3 4
5 6
PUBLIC HEARING
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: July 15, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Gabriel Elliott, Director of Community Development & Housing Department: Community Development & Housing
Subject: Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing – Sunshine Motel Red Tag Appeal
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California adopt Resolution No. 2026-095 denying the appeal of the Red Tag Closure Notice and Red Tag Correction Notice issued for 570 North H Street, commonly known as Sunshine Motel, and affirming the Building and Safety Division’s determination and orders.
Executive Summary
The Mayor and City Council are being asked to conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing regarding the appeal of the Red Tag Closure Notice and Red Tag Correction Notice issued April 29, 2026, for the property located at 570 North H Street, San Bernardino, California, commonly known as Sunshine Motel.
This appeal concerns only the Red Tag Closure Notice and Red Tag Correction Notice.
It does not decide any separate motel operator permit, business registration, criminal, nuisance, or licensing issue.
The appealed notices identify alleged unsafe conditions, including unpermitted construction, unpermitted electrical alterations, impaired means of egress, ventilation concerns, missing smoke alarms, and related building and fire-safety issues.
This appeal will be heard as a quasi-judicial public hearing pursuant to San Bernardino Municipal Code (“SBMC”) § 2.58.120, Resolution No. 2018-88, SBMC Chapter 2.64, California Building Code (“CBC”) § 1.8.8.1, and other applicable law. SBMC § 2.58.120 authorizes the Mayor and City Council to adopt rules of procedure for quasi-judicial hearings by resolution, and Resolution No. 2018-88 establishes the City’s procedures for quasi-judicial hearings before the Mayor and City Council. 3 4
5 6
After receiving testimony and evidence, the Mayor and City Council may affirm, reverse, modify, or continue the Red Tag Closure Notice and Red Tag Correction Notice and adopt written findings and a written decision.
Background
A. Factual Background
On April 29, 2026, City staff, including Building Inspector Elias Rebollar, entered the property located at 570 North H Street, San Bernardino, California 92410-3150 (“Property”) in conjunction with a law enforcement operation conducted pursuant to a search warrant obtained and executed by the San Bernardino Police Department. The search warrant provided for a search of the front office, as well as any part of the premises open to the public and unoccupied rooms. The search warrant also provided for Code Enforcement Officers to accompany Peace Officers for the purpose of enforcement of any City code violations following the execution of the warrant. SBMC §§ 9.92.020 and
9.93.015 define an Enforcement Officer as any code enforcement officer or other city employee or agent of the City with the authority to enforce any provision of the municipal code.
During the inspection of the Property, numerous building, electrical, and life-safety concerns were observed. The inspection was limited to conditions readily observable at the time of entry.
1. Conditions Observed
Electrical
•Numerous electrical alterations and additions appeared to have been installed without permits or approval from the Building and Safety Division. •The observed extensive electrical alterations were not limited to a single installation but were present in multiple areas of the property, indicating a pattern of unpermitted electrical work for which no approved permits or inspections could be verified.
•The extent of the electrical work observed prevented verification that the electrical systems had been installed in compliance with applicable code requirements.
•Due to the lack of permits, inspections, and approvals, the safety and code compliance of the electrical systems could not be confirmed. •The electrical installations, alterations, and additions were in violation of CBC § 105.1.
3 4
5 6
2. Unpermitted Construction
•An office area was observed that appeared to have been constructed without required permits and approvals.
•Additional enclosed living/sleeping quarters and enclosed connections between motel structures and the primary residence/office area were observed for which permit records could not be located.
•Permit records available at the time of inspection did not demonstrate approval of these additions or occupancy changes.
•The construction is a violation of CBC § 105.1.
3. Means of Egress and Life Safety
•Windows designated for emergency escape and rescue openings had been secured in a manner that impaired normal operation in violation of California Fire Code (“CFC”) § 1009.
•The windows didn’t open to allow natural ventilation and air changes as required by CBC § 1202.
•An egress door serving the residence/office area was obstructed and did not provide unobstructed egress in violation of CFC § 1009. •Required smoke alarms were not observed in locations where required in violation of CBC § 907.2.11.
•Additional life-safety concerns were identified and referred to the appropriate agencies, including the Fire Department.
Based upon the conditions observed, the Building and Safety Division determined that the structure contained extensive unpermitted electrical installations and unpermitted building modifications for which compliance with applicable building and electrical codes could not be verified. Photos of the conditions have been included.
The electrical systems had not been reviewed, inspected, or approved through the required permitting process. Due to the scope of the observed work and the inability to verify compliance or safe installation, the structure was determined to constitute an unsafe condition requiring immediate enforcement action.
Accordingly, both San Bernardino Building and Safety Division and San Bernardino County Fire Marshal red-tagged the structure for numerous code violations, deeming it unsafe to occupy until the corrections are made. The Red Tag Notice and Correction Notice were issued restricting occupancy and use of the structure except for authorized corrective work performed under valid permits. The San Bernardino County Fire Marshal 3 4
5 6
issued a notice, with photos, dated May 5, 2026, regarding the red tag and the violations.
B. Property and Parties
The subject property is located at 570 North H Street, San Bernardino, California 92410- 3150, APN numbers 0134-051-14-0000 and 0134-051-28-0000, and is commonly known as Sunshine Motel. Ganpati Hospitality, LLC is the property owner and James Vernon Bird is the operator of the Sunshine Motel. Prakash Joshi, Mina Joshi, James Vernon Bird, and Aveika LLC dba Sunshine Motel are listed as appellants or interested parties through counsel.
C. Appeal and Hearing Setting
The City received appeal requests from the appellants through counsel. Appellant Bird submitted an appeal on May 14, 2026. Appellants Ganpati Hospitality LLC, Prakash Joshi, and Mina Joshi submitted an appeal on May 18, 2026.
The appeal hearing was originally scheduled before an independent hearing officer on June 18, 2026. The hearing was not able to proceed because a stipulation for the appeal to be heard by the hearing officer was not obtained.
The City Clerk scheduled This red-tag appeal for a quasi-judicial public hearing before the Mayor and City Council on July 15, 2026. Under SBMC § 2.64.060, upon the timely filing of a notice of appeal in proper form, the City Clerk schedules the matter for public hearing on the City Council agenda and gives notice to the appellant and affected City parties.
D. Notice
Notice of the quasi-judicial public hearing was provided through direct notice to the appellants and affected City parties, publication/public notice, and agenda posting. For a regular meeting, the Brown Act requires an agenda to be posted at least 72 hours before the meeting with a brief general description of each item, meeting time, and location.
Discussion
A. Procedural Posture and Council Role
This red-tag appeal is before the Mayor and City Council as a quasi-judicial public hearing. The City Council will receive testimony and evidence, consider the administrative record, apply the applicable law to the facts presented, and issue a decision affirming, modifying, reversing, or continuing the appealed action.
For purposes of this hearing, the Mayor and City Council will sit as the local appeals board, as applicable, to hear and decide the appeal of orders, decisions, and determinations made by the enforcing agency relative to the application and interpretation 3 4
5 6
of applicable building standards and other regulations governing construction, use, maintenance, and change of occupancy pursuant to CBC §1.8.8.1.
B. Quasi-Judicial Hearing Procedure
Resolution No. 2018-88 establishes the procedure for quasi-judicial hearings before the Mayor and City Council. The procedure includes opening the hearing, administering an oath to persons who wish to testify, disclosing ex parte communications, receiving the staff report, receiving appellant testimony, receiving public testimony, allowing rebuttal, closing the hearing, deliberating, voting, and memorializing the decision in writing.
The Resolution also states that quasi-judicial hearings are intended to be informal and accessible to the public, that formal rules of evidence and discovery do not apply, and that hearings should be recorded by audio and/or video device, as available.
C. Issues Before the Council
The issues before the Mayor and City Council are limited to the appeal of the Red Tag Closure Notice and Red Tag Correction Notice and whether the notices should be affirmed, modified, reversed, or continued. The Council may consider whether the evidence supports the Building and Safety Division’s determination that the property contained unsafe conditions requiring occupancy restrictions and corrective work before re-occupancy or reduction of restrictions.
The conditions identified by the Building and Safety Division include extensive unpermitted electrical work, unpermitted construction or occupancy changes, impaired emergency escape/rescue openings, obstructed egress, ventilation concerns, missing smoke alarms, and related life-safety issues.
D. Staff Analysis
Based on the record before the City, staff recommends that the Mayor and City Council deny the appeal and affirm the Red Tag Closure Notice and Red Tag Correction Notice.
The observed unpermitted electrical work, unpermitted construction, inability to verify permit and inspection approvals, egress and life-safety concerns, and related unsafe conditions support the Building and Safety Division’s determination that the property should remain subject to occupancy and use restrictions until required corrective work is completed under valid permits and approved inspections.
The Council may also determine, based on the evidence received at the hearing, that modification of the notices is appropriate. Any modification should clearly identify the scope of permitted access or occupancy, required permits, required inspections, responsible parties, deadlines, and conditions for re-occupancy or reduction of restrictions.
Strategic Targets and Goals
3 4
5 6
This item aligns with the City’s goals of protecting public health and safety, improving quality of life, and ensuring responsible code compliance. The quasi-judicial hearing process provides property owners, operators, affected parties, and the public an opportunity to present evidence and testimony while allowing the City Council to review Building and Safety enforcement actions in a transparent public setting.
Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with conducting the quasi-judicial public hearing other than staff time and administrative costs associated with noticing, preparing the hearing packet, presenting the matter, and maintaining the administrative record.
If the Red Tag Closure Notice and Red Tag Correction Notice are affirmed, additional staff time may be required for permit review, inspection, follow-up enforcement, and related administrative processing. Any recovery of enforcement, inspection, abatement, or administrative costs would be pursued only as authorized by applicable law and any subsequent City action.
Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California Adopt Resolution No. 2026-095 of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, denying the appeal of the Red Tag Closure Notice and Red Tag Correction Notice issued for the property located at 570 North H Street, San Bernardino, commonly known as Sunshine Motel, and affirming the Building and Safety Division’s determination and orders.
.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2026-095
Attachment 2 - Search Warrant
Attachment 3 - Inspection photographs
Attachment 4 - Red Tag Closure Notice
Attachment 5 - Red Tag Correction Notice
Attachment 6 - San Bernardino County Fire Marshal Notice Attachment 7 - Applicable California Building Code / California Fire Code excerpts
Attachment 8 - Applicable San Bernardino Municipal Code excerpts Attachment 9 - Grant Deed
Attachment 10 - Appeal submitted by Appellant Bird
Attachment 11 - Appeal submitted by Ganpati Hospitality, LLC, Prakash Joshi, and Mina Joshi
Attachment 12 - Direct Notice of Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing and Proof of Service
Attachment 13 - Public Hearing Notice
Attachment 14 - Newspaper Publication / Legal Ad and Proof of Publication
3 4
5 6
Attachment 15 - Resolution No. 2018-88, Quasi-Judicial Hearing Procedures
Ward:
The property is located at 570 North H Street, San Bernardino, California 92410-3150, in the First Ward.
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:
None.
CC