Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Redlands Planning Commission meeting for April 14, 2026. We do have a quorum present. We will move on to item number two, administer the oath of office by City Clerk Jeannie Donaldson.

without cam we wouldn't survive right All right, here we go. You guys will not have your own mics, but I do. Here we go. Raise your right hand and repeat after me. I. I. State your full name.

I.

Do solemnly swear.

Do solemnly swear.

To support and defend. To support and defend. The Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution of the United States.

And the Constitution of the State of California.

And the Constitution of the State of California.

against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California that I will take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I'm about to enter.

Congratulations.

Okay, we will move on to item number three, election of chair. Next is the election of the planning commission chair. I will open the floor for nominations. Recognition by the chair is not required. Nominations do not need to be seconded. A member may decline their nomination and commissioners may nominate himself or herself. After each nomination, I will repeat the name and we will vote. Are there any nominations for chair?

I would like to just take a moment if that's okay. So I suppose since we just had the vice chair election, just like our last meeting in March, that the chair would not conclude to like later this year, not like the next meeting. So I'm just wondering if it would be an opportunity to like moving, like suggestion that we can have the vice chair and chair positions at the same time, just for clarity, continuity, consistency, since like, we just voted for vice chair last meeting and then now we're in an election for chair position this next meeting um so therefore i'd like to if it's possible to nominate emily for the chair position just because Like I said, I just was not aware until like this was on the agenda and I checked the minutes from the last meeting and. It wasn't like stated at that time either until, like, this was on the agenda for this, you know, or whatever April 14th meeting.

Can I can I jump in here? Please do. Um, uh, council member did, um, raise this issue. That's why I'm here today for this particular item. Um. tonight is just the election of the chair. You've got two options. You can move forward with the election of the chair, and yes, Emily is eligible to be a candidate for chair, even though she was elected as vice chair. So you can move forward tonight with this particular item. And if there is a vacancy of the vice chair position, that item will show up on your next meeting agenda to fill that vacancy. The other option is to take both these, the chair and the vice chair item. Don't take any action tonight. Take take the item at your next meeting, and it'll be chair and vice chair, as suggested by the commissioner. So I've talked to the director, and we thought it would be beneficial to take action for your chair tonight, and if there is a vacancy, there may or may not, we don't know, but if there is, then that will show up on your next meeting agenda. So that was something that the director and I talked about, but it is all up to you. Either option is fine.

Perfect. So for clarity, just so you understand, is the reason that it was, so they are normally both, please correct me if I'm wrong, both done in January, but because of the way certain meetings occurred and certain vacancies occurred, then they were pushed and they're one year terms. Do I have that correct? Correct. Okay, perfect. I don't want to, I feel like, you know what, let me open it up to the floor and see what the commission thinks on whether the, like I'm okay either way. I would like to move forward with how the commission feels about whether they would like to postpone it and do them both or do them tonight. So I will start with Commissioner Schweitz.

I had the same thought. I think we can move forward with the chair tonight, and if there is a vacancy, we can address it in the next meeting.

Okay. Commissioner Elliott?

I'm comfortable with that approach.

Okay. I agree. Commissioner Smith?

I'll open. Okay.

Commissioner Dominguez?

Yes, I'll agree.

Welcome. Okay, so we have one nomination. Commissioner Elliott, do you accept the nomination for chair?

Well, I'm very pleasantly surprised and honored to be a nominee. I would respectfully decline it at this time, being somewhat new to the commission myself. I would appreciate the opportunity to serve in the role as vice chair for a period of time, just to make sure that I'm providing the best service possible on the commission and gaining some experience. Thank you very much.

I think you should change your mind. I think it's time for some change on the commission, and I think you'd be a breath of fresh air.

Thank you, Commissioner Stanson.

I would just like to say that when Commissioner Elliott is ready, I second, third, and fourth all of those recommendations whenever she is comfortable. So given that, are there any other recommendations for chair?

I would like to put forward nomination for chairwoman Shaw to continue in her role for the next term. Thank you.

Okay. Um, so after each nomination, we will go ahead and vote. So commissioner Elliott has nominated chair shots for the, this feels very strange to do when you're the person doing it. Um, So we need to go ahead and vote on that one, and then we can, are there any other nominations for chair? Okay, seeing none, so we will go ahead and staff will call the roll call vote.

Commissioner Dominguez? Yes. Vice Chair Elliott? Yes. Commissioner Gilenheimer? Abstain. Commissioner Swish?

Yes.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner Stanson?

Yes.

And then Chair Shaw?

I will abstain. Thank you. Again, thank you very much. And I've been doing this for a while now. And as soon as Commissioner Elliott feels that she's ready, I do think that she's going to make an amazing chair and give me back some free time someday. So we will go ahead and move on to item number four, public comment. Are there any public comments on items not on today's agenda? Seeing none, we will move on to item number five, consent calendar. Meeting minutes of March 10th, 2026, time extension for commission review and approval number 950. The request for a time extension for commission review and approval number 960 has been pulled from the agenda and will be rescheduled. D, commission sign review number 498. Are there any public comments on the consent calendar or any public comments on today's consent calendar? Seeing none, do we have any on Zoom? No. Seeing none, do any commissioners wish to pull any items to discuss?

I need to abstain from item D. Okay.

So I think you would, Ms. Garcia, would he need to abstain from the entire consent calendar? No.

Okay. We would just need the item number and the reason for your abstention or your recusal.

It's my project that I submitted years ago.

Okay. Do I need to do anything else for stage earlier? Can I move on?

You'll need to take a vote on the consent calendar.

Right. I meant in regards to that. Okay. That's it.

One other item.

Yes.

The extension of time, it's C here for commission review and approval number 960 for the multifamily residential buildings. Those are also pulled.

Yes, we read that in C. So those are going to be rescheduled, correct? Yes. Okay, perfect. Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

Motion approved. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? And for clarity, any abstentions?

Yes.

Motion carries. Item number six, new business. Item 6A. Item 6A is a request for a minor commission approval number 56 to reduce a portion of the required front setback for a single family residential property located at 1647 Naranjo Court in the RE residential estate district. Has any commissioner had any expert take communications with the applicant on this item? Seeing none. Staff presentation by Jasmine Serrato. Ms. Serrato.

Thank you, Chair and members of the commission. So the applicant Don Sampson is thinking to receive approval by applying a provision of the Redlands Municipal Code to reduce the street side yard setback at 1647 Narangco Court. For a corner lot, the side yard area adjacent to the street is treated the same as a front yard, which would require a 25-foot setback in the residential estate district. Approval of the exception would allow the construction of a bedroom addition to encroach into the required street side yard area by up to three feet maximum. The closest portion of the addition would be 22 feet and 11 inches away from the street side property line. The interior floor plan of the addition consists of a bedroom, closet, bathroom and hall. Redlands Municipal Code Section 18.196.130 allows for the Planning Commission to consider and approve minor modifications to development standards, such as yard requirements, by not more than 20% of what is required. This may only be approved where the shape of the individual building site, topography of the site, the location of an existing building, or other conditions make strict compliance impossible without practical difficulties or personal hardships. The request is under the allowed reduction at a maximum of 3 feet. 20% reduction of the required 25 foot setback would be 5. The sites curve shape corner lot configuration and the existing placement of the main residents and pool make strict compliance impossible without practical difficulties or personal hardships, such as a reduced usable rear yard area loss of permeable open space and elimination of key interior segments. Here we have the front elevation the addition highlighted in yellow would be limited to one story high and the exterior walls would be stepped back for consistency with the existing home. Here we have a street view the law is on an upward grade from revelation way, which is to the West and the front of the addition would be mostly screened along the wrong home court due to existing landscaping. Here are the North and West elevations. The addition will be architecturally consistent with the existing residents in terms of height, mass and materials. The Western facade will be partially placed 3 feet behind the existing 6 foot tall wall, which would ensure partial screening of the West elevation adjacent to revelation way. What you see in yellow is what would be visible. The proposal qualifies for exemption from environmental review in accordance with CEQA guidelines section 15305, which applies to side yard and setback variances. This project will not result in land use or density changes, and no new parcel will be created. In addition, the property has an average cross slope of less than 20%. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 1743 and approve minor commission review number 56, subject to the attached conditions of approval. If deemed appropriate, the following motion is provided on screen. The applicant is available for any questions. That concludes staff presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff at this time?

Vice Chair Elliott? I have two questions. The first is just on the 25-foot setback. That's from the street or from the property line?

From the property line.

And so does the property line for this parcel extend out to the street, or is that common open space of the HOA that's Against the sidewalk on the back of the sidewalk between the block wall sidewalk, it extends to the back of sidewalk.

Okay, thank you.

That was the first question. And then the second question was just understanding that this neighborhood is a homeowners association. What is the order of operations? Is it city approval first for. The encroachment, and then that gets presented to the architectural board of the way, or do they approve it first? And then it comes here. Essentially, where I'm going with this question is, is there potential to see this again if the HOA has concern with the project?

During the building permit issuance, we would ask for an HOA approval letter, but we would not bring it back to the Planning Commission.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Commissioner Stanson? Oh, I'm sorry. No. Oh, okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Swish?

I had a question initially about the visibility for pedestrians around the corner. Um, but then when you showed this picture, it looks like that visibility is is limited by the, um, by the greenery anyways, right? Because it's at a higher setback. So we don't foresee that this will impact visibility.

Around the corner for pedestrians or for the four cars not necessarily the addition because the addition will be further back if I go to the site plan You see that it would be behind Sort of where the existing structure is so it's far back from the landscaping.

Thank you Does anyone have any questions for the applicant Saying none are there any public speakers here on this item saying none do we have any on zoom Did we receive any in writing?

No written comments that were received.

Okay. We'll turn it over to the commissioners for deliberation. I have a question. We did not open a public hearing on this item. Is it a public hearing?

This is not a public hearing item, but we can still request any public comments.

Yes, just double checking. Perfect. Thank you. Okay, I will open it up to the commissioners for deliberation or a motion. Commissioner Stanson?

I move to adopt resolution number 1743 for minor commission review number 56, subject to the attached conditions of approval.

Second. Okay, it has been moved by Commissioner Stanson and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve minor commission approval number 56. Staff, if you could please take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Dominguez? Yes. Vice-Chair Elliott?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillenhammer? Yes. Commissioner Swish?

Yes.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner Stanson?

Yes.

Chair Shaw?

Yes. Okay, motion carries. Thank you very much. Moving on to item number 6B. Item 6B is a public hearing for consideration of a recommendation to City Council regarding Ordinance Text Amendment number 372 to amend the city's zoning regulations to prohibit new warehouses and logistic distribution cities as defined in allowing 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. Has any commissioner had any expert take communications regarding this item? Seeing none, staff presentation by Brian Foote. Mr. Foote.

Thank you, chair. Good afternoon commissioners. Uh, so, uh, this item is a new warehouse ordinance. Uh, and this is, uh, ordinance text amendment number 372 and because there are other specific plans in the city, this also involves some related specific plan amendments to the affected specific plans. So briefly, some backgrounds, the original warehouse ordinance that's number 2955 was adopted by the city council on April 18th, 2023. And that became effective on May 18th, 2023. So, we are almost 2 years into the. Previous warehouse ordinance, and then this issue, or the item was brought up for discussion by the planning commission and agendaized in October 14th, 2025, the commission. reviewed some options for a potential code amendment that may be considered, and adopted a motion recommending that the council consider a new set of amendments to the existing warehouse ordinance. And then subsequently, November, 18th of last year, the matter was agenda is for the Council and the Council engaged in some discussion and arrived at a decision that they would consider further amendment to the zoning regulations and specifically. To. essentially introduce a ban on new warehouses, which are defined as 50,000 square feet or having six or more truck docks. And also some other related items, such as existing warehouses that are permitted and have been established or have a valid land use entitlement, that they should not be detrimentally affected in any way by new warehouse prohibition. So existing warehouses that were legally established, they were to remain as permitted uses. Or if a property has a conditional use permit, then it would remain as a conditionally permitted uses. And that those facilities that they would be able to continue as is, but they should not expand their square footage or otherwise intensify the use and should not increase the building height, the existing building height. So, in other words, the existing building would be allowed to remain as permitted and continue operating in perpetuity as a previously permitted land use. A little bit of background. We do have a detailed definition of warehouse. The main elements of this are that warehouse and distribution centers are defined as having 50,000 square feet or more. in gross floor area, or have six or more truck docks or dock high-loading doors. So this is really aimed at the very large logistics distribution centers. Most of them are upwards of 150,000, 200,000 square feet to be a true logistics distribution facility, but the Commission and Council decided that 50,000 square feet was a good threshold for Redlands. And the definition continues on to provide a few examples of typical large warehouses. So most of these people are familiar with parcel sorting and distribution, high cube warehouses, parcel delivery terminals, truck terminals and so forth. There's also a definition for ancillary warehousing. So, for instance, a building with less than six truck docks, so up to five truck docks would be allowable as an ancillary warehouse type of use. And this is really aimed at the industrial and commercial facilities that are not distribution types of operations. So, for instance, a manufacturing type of use as a primary land use Of course, they need to store and distribute the products that they make. They would not be subject to the 50,000 square foot limit necessarily. There's a variety of other service commercial and industrial types of uses. I won't go into them all, but as you're aware, there are many types of facilities that need to have a large storage area for whatever reason. And this definition also excludes government facilities and publicly private utilities. So this new ordinance will be applicable to the commercial and industrial zones and districts, so namely commercial manufacturing, CM zone, light industrial M1, general industrial M2, and industrial IP. as well as a handful of specific plans that have commercial or industrial districts. So a large specific plan is the East Valley Corridor specific plan, also East Valley Complex, Redlands Aviation Park, Centennial Commerce Park, Redlands Research Park, as well as the concept plans and plan developments within the East Valley Corridor specific plan area. Okay, now for the precise language of the proposed text amendment. So this will be added to the various sections of permitted land uses, or in some cases, the conditionally permitted land uses. I'll just read this. So warehouses or logistics distribution centers existing as of the effective date of ordinance, the number will be determined, with 50,000 square feet in gross floor area or more, or having more than five truck docks or dock high loading doors, legally established prior to the effective date of ordinance number to be determined. Such warehouse facilities shall be subject to the rebuild provisions contained in section, it's a new section, 18.156.970 of this title, and I'll go into more about that in just a moment. Similarly, there are sections for conditional uses in the industrial IP zone and the general industrial M2 zone for permitted uses. And it's identical, except that it includes a provision in parentheses, or the property has a valid conditional use permit approved prior to the effective date of ordinance number to be determined. So there's at least one, I believe possibly two properties where there are approved entitlements to build and operate a warehouse, but the facility has not been constructed or established yet. So this additional provision is to include that eventuality. Now moving on to the proposed rebuild provisions. This new section is necessary because as permitted uses or conditionally permitted uses, they can continue. They're not subject to the non-conforming provisions of the code. So there is a separate code section, chapter, really, addressing non-conforming uses and non-conforming buildings. Non-conforming means that when the use was established, it was legal and conforming to the zoning. But over time, the zoning changed, the list of land uses possibly changed, and so the use that's existing and currently operating Um, it is no longer listed as a permitted use. Therefore, it's referred to as a nonconforming use or, um, if there's some aspect of the building that's not conforming, um, it's a nonconforming building. So that entire chapter would not be applicable in this situation where warehouses, existing warehouses are deemed to be permitted and conditionally permitted. So. that results in the necessity to design some rebuild provisions for existing permitted warehouses. And that's what this section is about. So subsection 18.156.970, this is to be added to the end of Article 12. It's a separate chapter that addresses just warehouses and logistics distribution facilities. It was adopted two years ago with the original warehouse ordinance. This is a new section that we're adding to the end of that particular article. And essentially what it says is that these new provisions aren't taking anything away from existing permitted uses or warehouses. They can be rebuilt to the previously existing square footage. They can be rebuilt to the previously existing building height. Change in ownership or tenancy will not affect any rebuild rights. This allows for ordinary repair and maintenance of the facilities. It also allows for technology improvements and upgrades. So, for instance, a reroof or PV solar panels or seismic retrofitting or possibly improvements or efficiencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or potentially remediation of any hazardous materials on site. Those can all be conducted without affecting any of the existing land use rights of the property. And lastly, the property can be voluntarily rebuilt in its entirety. It could be 100% rebuilt. Again, this provision is not trying to take anything away from existing entitled or permitted land uses. So that's an overview. I'm happy to go into any more detail if there are any other questions. In terms of environmental review, the proposed amendments qualify for exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. There's three sections cited there that are applicable that this amendment could utilize. So no further environmental review is necessary. Staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution and recommend that the Council approve ordinance act amendment number 372 and the related specific plan amendments. And there is a motion on the screen and I would note that we've received two public comments that I will summarize for you in just a moment. Thank you.

We will open it up for questions and comments for staff. We will start with Commissioner Swish.

Um, you mentioned about the rebuilding, um. Complete rebuild does that mean the entire building can be torn down completely and be rebuilt from scratch to the same square footage and high. And not have to adhere to any of the newly established provisions or conditions. They just based on when the original building was permitted.

The intent is to allow for 100% rebuild up to the previously existing square footage and the previously existing height in existence as of the effective date of the ordinance so that what's there on the effective date may be slightly different than the original approval or entitlement date. So the snapshot in time that we're trying to capture is the effective date of the ordinance. The previously existing square footage and building height as of the effective date of this ordinance.

Okay. What about warehouses that might have been abandoned and not used and then got rebuilt or changed ownership and now they need to be rebuilt? Would that fall under that provision as well or not?

It depends on what is in place as of the effective date. So if a building or property was previously not utilized for anything and they have established the use legally with a business license and so forth and any other permits that may be needed, if they've done that and established that use prior to the effectiveness of the ordinance, then they're covered by the ordinance, they can continue.

And so their limit in height is intended to make sure that the capacity of the warehouse is not increased.

I believe that's correct. It's really looking at the intensity of the use. It's not really framed in terms of capacity. We're not really looking at capacity of the building. We're just looking at the building envelope, the physical condition, physical construction, and then the intensity of the use as a result of that building envelope.

Do the rebel rebuild provisions include limitations on increasing the number of docs? For example, like, if they're changing the way they operate to more just in time, and they will then have more traffic, right? More trucks. Um, is that limitation included in the rebuilding provisions?

The number of docs is not specifically mentioned. Um, I don't know that we'd really contemplated that.

Situation, um. Because I've run into that in the past where operations can change and all of a sudden now you're operating differently and that will significantly increase the number of trucks and add additional environmental concerns.

I suppose that's a possibility. It's not addressed in the ordinance as it's written currently. If there's a... Specific scenario, like you mentioned, or a concern we can look at revising some of the language of the ordinance. It's a draft at this point, so it can be revised.

Thank you.

Commissioner Stanson, sir, I have a little bit of an issue of of having the height ordinance on here. Um. I've been in industrial real estate for almost 40 years and over those years, I've watched warehouses. You know, when I was 1st, started a 22 high warehouse was a state of the art was the greatest thing in the world. And then 5 years later was obsolete and then it was 28 feet. Everything had to be, then it had to go to 30 feet, then 32, then 35 things change equipment changes. Operations change, I think that limiting the height is problematic. Um, I think everything else is. And the ordinance is right, but I think we should allow some variance in height because operations do change over time. And I've watched the operations changed a lot over the last 40 years from where they are. You know, and the problem is, is that we've got the donut hole, which we don't have any control over. and we've got our buildings that go around it. So now if our buildings become obsolete, then they become old, they become unused, they become secondary buildings for different uses because they can't do anything. Whereas you can go right next door, cross the street, and you can rebuild that building and have it at 40 feet or do whatever you need to do to make it functional in the new marketplace. So I just think we're limiting ourself quite a bit When we're going to have existing inventory that there should be some ability to make minor changes in the future. And by limited to exactly the way it is, I mean, I agree with the square footage, but I think the height restrictions need to I think there should be some variation in that.

Commissioner switch.

How is intensifying operations defined? Because if the height results in higher volume that needs to move out of the warehouse more, right, that affects the – it might be a workaround to increasing the square footage. Is intensifying operations defined that allows for something like flexibility in the height but no increase or environmental impact?

Right now, the draft ordinance does not have a definition of intensity of use, but the conceptually, I think you've you've stated that accurately where increasing the building height could. Increase the capacity and therefore ultimately. The number of truck trips to and from a property, and then therefore the environmental impacts.

Commissioner Gillenhammer? I just have a question about the existing height in the city right now for buildings, just generally speaking. Do you know what that is, that height requirement, not to exceed?

It varies by the zone.

Okay.

My recollection is the C3 and C4 commercial zones don't have a stated height limit. Okay. There is a height limit in the other industrial zones. I just don't have those numbers at my fingertips.

What would it be like stated in this ordinance?

On this ordinance, it states the existing height of a building as of the effective date is what is entitled at that point on the date of the effective date. Okay.

So I'm just trying to understand. So, Commissioner Stanson, it just sounded like the buildings or the warehouses that have height Would be more competitive or, like, make us more competitive, I guess.

And well, things just change. And yes, and height. This is always been an important on how high you can rack up.

Sure.

And it doesn't, you know, just because you can rack and store higher doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be more truck trips.

Yeah.

It just has the ability. Or if you're with robots, how you can move things around a little bit easier, you know, super flat floors. So much has changed in the warehouse industry over the years. that it's, unless you're in the industry, you really have no comprehension on how much goes into an industrial building.

Sure, okay. I just wanna understand that point.

But I don't think that, I think we really should have control of the height, but I think there should be a, we should be able to allow a 5% or a 10% variance one way or another in what we're approving on something that's being rebuilt if it's necessary for market conditions. I mean, we don't need to put ourself out of business and have everything around us be first class and then we have old, useless buildings.

Commissioner Dominguez. And I see his point because things do, you know, they do evolve. So we don't want to be left behind. We don't want to have the vacant, you know, buildings there and have a lot of homeless and other issues going on. So I see his point. So maybe we should make some adjustment there on the 5% to 10% height variance.

I have some questions around possible solutions. Let's stick on height first. So, and these are just talking points and then we can discuss them from there. Is there a possibility? So, to commissioner spacious point where staff could go back and maybe, um, I define increasing intensity of operations, maybe around truck trips. And then maybe put in there for commission review and approval if they do want to change. height these are just talking point ideas for you guys to discuss um so those are two things that i came up with in regards to height and then i had some well i'd like to hear your feedback mr foot on that first before i go on to the other questions because we don't necessarily understand the research and the things that you do either so you know i would hate to put a number out there with percentage without you know, really knowing if that's going, because that's a really good point, Commissioner Sands, and we don't, we wouldn't even have thought of that as far as operations go, so.

Well, the things you mentioned, these are certainly things we can look into further.

I mean, if we're gonna do this, we should probably get it right.

Yes, our goal is to do this one time and do it right the first time.

Right.

As far as the percentage of building height, it's a possibility. We just need to research it carefully.

But what if we didn't do percentage? What if we had a definition of intensity around truck traffic?

Right, like I said, we need to look into that further and research that.

Percentage-wise, again, we need to consider some of the alternatives. A 10% increase may be a possibility, but if the existing building height is 50 feet, then 10% is 5 feet.

Okay, and then how does the Commission feel about when they come back with that suggestion, are you feeling like that should just be the ordinance or the Commission should approve anything else? With a high increase for sales, everyone commissioners.

I do have a concern with the height increase as it relates to capacity, because if you increase capacity, you are going to increase intensity, right? You're not going to be sitting on products for 100 years, right? Sooner or later that product has to come in and out as long as it's very clear that the increase in height is not. To increase capacity, Then I think we could make those adjustments for logistical purposes. But if we leave it up for grabs, I think it we run the risk of working around the provision so that we can increase capacity if we cannot increase in square footage.

So is your concern around capacity as a whole or is it around truck traffic? Or is it both?

Around truck traffic, they're just related. Like you cannot reduce, if you increase capacity, you're going to move more product. So even if the truck traffic, the same number of trucks, but now you're using bigger trucks. Right. That's why I think the intensity is important. Just clarifying what the increase in intensity means in the rebuild provision.

So it's important to you to have a definition of intensity, not only around truck traffic, but overall capacity in general when we can get that study back from staff. Is that what I'm hearing?

Correct.

Correct. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Gillenhammer.

I just have a question, Brian, about the research that you've done. Was there any other cities considered that had this kind of ban in place and their verbiage that they had a chance? I know that there has to be other cities in our region.

I'm trying to remember. I know there are. My recollection is, at this point, that there are some cities that have adopted an outright ban, but not necessarily with the caveat to allow for existing permitted uses to remain, and then a further caveat for existing square footage and existing height.

Okay.

There may be some out there, but I'm not aware of them.

Okay. Commissioner Stanton, did you have another comment?

So, how about if... if there was a need for, we leave it open, so if there was a need for a change in heights in a building as technology changes, as things change, that it has to come back to the commission and have like a four-fifths vote kind of a deal that, or something that the majority vote or something about increasing the height, but something that leaves the door open that we're not, we're not screwing ourself in the long run by putting an ordinance together that makes us uncompetitive in the market when we have so much market around us that controls us to a degree that we don't have any control of. So I just don't want us to have an ordinance that's so tight that we become noncompetitive in the marketplace.

Would you be comfortable with our direction to staff to look at both of those suggestions and come back with some options for us? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Swish?

I was just going to say, I think that's a good idea because we can't forecast what's going to change, right? But leaving something so that we can evaluate it when it's needed.

We really need to leave the door open. I agree with him.

OK, so sticking on height so we can close out this, I know we're not ready to make a motion. I just want to make sure we're on the same page here. So what we're really asking for at this point is for staff to look into defining intensity, look into the percentage, look into just it coming back for approval for a height change and kind of coming back to us and letting us know what you find and what you suggest. Are you comfortable with that or do you have any more questions?

That's fine. Currently, the provisions for commission review and approval, it's in Chapter 18.12 of the zoning regulations. Right now, the way it's written is that any additional square footage being constructed typically needs to come back to the commission for that permit, commissioner review and approval permit. I don't believe it specifically mentions increasing building height.

Okay. But you can look into that, right? Because I don't think anyone's suggesting that we allow them to increase square footage, just height.

No, it may trigger a related code amendment to that other chapter of the code, possibly. Understood. Yeah.

And we're making code amendment changes to this text anyways, right?

Yeah. I think it's just clarifying so he knows what we're looking for. So are we good on the height part?

Certainly look into that.

Yeah Vice chair Elliott I have thoughts, but I think maybe we'll save them for the deliberation. Okay Perfect.

So I'd like to stick it kind of a one subject at a time. So is everyone good on height? Okay, perfect. I had some questions In regards to the two properties with entitlements our whole purpose of this is to not harm anyone and What can you tell us about those? Was the plan to build a warehouse? Do we have legal considerations to consider if we put this in place? Where are they at in the process? What can you tell us about those two properties that have entitlements with no CUP?

Well, just where they are in the process. One, I believe, is under construction, and the other, I believe, has plans in process being plan checked right now. There is specific language that's included to account for these entitled projects.

Oh, okay. I don't recall us going over that. So they are protected? And they can continue on with their plan?

Yes, that's the intent, yes. This is what he's showing up on the screen right now, as you see. Or a property has a valid conditional use permit approved prior to the effective date of...

Understood, but he had mentioned that there were two properties that only had entitlements. And no CUP?

The entitlement being the CUP or a CRA that they have. One of them has a CUP right now in plan check. The other has a CRA and it's under construction.

Okay, so to be clear, they're protected. We're not taking anyone's business plans away from them, correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay, perfect.

But there's one property that is under construction that has stopped construction and I think they're going to be coming to us for a time extension.

I'm trying to it's on Park Avenue and Mr. Stanton maybe the better question is if that is the case regardless of the project are they also protected that's the intent of the ordinance how it's written yes that's correct okay by Shirley it so this language it's this is for the IP and m2 permitted uses

Would it be helpful to also include it in our new language in 18040100 where we talk about these uses would be subject to these rebuild provisions and add. A clause about entitled projects also.

That could be an approach that might be a better way to to more. One of the comment letters suggested more explicit language to protect these. That may be a way to go about it, is have it within the main portion of the warehouse ordinance rather than in the individual sections. But we can explore that.

So that's exploring a more direct protection of the entitled projects?

That's correct.

Okay. We have a very similar language. It's nearly identical, just the only difference is the mention of entitlement. So I think we just carry this language into the other section, and that should probably settle it.

And the reason it is this way is because there are just these two specific projects that this applied to, and that's based on when the previous ordinance was put in place.

Okay.

And then my last comment here, again, to Commissioner Swach's point, is when we're adding these... Notes to staff do we want to specifically say in, in addition to intensity that if there's a rebuild, there is no additional docs. Yes, anyone else have any comments or questions on that.

I think that just speaks to the definition of intensity, right? So if it's defined, then, and we can include that in that definition is no additional input output. Areas such as docks in the in the warehouses But it's the ordinance the way it's written.

Is it that to build rebuild exactly? Building a burns down they have 12 docks They have to read and they want to rebuild it They could only rebuild it with 12 docks or can they rebuild it with 15?

Is that the intent is to build back to what their previously approved project was and With some exception to allow them to do things like building code updates fire hazard mitigation things like that Okay, but as mr. Foote pointed out the the number of dogs wasn't specific in the amendment, correct? Okay, that's correct.

Um it can be That concludes my notes does anyone have any other other questions or comments I Okay, so just to recap, what we're looking for is staff to come back with defining intensity, not increasing the docs, and kind of some suggestions on how to handle the height change if it comes up. And then the more direct language for the entitled projects in that long number thing you spit it out.

How do you know that?

Commissioner Swayze. Sorry, another question came up. Is there a difference between how we define rebuild versus kind of regular maintenance or upgrades to the facility for the purposes of this discussion, or it doesn't matter?

There were no definitions added for those specific terms. I don't know that it's necessary as the building code generally covers all those scenarios that you mentioned.

Okay. I just wasn't sure because we had the list of things in there and one of them was rebuild and one of them just improvements. And it sounded to me that this applies regardless, right? It falls under the definition of rebuild in the proposed text. Is that correct?

There's different terms. There's renovations. There's refurbishment. There's improvements. Those don't necessarily always entail a total or partial rebuild, but there's various ways to do changes or improvements, and all of those would be covered by applicable building code or fire code.

So I think the more specific question is, does the building code, not necessarily the ordinance, because obviously it's going to still revert back to the building code, is there a definition of rebuild in there, 20% of the project, 50% of the project? Is there a definition that says this is a rebuild versus an upgrade?

Off the top of my head, I didn't check the building code for those specific terms. The ordinance does say that a rebuild may occur in its entirety.

Okay. Commissioner Swach, are you wanting any more clarity on that when staff comes back?

I think it would be helpful to have clarity because I honestly don't know whether it would impact this or not. It sounds like it might not, but I'm asking the question just in case it does and we have the word rebuild just so that we can understand what the definition of that means. That's all.

I agree that that would be helpful. For instance, if a house burns down in Redlands, if it's 50%, you don't have to improve the sidewalk. If it's a total burndown, you have to improve the sidewalk, that type of thing. Would it be possible to come back with clarifying what a rebuild is?

We can look into that, into building code terminology. Probably the easiest option is to make croft references to the building code if and where necessary. But again, the intent of this is not to find ways to be restrictive on existing entitled properties. The intent of this is to be the least restrictive approach to this.

Right. I don't think we're necessarily looking to define it as strict, but understand what triggers it. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. How, um, so do we, do you want us to just continue this project after we open it up for a public comment?

Uh, that, you know, it sounds like that would be necessary.

Okay. Okay. I will now open public. I just have a quick, Oh yes. I'm sorry.

I didn't see my file. Um, I just have a clarifying question. So the height, like, so these approved projects, For example, the project on the warehouse off of Tennessee and Kansas, um, it was approved, but there was a specific height. So this goes back. Like, so there was a specific kind of proved that this goes back. And we say that, you know, it could be increased. Does are they allowable to, like, bring their project back to increase their height technically of their existing. Warehouse like project.

They have an entitlement. The entitlement is specific. So if they wanted to make a revision, then ordinarily they would need to file a formal application to revise their entitlement, which then comes back to this commission.

To this commission, okay.

It would not be an existing constructed warehouse in place as of the effective date.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

I think that... Commissioner Sampson? I think that that's the warehouse that brought all the height considerations is the problem because I agree that warehouse was too high.

Well, just the for that neighborhood, the area and the surrounding buildings. If we go higher, it just wouldn't make sense.

No, I don't disagree with you. That's probably the highest warehouse around that. Yeah.

So I was hoping it won't become higher, you know, with this, what we're trying to accomplish, if that makes sense, because I would have the option.

I don't think they have the option.

Why would they not?

So I'm going to pause for a minute here because I have been advised that we need to be careful in these discussions not to. Necessarily talk about specific projects, but more the overall ordinance in itself. Um, so it sounds like if any existing warehouse in general had that they would have to reapply completely, which would be quite the undertaking.

Right. I think what the new ordinance comes down to, if that building burned down, they'd be able to go to that height and that's it. They wouldn't be able to go any higher.

As it's written as it's written right by Shirley.

Thank you. Yeah, I wanted to walk through a couple scenarios and really how this works. And my 1st question was, what would. trigger a rebuild? Is it only a loss event or could an owner decide that their current building is not working for them and they're going to tear it down themselves and rebuild?

It said voluntarily in there, I believe.

The draft ordinance says that a property owner may voluntarily rebuild the entirety of the structure.

Okay, so then that could open the door then to potentially see an application come back for a higher or taller building. What Process does that go through they, or is it still a, it's not a permitted use anymore, but it's that. It's a rebuild. Yeah, how does that functionally work? What does that process look like?

And in previous instances, it's come back as a building permit. Where there's been a burn down, they come back with a building permit, they rebuild to the exact same height square footage. If they were looking, you know, as as you've had this discussion about increasing heights, if that were to be something that were put in there, you would see that again as a revised or a, if that was something that went on. And the intent of having this voluntary rebuild is, you know, there are lots of energy efficiency changes and things like that have gone on. And so that may encourage those types of changes.

And that brought up. Something else I wanted to mention is if we are going, in a typical rebuild, you're right, it's just a building permit. The commission is not involved. But if we are going to be changing potential capacity or intensity of the building, that would open environmental review. Of course, the delta might be seen as just such a small increment. Maybe that falls under some kind of exemption. And I don't think that's the path that we really want to go down. I think we want to look very carefully if we're going to be increasing Intensity and if any of these uses, so just something I think I don't have a solution or a suggestion, but something to be aware of of how do we handle incremental. Increases in environmental impact. Sorry, my 2nd question or 3rd question was. Uh, uh, commissioner stance and brought up the evolution of heights of industrial buildings over time. I don't know if that's been a problem for the city as of yet. Perhaps those increases in height have always come below our current height limits in the industrial zones. But I was wondering if it has been a problem and have has the city been approached. Where they say, hey, the heights in your zoning district are too low for what we need to do.

Not not to my recollection. I don't know if Brian can think of any offhand, but I've not seen it.

I cannot think of any specific examples of that scenario.

Over my 40 years, you know, um, I watched this from Ontario come in this direction and Redlands unfortunately really didn't come into play until about 1516 years ago. Then that's when it really kind of blew up, and that's really when the ordinance should have gone into effect. But if you want to look at it, the earlier buildings in Redlands are sitting empty right now, the ones out by the airport, the old Lazy Boy and other stuff, because they are only 20, 22 feet, because they were built back in the early 80s in Redlands. 70s 80s and early 90s and at the lower heights and all those buildings that were built are now sitting empty For that reason so it does happen, but it's it's kind of a slow progression Okay, I will are there any other questions or comments from the commissioners Saying none.

I will Open up for a public comment. Are there any comments from the public on today's?

hearing. We will start with Bill.

I'm sorry, you'll have to let me know your last name, please. Lincoln ship. Welcome. If you could please introduce yourself again at the microphone. Thanks.

Uh, my name is Bill Blankenship, uh, lifelong resident of Redlands. I'm here today representing in the Empire chapter. They're the association that represents the logistics industry. Um, I've been part of the discussion with your city, uh, related to logistics uses for quite some time now. And I've also worked on projects individually here. In the city, and throughout the empire in my business, and of course, as a representative for now, I've been involved in many discussions of good neighbor policies, moratoriums and the like throughout the region. So be more happy to work with staff. Um, you know, on resources and can help guide them in directions that might be helpful. I think the city has done a good job in planning because if you look at where logistics facilities are in the city of Redlands, they're mainly on the north side or they're within. A mile basically of the freeway quarter and other cities struggle with placement of logistics facilities. I think has done a good job planning for the long term. And commissioner Samson, you're right to Redlands was kind of later in the game because, as you think about the 2 ports, the 2 largest ports in the country, or the 2 largest parts really in the Western hemisphere are in Long Beach and Los Angeles and the it's come Eastward. Right? And that's where we are today. I think what's important is, as as commissioner stance and pointed out, and I've heard several of the commissioners talk about height height is important because if you do look at vacancy rates and many of the facilities that are vacant today, it's because they're the underperforming. They're not up to current standards and with property values temporarily down and. Per acre costs down now facilities are jumping and moving and they're getting themselves because, you know, during cobit that was the height for the industry and companies were going so rapidly. They jumped into every building that they could get and that were available. So, my time's almost up. I would urge you to look at height and find an accommodation for hives, because there will be a time that these owners will want to rebuild the facilities in your city and you don't want empty. facilities out there. And we do have to compare ourselves to what's going on in the Donut Hall. There's almost exactly the amount of square footage in the Donut Hall as there is in the City of Redlands. And that's our direct competition. So thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other speakers here on this item? Please join us.

Hi, my name is Brenda Spolstra, resident of Redlands, born and raised here. I'm also a daughter of citrus workers, so I understand, and my degree is in urban and regional planning. Sorry, I'm not used to speaking. I understand the ins and outs of ordinances and building permits and all of that. In my career, I've dealt with them. As far as the flexibility of buildings go, that's kind of like trying to forecast the future. And all of our packing houses, my grandfather told me there were 14 of them, and they only lasted about 30 years. So I think with warehousing, I've actually written our congressman and asked him to stop making our area into a storage shed for the rest of the country, because that's what it feels like as a resident. We are just, stuff is coming in and it's going out. It's like, congratulations, you know. What does that do for the culture of our residents and our quality of life? It diminishes our uniqueness within the Inland Empire. I fully understand what's happening in Ontario, Riverside, all of those surrounding areas. And just by population density and size, We can't compete. We're bordered by the Santa Ana River, We're bordered by the I-10, the canyon lands. So even physically, we're very restricted on our acreage. So I would just say in 30 years, if they do have to change the ordinance or the building code or whatever it is, that's when it happens. It doesn't happen now. If there are vacant buildings, every city in the country has vacant buildings. So I don't really grieve the loss of that. Flexibility of the city is a healthy city. So if there's other uses that can fill those, that's fine. It may not be distribution and logistics. It might be something else completely and entirely. So just leave your minds open to that. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here to speak on this item? Seeing none, anyone on Zoom?

Yes.

I'm going to let you call for them.

Okay, I'll let them talk.

I can't read the name. Is that Julia? Julia. Julia, go ahead.

Hi, thank you. Yes, I'm Julia Lenhart. I am an atmospheric and climate scientist over at the University of Redlands. I just want to thank you all for the conversation so far. It sounds like we're all excited about this. I want to also note that Commissioner Stanson mentioned that we don't want to allow buildings to become vacant. And I would argue that the new ones are vacant now. The largest one in Redlands is sitting vacant, which this council or this commission graciously denied. but we're countered. Anyway, two things I just wanted to ask to consider is one would be, I just was curious if the type of warehouse can change, like can it go from a manufacturing warehouse to a refrigerated logistics distribution center, which is a very different thing and has very different environmental impacts. Maybe not, but I just would like to know. um and the other thing is if we're going to make um arguments about potential increases in height in the future because of technology changes i would i am hopeful that our legislation may change to become even more environmentally uh friendly in the future which is not just about you know hugging trees it's it's entirely about public health right and so Will there be something in the ordinance that says if there is a rebuild, they have to meet the new environmental standards, whatever they may be, if there's updated landscaping requirements for industrial zones and things like that. So thank you all very much.

Thank you. I would just like to give her a quick two-second overview. So the definition is in the code about warehouses, and that's what they would follow, right, the type of warehouse?

Yes. Okay. And regarding the other question about rebuilding to come up to code for, like, energy efficiency and things like that and landscaping, they would be required to do so.

Okay, perfect. Thank you very much. Any other comments on Zoom? Mr. Foote, could you please review our written comments?

We received two written comments. One from Michael Paisner that was in support of the ordinance. And that was previously distributed to the commission as well as printed hard copies distributed to the commission today. And one email from a representative of Prologis, their warehouse owner operator in Redlands. The email is opposed. I won't read the entire email unless you want me to read it, but it was previously distributed to the Commission as well as hard copies provided. Essentially, the commenter is requesting that the ordinance be revised to, one, remove any restriction on building height. Two, clearly preserve projects with validly approved entitlements issued prior to the effective date of the ordinance. And three confirm that such protections apply consistently throughout the zoning text, rebuild provisions and applicable specific plans. And that's the extent of the written comments. Thank you.

OK, thank you. So I will now close the public hearing for this item. And I just want to start by just commending you all for a really good discussion. I think it's a very important ordinance to consider. You're all doing a really good job working with staff, making sure that we balance the needs of the businesses along with the needs of the people in the city. So I think it's OK to take this time and have it revisited. So I just wanted to thank you for that. And then we will turn it over to deliberations. I would like a suggestion. Are you wanting this continued? And do you want a certain date or just we want to make sure we give you ample time?

I would suggest a continuance and likely I don't know how long you think it might take, Mr. Foote.

Do you have other work to do too?

Well, we're trying to get this done as soon as possible. I just can't think of a specific time frame, so it's probably best to continue indefinitely, and we'll just have to re-notice, and that's fine.

Okay, so we are still open for deliberation if anyone, Commissioner Swach.

I'd like to just make a comment regarding the spirit of our general plan and our commitment to environmental consideration in our city. We heard a couple comments about being competitive. I don't think our goal is to be the most competitive industrial distribution city. So I think I'll just leave it at that.

Anyone else have any questions or comments? or make a motion for a continuance. Vice Chair Elliott.

Apologies up front because my notes are a little bit all over the place. I agree with the continuance. We do have a little bit of work to do, I think, to bring this to a place where we're all comfortable. I'll start with a couple of the points in, I think, the letter from Prologis. I do concur and support making it abundantly clear the preservation of entitled projects. and again, support the consistency throughout the zones and the specific plan. I don't think any of us are ready to make any kind of decision on height. We need to definitely look into that more, especially as it relates to operational intensity. And I do want to give careful consideration to environmental review for any rebuilds when there is a delta between what was previously approved and what's being asked for. And to go so far as maybe requiring any additional environmental impacts be fully mitigated, not partially mitigated. I was glad to see that our good neighbor policies and modern building fire safety codes would be applied to any rebuild project. So that will summarize my comments, thank you.

Would anyone like to make a motion for continuance?

A motion we continue to.

Indefinitely?

Indefinitely.

Do I have a second? Second. Okay, so it has been motioned to continue this project by Commissioner Stanson, seconded by Commissioner Gilenhammer. If staff could please take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Dominguez?

Yes.

Vice Chair Elliott? Yes. Commissioner Gilenhammer? Yes. Commissioner Swish?

Yes.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner Stanson?

Yes.

Chair Shaw?

Yes. Okay, motion carries. Thank you moving on to item number seven announcements and Commissioner comments. Do we have any? Mr. Director I said in the last meeting, but I don't think you were here if we do have a second meeting in April.

I won't be here Okay moving on to oh, yes, go ahead I sure Elliot Commissioner comments Understand this is an economic development question for the director. But is there any update or plan that you could share with us regarding the former Vons shopping center?

We are in contact with the ownership. They have expressed that they are in talks with numerous tenants. They've not provided us with any specifics. We remain open to helping them. We'll be offered to assist them in any way we can.

Commissioner Gillenhammer. May I ask about Look Cinemas as well?

That's a very similar response which we received today. We've been trying to stay in contact with some of these vacant buildings, and the same response we received today. They're in talks with various folks and no idea what the user will be or who the tenants are, but they are in talks.

On that note, do we know when we're going to receive any updates or plans on the mall?

There have been discussions related to the mall. We are expecting something for the site as a whole prior to the end of the year, likely fall.

Okay.

Meaning entitlement revisions.

Any other comments from commissioners? Okay, moving on to item number eight, director update.

And no no major update here March 17th Regency centers was approved by Council they're now in plan check so they're moving forward with that project that's Northeast corner of Tennessee and Lagonia I'm sure you all remember that. Right now it looks like we may not have a meeting on April twenty eighth May twelfth it looks like we do have a few items so we will be having that meeting and I have noted that you will not be here for the second meeting in April.

Okay, back to that. I also won't be here on the 12th. My son is graduating college in South Dakota. Thank you. Okay, so we will move on to item number nine, adjournment. We will adjourn to the next regular meeting date of April 28, 2026. Thank you.