Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves hotel, car wash and drive‑through coffee at 913 California Street amid calls for deeper environmental review; several housing and,‑
Summary
The Redlands Planning Commission on Aug. 12 approved a mixed‑use development at 913 California Street — including a 90‑room hotel, a drive‑through coffee shop and a car wash — and cleared several other land‑use items after staff said updated environmental analyses found no new significant impacts, despite public requests for a fuller environmental review.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Redlands Planning Commission on Aug. 12 voted to approve a mixed‑use project at 913 California Street that will include a 90‑room hotel, a drive‑through coffee shop and a car wash, and approved several other land‑use items — including a veterinary clinic, two residential subdivision actions and a setback variance — after staff said an updated environmental analysis found no new significant impacts.
The most contested item was the 5.1‑acre proposal at 913 California Street, which the developer said will be built in phases and will construct a new signalized entrance, a four‑story hotel with 90 guest rooms, a 1,450‑square‑foot coffee shop with a double drive‑through lane, and a commercial car wash. Opponents asked the commission to continue the hearing and require an environmental impact report, citing air quality, hazardous materials and public‑health concerns; attorneys representing CARE California also submitted technical letters during the public comment period. The planning commission approved the project with a condition directing staff to work with the developer on operations and stacking/queuing for the coffee shop.
Why it matters: the project is sited adjacent to Interstate 10 and a commercial corridor where traffic and air quality have been key community concerns; the developer and city estimate the project will generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual tax revenue, while community groups contend the environmental review is insufficient and asked for an EIR.
Project details and contention The approved proposal would subdivide the parcel into three buildable lots and a separate lot for a water‑quality basin. The hotel (Parcel 1) will be a four‑story, approximately 55,000‑square‑foot building with a maximum height of about 58 feet and an outdoor pool; staff said the hotel is estimated to operate from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily with up to 10 employees and a maximum guest occupancy of about 280. Parcel 2 holds the proposed 1,450‑square‑foot drive‑through coffee shop (about 600 square feet of indoor seating), with a double drive‑through and stacking room for 14 vehicles; Parcel 3 is the car wash with capacity for roughly 13 cars in queue and 21 parking spaces. Staff reported 152 on‑site parking spaces would be provided across the development, exceeding the specific‑plan requirement of 116 spaces.
Attorney Andrew Graff, representing CARE California, asked the commission to continue the hearing and to remand the project for an EIR, saying the coalition’s consultants found a “fair argument” that the project could cause significant unmitigated effects related to air quality, noise and hazardous materials. Graff said testing and mitigation for perchloroethylene (PCE) and other contaminants identified in the site’s Phase I environmental review remain unresolved and asked the city to prepare an EIR rather than adopt a mitigated negative declaration.
City and consultant response City staff and the project’s environmental consultant said the initial study/mitigated negative declaration (ISMND) had been revised where appropriate and that additional technical analyses had been prepared in response to comments received. A principal from LSA — the firm that prepared the ISMND for the city — told the commission that the updated air‑quality modeling and a project‑specific health risk assessment “confirm the conclusions of the ISMND that all impacts related to air quality, energy, and noise would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.” The consultant also said that differences between the city’s analysis and the commenter’s health‑risk assessment were largely attributable to modeling inputs, for example assumptions about continuous, around‑the‑clock operation of construction equipment used in the commenter’s model rather than the shorter, staged construction assumed by the city’s analysis.
Developer and community statements John Hyman of Hyman Development Group, the applicant’s representative, told the commission the team had spent roughly 16 months refining the plan and absorbing the cost of required off‑site improvements such as an undergrounding of utility lines and a new traffic signal. He said the project is expected to create about 40 local jobs and generate tax revenue the city could use for capital projects.
Zoning actions and other approvals The commission also approved several other items on the Aug. 12 agenda: - A revision to a previously approved residential plan (Tract 20520) that changes home models, some exterior materials and landscape plans and substitutes vinyl fencing between homes for slumpstone walls; staff said no changes to lot counts or open space were proposed. The commission approved revision number 1 to Conditional Use Permit No. 1167. (Moved by Commissioner Stanson; seconded by Commissioner Smith; motion carried.) - A conditional use permit to allow Arabia’s Animal House to operate a veterinary clinic without overnight boarding at 1150 Brookside Avenue. The clinic will occupy an existing 3,160‑square‑foot tenant space, operate Monday–Friday 8 a.m.–6 p.m. and Saturdays 8 a.m.–4 p.m., and staff said no tenant improvements are needed though building permits would be required; the commission approved the CUP with a modified condition allowing emergency patients after hours. Applicant Jamie Shelton told the commission the clinic will use false‑bottom cages and staff training to control odors and clean outdoor areas. (Moved by Commissioner Wells; seconded by Commissioner Stanson; motion carried.) - Tentative Tract Map 20645 and Commission Review/Approval for a single‑family subdivision of a 4.3‑acre site at the northeast corner of Texas Street and Pioneer Avenue into 11 lots; staff said the proposal conforms to density requirements under recent state law and will require new curb, gutter, sidewalks and parkway landscaping along the site frontage. (Moved by Commissioner Elliot; seconded by Commissioner Stanson; motion carried.) - Variance No. 818 to reduce a street‑side setback for an approximately 500‑square‑foot addition at 27 Westwood Lane; staff said the property’s topography and a previous right‑of‑way dedication resulted in a buildable area falling within the current required setback and that the addition would be largely below street grade and screened by mature landscaping. The commission approved the variance. (Moved by Commissioner Smith; seconded by Commissioner Sanson; motion carried.)
Commission direction and conditions For the 913 California Street project, commissioners added a condition requiring staff to work with the developer on an operational/queuing plan for Parcel 2’s drive‑through to ensure vehicle stacking would not block parking or site circulation; the developer agreed to a staff review/queuing study. For the veterinary clinic, commissioners amended conditions to clarify that emergency patients may be accepted outside of regular business hours. Several commissioners also urged the city to prioritize planned road improvements near the proposed subdivisions, and staff said the commission could forward those requests to the municipal utilities and capital projects departments for consideration.
What’s next For the 913 California Street project, the commission adopted resolutions approving the ISMND and a tentative parcel map and approved the conditional use permit; staff noted that responses to public comments and technical attachments had been posted to the city website and provided to commissioners. Several public‑comment letters remain in the file; community groups asked for more time to review responses and for recirculation of environmental documents but the commission voted to approve the project with the added queuing condition.
Public‑comment note: during the meeting’s public‑comment period several speakers raised unrelated concerns about a proposed warehouse near Tennessee Street and diesel truck traffic; the planning commission chair said the appeal period on that planning action had closed and suggested speakers contact the city manager’s office for follow‑up.
