The developmental imperative in Redlands continued unabated this week as the planning commission gave go-ahead to a mixed-use development proposal along the unimproved stretch of the 900 block of California Street.
The project in question, proposed by JD FUEL, LLC., will be located at 913 California Street, and is to consist of a hotel, coffee shop and car wash. Despite expressed concerns the project’s completion will have on traffic circulation in the area and its potential environmental impact, the project was given approval during the commission’s August 12 meeting, with no dissension, though Commissioner Mat Endsley was not present for the hearing.
According to Redlands Principal Planner Sean Riley, J.D. Fuel had applied for an entitlement to proceed with an energetic project on approximately five-acre site located at 913 California Street, which lies west of California Street, approximately 500 feet south of Interstate 10. The property falls within the property zoned for general commercial in the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan area.
JD Fuel asked for, and Reilly recommended that the planning commission grant, a mitigated negative declaration prepared for the proposed project in accordance with Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act, an examination of the environmental impacts of a project must be made for it to be given environmental certification. Some discretion is left to the governmental decision-making body that oversees land use issues and possesses approval and/or denial authority regard to a development project as to what type of analysis of the environmental issues is to be carried out and what mitigations of the impacts are to be required.
In evaluating the project, the Redlands planning staff elected to use a mitigated negative declaration, also referred to as an initial study, as the means of providing the project with its environmental certification.
A simple negative declaration is the least exacting type of development impact assessments and a mitigated negative declaration is the second-least stringent type of development impact assessments. On the other end of the scale, an environmental impact report is the most involved and exhaustive type of environmental analysis and certification there is, followed by an environmental impact study, then an environmental impact assessment, then a mitigated negative declaration and a negative declaration. An environmental impact report consists of an in-depth study of the project site, the project proposal, the potential and actual impacts the project will have on the site and surrounding area in terms of all conceivable issues, including land use, water use, air quality, potential contamination, noise, traffic, and biological and cultural resources. An environmental impact report specifies in detail what measures can, will and must be carried out to offset those impacts. An environmental impact study is somewhat less exacting and an environmental impact assessment less stringent still. A mitigated negative declaration is a statement by the ultimate land use authority – in the is case the Redlands Planning Commission – that any identified impacts from the project will be mitigated or offset by the conditions of approval for the project. A negative declaration, the least exacting type of certification there is, merely states that the initial study done by the jurisdictional staff evaluating the project identified any environmental issues and that there are no environmental problems of consequence involved in the proposed project. In this case, the planning commission required nothing beyond the initial study to make a determination that there was nothing about the project that would negatively impact the environment as long as the conditions of approval were met.
In 1997, Redlands voters passed Measure U, an initiative intended to manage development within the City of Redlands. One of the Measure U requirements was that a socio-economic cost/benefit study be prepared to ascertain whether a project will be of economic benefit to the city before it is given approval. According to Reilly, such a report was prepared for the project and it passed muster.
The tentative parcel map for the project specified that a request had been made to subdivide the approximately five-acre triangular-shaped vacant parcel into three lots for future commercial development (2.3 acres, 0.49 acres, and 1.54 acres), and one lettered lot (0.75 acres) for water quality purposes, that being a percolating basin which will allow water to drain into the water table. The application also involved a request for site plan approval and architectural design review for the construction of a 90-room, four-story hotel; a 1,450-square-foot drive-through coffee shop; and a 3,588-square-foot car wash, with related on-site and off-site improvements including parking lots, access driveways, landscaping, lighting, utilities, and drainage improvements. There are to be 117 parking spaces reserved for the hotel and its patrons. The coffee shop will have double- drive-through lanes externally and seating for up to 25 customers internally. The car wash will accommodate one car actively being washed and 13 in line.
Approval of the project entailed granting a conditional use permit to construct and operate a four-story, 90-room hotel totaling 55,186 square feet of building area, pursuant to Section EV3.0713 of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. as well as a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 1,450-square-foot drive-thru eating establishment, pursuant to Section EV3.0613 of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan.
Commissioner Mark Stanson’s concerns about the project’s impact on traffic through the area were assuaged by city staff’s assurance that traffic signal augmentation will render the traffic flow manageable during morning and late afternoon/early evening rush hour.
In communication relating to the project sent to the city in recent weeks and months, residents expressed concern over impacts to air quality in the area. Without saying, exactly, that the additional vehicle exhaust emissions that will come into the area will be alleviated by any measures to be taken, Ryan Bensley, a principal environmental planner at Larry Seeman Associates, said the air quality report and noise study ultimately filed with the project application had undergone additional modeling, which provided a health risk assessment that the impacts were to be below a significant threshhold.
“All impacts related to air quality, energy and noise would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. All impact related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant,” Bensley said.
The planning commission spurned a request from Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy that the project approval be put on hold pending further evaluation of its impacts.
Andrew Grant, an attorney with the Law Firm of Adams, Broadwell, Joseph and Cardozo, representing Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy, called upon the commission to hold off on its consideration and approval of the project. He said there were unresolved issues relating to air quality and the presence of perchloroethylene in the soil at the site.
“We respectfully request that this commission continue the public hearing and remand the project to staff to prepare an environmental impact report that adequately analyzes and mitigates all potentially significant impacts, as required by The California Environmental Quality Act,” Grant said.
Doug Reynoldson of Keller Williams Realty encouraged the commission to avoid any delay in approving the project. The commission’s members complied, with the sole concession to the project’s opponents being that JD FUEL come together with the city staff to design a plan to ensure that there be no “queuing,” i.e., backups of vehicles exiting the hotel, coffee shop or car wash onto California Street.