Seventh Street Development
_____________________________________________________________________
328 E Commercial Road, #107
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Tel 562.427.7771
Fax 562.427.7774
January 13, 2025
Via US Mail & Email
Alyssa Blancas
Administrative Assistant
City of San Bernardino – Community Development & Housing Department 290 North “D” Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Dear Mr. Rosales:
In response to your email of January 6, 2025, Waterman Business Center Association (WBCA) is providing this response to Appeal 24-06 by ADESA, which you requested be submitted by January 13, 2025. Based on your prior email, it is my understanding that a meeting date for this appeal will likely be scheduled in March. Meanwhile, we continue to study and evaluate this situation and reserve our rights to raise additional points and comments as needed.
Preliminarily, we would like to identify the various entities involved for ease of reference. We are WBCA, which is a building owners association responsible for, amongst other things, enforcing the Waterman Business Center CC&R’s and Rules & Regulations for the 12-building Waterman Business Center. WBCA is not a landlord. WBCA’s manager is Seventh Street Development. The property at issue is located at 379 E Industrial Rd. and is owned by S&E Investments, an association member who has leased its building to ADESA. It should be noted that ADESA is not a tenant of WBCA nor member of WBCA. WBCA receives no financial benefit from ADESA’s tenancy with S&E. The violations and problems at issue have arisen from the complaints from ADEA’s adjacent owners who are also members of WBCA. Currently, WBCA has fined owner S&E for their tenant’s (ADESA’s) violations, and they have over $100,000 of delinquent assessments and related charges. No one from ADESA or S&E attended the Planning Commission Hearing. The appearance was made by attorney Kendra Carney Mehr who apparently represents both ADESA and S&E.
Based on our review, ADESA’s Appeal 24-06 (“The Appeal”) seeks to overturn the Planning Commission’s reinstatement of the conditions to Permit 22-20. The Appeal’s sole challenge to the Planning Commission’s decision is an assertion that WBCA’s appeal was untimely. The sole action sought by the Appeal is: “A resolution of the City Council denying or rejecting the WBCA’s appeal as untimely.” (See Appeal Application 24-06, p. 2). WBCA submits that the untimeliness argument was found to be without merit before the Planning commission and remains without merit today. Thus, the Appeal to the City Council should be denied.
As a starting point, the Appeal purports to rely on Section 19.52.100 of San Bernardino Municipal Code, stating: “An application for appeal must be filed on a City application form within 15 days following the final date of an action, accompanied by the appropriate appeal filing fee.” (See Appeal Application 24- 06, p. 2.) However, the Appeal fails to set forth the entire section referenced and conveniently omits the portions that are fatal to The Appeal. The full text of that section states as follows:
All appeals shall be submitted to the Department on a City application form, and shall specifically state the basis of the appeal. An appeal of a Director or DRC action shall be filed with the Department within 15 days following the final date of action for which an appeal is made. An appeal of a Commission decision shall be filed with the Department within 15 days following the final date of action for which an appeal is made. An appeal of a City Engineer action shall be filed in the office of the City Clerk.
All appeals relating to subdivision matters shall be made within 15 days following the date of the decision or action for which an appeal is made. Appeals shall be accompanied by a filing fee as specified in Chapter 19.32 (Applications and Fees). (San Bernardino Municipal Code, Section 19.52.100).
Preliminarily, the referenced section applies only to “a Director or DRC action.” Here, the “action” overturned by the Planning Commission was the “Amendment to Conditions of Approval 23 -01,” issued on July 20, 2023 by staff member Michael Rosales. However, Mr. Rosales stated on the record at the November 12, 2024 hearing before the Planning Commission that there was no Director or Interim Director in place at the time of issuance of the “Amendment to Conditions of Approval 23 -01 for Administrative Development Permit 22-20.” Therefore, as a threshold matter, Section 19.52.100 regarding an appeals timeliness – i.e., requiring an appeal to be filed within 15 days following the final date of an action of the Director - does not apply here. There was no Director or DRC action. The Appeal’s reliance on an inapplicable section is misplaced and must be rejected on its face.
Furthermore, the Appeal’s reliance on “vested rights” is specious. From a review of the record, it appears that ADESA and S&E did not follow the proper procedures for requesting an amendment to the permit in the first instance. (SBMC, Section 19.32.020 “Application for permits, permit modifications, amendments, and other matters pertaining to this Development Code shall be filed with the Department on a City application form, together with all fees, plans, maps, and any other information required by the Department.”].)
Despite the inapplicability of Section 19.52.100, WBCA’s actions substantially complied with a speedy appeal process by informing the City on July 24, 2023, that WBCA was appealing the improper removal of the conditions. This appeal was made just 4 days after the issuance of the letter and amendment by Mr. Rosales purporting to remove the conditions from the subject permit. WBCA’s letter included all of the substantive issues that would be pertinent to an appeal, including the specific action being appealed, the specific grounds of the appeal, and the action sought by WBCA on appeal. The matter proceeded for months with the City’s knowledge and at its direction and was ultimately brought to a hearing before the Planning Commission. Thus, the Appeal’s head-in-the-sand argument seeking to put form over substance is unavailing. WBCA acted with due diligence, as the Planning Commission so recognized.
Also, it should be noted that it was made clear at the Planning Commission hearing on November 12, 2024, that Appellant ADESA continues to violate not only the permit conditions but also other City codes, including parking in the fire lanes. During the Planning Commission hearing, the revocation of ADESA’s permit was raised and discussed by members of the Planning Commission, Mr. Rosales, and the City Attorney. Certainly, a revocation would render moot the abuse of process by ADESA to place itself above the law and to continue as a public nuisance to the detriment of the community and its neighbors. Therefore, we are formally requesting that the revocation of AEDESA’s permit be expedited to preserve valuable public resources that can certainly be put to better use than accommodating a habitual violator who does not wish to abide by the rules.
Respectfully submitted,
The Waterman Business Center Association
By: Seventh Street Development, Inc., its Manager
Craig Furniss
President
cc (via email): Gabriel Elliott, City of San Bernardino Community Development Director Albert Maldonado, City of San Bernardino City Attorney
Mike Rosales, City of San Bernardino Senior Planner