Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Redlands Planning Commission meeting for 06/24/2025. We do have a quorum present. Are there any public comments on matters not on today's agenda? Seeing none, I do want to give you guys a quick update that there is a city council meeting going on upstairs. When they finish, we will need to take a short recess and let them report and adjourn their meeting, and then we'll come back to ours. Moving on to item number two, presentations. We have none. Moving on to item number three, the consent calendar. We don't have one. Moving on to item number four, old business.

We have none. Moving on to item number five, five a street vacation number 199. Item five a is a request for a determination of general plan conformity related to a street vacation number 199, a proposal to vacate portions of unnecessary public right of way along the westerly timorous of Domestic Avenue located south of the Bergamot specific plan subdivision project. Has any commissioner had any ex parte communications with the applicant on this item? Seeing none. Staff presentation by Nelson Escada. Nelson?

Thank you chair and commissioners. Just waiting for the presentation here. Alright. This is street vacation number 199. Applicant Nick Harris Meritage Homes.

The proposal is a request to vacate excess portions of public right of way located approximately 2,150 feet west of Texas Street adjacent to parcel number 160 Seven-nine 30 Two-fifty Five-zero and parcel number 160 Seven-six-one Hundred 1 Dash 000. There are two portions of Domestic Avenue included in the request for vacation. The first portion is 124 feet long and 40 feet wide, approximately 5,060 square feet located in the western terminus of Domestic Avenue. The second is a remnant portion of cul de sac right away from the subdivision to the north, track map number 20336 and is 3,087 square feet in size. Pursuant to California government code section 65,402 a, the Planning Commission shall make a general plan conformity determination prior to City Council approval vacation.

The proposed vacation is between is located between two tracks, Tracks 20336 to the North and Track 20528 to the South. The goal is to vacate two portions of right away in order to incorporate them into adjacent and future public park spaces and residential tracks. The western portion section A is roughly 5,660 square feet And on the western terminus of Domestic Avenue, eastern portion section two is the 3,000 square feet and sits north of Domestic Avenue. This is an aerial overlay of what it recently and currently looks like with the red portions being what is to be vacated. The proposal conformity with the general plan because it allows for connectivity to surrounding parcels with the vacated portions being just for excess right of way.

The vacate the vacated portion was already at the end of the Domestic Avenue with it ending at the 210 Interstate Freeway. The 02/2035 general plan connected city chapter including figures five dash four roadway classification shows the existing right away as a local road. The proposal will be consistent with the following general plan policy. Action five a. 39 allow the city engineer to adjust the road standards where needed based on actual conditions on the ground such as right away availability, traffic volumes, and adjoining land uses.

The area proposed to be vacated has been determined be of excess right away by the city engineer. The proposal qualifies for exemption from California review in accordance with with from environmental review in accordance with section fifteen zero six one dash section b b three of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQUA guidelines under the general rule exception. No possible effect on the environment. Staff recommends that the planning commission find that the street vacation number one ninety nine is in conformity with the city's general plan. If the staff recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided.

I move that the planning commission adopt resolution number seventeen o eight and determine that

the street vacation one eighty nine for portions of unused public right of way, Domestic Avenue is in conformity with the city's general plan.

Thank you, Nelson. Does anyone do any commissioners have questions for staff at this time? Okay. Seeing none. I don't think I have is there anyone here to talk on this? This is all for the last item. Okay. Do we have any public comments on zoom no did we receive any written comments Okay. This is not a public hearing, so I'll turn it over to the commissioners for findings and deliberations. Commissioners? Commissioner Wells?

Yeah. I don't see any issues with the vacation. There's also some dedication that will be done with a separate document to domestic so I'm happy to move the motion unless there's additional deliberation

second

okay could you please bring the motion back up on the screen

I move that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number one seven zero eight and determine that street vacation number one nine nine for portions of unused public right of way Domestic Avenue is in conformity with the city's general plan

commissioner Sandson would you like to second that I second okay it has been moved by commissioner Wells and seconded by commissioner Sanson to approve resolution number one seven zero eight to determine that the street vacation number one nine nine would be in conformity with the city's general plan all in favor aye any opposed motion carries moving on to item number five b street vacation number one ninety eight item five b is a request for a determination of general plan conformity related to street vacation number one ninety eight, a proposal to vacate a portion of unnecessary public right of way on the West Side of Wabash Avenue and approximately a 110 feet to the north of East Sunset Drive North. Has any commissioner had any expertise with the applicant on this item? Seeing none, staff presentation by Rosemarie Montoya. Miss Montoya?

Thank you, chair and members of the commission. This item is a report of general plan conformity for a potential vacation of a portion of right of way approximately 6,850 square feet that is unimproved and not in use for any public roadway purposes located adjacent to Wabash Avenue approximately 110 feet north of East Sunset Drive North. The applicant request to vacate the site to allow for future development of the adjacent properties. The subject right of way outlined in red on the screen is was a part of the original alignment of the Sunset Drive North, formerly known as Edgemont Drive, which was planned to be a a circuitous road. And in 1978, a subdivision was approved over portions of the old road alignment to allow for development of the area, and a new alignment was established and constructed for Sunset Drive.

With the new alignment, the original road dedication became unnecessary and is therefore now access right of way. Pursuant to state law, the city may vacate a street, alley, or walkway upon the finding of upon a finding supported by substantial evidence that the right of way is no longer needed for vehicular or pedestrian traffic and and is as necessary for present or prospective use. The subject portion of right of way exists only as a dedication as shown on exhibit b of the legal description and has never been previously improved or used for any public roadway purposes. This is a a current street view of the property from the corner of East Sunset Drive North and Wabash Avenue. The site is situated on top of a hill and not directly adjacent to or accessible from the existing improved public road.

California government code section six five four zero two a requires that prior to considering a vacation or abandonment of any public right of way, the planning commission must review the proposal for conformity with the city's general plan. The 2035 general plan's connected city chapters does not show the subject portion of an improved road way and instead shows the existing alignment of Sunset Drive that was previously approved and developed by the underlying residential subdivision. Therefore, the street vacation will not conflict with any general plan map or designation and would not result in any negative impacts to the nearby streets since the area proposed to be vacated has been determined to be excess right of way. Also, general plan action five a dot 39 ensures road standards are tailored to actual conditions by allowing the city engineer to make any necessary adjustments. The proposed street vacation will have no significant or potentially significant effects on the environment and qualifies for exemption from environmental review in accordance with section one five eight zero six one b three of of CEQA the CEQA guidelines.

And staff recommends that the planning commission find that street vacation number one ninety eight is in conformity with the city's general plan. If staff's recommendation is appropriate, then a motion is available on screen. Thank you. That is all for staff's presentation. I'm available for any questions, and so is the applicant.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, do I have oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

I'm curious about the anticipated development that's initiating the street vacation.

So there is an application pending, subject to approval of a street vacation for a lot line adjustment, but that would be subject to a future review for any parcel map or lot line adjustment that would be requested.

So those applications don't require any kind of general plan amendment?

Not the one that is actively submitted. It's for a lot line adjustment.

There's no current application on file.

It sounds like we're anticipating future applications based on the street vacation.

That's uncertain. You may want to speak to the applicant. But right now, what we have is the general we have the street vacation and a lot line adjustment. What their intent is for the future. We don't have an application or an understanding of what that might be at this time. Any

other questions?

Commissioner was I do have

a question but it's about a written comment we received so maybe it's better to hold that for later or should I ask it now?

We're if we had okay we did

get a public comment that mentioned potential, resources on this property, and I was just curious if staff had a chance to look into that at all.

We did receive two written comments this afternoon regarding the potential for historic designation of the property, which it is not designated nor are the adjacent lots to this section of the right of way. And the other part of that comment was regarding CEQUA, which as we mentioned this is for a finding of general plan conformity so that would not be subject to it. Thank you.

Any further questions? Seeing none is there anyone in the audience here to speak on this item?

Just to clarify we actually received three comment letters. They should have all one came in late afternoon, you may or may not have seen it.

I did not, but

I was

going to ask about written comments after. Comments. Ma'am, would you like to come forward? Welcome. Please go ahead and introduce yourself.

Good afternoon. Marcella Labastida, applicant and owner. It's a corporation owns the property right now. We do live one parcel to the west of this property. So we've been here about twenty years, and we are developers. So we build custom homes, and we bought this property on Sunset Drive to develop a custom home in the future. That's the goal. I think someone asked what was our goal. We already had the street vacation done on our adjoining parcel off of Sunset Drive. That was done over ten years ago. So this is just continuing on into this parcel that we own. Any questions? Here.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Seeing none. Thank you. Anyone else here to speak on this matter? Seeing none. Okay. Could you, do we have any comments on Zoom? Okay. Director, could you please summarize the three written comments that we received?

Let's see. I have two of them in front of me here. Both of them very similar. They talked about the historic significance of the area and the roadways. I'm not entirely sure how they were relevant to the street vacation to be honest.

They seem to be more talking about what some potential development might be than they do at the actual street vacation. As was indicated we don't have a development proposal. And I believe the other one that came in later in the afternoon from Beale. It was similar similar along similar lines. So I don't honestly see how they raised any issues that were relevant to the street vacation and whether that piece of property has been used or qualifies for a street vacation.

So for clarity, if these can if there is a future development project that comes across the Planning Commission, then these citizens that propose these concerns can come, and then we will have the ability as a commission to review those concerns at that time when there's a development proposed?

If they're just single family homes, those do not come before this commission.

Okay. Thank you. This is not a public hearing, so I don't need to close it. It wasn't open. Commissioners, any questions for staff at this time? Okay. I will turn it over to you for opinions and deliberation.

I see this pretty straightforward and I think we should move it forward.

Anyone else?

Yeah, I would agree. It's not even identified in our general plan currently and it is a short dead end street so perfect in support of the

we are open for a motion if either of you would like to make it

I move the Planning Commission adopt resolution seventeen oh nine and determine that street vacation number one ninety eight for a portion of unused roadway adjacent to Wabash Avenue is in conformity with the city's general plan.

I'll second.

It has been moved by commissioner Stanson and this is so embarrassing I always call you Emily Elliot yes commit moved by commissioner Stanson and second by commissioner Elliott to approve resolution number seventeen oh nine to determine that street vacation number 198 would be in conformity with the city's general plan all in favor

aye aye

any opposed motion carries moving on to item number five c conditional use permit number one two one zero item five c is a consideration of conditional use permit number one two one zero a request to establish a wine tasting room and ancillary retail wine sales within an existing wine production facility located at 570 Nevada Street, Suite M. I will now open the public hearing for this item. Has any commissioner had any ex parte communications with the applicant regarding this item seeing none staff presentation by Nelson Escada Mr. Escada thank

you chair and members of the commission The applicant Patrick Garrett York is requesting conditional use permit to establish an ancillary wine tasting and sale portion to an existing wine manufacturing facility under an existing type two wine growers ABC license. As part of the future, let's see here. Next. The subject site is located within the general plan land use designation of commercial industrial, which designates areas to be intended to to service a wide variety of wholesale, retail and service uses. The proposed wine tasting and retail sales are consistent with the intent of the commercial designation and with the surrounding uses.

As for zoning, the project is located within the Commercial Industrial District of the East Valley Corridor specific plan. Here is a site plan. In August on 08/08/2000 Planning Commission approved CRA eight eleven for the construction of the business park. In February 2022, the applicant began operating within Suite M for wine production and manufacturing only. The applicant applied for this conditional use permit to allow for the retail sales and testing as part of the manufacturing.

The applicant is proposing the use of their existing type two wine growers for retail sales and tasting within the following hours. Retail sales only from ten a. M. To two p. M. On a Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. And then retail sales and wine tasting from six p. M. To ten p. M. Thursday, Friday and then eleven a. M. To four p. M. On Sunday closed Saturdays.

The applicant expects to have one employee tend to the patrons and retail with one shift per day. There is an expected maximum of 15 patrons at any given time. And the store will be operated in strict compliance with the state's ABC regulations including proper employee training and securities and surveillance cameras as well. Here's the floor plan. The wine and retail and tasting room would occupy the front of the unit with physical separation from the manufacturing and equipment.

The total area to be converted is roughly three ninety square feet with retail being the first portion and the tasting being the second upon entering. The additional findings for public convenience necessity are not required because the proposal is currently operates within an existing Type two wine growers ABC license, which allows for ancillary wine tasting and retail sales. The applicants proposal would be operating within the allowed Type two license. The wine tasting should not have the same intensity as other bar uses. However, the applicant is still required to get a conditional use permit approval as the proposal is an alcohol beverage sales establishment.

Four findings are required to determine whether or not the conditional use permit should be approved that the proposed development shall will not adversely affect the applicable land uses of the city, that the proposed development will not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. And the proposed development will comply with the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the city's general plan, the applicable zoning district and city's development standards. And the proposed development is appropriate with the proposed location. The project qualifies for exemption from the environmental review pursuant to section fifteen sixty one AB section B3 of CECO guidelines, proposal for off sale alcohol sales and wine tasting within an approved constructed unit will not result in any significant environmental effects. SAF recommends the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 17O6 to approve conditional use permit number twelve ten based on the analysis and findings in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval.

Should the Planning Commission deem it appropriate the following motion is provided.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Sanson? No.

Oh, I'm sorry.

That's okay. Okay. Seeing none, do I have anyone here to speak on this item? Please join us.

Hi. I'm the applicant, Patrick York, and I'm here for questions. I think Nelson represented well

okay do we have any questions for the applicant commissioner stands in

looks like a nice little use for for the project you expect a lot of 10 of patrons or

We're hoping so within the fifth like, the maximum number of 15 people at a time. It's a very small space.

I noticed it's kind of in between the buildings. Is that gonna be a problem for you? No.

Do you mean, like, the suite itself is between other suites?

Well, it's in the back building, it looks like.

So the suite spans so the building runs east west.

Okay.

And there's a front entrance and a parking lot and then a parking lot behind the unit as well. So there's access straight from the front into the proposed retail area and then into the tapering room itself. So it shouldn't be difficult to access. And there's ADA access for parking spaces located about 125 feet away.

Thank you.

Commissioner Wells. Similar question. I saw that you've only got one employee at this time. Does your occupancy limit allow you to add a second employee later down the

road possible? Or are you

capped at that 16?

I so the I maybe that's a question for Nelson.

I can check-in with building and safety just to confirm.

Just that I hope you're able to add a second employee at some point. It sounds like a lot to manage

SPEAKER

Yeah. Both the retail and Sure. Other operations. Sure. SPEAKER That was my only question.

SPEAKER Yeah. And it's a family one run winery. There are three folks who run the winery together. And any of us would be available to run it. In the past, at events off-site in other places, we've been able to manage about 20 to five people at a time with one employee, especially because the hours are so limited. It's only about four hours. And wine tasting is not terribly intensive compared to a brewery, for example.

You. Commissioner I

wish you luck.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Anyone else here to speak on this item? Seeing none, do we have any comments on Zoom? Did we receive any written comments? Okay. Seeing none, I will now close the public item for this, the public hearing for this item. Commissioners, deliberation, motions could you please bring the motion back up on the screen

I move the Planning Commission adopt resolution seventeen o six approving conditional use permit number 1210 based on the findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval.

Second. Okay. It has been moved by commissioner Stanson and seconded by commissioner Wells to approve conditional use permit 1210 for a wine tasting room and wine sales located at 570 Nevada Street Suite M all in favor aye any opposed motion carries thank you we could yep take We are going to go ahead and take a recess until the city council finishes their closed meeting and comes back and is able to do with their business and to join their meeting. Thank you. Okay.

We're going to go ahead and recon do I need to reconvene after a recess? Reconvene the Planning Commission meeting. And we are going to move on to item number five d, conditional use permit number 12O6 and commission review and approval number 975. Item five d is consideration of a request to construct and operate a new warehouse and logistics distribution facility with a total of 193,469 square feet on approximately 11 acres located at the Northwest corner of Tennessee Street and West State Street. I will now open the public hearing for this item.

Has any commissioner had any expertise with the applicant on this item? Seeing none, staff presentation by Sean Riley. Mr. Riley? We'll give him just a second.

Thank you, chair and members of the commission. As you were saying, the item before you today is related to the construction of an approximately 190,000 square foot warehouse on a nearly 11 acre site. I need you to click inside the body of the presentation. Some of you may be familiar with the site a previous project that was here, but I wanted to include a little bit of background. The site was previously developed with a La Z Boy manufacturing facility.

And in July 2022, a project was submitted here for a 197,000 square foot warehouse. In May 2024, that project was denied by the Planning Commission and then it was appealed to the city council. There was no action taken by the city council, and the denial remained effective. After a denial like that, the there is a six month waiting period before an applicant can reapply for conditional use permit. The applicant did wait the six months, and they submitted a project that is reduced in square footage.

So we we refer to that project as the reduced project original project. The short summary of what is proposed as the reduced project is a 193,469 square foot warehouse on that same 10.9 acre site with 8,000 square feet of office space. It's 39 feet tall, and it's located in the same location there, north of state between Tennessee and Kansas Street. Primary access to the site is proposed from Tennessee Street and exiting out onto Kansas Street. There are 25 dock doors, 20 253 passenger vehicle loading spaces.

In comparison to the original project, this is a reduction of 3,928 square feet of building area, which matches the existing square footage of the La Z Boy manufacturing site that's there now. The original project included 10% of the site as cold storage. This site this project currently does not include any of the cold storage, and there is a slight reduction in in the height, which is one of the other differences here as well as some other architectural changes, which I'll get to in a moment. Here is a aerial view of of the site and the location. The project there's two parcels that have been previously developed, and these two parcels will be merged as part of the project.

There's a lot merger here we'll discuss in a moment. And all the structures would be demolished on this site for the new project. This is the La Z Boy facility as it in its current condition. This is looking from Tennessee Street closer to the north end of the site. This is a similar view, but closer to the south end of the site, again, looking west at the La Z Boy facility.

The project's located in the Industrial Zoning District and has a light industrial general plan use land use designation. These designations are intended for manufacturing, distribution, and ancillary commercial uses. The warehouse building would be consistent with the general plan and zoning designations for the site as well as the development standards for the IP zoning district. This slide shows some of the surrounding development in relation to the project site, which you can see in the center there. In this image, the schools are blue, residential is yellow, commercial and industrial properties are green, The ESRI campus which is across the street to the east is shown in pink.

This is the project site plan. The yellow box represents the footprint of the building. The green is the landscaping. The gray areas are parking and vehicle circulation areas on-site. Passenger parking is both on the east and the west side of the site, and primary truck access again to the site is from Tennessee and exiting out onto Kansas.

There's no truck access on State Street that's reserved for vehicle access only. In April 2023, the city council adopted adopted what we refer to as our warehouse ordinance, which is ordinance number two nine five five. The ordinance requires a conditional use permit for new warehouses that exceed 50,000 square feet or have six or more truck loading spaces or loading docks, I should say. It also establishes location restrictions, development standards, and where and operating standards for warehouse uses. This project is subject to that ordinance.

The ordinance requires new warehouses to be located less than one mile from a freeway entrance. This project's located a half mile from the entrances at Tennessee and Alabama, therefore it meets the location requirements. The ordinance also includes site design and landscaping requirements. Entry gates are required to be to be to provide a minimum of a 140 feet of stacking distance for two trucks or up to 70 feet of stacking for trucks side by side. The project well exceeds these requirements.

Ordinance requires truck docks to be oriented toward the rear of the building and not readily visible from the roadways. The loading docks spaces are located to the backside of the building and therefore meets this requirement. And additionally, the passenger vehicle parking areas are required to be shaded. 35% of them are equally shaded. And at maturity, this project will meet that requirement exactly.

Warehouse also requires or includes requirements for truck routing and requires a traffic study. A traffic study was prepared for the project and the traffic study does meet all the measure here requirements. The ordinance requires projects to use truck routes. The site is near several truck routes and again as I mentioned the applicant has agreed to limit truck access to Tennessee Street and Kansas Street and direct all traffic north to the freeway. The project does not directly abut any sensitive receptors.

And again, the traffic is being directed to the north away from the nearest sensitive receptors which are to the south. And all other operational requirements that are required by the ordinance are included as mandatory conditions of approval. Applicants provided some renderings of the building as proposed. The building is 39 feet tall and incorporates metal canopies, exposed aggregate panels, red brick, and painted concrete walls. There are windows or glass treatments on all sides.

The building's color palette is primarily consists of a white base with gray exposed aggregate panels, red brick, and bronze awning accents. This slide shows the materials and colors that are proposed. This is a little more close-up detail of what they're showing there. The exposed aggregate, the brick, and some of the colors. As it relates to the landscape plan, there's no minimum landscaping amount for the overall site in this zoning district.

They are providing 17% of the site. A total site area is landscaping. They are required to provide 7% of the parking area is landscaping and they are including 14. The plans also indicate that the existing palm trees on the south side of the project along State Street are gonna be retained as well as some of the building excuse me, the trees in front of the building will also be retained, the mature trees that are there now. The project includes an additional five feet of landscaping on Tennessee Street as well as a three foot berm to screen vehicles on Tennessee.

The landscaping density has also been increased on Tennessee Street and State Street to provide better screening of the building. This is an image showing the truck routing and the truck route locations surrounding the project. As you can see, there are quite a few in the area. This is an enlarged version of the truck routing map, so you can see the site being the star and the purple being the truck routes and the proposed routes that these trucks would be taking to the freeway would be the yellow here. The project includes a lot merger.

It would basically combine the two parcels I showed you previously. One on Kansas Street, which is 2.8 acres and the other, the main building with a La Z Boy facility, is 8.1 acres. A new parcel totaling 10.9 acres and the lot would meet all of the necessary requirements for the zoning district. Socioeconomic cost benefit study has been prepared for this project. And according to the cost benefit model for the project, it would be expected to result in an annual surplus revenue of nearly $60,000 with a positive cost benefit ratio of 5.75.

I should point out that there was an error in the resolution regarding this ratio. It has been corrected. An updated resolution has been provided to you with the correct number in it. I think previously, it was indicated as 2.73 or 2.75 in the old resolution. I should also mention in that revised resolution there, there's an additional condition of approval that's been included.

Condition number 52 is required by a b 98, and it is related to the demolition of the house that was on Kansas Street. AB 98 requires replacement of housing at a two to one ratio if the home was demolished related to a logistics or warehouse project. The added condition requires applicant to fund the construction of two low to moderate income homes, which are to be constructed within three years of them paying the fee that would be paid at building permit issuance whenever that happens to be. To to approve the project or deny the project there are findings that need to be made. I've included the findings.

There are four for the CUP, three findings for the CRA and there are some architectural findings as well. So those are here on the screen if we need to discuss those for any reason. And then regarding environmental review, mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project by one of city's approved consultants for the original project. The required thirty day public review and comment period began on 05/04/2023 and ended on 06/02/2023. As discussed in the staff report, the MND for the original project is appropriate to be used for the reduced project we are discussing today.

No recirculation of the MND is required because there were no substantial revisions needed in the MND and there were no changes to the project that would create new avoidable effects requiring mitigation. The mitigation measures included will reduce the impacts of the reduced project to a level that is less than significant. Thus, the ISMND does not need to be substantially revised or recirculated for the reduced project. Within the MND, there are 12 mitigation measures related to the items you see here, tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, cultural resources. And after mitigation, no potentially significant impacts were identified as result of the project.

So in in summary, the project is going to replace inefficient aging industrial building with a new modern energy efficient building with the same square footage. The project complies with new energy standards recently adopted by the city for new warehouses. The majority of the building will be placed approximately 90 feet from the street and will have substantial landscaping on the street frontages to soften the height and mass of the building. The Tennessee Tennessee Street facade has windows and articulation that give the building more attractive appearance from Tennessee Street. The site is located within a half mile from a freeway entrance.

The site is laid out in such a manner that the trucks will enter on Tennessee and exit on to Kansas away from sensitive receptors, as I mentioned previously. And again, the loading dock spaces are located at the backside of the building on the west, not oriented toward any recept sensitive receptors. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the project and resolution seventeen oh seven. And if the Planning Commission finds that the recommendation is appropriate, the motion is here on the screen before you. And that concludes the staff presentation. The applicant, does also, when it's their turn, have a presentation that they would like to share.

Thank you, mister Riley. Does anyone have any clarifying questions for staff at this time before we move on to the applicant, vice chair.

Thank you, Mr. Riley. So understanding that the reduced project is 98% roughly of the original project, it's like 3,000 square foot reduction. I couldn't find it there because we have an MND for the original. Are we expecting any reduced truck trips as a result of the 3,000 square foot less?

There should be some reduced truck trips rate based on the based on that. I believe the applicant in their presentation will share what their anticipated reduction is.

Thank you. And 30 it's 39 feet tall. Remind me again the original project. The original project was 40. 40. So one foot reduction. Okay. That's all the questions I have for now.

Commissioner Stanson.

Thought the original project was closer to 50. It was only a foot difference?

That is correct.

Okay. Truck route. So with the truck route for them leaving would be Park Avenue to Alabama and coming in would be coming down Tennessee to enter? Yes. Okay. Then my other question is, it seems like landscaping is awfully sparse for the parking lot in the back.

That that's correct. So the in the staff report, it addresses that and the discussion is basically where there's no visible landscaping from the public right of way. For example, a walled area like you see landscaping are allowed. And so that is it's up to the planning commission whether or not they would like to approve that reduction. But as long as they provide the perimeter, they're required to provide the perimeter landscaping and that's what they've done. And so that's the request is to have a reduced amount of landscaping parking lot to the rear.

I thought they were supposed to provide shade for cars and stuff in that.

They do provide 35% of the parked parking area as landscaping. They provided that calculation on their landscape plans.

Commissioner Wells? Just a quick clarification on the height. So I believe the floodplain also raises it quite a bit. So do we know how much they'll have to build up the land first for the total overall height?

I don't have that exact number. They they would like they would need to raise out of the floodplain or the my understanding is those maps may be being revised, which may not require the increased pad height.

Okay. So potentially 39 to maybe like 45 ish total.

That's correct.

Thank you

mister Reilly I know we were doing you're doing monitoring I'm sorry

it's okay I was gonna go to

I'm sorry I didn't see your light on

go ahead

oh I have a several questions so if you want to finish up okay

mister commissioner Stanson go ahead

just go ahead I'll I'll okay

all the abundance of politeness never hurt anyone so I have a few questions on conditions of approval I did appreciate the point that Commissioner Stanson pointed out about the landscaping in the back and well it may not be an aesthetic improvement that the public could appreciate the additional landscaping could have an effect in reducing that heat island effect of having broad expanse of open parking lot and that might be something our commission would want to consider. With respect to the cold storage, is this something that could be added to the building at a later time through a tenant improvement?

There are conditions of approval that do not allow the cold storage to be added later.

I was gonna ask whether I did see the condition of approval about a land use restrictions and conditions. What restrictions and conditions is it? All the COAs for the project would

It refers offer back to the conditional use permit and these conditions.

Okay.

I noticed there's a requirement for a minor exception permit and I recall that the commission reviewed a text amendment that would eliminate the necessity for a minor exception permit but is it the action has not yet been approved by counsel so that's why this project is still subject to that requirement.

That's correct. So this project, there are eight foot walls, that's a requirement for the minor exception which only allows six foot tall walls. The revision you're referring to has not been approved by council. That's where we are at this point.

And then there's a couple of conditions that kinda related to behavior modification. For instance, like directing which way trucks should go or limiting the time of idling. How are those conditions monitored and enforced?

There is required signage and then how they are how they are monitored and enforced would be through code enforcement or reported code enforcement actions.

So I think I had one more. Oh, I think it was condition number 32 related to those signs. I think it's the second half and it said that the city may require off-site signs. What would be the trigger or threshold for moving for putting in those off-site signs?

I don't know that I have a great answer for that. One of the things that we're talking about is no parking in some of those areas. So there will be some no parking signs in there and they're talking about having this project will be required to go to traffic and parking commission to have some no parking on State Street as well. But if you if you're I'm not sure which signage you're referring to specifically, but I think if it got to be where we're talking about there's code enforcement issues, one of the actions might be to put additional signage out there.

The condition just says in prominent locations. It's not very I'm not exactly sure where. That answers all of my questions this time. Thank you.

Commissioner Stanson.

Just one more quick question. Being that the project is along the Zanke and there's a lot of cultural resources in those areas and it hasn't been disturbed in a number of years, how are we gonna do the monitoring to make sure that we're during grading and and tearing all the dirt up that we're looking for the cultural resources that could be buried at the Zanke.

There are mitigation measures related to cultural resources and to tribal cultural resources, but the the project does not go beyond its existing boundaries. So would there be no encroachment into the adjacent drainage that is there?

Well, my thought is is that when this project was originally built, they didn't pay attention to cultural resources. So therefore, I mean, I think we owe it to ourself that there could be some and we should be monitoring for that in that area.

So this this project so we did we did a initial study mitigate negative declaration for this project. As a part of that, we do consultation with the local native American tribes and tribes who have requested consultation. Through the consultation process, we've come up with the mitigation measures that are included in the conditions of approval. Those conditions of approval are required for the project and those mitigation measures will ensure that there's no impact.

Any

other questions for staff at this time? Okay, we'd like to invite the applicant up for their presentation.

One goes forward. That one goes back. Welcome.

Good afternoon. How are you?

Good. How are you? Good.

Thank you. My name is Nicole Torstvedt with Prologis. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today regarding our project at 301 Tennessee. We're long term holders of class a logistics real estate. We take pride in the quality of our developments, sustainability of our operations, and our commitment to the communities in which we serve.

Our projects are not only built to last, but they are built to lead with every facility constructed to lead silver or better and incorporating clean energy features like solar panels, EV charging, and high efficiency systems. As Sean mentioned, this site has been in operation since 1965. It has minimal setbacks, exposed loading docks, and inadequate screening. The layout is outdated and creates circulation issues with trucks queuing on city streets, the dock doors visible from the public right away, and these conditions are not aligned with today's expectations for environmental, visual, or operational quality. And when we acquired the site, we had relied on ordinance twenty nine fifty five, which designated this site as one of six sites that were remaining for eligible redevelopment.

Our proposal is not for an expansion, but for modernization, fully compliant with this ordinance, a b 98, and aligned with the city's general plan. The location is the gateway to the industrial corridor. The surrounding area is predominantly industrial, and the site sits across from the transit villages specific plan. The land use transition, as you can see, is already occurring around us with office to the East, commercial and industrial to the North, and industrial to the South and to the West. Our proposed 193,469 square foot building has no increase in square footage.

Instead, we feel that we are improving everything about the site from the setback from 28 feet to 89 feet, relocating the dock doors out of public view, energy efficient construction with LEED silver standards, preserving the mature trees, and adding over a 160 new trees with drought tolerant landscaping as well as reflecting the character of the existing facility, today. The site plan, shows that trucks move within the site and the mature trees are preserved, and we plan for a clean and functional community conscious design. If this project is approved, even though this is not required, we are investing in the improvements on Kansas Street next to the Redlands Christian School with street widening, adding curb and gutter sidewalk, utility relocation to make drop off and pickup safer and more functional for families as well as helping the neighboring properties with ingress egress. This site is a good image of showing why this project is necessary with trucks currently entering and exiting along State Street. They wait along the curb to get in, and this is not safe, efficient, or neighbor friendly.

Our proposed design, removes trucks from State Street entirely. Trucks will enter from Tennessee Street, exit onto Kansas, head north to Park, and then to the freeway. Signage, internal queuing, and lease requirements will ensure that our tenants are in compliance. In response to stakeholder feedback, we lowered building heights, refined the facade with sandblasted concrete, red brick, and enhanced the architectural detail to reflect the heritage of the current building. This is an image looking south at the office pod at the corner of Tennessee and State Street.

This is a the office pod to the northerly driveway along Tennessee Street. And then here's the full elevations for each Tennessee and State Street. And this is the the landscaping showing how our building will fit within the natural landscaping from the public view with the mature trees, the burns that blend the building with its surroundings rather than overwhelming them. That's Tennessee, and then this is State Street. And then I'd like to introduce Connie who will go through the technical portion of the presentation.

Do you mind if we pause and ask if we have any questions so far for

your Absolutely.

Awesome. Any commissioners have any questions so far? Okay. That was quick. Thank you very much.

No problem.

Good evening, commissioners. Welcome. My name is Connie Dobreva. I'm with EPD Solutions. I am an environmental consultant, and I'm here to just present a couple of slides. Mr. Riley did a wonderful job, so I will be very brief. But then I can also answer any questions. So as was previously mentioned, a mitigated negative declaration was prepared, circulated. That mitigated negative declaration was done by a consultant hired and under the control of the city.

The mitigation measures that were identified were only related to construction. There were no operational mitigation measures because all impacts were less than significant related to operations. And then there were a couple for tribal monitoring and geotechnical and cultural. The question that arose was transportation. Now that the building is about 4,000 square feet smaller, is there going to be fewer trips?

And the answer is yes. The previous project that was a little bit larger had an additional 70 trips for the day and had an additional 25 trips in the AM. And as you can see here, with the reduced project, we have nine fewer trips total. You have about the same number of truck trips, but there's zero change in the AM peak hour and a negative in the PM peak hour. So even though there were no previous impacts, they're even fewer now.

Two of the major issues that we heard last time were school safety concerns and as was previously mentioned, the trucks have been removed from State Street. So that takes care of a lot of the issues related to concerns for schools. And then when it comes to transportation at the railroad tracks, this was exhaustively discussed last time, but there were no truck related collisions at the railroad crossings. If there was anything, it was related to violations, vehicle violations, and they were passenger car issues. There There's nothing related to trucks.

And again, we're not adding anything to what is already existing at those intersections. So this project is being modernized. And with that previous trip rate, we're showing that we're reducing the trips or keeping them exactly the same. Contributing to that. So that's both for Tennessee and Redlands and for Alabama and Redlands as it relates to transportation.

This is a close-up of the truck route. Wanted to show you how the Tennessee is being used. Alabama is being used. The trucks are being kept off of State Street. So you can see how they circulate on and off the 10 Freeway in case there was any questions related to that.

Air quality was something that was brought up last time. And this is actually numbers using that slightly higher number with the 4,000 extra square feet. But as you can see, there is negligible and not measurable changes in the air quality. It is reduced a little bit because the building will be modernized. But it's negative numbers related to the types quality impacts.

So we're not increasing emissions, and we're keeping everything less than significant. And no mitigation measures are required related to that. For air quality and this also includes, with mitigation during construction, health risks of construction. So the cancer risks related related to construction are reduced to less than significant, and there are no health risks related to operation of the building. The project is going to have energy efficiency and will reduce emissions.

And some of the examples of that is because it will be meeting the new title 24 compared to the old building. It will be meeting your city ordinance 02/1955. There will be electrified forklifts with zero emissions. There will be high efficiency HVAC system which will further reduce energy. There will be anti idling policies and the applicant has committed to having additional signage to ensuring idling stays within what is required by the SCA QMD. And then there will also be on-site solar power, which doesn't currently exist, which reduces the grid demand and slashes the carbon footprint.

Thank you.

So this this project reflects what we stand for, thoughtful design, strong community partnerships, and sustainability. We're proud of what we have brought forward and hope to transform this aging property into something that community can be proud of. We respectfully request your approval today, and thank you for your time.

Any questions for the applicant at this time? Vice chair Inslee.

Yes, relating to the nine fewer trips. So you mentioned quickly that that was the truck trips would be about the same as the prior application. Did I hear that correctly?

Yes, because the negative nine trips is the passenger car and we do have our traffic engineer who can speak to the specifics, but conservatively we assume the trucks will be about the same.

And that'd be 115 truck trips a day? I'm just going off of the prior application and the m and d.

No. There should be approximately about 50 truck trips a day is what we're expecting.

K.

Because that's not again, I'm looking for the clarity on what I'm interpreting from the conversations we had last time in the M and D.

And I'm sorry, because of Zoom, could you please speak into the microphone? Yeah. Thank you. Sorry. That's okay.

Yes. So I think previously, we use the ITE rate but realistically what we are expecting is 50 truck trips a day. So typically we have 25 dock doors. It takes about three hours to unload a truck and three hours to load a truck. So approximately 50 trucks trips a day.

That's expected from the operation or what's being allowed by application?

That's expected from the operation.

Okay.

You can talk about the

IT But what we analyzed using the IT rates, you want to always have apples to apples comparison, right? Your transportation department wants to make sure that you're analyzing each project against sequel threshold and against each other. So we don't want to have different numbers. So ITE is what is the gold standard across The United States. And so with that, as that shows, there's an existing thirteen sixteen that was modeled and this project would have 1,307. So it would reduce the total number of trips. And then it would be a 188 in the AM and 208 in the PM, which is again, there's no difference between what's currently on the site. What would be

So as you mentioned then, primarily the reduction is from passenger vehicles from people working in the facility. The air quality emissions reduced. I'm assuming that's related to the nine passenger vehicles.

That reduction that you saw was actually for that larger project. We didn't recalculate it that that those numbers that we had, and I can go back. These numbers were what was in the mitigated negative declaration. And that is really primarily a factor of the types of the codes, the ITE codes that they use, and the air quality as time goes on actually gets better and better. So when they model the existing on the proposed, the model automatically has reductions that are occurring. It's also because of the solar and it's also because some of the operational components of the project that reduces the air quality even though it's about the same size building.

Well, that's appreciate some of that clarification. I'm just simply going off the materials have been provided. We have one MND as the staff pointed out. They still feel that is appropriate. And so was really trying to understand if there were any reductions. We're talking from the you're speaking from the original application?

That's correct. This even though it's a reduction, it's from the original application. We didn't calculate how much more it would reduce because of the 4,000 square feet. Because for air quality modeling purposes, that's barely measurable in the sense that it's essentially the same size project.

Now, this is comparing to the proposed project. I assume you're you have tenants there that are operating in a manufacturing capacity at the moment or some sort of form of warehousing so this is not when we see reductions we're not talking about reductions of current operations on the site we're talking about reductions from the original proposed project, correct?

It's reduction using the Calimod model and that Calimod model takes square footage or again, we always want to have an apples to apples it takes square footage and says this is what this square footage with this type of use is going to generate and you're proposing this type of square footage with this type of use and what are the Calimod outputs so that we can compare them for Shoals.

So I guess the question would be for staff with all this information just for a lay person's understanding, the current operations that exist on-site today or even in the past from the 60s to present day relative being a manufacturing operation relative to a full warehousing operation, are we expecting because this was our prior understanding that we're actually seeing an increase in overall vehicle trips, not not from the proposed project originally to the reduced project, but what was existing there today?

What's existing there today is a is a building that was originally built for manufacturing uses, but could be used as a warehousing operation and it is right now.

And so the question I have is, compared to the use of a warehousing operation now and to what is being proposed here, are we seeing an increase in truck trips or vehicle trips daily?

And I believe that the slide that you showed showed a reduction of over what's there now. Right? I I understood it as a reduction over what was proposed originally. And and so I think she addressed that in the first time she presented. Was that originally, I think there was 70 trips additional over what's existing? Yes. And then now the new project is less than existing?

I I the question. The question is, this uses ITE rates versus actually counting at the driveway of what is currently being utilized. And I think the answer is no, that what's being measured is the apples to apples comparison as opposed to, right, of the historic use rather than That's what's used be on the right. And that is standard practice Correct. Across the industry. But you are correct.

And I appreciate the standard practice. It's just for me to understand what the actual impact will be. And it will be an increase in trips.

So where the actual impact is captured is that there are the way that the inters when you measure the intersections, when you do the counts, that actually captures what's on the ground. So if you didn't capture it at your driveway, you captured it when you counted how the intersection currently operates. And then you're adding extra chip to that.

Correct. Exactly. That's my assumption and why I asked. Because I think it's important for these conversations and for the public to understand that when we say there's not going to be any increase and there might be even a decrease over what was proposed, it's important for us to make the clarification that

this

is actually increasing what's actually happening. Whether or not it's allowed or not within the proposed project, it will result in additional trucks on the streets, additional traffic, or additional use of those intersections, which is why the clarification I'm trying to make here, which I appreciate you answering. Thank you.

Commissioner Elliott.

I was like, don't go away. Questions I'm

right here.

Sorry. Let me pull my notes back up. Okay. I had the question for staff earlier about how is idling enforced. I saw on this slide it says it's strictly enforced. Who does that? Is that city code enforcement? Is it the applicant or is it the honor system? How are those behaviors enforced

so the idling signs will be posted throughout the throughout the site but it because we're a long term holder and manager of our properties it's also in our leases so we strictly enforce that to make sure our tenants are abiding by city ordinances.

And then to the point of cultural resources, so we have cultural one. So if anything is identified, archaeologists will be contacted. There'll be a buffer. And then tribal one, kind of same thing. If anything is identified, the tribes will be contacted. And in both cases, there's like reciprocal notification. Is there any training that's provided to construction staff so that they know what to look for?

As a part of all of these mitigation measures, there is training for tribal cultural monitoring and training by an archaeologist that will come on-site and train what to look for, the tribal monitors. There is monitoring agreement and so they're introduced to the crew and then they know who to call. And it was the tribes themselves that said that all they wanted was to do the the employee training and then to be called if anything was found. They didn't find that this particular site, was sensitive enough for them to be doing full time monitoring.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Wells.

Hi. Thank you for your presentation. I so appreciate the truck route, exhibit that you showed. I don't believe we had that in our materials ahead of time. But my biggest concern with this project was the addition of truck traffic northbound on Tennessee. So I'm just curious, is this truck route plan pretty set for now? Or is that is is it still under review? I guess it's a joint question, for staff and the applicant.

I understand that this is the approved truck route for the city.

Great. Thank you so much. I don't have any other questions at this

time. Commissioner Stanson?

So the truck route, Proverlodge is going to guarantee that that's gonna get followed in your lease? I mean, seems like it's kind of hard to the I like your project, but I I have a problem with the idling, you know, and and how we really kinda control that and also making sure we stated those truck routes because I think that makes a lot of sense if if we can get the truckers to do what they're supposed to do.

So there's signage throughout the city to direct all of the truckers exactly to where the truck routes are for the city. So within our lease documents, we would provide the truck routes to the city or to them. Sorry. So that they should be following them. As far as the idling goes, the three minutes, so we include that in our leases. It's also posted on signage, but it's also part of the city ordinance and coding. So I think that code enforcement also helps enforce that if they're coming through the properties to make sure that we are doing our job as owners.

Wish that was the case. I mean, code enforcement's busy, so it's hard to it's hard to say. But I I mean, I'd I appreciate the fact that you put it in the lease. Is there financial penalties to the lessor if they are not if they're not following the rules? Lessee?

That's a good question. I don't write the leases, so I'm not a 100% sure. But there's definitely some sort of penalty, I would assume.

I'm just I'm just curious because, I mean, you can put all the rules you want, but it's just getting people to follow them and that's what, you know, the concern is. That's all.

Right. So I just want to add that if they if the if there's a condition of approval that says they need to operate a certain way and they're in violation of the way that of that condition and the way they're operating, then that refers to chapter two of the code, which has a series of mechanisms included in it that lets lets us go through code enforcement. We can do everything from fine them monetarily to beyond that. But the the condition has to specifically link the violation to the property owner. So it has to say, you know, you cannot do x.

If it says that and it's clear, we can enforce it. If it doesn't if it doesn't bind the property owner to whatever it is you're trying to condition, then we can't enforce it. Does that make sense?

And I think our concern on this enforcement is who who are the eyes and the way that this project is designed to be so far set back from the street and with loading docks being concealed from public and how would code enforcement know that there is a violation Sure. Or a member of the public

So this reported. In every situation across the entire city, in any use we have, typically, number one, we are typically responsive. You know, we're complaint driven. So if we receive a complaint, we investigate. If we find there's a violation, we go through the typical process. There's not there's not a there's not a driver driving around to make sure that you know, to look for these type of things. So it's complaint driven. But typically, that's where you the complaints are where you, you know, do lead back to where you have situations with true issues. So so there is if there if there is a situation where you can tell there's an impact occurring and then then again, if it's direct in violation directly in violation to a condition that we can attribute it to, then we can act. That makes sense.

Well, it it does make sense in that but it doesn't alleviate my concern because we have a project that's designed in a way to conceal operations largely for the public's benefit. But if operations are concealed, how would anyone know that trucks are idling beyond the three minutes to report it to code enforcement?

Yeah Unfortunately, don't have a good answer for you on that. There's, you know, there's, as you're aware, it's very typical for warehouses to have all of their internal operations screened. You know, that's an aesthetic for aesthetic reasons, for security reasons. So to your point, unless we're notified, we have no way to know. We have no way to enforce. But we have a mechanism in place as long as the condition is specific to the behavior. You have to have a condition that's attributed to the behavior you're wanting to condition.

Vice chair Ensley.

Yeah. And a follow-up question. I'm looking back to our prior resolution where we denied the project and wanting to understand if any additional traffic studies have been prepared that evaluated the capacities of those freeway on ramps and off ramps that you're proposing to use. We noted that in our denial resolution that that was a concern of ours, that we didn't believe the capacities were capable of handling the increase, the real increase, not the mathematical increase, the actual increase of trucks going on and off the freeway. Any any additional analysis done?

There was not additional analysis done. It wasn't required since we had reduced the project.

Thank you.

Can I I wanted to clarify? I think there might still be a little bit of confusion on this traffic thing that I sense. And before you leave the podium, We talked about how the studies used ITE rates to evaluate what's existing on the ground against the project. And based on that, you received certain numbers and they were pretty consistent. But then Commissioner Ensley was concerned that if you use the ITE rates then you may get a much higher number for the existing than what's actually occurring on the ground.

But the reason we don't do that, I just wanna is because exactly what I think Nicole said before was that they anticipate just 50 trucks a day, which is well below the ITE rate. So it's hard to compare what is existing on the ground with what some future existing on the ground is going to be because that's an unknown. And so that's why the studies default to this standard, which is the ITE. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

And so to that point, are we then saying that what is existing using that calculation, the La Z Boy factory as it's currently being operated or could be operated with this calculus, this project would result in less? Other words

Repeat the question.

I'm the same standard calculation with the existing project, not the prior proposed, but the one that's built and and under operation today. Doing that calculation today versus this proposed project, are we saying the proposed project is less using ITE than the existing project?

No. And that's because we would be mixing apples and oranges. Right. We have you have a land use that allows a certain amount of square feet for a manufacturing use for the La Z Boy. And that using the measures has a certain number that's physically occurring on the ground and a certain number that could be allowed.

Likewise for this project, there's a certain number that could be allowed, which is that higher number, and then there's a certain number that the 50 trips that we think is actually going to happen. What standard practices and what the city has chosen to do is to analyze the allowed versus allowed because uses have fluctuate, right? Sometimes you have a tenant switch out, things slow down, the economy slows down. So there's that fluctuation. And so in order to have an accurate comparison, they're using the standard numbers, not exactly what's happening on the ground.

So to answer your question, what's happening on the ground now could be a little bit different and could be a little bit lower than what's allowed. But likewise, when the new project comes in, as the developer said, it is what's currently allowed is not going to be this maxed out number of trucks. They're anticipating significantly less.

So allowed to allowed?

It's it's allowed to allowed versus existing to existing.

So the existing allowed versus the proposed allowed, which one's less? That's that's what I'm trying to get to clear. Are they the same?

They're the same.

Allowed. Allowed. Existing to allow

Existing allow is the same.

As proposed to and that's what the developer is saying. Right.

Got it.

Right? That what what they're what they're anticipating will actually go in is similar to what is currently happening.

But to the director's comments, I think that's what I'm trying to lead to the clarification is if we're saying, let's look at it at the same standard, and we're saying the ITE for the La Z Boy factory as it is today is the same as what's being proposed. Is that your comment?

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. And then if you wanted to look at what's on the ground, then I guess you could look at what they think will be on the ground, but those are not really known numbers and may fluctuate as Connie indicated.

So no additional traffic study done on that. You made mention to the railroad crossings. Similarly, and this probably I don't know if this would be a question for Don Young. In anticipating the crossing safety measures that are needed for these rail crossings, are we doing something similar in calculating all the allowed ITE for all developments that are south or north of those rail rate crossings to determine the safety measurements required? Or are they evaluating what was needed there at those crossings based on existing traffic patterns?

I'll try to answer this as best as I can. The rail crossings were identified. The types of roads those are, which are all designated truck routes, that was all included in the design for the rail crossings. The crossings were done by or the crossing equipment was designed by SBCTA's rail people approved by the approved by the feds federal government. So all of that use would be included in there, adding, the 50 trips, you know, 50 trips in each direction at the is not gonna be a significant amount.

I mean, it'll there'll be an additional truck every hour or every 15, every 20. So I would say the design accidentally hit the button. The design and equipment are already be included in the include the traffic. Thank you.

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

So it doesn't look like there is much staging for extra trailers and trucks there. It looks like you've got 25 doors. So that's pretty much all you can handle it in a day would be twenty five fifty coming in and out. Correct. I'd be more concerned if there's a lot of truck staging there but there's not so.

No there's none.

Thank you

any further questions for the applicant at this time thank you very much okay we are going to move on to public comment. I'm gonna start with the speaker slips. If you could please come to the podium, introduce yourself, and then you it's three minutes. Right? You have three minutes, and you'll get a nice little buzzer when your time's up. We're gonna start with John James, mister James.

Good afternoon, commission chair and commissioners. My name is John James, and I'm here to speak to you today drawing upon my experience as a former Redlands City Council member and former planning commissioner and chair, as and also as an attendee of the joint session of the City Council and Planning Commission, which featured a BB and K attorney's presentation on land use decision making responsibilities. I have through re thoroughly reviewed the staff report and supporting project documents, and I'm here in support of the pro per lodges application. This project is located on one of only six sites citywide that remain eligible for warehouse development under the updated municipal code. Following an exhaustive review process, the city council unanimously adopted ordinance number twenty nine fifty five, which established stricter development standards for warehouses.

This proposal fully complies with those standards. It's appropriately zoned for industrial use and meets all applicable local and state regulations. As you know, this proposal does require a conditional use permit. During the joint session, the BB and K attorney emphasized in evaluating a CUP, the commission functions as a quasi judicial body. In this capacity, your decision must be grounded in objective facts supported by administrative record, not in personal views or public opinion.

Should any questions arise regarding this guidance, I encourage you to consult the city attorney. At initial hearing, concerns were raised about the potential environmental impacts on nearby schools protected from truck activity. Attachment I two in your packet includes responses to comments from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the county public works department. These responses authored by credentialed professionals demonstrate that operational emissions from this project will fall well below the localized significance threshold. The conclusion of no significant impact is not speculative.

It is supported by quantitative data. It is in in in its revised application, Prologis has meaningfully addressed earlier concerns through improved design, enhanced circulation plans, and mitigations that go beyond requirements. To conclude, this project satisfies all relevant legal, regulatory, and environmental standards. And as emphasized by the BB and K attorney, when a project does meet all applicable codes and findings for approval, it must be approved. Thank you for your time, your service to the community, and your thoughtful deliberation. Godspeed.

Thank you. Moving on to Carol Beswick. Miss Beswick?

Madam Chairman, members of the Commission. John did a great job. Not going to try and echo any of what he said. So I'm going to just briefly say to you that I think what you have to keep in mind is this is an industrial site. That is what it is.

So to be able to improve what's there and modernize it a benefit all the way around. One of the things this project does that's really important is that it gets traffic off of two intersections where we currently have trucks, Tennessee and state, Kansas and state. This will be a huge help to parents picking up kids at the elementary school at the Christian school. And getting trucks just off of no longer parking on state is a plus two. So those are just the thoughts that come to mind that I thought I should mention to you. And I will approve this project.

Thank you. Mister Hoder.

Good afternoon, Andy Hoder. Greetings to the commission and to the staff. I would refer you first of all to the last, episode when Prologis came before the the commission and to keep in mind what your reasons were for rejecting project at that time. What is substantially different today from what persuaded you in a negative way at that point in time? Is it that much improved?

There's a very slight reduction in square footage and a couple of loading docks, but the project isn't that different than it was before. I would also emphasize that your criteria for deciding approval or disapproval should not in any way base be based upon how pretty the buildings are, what the color scheme is, what kind of landscaping that they have, and yet those items are kind of subtly injected into the discussion. As I hear it from out there, Prologis is saying, well, square footage wise is not really that different from La Z Boy and so really the impact is is negligible. I I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, but what I wanted to conclude with is when you make your decision, it has to be on the basis of you serving the public in Redlands, all the public. Public, what would the public say if they were all in this room?

Would they be in favor of this development or opposed to it? And what would their reasons be and how would you answer them based on whatever conclusion you come to. As you know, in the previous years, there's been a rather growing sentiment opposed to warehouse developments in general and we even introduced new legislation within the city framework opposing warehouse development to some degree. So the sentiment is is rather negative in general in in the eyes of the public and somewhat in the eyes of the city council and the city administration. So that's basically the message that I had for you is just keep in mind what would the public want, what would be in the best interest of the public in howling how to decide what to do here.

After the first rejection of Prologis proposal, they had the option to take a look at it to step back and say, you know what, it isn't really a good fit. It's gonna be an uphill climb to get approval from the commission, etcetera. Maybe we should pack it in and look for a different location in Redlands more suitable for our project, but they made the decision to sorry to dig their heels in and continue forward with this specific location. So it's in your hands now. I hope you decide wisely. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Hoder. Chris Winters.

Good evening. I'm Chris Winters, principal over at Redlands Christian Schools. And we represent in our school student body, we have about 1,400 students and represent their families as well. And And like many people in Redlands, we're not overly enthusiastic about warehouses, but there is a warehouse at this current site. And as we operate the school, we have to deal with that on a daily basis.

We're very thankful for the group meeting with us and hearing our concerns. One of the big things that's gonna make an impact for us is just taking the trucks off of State Street both from driving through State Street and also parking on State Street as that is a major traffic lane for our parents coming to to pick up each and every day both dropping off and picking up after school in addition to all the sporting events and everything that happened in our community. Reducing the idling time is an improvement for us as well. And then the aesthetic improvements in the area are something that we appreciate. So the developers have met with us directly.

They've listened to our concerns. And overall we're definitely in favor of this as an improvement for our local area and we think it'll be a benefit to our families and also just improve safety for our students. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Monty Dill.

Good afternoon. I'm Monty Dill. I'm speaking in favor of the project. This site along with five others were selected and approved by council in April 2023. It was done after considerable thought in the moratorium to discuss this and review it.

Even though I'm not a big fan of warehouses or location of warehouses, these are the rules that we currently have. And so Prologis I believe has met the rules. You've received my letter, so I won't belabor the point anymore. But I think that the discussion of warehouses and where they should be is another venue than this one. But it seems that they've kind of met the rules and therefore earned the right to be able to proceed. Thank you.

Thank you. Jeffrey Scott.

Good evening, madam chair, members of the planning commission. So my name is Jeffrey Scott. I'm a special rep representative with the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, and I represent about 600 members who live in the city of Redlands and about 6,000 who live in the county as a whole. So full disclosure, I grew up in the city of Redlands. I was born in community hospital, grew up on foreign for many many many years, but no longer live in the city.

So I'm speaking as a representative, but also as somebody who still spends a lot of time in the community. So one of the things I wanna say is I'm in full support of this project and so are my members. While this project is technically beautiful, I mean, if you look at the renderings, it is is a very well designed project. It also meets the technical specifications of the city ordinance. Not only should we welcome developers who come in and try to do the right thing, but we should applaud them.

Not only does this developer come in and they're trying to make sure that they're addressing all concerns, but they're also making sure that they're meeting the concerns of the city, the community by making sure that there's local skill and training workforces for the contractors that are working on these projects. So what that means is community opportunities for young folks. Part of my representational duties is going out working with these high school CTE programs, career technical education programs throughout the community. So we work with Coleman Renz, Yucaipa, ROP very closely. Projects like this are gonna create opportunities not just for a job for a lot these young people that are graduating, looking for some direction, looking for a principal opportunities, but really a career.

What I always describe construction as a trades as is this is a you're stringing temporary jobs for thirty years together to make a career. Right? This is one of those that's gonna be right in their backyard. They're gonna be able to establish themselves, get their roots out of there, and hopefully be able to stay in the community instead of continuing to chase the, you know, affordable housing further east, you know, Beaumont, Banning, so on. So these are projects that are necessary to community. I know that they might not always be popular in nature, but they provide a lot of great opportunities for career paths. So with that, upon meeting technical specifications, what the ordinance is, I encourage you to approve this project. Thank you.

Thank you. That concludes my speaker slips. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this matter that did not turn in a slip? Seeing none, do we have any comments on Zoom? Okay.

Do we have any written comments that you can summarize for us, please? I don't see any hands raised. If there's anyone who would like to make a comment or has a question on Zoom, please press the raise hand button. Okay. Director, could you please summarize for us any written comments that we may might have received?

I believe that there was, I believe three or four written comments all of whom spoke at the meeting tonight and so I think their written comments are represented already in the record. The one that we received that did not speak was from the Chamber of Commerce who wrote in support of the project.

With that said, I will now close the public hearing for this item. What I would like to do is I'm going to start over on the left, and if we could get feedback from each one of the commissioners. Would it be okay if I address a question with the city attorney before we get started?

Before you go to that part of the meeting could I ask you to reopen and allow the applicant if they want to rebut or make any additional comments after hearing public comment allow them to provide any additional rebuttal or clarifications to what they just heard.

Sure. No problem. I will now reopen the public hearing for this item. Would the applicant like to address any of the comments made? Okay? Very good. Thank you. And I'm sorry about that. I just assumed, and I should have asked you first, so I apologize. Okay. So I will now reclose the public hearing for this item. Could I ask you a question? Sure. Okay. Mr.

Holder, thank well, no, closed hearing. Just to clarify our purview. So city council, we are here to serve the public and definitely take into consideration of the citizens. But our purview is to evaluate what staff has provided us and the rules and the regulations and set forth for that correct. And then if city council would like to address further concerns on whether or not the public wants something that is more in their purview versus ours, is am I understanding that correctly?

Your focus now during deliberation is to focus on the findings for the discretionary permits are being applied for by the applicant so that is your focus for today and it's about considering the evidence that's been presented to you and determining whether the findings can all be met or not met. That's your purview.

Thank you. And I ask that question really just for clarity for everyone's purpose so we so everyone understands that sometimes our job isn't as easy as it looks, and there are things that we do have to consider. So with that said, I'm gonna start with commissioner

So sorry, madam chair. I just wanted to add to that because I think I know where your train of thought's going. So, yes, your your job is to look at what the rules are in the code right now as it stands today in that zone and then evaluate this project based off of the findings as the city attorney mentioned that need to be made on whether or not to approve the project. That is your strict criteria. Policy decisions are on that have to do with is a use okay here or not. Those are matters that go to the city council, and that's already been set for this area. So you're working off the rules that have already been preset for this area, if that answers your question more expansively.

Absolutely. I I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page. So so in other words, sometimes we might not like something, but that that's not what we're here to do. So we're here to evaluate the the standards set forth, like you said, and that's what we're we're here to deliberate on. Alright? Okay. Thank you. Alright. Commissioner Stanson, I'm gonna start with you, and we're just gonna go down this way and provide our feedback, and then we'll go from there.

I think that Prologis did a wonderful job on making some changes to the project. I'd like the truck routes. I think they've taken they fixed a lot of the problems working with the school. I think they've met all the obligations that they need to to move this project forward.

Thank you.

Commissioner Wells.

Yeah. I actually do feel that architecture helps contribute to a community sense of place and public health. So I do appreciate that ProLogistix took so many of our comments last time around, and came back with a product that I think is much more, visually appropriate for the area. And, I also appreciate again the truck routing, exhibit that we have here. I still I still have concerns about truck traffic, but not necessarily specific to that, to the project. I think that they've answered that question for us here. Other than that, they've met our standards, and they've also been subject to a b 98 based on their filing date as I understand. So I'm comfortable moving forward.

Okay. I will go ahead and go next. And I will say that I was not here for the original hearing, so I I don't have all the original information other than the parts that I was able to rewatch. But for me, the commission spent a lot of time putting together the moratorium on warehouses and the standards put forth after that for which ones were accepted, and I think that needs to be respected. School safety is a big one for me, so thank you very much for taking the time to work with the school.

I know it wasn't required and for addressing those issues. I kind of I like commissioner Wells, I still have truck traffic concerns, but they aren't the problem of this project. I do appreciate all the work that you did, and and that's where I stand for now. I know when we get to commissioner l Elliot, we can talk more about the the landscaping possible concern vice chair Inslee I

actually have a slightly different opinion I think that I do appreciate some of the architectural changes setback increases even if only slight the reduction of square footage of the property. But I also agree with the comment we heard earlier, how much of this has changed. And so in reviewing the findings that we made last time, and that's where I continue to drive to, is I'm asking myself with the findings we made then, can I make or this any new findings now? And I'm coming up short. Some of those findings that we had, and we haven't aside from one public comment, we haven't really talked about the other sensitive receptors or even other developments in the area, right, the schools, the other commercial and office related developments that we have there and and the scale and nature of this this project still.

Even though the square footage on the floor might be the same as what exists, it's going to be essentially twice the height of the existing buildings. So relative to other developments in the area, I don't feel that it will conform. I think it'll stand out like a sore thumb, even landscaping that we have there. So that is a deep concern of mine. I already mentioned some of my concerns with the traffic studies or and the methods in which we do have to go through those.

And while we are bringing truck traffic off of State Street and putting it into the into the warehouse property primarily, we're still going to see an increase even if it's only slight. It's still as we heard from the applicant, there will be an increase in traffic that that we currently have. So I it sounds to me that there is evidence that's gonna demonstrate additional traffic and congestion at those at those intersections and at the railroad crossings. Hopefully, the railroad crossings won't have an issue as we just heard. The last thing I'll say is something that Commissioner Elliott brought up, which was the monitoring of the idling.

And I think some of us even up here tend to agree that's an exceptionally hard thing to do. We can put signs up and it could be well within or against the codes that exist in the city and we could issue fines or worse to the applicant, the question that is unanswered is, how do we monitor? And I have not heard that. And with sensitive receptors like schools that are adjacent, even though there might not be traffic on state, there's still emissions from these from these trucks. And so I'm left unsatisfied and that we have a proper mitigation for the pollution of idling trucks.

So I'm still really going back to the same findings or lack thereof that we had last time I can't support the project

thank you commissioner Elliott

thank you first wanted to thank staff for a really well done staff report analysis that made this project much easier to digest. I was not on the planning commission at the time that the prior project was heard, so this is my first go with this one. I also wanted to thank mister Boatman and mister Desatnik and city attorney for the legal primer that we were given in advance of the meeting which was also helpful. And thank you for the public who attended and who wrote letters. Your testimony on both sides of the project helps us make informed decisions.

Wasn't lost on me that when I was was reviewing this packet, our air quality index in Redlands was a 198 and it was unhealthy for anyone to go outside and it had been in that unhealthy range for several days prior to that. It made some interesting context while reviewing the staff report and I think like many here, warehouse is something that maybe we're not jumping through hoops to see. But that said, I spent a lot of time thinking about the conditional use permit and the commission review and approval. I've heard a lot of comments saying, well, the project meets all of the requirements, it should be approved. Well, if that is the case, that'd be a ministerial permit and it wouldn't be ahead of the Planning Commission if it can just check boxes and get a permit.

So that means we need to put special emphasis on reviewing the findings. The findings for the conditional use permit and I'll kind of summarize where I am with each of those. That the project wouldn't adversely affect the land use plans, Keeping in mind that our city government and leadership with the planning commission determined that there were six sites that they felt would be appropriate for this type of land use. In that context, I don't feel that this project would adversely affect our land use plans. That the project would not be detrimental to the public health and safety.

And I think this is one that we all wrestle with to some extent. Just knowing anecdotally cumulatively the effect that this industry has had on our air basin. That said, we currently have a building that was built in 1965, it's not energy efficient, it is currently operating with the proposed use. If we could replace this building with something that's more modern and has more efficient use of energy, I believe that could be more beneficial to our community. The third finding is that the project would comply with the regulations that we have and that appears to be the case.

And lastly, that it's appropriate at the proposed location and this goes back to finding one with our city leadership deciding what the parameters would be for future warehouse locations. If we deny this project, we run the risk of being stuck with the older building and sure there may be market pressures for that building to go away and become something else. It might also just languish and we're stuck with this not very attractive building. I often wonder what would happen with logistics industry if we see this industry ever fade or become diminished. What do we do with all these empty cubes?

I'm optimistic that a more modern empty cube would be easier to adaptively reuse than an old one. So I guess with that said, I am generally in support of this project. It doesn't come lightly but I do feel that we're putting an existing use within a more modern building within the same footprint and under that context I feel comfortable finding or making the findings for the conditional use permit.

Thank you. Is there any other comments from the commission? Commissioner Stanson.

I I do I do have an issue with the the landscaping in the back in the parking lot, though. I mean, I I really think that there needs to be some trees back there, but that's the only thing I have against it. I don't know if that's something we can do anything about.

Yep. Would you be comfortable with us administratively working with the applicant so we could condition it but you could give the discretion to staff to work with them on increasing the rear landscaping? Would that be acceptable?

That would be acceptable to me.

Just clarifying that that landscaping is tree canopy and not ground cover.

Tree canopy.

Yes. Perfect.

If we're adding a condition, we'd like to get some language to add to the resolution or I'm sorry to the conditions of approval. Is Yes. Staff ready to do that? Need some time?

May need a second unless there's suggested language for that.

That's your wheelhouse, sir.

We're leaving it to you. I'd just like to see some language in there that says they're gonna add some trees, you know, per your discretion that we get some So when take some of the heat off the parking lot.

In the past, I'm not sure if the city attorney is comfortable with this or not, but in the past, we've just said as amended, and then they don't necessarily change the conditions of approval on-site. Correct? Isn't that how we've done it in the past?

Not necessarily. So Okay. You may say as amended in the when you're speaking of the motion.

Okay.

But there's a condition that gets changed and is included in the resolution that has a specific text in there, might say something along the lines of the applicant shall work with staff to increase the tree coverage on the west side of the building to provide additional shade coverage or something along those lines.

To be reviewed and approved by the development services director.

That sounds like good enough for me.

That's beautiful.

Okay. We'll add that as a condition of approval.

Thank you. Could you please

Is there any other changes or modifications to the existing conditions that are attached to the resolution?

No. Seeing none, could you please bring the motion up on the screen? You can't?

I haven't.

I think they changed it though so let's give it a second because we amended it. Yeah.

I move to adopt resolution number 17O7 to adopt a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the proposed project, approved the sino economic cost benefit study, approved the conditional use use permit number 12O6, approved conditional review and approval number 975. Gotta get my glasses done. Approve light light merger number O12

so now would include the additional condition that will be that staff had articulated on the record

as amended as amended do I have a second second okay it has been moved by commissioner Sanson and commission and seconded by commissioner Wells to approve commission conditional use permit number 1206 and commission review and approval number 975 for the property located at 301 Tennessee Street and I'm gonna go one by one and ask each commissioner for their vote commissioner Stanson yes commissioner Wells aye vice chair Ensley opposed commissioner Elliott Yes. I don't need to vote, right? So I'm okay. You want me to? Sure.

Okay. So usually just do the tiebreakers. I am in favor of the project. So motion carries, and congratulations. Thank you. Moving on to item number six, announcements and commissioner comments. Do we have any? Commissioner Wells.

Yeah. Thank you. We talked a lot about truck traffic, today, this evening, and I had a conversation earlier today with mister Jasatnik about, the visibility as we approach our railroad crossings. I had forgotten that we had truck routes, honestly, before coming tonight. I was thinking we were doing the a v 98 ones.

But for the ones that are established, I'm glad to see that Tennessee doesn't have anything northbound. But I am concerned that Alabama does have that northbound, and we have had fatalities not necessarily linked to trucks. But I think there's a little more visibility there northbound just because of the there's a bit of a slope. But I'm just curious or hopeful maybe that someone is monitoring kind of those it's not necessarily the truck trips in town, but the fact that the trucks are so much larger than cars that as you're coming to these intersections that have a railroad crossing on the other side, it can be difficult for those drivers to gauge with that truck in front of them how much room they might have. And so I just wanted to kind of raise that issue in town and hopefully either someone at the city or maybe SBCTA is kind of evaluating those items.

And that's it. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Yes. So

I also had a great discussion with director Dasatnik on the socioeconomic cost benefit studies and the model that we use. And I guess I just wanted to talk about it on the record. How do we use the socioeconomic study as a tool when making our decisions? How much weight do we give it? And kind of in that understanding that our model is very dated the numbers that we get out of the model what they're probably accurate and what direction the project is going but we don't really know what the number number is I'd like to make a suggestion a recommendation that the model be updated to show just the our current city costs current revenue streams for instance there's the new warehouse or newer warehouse tax right or business license fee and that's not currently accounted for within our model and that would have shown up on the item.

I wanted to thank you for the conversation and also for helping me do some of that back of the envelope math to kind of true up what we were thinking the cost ratio would be.

Yeah, actually we've talked about that quite a bit at staff level and we support the need to update that study. So it's just not one of those things that's been a high priority, but we can I think we need to make it a higher priority so we'll look into that

okay I've said this many times before but just a reminder I will not be here on July 8 vice chair Ensley will be here Okay? Any other comments? Okay. Item number seven, directors update Mr. Zasanek.

So, talking about agendas, I would like to poll everybody just briefly. Is anyone else not going to be here on July 8 or the twenty second?

I'll be here on the twenty second.

I will not be here on the twenty second.

You will not? Okay. We have a number of items. We have five or six items scheduled for July. One of which is the bringing back that discussion of where to go with the warehouse. And we were planning to do that July 8, but we could move it to July 22. I

guess we'll Whatever you're

figure out. We'll we'll make that call. Beyond that, I don't have anything else to report at this time.

Okay. Item number eight, adjournment. We will adjourn to the next regular meeting date of 07/08/2025.