Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the the Redlands Planning Commission meeting for 08/12/2025. We do have a quorum present. Are there any matters are there any public comments on matters not on today's agenda? I believe I have two speaker slips. I will start with Susan Leonard. Welcome, Susan.

Yeah. My first answer is really fast. It's about dump trucks on a Redland Street. I I I don't quite understand it. They're degrading the streets. Fern is already I live in Fern. It's really hard graded by these dump trucks. They're all over. It looks like they're like cones, and then they're separated by the steel. And there are two of them, and they're dumping, I guess, or picking up dirt. Okay. We don't need them on our streets. They're all on our streets. They should get a surface tax by the city, and the city should be redoing all the streets. What are they doing on our streets?

Okay. So we don't need a warehouse built where the La Z Boy company was on 11 acres. It's not good for the businesses. Went to the businesses of Burgessons today, Simply Toyota, and Cyclery, and they don't want it. It's just going to get worse. It's worse than La Z Boy. 85 trucks a day, they're spewing diesel fuel. That's a potential for particulate matter in children's lungs. It's deep it embeds deep into their lungs. It's cancer causing.

They're just growing. Their physical, you know, lungs have not matured. So it's going to be wreak havoc on their health and also produce, you know, serious effects of health like asthma and other lung diseases. So I was not was not notified by by ProLogic that they're intending to build a warehouse on Tennessee. I only found it after the fact when the council voted no the first time.

I live on Fern. However, I travel on San Mateo in Tennessee quite a few days, several days several times a day sometimes. Anyway, and I don't want to wish to have pollution in my city or density in that area from a 185,000 square foot warehouse. We don't need that in Redlands. It should have been built somewhere else, and it's not too late. You can exchange it for other land on the other side of the freeway. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Linda is it Armando? Linda? At Matt. At Matt. Okay. I apologize. Welcome.

I'd like to speak to this warehouse issue. I want to tell you I did spend some email time with Principal Bell today because I'm not speaking for Redlands Christian even though we have a grandchild there, even though we make that right hand turn from state to Tennessee five days a week in the afternoon, even though we put our lives in danger at that intersection. Because the people that are picking up at the middle school make their line, and then you have to figure out how you go around their line to turn right to advance down or up Tennessee, even though there is a traffic concern there already. My concern was, first of all, I did not understand why our public newspapers didn't have the schools speak to this. Where were they?

Why were they not expressing to the community their concern? And this is what I got from Principal Bell this afternoon. We were already dealing with the issues that may be of concern with you. And because there had been a warehouse there already, there was nothing we could do to mitigate the issues. By working with a potential new project, we were able to address some of the biggest issues, that being trucks that are idling on state.

And I didn't realize we don't see those in the morning. And so they were already dealing with diesel fumes, supporting hazardous waste cleanup from a previous owner, and improving traffic flows. And so that's a big curiosity to me. How is that going to be handled? As a member of Trinity's Creation Care group, my other concern is air quality. And I did bring that up to Principal Bell. What are you going to do about air quality? And who is really going to get it is going to be the Adventist school.

And he said, we are investing in air quality

those things that test air quality. But you can test in the classroom. It's very difficult to tell what it is on the outside. So I just think this whole idea is it's a choking idea. And it's going to be choking traffic. It's going to be choking their lungs. For us, we use Tennessee. We don't use Alabama. It's too busy. So I don't know how maybe you'll have to use Ford. But 82 trucks does make a difference in your air quality. Therefore, I would hope we would rethink this. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other speakers here for matters not on today's agenda? Okay. Seeing none, I would just like to tell you that thank you very much for coming out, and we definitely hear you. Unfortunately, for the Planning Commission, our purview is over. The appeal time is also over, but I know that you had some really good questions that I believe that some measures were mitigated. So if you contact the city manager's office, I'm sure someone will sit down and explain those to you. But thank you for coming out, and and we definitely hear you. We we had some of the same concerns, and we did the best we could on this project. Thank you.

Moving on to item number two, presentations. We don't have any. Item number three, consent calendar, meeting minutes of 07/22/2025. Are there any questions or comments about the minutes from the commissioners seeing none do I have a motion to approve the consent calendar I mean the consent the meeting minutes

I motion we move to approve the meeting minutes

Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay. It has been moved by Commissioner Sanson and second by Commissioner Smith to approve the meeting minutes. All in favor?

Aye. Any

opposed? Motion carries.

All abstain.

Okay. And one abstention. Okay. Moving on to item number five, new business five a. Five a is request for revision to approved plan residential development and continual use permit to change the house models and landscape plan for the subdivision located at the East Side Of Texas Street and 500 feet north of Domestic Avenue. 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 Sean Reilly. Mister Reilly.

Thank you, chair, members of the commission. The applicant is proposing to revise the home models, architectural elevations, landscaping, and walls and fences for Track 20520 and conditional use permit 1167. This is a previously approved project located on the East Side Of Texas Street approximately 500 feet north of Domestic Avenue. No changes to the number of lots, lot configuration, or open space are proposed. For some background, on 10/03/2023, the city council approved the tentative track map and conditional use permit for 35 lot subdivision and related site improvements.

Following this approval, the property was sold to the current applicant who is proposing these changes. The site's recently been rough graded and the city council has approved the final map on July 15. As I mentioned, the applicants requesting to revise the plotting and the architectural elevations. The revised plotting reflects changes to the floor plans, and this exhibit shows the plotting and the setbacks as well as the architectural style for each lot. It shows the setbacks as well as, like I said, the architectural styles of the models.

You can see here there's a similar number of each architectural style and each model spread throughout the project. Within the RE District, a 25 foot front yard setback and a 25 foot rear yard setback are required, and 10 foot side yard setbacks are required. The project meets those setback requirements. In addition, the project meets all of the lot coverage and building height requirements as well as other development standards for the planned residential development CUP, which is what they are revising today. The original conditional use permit included Spanish, cottage, and modern seaside architectural styles.

The applicant is requesting to remove the cottage and modern seaside styles and replace them with prairie and farm house styles, which they feel are more suitable to the current market in the area. The proposed elevations have been designed to be more compatible with the architectural styles or that are found in the adjacent developments, such as the Bergamot development that's located to the west of this project and other projects to the south of this. The exterior materials generally consist of stucco, concrete tile roofing, wood board, siding, stucco window trims, and fiber cement siding, as well as other accents. There are three floor plans. Each floor plan has these three architectural styles, and this is the first, and they're they're similar.

As you'll see, this is the second. And this is the third floor plan. Revisions to approved, the project's conceptual landscape plan included gingko biloba trees in all of the front yards with Engleman Oaks and rosy trumpet trees for street trees. Revised plans include purple fern leaf acacia trees in the front yards. Street trees include Chinese fringe and red flowering gum gum trees, which are consistent with what the FCS department or facilities and community services department will accept for the street trees.

The park is originally approved, included native landscaped areas and a tot lot play area. The tot lot was located on the northernmost part of the common open space area, north of the Santa Ana River Trail. The revised moves the tot lot to the south of the trail, and the native natural landscaping area is to the north of the trail now along the bluffs of the project. Open space areas within the park now include citrus trees, coastal live oak, Chinese flame trees, California sickle mores, and Engelman Oaks. There are some changes to the wall and fence plan over what was originally proposed.

The original proposed project included slump stone walls throughout as perimeter walls and between the homes for side and rear walls. The slump stone walls are no longer proposed between the homes or behind the homes. They are now proposing to use tan vinyl fencing between the homes. This proposal again is similar to what is in place within Bergamot to the West and other projects to the South. Revised plan does not excuse me, does include retaining walls and combination walls, which were not previously proposed.

The combination walls proposed along the eastern side of the project varying height from six feet to approximately 10 feet six inches. In these locations, an approximately four foot tall retaining wall is required, and there is a six foot tall garden wall on top of them. Other wall and fence changes within the project include the addition of vinyl split rail fencing adjacent to the trail and a short retaining wall also adjacent to the trail on the northeast side of the project. Mitigated negative declaration was previously approved for the project, and no further environmental document is needed pursuant to section one five one six two of the CEQA guidelines related to this project. Apologize there.

Staff is recommending approval of the project. And if the Planning Commission deems it appropriate, staff recommends the following motion and that concludes the staff presentation

thank you does anyone have any questions for staff at this time commissioner Elliot

thank you mister Riley could you clarify where the sorry the tubular steel fence would be located is that gonna be to the rear of the individual lots

it is not the tubular steel fence that you see here is gonna be the green and that's gonna be primarily around the basin area.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff at this time? Okay. Does the applicant have a presentation or just here to answer questions? Okay. Perfect. Okay, we're going to move on to public comments, and I will start with Rick Rush from Tri Pointe Homes. Oh, that's you. Okay. Well, if you don't have a presentation, that's okay. That's for 5B. Is there anyone in the audience here to speak on this matter? Okay. Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing for this item and turn it over to the commissioners for deliberations and findings. Who wants to go first?

I have a question. How come Okay. Staff Sean, how come we're going to vinyl fences versus the slumpstone? I mean, it doesn't seem like vinyl fences last very long, and they kind of start looking bad after a couple of years. Aren't we better off by having something a little bit more substantial between all the homes versus vinyl?

This is this is what the applicant is requesting. Is that change there? So there the it's at the commission's pleasure what they'd like to approve here.

I'm just not happy with vinyl. That's all. I'm sorry. I just think it's I I think it's just on a nice project that it cheapens it, and it make it degrades it over the long run because the vinyl just doesn't hold up. I don't know what the rest of the commissioners think, but that's that's my 2¢.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Smith.

Well, it's funny. Wasn't looking at the fencing, but now I am. No. But in reality, the change in the floor plan, I didn't see any problem with that. Think it's fine.

Anyone else? Commissioner Elliott. Sure. I'll chime in.

First, sorry. One more question for staff. Will this project be subject to a homeowners association?

Yes. There is a homeowners association.

Okay in that case commissioner Stanson I think that alleviates some of my concern about just fences maintaining over time if there's an HOA I think that would likely be enforced and I think at the same time it helps us move the ball forward a little bit on trying to keep homes a little more affordable where we can. I also appreciate the change in the architectural elevations. I do agree I think they fit with the community a little better than perhaps a seaside elevation.

I agree with you. I think you're right.

Thank you.

Okay. Can you please bring the motion up on the screen? Would someone like to make a motion?

I move the Planning Commission at resolution number 1712 and approve revision number one to conditional use permit number 1167.

Second.

Okay. It has been moved by commissioner Stanson and seconded by commissioner Smith to approve revision number one for conditional use permit number 1167. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Moving on to item five b. Five b is a request for approval of a conditional use permit to establish and operate a veterinarian medical office and clinic with in the Plaza Las Palmas shopping center located at 1150 Brookside Avenue, and I will now open the public hearing for this item. Has any commissioner had any ex parte communications with the applicant regarding this item?

Okay. I have one thing to disclose. A fellow realtor friend of mine is not the applicant called me to just ask some generalized questions about the process, and then I recommended that she call a city planner, and that was the extent of our conversation. Staff presentation by Jasmine Serrato. Miss Serrato?

Thank you, chair and members of the commission. This is CUP twelve twelve. The applicant is Animal House. The applicant is requesting to establish a veterinary clinic within an existing 3,160 square foot tenant space located at 1150 Brookside Avenue, Unit U. The highlighted area in red is the location of the tenant space in which the proposed use is to take place.

The subject site has a general plan land use designation as commercial, which designates areas for the development of a wide range of commercial uses. The proposed non bordering veterinary clinic is consistent with the intent of the commercial designation and with the surrounding uses. The project site is located within the neighborhood convenience center C2 District. And as you can see here, it's completely surrounded by residential uses. So veterinary clinics are not listed as a permitted use within the zoning district which is the C 2.

However, Renlins Municipal Code 18.120.05 allows for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council an unlisted use to be be permitted if it's deemed similar to a listed use. In the C2 District, medical clinics with the approval of the CUP are allowed. And although not defined in the municipal code, medical offices and clinics encompass several practices such as dentistry, ophthalmology, and physicians. This may be similar to a veterinary clinic providing several medical services but for domestic animals. A medical clinic had also been established in that unit, Unit U, since 2013 and they just recently moved out within the year or so.

Due to the location's previous use as a medical clinic, the existing layout is ideal for the establishment of a vet clinic. No tenant improvements are proposed, however permits will be required as conditioned by the building and safety division for medical gas systems and vet x-ray units. The existing floor plan will provide vet service rooms, general administrative sections and two restrooms. The clinic will operate Monday through Friday from 8AM to 6PM and Saturday from 8AM to 4PM. They will be closed on Sundays. The number of employees will be five per shift and services provided will range between wellness exams, vaccinations,

pharmacy services, x rays, surgeries, and other

services general vet clinic services. And I'd like to emphasize that no overnight boarding will be provided. The parking ratio for the neighborhood commercial center as a whole is one space per each 200 square feet of growth floor area. The multi tenant shopping center of 44,111 square feet is required to supply provide 294 on-site. The proposal is not increasing the building area and therefore the shopping center will continue to exceed the minimum parking requirements.

Here we have the southwest view of the subject suite And here we have the front entry area. The findings for a commission determination are shown here and are generally related to the suitability of the proposed use in relation to the zoning. The justification for each one of these is contained within the resolution for reference. And then here we have the findings for a conditional use permit which are related to site suit ability for the proposed use regarding zoning, general plan designation, and the surroundings as well. Similar, the justification for each of these is also found in the resolution.

Proposed project also meets the criteria to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to section one five three zero one for existing facilities as it applies to a change of operation within an existing facility. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 1716 and resolution number seventeen seventeen to approve commission determination number 66 and CUP twelve twelve based on the analysis and findings in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval. If deemed appropriate, then following motion is on screen and the applicant is also available. Thank you.

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

Thank you for

the presentation. Question on, I noticed that since there's no exterior improvements and there's no exterior landscaping proposed, what is the plan for where the dogs will relieve themselves so that it's not in the parking lot? If that's a better question for the applicant that's fine too.

Yeah, the proposal includes all of the used to be within the existing building but they can kind of really answer that operational question. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff at this time? Can the applicant join us please? Welcome.

Hi.

If you guys could please introduce yourself and then if you could address commissioner walls this question that would be great my

name is Jamie Shelton this is Chasmus Joe my partner we are the founders and employees of arribia's animal house as as your concerning question we will be using bottom cages so if there is urine or defecation it will go through the the false bottom cage able to clean.

I just worry about folks that are maybe arriving there before they get in if they've had a drive for a few minutes just as long as I just wanna make sure that those planters and walkways and parking spaces not going to be utilized for emergencies, I guess.

We have dedicated to make a plan and train our staff to be able to do routine maintenance on the outside of the structure so we can keep it clean and odor free.

Any other questions for the

you'd probably wash or walk the dog have the people walk the dogs on the grass in the front? Right.

There's a very plush green area there with trees and stuff.

I live in the area and I'm I think it's wonderful that you guys are gonna go there. It's great for the animals in the neighborhood.

Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay then we will move on to public comment I have a speaker slip here from you did you want to share something else with us

and we do have a couple of speakers the only other thing I'd like to address is far as the community wise, we would wanna work in, collaboration with the city of Redlands Shelter and also the police and fire, department because they do have canine units. Also, the police department when emergency arises with an animal they have no dedicated area to take the animals in emergency so we would like to be able to help the community out and the animal to be able to designate that for them.

Thank you okay thank you very much so that takes care of that speaker slip we will move on to Ryan I'm not doing well today is it Steinmons? Steinhouse Steinhouse

You call me whatever

you want. Yeah.

It's me, not you.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Ryan Steinhouse. I'm a longtime resident here in Redlands. And I'd like to take a moment to speak on behalf of my friend Jamie Shelton, who is seeking to open a veterinary clinic here in Redlands. Jamie has been working in the veterinary field for as long as I can remember, consistently demonstrating not only professionalism but expertise, but also a deep genuine passion for animal care and their well-being.

Opening a clinic has been a long term long standing dream of hers, and she has worked tirelessly over the years to bring all the pieces together to make this dream a reality. She's gained experience in a variety of settings, building a strong reputation for delivering compassionate high quality care for both pets and their owners like myself. More more my wife than myself, but still, I have a I have no doubt that her clinic will be a valuable asset to our community offering essential services and contributing positively to the city of Redlands. I truly believe that her dedication, work ethic, and love for animals will make her business a welcome and lasting part of our city. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Tabitha Johnson. I got that one right. Welcome.

Hi. Thank you. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Tabitha Johnson, and I serve as a professor at Crafton Hills Community College and director of outreach at La Sierra University. I have a master's in counseling, and I'm currently working on a PhD.

And I am a volunteer for RedVosa, working to help them with any PR. So today I'm trying to speak on their behalf to support this project. Redlands is home to approximately 74,000 residents. And in California, about 57.2% of households own at least one pet, with dogs representing around 40.1% of those households, and cats about 22.9%. Given the size of our city, that suggests thousands of local families rely on veterinary services.

Yet despite this need, no comparable animal hospital facility like the one being proposed today exists within our area. Similarly, affordability is becoming an increasing barrier. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices to veterinary services are now 287.9% higher than they were in 1997, reflecting an average of 4.96% increase per year. And ultimately, these trends highlight why many pet owners, especially those with limited financial flexibility, postpone or forgo necessary veterinary care. Arrivia's mission is to provide not only affordable services, but as you'll see in their proposal, highly accessible services through location, transportation, and creative measures of access, as you might have heard or read in their presentation or will hear from others.

Approximately six to 8,000,000 animals enter The US shelters annually. And unfortunately, three to 4,000,000 are euthanized, including many healthy and adoptable pets. Affordable veterinary services like those Arrivia proposes can significantly reduce shelter intake and euthanasia rates, particularly through accessible spayneuter programs and early treatment interventions. The Redlands Animal Shelter having another closely located veterinary service option could potentially benefit our city budget, the health of our beloved pets who come in and out of the shelter to join our loving homes. And since we've already addressed the location, I won't go into that.

But ultimately, I want to say that Arrivia's animal house is not merely a clinic. It is a community lifeline by responding to demonstrable demand, alleviating financial barriers, reducing shelter strain, and strengthening the mental and social fabric of Redlands, it embodies compassionate, forward thinking service. And I'm honored to support this vision and thank the council for considering this proposal.

Thank you. Brian Gallagher. Welcome.

Good afternoon.

It's gonna be tough to speak after mister Steinman and Tabitha. Those are excellent points. My name is Ryan Gallagher. Born and raised in Redlands. Still work in Redlands. Live here. Grew up with both Chaz and Jamie. Very, very good friends, but also professionally, they've done a great job of creating this. They both have come from a long standing understanding of veterinary services, and I think that this is gonna be a great addition to Redlands. Being that they are Redlands born and and and from the area, I think it's great that we we keep on promoting that for businesses in in the local area.

My family has a business in town, has for many, many years, and it's a great kind of loyalty to our our citizens. And I think that that's positive. And then the spot that it's looking that they're looking at doing is is great as well. I don't know what you unless you subdivide it up, I don't know what you'd be able to stick in there. So I think it's a great location. And living in that area, this is definitely really, really a great thing. I'm not as prepared and eloquent as the rest, but I did wanna just come up here and speak my support. But thank you very much, and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Okay. Are there any other speakers here on this matter without a speaker slip? Janine. Welcome. Please introduce yourself and go ahead.

Thank you so much. My name is Janine Nielsen, and, I am a resident of Redlands for twenty eight years and a small business owner for twenty eight years in the city of Redlands and also a realtor. And I'm here to speak on behalf and in favor of what is going on here. I also work with many nonprofits or animal welfare organizations, including Red Fossa, Guardian Angel Pet Rescue and The Rescue World. And I sit on multiple nonprofits where we rescue animals.

I've had an amazing pleasure to be able to work with both Jamie and Chaz probably for about fourteen years. And so very grateful for the services that they offer. It's been a big loss to not have a local clinic that offers the high volume, low cost, very assessable care for these animals, especially when they are shelter animals or there are animals that are hurt on the streets. We rescue personally about three fifty animals a year. Many of those come from Redlands.

And many times we have to look for low cost services that are outside of the area, including Riverside, Ontario and as far as way as San Diego County. We do, do a lot of fundraising to offer free or low cost pay and neuter services and hand vouchers to local low income residents. And we look very much forward to offering them spay and neuter services, vaccine services locally here in Redlands where we can work with some fantastic individuals, that have been around and know the residents and know the animals. So I speak in favor, and I hope you do too.

Thank you. Any any written

We have not received any written comments.

Well, will now close the public hearing for this item. And thank you, everyone, who came out for such great support for this project. Commissioners, deliberations, findings, questions. Yes.

Chair, can I ask a question for clarification? So the application for business hours described basically Monday through Saturday. And our based on that information, our proposed condition number one states that regular business hours should be from 7AM to 9PM daily, but just heard the applicant explain a desire to accept emergency patients after hours potentially. And so if if the commission is amenable to allowing that, we should probably add a sentence explaining that, clarifying that emergency patients would be permitted after regular business hours.

So when we get to the point of a motion if someone would like you can ask questions first but then go ahead and amend that in. Any questions for staff at this time or thoughts? Anything?

I don't have any questions, but I think you've staff's done a great presentation. I think it's definitely a a very good use for the neighborhood. And I think it being a medical facility, in an old medical facility, and the reason the TIs, I think that that's wonderful. And I'm very supportive of the project.

Anyone else? Commissioner Ambusk.

No, I was just going to

say I agree. And unless there's objections, I'm happy to make the motion as with the amended condition. Okay. Alright. So I move that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number one seven one six and resolution number one seven one seven to find the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to sections one five three zero one of the CEQA guidelines, recommend that the city council approve commission determination number 66 classifying veterinary clinics with no overnight boarding as a conditionally permitted use within the neighborhood convenience center c two district based on the findings provided in the staff report and approve conditional use permit number 1212 based on the findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval with the modified hours of operation.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay. So moved by commissioner Wells, seconded by commissioner Stanson to approve conditional permit number 1212. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. Okay. Moving on to item number five c. Item five c is a request for approval of tentative track map number two zero six four five and commission review and approval for a single family subdivision with 11 lots on 4.3 acres located at the Northeast corner of Texas Street and Pioneer Avenue, and I will now open the public hearing for this item.

Has any commissioner had any ex parte communications with the applicant on this item? Seeing none, staff presentation by Jasmine Serrato. Miss Serrato?

Thank you chair and members of the commission again. This is commission review and approval number nine seventy tentative track map 20,645. The applicant proposes to develop a vacant site through the subdivision of a 4.3 acre parcel into 11 residential lots for single family homes and two lettered lots. The project site is located at the Northeast Corner Of Texas Street and Pioneer Avenue with a proposed access point via Texas Street leading to the Cul De Sac Street. The site is located within the very low density residential land use designation which is intended to develop at a density of 2.7 dwelling units per acre with detached single family residences.

The zone is designated within the RE residential district. However, the project has been reviewed to comply with the R1 single family district which I will explain why later. And this is similar to those applied to the South and east single family developments. So some background information in 02/2008, CUP 09/26 and tentative track map 17022 were approved by the Planning Commission for the approval of a planned residential development for single family residential lots, was then revised in 2016 to change the landscaping and reduce minimum side yard setbacks. The map was finalized and recorded in 2017.

However, the applicant is reconfiguring the site and since then Senate Bill three thirty is in effect which allows projects to develop in conformance with their general plan designation regardless of zoning at the time. In this case, the single family r one district development standards have been applied rather than the R E District to the difference in minimum lot size requirements. The RE requires a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet, whereas the R 1 has a requirement of 7,200 square feet. This essentially would allow the project to achieve the 2.7 unit per acre density without the need for a zone change. The proposed tentative track map would subdivide the property into 11 single family lots varying in size but overall conforming to the development standards of the R 1 District.

It also includes two lettered lots designated for perimeter landscaping and a stormwater drainage basin. Primary access to the site will be from Texas Street into Alana Court where individual driveways are provided for a lot access. Once completed Pioneer Avenue, Texas Street and Alana Court will all be fully improved with new curb gutter, sidewalks, and parkway landscaping. Each of the 11 single family detached homes is located on an individual lot with an average lot size of 9,636 square feet. Each lot complies with the development standards of the R 1 District including setbacks, coverage, and height.

Five variations of a neoclectic ranch architectural style are proposed. The architectural style blends the classic single story ranch layout and gabled roofs with variations and facade treatments including stone veneers, stucco, and vertical mat and vinyl siding. The conceptual landscaping plan also includes a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees as part of the lettered lots, residential lots, and parkways. Along Pioneer Avenue, the nine existing trees will remain protected in place. And along Texas Street and Alana Court, new street trees will be planted along the parkway.

Common landscaped areas and lettered lots in the interior of the development will be required to be maintained by a homeowners associate association. Three front yard typical landscape plans were provided and a broad range of tree shrubs and ground cover are provided within the plant palette for the home of each front yard. The proposed project will result in an annual revenue totaling $16,904 and annual cost totaling $7,392 which will result in a positive cost benefit ratio 2.29. The proposed project meets the listed criteria here to qualify for exemption from environmental review pursuant to section 15,332 for infill development projects of the CEQA guidelines. Retentive track maps, there are a total of seven findings.

The findings are generally related to site suitability regarding the location, surroundings, and the overall public effect of the subdivision. The proposal meets the findings and justification is contained within resolution. Here we have the findings for a commission review and approval related to site suitability regarding size and surroundings as well. And similarly, the justification is also contained within the resolution. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 1715 to approve commission review and approval number 970, tentative track map number 20645, and the associated socioeconomic cost benefit study based on the analysis and findings in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval if deemed appropriate the following motion is provided on screen this concludes staff presentation the applicant is available for any questions

Thank you. Questions for staff at this time. Commissioner Stanson.

Taxi Street is gonna get will be fixed because right in that area, it kind of narrows, and there's some issues. But can can it be done with those trees still in place? I'm I'm trying to see a map or a a drawing of the street layout, but there isn't showing anything on how the existing trees and the street's gonna lay out.

So so Texas Street will be getting new trees.

Oh, so the so those massive big trees will be cut will be taken out?

It it it's gonna essentially widen the road, so they would have to remove the trees on Texas. There are existing trees on Pioneer Avenue, but I do not believe there are any in Texas.

No. But through I was actually, I was worried about the more worried about the ones on Pioneer than on Texas.

No. So the ones on Pioneer will not be removed. They will be protected in place.

I can address this issue. There's a special designation for Pioneer. The Diedor trees that are there to now become where the median of Texas of Pioneer will be, and the eastbound lane or the westbound lanes will be on the north side of the trees. The intersection has already been laid out to accommodate that with the signal that went in, and it'll just require a completion by the city from this property's boundary to the east where the developer built their portion five years ago, six years ago. It was a special layout for Pioneer that was done, and a lot of this is because of the additional traffic generated because of the high school and to that intersection being signalized.

And Lennar was the one who put in the signal at that location.

Yeah. Just after riding my bike through there yesterday during school load in time, it was it's so tight, and it's and I just was wondering how we're gonna deal with widening that. Now I understand it. We're gonna go around the trees.

Conception would be two lanes in each direction.

Two lanes in each direction, but it's only for that short area. Right? Or how far back does the two lanes go?

If you see the images on the screen, it'll be continuing to the east there 800 feet, a thousand feet.

Okay.

Like that. Because you have this development that went in with is that what's the name of the street? Clementine. Castlegate. So going over to Clementine, the full width of that. So if you next time you're out there on your bike, if you take a look, you'll actually see where the layout that Lennar built, and it's just been sanded in so that

because there's Look at it tomorrow.

There's no place to drive there yet, but it would ultimately end up being a capital to finish it.

Well,

there there wouldn't there wouldn't be a requirement on any developer to do that because it goes across multiple multiple areas, areas that were already developed. This is a solution that was come up with, approved by the council.

When would the city That's finishing that project? That's years down the direction.

That would be a determination to be made by Municipal Utilities Engineering and the council as far as priorities. And so I can't comment on when the determination of

Which is worse for any more houses down there without fixing the road problems. That's all. It's I mean, during the day, it gets pretty ugly. Or in the mornings and the afternoons, it gets very ugly. Cars are lined up for all the way up to Orange Street sometimes.

Thank you. Commissioner Elliott. I would

agree with that sentiment for people who commute besides Songkar. It definitely presents a safety challenge, a safe routes to school challenge what kind what I think about my question what is the planning commission able to request in terms of elevating this improvement with the Council and Municipal Utilities Department? Are we able to make a request prioritize this improvement?

We can certainly forward that kind of a request from the Planning Commission that this is a concern that's been identified through review of a number of projects, and they would like to see this improvement elevated on the priority list. We could certainly pass that along.

Thank you. Am I understanding correctly that it would just be the portion on the North Side Of Pioneer between CastleGate and Clementine?

I'm not sure if it goes further east than that. Don, do you want to comment on that?

The limits of it were already identified. It's actually in the general plan as a special special designation for the length of the street that I I described. Beyond that, if it were to go further east, then it would require property takings that would be problematic.

Right. I was just asking for the capital project, what would the extent of that portion be? Because it was at Lewis. Sorry. I missed the name of the developer. Lennar that already put in their portion. And this developer is putting in their portion on the West. So it seems like it's just that middle piece would that would be the capital project.

Yes. It'd be the missing section. So if along CastleGate there, then you have the house, that one lot that's shown that there needs to be some property acquired from them, and there need to be some property acquired from the CastleGate development and some small portion of property where it transitions back to the existing layout on the far east end of the property or project. And there just needs to be a determination that this is a priority to do it.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Seeing none does the applicant have a presentation or just here for questions?

They have no presentation.

Okay. We will move on to speaker slips, which we do not have any. Is there anyone in the audience here to speak on this matter? Seeing none, do we have anyone on Zoom? Did we receive

received any written comments.

Okay. Do any commissioners have questions for the applicant at this time? Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing for this item and turn it over to the commissioners for deliberations and findings. Commissioner Stanson.

I think it's a good project. I know we need more housing in town. My only concern is is the same one that commissioner Elliott and I both have is that the project that the street gets finished and not sit in pieces for another ten years. I think there's a a need for the council to look at finishing this project up sooner than later. But otherwise, I think it's a decent project, good project.

Okay. Anyone else? Commissioner Watts.

I just wanted to say I'm in support of it. And I understand the traffic and concerns there, but it looks like, you know, we'll get the dedication for this portion through this project. And then to the east and the west, we'll solve those issues down the road. So I'm in support of this.

Okay. I will just say that I'm also in support of the project, and I I live somewhat close to there, and Pioneer is a mess. So anything on the on the books to have future improvements is definitely a step forward. And I like that it's a smaller track and only 11 homes, so I think it's a it's a good place for it as long as the people buying there realize that they're you know, have one way in and out and a high school across the street. Right? Okay. Could you please oh, the motion is on the screen. Would someone like to make a motion? Anyone? Commissioner Elliott.

I move that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number seventeen fifteen to find that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15,332 of the CEQA guidelines approved the socioeconomic cost benefit study prepared for the proposed project approved tentative parcel map number 20645 and approved commission review approval number 970 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 Elliott, seconded by commissioner Stanson to approve tentative track map number 20645 and commission review and approval number 970. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. Okay. Moving on to item number five d. Item five d is a consideration of variance number eight eighteen, a request to reduce the street side yard setback for a single family residence property located at 27 Westwood Lane. I will now open the public hearing for this item.

Has any commissioner had any ex parte communications on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I will disclose that I did speak with the applicant. They contacted me with some questions about the project and provided me with some history about housing in the area. I asked them to send me an email, which they did, which I forwarded on to the director, and they've been in touch ever since. And that was the extent of our conversations. Staff presentation by Rosemarie Montoya. Ms. Montoya, welcome. Thank you, chair and members of the commission.

This is item 5D variance number eight eighteen, a request to reduce the street side yard setback along Beverly Drive for proposed 500 square foot addition to an existing single family residence located at 27 Westwood Lane. The project site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Beverly Drive and Westwood Lane. Here is a closer aerial image. The lot is currently developed with a single family residence, 2,584 square feet in size and single story that is situated in the middle of the point five two acre lot and located about eight feet below street grade from Beverly Drive. The general plan land use designation for this area is very low density residential.

This designation aims to allow single family residential development while maintaining natural hillsides, limiting grading, and preserving existing vegetation. The property is in the RE Zoning District and surrounding zoning designations include RE and RA residential estate lots. Permit records indicate that the home was originally constructed in 1961 and later in 1979, the once larger partial parcel was subdivided to create the subject site and the abutting parcel to the south. The subdivision required a right of way dedication, which modified the parcel's northern boundary adjacent to Beverly Drive. The dedication altered the relationship between previously graded areas of the lot and the property lines resulting in a portion of the existing buildable area falling within the required 25 foot street side yard setback.

This is the view from the public right of way facing west from the intersection and facing east on Beverly Drive where we can see that the site slopes downward and the side yard and right of way has improved with landscaping consisting of mature trees and vegetation that substantially screen the property from public view. In this viewpoint from inside the property, we can see that the area where the addition is proposed but we can see the area where the addition is proposed, and the residence is situated approximately eight people of street grade, and the proposed addition is not expected to be particularly noticeable from the right of way. The surrounding neighborhood consists of established single family homes within the RE Zoning District, and generally, the area features slopes ranging from five to 15% in average slope. Numerous lots in the immediate area are irregular in shape due to slope and other topography. And based on data from the county assessor, the floor areas of the existing residences in the vicinity range from 1,524 to 4,168 square feet with an average floor area of 2,267 square feet.

The project is overall consistent with the general plan designation of very low density residential. The sign use category is intended to encourage limited low density residential development that preserves hillsides and minimizes grading and vegetation removal. The 500 square foot addition would occur within an existing graded portion of the site and avoid major alterations to the natural topography or removal of mature landscaping, and this supports the city's goals for hillside conservation and context sensitive infill as where as well as general plan policies regarding the preservation and character and amenities of existing older neighborhoods. The subject parcel meets all of the RE district standards for a lot area with depth coverage and the required yard setbacks, and the requested variance would reduce the minimum street side yard setback to 15 feet due to the existing topography and slope constraints. Staff believes that the requested variance is reasonable as it addresses the unique circumstances of the lot relating to corner location, topography, and established vegetation.

The variance would enable the applicant to construct an addition and achieve square footage that is consistent with the surrounding residential properties in the same zone. Furthermore, staff believes that the variance would avoid further grading of the site that would otherwise be needed for site development as well as minimize the visual impact of the new addition as it is proposed below street grade as viewed from Beverly Drive. Lastly, the variance would provide a sufficient distance between the proposed addition and the street with respect to safety and aesthetics. Listed here are the required findings, which must be made for variance approval under the municipal code. Staff has reviewed the application and believes that the required findings can be made.

Suggested findings for approval of the variance and application are included in the staff report. Staff has determined that the proposal qualifies for a categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act as a minor setback variance in areas with less than 20% average slope pursuant to section one five three zero five a. Staff recommends that the planning commission approve variance number eight one eight subject to the conditions of approval attached to the resolution. And should the planning commission deem it appropriate, the following motion is provided on the screen. That concludes the presentation. I'm available for any questions and so is the applicant. Thank you.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for staff at this time? Seeing none does anyone have any questions for the applicants at this time? Seeing none, I have no speaker slips. Is there anyone in the audience here to speak on this item? Seeing none, do we have any on Zoom? Did we receive any written comments? No comments

we've not received any written comments

okay I will now close the public hearing for this item and turn it over to the commissioners the motion is on the screen

I think it's a good good project I mean it's below grade and you can't really see anything so I don't I think it's something we should move forward on

I agree this project meets the findings and if any it seems like a classic use case of when to apply a variance especially when there may be conflicting policies at play here I think it's definitely in our interest to want to limit grading and preserve trees where possible and so I'm full in full support of the variance.

Okay. Would someone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion. Okay.

I move that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number seventeen fourteen approving variance number eight eighteen based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the attached conditional conditions of approval.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, it has been moved by commissioner Smith and seconded commissioner Sanson to approve variance number eight one eight for the property located at 27 Westwood Lane all in favor aye any opposed motion carries congratulations okay moving on to number item number five e Item five e is a con consideration of a request to construct a new hotel, construct a car wash, and construct and operate a coffee shop with drive through lanes on a vacant three and a half acre property located at 913 California Street. I will now open the public hearing for this item. Has any commissioner had any expertise communications with the applicant regarding this item? Seeing none, staff presentation by Sean Reilly. Mr. Reilly?

Commission. The applicant is proposing to develop an approximately five acre vacant parcel with a hotel, a car wash, and a coffee shop with a drive through. The site's located on the West Side Of California Street approximately 500 feet South Of Interstate 10. The project site's currently undeveloped, triangular in shape and generally flat. The site is within the commercial land use category of the general plan, which is for the development of a wide range of commercial uses, including neighborhood serving stores and convenience centers, regional commercial centers, and commercial recreation.

The project's consistent with this general plan designation. Sites located within the general commercial district of the East Valley Corridor specific plan. The general commercial district's intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas for businesses, which provide a variety of goods and services serving a community or a regional market. Within the general commercial district, car washes are permitted by Wright. Hotels and drive through restaurants may be permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit.

This is the overall site plan. The proposal includes subdividing this site into three parcels for the structures and one parcel for a water quality basin. The hotel will be located in the central northern portion of of the site on Parcel Drive thru coffee shop is proposed to be located to the east of the hotel adjacent to California Street on Parcel 2, and the car wash will be located south of the car wash excuse me, south of the coffee shop adjacent to California Street on Parcel 3. And this is a a closer up view of the site plan. There are two access points that are proposed for the project site.

The primary access would be provided through a new signalized entrance at the Northeast of the site, and a secondary right in right out would be located to the south off of California Street. The hotel building is a four story tall building with a maximum height of 58 feet. It includes 90 guest rooms with a 117 parking spaces. Outdoor amenities include an outdoor pool with restrooms, outdoor lounging area near the southeast corner, and a large porte cochere for loading and unloading of hotel guests. The coffee shops located to the east of the hotel there, as I mentioned, adjacent to California Street and it's totaling approximately 1,450 square feet with a maximum building height of 22 feet.

A total of 14 parking spaces are included, and the drive thru provides stacking for 14 vehicles. This is the southern portion of the site. The the car wash is located south of the coffee shop on the southern portion adjacent to California Street, and it's approximately 25 feet tall and would include a drive up payment area where cars can queue while they wait to be washed. Space for approximately 13 cars are provided in the queue, and 21 parking spaces are provided. As proposed, the project meets all of the parking requirements detailed in the East Valley Corridor specific plan.

The specific plan requires each use to provide its own Appropriate parking is provided for each use on its own parcel. In total, a 116 spaces are provided are required. Excuse me. And a 152 are shown on the project plans, and appropriate vehicle stacking is included, as I mentioned. The minimum landscaping this is a site landscaping plan, the northern portion.

The minimum landscaping requirement for commercial uses in the East Valley Corridor specific plan is 20% of the whole project site, and the project landscapes 35.7% of the site, which meets the minimum requirement. Within parking areas, new development projects are required to landscape 7% of the parking area. The project exceeds this requirement as well. The landscape plan consists of a 186 trees and a wide variety of five gallon shrubs, which will be planted throughout the site. There are 10 different tree species.

The majority are Afghan pines, shade master locust, red iron bark eucalyptus, and lemon scented gum trees. Approximately 62% of these trees are evergreen. The requirement is for 50% of them to be evergreen, so they exceed that requirement. Landscaping provided for the site and parking areas comply with the requirements of the East Valley Corridor specific plan and the Redlands Municipal Code for water efficiency and for screening. Applicant is proposing to build the project in two phases.

The first phase of the project would construct a new traffic signal on California Street at the project's main entry. This signal will also serve the commercial project located to the east. This phase includes a portion of the parking and landscaping for the drive through, a small water quality basin, and a drive aisle which would provide access to the gas station to the north. The interim condition is expected to remain in place until the grading and building permits can be approved for the remainder of the project. The hotel's architecture includes vertical and horizontal articulation of the wall and roof planes.

The roof lines are off the roof lines are awful also offset vertically and horizontally to create the appearance of distinct sections. Small metal canopies and a large border cachet provide shade at the entries. Primary finishes include cement plaster, aluminum wood looking siding, aluminum windows, and board formed concrete around the base portions of the building. Colors include baby's breath white, Kendall charcoal, which is dark gray, and buckland blue. And this is these are the elevations for the car wash.

The car wash building is approximately 25 feet tall and it can consists primarily of a large car wash tunnel with some equipment rooms and office and cash register space on the interior. The building includes both flat and angled roof lines, horizontal projections, and varying roof heights. A porticochet is also included over the payment area. Colors include white, dark gray, and yellow. Drive thru restaurants are required to have enhanced architecture.

The drive through's contemporary architectural design compliant complies with the design requirements by incorporating vertical and horizontal projections, varied roof lines of porticochet over the drive through area, metal awnings over windows on all sides. Exterior walls consist primarily of white stucco finish with aluminum siding. The proposed color palette for the building consists of Benjamin Moore's baby's breath, Kendall dark dark charcoal, and black walls. The height of the building is approximately 22 feet and is compatible with the height of the adjacent commercial development to the east on California Street. East Valley Corridor specific plan does not include specific development standards or guidelines for hotels.

However, new hotels do require approval of conditional use permits as I mentioned. The hotel building would have a maximum height of 58 feet with 90 rooms. The total building area would be approximately 55,000 square feet with just over 41,000 square feet dedicated to guest rooms. The building includes a lobby, dining restaurant area, a bar area, business center, meeting rooms, fitness center, a market, laundry, elevator equipment rooms, and associated operational areas. Proposed outdoor amenities would include an outdoor pool with restrooms, outdoor lounging area, and a large porticochet, as I mentioned.

The hotel business operations are expected to be from 6AM to 11PM every day with a maximum guest occupancy of 280. The hotel is expected to have 10 total employees with seven present on the busiest shift. In addition to requiring CUP in compliance with the municipal code, the East Valley Corridor has specific requirements for drive throughs. The coffee shop building is a 1,450 square foot building with seating with a seating area of 600 square feet and a double lane drive through. Drive through sites must have access to a major or secondary highway.

The project meets this requirement and is located on California Street, which is a major arterial. Drive thrus are also required to provide stacking for six cars. This project meets that requirement by providing stacking for 14. The applicant has provided operational details for the coffee shop. It's expected to operate from 6AM to 10PM every day with three employees.

The restaurant is expected to operate with a maximum capacity of 28 people, 25 of those guests and three of them employees. In addition to drive the drive through lanes are required to be screened from view of the public right of way. The project's been designed to minimize the visibility of the drive through lanes by routing the drive through to the west around the backside of the building away from California Street. It's about those drive through lanes, the entries and exits are about 75 feet back from California Street, and there's approximately 30 feet of landscaping with tall shrubs in that would provide additional screening. In accordance with measure u and the requirements for drive through restaurants, a traffic study was prepared for the project.

As shown in the traffic study, the addition of the project does not degrade below the current levels of service. The project will construct a new signalized intersection of the project's main entry in the first phase. And with the construction of this improvement, levels of service are not degraded. The tentative parcel map would subdivide the project, the 5.1 acre project into three parcels and one lettered lot. Parcel one is 2.3 acres, and it's for the hotel.

Parcel two is point four nine acres for the coffee shop. Parcel three is 1.54 acres for the car wash, and lot a is point seven five acres for the water quality basin. The parcel map does conform to all development standards and requirements for the general commercial district of the specific plan, and it does meet all the required findings. Socioeconomic cost benefit study was prepared for the project as required by measure u. According to the cost benefit model used by the city, the project is expected to result in annual revenues of over 340,000 to the city upon project implementation and annual ongoing costs of approximately 40,000 43,000.

The surplus revenue is 297,000, which is a positive cost benefit ratio of 7.8. There are several findings that apply to the projects for tentative parcel maps, for the commission review and approval, and for the CUP. Those findings have all been addressed in the in the resolutions that are attached to the staff report for each portion of this project. In regard to environmental review, the city hired a consultant to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for the project. The required thirty day public review period began on 06/05/2025.

And during the public review period, a request receipt was received to extend the public re period review period to allow additional review of the technical supporting documents and references within the ISMND, and the city extended the public review period to July 28. During the public comment period, we had the request for the extension as well as two comment letters that were received. One was from the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the other was from Adams Broadwell, Joseph and Cardozo representing Californians allied for a responsible economy. The d DTSC comments recommended and request testing of all imported soil materials for contamination and request the city address contamination found on the project site through oversight from a self certified local agency and the DTSC Regional Water Quality Control Board or similar. Comments received from attorneys are related to air quality, hazards, noise, energy, and public health associated with construction and operation of the project.

The city's environmental consultants have reviewed the comment letters with city staff, and we've written responses to the comments. And the comments have been distributed to the planning commission and uploaded to the city's website website with the staff report. There's no information or evidence within the comment letters identifying any new potentially significant impacts, and no new mitigation is required. The city's environmental consultant will provide some additional details on these comments and the responses as part of the staff presentation following mine. Late today, we received another comment letter from the same attorney group, which includes similar comments.

These comments suggest that no substantial response has been provided to their comments. Those the responses or written responses were provided to you today. Again, there's no information or evidence within the comment letter identifying any new or potentially significant impacts. There is mitigation within the ISMND and the mitigation and monitoring and reporting program, which does include mitigation for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, tribal cultural resources, and noise. All mitigation measures are incorporated into the project as conditions of approval.

And with the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts are reduced to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, if the proposed initial study mitigated negative declaration is the appropriate document for this project. Staff is recommending approval of the request entitlements and if the commission agrees with the staff recommendation the motions are on the screen in front of you

thank you questions for staff at this time

see.

Commissioners. If I may.

Yes. I'm sorry I skipped the presentation by the applicant.

Brian if you're there.

He's still muted.

Hi. Hi. Can you hear me?

Yes. We can. Hi.

This is okay. Great. Excellent. Yes. I just wanted to kind of piggyback off of the items that Sean had mentioned regarding the environmental review period.

And I'm a principal at LSA, and my team was responsible for preparing the initial study and mitigated negative declaration for the project. And I think what I'd I'd like to specifically address is the comment letter from Adams Broadwell, Joseph, and Cardoso, attorneys at law on behalf of the Care California group, which raised concerns regarding the exposure to valley fever spores disturbed during project construction. There were issues raised regarding health risk impact from the use of fire pumps and backup generators, a lack of a they they claim the lack of a quantitative health risk analysis for project construction and potential health risk impact, cumulative air quality impact, hazardous conditions at the project site. They also alleged construction and operational noise impact, including potential noise impacts from pool activity associated with the proposed hotel as well as energy impacts. And in response to that comment letter, the air quality report and noise study were updated with additional air quality modeling performed, including a project specific health risk assessment.

And the results of this updated analysis confirm the conclusions of the ISMND that all impacts related to air quality, energy, and noise would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. The revised air quality report, revised noise study, and project specific health risk assessment are provided as attachments to the response to comments document, which I understand has been shared with the planning commission. In addition, the response to comments document includes additional discussion of hazardous conditions at the project site, essentially confirming the conclusions included in the draft ISMND that all impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. The response to comments document also included specific changes to the text of the ISMND, specifically the air quality and noise sections. To clarify and supplement materials in the ISMND, the revised text does not provide new information that would result in new significant impacts that have not already been identified in the ISMND or a substantial increase in the severity of an impact identified in the ISMND that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project applicant.

So in essence, none of the text revisions require recirculation of the ISMND pursuant to state CEQA guidelines section one five zero eight eight point five. And together, the ISMND and response to comments document constitute the final ISMND for the project. I'm available for additional questions if you happen to have any regarding the comments on the ISMND and the responses which have been shared with you. Thank you.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the consultant? Commissioner Elliott?

Mr. Bensley, have one question and forgive me if I'm a little off base here because I'm taking in the latest comment letter from I think I guess it was dated yesterday. Did the commenter run their own health risk assessment? Is that what they're using as the basis for their comments?

Yes. They did engage another consultant to prepare a health risk assessment. However, we we went ahead and and performed our own health risk assessment. And and one of the big takeaways, I think, in differences between the health risk assessment that was prepared by LSA, the city's consultant, and that which was prepared by the the commenter in this case is that they had assumed that certain with its construction equipment would be running constantly, like, twenty four hours a day constantly, which we know to to not be correct. So there were some adjustments that we made in terms of the modeling inputs, which, of course, affect the results of the analysis.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you. That was the question I was gonna ask is if you could walk us through the variances between assumptions between the two reports. Were there

any other That's the the key assumption.

Okay. And I'm guessing did both reports use the same version of CaliMod?

My understanding is they they were prepared using the same version of CaliMod. However, CaliMod is the emissions estimating model that is industry standard for CEQA analysis. But, of course, just because we use the same model doesn't necessarily guarantee that you're gonna come to the same result because the model does ask for you to put in certain key inputs. One of those being, you know, how often and how intense would construction operations be. And that was where we had a deviation of of opinion and and strongly believe that the correct modeling inputs would yield a more accurate result.

And in fact, that result shows that the impacts would be less than significant, and there there is not a health risk impact to anyone on-site or in the immediate vicinity of the site.

Okay. So just to be very definitive, the only difference between the two health risk assessments was the assumption about the operation of construction equipment.

I I believe so. I'm give me just a moment and I'll check and see if there is if I have a a note about any other key differences. I know that was the the one that really stood out in my mind and that I wanted to highlight for the planning commission.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Any other questions for the consultant at this time? Seeing none, is there a presentation by the applicant? No. Hi, welcome.

Chairman Shaw, vice chair Ansley, members of the commission, thank you for having me. My name is John Hyman. I'm with Hyman Development Group. I have partnered with JD Fuel, the applicant for the development of this mixed use project. As you've heard, it's a hotel, car wash, and coffee shop.

It's been quite a long sixteen months to get to this point, so we're really happy to be able to present this to you. I wanted to take a few moments to provide some color perhaps to couple things that mister Riley has touched upon, so really appreciate the time. Little background on this project, if you'll permit me. We first started working on this site early last year. I noticed that the the seller and other previous owners submitted a wide variety of site plans to development services.

And the first question that pops in my mind was, okay. Why didn't any of these site plans go through? Well, after researching their notes, everybody's notes actually, and going through, there was just two common denominators there, and they were conditions that

needed to

be met. One was the undergrounding of the overhead SCE lines on the West Side Of California Street, and the other was the installation of a traffic light on California Street where the Food for Less shopping center anticipating these items were alone will cost just over $1,000,000, so that probably deterred a lot of people. So to be able to absorb this, we had to come up with uses that would be able to generate enough revenue over time to be able not to only to justify the cost, but also align with the city's general plan, specific plan, current zoning regs, and development code. Between all that and dealing with this odd shaped triangular property, it made it very difficult to to design efficient uses on an inefficient shaped property, especially with the required setbacks from the county drainage channel on the west side of the property, California Street on the East, and railroad tracks on the North. However, these perimeter boundaries also serve as some very nice buffers as well, which as a result have very little impact on the neighbors.

The hotel, carwash, and coffee shop seem they would be the best uses for the site. As mister Riley mentioned earlier, there's a socioeconomic study required for the project. I'm not sure about the exact math that goes in to measure you and how you guys arrived at the, $341,000 gross or the $2.97 net, our numbers are quite a bit higher. Our estimates at a 13% tax rate, we're estimating 780,000 for the hotel loan, gross obviously, and about 131,000 for the coffee shop using eight and three quarter tax rate. For all about 911,000 in annual gross tax revenue.

The taxes raised from this development should more than help fund the various projects that the residents wanna see in your community. The property owner is a small developer operator that's still a family owned come independent company. A side effect of having a family owned business is that there's usually greater attention to detail and as a result, better service not only to customers but also the community. So they sponsor teams for youth sports. They help out with fundraisers and hand out turkeys at Thanksgiving.

This is what they define as being a good neighbor, and they have made it clear to me that this is what they intend to do when this project is completed. We estimate that we'll be able to provide the local community around 40 new full and part time jobs. The developers also very particular about hiring residents, local residents for their businesses. Obviously, that plan only works if the local residents actually submit their applications to begin with, but we definitely plan on taking the extra steps to help the residents of Redlands first. Obviously, have a little control over that if we acquire tenants for the uses, but we'll most certainly pursue that if we choose the option of owning any of the businesses.

I should also mention we real really appreciate all the meetings, emails, calls with your city staff. All that communication was very helpful to us discussing the project, answering questions, which we then made our revisions adjustments based on those conversations. Our site plan architecture, general layout were all determined as a result of the back and forth communication with city staff members. Individually, Sean, Mark, Alan, Don, Vince with the fire department, Gerard and Capital Improvements have certainly made this long process much easier. So we really appreciate their efforts over the past sixteen months.

In conclusion, members of the commission, thanks again for the opportunity. We think that this site will benefit the city of Redlands, hopefully play play a key part in our neighbors' daily commute, and also be there for them to help that get that quick cup of coffee or get that car wash when needed. We hope that the tax revenues acquired from this site will really help the city of Redlands invest what's important to all of you. We think we have a really good plan backed up by your staff members, so we appreciate if you would help approve this project. Thank you. I'll be here if you have any questions.

Thank you. Hang out just a minute. Sure. Does anyone have any further questions for staff or the applicant? Commissioner Elliott.

So understanding that we don't know tenant for the coffee shop Correct. And just knowing that different drive through coffee shops have different operations, is there a plan for dealing with overflow queues? Queuing for the drive through?

I don't have that that plan and I don't know if that's been addressed or not.

Okay. Is that addressed in the conditions eventually?

It's not. We feel it's a rather small coffee shop and it's used 14 and there's ample parking in the area.

Anyone else? Commissioner Stanson.

So mister Riley, I'm a little concerned on the traffic. You say there's no changes to the service. What is the level of service today?

At the intersection that's being signalized right now, it's a b and a d. Following the installation of the signal, it'll be a b and a b. It's AM and PM hours as to.

I'm surprised. It seems like a lot of traffic in that area every day. So

The others the others intersections and maybe mister Young can speak to it. It's the other center intersections, I believe, some of them are already at a level that's failing and this does not contribute to that failure.

It doesn't. Yeah. Because there are I'm worried about the the signals across the getting on the freeway and all that, how they back up into that area. So and you you say it won't affect it.

The idea is all those signals will be interconnected. The the traffic generated from this project, while it will contribute to what's occurring at those intersections, unders are not the responsibility of this project. Those those intersections are already at the level they're at, and they're not degrading per measure use. So there wouldn't be a requirement upon this developer to do it. Ultimately, that responsibility would fall upon this the city to eventually do something, whether it's the city working on its own or with SBCTA or with Caltrans to adjust fix things in that area.

Oh, so we'd have to leave it up to Caltrans so we're in trouble.

It's unlikely it would be Caltrans because Caltrans' primary role is their main line. You know, they worry about traffic flowing on the main line getting on and off. Their main concern is if there's a problem with things getting off, so they would make recommendations for widening of ramps so there's more storage, getting Once it's down to the local street, it's the local agencies, and that intersection is identified as something to be improved in the future with proportionate share. Like, there used to be a funding agreement or a proportionality agreement with Loma Linda, Redlands, SBCTA, all contributing to those improvements. The allocation between intersections and interchanges changes over time.

It is identified as something to be modified at some point in the future. Just it wouldn't fall upon this developer to do that.

Right. Okay. My other question is the property is borders the Zanke. Is that that's correct? Is there any mitigation thoughts for I mean, it's I don't think anything's ever been developed from that property in the history. So I mean, are we gonna be looking for any artifacts or anything else like that? Or we just or is that

not a problem? I'll I'll address it. So again, with all projects that require CECO, we do AB 52 consultation with the local native American tribes. The tribes who were interested in consulting on this project, we did consult with those tribes, there were four. There's mitigation in the MND which requires there to be certain steps that include monitoring and there will be folks out there monitoring the ground disturbing activities to see if there's any or anything of the tribal cultural resources discovered on-site.

Okay. Other than that, I like your project.

Thank you.

Any other questions at this time? Commissioner Smith.

Just looking over the project and its proximity to the rail line, there's no plans to have access to the rail from hotel residents? No. Okay.

I don't know.

Any further questions? Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we are going to move on to public comment. I will start with our speaker slips, Andrew Grant. Welcome.

Good afternoon, chair Shah, commissioners. My name is Andrew Graff. I am an attorney with Adam Broadwell, Joseph, and Cardozo here on behalf of Californians Allied for Responsible Economy or Care California. They're a coalition of labor organizations and residents to advocate for the protection of the environment and the community's workforces. We respectfully request that this commission continue the public hearing so that they and remand the project to staff to prepare an EIR that adequately analyzes and mitigates all potentially significant impacts as required by CEQA.

As staff stated, we submitted comments on the MND during the public comment period that were supported by noise, air quality, and public health experts that provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant unmitigated air quality, public health, noise, energy, and hazardous impact. Today, we also submitted comments explaining that the city did not address any of the issues that we had previously raised as they were published with the initial staff reports. Just before this afternoon's meeting, we received copies of the responses to comments and that were not previously provided and the city has not provided an opportunity for us to meaningfully review these responses. Because of this, we recommend that the planning commission continue the public hearing to allow us an opportunity review the responses to comments. Notwithstanding the production, the city's responses do not resolve their noncompliance with CEQA.

Based on CEQA's fair argument standard which applies to mitigated negative declarations, we provided substantial evidence that the city failed to address several significant environmental impacts during the public comment period as required by CEQA. In addition, CEQA does require when there is a dispute between experts regarding the significance of an environmental impact such as with the air quality analysis and health risk assessment that an EIR be prepared in those in in those situations. I'd like to highlight one of the large more significant issues which would be that project sites levels of existing contamination from perchloroethylene. PCE as it's known is a known carcinogen that could expose construction workers and future on-site workers to significant health risks. The city's phase one ESA found that PC concentrations are at twin 200 micrograms per cubic meter.

Our expert, doctor James Clark, explains that this would lead to an indoor air concentration of six micrograms per cubic meter, which is three times higher than the commercial limit set for commercial workers by DTSC, Department of Toxic Substances Control. Doctor Clark also explained that the MND failed to adequately evaluate the extent of PCA examination, so impacts may be greater than disclosed. Disclosed. The city must prepare an EIR that fully analyzes and mitigates the PC contamination along with all the other significant impacts that we've identified. As as I said before, we request a continuance and a remand to staff to prepare an AIR. Thank you.

Thank you. I I'm terrible with names today, guys. Zach Strasters? Str please help me.

Strasters.

You're Thank you.

Alright. Zach Strawsters, pleasure to be here with you today. I wanna point out a couple of things that are within the purview of the planning commission to consider. I've seen tonight that today that this has been pretty amenable planning commission, so, you know, you're a boon and a benefit to your local community. But I just wanna encourage you before you approve this project, let's go a little deeper on potential opportunities that represents.

First of all, with regards to the socioeconomic cost benefit study for this project, it's a very low threshold at under 8%. When you consider the nature of the development, we're talking about a hotel. K? So we wanna make sure that we're beefing up as high as possible of a socioeconomic benefit percentage, and I something double digit or higher would probably more be more beneficial in the long run to, the residents nearby. Measure U benefits are relatively low for this because it's not housing.

Right? So we understand that Measure U was passed predominantly for housing projects. So when we're looking at what, you know, even the city website talks about like what what potential Measure U benefits could this really offer at least in theory. It's quality of life. Quality of life for the residents to make sure that projects like this which are urbanization but with no benefit of housing don't have a negative detrimental impact to the local residents. So then essentially what we're talking about are workers. Right? We're talking about what is the overall long term benefit to the worker. Well, the the developer of this project has entered into, no agreements, nothing nothing substantive, no substantive conversations with any CBOs. Right?

So obviously, they're not looking for the community to just organically grow some muscle and develop a voice here. The community is essentially gonna be relying on you to dive deeper and say, why isn't there a CBA attached to this? What are the benefits? Like we talked about it. We're waiting on Caltrans to provide all the CBA, then we're holding our breath for no reason. We wanna make sure that we're holding them to a higher standard. Just because it's not a warehouse doesn't mean that it's not within the purview of the planning commission to say, hey, this isn't some podunk backwoods town where you just come and build whatever whatever. No CBA, no CBOs at the meeting. We're just gonna rubber stamp whatever. And obviously that's not your desire to do because you're an erudite, you know, commission.

You wanna make sure they give their best. So that's basically what I'm here today to push that line. Is that you do have a population and a single shot and those are the workers that are involved. These are all part time or minimum wage jobs, but you have an opportunity to really build up the significant pension earning and family sustaining wage types of jobs that this type of project can provide. And it is a one shot window.

Whatever you hold them accountable to, whatever CBAs that you attach to this, which is within your purview to do, this is what the project is gonna provide to the local community. Again, with no infrastructure benefits, with most of the jobs being minimum wage part time, you have one shot to really signify to the local community with regards to measure you types of benefits. We wanna at least make sure you're gonna get a pension out of this. If it's construction workers or whoever can actually be associated with this project that could get meaningful use out of it. Because again, everybody's numbers are different. They're saying nearly a million, you're saying, you know, several, you know, tens of thousands in tax revenue. So let's make sure that we do what's right by the community, hold them accountable, a CBA, something to do with construction worker and long term benefits. Thanks and God bless you.

Thank you. Judith Hunt. No Judith Hunt. Okay. Moving on. Doug Reynolds. Hi Doug.

Madam Chair, Commissioners,

my name is Doug Reynoldson. I'm with Keller Williams commercial here in Northern California. I represent the tenant on strategic excuse me, the developer on strategic tenant planning there at the site. One of the things that we did look at the site when he purchased it was what makes the most sense, what's not going to create the biggest traffic impact there because we all recognize the fact that there's California Street, right?

There's a

lot people going through that. So we talked to several restaurant operators and we said, okay, well, the traffic impacts can be way up here. So the development team said that's not going to happen because this is going to kill the project if we get that high. So the developer is a hotel operator and he said, well, let's do a flagship hotel. Let's get the entrance to the residence of California with a nice flagship hotel and I said, okay, let's get a regional states operator that operates at high level like Quick Cut Car Wash to ensure the sustainability of that retail use there.

To answer your question on the queuing and things like that with the coffee, that's not my expertise but I can just tell you, I've done a few coffee shops and people just love coffee. But what I can tell you is we've been approached by a few coffee operators and we're trying to find something that's a little different, something unique and not just your run of the mill coffee shop. So that I can assure you that we're looking for the right operator there, not just another I'm not gonna say names, but you you understand where I'm going with that. So we're trying to find someone who's regional in the Western United States who who wants to have a footprint here and we think Redlands is a good good location for them. So anyway, a little background on and I hope the developer doesn't mind.

He is a resident here in the City Of Redlands. He has been a resident here for, I don't know, five years or more roughly. He is the largest citrus grove owner in the City Of Redlands. He is a big proponent of the agritourism to the Canyon and so we have a lot of relationships that we're building there. So this gentleman is doing a lot for the City Of Redlands. He likes the City Of Redlands and he said, let's develop it. And if you don't mind me sharing, he also operates to turn that gas station around and make a point of that as well. So with that, thank you very much for your time.

Okay. I'm out of speaker slips. Is there anyone else in the audience here to speak on this matter? Seeing none, do we have any on Zoom? And do we have written comments to summarize?

No additional written comments, just the one letter received today, dated August 12. It was previously distributed to the commission. It's from the same law firm. It essentially restates their prior comments that were received during the public comment period in the letter dated July 28. Essentially, the comments are the same.

They're restated. They're reordered in terms of arrangement in the letter. The one new comment in today's letter pertains to socioeconomic studies, which social and economic impacts are specifically out of the scope of CEQA analysis under section 15,131, specifically states that social and economic impacts cannot or shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment. So that's just outside the scope of CEQA. Other than that, all the comments in writing, they've been responded to in writing.

It's in the response to comments. Under CEQUA, we're not required to provide written responses to comments, but because of the technical, highly technical and detailed nature of the comments, we felt it was warranted to provide a detailed written response to comments. And that's also been previously distributed to the commission. Thank you.

Before I close the public hearing, does anyone have any questions for the consultant staff or the applicant? Is the consultant still on the line because I have one question oh hi could you join us please thank you zoom come to life

sorry that that traffic was tough today

I apologize for my tardiness could you provide just some background or your take on one of the public comments about the need for an EIR if there are two experts with differing opinions

yeah absolutely. That that is a provision that's included in CEQA. However, in this case, I think you know an elite agency like the city of Redlands is within its purview to examine the evidence that is being provided by the technical experts in this case and to pick through those and see is there some information in there that appears to be inaccurate or erroneous and in this case there are a number of the inputs that were put into the emissions model that I mentioned when I was in the phone earlier that that I think relatively easily jumped out at our modeling team when they reviewed those. And I since I had shared the information about the construction information or the construction assumptions being erroneous on their face, there was another piece that had come up that I did want to highlight here. Forgive me.

I had my notes on my phone. Yeah. And that was that there were discrepancies in the emission rate that was used for the model between the text of the commenters health risk assessment and what was actually included in the model. So put another way, the the comments that they included didn't match modeling information that they provided. So if there was more of a consistency, then, you know, perhaps the the the city would give those opinions and and the evidence provided by their technical experts might hold a little more water, but we had identified some inconsistencies there that and relatively easily identified those and thought, well, let's recheck the modeling and after checking the modeling and running a whole new model determined that that we're on solid ground with the analysis that we already had in hand.

Thank you. That answers my question and any further questions for the consultant? You. Okay with that said I will close the public hearing for this item and turn it over to the commissioners for deliberations and findings. Mr.

Riley would you mind bringing up the site plan? I have a lot of slides that's even more pages in my packet. I mean, the landscape plan is fine. I yeah overall is great mostly I want to talk about pad a so my concern was just circulation and again we don't know who the tenant is going to be and we've all seen there's such a wide variety in operations depending on who the tenant might be but it appears as if there's just that and please correct me if I'm mistaken just that one point of ingress and egress to Parcel 2 and if the queue got long enough, that queue would block access to the parking spaces that are in the front or potentially prevent people from exiting. I'm not exactly sure what a solution here would be in this case but I don't know if we if there's some kind of condition maybe that we add that as a tenant is identified that an operations plan is put together in collaboration with development services department just to make sure that there is going to be a plan.

I mean we just don't totally bungal this circular queuing situation on Pad A or Parcel 2. That would be like my recommendation or something to talk about with the commission is how we may want to handle that. Knowing also that the the gas station is the same owner as Parcel 2, it would be really nice to see some reciprocity between the two parcels that you could maybe access one from the other. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to get gas and I'm like, oh, I'll just like shoot across the lot and then I'll get some coffee but then you can't do that and even if you can't do it with a vehicle, would be nice to maybe just do it on foot.

Can I quickly address your what you just said, I'm sorry? Please do. This may help some. So that phase one that they're looking to do is it installs the traffic signal. If you look on this image here you can see some red dash lines around the parking area and that is where the signal is gonna be installed is at the main entry right there And in the phase one, they're doing the main entry and they're doing that parking area in the front as well as all the associated landscaping. That will be through access to the gas station.

Will that be permanent access?

Yes. And and maybe the applicant would like to speak to that some but the that corrects some problems with access for the gas station as well as smooths out things here for this for this coffee shop as you're mentioning.

There's in the parking corridor on Parcel 2 that goes north south that would extend north into the gas stations?

That's correct.

Okay. It's not thank you. Okay. Thank you. You're correct. This does address some of my concerns.

Does it does it address your first concern or would you still like to explore adding condition in to work with the department on

I would still like to see that. Mean it's not unusual for coffee shops to have greater than 14 cars in the queue. I think we've all seen anecdotally and through other parking or queuing studies for other coffee shops. So I would like to keep that in.

Is that something that easily staff can do?

Would the applicant agree to? I believe that staff can work with the applicant to get a queuing study if they're amenable to creating that condition. Okay. So they would accept

that condition. Thank you. Commissioner Wells?

Yeah. Was just going to

say that I would support that as well, especially knowing that they'll have that shared access from the gas station just because if you've got cars coming in from both directions, if it's crowded, it might end up kind of bungling quite a bit. So it would just be good to have just additional staff review at the time. Other than that, I would have liked to see the gas or sorry, the car wash, a little further from the residences across the wash. But I am appreciative of the, site constraints and also trying to line up those driveways across the street. And I know we've addressed that the traffic impacts aren't specific to this project though I will just mention to staff again that I still have concerns about, you know, all of these additional traffic signals and traffic impacts as we approach rail lines, adjacent to the freeway where there's trucks making it difficult for visibility.

But again, I know that's not specific to this project. So, overall, I'm in support of the project.

Anyone else? Commissioner Smith.

For a minute there, had a struggle with the car wash being there's a car wash. It's a couple of stones throw away across from Walmart already right there. But having gone to school at Mission Elementary in the late seventies, there's never been anything on that site. It's a funky sized site. So I'm impressed that they figured out to put something there. So I'm gonna I'm gonna stand down from my issue with the car wash. But yeah, alright. I'm good with it.

Okay. I will say when I first saw coffee shop hotel car wash, was like, what? But yes, it all makes sense now. I think it was a very creative use for the site. Anyone else? Can you bring the motion back up on the screen, please? There we go. Alright. Would someone like to make

a motion? I move to adopt resolution numbers seventeen thirteen, seventeen eighteen, and seventeen nineteen to adopt a mitigated negative declaration prepared for the proposed project in accordance with section fifteen seventy four of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Approved the social economic cost benefit study for the project, approved the tentative parcel map number two zero eight five four, approve commission review and approval numbers 973, and approve conditional use permit number 1212O3.

I'll second unless do we need to revise the condition?

Amend the commission to include staff working with the developer for partial to on the stacking. Queuing. Queuing.

And I will second.

Okay it has been moved by commissioner Stanson second by commissioner Wells to approve commission review and approval number 973 tentative parcel map number 20854 and conditional use permit numbers 1212 and 12O3 for the property located at 913 California Street. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you. Moving on to item number six, commissioner announcements and comments. Do we have any? Seeing none number seven directors update Mr. Dasatnik you are up there

has not been a council meeting since our last meeting at the Planning Commission actually the At this point there will not be a second meeting in August and it looks like we're probably not going to have a meeting on September 9 either but our next meeting will be September 23 so the fourth Tuesday in September and now we just have a couple items for that meeting

okay so moving on to item number eight adjournment we will adjourn to the next regular meeting that we're not going to have of 09/09/2025. Thanks, everyone.