A proposed 197,000-square-foot warehouse project in Redlands has reignited debates over air quality, traffic impacts and community health. While the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision to reject the project, the split vote underscores divisions among city leaders and residents.
Stephanie Hastings Miranda, founder and publisher of local digital news outlet Community Forward Redlands, spoke to KVCR about what took place at the November 19 council meeting.
What are the main concerns residents raised about the proposed warehouse and how did these concerns influence the Planning Commission and the City Council's decisions?
HASTINGS-MIRANDA: It really comes down to three main concerns: air quality, traffic and land use. The traffic in that area where the warehouse was proposed is already problematic. One street where there would have been 115 plus truck trips a day added, already had a service level rating of ‘F’. The project would have increased annual emissions, but studies deemed these things less than significant because current traffic conditions, like at ‘F’ service level, can't get worse and the greenhouse gas [emissions] was already so bad in the area.
Land use also comes up every time. And this is tricky because developers are able to choose from a variety of options when a land is zoned commercial or industrial. It was one of the reasons the Planning Commission gave for denying the project and they also pointed to health and safety and traffic. Two council members — Councilmembers Denise Davis and Jenna Guzman Lowry — agreed with this analysis, and they voted to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Councilmember Mario Saucedo said that while he was sympathetic towards the residents and their concerns over public health, he said he was going to lean on the city staff's previous recommendations and expert opinions regarding the environmental impacts. And then, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Barich believed that updating and modernizing the building would benefit the area, and at one point, mentioned that it would reduce pollution. Of course, the modern building would be more energy efficient, but the truck traffic would result in increased air pollution
Mayor Eddie Tejeda recused himself from the vote due to perceived conflicts of interest. Here’s what he said:
“Out of an abundance of care and caution and just really respect for members of this community and this process, I will recuse myself from this decision.”
How did his absence impact the outcome, and what role does public perception play in cases like this?
HASTINGS-MIRANDA: Eddie Tejeda received more than $16,000 in campaign donations from labor unions and professional business organizations, some of whom would have directly benefited from this project. In fact, members of labor unions that donated to his most recent campaign were at the meeting on Tuesday night speaking in favor of the development. The development would result in jobs for construction workers, and this perception of a conflict here between campaign money paid to Mayor Tejeda and the jobs that they could potentially get from this warehouse I think creates a perception that he's getting bought. And so although he was not legally bound to step away from the vote, he said he wanted to do it out of an abundance of caution. There was also public pressure for him to step back following the election and the tensions of the most recent election. Residents are also more aware of campaigns and campaign finance, and I think they're a little more skeptical about what's going on.
The developer, Prologis, emphasized upgrades like improved traffic flow and environmental remediation. Why weren’t these concessions enough to sway the council or the community?
HASTINGS-MIRANDA: I think it really has to do with how these studies are conducted. If the warehouse had gone forward, it would have increased greenhouse gas emissions by some 2,300 CO2 equivalent, which is just under the threshold of 3,000 CO2 set by South Coast Air Quality Management District. So it might look OK on paper, but residents don't want additional diesel trucks polluting the city. That's what they said. One mother and environmental scientist who spoke at the meeting put it this way: It's not the building that matters. It's not the square footage. It's not how it looks. It's the public health impact that comes entirely from trucking. It seemed like even with the mitigation and the routes, residents were skeptical of the city's ability to enforce the truck routes and the idling rules and they just did not believe that the impact would be insignificant.
Now that the appeal has failed, what are the next steps for the developer and the city? Could we see a revised proposal?
HASTINGS-MIRANDA: Well, that's the big question. I reached out to Prologis after the meeting and asked what they plan to do next. They didn't give any details about coming back with a new proposal. But if they want to, they’ll have to wait at least six months and they'll have to start with a new project and start the process over from scratch. For now, they say the building will stay as it is operating as a small distribution tenant.
