Warehouse project approved despite community opposition

REDLANDS, CA – The Redlands City Council voted 3-2 to approve a controversial 357,610-square-foot warehouse project on California Street, despite significant community opposition and a unanimous recommendation for denial from the Planning Commission.

The project, proposed by LA developer North Palisade Partners, will be built on the site of the former Splash Kingdom water park near the intersection of California Street and the 10 Freeway.

Why it matters: More than 120 comments were submitted against the development over two public hearings. On June 11, the Redlands Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend the City Council reject the development because it found it was not in conformity with the city's General Plan and would adversely affect the surrounding area. More than 80 public comments were made in opposition to the project in June.

Against the advice of the Planning Commission, city staff recommended that the City Council approve the project.

"Based on the analysis and findings in the staff report, staff's recommendation that the project be approved remains unchanged," said Kevin Beery, city of Redlands planner, during his presentation to the City Council.

Details: The mega warehouse will include 6,000 square feet of office space and 47 truck loading docks. The developer is required by city ordinance to install rooftop solar and electric vehicle charging spaces. In exchange for contributing $300,000 to a public art installation, the developer will provide less landscaping (12% instead of 15%).

Although there is no defined tenant for the development, the developer said that once completed, it will provide 200 permanent jobs.

The city deemed an Environmental Impact Report was not necessary because the warehouse would have no "significant impact" on air quality or traffic. This determination is based on the isolated impact of this project, not the cumulative impact of warehousing in the area. It is also based on current air quality in the surrounding area, which has been found to be the worst in the nation for ozone pollution.

Following traffic mitigation measures, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals reversed its position and chose not to oppose the project. Kaiser has a clinic adjacent to the proposed warehouse site and plans a multi-phased 863,000-square-foot medical office and hospital to be built over 20 years, according to the city's current project list.

Quotes: During the meeting, 13 public comments were made in opposition to the project. In addition, 28 written public comments were entered into the record. Here’s a sampling of what they had to say. 

Residents questioned the legitimacy of the environmental review and the impact on local air quality.

• "The best way to mitigate the pollution is to not bring in the trucks."
• "How will you properly analyze the truck trips based on the size of this project? You are looking at 80 to 150 truck trips a day. There are  47 dock doors. When dock doors reach capacity, where will the trucks go to idle?”
• "Now, the applicant can argue the truck traffic associated with a 350,000-square-foot warehouse won't worsen our air quality, but common sense tells a different story. Fortunately, the Planning Commission saw the truth and voted no."
• "As I mentioned, I'm eight months pregnant, and I have not even been able to go outside lately to take the walks recommended by my doctor because the air quality has been so unhealthy…We should be taking action to mitigate this rather than considering more developments that will exacerbate the current crisis”

They asked for creative solutions for land use.

• "We're not saying no money, no taxes. We're saying let's bring it in another way."
• "The argument that we're not sure what else to do on this property is not a good enough reason to permanently change our community, especially when the health of our children are at stake. The property used to be an amusement park. It's down the street from the museum. Clearly, we can be using these kinds of spaces for more creative purposes.”
• "On its own, a warehouse is bad for the environment; it's bad for the local economy; it's bad for our future unemployment numbers; it's bad for our residents' pride in their hometown; and it's bad for our property values."

They expressed frustration that their concerns were not being acknowledged and questioned who the Council truly represents. 

• “Having watched the Planning Commission meeting, I am absolutely stunned by staff's recommendation. Staff's recommendation completely ignores the Planning Commission's findings.”
• "I am really wondering what is the point of the Planning Commission if you refuse to take their advice, their unanimous advice? And then I wonder again who the City Council would actually be representing if they are not listening to their community standing in front of them right now."

There were 16 public comments made in support of the development. Supporters included union construction workers, the Redlands Chamber of Commerce, NAIOP - a Commercial Industrial Association, and CARE California - an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations. 

City Council in support: Major Eddie Tejeda was joined by Mayor Pro Tem Paul Barich and Council member Mario Saucedo in supporting the development. The three council members noted their support was based on Kaiser's decision not to oppose the project, the development's proximity to the freeway, and the energy-efficient aspects required by the city ordinance.

Tejeda and Barich said they met with the developer on multiple occasions, while Saucedo disclosed that he met with the developer once prior to the public hearing. 

Here are some key quotes:

• Saucedo defended  the decision to disregard the opinion of the Planning Commission. "And I think we, as council members, often hear from our advisory commissions, and not all the time do we agree with them," said Saucedo. 
• Barich leveled sharp criticism on the public for "complaining" and considering the developer the "bogeyman." "Maybe all the community, all the people who wrote in and said, 'Hey, we want something else', chip in their money and put a park there. I'll be in support of that," said Barich who argued in favor of allowing the development. "If you want to put a park there, that's great. Okay? But start writing some checks." 
• Tejeda said the development is in line with development standards and it is ultimately not up to the city what is built on the land. "We are presented with projects that are brought to us by the owners of the property and by developers. We don't, as a community, have the purview of identifying vacant property and putting it up for sale on behalf of a property owner. We do not solicit projects to come to our community. The perception in a lot of the comments is that the city is doing the building," said Tejeda. "I am judging this based on information that I received here tonight." 

City Council in opposition: Council members Denise Davis and Jenna Guzman-Lowery both voted against the development due to its potential impacts on worsening air quality, traffic congestion, land use, and the "outpouring" of public opposition to the project. 

"The residents of Redlands have been begging us through email, through public comment, through engagement with the Planning Commission, that warehouses are not the way to go," said Guzman-Lowery. "There are more sustainable and environmentally conscious developments that we can invest in, that we can focus our efforts on." 

Guzman-Lowery also pointed out concerns about public trust in the environmental review process. 

“And I know that there have been members of our community, as well as members of the Planning Commission, who also don't necessarily trust the evidence," said Guzman-Lowery. 

Following the meeting, Davis wrote in a statement to Community Forward Redlands that she was disappointed in her colleagues who voted for the warehouse “despite overwhelming opposition from community members and our Planning Commission.” 

“We need to focus on how we can improve public health and quality of life in Redlands, and adding one more warehouse is contradictory to those urgent goals,” wrote Davis. 

Moving forward: Anticipating approval, the developer said they have already invested in the next steps to begin construction drawing. 

The warehouse is expected to be standing by next summer.