Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's 4 o'clock.

All right, good evening. It is now 4 o'clock, so we will call this meeting of the Redlands Planning Commission to order. This is our agendized meeting of June 23, 2026. We are on Zoom, and I believe recording has started. Perfect. We do have a quorum present, so we will move on for any public comments that are not on today's agenda. If there's anyone who wishes to speak on any matter that's not on the agenda, please come forward.

Do we have any comments on Zoom?

That is on our agenda.

Is it? Okay. I didn't see it because Mr. Whitman told me that they were moving it. Okay. I'll wait then.

No worries. We'll be happy to hear from you. All right. We have no items under presentation, so we will move on to item number three, consent calendar. We have the meeting minutes of May 12th, 2026, and time extension for commission review and approval number 955. Are there any public comments on the consent calendar or any public speaker slips for the consent calendar items? Seeing none, do any of the commissioners wish to pull any of the consent calendar items? All right. Well, then, if that is the case, is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

I motion we approve consent calendar.

Second. All right. And now staff will take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Dominguez? Present. Commissioner Swish?

Present.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner Stanson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Elliott? Yes.

All right, consent calendar is approved. We'll move on to old business, of which we have none. So now we'll move on to Section 5 of our agenda, beginning with 5A. Item 5A is a public hearing to consider an application for commission review and approval, number 823, revision number 2, For a request to construct an addition to an automotive service center at Toyota of Redlands located at 921 New York Street. I will now open this item as a public hearing. Has any commissioner had any ex parte communications with the applicants or others regarding this item?

All right.

Seeing none, I will welcome Ms. Serrato to give the staff presentation.

Thank you, Chair and members of the commission. The applicant is requesting to modify commission review and approval number 823 to demolish 2742 square feet of an existing service facility at the Toyota dealership to construct 16 new service base and a 2902 square foot detached car wash detail building. The subject property is located within the commercial industrial land use designation of the 2035 general plan, which designates areas for commercial and industrial uses such as auto service and commercial retail service. The expansion of the existing use remains consistent with the general plan land use designation. The project site is located in the commercial general district of the East Valley corridor specific plan, where the retail sale of automobiles and related auto repairs are a permitted use. The project with proposed revisions will continue to comply with the zoning destination. The scope of work includes the demolition of 2,742 square feet building area for the proposal of an 8,170 foot square foot addition. Highlighted to the left here and. Also, I knew 2,902 square foot detached building for car washes seen up north. The proposed additions minus the demolition would result in a total net increase of 8,338 square feet of new construction. This proposed revision would limit the overall site disturbance to the Northeast area of the site and preserve the remaining established area. The original entitlement was approved with 163 parking spaces provided on site. The site retains the existing parking lot layout, but has replaced display areas, which meet the required minimum dimensions to provide for off street parking. The project will provide the required parking for automobile sales and office uses relative to the proportionate building square footage. The total number required is 173 and 178 spaces are being provided. The proposal will retain the South and of the West elevation and the original main building facade for the South elevation, which is visible from the public right away along New York street. The east elevation, which is also visible from New York state will remain unchanged. The west and north building elevations show the building facades that will be changed with the proposed service bay addition. The original approved entitlement allowed for these elevations to be constructed of split-face CMU block and included steel roll-up doors due to the enhanced front elevation. The proposed addition will be constructed to match the existing elevations by incorporating the same moonlight white split-face concrete block. two course precision concrete block band at the top and still roll up doors as well. The proposed detached car wash and detailed building will be cohesive to the main building addition and features the same moonlight, white split face, concrete block, the same concrete bland band, sorry, and still roll up doors along this interior Southeast elevation, which is not visible from the public right away along New York street. The proposed revision will not have any potentially significant impacts on the environment and is eligible for exemption from environmental review pursuant to sequence section 15301, which applies to existing facilities granted that they do not exceed an addition of more than 10,000 square feet and meet the listed criteria here. The proposed project can meet all the applicable criteria and will not have any potentially significant impacts. A socioeconomic cost benefit study was prepared under the original entitlement and determine a positive cost benefit ratio of 30.54. A separate socioeconomic cost benefit study was prepared for the portion of the addition and resulted in a positive cost benefit ratio of 5.84. The findings for commission review and approval are shown here and are generally related to site suitability and the development in relation to size and surroundings. The justification for each is provided in the resolution for reference. Staff recommends the planning commission approved commission review and approval number 823 revision number 2, based on the analysis and findings in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval included in resolution 1751.

Perfect. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff?

In the review, was there analysis of any potential increase in the need to store like lithium ion batteries for cars and any comments on that?

Yeah, so we did receive comments from fire and there is a condition of approval that more information will need to be provided on their end. And that will be determined during the project review.

Is the applicant present and do they wish to make a presentation?

Yes, I believe the applicant is present and their architect should be available on zoom and they didn't provide a presentation Does the Commission have any questions for the applicant or their team?

All right at this time I will oh The public hearing is open. So I would like to open it for public comment Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to make a public comment? on this item. And we have any on zoom. Well then I will close the public hearing and give it back to the commission for deliberation. If there are no deliberations to be made we can entertain a motion.

I have a question actually for the motion.

Um, the area where, uh, the car wash, uh, it looked like it was Northeast. Yeah. Um, is it a budding any residential areas or it's no.

So the site will, but the new car max facility.

Okay.

Thank you.

Correct. Yes. So across the ways commercial and then to the West is the freeway.

So did I see on the cost benefit study that the dealership doesn't pay any property taxes to the city of Redlands?

I don't believe that's correct.

Well, I was just looking on this attachment and it showed $1 in taxes.

Is that on the sheet of the Excel spreadsheet?

It's on... The sorry, I'm having trouble opening this stuff with this. It's on the, uh. On the Senate economic study spreadsheet. Talks about values and it talks about taxes and it's a total property taxes paid in the city. 1 dollar. I'm just wondering if that goes on for. That's in the last page, or no, I'm sorry. It's in the middle right here, in this spreadsheet here. And then you come down here, it just says property taxes paid, and it says $1.

The second page will show you what it's actually paid. That's how they base the assessment. Well, that's where they get the number, the five.

See, with this system, you have a hard time.

Commissioner Stanson, I think that on those studies, it might be a reduced figure. So it's like a one, but representative of a thousand or some other factor. I'm just but no point point taken.

I just just wanted to know. I mean, I know the dealerships get deals, so. Okay.

This applicant.

Sure, yeah, please come up to address the commission.

It was Paul Smith on the owner of Twitter relevance. Uh, the property is under a different entity. Maybe that's probably why it's under properties. They're separate entity. We play, we pay plenty of property taxes. So I just yeah. So maybe that's probably where the confusion is. So. Just want to let you know.

Thanks. As a part of the analysis, they provide the assessments we included in the analysis in the spreadsheet. Why that particular number on that particular sheet has a dollar figure there, that's, I'm uncertain.

Okay. Any other commissioner comments? All right. Do we have a motion for the item?

Motion to approve. You do it. Go for it. I move the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 1751 to approve revision number two for commission review and approval number 823 based on the findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval.

I'll second.

All right. It has been moved by Commissioner Stanson and seconded by Commissioner Dominguez to approve Revision 2 for Commission Review and Approval Number 823. And the Secretary will take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Dominguez? Yes. Commissioner Swish?

Yes.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner Stanson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Elliott?

Yes. All right. The motion passes. At this time, we'll move on to item 5B. Item 5B is an ordinance text amendment number 373. This is a proposal to amend the zoning regulations of the Redlands Municipal Code to update the definition of alcohol beverage sales activity and to establish the allowable hours of operation for serving alcohol beverages for on-site consumption to between 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. midnight of the same day. Please note that this item will not be presented or discussed today and is to be continued to a meeting date to be determined. However, we will open the public hearing to receive public comments on this item. I have two speaker slips. If anyone in the audience wishes to make a public comment, speaker slips are on the wall. I encourage you to fill one out and provide it to the secretary who will hand it to us. Our first speaker is Daniel Tells.

How are we doing?

Good afternoon. Please introduce yourself for us.

My name is Daniel Tolles. I'm a restaurant and barn operator here in the city of Redlands. I'd like to take a moment of your time to address the proposed city ordinance to shut down bars and restaurants at midnight during the weekend. I appreciate the city's efforts to address public safety concerns, and I agree that problematic businesses should be held accountable. However, I'm concerned that the proposal takes a one-size-fits-all approach that punishes responsible operators for the actions of a few. Many of us invest heavily in training, responsible alcohol service, and creating safe environments for our patrons and employees. We operate professionally, comply with the already extensive list of rules and regulations surrounding alcohol service, and contribute significantly to the local economy, job market, and tax revenue for the City of Revlon and the State of California for that matter. Yet, under this proposal, businesses with excellent records would face the same restrictions as establishments generating repeated calls for service. As noted in the letter sent out by Mr. Whitman, these calls for service are heavily documented and include calls for service, incidents, and ABC violations. If the issue is truly tied to this data, I would encourage the Commission to pursue a targeted, data-driven solution rather than a blanket restriction that affects every bar and restaurant in Redlands. If businesses are following proper guidelines, they should not be punished. And a citywide midnight cutoff will reduce revenue for responsible businesses, impact employee earnings, and make the city of Redlands less competitive with neighboring markets, all while doing little to address the specific establishments creating the majority of the issues. I respectfully ask the Commission to consider whether the proposed ordinance is the least restrictive yet most effective solution available. Let's focus where problems actually exist. Thank you for your time.

Our next speaker will be Baron Bowman.

I'm Barron Bowman. I also operate a bar here in Redlands since August 2024. So the reasons given for this proposed ordinance are over-serving, loitering, rising crime rates, which is why I kind of find it surprising when I went on the website that crime's actually been going down in Redlands for the past at least three years. From the published Redlands PD crime report, the most recent one, crimes against persons is down 15%, crimes against property down 22%, crimes against society down 43%. Um, furthermore, year to date 2026, I see nighttime crime peaking at 11 to midnight on your website and almost non existent after 1 am. Um, you know, is only seem to be happening from daytime through midnight in Redlands. Uh, if bars closing at 2 am, where the cause of increased crime, we would see a spike in crime from. 2 to 3, and that's just not the case. We're not I'm not seeing it on your site anyway. uh closing earlier will not stop irresponsible bars from over serving and this issue should be addressed whether we close at midnight or two or whatever it should still be addressed um i also would say you're likely to increase the already existing crime because people are going to want to load up you know last call and you're already having crime at midnight and it's just you're going to have these people out on the streets um there are already laws and protocols to address these issues it is it's very difficult to get a liquor license i'll tell you um it's pretty easy to lose one Um, we should be cracking down on the irresponsible establishments and it would be easy to look at this and go. Hey, we're just looking at 2 hours worth of sales, but that's not the case. No 1 goes to a bar at 11 to leave in an hour that. That just doesn't happen and no, 1's going to come the Redlands for a bar crawl that ends at midnight. They'll go to, like, downtown Riverside where they have more bars and more people and there's no discussion of bars closing earlier because they're able to mitigate these issues. Using the systems that are already in place. So, you know, there's already a current push in California law to allow bars to stay up until 4. so the question we should be asking is what is Riverside doing that works that we're not doing in Redlands. There's also businesses, you know, we talk about the bars, but there's businesses that don't serve alcohol that stay up until 2 close to my establishment. There's hate burger and crepes of wrath. They're open until 2 and they're getting sales from this bar foot traffic. So they would suffer as well. And I think part of what makes downtown rather than special is we're all we're independent operators. There's not, you don't have chains, you know, in downtown so much. And so, consequently, though, we don't have huge corporate pockets to and the financial impact of this is going to be severe. And for me, this ordinance would have the immediate effect of devaluing my bar to a fraction of what I paid for that. I'm still paying for. And I think I'm not going to be able to continue based on where my sales come from. And I don't think we're the only one. There's got to be other businesses that are facing the same thing. And it could be a spiral effect leading to empty buildings and all the issues that come with that. And this ordinance will not solve anything. It fails to hold accountable those who are breaking the law, those who are irresponsible. It fails to address the spike in crime we're seeing at 11 to midnight. And it fails those of us who have put everything we have into our business and we operate in good faith. And we should be using the tools that we already have to enforce laws, not punishing everyone for the irresponsible actions of a few. That's it. Thank you.

These are all of my speaker slips. Is there anyone else? Please come forward and just introduce yourselves.

Who do I leave this with? Yourself? Okay. Yes, so my name is Nick Robinson, and my wife and I own the Three Stags Irish Pub. So just a couple of specifics about this. The first thing is we just look back over the year. We will lose 6% to 7% of our revenue if this goes ahead, given that... In this industry, you're generally operating between, you know, five and ten percent kind of a profit margin. And that's if you're doing everything really, really right. So often it's much lower than that. It's going to be a big hole to make up. And, you know, again, Barron said it there. There's no guarantee that we could stay in business if we lose that kind of revenue. So, yeah. I'm also not sure that people just won't come out earlier and just kind of, you know, I've seen this happen back in Ireland. You close early, people just load up early. Now, speaking to that, we are very meticulous about overserving. We're very meticulous about carding. We've been tested by law enforcement just on, you know, they sent a minor in. We reacted appropriately. We didn't serve them. We got a letter of commendation. We're kind of doing everything right. So, yeah, so there's no doubt also that we're going to have to cut back on staff hours. We employ 32 people. We would probably have to let some of those people go. We've made exactly five calls to law enforcement over the last year. Four of those calls were before midnight. One was in the afternoon. That was a dine and dash. Two of the calls we made were canceled because the customer left. Usually when you pick up the phone, that's when they go. So literally we've involved law enforcement three times over the last year. So yeah, as I say, I think the term one size fits all has been mentioned already. I feel that that's what this is. I don't have any guarantee that we could keep going as a business. It's a drastic suggestion. That's pretty much all I have to say. So I hopefully have made an impact in some way. I appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you.

Do you have any other public comments? Seeing none, then I will close this public hearing. And we will need a motion from our commission to continue this matter. Director Riley, do we have a date certain for this?

It's continued to a date uncertain. We will re-notice, and as we have for this, the business owners will get a similar notice as they did this time.

I have a motion to continue to a date uncertain, please.

I actually have a question. Was there a reason for why we're continuing? Are we waiting for more public hearings or is there something particular we're waiting for?

We're working through details of the ordinance before it can be presented.

Thank you. I'll make a motion to continue.

Moved by Commissioner Swish and seconded by Commissioner Smith. Could we have a roll call vote please?

Mr. Dominguez? Yes. Commissioner Smith? I mean, Commissioner Swish?

Yes.

Commissioner Smith? Yes. Commissioner Stanson? Yes. Vice Chair Elliott?

Yes. All right. The motion passes, and this brings us to the end of our new business, and we move on to item number six, announcements and commissioner comments. Seeing none, we'll move on to item seven for the director's update.

There's not a particularly significant director's update just for the information of the planning commission. The warehouse ordinance was presented to the city council at the last council meeting. It was continued to the first meeting in September. So they'll be hearing that then.

Well, there's no other business in front of this commission. We will move to item eight, which is the adjournment. And we will adjourn to our next regular meeting date of July 14th, 2026. Thank you. Good evening.