Tennessee St. warehouse denied: Prologis loses appeal after City Council gridlock

REDLANDS, Calif. – The former La-Z-Boy facility on Tennessee Street will remain as is for now after Prologis Inc. failed to win an appeal of its redevelopment project denied by the Planning Commission. In May, the Commission voted unanimously to deny the applicant’s permit for a 197,398 square foot distribution warehouse.  

The City Council voted 2-2 to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision, with Council members Denise Davis and Jenna Guzman-Lowery voting in favor. Due to the tie, the appeal failed, and the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project stands. 

Mayor Eddie Tejeda recused himself from the vote over the perception of a conflict of interest based on his campaign donations.

Why it matters: The 40-foot-tall distribution warehouse was proposed across the street from Esri and just hundreds of feet away from preschool and elementary students. While the developers followed the good neighbor rules set by the city, the Planning Commission found that the distribution warehouse was not consistent with applicable land use plans, the project would be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare, and 115+ daily truck trips would have a detrimental impact on traffic. 

Details: Prologis Inc. presented an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision before the City Council on Tuesday, Nov. 19. 

Before the presentation, Tejeda recused himself because of concerns over a conflict of interest given the recent campaign donations from local labor unions who would benefit directly from the warehouse approval. 

Tejeda said that based on counsel from the city attorney there was no legal conflict of interest, however, Tejeda chose to step away from the vote. 

“Out of an abundance of care and caution and respect for members of the community and this process I will recuse myself from this decision,” Tejeda said before handing the gavel over to Mayor Pro Tem Paul Barich. 

Nicole Torstvet, representing the applicant Prologis Inc., made the case that the new upgraded distribution warehouse would be an improvement to the current development. 

The developer noted key updates to the building would include 80-foot setbacks in some places, preservation of most mature trees, and creation of a plaza-like entrance on Tennessee and State streets. The developer also sought to address concerns over traffic congestion and truck docking in the area. 

“With this project, we had volunteered to improve Kansas along Redlands Christian Academy Elementary School to help ease drop-off and pick-up for parents. This included widening the street, adding a sidewalk for kids to walk to park cars, and the relocation of the SCE poles,” Torstvet explained. 

The developer did not have a tenant for the warehouse. 

Torstvet said that without the approval, the warehouse would continue to operate as it is currently. 

“​​Today's proposal doesn't add additional warehouse square footage to the city; it simply allows us to upgrade an existing operating warehouse, and a denial does not remove a warehouse square footage from the city, as the warehouse will continue to operate as it currently does,” Torstvet said.

A third-party clothing distributor is currently occupying the building. 

In modernizing the building to be used as a distribution warehouse, the new structure would have been nearly twice as tall as the current one.

Labor union members from Labors International Union of North America Local 743 spoke to support the construction jobs the project would bring. 

“This project has the benefit of working close to home and puts food on the table of a lot of hard-working men,” one member said.

Also in support of the project was Brian Bell, Head of Schools at Redlands Christian Schools, which are located next to the proposed development. 

“When we met with the applicant, were they able to address our concerns,” Bell told the City Council. Namely, the entrance and exit on the north side would eliminate current truck traffic around the school and that leftover hazardous waste on the site would be cleaned up by the applicant.

Opposition to the Project

Residents in Redlands once again spoke in strong opposition to the project with more than 55 written and spoken public comments. 

“Please don't let them bully us or buy us. I think you need to defend our quality of life,” Cindy, who has lived in Redlands for 50 years, pleaded with the Council. She then read 17 names of people who also opposed the development but were not able to attend the meeting.  

Linda Hamilton, president of Accelerate Neighborhood Climate Action Redlands (ANCA) warned of the cumulative environmental impact of large scale distribution warehouses.  

“We’re kidding ourselves if we think these projects are not contributing to poor air quality,” said Hamilton, noting the slow transition to electric cars and trucks is causing diesel pollution and poor air quality for Redlands.

“Will this put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? If the answer is yes, our answer to this warehouse should be no,” Hamilton said. 

Toni Momberger, a former City Council member, pointed out the economic impact of additional warehousing. 

In an area zoned commercial, any other use besides a warehouse will bring in an average of $326 per 1,000 square feet per year to the city, according to the Center of Community and Economic Development. 

“Instead of the $43,000 a year that is in the staff report in the revenue expected, it would be $65,000 a year, so a third more, if it were literally anything other than a warehouse,” Momberger said. 

Momberger, who has been a regular voice opposing distribution warehouse development in Redlands, urged the Council never to approve another warehouse. 

“​​I'm hearing a lot of people get up here and say, ‘Please approve this warehouse, it's going to benefit me financially.’ I don't hear a lot of people say, ‘Wow, Redlands would be such a great community if only we had some more warehouses in it,’” Momberger said, provoking chuckles from the audience.  

A handful of mothers also pleaded with the Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project because of their children’s health due to already poor air quality. 

"It’s not the building that matters, it’s not square footage, it’s not how it looks for me, it’s the public health impacts that come entirely from the trucking,” Julie Lenhardt, environmental scientist and mother of two, said. 

In rebuttal to the public comments, Torstvet offered to decrease the development footprint by 4,000 square feet and remove the option for cold storage trucks (which generally produce more traffic). 

The developer’s environmental consultant also sought to address environmental concerns, stating that construction and operation do not exceed SCAQMD health risk assessment with mitigation measures. 

The new building would have been more energy efficient than the current building. 

City Council faces stalemate

Council member Denise Davis shared concerns over the environmental impact of diesel truck traffic. 

“As a mother with a young child who lives down the street from this project, I have significant concerns,” Davis said. 

She said the Planning Commission outlined “very clear” findings of why this project should not be approved. 

“I'm very concerned about the environmental impact, about the traffic impact. I'm concerned about the impact to our roads and infrastructure that were not built for large truck traffic,” Davis said, explaining why she would vote to deny the appeal. 

Council member Jenna Guzman-Lowery also voted to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny.

“Time and again this community has said they do not want any more warehouses in this city,” said Guzman-Lowery. “The only people in support of this project are those who stand to benefit from it.”

Mayor Pro Tem Paul Barich, who, when casting his vote to permit the warehouse on the former Pharaoh’s/Splash Kingdom site, had committed to voting no to this project, said Nov. 19 he saw the development as an opportunity to improve the current warehouse and make it more energy efficient. 

“A modern building will do less pollution than that building is right now. And if they're willing to go ahead and make the changes to keep it like it is, but to modernize it, I think it's something we should consider,” Barich said. 

He suggested that the appeal be tabled to allow the developer to come back with revised plans to address the public’s concerns. 

Barich went on to say that he was concerned that the decision was being made based on “emotions” and that anyone who would not want to “improve” the current warehouse is “insane.” 

Guzman-Lowery responded: “I really want to be clear here that it's not relevant nor respectful to discuss the emotional impact that this has on the community because of course it will.”

Barich apologized saying, “I’m not invalidating. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.” 

Council member Mario Saucedo leaned on the city staff's recommendation at the prior Planning Commission meetings, as well as “expert opinions” regarding environmental impact, to support the project. 

Saucedo said that while he was “sympathetic” to the public’s health concerns and had received close to 50 emails from constituents about the project, he felt the right thing to do was to approve the proposal. 

“But the bottom line is that these are the rules that we have to be adhered to. These are the facts related to this project as it relates to the professional analysis. You just heard the young lady about the air quality; it's already been addressed by licensed and professional consultants, the traffic as well.”

The project would have increased the annual emissions by 2,304 CO2e and added 115+ truck trips per day to the area. 

The study deemed this “less than significant impact” due to current traffic conditions - including an “F” service level rating on Kansas Street - and current greenhouse gas emissions in the area. 

Saucedo made a motion to allow the developer to come back with revisions to the project. That motion also failed, with Davis and Guzman-Lowery voting no. 

Moving forward

Because the appeal did not get a majority support, no action was taken by the City Council. This means the Planning Commission’s decision will not be overturned. 

The developer must wait six months before coming back to the Planning Commission if they choose to propose a different project. 

In an email to Community Forward, Prologis representative Mattie Sorrentino shared a statement from the developer. 

“Prologis has been a trusted business partner in the Redlands community over four decades. While we are disappointed in last night’s outcome, we remain committed to being an active and positive presence in the community and look forward to working collaboratively with the city leadership to continue to make a meaningful impact in Redlands.”

Sorrentino did not respond to questions about whether the developer plans to return with a new project after the waiting period.