Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Warehouse Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission directs staff to study prohibition or tighter controls on new warehouse development after ordinance review
Summary
After a staff review comparing Redlands' Ordinance No. 2955 with incoming state law AB 98, commissioners directed staff to pursue further legal analysis on whether the city could prohibit new warehouse development or adopt tighter standards; public commenters urged stronger protections for health and neighborhoods.
The Planning Commission reviewed Ordinance No. 2955 regulating warehouses and logistics/distribution centers and voted to ask staff, with outside counsel if needed, to analyze options for prohibiting new warehouse development citywide or tightening existing standards.
Brian Foote, planning staff, delivered background: the city adopted a warehouse moratorium in June 2022 followed by Ordinance No. 2955 (adopted April 2024, effective May 18), which applies to new warehouses of 50,000 square feet or more or buildings with six or more truck-high loading doors. Foote said the ordinance includes five categories of standards—site location (including a one-mile freeway-access proximity preference), screening/buffering for sensitive receptors, traffic and truck-routing requirements, sustainable-energy measures (e.g., EV chargers), and operation/construction methods.
Staff compared the Redlands ordinance to Assembly Bill 98 (AB 98), signed at the state level and effective Jan. 1, 2026, noting many similar features (energy-efficiency, EV infrastructure, truck routing) but also that the city's ordinance in several respects is more restrictive (a 50,000‑sq‑ft local threshold versus state thresholds; required EV chargers rather than only infrastructure; and locally specified screening and stacking requirements).
Public commenters urged stronger protections. Andy Hoder recounted the shift from citrus to warehouses and urged the commission to consider long-term impacts. Michael Pacener urged prohibiting further warehouses and requiring full environmental impact assessments, citing regional air quality concerns.
Vice Chair Inslee and several commissioners expressed interest in researching a prohibition or other approaches, including legal mechanisms for treating existing facilities as legal nonconforming uses and potential amortization strategies. Staff and city counsel estimated a 2–3 month turnaround for outside counsel review at an approximate cost under $5,000. Vice Chair Inslee moved that staff conduct further analysis of prohibition options and alternatives; the motion was seconded and carried.
Commissioners asked staff to prepare a menu of options (full prohibition with legal nonconforming status for existing sites, tighter site and operational standards, or targeted restrictions) and to return with legal analysis and estimated staff/outside counsel costs and timelines.
