Redlands Planning Commission continues Prologis warehouse item and asks staff to draft denial resolution

The Redlands Planning Commission on April 23 continued consideration of a proposed 197,397‑square‑foot Prologis warehouse at 301 Tennessee Street and directed staff to prepare a denial resolution for the commission to consider at its next meeting.

Commissioners heard a two‑hour public hearing that included presentations from city staff, the applicant and multiple consultants, followed by more than an hour of public comment from union supporters, school officials and residents. City staff recommended approval conditioned on mitigation measures and adoption of a mitigated negative declaration after finding no significant long‑term operational impacts under applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds.

Why it mattered: Commissioners pressed consultants on traffic modeling, the CEQA baseline and safety at Metrolink crossings. Commissioner Gutskowski said the technical analysis understates site‑specific risks and raised the prospect that tractor‑trailers could be trapped at rail gates where stacking is limited; other commissioners flagged potential cumulative effects of warehousing in the southern corridor and concerns that a taller, 40‑foot building would alter the neighborhood character.

Staff and consultants: City planner Mr. Foote reviewed the application (Conditional Use Permit No. 1182; Commission Review & Approval No. 948; lot merger) and said the project meets the city’s warehouse ordinance siting rules (within 1 mile of a freeway ramp), provides on‑site truck stacking and orients loading docks away from Tennessee Street. Bob Prossian, the city’s CEQA consultant, explained the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and noted construction‑phase mitigation measures. Ron Brugger of LSA, the project’s air quality analyst, told the commission that the modeled operational emissions and localized significance thresholds did not show significant long‑term health risks under AQMD methodology, though AQMD submitted a list of additional mitigation recommendations.

Applicant response: Nicole Torsevet of Prologis described the redevelopment as a Class‑A logistics facility, said loading docks were oriented away from the street, and outlined additional landscape setbacks (increasing the frontage setback from 28 to 89 feet), on‑site truck queuing, and commitments to solar readiness and EV charging infrastructure. Torsevet said the applicant conducted outreach beyond the code‑required radius and offered targeted improvements for Redlands Christian School and Kansas Street.

Key numbers and technical points: The project would replace an older industrial building and proposes 25 loading docks; staff cited a socioeconomic benefit ratio of approximately 4.36 in the Measure U model for the warehouse application. Project traffic consultants escalated conservative truck trip rates for analysis and reported an estimated net increase of 7 truck trips during the peak hour (25 escalated trips distributed across the network), while acknowledging a large tenant could generate up to about 115 truck movements across a 24‑hour period. The CEQA baseline used for comparisons was a manufacturing use rather than observed current daily counts, a point commissioners repeatedly questioned.

Public reaction: Supporters—many trade‑union members and the Redlands Chamber—emphasized construction and permanent job opportunities, union labor and on‑ and off‑site improvements. Opponents included parents, health and environment advocates and nearby residents who urged an Environmental Impact Report, citing asthma and cumulative diesel particulate exposure near schools and disadvantaged census tracts.

Commission action and next steps: Commissioner Gutskowski moved to deny the project; after deliberation the motion was amended to continue the item to the commission’s next meeting with explicit direction for staff to draft a denial resolution that reflects the concerns heard. The amendment was seconded and carried by voice vote. The continuance means staff will prepare findings and legal review before the commission revisits the application; if the commission ultimately denies the item, the decision will be subject to further review by the City Council.

Transparency note: Quotations and attributions in this report are drawn from the public hearing transcript and the city’s staff presentation. The commission’s continuance does not yet represent a final determination on the permit.