Planning commission continues review of proposed 4‑story, 52‑room hotel amid concerns about scale, materials and fiscal assumptions

The Redlands Planning Commission on April 9 continued review of Commission Review and Approval 955, a proposal for a four‑story, 52‑room extended‑stay hotel on a 0.77‑acre vacant lot at the northeast corner of Plum Lane and Idaho Street.

Staff said the 29,820‑square‑foot project would provide 57 parking spaces, meet the city’s Code parking ratio for hotels, and qualified for a CEQA infill exemption. Staff also presented a socioeconomic cost‑benefit study that found a positive ratio of 9.76.

During questioning, several commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on fiscal assumptions underlying the cost‑benefit analysis — specifically whether transient‑occupancy‑tax (TOT) projections accounted for extended‑stay patterns. "The cost benefit model the city uses has a place and entry for hotel uses, which we completed," staff said, noting the model uses a standard 80% occupancy assumption and applicant‑provided nightly rates and does not separately model long‑term stays.

Neighbors objected. Rick Lazar, representing adjacent property owner Carrie Bubb, said the site is a small parcel surrounded by mostly low‑rise office buildings and argued the development could create a "tower effect" and parking stress near existing offices. He warned of a potential oversupply of lodging in proximity to three recently built hotels.

Commissioners split on the project. Commissioner Guskowski criticized the site’s scale and said the project represents "overbuilding" for the surrounding professional office area and questioned long‑term maintenance risks tied to a smaller‑scale lodging property. "I will not be supporting the project," he said, citing scale and materials concerns. Commissioner Wells said she could support the project based on the findings and existing conditions that could be imposed.

Staff suggested concrete under the building rather than asphalt and the use of additional, specific material conditions if the commission wished to approve. Given the split among members and two absent commissioners, the commission voted to continue the item to a date uncertain so the applicant could address specific concerns about massing, architectural treatments and materials; the continuance motion was made by Commissioner Guskowski and seconded by Commissioner Gonzales.

Why it matters: The vote postpones a decision on a project that would add new lodging capacity near the 10 Freeway and could affect traffic, parking and neighborhood character. Commissioners requested clearer information on fiscal assumptions for TOT revenue from an extended‑stay product and more detailed material and architectural specifications.

Next steps: Staff and the applicant were asked to return with clarifications on materials, paving under the building, potential design revisions to reduce perceived massing, and additional fiscal analysis; the commission will revisit the item when a fuller body is present.