In the course of two weeks, late last month and early this month, the Redlands City Council considered two aggressive development projects. Ultimately, it rejected the first, a semi-industrial project brought before it on November 19 and gave approval to a high-density residential project on December 3.
Prologis, a major development concern based in San Francisco, earlier this year tendered an application to construct a 10.9-acre warehouse and logistics distribution facility with 25 truck loading docks at 301 Tennessee Street.
The property in question was previously developed, having hosted the now-shuttered La-Z-Boy furniture manufacturing factory.
Prologis asked the city to permit it to erect a facility that would tower over and dwarf the immediately proximate commercial structures in the area. Prologis identified no specific tenant for the warehouse, but indicated that it was anticipated whoever came to occupy it would likely dispatch more than 115 semi-trucks from the facility per day. The land use professionals on the city’s planning staff made a recommendation that the city give go-ahead to the project.
When the Redlands Planning Commission took up the matter on May 28, residents and some commissioners expressed reservations with regard to a glut of logistics facilities in the region, environmental risks and hazards, the large diesel-powered semi-trucks with their unhealthy exhaust emissions that are part of warehouse operations, the traffic issues that would be created by 115 trucks or more departing from and returning to the warehouse, the potential that hazardous substances were to be stored at and transported from the facility, the consideration that there were two schools near the site and the incompatibility of the warehouse with surrounding structures and land uses, including the ESRI campus and a high-density multi-family residential neighborhood 700 feet from the project site. The commission denied approval for the project.
Prologis, asserting that the commission’s findings in forming the basis for the denial “were inadequate and lacked justification,” appealed that denial to the city council. According to Prologis, the project, a light industrial use by definition, would not be in conflict with city’s zoning codes, general plan or land use standards. Nor would the intensity of truck traffic exceed that which existed when the land was being used by La-Z Boy, according to the company.
In its appeal, Prologis disputed that the project would entail a threat to public health and safety. In making this assertion, it cited a traffic impact assessment the company paid for that reached the conclusion that the 115 trucks sojourning from the warehouse would only have “negligible impact on congestion at the intersection most affected by the proposed project.”
Prologis disputed the planning commission finding that the 40-foot height of the building was not explicitly prohibited by the city’s municipal code, which has no explicit limitation on the height of industrial buildings.
Furthermore, according to Prologis, the streets in the area had been designed to accommodate trucks of the type to be used by any future warehouse tenant. And the amount of truck traffic that the project would generate would not result in an excessive amount of exhaust such that it would exceed that which is anticipated in the regional air quality standard plan propounded by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
To overcome the commission rejection of the project, the city council had to make a reversal with a majority vote.
Councilmen Paul Barich and Mario Saucedo were in favor of overturning the planning commission. Barich said Prologis was willing to change the intensity and nature of its proposal to match what the impact of the La-Z-Boy operation. Saucedo said the planning commission’s rejection of the project was not in keeping with the city’s standards and codes.
Councilwoman Denise Davis said the commission had predicated its rejection on legitimate environmental and traffic issues, saying “Our roads and infrastructure… we’re not built for large truck traffic.”
Councilwoman Jenna Guzman-Lowery said, “This community has said that they do not want any more warehouses here in the city of Redlands.”
Mayor Eddie Tejeda recused himself from voting on the matter because of an unspecified conflict of interest.
As a consequence of the council’s 2-to-2 deadlock, the planning commission’s rejection of the project was upheld.
Things went differently for another project proponent, Jeff Burum and his company, Diversified Pacific, which proposed constructing a 460-apartment complex and and approximately 18,000 square feet of commercial space on 13.48 acres located on the east side of Tennessee Street, approximately 600 feet north of West Lugonia Avenue. That project lies, according to city staff, within the special development district of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan Area.
In order for the 13.48 acres, consisting of four parcels of 1.37 net acres, 1.49 net acres, 5.02 net acres and 4.88 net acres to be developed, the land’s zoning designation of special development (EV/SD) district to general commercial (C-3) district was needed. The approval required a granting of a conditional use permit. The apartments are to be contained within ten buildings of 46 units each. The residential units are to includeone-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom floor plans ranging from 755 to 1,599 square feet each.
In approving the project, the city council agreed up front to finalize with Burum a density bonus agreement based upon his assurance that upon completion the project will be bound by affordable housing covenants and restrictions, such that 20 apartment units will be reserved for and will be rented on terms affordable to very-low-Income households.
The city council took up consideration of the project at its Tuesday, December 3 meeting.
The council appeared to be favorably influenced by some of the input from the public supporting the project. That input involved individuals saying the project would offer those who want to live in Redlands affordable options, including Tess Richard, who she was looking forward to becoming a homeowner in Redlands at some point. In this regard there appeared to be a slight disconnect, as generally speaking, apartment units are rented by their occupants rather than owned.
Nevertheless, Richard characterized the proposed apartments as “a step in the right direction.”
Burum’s representatives said one of the buildings in the complex might feature a movie theater. External elements are to include a swimming pool and a passive park.
The council rejected the expressed concerns of some Redlands residents with regard to traffic impacts on the immediately adjacent streets, particularly Tennessee Street, and both ingress and egress from the apartment complex itself.
The project was given both conceptual and actual approval, as the applicant must yet complete zoning changes and density allowance applications relating to the nature of what is to be built.
-Mark Gutglueck