Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council deadlocks on Prologis warehouse; Planning Commission denial stands
Summary
After a multi‑hour hearing and nearly 30 public speakers, the Redlands City Council failed to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of a proposed 197,000‑sq‑ft Prologis warehouse at 301 Tennessee St., leaving the commission’s denial in place after a 2‑2 deadlock on motions to deny and to approve with modifications.
A full‑house public hearing on Nov. 19 drew neighborhood residents, school leaders, labor representatives and technical experts to debate a Prologis proposal to modernize and rebuild a roughly 197,000‑square‑foot warehouse at 301 Tennessee Street.
The planning commission denied the project in May and the applicant appealed to the City Council. Staff presented the project and the record, saying the site is zoned for light industrial uses and that the proposed building would comply with local standards and the city’s warehouse ordinance. Principal planner Sean Riley summarized the project’s scope, design changes and the staff recommendation and described the environmental analysis prepared for the file (Sean Riley, Principal Planner).
Nicole Torstvet, speaking for Prologis, said the plan would replace an older building with a modern, energy‑efficient facility while preserving trees and improving on‑site circulation. “This project will bring valuable benefits to our community,” she told the council, and the applicant offered concessions during rebuttal including forgoing cold storage and accepting truck‑route and design limitations discussed in the traffic study (Nicole Torstvet, Prologis).
Traffic and air quality experts who reviewed the record described their analyses to the council. Megan Macias of EPD Solutions said the traffic study modeled conservative, worst‑case land uses and that the collision history reviewed did not show truck‑caused collisions at the nearby rail crossings; she also said mitigation measures from prior studies had been implemented (Megan Macias, EPD Solutions). A peer reviewer for the applicant’s air analysis, Jessica Coria of LSA, summarized the health‑risk and localized emissions modeling and said results fell below thresholds set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District after mitigation commitments (Jessica Coria, LSA).
Residents and school representatives made up the largest contingent of public commenters and urged denial. Speakers cited the project’s proximity to multiple schools, concerns about added truck traffic and cumulative air‑quality impacts for a region already identified as heavily burdened by logistics industry emissions. “Our air quality is some of the worst in the nation,” a parent and resident told the council, urging them to protect children’s health (multiple public commenters). Supporters, including organized labor and nearby business owners, argued the redevelopment would modernize a deteriorated site, bring construction jobs and reduce nuisance truck parking by improving circulation.
Councilmembers weighed competing responsibilities: applying land‑use law and project‑specific analyses while listening to constituent health and traffic concerns. One councilmember highlighted that the property is already used as a warehouse and that a modernized building could reduce legacy environmental risks and improve site operation. Another councilmember said the Planning Commission’s denial included clear, defensible findings about scale, compatibility and traffic that she supported.
The council first voted on a motion to deny the appeal (which would have sustained the Planning Commission denial). The motion failed on a 2–2 vote (two yes, two no; the mayor had recused himself for the item). A follow‑up motion to uphold the appeal with modifications (including the concessions offered by the applicant) likewise failed on a 2–2 vote. Under council deadlock rules, no action by the council means the Planning Commission’s denial remains in effect. The city attorney noted that if the applicant wishes to revise and reapply, the city’s process and environmental review requirements would apply to any resubmittal.
What happens next: because council action was deadlocked, the Planning Commission’s denial stands. The applicant may choose to revise the proposal and return to the city for new environmental clearance and a new commission review; staff said timelines and fee obligations would apply to any new submittal. The city did not adopt a different resolution or direct staff to prepare approval findings.
