goes around the building. But if we are defining it that this is only specific to the building, then we could just simply remove the ward facility and remove those things that might not apply. Now, there are warehouses that do have circulation paths within the warehouses that they do collect things. So even within the building, you may have circulation paths. But if the definition does present a challenge, we could just make our definition a little bit more clear.

If it simplifies matters, we can just add the word interior resurfacing of interior circulation paths or vehicular ways.

Please.

All right, I don't see any other lights, so we'll move on to comments from the public. Are there any comments from the public on this item? Speaker slips. Mr. Blankenship, please come join us.

Thank you very much. My name is Bill Blankenship representing NAOP Inland Empire chapter. NAOP is the association that represents the logistics industry. I've worked with them for over 6 years. And in addition to that, I do land use consulting on many logistics projects that have worked on probably 20 good neighbor policies throughout the Inland Empire. I applaud the commission for wanting to incentivize the industry with the 15%. I applaud the commission for wanting to clarify the language because certainty is very important to applicants when they're going through the process. Your city has a max building height of 50 feet. I think that that's ample. If you've got a undersized building that's old, those are going to be the candidates to want to modernize. I'm just not sure 15% on a smaller building.

Let's say the example that.

we were talking about earlier, you folks were talking about earlier, 39 feet, going up to let's say 44 feet or 46 feet, I'm not sure that happens. And I do recall from the last hearing, it was stated, I'm not sure we wanna be competitive with the donor hole, but why it's important to be competitive with the some 28 million square feet that exists in the county areas, they don't have a warehouse tax. And they don't have the robust good neighbor policy that you do they, of course, comply with as everybody does, but they don't have. The things that you do that does put you at a competitive disadvantage, and there will come a day when these buildings need to modernize and you're going to want them as a city to modernize. That will be critical. And I just think that we need to find a way for them to modernize. You have a process. They will come back before the planning commission. You have staff that will take them through the process and make sure that they comply. Make sure that the trips are studied. Make sure the environment study make sure all that happens as part of that process. And then we'll ultimately come to you with discretion. And I think that gives you as a body and us as a city, the safeguards that are needed to make sure that you don't get something that doesn't fit within the city, but also does allow for modernization, which is critical. So those are my comments. I appreciate the opportunity. I appreciate your many, many hours, staff's time, and all the deliberation that's happened on this. And ultimately, this will go to the council for final deliberation. So again, thank you. And I appreciate the opportunity to come before you.

Thank you. Do we have any public comments or speakers online? No. Mr. Foote, could you recount for us written comments?

Yes, thank you. We received a total of six written comments the preceding days before the meeting. I'll just summarize them briefly. One email from Nicole Torsvett listing some suggested revisions. One comment from resident John James providing various comments on the logistics industry. And then four comments submitted via web form on the Planning Commission website. And all four are opposed to the ordinance or allowing for increasing building height. That's it. Thank you.

I am now going to close the public hearing for this item and we'll enter Commissioner deliberations But I do apologize. I forgot to ask my own question of staff On I think it was the fifth criteria Yeah, thank you so much where there are items that the Planning Commission may require of the applicant I want to understand the logistics of how this happens and Because they're going to file a CUP application. There's items that they'll have to submit for completeness. Will they not know until planning commission what we're going to require from this list? And so would that be like a multi-hearing process? Or is there a way to let them know up front what the commission would be requiring?

It's a possibility the way you described it this language the way it's written is the Commission may require so it sounds optional If there's other firmer language that would be preferred we can certainly modify it This can just be changed as a requirement with the conditional use permit application if the Commission wants to go in that direction Okay, thank you for clarifying that I'll open it up for deliberations Commissioner Swish

I'd like to discuss the 15% provision. In the last meeting when we discussed this, one of the items we discussed as a commission was the intention for this increase is to provide facilities the ability to modernize if they needed to modernize, as long as it does not result in increasing traffic or increasing capacity for the warehouses. on here when we are and i think item d also including that not just increasing the building height but the number of truck docks right that starts to feel as a workaround right so regardless of what the uh the requirement is you could work around it by submitting an application to consider increasing the truck docks that's I don't know if it is or not and how we would circumvent that but I am NOT in favor of having the ability to increase the truck docks at this point now later in the future when we do a study of the city does a study and we identify that strategically Increasing logistical capacity within the city is going to have less of an environmental impact than. For some reason, the increase of logistical capacity from outside of the city. So sometimes what happens is you have limitations, but then, uh, to accommodate the needs of, uh, the residents of the city. Logistical capacity has to increase around the city and that results with more traffic coming into the city when we get to that point where that is higher than we can revisit. Increasing the logistical capacity within the city, but for the time being, for the purpose of the original, um, uh, the original intent of this, uh. Uh, I would suggest that we do not, uh, have the ability to increase the truck docs, uh, along with the provision for increasing the 15%.

I totally disagree. I mean, we need to be able to give the city the opportunity to be able to work with tenants or to work with. The applicants to modernize their facilities. If something that comes up down the road, I think we tie their hands and we could end up with some. Problem buildings, because they can't be leased because they can't be modernized and they can't be dealt with. I think that it has to come back in front of this commission for any decisions of whether we do the 15% or we do whatever we do if there's a need to add the truck doors. So I think. We need to move forward with it this way. We have the ability to say no in the future if we don't like what the applicant is bringing to us, if it's going to create traffic issues, whatever it may be. But I think we need to let staff have the ability. To be able to work through problems in the future and not tie their hands to the point that we are. I mean, I think we should actually. Not be able to increase the actual square footage, but I think people should be able to do what's necessary to modernize the building. And if that means going up 4 more feet, because that's where the. What they need to get the equipment in there to to do what they do, then we should be able to allow it. But I think that's what the planning commission is for. We have the ability to say yes, and we have the ability to say no, but I think just. Just because there's this. No, no warehouse attitude out there. There is no more warehouses. There's 2 more. They're going to be built in Redlands period. Let's not destroy what we have in here and let's not become so non competitive that we end up with subpar tenants and subpar buildings. There's only a 1M square feet difference between the donut hole and what the city of Redlands has. And so the Donut Hole has a lot, there's a lot there of competition against us. And it's real easy for Redlands buildings to start going downhill, whereas in San Bernardino buildings get rebuilt and they do whatever's necessary. So I just think we're tying the hands of the staff if we make this thing too tight. We need to have some wiggle room and it comes back to us and it has to get voted on and approved by us. So I think we should leave it open.

Mr.

Thank you. Um, so then there's no increase of the square footage of the property or the building. I would say that the building. So, I don't know how you would accomplish increasing the number of truck docs then, because if you went to the other side of, like, you know, a side of the building by increasing, like, obviously, there's gonna be a lot more trucks coming to the property or the facility. Um, so. It's kind of the opposite of what the council was asking us to do with this, like, warehouse ban, like, we're increasing the opportunity with so you're asking for no more truck doors. You're just saying. 6 or less they can or cannot.

Can increase the height 15%, but no more truck doors. No, increasing. If they had five truck docks, then they can modernize their five truck docks. They can lower them, put more different hydraulic systems on them, whatever they need to do to modernize, but no more throughput. Because if you increase it, even if your capacity is the same, you can increase traffic. You can have trucks in and out, more trucks in and out.

All right again, it has to come back in front of us. So we have all the discretion that we need if. Mr. Swish didn't like, hey, that's not necessary to add that extra door because you have a UPS truck coming in three times a day. I mean, we have that discretion. So I think we should leave staff to have some room to work and the applicants some room to work and then we can always say no.

May I ask, how did you get to 15%? Like that number, for example. I'm just wondering.

That was that was mentioned in the previous meeting.

So how did we get there?

Came from the commission discussion from the previous meeting.

It might have been a number that I came up with, which was probably on the low side, trying not to, you know.

Make it too big, but I just didn't know, like, we looked at a study. I just didn't know, like, if, you know.

Well, you know, I mean, a 15% increase on most buildings would only be two or four to five feet. We're not talking, you know, 30 feet of increase. We're talking just a very minimal increase actually at 15%.

I'm just wondering.

All right. So to summarize some of the deliberations that we've heard so far, um, or like specific changes, I think that the Commission may want to see and we can decide if we want to roll this into a motion of adding a reference to applicable entitlements. When it comes to. The alteration provisions right OK and then clarify that in the alterations definition it's limited to interior circulation not exterior circulation. like to share my I think a couple of my own thoughts on this I feel a little bit mixed with the doctor issue and I and I can align with both commissioners here I do I do think the likelihood of us seeing substantial increases in doctors are low just given that the footprints cannot change in order to add more doctors and they probably have to give up some internal capacity and so then it that's It may not result in an outcome that's beneficial to the warehouse operator to add a dock door. So I think those circumstances might be limited. And in the case that they do come up, then we have the conditional use permit mechanism. It comes back before us, the commission, to make a decision. The only thing I might question is, are we going to rely on the findings that we already have? for conditional use permits, or would we have a tailored set of findings for conditional use permits in this circumstance to make it easier for the commission to say no? Because I think oftentimes there's projects that maybe the commission is uncomfortable with, project makes the findings, right? And so it's really hard to make a finding for denial. So I wonder, do we need a nuanced finding with respect to these types of decisions? And I don't know that we can answer that tonight, but it might be something that we continue to work on as this ordinance moves through the process. Do you want to add anything? You look like you might be wanting to.

I'm hoping that we can take something forward from this meeting to council.

Of course, I just meant we might not have a decision on are we reworking findings tonight? You know, we don't want to hold this process up to do that, but it might be a continuing conversation in the future. Anyone want to make one last recommendation or opinion before we move to motions?

Sorry, I just want to clarify that you said also the land use designation. Not just entitlements.

Well, to add entitlement to because the land use designation is part of the definition. Currently is that I just want to make sure it is. Right if we could go back to that slide.

I didn't see that. Use rates.

That's just regarding the 3 buildings that's regarding that.

Personal.

I'm sorry, I missed the section you're referring to.

Yeah, it doesn't have it.

Okay, so this is for, is it C?

I'm just saying up at the top, include a provision to allow for up to 15% additional height to the existing interior ceiling height. If we can add verbiage, sorry, it says it's nicely here. Um, to the existing, but not to exceed the maximum building height in the applicable land use district. Can we please add that?

Unless I'm missing something that's in there right now.

I thought I read that too.

Okay. It's in there. It's in the ordinance. Just not on the, on the screen. Okay. Right. I thought, I thought it was unclear. So make sure.

In the ordinance right now, it says interior ceiling height may be increased up to 15%, in parentheses, and overall building height not to exceed the maximum height allowable within the applicable land use district.

Excellent. And I think where she wants to make an amendment is applicable land use district or approved entitlement. Please. If it's governed by an entitlement.

Do we need to add that?

That's up to us. Okay.

Maybe if it's already in the ordinance, I mean, that's what I'm asking you. Do we need to add that if it's already in the ordinance?

I think it makes it clear. I'd like to be crystal clear.

If we can be, I'd like to see that.

But in the cases where, like, for instance, the IP zone where there is no building height, projects are probably governed by an entitlement. And so they would be bound by 15% of whatever they're entitled to.

And why... I mean, let's go back to 15. Can it be 10?

No.

Why?

It's just not enough. It doesn't... 15 is almost... Is isn't really do enough. It really should be 20 to 25, but I think 15 is a nice fair kind of middle of the ground. But if all the comments for we're saying go higher, not lower, but I think 15 is a very. It's not really a big number and I think it 10, it just becomes doesn't really help anything.

Okay, and I listened to the city council, like, back in November, like, they didn't want to see increase the square footage or height. So, and that's what they had discussed. And then it brought it was brought to us. So I'm just asking, like, out loud, like, you know, discuss, like, percentages because. By decreasing by 5%. Yeah.

I'll, I'll add that while, while the council does. give us direction. They also do look to us to advise them. And in our work, we've also heard from the development community of what they would need to keep their buildings viable going into the future. And obviously, they would probably prefer not to see any kind of cap. And we're trying to strike that middle ground with a 15% to allow them to not necessarily increase their volumetric capacity, but to make sure that they can provide energy and safety updates, you know, as needed to maintain modern leasable buildings. Commissioner Smith.

I imagine that 15% reflects some level of expertise and experience. I would love if the staff can reference that somewhere, that modernization projects for warehouses typically see an increase of 5 to 15% rate of building heights, just so that there is an actual evidence-based reference in there. That would be appreciated.

We'll have to look into that and see what we can find. Thank you.

I mean, I go, Commissioner Swish, by historical in the years that I've been in this business and I've watched, how I've watched buildings go from And as the markets changed, I mean, like I said, last meeting, when I first started, a tall building was 18 feet. Today, you couldn't give away that building is 18 feet. So I'm just saying the heights go up, they all go down. It depends on the equipment they need to move. As more automation comes in, it requires more height so that they can move more stuff more efficiently. So it's just, I think 15% is actually on the low side, but I think it's a fair number.

I appreciate your insight and expertise commissioners.

Commission feel prepared to make a motion. The motion slide please and commissioner Stanton if you're going to make the motion potentially include the... You'll have to help me work through it, but I'll be more than glad to. Let me see if I could summarize that for you really quick, but to add a reference to applicable entitlements when considering eligibility for height increases and to remove the... We've completed public comment. And... Sorry, and to... and to limit the alteration definition to internal or interior circulation.

Okay, help me work through this. Okay, I move that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 1745 and recommend that the City Council adopt ordinance text amendment number 372 and the related specific plan amendments, which will include... A reference to applicable entitlement heights. Reference to applicable entitlement heights and...

Limitation of the alteration definition to interior circulation.

And limit the alteration definition to interior only.

Yeah. All right. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Commissioner Stanson, move Commissioner Gilenheimer. Second, do, oh, could we take a roll call, please?

Commissioner Dominguez? Yes. Commissioner Gilenheimer?

Yes.

Commissioner Swish? Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Smith?

No.

Commissioner Stanson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Elliott?

Yes. All right. So the recommendation to the City Council passes, and we'll move on to announcements and Commissioner comments. All right. Seeing none, we'll move on to the Director's Update.

No significant update at this time.

Then we will adjourn to the next regular meeting date of May 26th. Will we be having a May 26th first day back from the holiday meeting?

I don't believe so. We don't have any items in the queue right now. But we'll adjourn, still adjourn to the next regular meeting.

We'll adjourn to May 26th. Thank you.