Appeal 24-06 of Appeal 24-05 — Mayor and City Council, September 17, 2025

2 9
1 3

PUBLIC HEARING
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: September 17, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Gabriel Elliott, Director of Community Development & Housing; Department: Community Development & Housing
Subject: Continuation, September 17, 2025, of Public Hearing to Adopt Resolution Denying or Approving Appeal 24-06 of
Planning Commission's Approval of Resolution 2024-034-
PC that Restored the Conditions of Approval for
Administrative Development Permit 22-020 (Ward 3)
Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California,

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-352 of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California denying Appeal 24-06 of Appeal 24-05, thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Appeal 24-05, which restored the deleted conditions of approval 20 (twenty) through 26 (twenty-six) that were redacted within the Community Development and Housing Departments approval of Amendment to Conditions of Approval 23-01 for Administrative Development Permit 22-020; for the property located at 379 E.

Industrial Road on 0.83 acres (APN: 0141-581-03) within the Industrial Light (IL) zone, Ward 3 (Attachment 1 (A1)).

Background
Appellant II
Carney Mehr Law (known as Appellant II), representing ADESA International, a frozen food manufacturing company, doing business at 379 E. Industrial Way, in the Waterman Business Center, is appealing Planning Commission’s decision of November 12, 2024. At that meeting, and by adoption of Resolution 2024-034, the Planning Commission heard Appellant II’s claims and still approved Appeal 24-05, filed by the Waterman Business Center Association (WBCA, Appellant I). The decision of the Planning Commission restored the seven (7) deleted conditions of approval for Administrative Development Permit (ADP) 22-020.

Planning Commission’s November 12, 2024 Directive
After listening to presentation on both sides of the appeal, the Planning Commission directed staff to return Administrative Use Permit 22-020 for revocation based on information provided by both Appellant II and Appellant I (WBCA). The Commission believed that ADESA International was in violation of the City’s parking code and the conditions of approval for ADP 22-020.

The basis of appellant II’s appeal is that the appeal heard by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2024, was untimely. According to Carney Mehr Law (Appellant II), “a total of 412 days passed” between the final action and the submittal of the appeal and that “the appeal should not have been heard by the Planning Commission at all”.

Appellant II also claims that a city does not serve to enforce private association regulations, and that any disagreements between tenant and management are considered private matters. The current Director of Community Development & Housing disagrees with this statement because the conditions included with ADP 22- 020 were not only private association regulations. Also, those conditions were necessary because ADESA International was the only business within the 12-building complex, to install a 9,000-gallon hydrogen tank outdoors. This is considered a special circumstance that requires special regulations.

Appellant II also claims that “allowing the appeal to go forward compromised the Permittee’s (ADESA’s) due process and vested property right in the Amended Permit”. 2 9
1 3
The Director’s position on this is that Appellant I’s due process was also abridged when the timely appeal was filed one day after the removal of several conditions from ADP 22-020 by staff and not processed. The City faces the same exposure to litigation from Appellant I as with Appellant II.

Appellant I
The Waterman Business Center Association (known as Appellant I) is the building owners’ association responsible for, among other duties, enforcing the Waterman Business Center’s CC&Rs and other Rules and Regulations for the 12-building Waterman Business Center. 379 E. Industrial Way is one of the 12 buildings within the Waterman Business Center and is owned by S&E Investments, a WBCA member leasing the building to ADESA. ADESA is a tenant and a member of the WBCA.

Appellant I appealed the removal of conditions of approval for Administrative Development Permit 22-020, which was issued on July 22, 2022 to allow ADESA International to install an approximately 9,000-gallon liquid nitrogen tank outdoors.

The seven conditions identified below as well as the timing of the appeal are some of the bones of contention of Appellant II’s appeal. The seven conditions state as follows:
(20) Bobtail and semi-trucks will park, load, and unload only in the areas designated.

The Applicant will limit semi-trucks access/egress to and from the lot to between the hours of 9:00 pm and 6:00 am. No semi-trucks will park on site outside of these hours. (21) Applicant agrees to screen the Liquid Nitrogen Tank in accordance with the plans approved by WBCA and the metal screening material will be painted to match the main building field color of 379 E Industrial Building.
(22) Applicant agrees to install and maintain landscaping (including proper irrigation) to screen views from adjacent property in accordance with the plans to be approved by WBCA.
(23) Applicant agrees to properly and promptly dispose of all waste to minimize odors and pests.
(24) No utility lines will be mounted on the exterior of the building. (25) The storm drain trench (which is WBCA property) is to remain undisturbed before, during and after construction. The storm drain flow of the lot will be maintained and not altered.
(26) In addition to these conditions, WBCA is requiring proper notice (minimum 3 business days) and insurance before starting construction over, near, under, around the fire water main that runs through the proposed construction area.

Staff Actions in 2023
2 9
1 3
Most of the information pertaining to city staff’s actions in 2023 are detailed in the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5). However, for the benefit of the Mayor and City Council, staff provides the following synopsis.

At the direction of the department’s then director and City Planner, planning staff, on July 20, 2023, amended and redacted Conditions of Approval 20 through 26 (above) from the original Administrative Development Permit 22-020 with Amendment to Conditions 23-01(Attachment 12). Four days later, on July 24, 2023, the WBCA wrote a letter (Attachment 13), appealing the removal of the conditions; the letter was not processed subject to the requirements of the San Bernardino Municipal Code Section

19.52.090 – 19.52.120. Per Section 19.52.100, appeals shall be filed within 15 days of the decision rendered and accompanied by a filing fee specified in Chapter 19.32 (Applications and Fees).

The appeal filed by WBCA met the 15-day statutory filing period; however, staff did not engage with the appellant nor request payment and submittal of the appeal on an official appeal form as they were directed by the then interim Director not to engage as they (the Interim Director) would look into the issue and come up with a resolution.

There was no communication between Planning Staff or any of the Appellants until 2024.

It was not until September 4, 2024, more than a year and two months after the official appeal request letter was filed, that the Planning Department, under a new director, officially processed the appeal with the accompanying fee. One of the reasons why the Appellant I (WBCA) was adamant about the appeal and the restoration of the conditions of approval for ADP 22-022, was that ADESA, between 2023 and 2024 were in violation of the parking terms substantiated within ADP 22-020.

Although the WBCA alleges issues with the parking and presented photographic evidence of these violations which indicate that trucks were parked in red parking zones and access to other tenants’ parking spaces was impeded, the Police Department confirmed that there was one call for service for a parking violation within a one-year period and none to Code Enforcement, per research, that were enforceable.

The Planning Commission heard all testimonies on November 12, 2024 and moved to approve the appeal by Appellant I.

Discussion
Chronology
In February 2021 an application for a Zoning Verification Review for ADESA International was received by the City of San Bernardino Planning Division. Because the proposed land use was a permitted use per the City of San Bernardino Development Code Chapter 19.08 Section 19.08.080.01 (Industrial Zones list of Permitted, Development Permitted and Conditionally Permitted uses), the Planning Division issued the Zoning Verification Review determining that the Land Use was 2 9
1 3
permitted within the Industrial Light zone, and a business license could be obtained through the Business Registration Department with the processing of applicable applications and payment of applicable fees.

In May 2022, an application for Administrative Development Permit 22-020 was submitted by ADESA International for the installation of an approximately 9,000-gallon nitrogen tank which would be utilized in conjunction with the packaging of their frozen foods which they package and distribute to other businesses. At the time of the submission of Administrative Development Permit 22-020, the Waterman Business Center Association (Appellant I) expressed some concerns to Planning Staff about the operating characteristics of tenant ADESA international. Specifically, Appellant I indicated that ADESA had performed unpermitted construction and were parking in unauthorized parking locations throughout the Industrial Center, including red zones, which was impeding vehicular access and parking for other businesses and their employees.

Besides the concerns about parking and circulation, the WBCA was also concerned that installing the nitrogen tank would result in: (a) modifications to existing storm drains; (b) elimination of required landscaping; and (c) that the tank would represent and eyesore to offices within the industrial park, which was not in conformance with their CC&Rs (Attachment 14)
After the Planning Division’s analysis of the project in its entirety and through working with ADESA and in an effort to work with the WBCA (Appellant I), Planning Division management at the time agreed to incorporate a set of conditions that were crafted by the Appellant I (WBCA) and included them within Administrative Development Permit 22-020. The understanding was that the addition of the Conditions of Approval within ADP 22-020 were agreed upon by all parties involved (Attachment 15). This agreement, confirmed by Appellant I’s President, ensured no objections from Appellant I (WBCA), ADESA, and all stakeholders. Appellant I also attested that without the addition of the Conditions of Approval the WBCA and stakeholders within the industrial center would have objected to the addition of the nitrogen tank. The seven conditions referenced earlier were added to ADP 22-020.

In March 2023, a representative from ADESA contacted the City Manager’s office, City Planner, and Department Director about Administrative Development Permit 22-020 and Conditions of Approval 20 through 26. They wanted to know the rationale behind imposing the conditions. The then City Planner and Department Director explained that the conditions were included to accommodate all parties and avoid any conflicts within the 12-building development.

Subsequent to the meeting in March, then Agency Director and the City Planner directed the removal of Conditions 20 through 26, claiming they were operational concerns between WBCA and ADESA. Before this action was taken, the Director of Community Development and the City Planner resigned.
2 9
1 3
In May of 2023 ADESA’s legal team reached out to the City to see what position the City was taking on the removal of the said conditions. At that time the City Planner and Department Director positions were vacant.

In July 2023, the conditions of approval 20 through 26 were redacted Conditions from the original ADP with Amendment to Conditions 23-01. Staff created the report, signed it, and sent it to both ADESA International as they was the original applicant and occupants of the building and Appellant I (WBCA).

On July 20, 2023 Appellant I (WBCA) sent a letter to Planning staff appealing the removal of Conditions of Approval 20 through 26. It was around this time an interim Department Director was appointed. The Director determined that if Appellant I wanted to appeal the removal of said conditions, the department would honor it.

At the duly noticed public hearing of the Planning Commission on October 8, 2024, Appeal 24-05 was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 2024 for final action because ADESA was unable to attend the hearing, and the City’s legal counsel did not want one side of the case presented to the Planning Commission without representation from the other side.

At the duly noticed public hearing of the Planning Commission on November 12, 2024 the Appellant I (WBCA), and two (2) community business owners, Family Memorial and Crematory and Social Vocational Services, spoke out in opposition to ADESA’s business practices. After the Appellant I’s and public input, the Respondent (ADESA), represented by Appellant II, rebutted (Attachment 16), but the Planning Commission deliberated and approved Appeal 24-05 with the adoption of Resolution 2024-034.

On November 25, 2024, Appellant II filed for Appeal 24-06 which was thirteen days form the date of the Planning Commission deliberation within the allotted time to appeal a decision.

At the Duly noticed public hearing of the Mayor and City Council on August 20, 2025 by request from both Appellants I and II, the Mayor and City Council continued Appeal 24-06 to a date specific Mayor and City Council hearing of September 17, 2025. The motion was carried by Council Member Fred Shorette and Seconded by Council Member Dr. Treasure Ortiz and the continuance for the item to September 17, 2025 was passed unanimously.

Appellant II’s grounds for appeal (Attachment 7), and Appellant I’s responses (Attachment 8) are included as exhibits to this report.

Plannings Rationale:

The Conditions of Approval that were imposed do not do anything extra for the permit.

The Administrative Development Permit already covered all the concerns that were raised in the first place, including parking, in which condition 19 of the original approval was never removed and addressed parking issues. The addition or the removal of the Conditions of Approval 20-26 isn’t substantial, the Cities implemented Conditions 2 9
1 3
covered all concerns in the first place and the conditions 20-26 were redundant.

Condition 20 doesn’t relate to the City’s code and is handled through the WBCA CC&Rs. Conditions 21 and 22 go beyond what the City requires for fencing and landscaping and are already covered under the original Conditions of Approval imposed by the City of San Bernardino within the original ADP. Condition 24, which is about exterior equipment, goes against the City’s Development Code if it stays as written. Conditions 23, 25, and 26 are about private business operations, which the City doesn’t control and should not have included and are already included in the WBCA CC&Rs. Also, Condition 19, which stayed in the original approval, talks about parking. It says the applicant must make sure that all vehicles—including those of employees and visitors—only park at 379 E Industrial Road unless they have written permission to park elsewhere.
2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
N/A
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with Appeal 24-06.

Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California,

Industrial Road on 0.83 acres (APN: 0141-581-03) within the Industrial Light (IL) zone, Ward 3 (Attachment 1 (A1)).

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-353 of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California approving Appeal 24-06, thereby overturning the Planning Commission’s approval of Appeal 24-05, regarding conditions of approval 20 (twenty) through 26 (twenty-six), that were redacted through the Community Development and Housing Departments approval of Amendment to Conditions of Approval 23-01 originally drafted for Administrative Development Permit 22-020; for the property located at 379 E. Industrial Road on 0.83 acres (APN: 0141-581-03) within the Industrial Light (IL) zone, Ward 3 (Attachment 3 (A2)).
2 9
1 3
Attachments
Attachment 1 Resolution NO. 2025-352 (Denying AP 24-06) Attachment 2 Resolution NO. 2025-352 (“Exhibit A1” project plans) Attachment 3 Resolution NO. 2025-353 (Approving AP 24-06) Attachment 4 Resolution NO. 2025-353 (Exhibit A2” project plans) Attachment 5 November 12, 2024 PC package for reference Attachment 6 Planning Commission approval of Reso 2024-034 Attachment 7 Appellant Justification (Appeal) Letter ADESA Attachment 8 WBCA response to ADESA appeal grounds
Attachment 9 Zoning Map
Attachment 10 Aerial Map
Attachment 11 Administrative Development Permit 22-020 (original approval) Attachment 12 Amendment to Conditions 23-01 (removing the conditions) Attachment 13 WBCA original Letter of Appeal AKA Letter to Elizabeth Mora- Rodriguez (7.24.2023)
Attachment 14 “Exhibit B” Recorded Waterman CCR's
Attachment 15 “Exhibit C” Agreements of all parties
Attachment 16 ADESA original response to WBCA original appeal (from

11.12.24 meeting )
Attachment 17 Original Appeal Applications for both Parties (AP 24-05 and AP 24-06)
Attachment 18 Copy of Chapter 19.52
Attachment 19 Presentation
Attachment 20 Proof of Publication-Appeal 24-06
Attachment 21 PD Calls to Service 2024-2025
Ward:
3 Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:

The Mayor and City Council unanimously voted to continue the item to the meeting of September 17, 2025. Re-noticing was not required due to the fact that there was a date specific continuance.

CC: Eric Levitt, City Manager

Mayor and City CouncilSeptember 17, 2025

Mayor and City Council
September 17, 2025