In a unanimous vote that overrode multiple restrictions placed on residential development projects by the city’s voters in 1997, the Redlands City Council at its December 17 meeting approved a 3.15-acre project at the northeast corner of Stuart Avenue and Eureka Street.
Despite a degree of controversy relating to the intensity and nature of the proposed project, there was no protest mounted with regard to the apartment project due to, some observers said, the oxygen having been sucked out of the council chamber as a consequence of the contretemps relating to the selection of the mayor earlier in the evening.
The project was approved Tuesday, Dec. 17, without comments from the council or the public.
The site is vacant other than a transformer on the southeast area of the land, a city report states.
The project, put forth by developer Property One, LLC, called for a four-story apartment complex with 85 units together with 7,686-square-feet of commercial space.
The project is to include two parking garages and 53 off-street parking spaces and a community room. Given that slightly less than two-thirds of the project’s footprint is devoted to residential use, the maximum permissible density under Measure U would be roughly 54 to 57 apartment units. The maximum permissible height under Measure U would be two stories.
Not only did the project’s density meet the absolute limitation with regard to units per acre when the number of units were divided into the size of the property without taking into consideration that the land would also accommodate a mercantile component and parking facilities, the height of the buildings likewise topped out at the maximum threshold without considering any roof add-ons.
The developer and city officials seemed to be pinning their hopes that the project would not be legally challenged on the consideration that the land upon which it is to be constructed is slightly less than a quarter mile from the Eureka Street train station, which arguably puts it into a specialized category of development, one that exempts it from otherwise relatively strict density and height allowances. To avoid having to comply with regulations that would have limited the project to no more than two stories and 57 residential units at maximum, the project proponent and city officials applied standards reserved for projects that fall under the rubric of what the city calls the Transit Villages Overlay. Nevertheless, the city council sought to impose an additional layer of legal protection for the project by granting it a special dispensation unilaterally declaring the city voters-imposed development restriction that have been in place for 27 years to be inoperative. While that use of governmental authority will stand if left unchallenged, it may or may not stand up to a separate legal challenge if such a one is made.
Property One, LLC’s Stuart & Eureka Balboa Park Project was considered by the Redlands Planning Commission on November 12, 2024. The commission made a unanimously recommendation that the city council use its authority to reach a determination that the proposed project qualifies for exemption from Measure ‘U.’
At least two of the provisions of Measure U might apply to the Stuart & Eureka Balboa Park Project, according to the planning commission and the city’s planning and community development division
1997’s 17-page citizen-sponsored Measure U amended the Redlands General Plan to superimpose certain growth management principles. Measure U restricted high-density residential projects to the city’s Hir Density Residential land use zones and prohibited any residential structures higher than two stories high or 35 feet in height or 27 dwelling units per acre in the city’s High Density Residential land use zones. Measure U contained a provision by which certain types of development or projects were exempt from the development restrictions it embodied, extending to five “special categories of development” specifically listed in the measure. Among Measure U’s special categories of development exemptions was one that stated, “Development directly related to proposed Metrolink stations in the City of Redlands, including one at the University of Redlands.”
By 2010, the pro-accelerated growth faction in Redlands had latched onto the transit village concept as a means of offsetting the sentiment of controlling growth that was so popular in Redlands.
In 2020, the pro-development establishment at City Hall, extending most particularly to the city council, placed before Redlands voters Measure G, which called for rescinding the controlled growth principals in Measure U, as well as those in 1978’s Proposition R and 1987’s Measure N.
The city’s voters in March 2020 soundly rejected Measure G, with 9,321 votes or 64.88 percent opposing it and 5,052 votes or 35.12 percent in favor of it.
The concept of transit villages originated in the United States in the late 1980s and was popularized by Michael Bernick’s and Robert Cervero’s 1997 book “Transit Villages for the 21st Century in which pedestrian-oriented communities involving mixed-use residential/commercial buildings located near transit system stations such that the vast majority of those living in the apartment/mercantile high-rises would commute to work. When the San Bernardino County Transportation Agency (SBCTA), then known as San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), undertook to extend the exist rail commuter systems eastward in San Bernardino County to Redlands, Redlands city officials in favor of intensified development incorporated the expansion of the passenger rail options to Redlands took advantage of the situation and formalized the concept by working cooperatively with SBCTA, other local public and transportation authorities, and private interests to establish a Metrolink rail line, known as the Arrow passenger rail line which was to entail, ultimately, no fewer than five train stations in Redlands. On June 19, 2012, the Redlands City Council adopted a resolution establishing the creation of a general plan “Transit Village Overlay” calling for high-rise residential and commercial buildings in those areas that would fit within a land use classification exempt from Measure U. The rationale was that this land use classification and exemption were necessary to promote the development of high density residential and non-residential uses within walking distance of Metrolink stations to reduce vehicular usage, improve air quality, provide health benefits, and provide economic development opportunities, among other public benefits. This intent was re-emphasized with the general plan update adopted by the city council on December 5, 2017, which included the Transit Villages Concept as a central theme and strategy for more than 100 policies and actions envisioned and contained in the currently applicable 2035 Redlands General Plan.
Of some moment during the December 17, 2024 city council meeting during which the Stuart & Eureka Balboa Park Project was being considered was whether it is in some fashion “directly related” to the rail stations. The language in Measure U does not provide any specific guidance as to how to interpret the meaning of the phrase “directly related” to the train stations.
One uncontested interpretation is that a dwelling unit located no more than one-sixteenth of a mile from a rail station would clearly fall within the Transit Village Overlay land use classification, which would therefore allow for the Measure U exemptions relating to density and height. A sixteenth of a mile would match, by most people’s reckoning, “walking distance” between an apartment complex and the train station, such that those living in those facilities would be more than very likely to reduce their use of motor vehicles. Upon the distance increasing to an eighth or a mile or a quarter of a mile or beyond, however, the likelihood increased that those living in the residence might use their vehicles to drive from where they lived to a parking lot near the train station or might park on the street proximate to it.
While the staff report conceded that the “project includes 85 dwelling units on a 3.15-acre site, which exceeds 20 units per acre [standard that might otherwise be applied], it made the assertion that “The project site is located within one-quarter mile of a transit station and a clear pedestrian route is available from the project site to the transit station.”
The report argued that a “1/4 mile radius is utilized in the city’s general plan to define a ‘mixed use core’ around a passenger rail station as an area with the potential for the highest development intensity and ability to support transit ridership’ and that “a 1/4 mile radius covers areas that are within a 5-minute walking distance from the transit station. Sites within a one-quarter mile of a rail station have been shown to have significantly higher rates of using trains or transit to commute to and from work destinations, due to the convenience of its location and transit stops. Some households within these types of transit-oriented multi-family residential developments may choose to not own any automobiles.”
The report, somewhat questionably, made the assertion that the project site… is a short walking distance away from the station platform. The maximum length of the pedestrian route, measured from the opposite side of the development site to the platform, is roughly 550 feet, which is substantially less than one-quarter mile (1,320 feet).”
Thus, on December 17, an issue the proponent of the project and city officials were exceedingly nervous about was whether a member of the public might bring up that the Stuart & Eureka Balboa Park Project is nearly a quarter of a mile from the closest existing rail station.
City planning officials, who were oriented in favor of the project, propounded an argument that the project met the proper zoning requirements in that “the site is in the ‘Village Center’ district of the Transit Villages Specific Plan.” That is problematic in that the Village Center district applies to parcels immediately surrounding the three train stations. In the Transit Villages Specific Plan zone, new buildings are allowed to reach an average height of four stories and are permitted to be of mixed-use (i.e., retail/commercial and residential uses within the same building or site) or all residential use or all commercial use.
An intellectually honest discussion of that issue might very well have resulted in what should have been a conclusion that the Measure U exemption did not apply to the Stuart & Eureka Balboa Park Project.
No one on hand at the December 17 meeting, however, challenged the proponent or city staff with regard to the project or any assertions made in the staff report about it.
The discussion of the Stuart & Eureka Balboa Park Project did not begin until the 3-hour 13 minute and 58 seconds of the 3-hour 25 minute and 46 second meeting had already elapsed and came after a spirited hearing and council discussion earlier in the evening with regard to the mayoral succession, an issue enlivened by claims that Mayor/Councilman Eddie Tejeda, who was mayor when the discussion began, had welshed on a deal he made two years ago to name Councilwoman Denise Davis mayor for the next two years. That matter ended with the council voting 4-to-1, with Davis dissenting, to make Councilman Mario Saucedo mayor. A large number of city residents stormed out of the meeting at that point. The matter relating to the Stuart & Eureka Balboa Park Project was heard with newly proclaimed Mayor Saucedo presiding over the council.
It is there for noteworthy but perhaps not surprising that the council spent only three minutes and 25 seconds in dealing with the Stuart & Eureka Balboa Park Project. Following a very brief staff presentation followed by no comments or questions from the council and no comments from the public, a vote on the project took place in which it was give unanimous approval. The matter was concluded with at the 3-hour 17 minute and 23 second point of the meeting.
The council voted unanimously to approve the project.