Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Redlands Planning Commission meeting for February 24th, 2026. We do have a quorum present. Are there any public comments on items not on today's agenda? Seeing none in the audience, do we have any on Zoom? Do we have any written comments?

We have not received any written comments.

Thank you. Moving on to item number two, presentations. We have none. Moving on to item number three, consent calendar. A, time extension for CRA number 966. Are there any public comments on the consent calendar or any public speaker slips for the consent calendar item? Seeing none. Do any commissioners wish to pull any items for discussion from the consent calendar? Seeing none. Can I get staff to... Ask for a roll call. Well, actually, I think I need a motion first. Can I get a motion to approve the consent calendar?

I motion we approve this consent calendar.

Do we have a second?

Second.

And who am I, which staff person is doing the roll calls for us today? Catherine. Catherine, could we please get a roll call vote for the consent calendar?

Yes. Commissioner Dominguez. Yes. Aye. Commissioner Elliott? Yes. Commissioner Guilenhammer? Aye. Commissioner Swash?

Aye.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner Stanson?

Present.

Chair Shaw?

Yes. Okay, motion carries. Sorry, this is a new way of doing things, so... Item number four, old business. We have none. Item number five, new business. 5A. Item 5A is a consideration of tentative parcel map number 21039, a request to subdivide approximately two acres into two residential lots located at 211 Elder Road, and I will now open the public hearing for this item. Has any commissioner had any ex parte communications with the applicant regarding this item or others? Commissioner Sanson, your light is on.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, that's okay. No. Okay. Staff presentation by Rosemary Montoya. Ms. Montoya.

Thank you, Chair and members of the Commission. This is tentative parcel map number 21039. The applicant, Mark Gardner, proposes to subdivide an existing 93,218 square foot lot into two parcels for residential purposes. The site is located at 211 Elder Road, as shown on screen. The subject property is located in the general plan land use destination of very low density residential, which encourages residential development at densities up to 2.7 dwelling units per acre on slopes of up to 15% and 0.4 dwelling units per acre on slopes greater than 15% and less than 30%. The project site is located within the Residential Estate A District, or RA District, which is intended to provide an environment for low-density single-family homes with no mixing of incompatible uses. Overall, the subdivision demonstrates compliance with the underlying zoning development standards and will be able to accommodate future development. The parcel has an average slope of approximately 24%. Therefore, the hillside development standards apply to the project. Residential density on hillside properties is determined by using slope categories, such as those shown in the slope table on the screen. Areas under 15% slope average may be developed in consistency with the site's underlying general plan designation and the zoning standards, while steeper areas are more restricted. Approximately 41,173 square feet of the site are within the maximum 15% average slope, and the RA district has a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet, which results in a maximum density of 2.01 dwelling units per acre. The proposed map creates two parcels, therefore complies with this limitation. This is the proposed tentative map. Proposed parcel one consists of approximately 41,817 gross square feet and is currently developed with the single family residents. And parcel two consists of approximately 51,400 gross square feet and contains an orange grove and vineyard. The parcel is anticipated to be developed in the future with a single family residence and any future structures would be subject to separate review and approval through the plan check process under separate permits. The proposed project will result in an annual revenue totaling $3,010 and annual cost totaling $672, which will result in a positive cost-benefit ratio of 4.48. And the proposed project meets solicit criteria to qualify for exemption from the environmental review pursuant to section 15332 for infill development projects of the CEQA guidelines. There are a total of seven findings for a tentative parcel map. The findings are generally related to site suitability regarding the location and surroundings and the overall public effect of the subdivision. The project was determined to meet each of these findings and the justification for each is contained within the resolution. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1741 to approve tentative parcel map No. 21039 and the associated socioeconomic cost benefit study based on the analysis and findings in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval. If deemed appropriate, the recommended motion is available on screen. That concludes the presentation for today. Staff is available for any questions, and so is the applicant. Thank you.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, does the applicant have a presentation or just here for questions?

They didn't prepare anything, so they're available for any questions.

Does anyone have any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Seeing none, then I will ask for public comment. This is not that one. Is there anyone in the audience here to speak on this matter? Seeing none, anyone on Zoom? Yes? Yes, public comment. So if you'd like to speak on the project, please join us. Yes, please do, and please introduce yourself. Hi. Hi.

I was just wondering about the driveway that's going to be there. Is it going to be a driveway that will be used for both residences, or will it just be used for the one house, or how is the ingress going to be?

Okay. So we're going to listen to your comments, and then when you're done, then the commission will decide what they're going to do with that.

Okay.

All right. Is that it? That's all I have. Awesome. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Ms. Montoya, if you have an answer for that question, we'd love to hear it.

Yes, so the Parcel 1 is a flag lot, and the driveway will be located on the northwestern corner, as shown on the screen, and then the driveway for Parcel 2 is an existing paved area located on the southern corner of that lot.

So two separate driveways.

Correct.

Perfect. Thank you very much. Anyone else from the audience here to speak on this matter? Anyone on Zoom? No. Have we received any written comments?

We've not received any written comments.

Last call before I close the public hearing. Any questions? Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing for this item and turn it over to the commissioners to make deliberations and findings. Could you please bring the motion back up on the screen? Any comments, anyone?

Nice infill project.

I will just say it's only one more house, but we need more houses, so one is better than zero. Okay. If someone would like to make a motion, it is on the screen.

I move that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 1741, approve the socioeconomic cost-benefit study prepared for the project, and approve tentative parcel map number 21039 based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval.

Second. Okay.

It has been moved by Commissioner Gillenhammer and seconded by Commissioner Stanson to approve tentative parcel map number 21039, and staff will now take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Dominguez? Yes. Commissioner Elliott? Yes. Commissioner Gillenhammer? Yes. Commissioner Swash?

Yes.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner Stanson?

Yes.

Chair Shaw? Yes.

Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Item number 5B. Item 5B is the application for Kaiser Medical Facility Expansion Project, including Plan Development Number 6, Amendment Number 8 to Concept Plan Number 1, and the Related Environmental Impact Report located at 1301 California Street. And I will now open the public hearing for this item. Has any commissioner had any expertise communications with the applicant or others in regards to this application? Seeing none. Staff presentation by Kevin Beery. Mr. Beery.

Good afternoon, commissioners. For you is the master plan and environmental document prepared for Kaiser Permanente's new healthcare facility at their 1301 California Street campus, which is currently partially developed with a medical office building and surface parking. The proposed master plan envisions the property being fully developed over four phases to include a general hospital, additional medical office buildings, and supporting structures. Although the master plan does not set fixed construction dates, the applicant targets completing the first phase by 2030. Later phases would likely move forward at roughly 10-year intervals, depending on economic conditions and the regional market. After the presentation, we'll be available to answer any questions that the commission may have of us or the city's environmental and traffic consultant, and the applicant's development team will also be present to address any questions before opening up the hearing to public comment. The project site is located on the west side of California Street between Lagonia and Almond Avenues, one block north of the 10 Freeway. The surrounding area is predominantly developed with warehousing as well as commercial development to the southeast. According to the general plan, the site has a commercial industrial land use designation and surrounding designations include commercial industrial, agricultural, and public institutional. The project site is zoned according to Concept Plan 1, which encompasses a roughly 306-acre subarea of the East Valley corridor-specific plan, bounded by Mountain View Avenue and California Street to the west and east, and San Bernardino and Lagonia Avenues to the north and south. As a subplan of the specific plan, Concept Plan 1 establishes land use regulations according to the district map shown here. The project site is located in the southeast corner of the plan area, and its boundaries coincide with that of the medical facilities district, in which hospitals and medical uses are permitted by right. According to the procedures of the specific plan, new large-scale and or phased developments within concept plans may prepare a development plan. Development plans are property-specific, long-range land use and infrastructure planning documents, which function as a master entitlement that guides future on-site development. Approval of a development plan does not authorize immediate development, and applicants are required to apply for and obtain subsequent entitlements prior to project construction. The submitted application entails two distinct requests. First, a proposed amendment to concept plan one's application procedures, and second, a proposal to establish a development plan for the medical campus. First, the proposed concept plan amendment would add a formal application procedure to enable the processing of development plans. This change is consistent with the specific plan's implementation procedures, the other adopted concept plans, and the Council's adopted policies on processing of plan development applications. Secondly, the application would establish a development plan for the new medical center, which is organized into two components, a mapped portion and a written portion, which together outline the phasing, site planning, and infrastructure program for the development as a whole. Shown here are the phasing details from the development plan. Overall, the plan proposes a total of three new buildings, including a 321-bed general hospital and two medical office buildings, as well as a parking structure and on-site central utility plant. The floor area of the overall facility, including the existing medical offices, is 983,000 square feet. Shown here is the site plan for the existing office building, which is currently accessed by two full-width driveways on California Street and Lagonia Avenue. Phase one involves the construction of a new four-story office building located roughly 70 feet west of the existing building and additional surface parking. A new central turnaround vehicle driveway would be constructed directly north of the office buildings. Existing site access driveways would remain in place and a new full access driveway would be installed on Almond Avenue. Furthermore, Almond Avenue would be widened to include a new eastbound car lane, sidewalk, curb, and gutter along the north frontage. Phase 2 is the primary hospital phase and includes the most substantial improvements. The hospital building would be sited west of the Phase 1 office building, with which it would be attached. The main hospital structure would average 3 to 4 stories in height and feature a 7-story tower measuring 122 feet in height, well below the 150-foot height limit of the zoning district. This phase also includes the construction of a six-level parking structure north of the central driveway, a two-story central utility plant, two new access driveways, and the installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of California Street and the existing project driveway. Phase three consists of a detached four-story medical office building located south of the phase one building, as well as additional surface parking in the northeast area of the site. The last phase includes the addition of a five-story wing to the hospital, which would be set back approximately 130 feet from Allmond Avenue. The development plan also includes tentative preliminary landscaping plans demonstrating compliance with the specific plan landscaping standards concerning overall landscape coverage, tree quantities, and design of parking areas. Although the applicant has prepared conceptual elevations for reference, the development plan does not include building elevations. An architectural design would be reviewed by the commission at each phase's subsequent entitlement. Pictured here is the applicant's existing facility in San Marcos, which is shown to provide a visual example of a potential design for the Redlands campus. The applicant has prepared some conceptual perspective renderings to help demonstrate the appearance of the development as viewed from surrounding streets. Shown here is a vantage point from the northwest on Almond Avenue, looking directly at the hospital. And a rendering as viewed from the southeast at the intersection of California and Lagonia with the existing medical office in the foreground. Summarized here are key findings regarding the proposed project. Our review determined that the proposal is supportable and upon approval of the pending concept plan text amendment is consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. Although exempt from Measure U as a hospital project, staff engaged a traffic engineer to prepare a traffic study on the project's level of service impacts on surrounding roadways. The study's recommendations, which include the new traffic signal on California Street and timing optimization of existing signals, have been incorporated into the development plan document and will be the responsibility of the applicant to fund and construct before Phase 2 is operational. We also believe that all required approval findings, which largely relate to project compatibility with the surrounding land uses and public improvement requirements, can be made. Here are those findings which must be made in order to approve a development plan application pursuant to Council Resolution 5116. The staff report and draft approval resolution include a suggested determination and rationale on each finding for your consideration. As required for major development projects, this project underwent environmental review and the city's environmental consultant prepared an Environmental Impact Report, or EIR. The EIR is an informational document intended to provide public agencies and the general public detailed information about the effects which a project is likely to have on the environment, list the ways in which the significant effects might be minimized, and indicate alternatives to the project. In the case of this project, a program-level EIR was prepared. This kind of EIR, which is typically used for long-range plans or phased projects, is designed to streamline the environmental reviews for later project activities that are consistent with the initial program. That is the approach in this case, in which the environmental review for future development phases may be streamlined if later determined to be consistent with the original development plan. Shown here for your reference is the program EIR timeline, including major notice dates. As required by CEQA, the program EIR analyzes 15 different environmental factors, including air quality, cultural resources, noise, and utilities. Several factors, including agriculture, mineral resources, and wildfire risk, were not further evaluated as part of the EIR because it was initially concluded there was no potential for the project to cause significant impacts in these resource areas. The draft EIR includes all the required contents as set forth in the CEQA regulations, including a project description, impact analysis, and evaluation of alternative project scenarios. Summarized here is the mandatory public scoping process and meetings completed during EIR preparation. And upon completion, the draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period, which concluded early last month. Two comments from Native American tribes were submitted on the draft EIR and minor changes were made to address one of the comments. Recirculation of the draft EIR was not necessary because no new information or significant impacts were identified as a result of the comments. Upon completion of the draft EIR process, the EIR was finalized by incorporating a response to those comments into the document's present version, which is now being considered for certification. The final EIR is accompanied by required documentation, including findings of fact, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and a statement of overriding considerations. The EIR concludes that of the topic areas evaluated, the project would not cause significant impacts relative to eight environmental factors listed here. And impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, soils, and tribal cultural resources would be potentially significant, but the report identified valid mitigation measures which could reduce these impacts to a non-significant level. Of note, the EIR concludes that the project would potentially cause significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions that are mainly attributable to the anticipated increase in vehicle trips resulting from the project as modeled in accordance with the city's VMT analysis guidelines. When an EIR concludes a project's effects cannot be reduced or mitigated to a non-significant level, the city must document the project's benefits, which can include social and economic reasons, and explain how its approval is justified in what is called a statement of overriding considerations. Four considerations were identified for the current project, which include that approval of the project would, one, promote health care access, two, provide a modern and sustainable facility, three, fully implement the specific plan's objectives for the project site, and lastly, to meet forecasted demand for health care in the region. CEQA requires the city as the decision-making agency to balance the project benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project, and the statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence. As required by CEQA, written findings of fact and supporting rationale were documented concerning each of the project's potential environmental effects, as well as statements of compliance with the CEQA requirements concerning EIR preparation and adoption. This slide summarizes the mitigation measure schedule prepared for the project. The MMRP consolidates all required mitigation measures into one document, identifies when each measure must occur, and specifies whether the developer or the city is responsible for implementation. It also explains how compliance is verified, for example, prior to permit issuance or during construction. Once adopted, this schedule becomes part of the project's requirements and can be binding on subsequent project activities relying on the EIR. With respect to the project, the Commission is now being asked to do four things. Confirm that the final EIR reflects the city's independent judgment. Determine whether the mitigation measures that are proposed are adequate. Decide whether the project has substantiated benefits which override the significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas and VMT impacts. And finally, make a recommendation on the development plan entitlement and concept plan amendments. With that, staff is recommending approval of the project and associated environmental documentation. Again, like I said, we're available to answer any questions, and the applicant's team is also available to address the commission. Finally, here is the text of a motion to be used should the commission agree with the recommendation of staff. Thank you.

Does the applicant have a presentation? We're just here for questions. Hang on just one second. All right. So we're going to move on to staff questions. And when you use your lights, I'll call on you. But if staff determines it is an applicant question, then I'm going to ask you to restate the question once the applicant joins us, if that's okay with everyone. Okay. Questions for staff at this time.

Commissioner Gillenhammer. Thank you. When I was reading over some documentation and the reporting, there were different names for this project, including Kaiser Redlands Medical Center Project, Redlands Kaiser Medical Center Project, and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Project. Can you confirm which project name we are moving forward with? Yeah.

It's the Kaiser Redlands Medical Center project is what is shown on the final EIR title. Thank you.

Commissioner Elliott. Regarding the concept plan amendment, is this just like a procedural cleanup item specific to this concept plan, or would the commission expect to see this kind of cleanup? item occur with other concept plans in the area? I guess what I'm asking is, like, was this maybe, like, an oversight early on of, like, how projects actually get implemented within concept plans?

Yeah, that's a good way to describe it. It is a cleanup item. The other concept plans that are in effect, there have been four concept plans. Concept plan two was rescinded, but the other effective concept plans are I'm sorry, I think it was concept plan three. Concept plans two and four currently have a development plan procedure. So it's really just a parity action to make the concept plan one consistent with the other.

And so then this amendment would make this concept plan procedures consistent with the others that are already existing?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

And then my second question relates to transportation and understanding that our EIR only examines VMT. Would we expect to see LOS analysis occur as part of the implementation of the future phases?

Yeah, so with this project, the department did an LOS study up front, and the recommendations of that LOS study, which conclude the project would not have adverse LOS impacts reducing below acceptable thresholds based on implementation of a traffic signal and timing optimization for existing signals. So the... Applicants prepared development plan incorporates that there's a section on traffic improvements that they are solely responsible for completing Before operation of phase 2 which is the hospital phase and so those are then tied to At the improvements are tied to as buildings come online Correct Commissioner Stanson

So concept plan one, which was done 25 years ago or so, that's expired. So I'm a little confused. Are we approving this as part of the original concept plan? Because the original concept plan expired years ago, right? No.

I'll try to answer that. Mr. Stanton, the concept plan acts as the zoning on the subject property. It's not an entitlement. So the concept plan is on the city zoning map. That is the zoning designation is concept plan one. So it's existing today.

But there was something in here that I read about it had expired. So that's why I was curious. So it... I remember going through the original entitlement on this in 91.

Yeah, concept plans don't expire. They're the first step of the plan development process. The plan development process can be Processed in either two or one stages. If it's processed in two stages, the first step is adoption of the concept plan, which is basically a conceptual land use plan for the area and does act as a zoning, as Brian mentioned. And then the second step, after a concept plan is adopted, a development plan may be prepared for a specific property in the concept plan, and that acts as more of a conceptual master plan for development.

And that's where we are now. We're doing the conceptual master plan for the development for the future. Correct.

And I can bring up the... What expired was the future phases of the last existing project. So this replaces... We're going to build back when? Correct. So this replaces that. Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff at this time? I'm not really sure who should answer my questions, so I'm just going to wait. Seeing none others, please join us.

Welcome. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Deborah Wong, and I'm the Senior Land Use Manager for Kaiser Permanente. Thank you for allowing us to bring this project forward. This is a very critical project for Kaiser Permanente, both locally and regionally. So we're very excited about the project and to be at this really critical junction here, first hearing here at the Planning Commission. Just wanted to thank staff for their presentation, and staff has been so helpful in them being so responsive, as well as just guiding us to get to this point. They've been great to work with, so thank you for that. Just to give you a very quick kind of overview of this project and kind of how it's been envisioned over the last, I'd say decades, really, because we purchased the property in 1991. And MOB1, or the existing medical office building, was built in 2008. So this master plan entitlement for the full build-out of the site has been envisioned for quite some time, and we're very excited that we're moving forward with this. And in fact, hopefully, knock on wood, if you approve this, we'll be back in a few short months with the phase one CRA for the actual ASC ambulatory surgical center slash MOB2 in just a few short months. So we're very excited about that. If that gets approved, then you will see a lot of construction activity out there. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Otherwise, I will defer to staff, and we have our entire team here as well. Thank you.

Questions for the applicant? Commissioner Stanton.

I just want to say thank you. I think it's a great project that you guys are doing. I just want to disclose that I started my real estate career in 1988. In 91, I was cold calling Kaiser and I sold you the land. So I've been waiting for a lot of years for you to build this hospital. And as a Kaiser patient, I'm really looking forward to you finishing this. So thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, I have some. So whoever can address the non-mitigated measures, could you please join us? I'm messing up my words right now. The document of overriding circumstances for the two, the vehicle miles traveled and the greenhouse gases that can be mitigated.

Are you referring to the city's environmental consultant?

Or the applicant, I'm not sure, is better to answer the questions.

Okay, yeah, that would be the... Perfect. So the environmental consultant for the city is Ultra Systems. Ultra Systems staff is available to introduce themselves. Bob Riker from Ultra Systems is here tonight.

Okay, if you could join us, please. Thank you. Welcome. So my question is, you know, making a decision on the unmitigated circumstances is a big deal. The document was great, but it's really technical, and I just want to make sure the public understands, too. So if you could just walk us through, let's start with the greenhouse gas portion of it, like what you do briefly to ensure that there's really nothing we can do to mitigate these circumstances, just so everyone can kind of understand that from are very untechnical, except for Emily.

And I'll try to be as untechnical as I can be.

Appreciate it.

Mitigation measures are posited based on what is feasible and what's enforceable, and sometimes they don't mitigate all of the effects, to make it very simple. In this case the greenhouse gas emissions which arise primarily from vehicular traffic Exceed what the standards are in in the s Whatever it is the the air quality management districts criteria As far as VMT, it's kind of the same principle. The vehicle miles traveled exceed what is considered acceptable under the standards. There are a number of mitigation measures that can be applied to it, but in some they don't. override what the total mitigate or the total effects are.

Okay, so in summary, that particular measure is mainly because of the vehicle miles traveled, and there's lots of things that you go through to see if you can mitigate it, and likely because of the amount of clients that will be there and the size of the project, there's just no way to get it under that threshold. Is that correct? Am I understanding that properly? Yes, you are. Okay, perfectly. Did you have a question in regards to that?

Yes, so... Where do we become unmitigatable? Is it in phase two when we build the next building, or is it three or four?

I believe it's at the full build-out. It's at full build-out. I'm going to ask the traffic consultant, but I'm pretty sure that's where it is.

Commissioner Schweitz.

How do we quantify the mitigation measures in terms of their ability to offset the required mitigation? Also, when you say at that fourth stage is when the project becomes beyond the requirements, would changing the scope a little bit set you below the mitigation requirements?

The exceedance is fairly significant, so you'd have to change it a lot.

So how do we quantify then the mitigation measures as they compare to the additional greenhouse gases then?

I'd have to look at the report. I don't have those numbers in my head. But each of the traffic mitigation measures has a percentage that it reduces VMT and greenhouse gas specifically. And the sum total of them was something like less than 10%, I believe.

So do the mitigation measures then take you back? Above that level?

They don't reduce it enough to be below what the standards are.

Okay. I wrote down this next question, so it would come out halfway making sense. And I'm not sure who will. You'll have to let me know who the best person to answer it is. But the EIR, so it's about parking and the VMT findings. The EIR concludes that transportation impacts related to the VMT are significant and unavoidable, but the development plan provides parking in excess of minimum code requirements. So I'm looking for clarification on whether the parking supply was evaluated as a contributor to VMT and rather reduced parking was considered as a potential mitigation measure.

Parking is not an issue at CEQA addresses.

Okay. So reduced... You don't ever look at reduced parking to see if it would mitigate the issue?

I don't believe we have.

Okay. Through the chair, I was also able to confirm with the city's traffic consultant that the only thing that's accounted for in the VMT projections is based on employee count and bed count in the hospital. Parking does not factor into the projected VMT projections.

would have ever thought we were talking about too much parking but thank you I just wanted to check to make sure so this is probably a staff question but since there is no expiration in the in the project or on plan development six it's a long-term master entitlement with no expert expiration date so three and four could be years out if we end up with a materially different circumstances that then does the city retain the authority to require a new environmental study if that's where we're at in that phase? Not that we're expecting that. I'm just trying to understand.

Yeah, so with each, if it all goes according to plan, if each phase would be reviewed at the time of construction and a development permit application would need to be filed by the applicant once for an entitlement for the specific phase being built. And once the development application is filed, the department and the planning commission would have an opportunity to conduct a review for environmental consideration. The approach here with this master program EIR is that If future phases are generally consistent with the development plan that's being reviewed today, and there are no major changes to either the project's physical setting, environmental setting, or any major regulatory changes, then specific phases could be potentially eligible for streamlined environmental review. If there are changes, then there are different options depending on the circumstances, but usually a subsequent EIR or supplement to the EIR would need to be prepared. If it's very minor changes, maybe an addendum. But the bottom line is that there would be subsequent possibility for environmental review for each phase.

Okay, perfect. And then my last question is phase four adds up to 108 beds, bringing it up to a 321-bed build-out, if I did the math correctly. So was the traffic analysis based on the full build-out or the one with the 108 less beds? And would there be any changes needed regardless?

It was based on the full build-out. Okay. Yeah.

Perfect. Thank you. Commissioner Elliott.

Thanks. Since we're on the topic of transportation and VMT and mitigation measures, and understanding that even though we have unmitigable exceedance of VMT, we're still required to mitigate to the extent feasible, even though we can't get it below the threshold. A couple of the mitigation measures, I had questions about implementation and monitoring of performance. That's TRANS-2 and TRANS-4. And these are They appear to be ongoing programs to establish a rideshare program and a van pool. And I see that the implementation stage is prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. But knowing that these are ongoing programs that will have to operate in perpetuity to have the intended effect, is there a plan and who is the responsible party to monitor these measures to make sure that they're being implemented essentially in perpetuity?

I think that's a good question perhaps for the city's traffic consultant to go over. They prescribed these mitigation measures based on the VMT analysis and prepared these mitigation for the environmental document. So I'd like to introduce Delia from Fair and Peers, who was retained by the city, to prepare both the LOS study and VMT analysis.

So to answer the question, it would be incorporated into the MMRP, and both the vanpool program and the rideshare program would be verified upon the issuance of the certificate. There's not necessarily an enforcement mechanism beyond the MMRP, but it is part of that program and would be verified prior to that issuance. So there's not necessarily a requirement for an ongoing monitoring and check on that program, but it has been written in and is expected that it should be offered to employees on a continual basis.

I'll just clarify. We would require the written plan before the certificate of occupancy is issued. So we'd require a written plan that, you know, we'd have documentation for.

But it says you do that for each phase. I mean, the way I was reading the Reddit is each phase, you'd have to approve it for each time they did the next phase. Yep, that's correct. So, but don't you think there should be somebody that monitors it for the city that if this is something that's important to keep the miles traveled down that we... We don't have a way, we don't have a mechanism right now to do that.

One thing you could consider when you have an entitlement for one of these buildings come back is you could, as a condition, schedule, like we've done before, a one-year check-in. So you could say one year from this approval... We want you to come back and report on this program. That's one way to have a mechanism to do a check-in.

And that's when the next phase of the project comes to it.

That's when you get it. So right now you're just effectuating the zoning. That's all you're effectuating right now. You're going to have every building come back to you separately. So with those building approvals and the streamlined environmental, as an option and an example, you could schedule a check-in.

But how would we know? So this is going to come back to us in another couple of months, right, for the next phase. And we're going to go through this process and we're going to approve the van pools and do all that stuff. But what's to stop Kaiser in a year going, okay, it costs us too much money. We're not going to do this. Well, I mean, I mean, then we have another building coming up, but that's not for another 10 years possibly.

It's part of their environmental. It'll probably be tied into their conditions for the building. So just like any project we do in any entitlement, it's just, it's, it's, it's part of their approval. So if we have any teeth. Yeah. Yeah. Especially if it's a condition. Absolutely.

So I think what we're hearing is as the project moves forward, it, That will probably be a concern of ours, and maybe we could build that in ahead of time. Commissioner Swach?

I was going to ask if we could maybe expect regular reports in terms of the effectiveness of the mitigation plans. Another question I had is I see here on MMAQ-1 that you have mentioned replacing gas-powered landscaping equipment. What about the Kaiser fleet of vehicles and other things that can be replaced to be more environmentally friendly? Have you taken that into consideration? What's the impact that that would have?

That would really be outside the scope of the city's authority. That would be a state-level issue regarding vehicle specifications.

But, I mean, the client or, like, is it ambulances that are Kaiser or they are contracted out? Okay. Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Let's be really sure, so once we close the public hearing, we can keep it closed.

I have questions about phases. Okay, excellent.

I don't know if I'm the right person for phases, unless they're specifically regarding traffic analysis. No.

I'm just wondering about the phases between the rationale for proceeding with an additional Kaiser medical office before completing the hospital. It seems like in phase three after the hospital, in phase two, that phase four is to complete the hospital in phase two. So I would love to understand the rationale and why.

So generally speaking, that is how hospital campuses have the development has occurred. All Kaiser development is forecasted demand. And so when we built other campuses throughout the state, it's generally kind of gone in that order. the demand for the hospital tower addition, which is the last phase, wouldn't occur until that phase. We certainly wouldn't want empty beds or a significant capital investment that's not getting utilized. So once the demand is forecasted, those buildings will come online.

Okay, and then it is its own building, correct?

Meaning is it attached or detached? Correct. They are their own building. I think the hospital, it's shown to be attached, but it's not literally attached, right? It would look very vague. Yeah. The hospital is an OSHPD or HCAI jurisdiction building, so we don't attach it to, like, an MOB or a building that is not OSHPD. We generally don't do that. So although it may appear that way, it's physically separated, yeah. Okay. So it would look complete, right? Yes. Okay, and phase two. And it would still look holistic.

Okay, excellent. And then the CUP, is that where the backup generators would be stored? I mean, is that something like micro-gridding?

That is basically the energy center for the hospital. It will be kind of like the brain of all the mechanical systems for the hospital. And, yes, there will be emergency generators as part of the CUP, the central utility plant. that will support the hospital.

Excellent. And then this is, the hospital would not be a trauma center, correct? So there's not an emergency, like an ER?

There will be an ER. It won't be a regional trauma center. Okay. But it will be, there will be an ER there, an ED, emergency department.

Okay.

Yeah.

What I read, it said that it wouldn't be. So maybe in phase one, that would not be an ER center, correct? That's correct. It would just be the hospital in phase two that you would have that.

Correct. And this next phase, the phase one is... There'll be clinic space and ORs for the surgery center. It's less than 24-hour stays. And then when the hospital comes online, that will include what you typically see with the hospital, which is the emergency department and hospital beds.

So ambulances still do come to phase one? That's a good question. Because it is, like, in terms of communication with our community?

So ambulatory surgery center just means that it's less than 24-hour care and that people can kind of... be able to walk out of a pretty common low-risk surgery within 24 hours. So there's no beds. That's the ambulatory part. Will ambulances come if there's an emergency? Yes, but that would be the same case for any, even a medical office building. But they would be able to come? Yes, yes, if they needed. Excellent.

Thank you. So for clarification, an emergency room and a level one trauma center are two different things, right? So low melanism trauma center, someone's reaches that threshold, they go there, they don't go to Redlands Community. So there can be an emergency room and still not be a trauma center, correct? Correct.

Yeah, I think, I believe your local trauma center is...

Yes, thank you.

Oh, no? Okay.

Yes, Commissioner Dominguez. Will there be a heliport?

There will not. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Commissioner Stanson.

So it's not until phase three until the actual hospital until there's ambulances and emergency and all that good stuff?

Yeah, phase two, actually.

Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, if you consider the existing of a phase one, then it is phase three, yeah.

All right, so when do you think, what is your anticipated timeline to get to phase three?

The hospital phase. Yes. So we analyze, we anticipate this next ambulatory surgery center will come online about 2029, so about 2039 is the anticipated hospital phase.

It's a really long project. One more quick question.

Yes, Commissioner Gellenhammer. I'm just wondering about the solar panel canopies. I saw on the parking structure for phase two that there will be a solar panel panels up at the top, but that's it. So I'm just wondering in terms of how much parking you do have available for this development plan, why were solar panel canopies not considered in the parking lots?

You mean the north part of the parking lot? Because right now the solar canopies are on the south. We just installed those. You just installed them.

Yeah, we did. Are you going to expand those to like the north part or other parts?

At this time, so we just got the solar canopies installed in the last handful of months. Okay. And they're operational now. At this point, I can't say there's any plans to expand it to the north side. It does also depend on. where the buildings are going and the sun and all that. So they chose that portion of the site because it optimizes the panels. That's all I can say for now. We haven't looked at putting them on the north side of the property.

Is it possible?

That's outside of the scope of this approval because this is the zoning. But when the future buildings come back and you're looking at actually constructing the parking area, that could be a topic of discussion.

Thank you. I'll take that question back to our team.

Any other questions for the staff or the applicant before I close? Well, I'm not going to close. I'm going to move to public comment. Anyone else? So I'm going to start with speaker slips. I have one Fernadad Ditras, or is it Detras? I think he left. He was sitting right there. Okay, well, it says that he is for the project, and he is from the Small Business Administration. Is there anyone else from the audience here to speak on this matter? Seeing none, do we have any comments on Zoom? Zoom? No. Okay. Did we receive any written comments?

Yes. The department received one written comment from Agua Caliente, a Native American tribe, requesting to be notified if any tribal cultural resources are discovered during project construction.

Okay. And is that in the or is that going to come in conditions further on down the road?

I was going to say, the existing mitigation requires notification to consulting tribes, so that can be addressed as part of the subsequent entitlement reviews as a condition of the development permits.

Okay.

Perfect. Okay. Last call. Commissioner Stanson.

So going back to the EAR, is there any real impacts as far as bats, birds, and bees and everything else that's on there on mitigation? It doesn't seem like the site has a lot of growth, but it does have enough on the balance.

Yes. So there was a biological survey of this project site, and it was determined that there are potentially jurisdictional wetlands on the site, which... correspond to the drainage features, the man-made drainage features that have been vegetated over time. So there's a wide set of mitigation measures on biological resources, which involve surveys and jurisdictional delineations that would be done prior to the entitlement of each phase. So, for example, when the applicant comes in possibly this year for their phase one, they would need to submit all these biological surveys required by the mitigation measures in order to qualify for streamlined environmental review.

Thank you.

Seeing no other green lights. And still no other green lights? I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing for this item. Turn it over to the commissioners for deliberation. This is a really large project, so I'm just going to start down here and then ask for everyone to go ahead and let us know how you're supporting the project and if you have any ties to findings that you'd like to share. Commissioner Gillenhammer.

I am excited for the project. I hope that this could be a champion for our Redlands Climate Action Plan. I would encourage you to look into that as well, because that could be a model for other medical facilities coming to our community. But I'm very excited for this project.

Commissioner Dominguez? I just want to let you know that I'm very excited to see the hospital phase come into play here in Redlands. Being a Kaiser patient as well, it's always been nice to know that we can go to the local areas. So thank you very much for coming to town.

Mr. Elliott. Sure. Yeah, I'll be, I guess, supporting the approval of the zoning action for the project and appreciate everyone's effort on their analysis. I do want to ask staff to carefully monitor the transportation mitigation measures and I'm not sure what kind of CEQA streamlining we'll be using going forward, whether that's going to be an addendum or some other mechanism, but just being aware that we're going to try to carry those forward to monitor them appropriately.

Commissioner Smith.

Project's moving forward, so, yeah, I'm in support.

Commissioner Stanson.

I've waited a long time for this project. I'm definitely in support of it. And as a Kaiser patient, you know, I'm glad I don't have to go to Ontario for cancer treatments anymore. So I'm looking forward to you guys coming.

This is exciting for our community and to make sure that we have better access to care regionally, so definitely in support of this. For the staff, since this is such a large project, as also was mentioned, it's really important to keep an eye because some of the analysis are as of now. So as this project grows, it's important to see how... much of an impact it continues to have, and if there are other things that we may need to consider later on if there's different mitigations that need to happen throughout the lifetime of the project. And how do we ensure that this has happened systemically? I know, Chris, Mr. Boatman, you mentioned that As the different building phases are introduced for approval, we'll review some of these things. So I just wanted to make sure that that is in that process and is embedded in the process.

I will also be supporting the project. It definitely is consistent with our land use plans, complies with our development standards, supports public health and safety. And although, you know, unfortunately there are things that we cannot mitigate, I think that the applicant has done a really good job doing the best that they can. And I think you're hearing from us that we really want to keep an eye on that and keep those mitigations as low as possible. And someday I want to hear why it takes 30 years to build a hospital, but that's not for today's. I'm just curious. So, yes, thank you for joining us in Redlands. And if you could please bring the motion up on the screen. Commissioner Stanson, once it's there. Okay, go for it.

I move that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 1737 and recommend that the City Council adopt the findings of fact and statements of overriding considerations and certify and adopt the final environmental impact report, including the mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for Kaiser Redlands Medical Center project. I move that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Number 1738 to recommend the City Council approve Amendment Number 8 to the Concept Plan Number 1 and recommend that the City Council approve Plan Development Number 6.

I will second both motions.

It's just this page, right? I just want to make sure we don't have a second page. Okay, perfect. What? Two numbers, not two pages. Understood. It has been moved by Commissioner Stanson and seconded by Commissioner Elliott to approve the City Council to recommend to the City Council Wait a second. Is this a recommendation or an approval? Because this is written weird. Okay. To recommend to the City Council to approve the proposed Kaiser Medical Center project. Staff will now take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Dominguez? Yes. Commissioner Elliott? Yes. Commissioner Gallenheimer? Yes. Commissioner Swish?

Yes.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner Stanson?

Yes.

Chair Shaw? Yes. Motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Okay. Moving on to item number six, announcements and commissioner comments. Does anyone have any? Seeing none, moving on to item number seven, Director's Update. Mr. Boatman, Mr. Foote?

Just that the City Council ended up approving the ordinance to allow hens in town. So I believe about 20 days from now you can have a hen if you have a yard that's appropriately sized.

That's okay. Before that you could have an emotional support chicken, so we're good. Mr. Foote?

I'd just like to add that there is an opportunity to attend a Planning Commissioners Academy. I believe that's by the League of California Cities. In the near future, if you are interested, we can arrange for your registration to attend. I believe it's a multi-day. If you're interested in multi-day conference, it's available. So please reach out to myself or staff, and we'll help you with that.

Is this your local, or is it up north?

I think it's in Irvine.

Oh, okay. When I went, it was all the way in Sacramento, so... Okay, and Commissioner, I'm sorry, I didn't see your line. Commissioner Elliott.

No, that's okay. I was too slow. The award nomination period for the Inland Empire section of the American Planning Association is open, and I wanted to just share that news with city staff in case there are any projects that the city would like to nominate for an award. The nomination period is open for another couple of weeks, and the information for nomination can be found on the IES APA website. Thank you. And then how are we looking for our March meetings?

Are we having both?

March 10th, we're planning to have a meeting, and we are arranging to have a presentation on findings and various aspects of the commission's role here that will be handled by an attorney from BB&K. So that's March 10th. And then that's all we have on the forecast at the moment, and I'm expecting probably another meeting in April as well.

Thank you. Okay. Moving on to item number eight, we will adjourn to the next regular planning date of March 10th, 2026. Thank you, everyone.