Press Row: A year after his wife’s passing, Dick Bruich is back on the sidelines to assist his son, Kurt, at Citrus Valley
Police say they were notified after a 13-year-old boy sent friends a photo of himself with a firearm.
Planning Commission approves revised warehouse project on Tennessee Street despite opposition over proximity to schools and housing
REDLANDS, Calif. — A revised plan for a 193,469-square-foot distribution warehouse on Tennessee Street was approved by the Redlands Planning Commission on June 24, reversing a decision made last year to reject a similar proposal amid widespread public opposition.
The commission voted 4-1 to approve the project. Vice Chair Matthew Endsley was the sole dissenting vote. Commissioners Rosemarie Gonzales and Rich Smith were absent from the meeting.
Why it matters: The approval comes just over a year after the commission denied a similar warehouse plan following intense public backlash over traffic, air quality and proximity to nearby schools. This time, commissioners said the updated proposal met all current zoning and design standards and emphasized that broader concerns fell outside their decision-making authority.
Prologis, Inc., the project developer, plans to redevelop the 11-acre defunct La-Z-Boy facility. The new plan, referred to as “the Reduced Project,” by city staff, is a slightly revised version of the originally rejected warehouse.
The revised plan is about 2% smaller, one foot shorter (39 feet), and eliminates the previously proposed cold storage. Truck access is restricted to enter on Tennessee Street and exit Kansas Street, diverting away from State Street and nearby schools.
The slight decrease in size also reduces the number of daily truck trips from 95 to 86, according to the developer.
The developer also noted energy-efficient design features like rooftop solar and LEED Silver certification, all standards set in the city's warehouse ordinance.
In 2023 the City Council adopted a warehouse ordinance in response to concerns over pollution, truck traffic and the region’s growing number of logistics centers. For the Tennessee Street warehouse, the ordinance was used as a justification to approve the project.
“When we acquired the site, we had relied on Ordinance 2955, which designated this site as one of six sites that were remaining for eligible redevelopment,” said Prologis representative Nicole Torstvet during the meeting. “Our proposal is not for an expansion, but for modernization, fully compliant with this ordinance, AB 98 and aligned with the city's general plan.”
However, no effort was taken to address concerns the public raised over traffic congestion at the nearby Alabama Street rail crossing with developers noting that no accidents involving trucks have occurred at that crossing.
Only a handful of residents spoke during the June 24 meeting, most in support of the project, marking a stark contrast from the dozens who opposed it last year.
Among those that voiced their support were Chris Winters, the lower school principal of Redlands Christian Schools, who believes the project will be an improvement for the area and benefit the students and families.
“One of the things this project does that's really important is that it gets traffic off of two intersections where we currently have trucks, Tennessee and State, Kansas and State,” said Carole Beswick, Redlands’ first woman mayor in 1983. “This will be a huge help to parents picking up kids at the elementary school, at the Christian school.”
The Redlands Chamber of Commerce and Western States Regional Council of Carpenters also shared their support of the project.
“When a project does meet all applicable codes and findings for approval, it must be approved,” said John James, a former Redlands council member and former planning commissioner and chair.
One public commenter, however, questioned whether these changes were enough to justify reversing the earlier decision, and whether the city’s legal concerns should outweigh public input.
“What is substantially different today from what persuaded you in a negative way at that point in time? Is it that much improved?” questioned resident Andy Hoder. “There's a very slight reduction in square footage and a couple of loading docks, but the project isn't that different than it was before.”
Hoder is referring to the strong public opposition to the original project proposal in 2024. During the project’s public hearing at the Planning Commission in April 2024 and again during the project’s appeal before City Council in November 2024, dozens of residents spoke out with concern about the project's impact on traffic, air quality and aesthetics.
"My son attends school close to the proposed warehouse, and I'm concerned about the numerous health problems associated with the bad air quality in our area. And I am against this project," said one mother who attended last year’s meeting with her young children.
Another public commenter pointed out that, according to the South Coast Air Quality Management District, people within a half-mile of distribution warehouses are at much higher risk for health complications.
"And just for reference, half a mile is 2640 feet. So that's about ten times the distance of the nearest sensitive receptor or school to this project. And that's a kindergarten," said Redlands resident Emilie Brill-Duisberg during the same April 22 meeting.
The distribution warehouse is about 275 feet north of Redlands Adventist Academy Kindergarten and Kids Care and 380 feet north of Redlands Christian Middle School.
The developer lost its appeal of the Planning Commission’s original decision during a Nov. 22, 2024 City Council meeting. The developer was required to wait 6 months before bringing a new project proposal before the Planning Commission.
Despite a history of strong public opposition to warehouse development in the area, City Attorney Yvette Garcia confirmed to the Commission that their decision should consider only the evidence presented before them. “Your focus now during deliberation is to focus on the findings... for the discretionary permits... and determining whether the findings can all be met or not met. That's your purview.”
Assistant City Manager Chris Boatman further elaborated that the Commission’s job is to “look at what the rules are in the code... and evaluate this project based off of the findings... That is your strict criteria."
Chair Karah Shaw concluded the exchange by emphasizing the limits of the commission’s authority: “Sometimes we might not like something, but that's not what we're here to do.”
Multiple commissioners expressed their appreciation that Prologis came back with what they considered an improved project, especially regarding the truck routing.
“I actually do feel that architecture helps contribute to a community's sense of place and public health,” said Commissioner Maryn Wells. “So, I do appreciate that Prologis took so many of our comments last time around and came back with a product that I think is much more visually appropriate for the area. And I also appreciate, again, the truck routing exhibit that we have here.”
Commission Vice Chair Matthew Endsley, the lone dissenter, discussed his concerns with the project, noting that the development will “stand out like a sore thumb,” noting “even though the square footage on the floor might be the same as what exists, it’s going to be essentially twice the height of the existing buildings.” He also listed concerns about traffic congestion, the impact on local schools and the “unanswered question” of how to monitor idling trucks.
“I'm still really going back to the same findings or lack thereof that we had last time,” Endsley said. “I can't support the project.”
Commissioner Emily Elliot, who did not sit on the Commission during the first vote, said she is optimistic that the updated building would be an improvement to the land use: “If we could replace this building with something that's more modern and has a more efficient use of energy, I believe that could be more beneficial to our community.”
City staff relied on a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) first circulated for the original version of the warehouse in 2023. Despite public opposition and material changes to the project, that environmental document was not updated or recirculated. Staff maintained that the updated plan was smaller in scope and did not require new environmental review under CEQA.
The 30-day public comment period ran from May 4, 2023 to June 2, 2023. Posted only in a local print paper under the name “Tennessee Street Project” it garnered just two responses.
Despite widespread backlash in 2024 that led to the project's original rejection, there were no community meetings or mailers notifying residents about the revised proposal.
While staff determined the original environmental review remained valid under CEQA, no effort was made to re-engage residents or recirculate updated findings, a step many critics say would have improved public trust in the process.
For now, the only remaining hurdle for the Tennessee Street warehouse is a review by the city’s Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission. Because the structure is more than 50 years old it requires approval by the commission for demolition. That commission could raise objections but whether it will remains to be seen.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter
