Resolution No.2026-068
Resolution No. 2026-068
August 5, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-068
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING
THE APPEAL 26 -09, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF SUBDIVISION 26-
03 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21096) AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-02 TO ALLOW THE
CONSOLIDATION OF SIX (6) PARCELS INTO ONE (1)
PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.74 ACRES TO
FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT, ESTABLISHMENT,
AND OPERATION OF A RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU
(MCDONALD’S) CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 3,684
SQUARE FEET ON SAID PARCEL, LOCATED AT 116 WEST
BASELINE STREET, WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL
GENEREL 1 (CG-1) ZONING DESIGNATION AND THE
TRANSIT OVERLAY DISTRICT (TOD) ZONE.
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2025, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.36 (Conditional Use Permits) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, an application for Conditional Use Permit 24-04 was duly submitted; and
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit 25 -02 is a request to allow the development, establishment, and operation of a restaurant with drive -thru lane (McDonald’s) containing approximately 3,684 square feet on the parcel containing approximately 0.74 acres; and
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2026, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.66 (Subdivision Maps) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, an application for Subdivision 26-03 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21096) was duly submitted by:
Owner: Huh, Won Hwae
3864 114th Ln. N.W.
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
Applicant: Scott Wilkeson
McDonalds, LLC
110 N Carpenter St.
Chicago, IL 60607
Property Address: 116 W est Baseline Rd.
APN: 0146-223-22, 23, 24, 25 & 26
Lot Area: 0.74 acres
WHEREAS, Subdivision 26-03 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21096) is a request to allow the consolidation of six (6) parcels into one (1) parcel containing approximately 0.74 acres; and Resolution No.2026-068
Resolution No. 2026-068
August 5, 2026
WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the Community Development and Housing Department reviewed Subdivision 26-03 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21096) and Conditional Use Permit 25-02 for consistency with the City of San Bernardino General Plan, and compliance with the City of San Bernardino Development Code; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2026, pursuant to the requirements of S ection 19.52.040 (Hearings Procedures) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to, Subdivision 26-03 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21096) and Conditional Use Permit 25-02 and at which meeting the Planning Commission considered Subdivision 26-03 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21096) and Conditional Use Permit 25-02; and
WHEREAS, staff’s recommendation to the Planning Commission was to adopt Resolution No. 2026-009 approving Subdivision 26- 03 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21096) and Conditional Use Permit 25 -02 and finding that the project is subject to a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, at the March 10, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, three members of the public spoke against the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, at March 10, 2026, the Planning Commission by a 3 – 2 vote, rejected staff’s recommendation and determined that the proposed development does not meet the goals or purpose of the City’s Transit Overlay District (“TOD”) because it does not promote walkability, does not support transit -oriented development principles, and does not reduce reliance on automobiles; and
WHEREAS, the motion passed by the following vote:
Ayes: I. Garcia and Quiel
Nays: Dailey, Pratt, and Sherrick
Absent: Lopez, Ngalande, Carlone, and O. Garcia
WHEREAS, subsequently, on March 23, 2026, the applicant filed an Application for Appeal (AP 26- 09) within the 15- day appeal period of the decision taken by the Planning Commission denying Subdivision 26-03 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21096) and Conditional Use Permit 25-02; and
WHEREAS, at the April 14, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, after conducting the public hearing, receiving public testimony, and deliberation by the Commission, Commissioner Pratt made a motion and Commissioner Dailey seconded the motion to ratify the denial of Resolution No. 2026- 009 denying Subdivision 26- 03 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21096) and Conditional Use Permit 25-02; and
Resolution No.2026-068
Resolution No. 2026-068
August 5, 2026
WHEREAS, notice of June 17, 2026 public hearing for the Mayor and City Council’s consideration of the proposed Resolution for Appeal 26-09 for Subdivision 26-03 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21096) and Conditional Use Permit 25-02 was published in the San Bernardino Sun newspaper on May 26, 2026, and was mailed to owners of property and tenants located within 1,000 feet of the subject property of the holding of the public hearing in accordance with Chapter 19.52 (Hearings and Appeals) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code; and
WHEREAS, at the June 17, 2026 Mayor and City Council meeting, after conducting the public hearing, receiving public testimony, and deliberation by the Council, Council member Ortiz motion and Council member Knaus seconded the motion to denial of Resolution No. 2026- 068 deny Appeal 26-09; and
WHEREAS, at the July 15, 2026 Mayor and City Council meeting, item #3 from June 17, 2026 Council Agenda, Appeal 26- 09 Subdivision 26- 03 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21096) and Conditional Use Permit 25-02 was discussed for reconsideration. The request for reconsideration was initiated by Council m ember Flores, who had previously voted to deny the item. During deliberation, Council m ember Flores made a motion to reconsider the prior action, and Council member Shorett seconded the motion; and
WHEREAS, notice of July 23, 2026 public hearing for the Mayor and City Council’s reconsideration of the proposed Resolution for Appeal 26-09 for Subdivision 26-03 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21096) and Conditional Use Permit 25-02 was published in the San Bernardino Sun newspaper on July 25, 2026, and was mailed to owners of property and tenants located within 1,000 feet of the subject property of the holding of the public hearing in accordance with Chapter 19.52 (Hearings and Appeals) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.52 (Hearings and Appeals) and Chapter 19.36 (Conditional Use Permits) and Chapter 19.66 (Subdivision Maps) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Mayor and City Council have the authority to take action on Appeal 26-09 for Subdivision 26-03 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21096) and Conditional Use Permit 25-
02. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. As the decision-making body for the project, the Mayor and City Council have reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for Development Permit Type -P 22- 05.
Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Mayor and City Council, the Mayor and City Council finds, as follows:
Resolution No.2026-068
Resolution No. 2026-068
August 5, 2026
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines;
(2) In accordance with Section 15270 (Projects Which are Disapproved) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Mayor and City Council has determined that consideration of Development Permit Type-P 22-05 is exempt from CEQA due to the fact that the Mayor and City Counci l is denying Development Permit Type-P 22-05; and
(3) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the Mayor and City Council.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS FOR SUBDIVION 26 -03 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21096:
Section 19.66.150 (Subdivision Maps - Determination) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code requires that Subdivision applications meet certain findings prior to the approval by the Planning Commission. Accordingly, the following findings are provided in support of the denial of Subdivision 26-03 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21096):
Finding No. 1: The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan.
Finding of Fact: The proposed project is located within an urbanized area. Subdivision 26- 03 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21096) consists of consolidating six (6) parcels into one (1) parcel to facilitate the development, establishment, and operations of a restaurant with a drive-thru lane, which will enhance the city’s economic profile. Therefore, the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan.
Finding No. 2: The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is partially inconsistent with the General Plan.
Finding of Fact: The proposal is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies:
General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.2.1 : Ensure compatibility between land uses and quality design through adherence to standards and regulations in the Development Code and policies and guidelines in the Community Design Element.
General Plan Land Use Element Goal 2.7.5: Require that development conform to the availability of public infrastructure to accommodate its demands and mitigate its impacts.
The proposed Tentative Parcel map will be consistent with the pattern of the surrounding developments and will connect to existing water and sewer services, roads, storm drains, and private utilities to accommodate the proposed development.
Resolution No.2026-068
Resolution No. 2026-068
August 5, 2026
The proposal is inconsistent with the General Plan goals and policies:
General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.5.6: Require that new developments be designed to complement and not devalue the physical characteristics of the surrounding environment, including consideration of linkages to pedestrian and bicycle paths.
Although partially consistent with the General Plan, the proposed Tentative Parcel map will not support continued development of pedestrian- friendly areas and places greater focus and detail to automobile paths and related traffic.
Finding No. 3: The site is physically suitable for the type of development.
Finding of Fact: The resulting 0.74 acres after consolidation will adequately accommodate the proposed restaurant with a drive-thru lane and will bring a vibrant development to a n underutilized site that has been vacant for a bout six years. Conditions of Approval have been included to ensure that the proposed project will not create a negative impact within the areas surrounding the project as well as the project site itself. The proposed project is also consistent with both the General Plan and Development Code. Therefore, the proposed project will be harmonious and compatible with the existing and future land uses within the surrounding, urbanized area.
Finding No. 4: The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
Finding of Fact: The subject site is in compliance with the applicable Development Code standards and is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of the project being proposed. Therefore, there are no physical constraints on the site that would limit the development of the proposed drive-thru restaurants.
Finding No. 5: The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially or avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Finding of Fact: The project site is located within an urbanized area and is surrounded by existing developments. The design of the subdivision will not have any significant negative impacts to wildlife or their habitat. Therefore, no significant negative impacts on the environment are anticipated to result from the proposed subdivision.
Finding No. 6: The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems.
Resolution No.2026-068
Resolution No. 2026-068
August 5, 2026
Finding of Fact: There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services for the proposed subdivision and accompanying Development. Subject to Conditions of Approval, the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public services or public health and safety.
Finding No. 7: The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
Finding of Fact: The design of the subdivision will not conflict with any public or private easements. All documentation relating to easements and dedications will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to recording the Final Map. Existing easements will be reserved in place or relocated, as necessary SECTION 3. FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-02:
Pursuant to Section 19.36.050 (Conditional Use Permits – Findings) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, Conditional Permit applications are required to meet certain findings prior to the approval by the Planning Commission. Accordingly, the foll owing findings are provided in support of the denial of Conditional Use Permit 25-02:
Finding No. 1: The proposed use is conditionally permitted within, and would not impair the integrity or character of, the subject land use district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of the Development Code.
Finding of Fact: The project site is located within the Commercial General (CG -1) and the Transit Overlay District (TOD) zone and the project would impair the integrity and character of the Transit Overlay District. The proposed Drive- Thru Restaurant for McDonald’s would not be consistent with the goals and vision, as the project does not meet the criteria of the overlay zone.
Specifically, the vision of the Transit Overlay District is to promote transit- oriented development to reduce dependency on vehicles and promote walkability. The project, as proposed, is dominant vehicle. Also, the project does not stimulate the economic development activity that furthers the mission of the Transit Overlay District (TOD) zone.
Finding No. 2: The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
Finding of Fact: The proposal is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies:
General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.2: Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts on surrounding land uses.
Resolution No.2026-068
Resolution No. 2026-068
August 5, 2026
General Plan Land Use Element Goal 2.4: Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in San Bernardino by strategic in-fill of new development and revitalization of existing development.
General Plan Community Design Element Goal 5.4: Ensure individual projects are well designed and maintained.
General Plan Land Use Element Goal 5.7: Develop attractive and safe commercial, office, and industrial projects that are creatively designed and intelligently sited.
The proposed project implements the above General Plan goals and policies in that the proposed development has been designed with quality architectural treatments that incorporate modern features through materials and color. The development of the site wil l be done in a manner that will enhance the physical and visual qualities of the subject property thereby enhancing the aesthetics of the area. Therefore, the proposed project would be compatible with the goals and policies outlines in the General Plan.
Finding No. 3: Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use complies with the requirements of the CEQA and §19.20.030(6) of the Development Code.
Finding of Fact: In accordance with Section 15060 (Preliminary Review) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Division conducted an environmental evaluation in connection with proposed Conditional Use Permit 25 -02 and concluded that the proposed i s exempt from CEQA Guidelines, pursuant to Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) and Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and Section 19.20.030 (6) of the Development Code.
Finding No. 4: There will be no potentially significant negative impacts on environmental quality or natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored.
Finding of Fact: The project site is located within an urbanized area , is surrounded by existing commercial development but abuts residential uses along its northerly boundary. A noise analysis was conducted and the project was found to not significantly impact the residential land uses . Therefore, no significant negative impacts on the environment are anticipated to result from the proposed development.
Finding No. 5: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located and will not create significant noise, traffic, or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or Resolution No.2026-068
Resolution No. 2026-068
August 5, 2026
detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity or adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
Finding of Fact: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located. Therefore, the design of the project will ensure that the project will not create any significant noise, traffic, or other conditions that would be detrimental or objectionable to other uses in the vicinity of adverse to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
Finding No. 6: The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed.
Finding of Fact: The subject site is suitable for the type and density/intensity of the project being proposed as evidence by the project compliance with the applicable Development Code standards. The proposed structure meets all setback , height, drive-thru requirements. The size of the project site is adequate to accommodate the proposed improvements, in compliance with the requirements of the Development Code.
Finding No. 7: There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health or safety.
Finding of Fact: There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services for the proposed Development. The subject site is located is located in an urbanized area with full range of public utilities and services and public access off W. Baseline Street and N. Sierra Way.
Subject to Conditions of Approval, the proposed development under Conditional Use Permit 25-02 will not be detrimental to the public services or public health and safety.
SECTION 4. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, or clause or phrase in this Resolution or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Resolution or any part thereof. The Mayor and City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this 17
th day of June, 2026.
Resolution No.2026-068
Resolution No. 2026-068
August 5, 2026
Helen Tran, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Attest:
Telicia Lopez, CMC, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Albert Maldonado, City Attorney
Resolution No.2026-068
Resolution No. 2026-068
August 5, 2026
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
I, Telicia Lopez, CMC, City Clerk, hereby certify that the attached is a true copy of Resolution No. 2026-068, adopted at a regular meeting held on the 17 th day of June 2026 by the
following vote:
Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
SANCHEZ
IBARRA
FIGUEROA
SHORETT
KNAUS
FLORES
ORTIZ
WITNESS my hand and official seal of the City of San Bernardino this 18 th day of June 2026.
Telicia Lopez, CMC, City Clerk