City Council - Regular Meeting

¶¶

I call to order the closed session meeting of the Mayor and City Council at 3.31 p.m. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome and thank you for being here. Thank you to those viewing remotely. Madam City Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Sanchez.

Here.

Council Member Barra is on the way. Council Member Figueroa.

Here.

Council Member Charette.

Here.

Mayor Partem Canas has not yet arrived. Council Member Flores.

Present.

Council Member Ortiz. Present. Here. And Mayor Tran.

Here. Thank you. Madam City Clerk, do we have any public comments?

No, we have no request to speak for closed session.

Thank you. Are there any comments from the city attorney?

Yes, Mayor Tran. Thank you. Item C on the closed session agenda, anticipated litigation, significant exposure to litigation. The city received a letter from OpenGov requesting a settlement for an ongoing dispute with the city. That's what we're going to be discussing. A copy of the letter is available for the public to view. That concludes my report. Thank you.

Thank you. Any comments or statements from the City Council? Seeing none, we will convene into closed session at 3.32 p.m. Thank you.

© transcript Emily Beynon

¶¶ MUSIC PLAYS . . . . . . ¶¶ ¶¶

Thank you.

¶¶

Council, please return to the dais so we can begin the meeting, thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, welcome and thank you for being here and thank you to those viewing remotely. I call to order this joint regular meeting of the Mayor and City Council and the Mayor and City Council acting as the successor agency to the redevelopment agency of the City of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino City Housing Authority and as the San Bernardino Joint Powers Finance Authority at 5.07 p.m. Madam City Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Sanchez? Here. Council Member Ibarra? Present. Council Member Figueroa?

Here.

Council Member Charette?

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Canas? Here. Council Member Flores? Present. Council Member Ortiz is not at the dais. And Mayor Tran?

Here.

Thank you.

We will now move on to invocation and pledge. We have Reverend Brian Simons from First Presbyterian Church will lead tonight's invocation. And Council Member Sanchez, would you be willing to lead the pledge? Thank you. Please all rise.

Well, thank you. As our mayor, Helen Tran, has presented me, I am the Reverend Dr. Brian Simons from First Presbyterian Church here in San Bernardino on D Street. If you are unaware of us, two to seven this Saturday, come and join us for our Juneteenth celebration co-hosted with San Bernardino County Black Pride. Little plug, sorry. Let us pray. Dear wise and loving Holy One, thank you on behalf of all who are gathered here today. Thank you for your many and abundant blessings. Thank you for life itself, for the measure of health we need to fulfill our callings for sustenance and for friendship. Thank you for the ability to be involved in useful work and for the honor of bearing appropriate responsibilities. Thanks as well for the freedom to embrace you or the freedom to reject you. Thank you for loving us even so from our boundless and gracious nature. In our many shared sacred texts, you have said that citizens ought to obey the governing authorities since you have established those very authorities to promote peace and justice. Therefore, I pray for our mayor, for the various levels of city officials, and in particular for this assembled council. I am asking that you graciously grant them wisdom to govern amid the conflicting interests and issues of our times, a sense of the welfare and true needs of our people, a keen thirst for justice and righteousness, confidence in what is good and fitting, the ability to work together in harmony even when there is honest disagreement, and personal peace in their lives and joy in their task. I pray for the agenda set before them today. Please give an assurance of what would please you and what would benefit those who live and work in and around our beloved city of San Bernardino. It is in the acknowledgement of your love, O Holy One, that we pray. Amen.

Thank you, Reverend Simon, and thank you, Council Member Sanchez. Closed session report. Mr. City Attorney, is there anything to report from closed session?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. The Mayor and Council met in closed session to discuss all the items listed on the closed session agenda. There is only one reportable item. It is related to item B, Conference of Legal Counsel Anticipate Litigation, Significant Exposure to Litigation. There was a recent meeting of the city's charter review committee, I prepared a memo to them providing a legal opinion on six proposed amendments to the charter. That memo was written under the attorney-client privilege. This closed session item was to discuss whether or not the council wanted to waive privilege. The council unanimously voted to waive privilege for all of the memo except for one part. And so very soon the public will be able to have access to the portion of that memo where privilege was waived. And I will also add that the merits of the discussion at that charter review committee centered on three of the six proposals and the entire portion as to each of those three proposals in my memo, the privilege was waived. And so the public will be able to read in full the sections of that memo pertaining to those three specific proposals. There are no other reportable action items from closed session. And that concludes my report, Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move on to presentations. Proclamation for Juneteenth Independence Day in the city of San Bernardino, July 19th, 2026. I would like to ask Ernie Burries with Inspired Fervor Incorporated and Omega Psi Phi and Willie Williams with 100 Black Men come up to the stage. And council, would you join me to the front? Okay, all right. This is the proclamation of the Mayor and City Council proclaiming June 19th, 2026 as Juneteenth Independence Day in the city of San Bernardino. Whereas on June 19th, 1865, Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas and announced the end of the Civil War and the emancipation of all enslaved people. More than two and a half years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863, making this day one of the most significant moments in American history. And whereas Juneteenth, also known as Freedom Day, Jubilee Day, and Emancipation Day, represents the long awaited fulfillment of the promise of freedom and equality for African Americans, and stands as a powerful symbol of resilience, perseverance, and the enduring pursuit of justice. And whereas on June 17th, 2021, President Joseph R. Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act into law, establishing June 19th as a federal holiday, recognizing the profound importance of this day in the history of the United States of America. And whereas the city of San Bernardino is home to a proud and vibrant African American community whose contributions to the culture, history, economy, and civic life for our city have been immeasurable, and whose stories of strength and triumph deserve to be honored, celebrated, and preserved, and whereas the observance of Juneteenth serves as a powerful reminder of the ongoing work needed to dismantle systemic racism. promote equity, and ensure that the promise of freedom and justice is fully realized for all people, regardless of race, background, or circumstance. And whereas the City of San Bernardino will honor the spirit of Juneteenth with a celebration on June 18th, 2026, at the Sizzlin' Summer Nights Concert Series, bringing the community together in the joy, culture, and legacy of freedom that Juneteenth represents. Now, therefore be it proclaimed that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino do hereby proclaim June 19th, 2026 as Juneteenth Independence Day in the City of San Bernardino and call upon all residents to reflect upon the significance of this historic day, honor the legacy of those who fought for freedom and equality, and join in the celebration on June 18th at the Sizzlin' Summer Nights Concert Series as we recommit ourselves to the ongoing pursuit of justice, Unity and Opportunity for All, presented on the 17th day of June 2026.

Thank you very much, Mayor Tran. We really appreciate this. My name is Willie Williams. I'm the president. Well, the past president, the black man of the Inland Empire and our president. I'm accepting on his behalf because he's in New York tending to business of the organization. So we appreciate that. Thank you very much and happy Juneteenth.

Yes, thank you. Thank you. Are you sure?

I'm good. You're good.

Well, thank you so much gentlemen for accepting this. Let's take a quick picture. Thank you, thank you so much Okay, we're gonna move the agenda around slightly. There has been a desire by council to move the consent calendar up. So if council, if that's the desire, can I have a motion or a second to move the consent calendar up above, ahead of the public hearing?

I'll move it. And I'll second. Thank you.

Thank you, council. Consensus? Yes? We're good? I just want to make sure there's consensus, but thank you, council. All right. We are going to move to consent calendar. Please note on the agenda that item number 15, communities facilities district number 2022-2, POM 2026, special tax bonds in Ward 4 needs to be moved from the consent calendar and added to discussion. Can I please have a motion and a second to amend the agenda and move item number 15 from consent to discussion?

So moved. Second.

There's a motion by Council Member Figueroa and seconded by Council Member Sanchez.

Council Member Sanchez? Yes. Council Member Ibarra? Yes. Council Member Figueroa?

Yes.

Council Member Charette?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Canas? Yes. Council Member Flores? Yes. Council Member Ortiz? Yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. And at this time, should we ask for public comments before we have any polls, or should we do polls first? Yes. Public comments first. Please call for the public comments. For items 7 to 31 minus number 15.

We have one speaker for item number eight, Eddie Ramos.

Please state your name, you can turn on the mic, and you have three minutes, thank you.

Good evening, my name is Eddie Ramos and I'm here because I believe in the city of San Bernardino and I'm here in opposition of item number eight, the short-term rental ban. Just a little bit about myself is that I wanted to do something positive for the city. Coming out of bankruptcy, there's been a negative stigma on the city of San Bernardino and I wanted to change that. So me and my family converted our home, primary residence, and to a short-term rental. We welcome guests like police officers, Brazilian firefighters, search and rescue, parents bringing their kids with travel ball. In addition, we employ our family members who live here in the city, so they spend their dollars within the city. Now, I'm not here just asking you to vote against the ban and for regulation. I'm actually asking you to rely on our planning commission's recommendation to regulate. I'm asking you to say yes to $300,000 in annual revenue, which over the span of 10 years equates to $3 million. I'm asking you to keep our travelers and guests in the city of San Bernardino rather than sending them to the city of Riverside who's being managed, their short-term rental program's being managed by Deckard Technologies. Let's keep them here. Let's keep that money within our city. But also, not just that, let's change the narrative about the city of San Bernardino. This is a beautiful place to come vacation. To visit family, we have majestic views of the mountains, and we are a city on the rise. Let's let people know that. Let's say yes to business, and let's tell the world that San Bernardino is open for business. Let's not try to close 108 businesses for some operators that have made some mistakes. They need to be dealt with accordingly. However, for us responsible short-term rental owners, I'm asking that you regulate respectfully. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor, I just want to clarify. So this should be for anyone who wants to speak on items from the consent calendar and discussion.

Thank you. Are there any other public comments on the consent calendar? Seeing none, I will move on to any polls. Mr. City Manager, do you have any polls?

Yes, ma'am. Mayor, number nine.

And that's off.

Yeah, to pull it off the agenda.

Okay, thank you. Council Member Ibarra, any polls? Yes, item number eight, please. What item? I'm sorry. Number eight. Eight. Okay, thank you. Council Member Mayor Potem? No polls for me. No polls, thank you. Council Member Sanchez?

No polls.

Thank you. Council Member Ortiz? 13 and 21, please. 13 and 21, thank you. Council Member Figueroa?

No pulls, but I do need to recuse myself from item number 16. So for purposes of, for the record, I do need to recuse myself for record purposes from item number 16, simply because the agreement is with one of my employers. So I need it. And then with item 30, I don't need a pull of it. I just want to say a big thank you to our Public Works Department. Great job on that one. That's all.

Thank you. Council Member Flores?

No pulls.

Thank you. Council Member Charette? Thank you. And thank you for that. Thank you for the motion. Second. I do need to note for item 29 per the Levine Act, I did receive contributions for the record. Thank you. So there's a motion and a second. Eight's being pulled. Eight's being pulled. So we could take your comments once we move the motion, and we'll bring you back up. Thank you.

Council Member Sanchez?

Yes.

Council Member Ibarra? Yes. Council Member Figueroa?

Yes.

Council Member Charette? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Knoss?

Yes.

Council Member Flores?

Yes.

Council member Ortiz. Yes. Consent calendar balance passes unanimously.

Thank you. Item eight. And I believe there's public comment. Please come up to the podium and state your name for your comment. And you have three minutes.

Good evening, Mayor Tran and members of City Council. My name is Guadalupe Ortega. I was born and raised right here in San Bernardino. I'm a homeowner and a mother, a lawful short-term rental operator in this city as well. I'm here today to ask this council to kindly pause this ban to move forward. I want to be clear, I'm not against regulation. I support reasonable rules, occupancy limits, licensing, TOT compliance, enforcement against bad actors. What we cannot support is a blank ban that punishes everyone for problems created by a handful of properties. For me, this isn't abstract. My short-term rental allows me to be a present mother without having to choose between my income and my child. That choice to be home and to be present should not be taken from families like mine by an ordinance passed without a single alternative considered. Your own planning commission agreed this ban went too far. They voted unanimously to reject it at their December 9th hearing. That judgment deserves to be honored. Ordinance MC 1661 also raises serious legal concerns. San Bernardino's own municipal code did not prohibit short-term rentals before this ordinance. Under California law, that silence means the use was lawful. Hosts like myself invested in good faith, improved our properties, and relied on existing legal framework, and a drop ban with no grandfathering or transition period puts the city at significant legal and financial risk. The people most harmed are not corporations or investors. We are San Bernardino families. We are born here, rooted here, raising children here, for whom this income is not discriminatory against. The Right Path Towards Stakeholder Task Force hosts neighbor city staff with a mandate to build something balanced and fair. A well-designed regulatory program generates TOT Revenue for the city addresses real neighborhood concerns and respects residents. I respectfully ask the council to suspend enforcement, convene a task force, and get this right for our actual citizens and community members, not for investors. misconception that this only benefits investors. I'm a mother, a family, home-based, and this will dramatically impact my family. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I believe there's three more speakers for item number eight. Yes, we do have additional speakers. Please approach the podium, state your name, and you have three minutes each.

Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Arnulfo Nuno. I was born and raised in San Bernardino, graduated from Pacific High School, and I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of California. Like many young people, I left to attend college and begin my career, but San Bernardino has always been my home. I returned because this is a community where I chose to build my life, purchase a home, and put down my roots. I'm here today because I believe it is important to recognize that the vast majority of Airbnb hosts are not large corporations or outside investors. We are homeowners and professionals. No one cares more about our homes and neighborhoods than we do. One of the biggest myths about Airbnb is that hosts allow parties. That is simply not true for responsible hosts. Our properties are equipped with exterior security cameras, noise monitoring technology, strict occupancy limits, and clear house rules. We have a zero tolerance policy for parties and disruptive behavior. We understand that operating a successful Airbnb requires maintaining strong relationships with our neighbors and our community. I know my neighbors on a first name basis, and they have my personal cell phone number if they ever need to reach me with a concern. The vast majority of our guests are everyday people. We host families attending youth sporting events, visitors coming for church conferences and community events, traveling nurses, contractors working on local projects, families visiting relatives, travelers with small pets, and first-time visitors to California. We've also hosted families needing temporary housing while their homes were being repaired due to water damage, plumbing failures, fire damage, and insurance claims. During the recent wildfires in Southern California, Airbnb hosts helped provide temporary housing for families who suddenly found themselves displaced and in need of a safe place to stay. With short-term rentals, we are constantly monitoring, cleaning, inspecting, and maintaining our properties. Every guest stay is followed by thorough cleaning and inspection. No one has a greater incentive to keep these properties safe, clean, and well-maintained than the owners themselves. There is also a practical opportunity for the City to benefit through the Transit Occupancy Tax . This tax is paid by visitors, not local residents, and can be collected and remitted directly by Airbnb. Those revenues can help support public safety, parks, street maintenance, and other community services while generating funding from tourism rather than local taxpayers. I respectfully ask that the council to recognize that responsible Airbnb hosts can be part of the solution. We are your neighbors, local homeowners, and professionals. We care about our neighborhoods, take pride in our properties, and want to help find a balanced approach that protects neighborhood quality of life while respecting property rights and supporting economic opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Next speaker, please state your name. We have three minutes.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Edgar. I'm a homeowner here in San Bernardino, responsible short-term rental host, who has been operating Airbnb properties since 2019 in the San Bernardino City. For the past seven years, this has been my full-time business and primary source of income. Before entering this industry, I served as a city lifeguard and pool manager for eight years, and later as a LAUSD program supervisor. In those roles, I was responsible for enforcing rules, creating systems, promoting safety, and preventing problems before they occurred. I bring that same approach to my short-term rental business today. I use guest screening procedures, clear house rules, occupancy limits, and other safeguards designed to prevent issues before they happen. My goal has always been to be proactive, not reactive, and to create a safe and respectful experience for both guests and neighbors. I completely understand the concerns that have been raised about short-term rentals. Nobody wants disrespectful guests in their neighborhoods. However, I respectfully ask the council to separate irresponsible operators from the majority of responsible hosts who actively enforce rules and deeply care about protecting their homes and communities. One of the biggest misconceptions is that Airbnb guests primarily come to San Bernardino for rave events at the NOS Center. Those major rave events only occur three weekends out of the entire year. Most guests that come to our properties are families attending graduations, wedding funerals, travel nurses, working professionals, or simply just families that are looking for a place to spend a weekend or a home. It was previously mentioned that there were approximately five complaint-related properties over the last five years, while there are roughly 108 active short-term rentals in the city. That means that 95% of operators have not been identified as problem properties. Respectfully, is it fair to eliminate an entire industry for the actions of a small number of operators? When a restaurant, hotel, or any other business violates regulations, we don't shut down every single restaurant or hotel in the city. We enforce the rules against that specific business responsible. Short-term rentals should be treated the same way. Many cities and counties, including Riverside, LA, Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, etc., implemented regulations such as occupancy limits, permit requirements, local contacts, and many more that address problem properties while allowing responsible hosts to continue operating. Responsible hosts are not opposed to stronger rules. In fact, many of us support them. Tonight, I respectfully ask the Council to work with responsible hosts, strengthen enforcement where needed, and consider regulation of your provision. Please do not punish many responsible operators for the actions of a few bad actors. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next speaker, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Diane Adluan, and I am a San Bernardino short-term rental operator, a nurse, and a mom. I'd like to offer some perspective, because contrary to what was suggested at the meeting, most of us who own and operate short-term rentals are local residents. We are not large corporations. We are families. I do not make hundreds of thousands of dollars as was suggested. This income helps support my family, my son, who is hard of hearing and has educational and medical needs. This income helps pay for those expenses and allows me to provide opportunities and support him. What I struggle to understand is that we're told that the city does not have the resources to regulate short-term rentals. Yet, if this ban moves forward, the city will have to spend resources enforcing the ban. I have also learned that Angel Law has threatened legal action against the city if the ban proceeds, which could result in costly litigation. If resources are limited, Wouldn't it make more sense to regulate and enforce existing noise, parking and nuisance laws against the small number of problem properties rather than ban an entire industry? I understand the concerns about disruptive short-term rentals and those issues should be addressed. However, I respectfully ask the Council to ensure that personal experiences do not outweigh the experience of the many residents who operate responsibly and rely on this income. Responsible operators should not be punished for the actions of a few problem properties. Please don't take away an important source of income for local families because of the actions of a few. We are asking for fair regulation, not a ban. Thank you for your time.

Mayor, we also have an additional slip from Amy Malone stating she wants to speak for an item on the agenda. And I also needed to mention that we received a letter from Angel Law regarding short-term rentals as well.

I believe we have another speaker for item number eight. Arvin? Arvin. Yes. Thank you.

Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. My name is Arvin. I stand here before you, not just a concerned resident, but as someone who grew up in the city of San Bernardino has witnessed its challenges and potential firsthand. Today, I urge you to reconsider a proposed ban and instead adopt a comprehensive regulatory framework that protects our neighborhoods while generating substantial revenue for our city. San Bernardino has opportunity to generate over $300,000 annually through transient occupancy tax from regulated short-term rentals. At this time, when our city faces budgetary constraints and infrastructure needs, these revenues we cannot simply afford to dismiss. This funding could support essential services, improve our parks, enhance our public safety, or address any numbers of community priorities. By choosing regulatory over prohibition, we choose fiscal responsibility and economic growth. According to the data presented at the last council meeting, out of 108 short-term rentals operating in the city, only five have been poorly managed that represents less than 5% of all the SDRs in the city. This means 95% of the short-term rental operators are running responsible, well-managed properties that contribute positively to our community. I want to also direct address the fire risk concerns from the previous council meeting. The facts are, there's no reports of any fire started by short-term rentals guests in San Bernardino. As someone who grew up here, I've witnessed the devastating fires that have truly threatened our region. The Cranston Fire, 2018. El Dorado, 2020. The Lion Fire. Concerns about the excessive, none of these fires were caused by short-term rentals. We cannot allow unfounded assumption and hypothetical risk to drive policies decision that will have real economic consequence for our residents. Concerns about excessive vehicle have also been raised. However, a simple drive-through to our residential neighborhoods you know, to all the wards, that this is not just a short-term rental problem. It's a community-wide reality. Many homes will have two car driveways, regularly have five to seven vehicles parked in the street. To single out short-term rentals as the sole cost of parking challenge, challenges is discriminatory. If parking is genuinely concerned, let's address it comprehensively through the citywide parking regulation that applies equally to all residents. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comments for item eight? Correct. Thank you so much. All right, council. That's all the public comments. Any comments by the council?

I thought Ms. Amy Malone wanted to talk on it. No? Okay.

Okay. Any other comments? Is there a motion?

My motion is to deny the ban on the short-term rentals.

I will second that motion.

Okay, there's a motion second. Madam City Clerk?

Council Member Sanchez?

Yes.

Council Member Ibarra? Yes. Council Member Figueroa?

No.

Council Member Charette?

No.

Mayor Pro Tem Knoss?

Yes.

Council Member Flores?

Yes.

Council Member Ortiz?

No.

The vote is four to three to deny short-term rentals. With Council Member Figueroa, Council Member Charette, and Council Member Ortiz voting in opposition.

So that leaves us without a ban or regulation. So I will move to have a direct staff to come back with the regulating apparatus first proposed at the next regularly scheduled meeting for adoption.

I'll second. Thank you. And Council Member Figueroa, did you have a comment?

In addition to that, if that is going to come back, then I would like to add that not restricting it to certain areas of the city i think it should be fair across the city totally not not just because somebody happens to live in one part of the city um now it's restricted there as compared to other because it sends the wrong message to other residents in the city where something is allowed in one part of the city but then not allowed in another part of the city that's just not fair to the residents in other parts of the city as well

Thank you, Council Member. The comments. Council Member Sanchez. Mayor Potem.

I would like some clarity because the restrictions were specific to fire zones, if I remember correctly. So if we can bring clarity, it wasn't in regards to ward specific, but severity of fire hazards.

I think I believe you're correct. It was fire zones.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Charette followed by Council Member Barra.

Well, that's my same comment is the fire hazard area. What? Eric?

Oh, no, no. Go ahead. I just want to make sure. I wanted to speak before you voted.

That's my comment. I mean, we've worked on this for over five years, and the council has voted twice to ban it. And now we've flip-flopped on that. And I get the concerns. The revenues are not for the city. They're for the homeowners, and I get that. I understand that. But we bear the cost of... of those four, five, six, 10, whatever might be a problematic, we bear the cost of those issues and the neighborhoods are bearing the cost of some of those issues. So I agree that it shouldn't be, it shouldn't be to specific areas, but I do, I cannot support anything that doesn't cover the fire areas and the high fire problems. We've had fires in our foothills, we've had fires that come down through our city and have burnt homes, and I just, I'm adamant about keeping it out of the high fire danger zones.

Thank you, Council Member Ibarra, followed by Council Member Ortiz. I'm okay with this being citywide also. Thank you. Council Member Ortiz?

Yeah, I just want to echo what Council Member Figueroa said because it really is ward specific. It will exclude the 7th ward, it will exclude the 5th ward, and it will exclude the 4th ward, which are the high fire zones. And so if we implement this, it will be the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd ward. and the sixth that will be most impacted. And so if one's going to burn, then you've got to let them all burn. I mean, that's the thing. If there's going to be an issue, then everybody's going to bear the burden of that issue. And that's why we were moving in this direction, because you're going to do two things. You're going to create an absolute stop above the 210, which is full banning enforcement, and then you're going to have to go figure out how to regulate below the 210. So you're going to do two things. And prior to this, the municipal code never allowed, and Mr. City Attorney, if I'm incorrect, our municipal code does not allow for Airbnbs. There's no pre-precedent to have an Airbnb with us moving forward with an official ban or regulation. It still wasn't. You couldn't come get a business license in the city of San Bernardino for a short-term rental. Am I incorrect?

No, you are correct in that.

So no one had a legal business that they were running out of their homes for short-term rentals.

That's correct.

order to have a longer than 30 day rental you must come and get a business license to rent your home out and be regulated by the city yes and we do have some of those we do have some business licenses for long-term rentals correct okay so I just I just want us to be clear what that's what what the whole conversation is is that you have to do two things and so either it's all or nothing and and i hear res i've met with your residents fred i've met with your residents mayor pro tem i've met with my residents and you know that is in a high high danger with people who don't have ownership of these homes what can potentially happen with backdoor fires with barbecues with fireworks with everything because it really releases that responsibility so then if we are going to bring back what i ask is you actually answer the city's, the council's questions these times. Because this item has been brought back to us three times. We have asked, Councilman Fergueroa has asked about a tax on ticketing. We asked, actually, when we say there were only five complaints, we don't know that. That's not, we were reported that, which sounded to me like an Airbnb commercial from the city. Because we don't actually... specify Airbnb calls versus non-Airbnb calls because no one has a license to hold an Airbnb in the city. So to just say we only have five problems, let alone just to say we only have 108 registered, that's also inaccurate because there are other sites and there are other mechanisms because it's not an operable business to then put your house on the market. So if you're coming, come with it all. and come with all the information for our community and for this council to make a well-informed decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem, followed by Council Member Figueroa.

So I did want to get some clarity from staff in regards to what we designate as a fire zone because the comments have been made that it would exclude wards. However, I know all of the Fifth Ward, which is vast, is not all considered a fire zone. So can we get some clarity on that, please?

I think we would need to bring that clarity back when we bring the item back.

I think that's extremely important because it's being made to be a ward issue as if we're trying to really kind of segregate this issue. And so we need a little bit more clarity in regards to really how the determination is and what a fire zone versus what a non-fire zone is. I think that would be helpful rather than us making these accusations. In addition, I do agree with us getting a little bit more firm information One of the questions that I had when this was originally proposed, either way that we were going to go about this, whether it was a full outright ban or we were going to regulate it, we needed to have the resources in order to do either. And I don't know that those questions are really clarified or provided to the council on how we are going to adequately do either. So if we can make sure that when we come back, that is provided to the council as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Good comments. Council Member Figueroa?

Yes, thank you, Mary. And again, I don't want to, because I don't know if this is a Brown Act violation by us having this conversation.

Let me clarify that part. I'm fine with all of you providing direction to the city manager about the questions you want answered to come back, but I don't want us to go into everyone giving their own opinion on the substance of it. So if you have questions that you want staff to research and come back, please go ahead. If it's

Discussing the substance of it then I would encourage you to wait until we come back and we can have that discussion then Then I'll try to actively adjust my my comments to that directive there and that's partly part of my Disagreement is the fire zone the dispute the areas that are under? Dispute as far as being considered a fire zone right because I can make an argument that there's parts of the city that that are adjacent to Ritchie Canyon that don't fall under this fire zone, right? But you could just look at the hill there and it's literally just closer to a fire zone than certain parts near the 30 freeway that are under a fire zone, right? Where that area might be, I don't know, a mile away from the actual foothill, And there's a part of the city that's literally right next to the hill down on the south end, but that doesn't fall under a fire zone. So I dispute the actual fire zones, and this is part of why I also have issues with the fireworks as well, because this is how we determine whether where fireworks are allowed and whether or not. And I'm having a hard time connecting short-term rentals to fire hazards. I mean, the fireworks I get. I can make an argument for that, but short-term rentals, I don't see the argument to fire zones. Right. And then even that still is under dispute because I disagree. I mean, there's, there's parts of other parts of the city of the downtown or other parts, other, you know, other parts of the city that are fire hazards. They don't fall under a fire hazard though. It's just simply because they're, they're either old buildings or the antiquated systems or what have you. Right. And so it just doesn't seem fair that we're going to designate certain areas that are either allowed or prohibited based on what is a fire zone. In fact, I actually dispute what actually is a fire zone because I can point out to other areas that are fire zones that don't fall under fire zones. And that's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Good comments. Council Member Charette.

I would argue that I think the comment was made that because of fire zones, it would eliminate the seventh, you said, which is just not correct at all. uh... it would take up certainly foothill areas but that's the all the seventh ward in the foothills all of the fourth ward isn't in the foothills all of the fifth ward isn't in the foothills and regulations are exactly what they say regulations we regulate things based on uh... analysis and i certainly hope that uh... the fire department would be involved in this conversation and uh... i guess you can dispute fire zones all you want But experts come up with them, and there are regulations against doing certain things in high-fire zone areas. So it needs to be looked at, and I think I've said from the beginning, I think, first of all, this should have been done five years ago. This should have been done five years ago, and we wouldn't be here tonight for the third time voting. And flip-flopping, which is just, which is a real problem in my view. But the thing is, is it was discussed, it's been discussed ad nauseum. And we've got to, regulations are regulations. So like I say, I'm anxious to see some of the experts up here on the dais argue with fire safety experts on what's a high fire zone and what isn't.

Thank you. Council Member Ortiz? Yeah, last comment, because it's literally a public document. If we could, Mr. City Manager, the county fire literally has a page, and you can go to their website, local responsibility area fire zone hazard severity zones. And that's the map that we've been using when we post where we can and can't do fireworks, because it's literally the majority is everything above the 210. So I just want us to, unless fire's going to redraw a map for us, I don't know if the county's down for that. But I just think like it's what we use. And again, the fact that a lack of knowledge doesn't mean that other people are wrong. It's just you don't know what you're talking about. And I think that's what bugs me so much because there are so many things that are segregated in this city. And if we don't want to address it and where the foothills are, I mean, where the fires are hitting, it's literally a map. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

There's a specific manager.

Madam Mayor and City Council, I would request that a minimum that as soon as you set the public hearing, because it'll have to be another public, you want another public hearing, right? Or do you want a discussion?

It would have to be public hearing, correct?

Public hearing. We've had the discussions. Okay, so if you want another public hearing, I would request at a minimum, you said, for the second meeting in August to give us time to put the two options together. I'd prefer September, but at a minimum, second meeting in August.

Thank you. If we need September, please move forward. Because staff, you need to do a third job on this to get back with all the answers.

I just want to have enough time to get this information.

Thank you. Madam City Clerk, there's a motion second.

Council Member Sanchez? Yes.

First, I'll amend my motion because I know my original motion had the deadline of July. So I'll amend my motion to adhere to what was written. Thank you, Council Member Sanchez. Yes.

First meeting of September. Okay.

Council Member Sanchez?

Yes.

Council Member Barra?

Yes.

Council Member Figueroa?

Yes.

Council Member Charette?

I'm sorry, but I didn't hear completely the motion. Okay.

So Council Member Sanchez's motion was to bring back short-term rentals with regulatory short-term rentals, but he wanted to come back the first meeting in September to give staff time. In September?

Why don't we make it next September, kick it down another year?

Okay, thank you.

I say no.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Canoss?

Yes.

Council Member Flores?

Yes.

Council Member Ortiz? Yes. Motion passes six to one with council members. Thank you.

Thank you, council. Moving on to the next item, item 13, council member Ibarra. Oh, no, council member Ortiz, you pulled it.

Yes, I just have a quick question. Mr. City Manager, was this also addressing the sales tax and use for Alt Lake County as well? Is that where this contract include for HDL? No, this is separate.

So this is an enhanced on our sales tax, but if the finance director could come up. This is an enhanced agreement on the sales tax.

So this is strictly for sales tax. Are we going to, again, I think we've discussed this. Is this something where we're going to expand this contract at some point for property?

I am going to ask them to look at property. I think that will be done under my authority.

Okay.

Because it will be a smaller contract.

Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.

All right. Thank you. I move to approve. Thank you. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Madam City Clerk.

Council Member Sanchez?

Yes.

Council Member Ibarra? Yes. Council Member Figueroa?

Yes.

Council Member Charette?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Canoss?

Yes.

Council Member Flores? Yes. Council Member Ortiz? Yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Thank you, Council. Council Member Ortiz, item 21.

It's just a comment on the substation, and maybe a question, but I'm really happy to see that this is coming back for another five years. My question is, are we looking at opening any more, or exploring opportunities for something like this on the north end? We were told we were going to get more.

I can ask someone from the police department to come and talk. That hasn't been talked about internally in my office, but I can see if there's been discussions at the police department.

Well, if you haven't talked about it, then... Yeah, but we can come back and give a report. Provide an update? Yeah, we can come back and provide a report.

That would be great. All right, thank you. I'll move to approve. Thank you. There's a motion, is there a second? Second. Thank you. Madam City Clerk.

Council Member Sanchez? Yes. Council Member Barrett? Yes. Council Member Figueroa?

Yes.

Council Member Charette? Yes. Mayor Patim Canaz? Yes. Council Member Flores? Yes. Council Member Ortiz? Yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Thank you, Council. That concludes consent calendar. We will now move on to public hearing, going back to public hearing. Item number two, adopt fiscal year 2026-27 annual action plan for the community development block grant, home investment partnership, and emergency solutions grant programs. I am opening the public hearing at 5.57 p.m. Coast City staff provide a presentation.

So, good evening, Mayor. MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. MY NAME IS CHRISTIAN RODRIGUEZ. I AM THE HOUSING DIVISION MANAGER AS PART OF THE HOUSING AND HOMELESS SERVICES DIVISION. FOR BACKGROUND, ON MAY 6, A FIRST PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD WHERE STAFF PRESENTED A DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 2026 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN TO THIS COUNCIL. THE PUBLIC AND FEEDBACK WAS RETAINED. THAT FEEDBACK AND PROPOSED CHANGES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED And this is the second public hearing where I will be presenting the revised fiscal year 2026-2027 annual action plan for the Community Development Block Grant, Home Investment Partnership, and Emergency Solutions Grant Program. The annual action plan outlines how the city proposes to allocate federal housing and community development funds received from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, commonly known as HUD, The annual action plan serves as the city's one year implementation strategy under the city's five year consolidated plan. This cycle is the second year of that five year cycle. It identifies the projects, programs, and funding allocations that will address community development, affordable housing, and homeless service needs during fiscal year 2026 and 2027. The development of this plan included public outreach and opportunities for community input. On May 6, 2026, a public hearing was held to receive community feedback on the proposed plan, following incorporation of any revisions and final funding allocations. The plan is being presented tonight for City Council approval prior to submission to HUD. The Community Development Block Grant Program provides flexible funding that supports a variety of community development activities. Eligible uses include public services, public facilities, and infrastructure improvements, housing rehabilitation activities, economic development initiatives, and program administration. To qualify for funding activities must primarily benefit low and moderate income persons, assist in the prevention or elimination of slum and blight, or address an urgent community need. To be considered for funding, organizations are required to submit their proposal through the city's notice of funding availability process. Proposals were evaluated by city staff and independent review committee based on eligibility requirements, funding availability, prior performance where applicable, organizational capacity, and the ability to demonstrate project feasibility. The city places a high priority on funding projects and programs that have a strong likelihood of successful implementation and the capacity to do achieve measurable outcomes for the community. It is important because HUD imposes a timeliness standard requiring the city to maintain funding balances below one and a half times its annual allocation as measured each year. The test is performed annually on April 30th. If the city fails to meet HUD's timeliness standard, it may be required to submit a corrective action plan outlining how it will reduce its backlog of unspent funds, continued failure to meet the TIMELINESS REQUIREMENT COULD RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF FUTURE CDBG FUNDING, WITH HUD POTENTIALLY RECAPTURING FUNDS IN EXCESS OF THAT ONE AND A HALF TIMES THE CITY'S ANNUAL ALLOCATION. ON MAY 6, THE FUNDING ALLOCATIONS PRESENTED TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL WERE PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES BASED ON HISTORICAL FUNDING TRENDS, AS THE CITY HAD NOT YET RECEIVED ITS OFFICIAL FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 ALLOCATION FROM HUD. To avoid delaying the annual action plan process and ensure the timely receipt of federal funds, it is standard practice for the city to present projected allocations during the first public hearing and then present the finalized funding amounts during the second and final public hearing once HUD official award allocations have been announced. For fiscal year 2026, 2027, the city anticipates the CDBG allocation of approximately 2.75 million. Administrative activities are funded at approximately $549,000, which remains within HUD's allowable 20% administrative cap. The city will also allocate approximately $652,000 towards the required repayment of the Section 108 loan obligation. Public services and public facilities will be covered on the next slide. Before moving on, I would like to point out that the $2.7 million figure allocation shown here does not include any reprogrammed funds. REIC program funds consist of unspent CDBG dollars from prior fiscal years that are being reallocated to other eligible projects through this annual action plan. This process ensures that available funding is fully utilized and directed towards projects that can move forward in a timely manner. Public service activities are funded at $346,500 and include Illin Fair Housing and Mediation Board, which will provide fair housing and landlord tenant services. Fair housing services will help protect individuals from discrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of housing, while landlord tenant services will assist property owners and renters in understanding their rights, responsibilities, and legal obligations. The San Bernardino Police Department and Quality of Life and Peace Team will continue outreach and community engagement efforts and will provide referrals to supportive services for individuals experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. Neighborhood Housing Services of Inland Empire will provide housing-focused financial counseling, stabilization support, and matched savings incentives. The program will help stabilize households at risk of housing insecurity while supporting participants in achieving long-term goals, including improving credit, increasing savings, and preparing for first-time home ownership. Lastly, Family Service Association will administer a senior nutrition program that will deliver meals to eligible seniors residing within the city. During the first public hearing held on May 6th, the Draft Annual Action Plan did not identify a public facilities improvement project Council directed staff to focus on improvements to public restrooms in city parks. Housing, public works, and parks and recreation staff worked together to evaluate project feasibility at various locations. Resulting from those meetings, it was determined that Paris Hill was the most appropriate use of funds. This determination was based on community feedback indicating a need for additional restroom facilities at Paris Hill Park. Administrative efficiencies gained by concentrating CDBG investments at a single location, allowing for more streamlined project management and oversight. I would like to note that there are significant administrative and regulatory costs associated with funding a project with CDBG funds, including environmental review requirements, prevailing wage and labor compliance costs, and Build America by America requirements. As a result, splitting available funding between multiple projects would reduce the overall effectiveness of the investment. Concentrating the funds in a single project allows the city to maximize the project impact and administrative efficiency. Lastly, this investment when combined with the planned non-CDBG funded installation of a third restroom facility would provide a more comprehensive upgrade to the park's restroom infrastructure while enhancing accessibility and service for park users. Here's an example of the modular restroom buildings that will be installed at Paris Hill Park. Each building will have four gender-neutral restrooms. The Home Investment Partnership Program is the city's primary federal resource for affordable housing activities. Eligible uses include infill housing development, multifamily affordable housing projects, rehabilitation of existing homes, first-time home buyer assistance, and new affordable housing construction. HUD requires home funds to be committed within 24 months of allocation and fully expended within five years. This timeline ensures that resources are deployed efficiently to address housing needs throughout the community. For fiscal year 2026-2027, the city anticipates approximately $1.16 million in home funding Administrative costs total approximately $116,000, which remains within the allowable 10% limit. The balance of approximately $1.04 million will support affordable housing initiatives through the city's home program. These funds will help advance affordable housing opportunities and support projects that serve low-income households and individuals throughout San Bernardino. The Emergency Solutions Grant, or ESG program, focuses on addressing homelessness and housing instability. Eligible activities include street outreach, shelter operations, shelter improvements, rapid rehousing assistance, and homelessness prevention services. HUD requires ESG funds to be obligated within 180 days of grant execution and fully expended within 24 months. These requirements ensure timely delivery of services to individuals and families experiencing homelessness. FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027, THE CITY EXPECTS APPROXIMATELY $238,000 IN ESG FUNDING. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ACCOUNT FOR APPROXIMATELY $17,900, WHICH REMAINS WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE 7.1.5% ADMINISTRATIVE CAP. THE REMAINING FUNDS, APPROXIMATELY $220,500, WILL BE AWARDED TO THE SALVATION ARMY. THE SALVATION ARMY'S HOSPITALITY HOUSE PROVIDES CRITICAL SERVICES, INCLUDING EMERGENCY SHELTER, Transitional housing and community meal programs for individuals and families experiencing homelessness These services continue to play an important role in the city's homeless response system So staff recommends that the mayor and City Council approve and adopt the fiscal year 2026 2027 annual action plan for the community development block grant home investment partnership and emergency solutions grant program adopt the accompanying resolution authorizing the approval and implementation of the annual action plan, authorize any necessary budget adjustments to align revenue and expenditures within the approved allocations, approve the CDBG and ESG subrecipient agreements for use with eligible service providers, and authorize the city manager or his designee to execute any agreements or documents necessary to submit and implement the annual action plan and associated HUD funding activities. So this concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Do you have any requests to speak from the members of the public?

We have no requests to speak.

Thank you so much. I am now closing the public hearing at 6.09 p.m. For deliberation action, I do see Council Member Ortiz would like to speak. Thank you, Mayor.

Excuse me. Thank you so much for this. I just had a quick question. So for the bathrooms, Is there, and I've seen this in some other cities, an opportunity for door timers where someone can't lock themselves in a bathroom all day because these are individual and they unlock after like 20 minutes or 25 minutes or something like that? Is that something we are looking into or could look into?

Yeah, we can certainly discuss that, and I'd defer to the Public Works Department. Ultimately, the role for the Housing and Homeless Division, we provide funding and ensure that it's implemented according to the CDBG funding regulations. Okay. But as far as design or any specifics, they would handle that aspect.

Okay. We've... Oh, yeah, go ahead.

Council Member Ortiz, we've looked into some of those options, and I'll instruct Public Works to look at that because I think that's a valuable...

That would be great. And I think there's also some options for like self sanitizing. They sort and clean themselves every so, I mean when we look at maintenance costs, ongoing costs. So thank you. with the affordable housing, it said that we have not identified any affordable housing projects, but there are projects going on right now. Is that something we're looking that we can make sure that people come to us, or how does that work?

Yeah, so typically home requires that we also do competitive process so at a later time we will do another NOFA and call for projects where development organizations nonprofit development organizations for affordable housing will submit their proposals we will then evaluate their request for funding based on a variety of factors including whether they've secured other funding sources typically home funds just offer a short a small amount compared to the entirety of their capital stack so It's important that we select a project that is primed to be shovel-ready. But yes, we will certainly come back at a later time and present those as a standalone item.

Thank you. And then it was great that so many people had applied to be part of the CDBG, and so I'm really excited to see that Family Services Association is I'm going to be providing their programming and then as well as the Salvation Army. I just want to give them a big shout out. I think since we, the city, moved forward with contracting them, the proof is in the pudding. They've done amazing things. I think within the first year the city was recognized. at the Salvation Army as a true partner in being able to work in conjunction with their efforts. And I know that they are continually looking for a home base. And I hope that we remain open and eligible to becoming a home base for the Salvation Army, too, so that we can further our growth and help of our community in need. So thank you, Mayor. That's all.

Thank you. I move to approve. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Figueroa, followed by Mayor Pro Temp.

Yes, thank you. It's great that we want to financially support and help a lot of these projects move forward, but my question is, what are we doing to help support or streamline, especially with the permitting process, to help support some of these eligible uses, specifically with infill housing or any type of rehabilitation projects? What I don't want to see is that they're met with bureaucratic gridlocks where things aren't moving forward. Is there something that's in the works that we're helping streamline some of these projects, specifically with the permitting process. Is there something that we can say, look, if you fall under these certain parameters, the certain criteria, you're gonna be streamlined, as opposed to if you're trying to do something completely different. Because when I look at some of these vacant and underused lots, right, there's a lot of potential for infill housing and other projects and rehabilitation projects. So I wanna make sure that we're continuing to support or help streamline some of these projects as well. So is there something that we're working on? Is there, does that exist at all? Or can we work on that please as well?

Yeah. So I definitely can't speak for the planning division, but certainly our interactions with them are, you know, we work side by side when these housing developers might be looking to take advantage of an SB or an AB bill, you know, at the state level that they've, and, MIGHT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANY EXCEPTIONS OR DENSITY BONUS. BUT TYPICALLY AT THE STATE LEVEL, IF IT'S NOT MANDATORILY REQUIRED, THERE MIGHT NEED TO BE ADDITIONAL FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE CITY TO INVEST IN TRAINING AND DEVELOPING THOSE PROCESSES BECAUSE IT'S NOT STATUTORILY REQUIRED. THE CITY MIGHT NOT WILLFULLY DO SO UNLESS DIRECTED BY COUNCIL OR IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT?

That was just my thoughts to that. I want to continue to be supportive of that, not just through grants, you know, just financially supportive, but in other bureaucratic ways, right, to where if they meet certain criteria based on whatever, you know, parameters we can set up, we can help streamline some of this as opposed to it being delayed or prolonged simply because this wasn't met or just because of bureaucratic gridlock. I mean, just to to put it in that terminology, I guess. That's my only comment, so thank you. And I will second the motion.

Thank you, Council Member. Mayor Pro Tem followed by Council Member Ibarra. Thank you, Mayor. Just to kind of piggyback off of Council Member Ortiz in regards to the restrooms, we have allocated funding to fixing the restrooms up and now for the actual access. I do agree with her sentiments. We do have to kind of enforce some additional allocations to ensure that they are maintained properly. I know that you and I, Eric, we have talked about some other kind of outside of the box ideas like codes that can be accessed through public works department. But I think that in addition to what she's speaking of, we can kind of enhance to ensure that we're spending over a million dollars that we aren't having to keep coming back, pouring such significant funding to continually restore the restrooms because they continually get vandalized. So if we can do what we can to try to prohibit that to the best of our abilities, I think that would be wise.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Council Member Ibarra.

Thank you, and I had to step out a little bit, but Christian, I'm not sure if this was answered already, but the home you have here, affordable housing home program, what exactly is that covering? Is it covering everything like the rehabs and infill projects, or what specifically? Because it didn't specify on the breakdown.

Yeah, so there are a variety of eligible activities. Again, we have to open up NOFA specifically for those funds, a separate NOFA outside of the NOFA we've already done for the CDBG and ESG funds. But typically right now, the activity we have identified is an affordable housing development project outside. So in the previous... So eligible uses, infill housing projects, multifamily housing projects, home rehabilitation projects, first-time home buyer assistance, and new construction. So what we've identified is that we intend to fund an affordable housing multifamily project. We just don't have one available right at this minute. It's a longer process. We work with the developer. And typically, home funds cannot be committed to the project until they've secured all of their other funding sources. So it could take multiple years for a housing developer to secure all of their other funding sources, but we work alongside them on all the other aspects of it, whether it's getting the plans, getting the site ready, getting as close to shovel ready as we can because that makes them more competitive at the state level and other funding sources to help them also secure their funding stack. Once we've reached a point where they've secured everything else as required by home, we then can proceed with a solid commitment. So at this time, we've identified that it is our intention to fund an affordable housing project, but we do not have a specific one that's ready and prime for that funding.

So in the meantime then, we're gonna cut the home rehab projects? I'm trying to see, because there's a lot of homeowners in the cities that still need help with rehabbing their homes.

Yeah, that project is still funded through previous year allocations. This is specific to 2026-2027.

Correct. So you don't have a line. Like I said, there's no line item for the home rehab projects, which was part of their home funding. Cassandra?

So, Council Member Ibarra, the city is going to release a NOFA, and we're going to list these eligible activities, and we're going to actually seek affordable housing developers who can fill in some of these pigeon holes. And what we're looking for is something that's shovel-ready because not only do we only have a small amount of home funds, but we also have time constraints. So rather than the city just stating, oh, we're going to give X amount to ABC, we're actually going to just release the NOFA and then see what comes to us. And then from that point, we can go ahead and move forward with a transparent platform.

Okay, because the way it sounded to me was that this was specifically going to be for a multi-housing project, one specific project, and that's a lot of money for just one project.

That's an eligible activity, but we do not have any identified projects at this time.

Okay. I just want to make sure, Cassandra, I go to you when senior citizens, for example, homeowners that are low income need help with the new roof or plumbing, and then when they apply for the service, they're being told there's no funding. So I want to make sure that there's money left for our homeowners throughout the city that are struggling to fix their homes.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from council? Seeing none, there's a motion and second. Madam City Clerk? Council Member Sanchez?

Yes.

Council Member Barra? Yes. Council Member Figueroa?

Yes.

Council Member Charette?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Canas? Yes. Council Member Flores? Yes. Council Member Ortiz? Yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Thank you, council. We'll move on to item number three, quasi-judicial hearing, appeal 26-09, subdivision 26-03, tentative parcel map number 21096, and condition and use permit 25-02, McDonald's, Ward 2, is a quasi-judicial hearing, and we will follow the procedure rules in accordance with resolution number 2018-88. I'm opening the hearing at 6. 20 p.m. Any members of the public wishing to address this body on this item please stand and raise your right hand to have the city clerk administer the oath.

Do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this body will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If so, please say, I do.

Thank you.

Thank you. Quasi-traditional hearing, appeal 26-09, subdivision 26-03, tentative parcel map number 210-6, and conditional use permit 25-02, McDonald's Ward 2. If any members of, if any council members have had any ex parte communications outside of this public hearing with city staff, the appellant, or members of the public related to this public hearing, please disclose them at this time and share the substance of the information received.

Mayor.

Council Member Ibarra.

As the representative for the second ward, I've received a lot of opposition for the McDonald's. Thank you. In my community. Council Member Figueroa.

I received multiple email attempts by the applicant to, potentially meet or have a conversation about it, but I didn't return any of those or respond to or make any contact with the applicant.

Council Member Frigo-Ortiz.

I, too, received emails from the applicant as well as other community stakeholders, but I didn't take any of those meetings.

Thank you. I did receive emails as well. As mayor, I did actually meet and just to listen to what they have to say, so I do want to disclose I did receive calls from the public as well.

Mayor Pro Tem. To disclose as well, I did receive numerous email communications from the owner, and I did not meet with them, nor respond. Thank you.

Any other comments by Council Member Flores?

Yes, I did receive numerous emails from the applicant and also from residents regarding, and I did meet with them just to listen.

Thank you. Mayor Tran. Yes. If I may, everyone who spoke up right now I'd like to ask you all, just raise your hand if you would respond yes. Can you participate in this public hearing with an open mind and make a decision based only on what is presented verbally and in writing to you tonight? You can raise your hand as a yes. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. Could city staff provide a presentation on this item? Staff will have 15 minutes to speak. Thank you.

Good evening, Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Christian Calasan. I'm the Associate Planner for the Community Development Housing for the Planning Division. Tonight I'll be presenting Appeal 26-09. The proposal to approve Appeal 26-09 would overturn the Planning Commission's April 14, 2026 Denial of Subdivision 26-03 Tentative Parcel Map No. 21096 and Conditional Use Permit 2502, which proposes to consolidate multiple parcels into one to construct a brand new McDonald's restaurant with a drive-through. The project site is located at 116 West Baseline Street at the northwest corner of Baseline Street and North Sierra Way. The approximately 0.74 acres is within the commercial general CG-1 and the transit overlay district zone, and the project site is within Ward 2. In recent months, several actions have occurred regarding this project. The application was first presented to the Planning Commission on March 10, 2026 for a recommendation of approval. During that hearing, only five of the commissioners out of nine were present, and the applicant has expressed concern that the limited attendance of the commissioners contributed to the project's denial. The item was continued that hearing for the following month for the commissions to formally ratify its decision for denial. On March 23, 2026, the applicant submitted an appeal which filed within the required 15-day period. Subsequently, on April 14, 2026, the project returned to the Planning Commission for ratification of the prior denial and the commission voted to affirm its decision. Provide context for this project. This is the satellite image that illustrates the location. As mentioned, the project area is located in the northwest corner of West Baseline Street in North Sierra Way. It is adjacent to residential properties on the northern borders of the site and commercial uses along Baseline Street. To give an idea of the zoning map, the location is within Commercial General CG1, which is highlighted in red, and the Transit Overlay District, which is highlighted in blue. To further explain what a transit overlay district is, it was established to allow a goal to encourage an appropriate mix of intensity of land use that would foster transit usage, create new opportunities for economic growth, encourage infill and redevelopment, reduce dependency on automobile, improve air quality, and promote high quality interactive neighborhoods. The idea of this is to enhance transit station with the surrounding pedestrian amenity. The TOD, however, provides a land use that allows permitted use and conditionally permitted use. Restaurant with drive-through service are generally prohibited. However, in the development code, it allows an exception through the approval of a conditionally used permit, which this project is. As long as the applicant can provide that the project will have economic benefits to the city, A brief background of the site, it previously housed two businesses, the Dollar Tree in the western portion of the site and Chex Cash. They departed to the property in late 2019 and ever since then it has remained vacant. The following photos were taken during the recent site visit approximately three months ago when it went to Planning Commission. The primary entrance on the eastern side of the property is visibly open and unsecured during that time. And going to the other site, I noticed that it was well-maintained, but there's a reason why the site was well-maintained. The reason the site looked well-maintained during that time was a flu of code enforcement cases that started back all the way December of 2019. The first case originated from the Chex Cash building that was left vacant. There was an unaddressed fire during that time, and there was vandalism that occurred during that site, and that's where the first code case occurred. The second complaint was filed on December 24 of 2020. Similarly, similar issues, but this time for the Dollar Tree building that was left vacant More recently, on January 23 of this year, it was reported a smaller building on the site was open and unsecured, which I will show later on the next slide. Upon re-inspection by code officers, staff observed graffiti and trash throughout the structure, which can be seen in these photos. This case is currently pending. to the outcome of tonight's meeting. However, the property owner did want to note that the challenges of maintaining the site has been quite difficult due to the repeated vandalism, overgrown vegetation, and transient, and being able to find a suitable developer to buy this property and develop it. This photo were actually taken a couple of hours ago. The code officers told me to visit the site to kinda see what the condition is right now. So as you guys can see, it's been left with overgrown vegetation, and on the other side, there's also continuous vandalism on site. Moving forward with the details of the project, the basis of this appeal is for the subdivision 26-03, tentative parcel map number 21096, and conditional use permit 25-02. As mentioned, it was to consolidate six parcels into one at approximately 0.74 acres, or around 32,539 square feet. This will include the demolition of two existing structures to construct a 3,684 square foot building for McDonald's. It will include 25 on-site parking spaces. It will also have two drive-thru lanes to support on-site circulation and operational efficiency. The drive-thru lane does comply with our development code with the vehicular stacking required for drive-thrus. And the applicant has also provided a contingency plan for whenever there's an influx of vehicles on site to ease the circulation. McDonald's will offer a full-service restaurant consisting a dine-in, drive-thru, and delivery. They will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and their targeted staff number is approximately 17 staff per shift, with a total of 60. One of the concerns raised by the public was the over concentration of McDonald's restaurant in our city. The nearest McDonald's to this project site is located two miles away at 718 West Highland Avenue with another location roughly three miles away at 1575 East Highland. To provide context of the overconcentration, I compared the city's ratio to the city of Riverside and to the United States to fully evaluate the potential overconcentration. The city of San Bernardino currently has eight McDonald's locations, serving approximately 225,000 residents, which equates roughly to one restaurant per 28,000 residents. The city of Riverside has 13 locations serving approximately 323,000 residents, which equates to 24,900 residents. Nationwide, there are approximately 13,827 McDonald's serving a population of 333 million. That is an average of 24,000 residents per McDonald's. The addition of one McDonald's in the city of San Bernardino would actually bring the city's ratio to approximately 25,000 per restaurant. It is also worth noting that each McDonald's typically generates $4.5 to $5 million in annual sales that can contribute to the local economy. Another concern that was raised by the public was the perception that the restaurant would offer lower wages. After reviewing current job posting for McDonald's location within the city, the advertised wages exceeds the city's minimum wage of $16.90 per hour. The current posting shows the following pay ranges, from a crew member that has a salary of $20 to $23 an hour, a shift lead with an average salary of $22 to $24 an hour, an assistant general manager from $39 to $47 per hour, and a general manager with an approximate salary of $47 to $56 an hour. All four positions also include benefits, such as paid vacation, tuition reimbursement, and educational assistance, weekly pay, and 401K and health insurance. In addition to the proposed improvements on site, the applicant are also going to conduct off-site improvements. This project will consist of reconstructing the existing sidewalks to comply with the city standards and the accessible curb ramp for Caltrans. Those improvements can be seen highlighted on the red mark on the site plan. The project will also provide a rich and lush landscaping to elevate the project to create an aesthetically pleasing development that will complement the design of the restaurant. The landscaping on the site is approximately 893 square feet, which represent 21% of the site, and that number exceeds the requirement by 6%. This will include various species of trees, shrub, and ground covers. As part of the staff analysis, it was important for us to determine this onsite condition on a daily basis. The following photos were taken by city code enforcement staff on June 13, 2026 at approximately 9 p.m. to fully understand the conditions and how the site looks like. The property owner's primary concern is the ongoing presence of individual lawyering in the vicinity, which is evident in some of these pictures. The photos also highlight the lack of adequate lighting on and around the site, which in hindsight does not promote any walkability or contribute to safe environment. With that in mind, we've asked applicant to provide a rendering how the site would look like with this project in this location. This rendering illustrates the project with how it would look with lighting and how it would look with the business on. The additional appropriate lighting would significantly enhance the area by creating a safer and more visible environment that supports walkability. The new development is also expected to draw consistent customer activity and increase routine police presence, resulting in a substantially improved condition compared to the site's current state. The next couple of slides are just rendering of the project to help visualize how it would look. This is the frontage of the restaurant. This is the view looking at the drive-through. And this is at the northeast corner of the restaurant. With that being said, staff provides two resolutions for the Mayor and City Council. The first would be to adopt resolution number 26-008, denying appeal 2609, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's denial of subdivision 26-03 and CUP 2502. And the other would adopt resolution number 26-009, to approve subdivision or to approve appeal 26-09, thereby overturning the planning commission's denial to approve subdivision 26-09-03 and conditional use permit 2502. That concludes my presentation. Staff and the applicant are present for any question. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Great presentation. I will now ask that if any members of the council have any questions for staff. I do see Council Member Ortiz. For any comments. Yes, your comments.

I just had a quick question. Who currently owns the property?

It's a property owner. She lives off state, but she's owned it for quite some time now from my understanding. She's been working with our code enforcement division because of the constant issues, but she's been working with them for quite some time now, yeah.

And she wants to sell to McDonald's? Correct.

She wants to sell it. From my understanding, she's having difficulty selling the property. And that's one of the reasons why she really wanted to push this, because McDonald's are allowing to make these improvements without any concerns in regards to the budget-wise.

Okay. And so is she interested in selling for the sake of building housing? Or is this she kind of said on this?

She's interested to selling. For the past six years, there hasn't been any suitors that's willing to buy this location, which is the reason why it's been left vacant.

All right. I'll reserve any more questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments by council members? Okay. At this time, I invite the appellant to provide their evidence or testimony on the item. You will have 15 minutes to speak. Council members, please hold on any questions until the testimony has concluded.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, staff. My name is Zeeshan Yunus. I'm a vice president at Kurt Pringle and Associates. We're a government relations, land use, and strategic council firm. And we've had the privilege of serving McDonald's for about a decade. In 2024, I approached community development with a simple question. Would the city of San Bernardino be interested in revitalizing a blighted site with a brand new restaurant? After countless hours of collaboration and many negotiations, two years later, here we are. Roughly two years later. The planning commission's subtext on the denial was that this site should be retained for mixed use or residential development. This is a .74 acre site with six parcels that need to be consolidated. no accessible nearby parking, and with an owner that lives out of state who has been desperately trying to find a suitor to take over this parcel. As mentioned by staff, over the last seven years, there's only been one viable application at this site, and that is this McDonald's project before you today. The property owner's rights in this context, in this equation, are very critical to think about. The property owner wants to hand this site off to somebody who's interested in economic development, interested in creating jobs, and interested in stewarding this parcel into the next phase of its life. Saying no to something that is real and tangible and here in favor of something that is amorphic and doesn't currently exist, I would suggest is an irresponsible real estate perspective for a city to have. And I think the owner would agree, and certainly McDonald's does as well. What we're looking at today is pragmatic policy versus pure probability. The current status of this site, as you've seen, is extremely blighted with significant code cases, graffiti, littering, no lighting, and most importantly, is a wasted corner along a primary arterial. This McDonald's is a gateway to a grander opportunity. I've been in land use for over a decade and I know of no developer in California that's willing to invest into a multi-story mixed use development on a less than one acre site with no parking that would likely require underground parking and go through a multi-year process of entitlement and also spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on offsite fees. Saying yes to this McDonald's means saying yes to many things. It's yes to coffee with a cop, it's yes to coffee with a teacher, yes to local fundraisers, and yes to having a franchisee that has a public perspective. This isn't going to be a corporately owned store, it will have an identified franchisee who has roots within the city that we are looking to serve. It was mentioned the annual sales, four to five million dollars a year. The infrastructure upgrades were mentioned as well. 60 to 75 jobs that are going to be provided, jobs that are paying a livable wage in the context of the surrounding applicability of those jobs. About 10 to 15 of those available jobs are going to be taken advantage of by the Archways Opportunity. The Archways of Opportunity was established in 2015 and it is something that has served over 90,000 McDonald's employees with close to $240 million of college and high school tuition support. This is the pipeline that McDonald's provides to its employees to allow them to explore grander opportunity, excel within their career, and eventually become general managers and franchisees themselves. A reinvestment into this corner is significant. I myself live next to a parcel that was vacant for many years. It was filled with vacancy, littering, trash, loitering, a quick service restaurant, not McDonald's for the record, came into that parcel and has completely reevaluated our property values as people that live right next to it, but also the general psychological feel of driving by something that used to be a dirt lot and was filled with trash and now has responsible management to it. We know that the local community is critical here. About 90% of the people that are gonna work at this McDonald's are gonna come from three to five miles from around it. About 75% of that 90% are going to be taking advantage of local public transportation or taking bikes or walking to work. These are statistics that are almost nationally across the United States for McDonald's. So they will certainly be applicable here in the city of San Bernardino. As you know, we have other stores. We pulled data from that as well. When it comes to real estate management, the number one detractor to discouraging crime, vagrancy, litter, drug use, loitering, is responsible and active development with a partner that is trusted. There is no greater partner that is trusted than McDonald's on a multinational level. We have had cities that have told us we're begging you to operate 24 hours a day because that means this is an area our PD doesn't need to worry about because you have managers on site, because you have staff on site, because you have people doing rotations. It was mentioned that there's a 24-7 operation. The MO for McDonald's is to request 24 hours on drive-thru operations. The interior dining hall will not operate 24 hours. It will likely close at 10 or 11 p.m. As it relates to the drive-through, the local demand of the business is going to determine that. If the franchisee sees that between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. there's nothing going on, then they likely won't operate for those hours. But they request 24 hours as a default for the drive-through, just as an FYI. We've had the privilege of working with your staff. We've had countless hours of guidance with them. we take their staff recommendation as the strongest endorsement of this project planning, public works, community development. We have had consistent agreement across the board that this is a project that works for this site with a conditional use permit. And we all kind of know what the alternative is, which is to let this site remain as is, continue to move in a derelict fashion. And as elected representatives, you know, development is not getting any easier. The state makes it more and more difficult. The infrastructure relating to development is harder and harder every day. And the viability of a mixed use or true residential project on this small of a site with no parking is near zero. I say this with a tremendous amount of experience in land use. We truly appreciate your service to the City of San Bernardino. We appreciate all of the conversations we've had with community members. We appreciate the discussions with staff. I'm here to answer any questions you may have as it relates to the timing, the trajectory, the process of this entitlement. If you have technical questions as it relates to the architecture, the infrastructure, we have Hannah from Kim Lee Horn here available. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak, and thank you for the staff report.

Thank you. I will turn it over to Council to have any questions for the appellant. I do see Council Member Ibarra.

Hi, thank you. You mentioned that only McDonald's was offering to rehab that whole area themselves. There's no other restaurant or business that the owner has made contact with?

I'm here representing McDonald's, and we know of no other opportunity that's been provided to the owner, and I believe that was also verified by staff.

Okay, I thought you were a consultant in general, not just for McDonald's. So you're representing McDonald's then?

I consult on many development projects, but here tonight in this capacity, I am specifically representing McDonald's, and I have so in the last 10 years as well.

And you visited the area yourself?

Many times, yes, ma'am.

You've seen what's in that vicinity?

I certainly have. I did some door knocks and walking around as well.

That's my only question I have right now. Thank you.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem? Just a quick one, because you said you did some door knocking in the area? Yes, ma'am. What was the feedback that you received in your door knocking?

We left flyers. We usually try to go at two or three different times during the day. I wasn't able to get in touch with anybody. That's typically what happens. We left flyers. Nobody called me. We did follow up with staff on pretty much a weekly basis to say, what have you heard? Are there any questions that we may answer? We weren't given the opportunity to have those conversations with anybody opposing or supporting the project. We've also been following along online on posts that have been made on Instagram and Nextdoor. I am pretty much the most accessible person on the planet Earth, and I have not had anybody reach out to me in regards to this. But we did make the effort to try to connect with residents, but we just kind of missed them based on, I guess, their work schedules or business.

Can you tell us a little bit what those efforts consisted of, like the amount of doors, how many flyers were passed out?

Yeah, it was roughly 10 or 15 doors, the equivalent amount. But as a reference point, everything that's related to this project falls within a radius, and all of those folks are identified to come to a planning commission hearing, come to a city council meeting. We consistently follow the direction of staff as it relates to outreach for the community. Because of this project, we were essentially told, hey, let the public process unfold as it traditionally does, Staff will manage that. We went out of our way to do the extra touch points. Leave those flyers. We're not required to do that. We certainly don't need to do that in every jurisdiction. But to Council Member Ibarra's point, being on site and understanding the immediate adjacent contacts of the residents is very important to us. So that's the extent of our outreach. All right. Thank you. You're very welcome.

Thank you. Are there any other comments by council? Seeing none, thank you so much.

Thank you, Mayor.

At this time, I invite members of the public to comment, provide evidence or testimony on this item. Please indicate whether you have been sworn in. You have three minutes to address the council. Madam City Clerk. Andy Fuentes.

David Friedman. Ruben Mendoza. Yvette Roman, Juan Hernandez, Bernard De La Garza, Dolores Armstead, Rocio Aguayo, Jose Jimenez, Alicia Aguayo, Robert Carrillo, and Joe Salas.

Thank you. Please state your name and you have three minutes.

Thank you, my name is Andy Fuentes, I'm a resident of the Seventh Ward, and I am here tonight to oppose this appeal and the proposed McDonald's. I think the people of San Bernardino are perfectly fine with the eight McDonald's that we already have in the city. We do not have a shortage of fast food in the city. When you look around the city, what do you see? You see car washes, you see fast food restaurants, you see liquor stores. It feels like every new development is more of the same. Meanwhile, residents are asking for businesses that bring real value to our community, that create opportunities that actually improve people's lives. And I want to be clear, I want people to invest in San Bernardino. I want economic development and new opportunities, but not when it's another fast food restaurant that we already have all across the city. We should be looking for projects that add something new, fill a need, and make San Bernardino a better place to live in. A ninth McDonald's does none of those things. I would much rather see something useful built on this property instead of another drive-through. And let's be honest, many McDonald's locations become hotspots for problems. Fights break out, police are called, disturbance occur on regular basis. Adding another McDonald's is not gonna improve our community, and I do not believe that this is a good location for this project. Throughout the process, concerns about crimes in the area have been raised multiple times. And I agree with the fifth ward commissioner when this first was brought up, when she said this, yeah, this would provide jobs, but they are very low paying jobs. San Bernardino should not be setting the bar so low that we celebrate every fast food chain that comes knocking on our door. We should be asking what kind of jobs we really want to bring to our city. Do we want more minimum wage fast food positions or do we want businesses that provide careers, upward mobility and opportunities for people to support themselves and their families? My representation on the Planning Commission supported this project, but I hope the council reaches a different conclusion. I hope you do not approve this appeal and do not move forward. At some point, we have to stop settling for another drive-through, another liquor store, or another car wash and start demanding for something better. San Bernardino deserves better. I urge you to deny this appeal. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, and residents. On behalf of Senator Eloise Gomez-Reyes, I want to express her support for the residents, small business owners, and also community advocates who have worked tirelessly to make their voices heard on this proposal. The Planning Commission considered the evidence, listened to the community, and concluded that this project is not the right fit. for the baseline and Sierra Way corridors. This is about more than just a single development proposal. It is about the kind of future San Bernardino wants to build. Our city faces real challenges, including housing affordability, public health disparities, traffic congestion, and environmental burdens. As we look ahead, we should prioritize investments that create opportunities, strengthen neighborhoods, support local businesses, and reflect the visions residents have for their community. Just as importantly, we must respect the public process. Residents showed up, participated, and made their concerns known. The Planning Commission listened and acted accordingly. The decision should not be set aside simply because an applicant has the resources to continue pursuing approval. Senator Eloise Gomez-Reyes respectfully urges the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny this appeal.

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please state your name. You have three minutes.

My name is David Friedman, and I checked, and every resident in the city is less than a seven minute drive to a McDonald's. We have a limited amount of land in the city, and a decision to develop a parcel today will affect the community 50 plus years down the line. Anyone who has gone to Disneyland has driven by the McDonald's across from the park. It has stayed the same while new housing and hotel developments tower above it. My point being that the decision to approve this McDonald's is not a temporary decision. It will be a permanent decision, and you can't just... Basically, you're making a generational decision to continue allowing unhealthy fast food take over every corner of our city. You're encouraging more traffic and pollution instead of walkability. Please do not approve this, McDonald's.

Thank you.

You have multiple developers in this room who want to develop affordable mixed-use housing. Please focus on finishing the general plan, specific plan, and the One Stop Permit Center make it easier for non-corporate developers to develop in the city, and it will come. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Good evening. My name is Bernard de la Garza, and I'm here to voice my opposition against this McDonald's. I just want to suggest developing small businesses. Really reach out and see if there's any opportunity or anyone who's interested. A third space would be pretty cool. A community garden. If any of those things aren't something you want to do, I'm down for a Cava, maybe a Raising Cane's. McDonald's cannot be the only business that we're entertaining here. I also want to recommend you support the Planning Commission's decision and reject this appeal. They said no, and you all trusted those people to make these decisions, and I just want to remind you to uphold that decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Ruben Mendoza, Ward 7 resident. I'm here to speak on agenda item number three and urge you to uphold the Planning Commission's 6-3 decision and deny this appeal for what would be the San Bernardino's 9th McDonald's. What's before you tonight is bigger than fast food. It's about whether our land use decisions reflect the kind of city we're committed to building. The following are reasons to deny this appeal. Consumer spending on dining is fixed at the local level. Households operate within defined budgets. A new McDonald's doesn't create net new economic activity. It triggers the economic substitution effect. The same family choosing McDonald's tonight is simply not eating at Jack in the Box, or worse, at a locally owned restaurant. As for jobs, this is an automated footprint designed to minimize headcount. McDonald's has invested in self-ordered kiosks and automated kitchen systems to reduce labor costs. Approving a conditional use permit on the basis of job creation for an industry whose business model is eliminating workers is an economic development. It's a permission slip. Our own environmental scan makes this plain. San Bernardino already has approximately 85 fast food and convenience outlets, nearly three times our number of grocery stores. Senate Bill 1000 requires our general plan to actively promote healthy food access in disadvantaged communities. This is not actively promoting. At the Planning Commission, I heard this question, has anything else been proposed for this site? And for some of the commissioners, the absence of an alternative was enough. That reasoning deserves scrutiny, because the absence of proposals isn't proof that nothing better is possible. It may simply reflect a failure to actively market and incentivize what our own housing element already calls for. Housing Element Policy Program 3.1.2 establishes a transit overlay district specifically to encourage mixed-uses transit ridership and reduce auto dependency, incentives that should have been publicized and required through the Housing Element since 2014. This site is in a TOD. A drive-through fast food facility isn't just inconsistent with these goals. It is precisely the land use the overlay was designed to discourage. That's why a CUP is required at all. In closing, San Bernardino has mandated to produce 8,100 units by 2029. This site sits on a transit corridor and is ideally positioned for the kind of mixed-use, mixed-income development that can actually move towards the mandate. Development that puts people in homes, activates local businesses, and builds lasting community wealth. We do not lack fast food in the city. What we lack is a will to demand something better when something better is clearly possible. The Planning Commission got it right. I urge you to uphold the denial and send a clear signal that San Bernardino's land use decisions will reflect our residents' health, our housing obligations, and our long-term future. And real quick, I'm going off script right here. The fact that McDonald's only reached out to y'all and not to the community, especially when we was at the Planning Commission and y'all didn't say nothing, and y'all said something underneath your breath, on your way out, you're lame and you're whack.

Thank you. Next speaker, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Rocio Aguayo, I'm a mother and a homeowner in this city in the first ward. And I believe a drive-through is not in alignment with the goals of a transit overlay district or the Waterman baseline specific plan that was conducted by the city 10 years ago, which I know, Fred, you were a part of. So I hope you can stand with the community who expressed all the concerns in that plan. And yes, the property is vacant, but we deserve better development in that area. There's a pizza hut that has struggled tremendously with robberies and vandalism. The Dollar Tree did not sustain there, and the Walgreens a couple blocks away also was closed down. You know what does survive in that neighborhood? Small businesses. The best sushi restaurant in the city, Miyagi's. Lotus Restaurant and other small businesses. So I encourage the council to uphold the commission's recommendation and I encourage you to ask the economic development team to help the owner sell their land to a better business so that we don't have a concentrated... Sorry, mom brain. I'm gonna just stop right there. Thank you, bye.

Thank you. Next speaker, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Good evening, mayor, council members, and community members. My name is Yvette Romero. I'm a resident of the First Ward. Tonight, I would like to speak from a public health perspective. Health starts before the doctor's office. It starts in our neighborhoods. And I'm not speaking against this project because I'm anti-business or anti-development. I believe in development and investment. I believe in economic mobility for the community. And I do not believe in settling. Will this McDonald's project improve the quality of life of San Bernardino residents? Tonight, I refer to the city's own environmental scan, September 2025. Obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol are among the most common health conditions affecting adults in San Bernardino. And approximately 50% of our youth ages 12 to 17 are obese. With a community that already has access to three times more unhealthy food than healthy food, what message is another McDonald's sending the community? Health conditions do not happen by accident. They are influenced by our environments we create and the land use decisions we make. Which brings me to the slide presentation of the appeal presentation. The applicant shows that adding another McDonald's would improve access. Council, I ask you to consider what are we giving access to? Access to food that increases obesity and heart disease in our neighborhoods? Lastly, our neighborhoods reflect public health. Walkability is a public benefit. Table one of the public hearing packet, planning commission concerns and staff responses. The concern, the proposed land use does not reduce dependency on vehicles and promote walkability. The staff response, although the proposed facility is a drive-through facility, the applicant has stated that the walk-in portion of the restaurant will be open 24-7, which we found out tonight is untrue. And also, respectfully, that does not promote walkability and that does not mean walkability. Walkability is not simply having a business that is open. Walkability is the ability for residents to safely and conveniently access housing, retail, healthy foods, and other services without relying on a car. The development is in a transit-oriented overlay that is designed around people, not vehicles, and a drive-through promotes vehicles. Referring back to the city's environmental scan, it defines that this corridor is an area with elevated bicycle and pedestrian collisions. Adding another vehicle-oriented drive-thru does not improve safety and quality of life, nor does it advance the goals of a transit-oriented development. Increasing access to drive-thru fast food in a community already struggling with chronic disease deserves a different level of consideration. SB 2050, the General Plan, TOD, Environmental Health Scan, the future of San Bernardino has been envisioned. Don't halt the improvements with another drive-thru. I would like to quote the words of Planning Commissioner Benjamin Pratt, Ward 6. We put processes in place and TOD in place to achieve a vision for our city. And we tend to circumvent ourselves in San Bernardino over and over again. End quote. I ask you to upload the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal. San Bernardino deserves more than just something. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Hello, my name's Alicia Aguayo. I'm a first ward resident, but I also work for the Inland Empire Labor Institute. And I'm here to express my opposition towards this additional McDonald's and ask you to deny the appeal. The average annual salary for a McDonald's worker is $35,000. That's nowhere near enough to be able to survive, let alone thrive. And I heard today conversations about the wages, and it looks like it's higher. But if any of you have worked at a fast food place, you know that you're competing for hours. And you don't get those benefits unless you get a certain amount of hours. And so that's the reality. I've seen this city accepting anything that comes its way for a while, and if we truly want to build a better city, it starts with what might feel like smaller choices like this. What are we saying to families and children in this community when all we have to offer is fast food? We don't need any more fast food. We've got enough. And why wouldn't other healthy alternative options like to come here? Because they make their decisions based off of things like medium incomes, and this is only going to continue us into this cycle of poverty. it's been a pattern of poor economic development not only are the elected officials which some of you and others in this region not prioritizing the quality of life we have here which is part of the vital conditions needed to have a thriving economy you've approved poor jobs for our community and many are not able to afford health care in this country and the reality is we're already overburdened with air pollution and we have to pay for that our health care costs because of the logistics issue that we have in this region and we have to battle with the unhealthy food and all the terrible options that we have here we deserve better we deserve to have healthier food options we deserve to have family sustaining wages affordable housing and small businesses thank you thank you next speaker bestate your name

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Juan Hernandez, President and CEO of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce here in San Bernardino. I would like to make my comments in Spanish because people really need to listen to what's happening here. I'm Juan Hernandez, president of the Spanish Chamber of Commerce of San Bernardino. And I'm here precisely because we're not opposed to being business owners. But I think that being here, opposing McDonald's being in this city, I think is very important. Why? We've been working with business owners for two years, and we know what he said, that only 15 15 flyers alrededor. Nosotros hemos visto más dueños de negocios que quieren revitalizar San Bernardino, que solamente estar una, dos horas pasando 15 flyers. So realmente necesitamos tener esa mentalidad que ustedes mismos en el General Plan dicen que queremos levantar a San Bernardino. ¿Cuándo va a ser tiempo? El año pasado nos dieron la proclamación de Hispanic Heritage. Y dijimos, vamos a trabajar completamente juntos.

Do you need, are you going to say it in Spanish or in English? Si, solamente en español. You didn't say, okay, so you didn't say that out there. So if you want to say it again, please.

Okay.

Sorry.

Okay, mi nombre es Juan Hernandez, Presidente de la Cámara de Comercio Hispano de San Bernardino.

My name is Juan Hernandez. I'm the President of the Latin Chamber in San Bernardino.

Y estoy el día de hoy aquí precisamente para oponerme a lo que están haciendo con McDonald's.

And I'm here to oppose what they're doing here in McDonald's.

Y algo que él tomó, que dice que ha estado pasando por 15 flyers alrededor. Nosotros como Cámara hemos trabajado dos años y hemos visitado más negocios y sabemos que quieren revitalizar San Bernardino, pero McDonald's no es la opción.

And what the McDonald's guy said that they turn out 15 flyers, that's not true. I've been working here for several years with the Latino Chamber, and we did deliver more than 15 flyers.

I think she's not translated the correct way. But that's fine. So it's going to be on record. So what I'm saying, we are working hardly with the Hispanic community around San Bernardino. And 15 flyers is not enough to really say that they're about the community. So San Bernardino has to revitalize rights. And we have to do something. Last year, we got the proclamation of Hispanic heritage. And we are here to really work with the community. I know we take much of the time, but it's on the record what I thought. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Good evening, Mayor, council members, and community. My name is Amy Malone, and I'm a proud resident of the beautiful city of San Bernardino. I am here tonight to respectfully urge you to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to reject the proposed McDonald's at Baseline and Sierra Way. This issue is bigger than a hamburger, it is bigger than a drive-through, and it is bigger than one development project. The real question before us is whether San Bernardino is finally ready to stop settling for whatever comes our way and start demanding the kind of development that our residents deserve. As someone who advocates for this city, I know that residents want economic opportunities that improve their quality of life. They want a city that is planned with intention, not a city that simply accepts whatever is easiest. The Planning Commission rejected this project twice for a reason. We have heard that McDonald's provides management positions that pay a living wage. While wages are important, I would ask, can McDonald's guarantee that those management positions will be filled by San Bernardino residents, or will they bring people from outside into San Bernardino to fill the higher positions? Can they commit to hiring local talent, promoting from within, and creating a clear pathway for advancement for the people who live in this community? Economic development should do more than create jobs. It should create opportunities for residents to build careers and invest back into the city they call home. We already have plenty of fast food options. What we do not have enough of are healthy food choices and developments that contribute to the overall well-being of our residents. Families in this area deserve access to healthier dining options and businesses that support a higher quality of life. Adding another fast food restaurant does little to address those needs. What we need is development that moves us toward a healthier, more prosperous future. We need projects that create community support, support local entrepreneurs, encourage housing opportunities, and contribute to the long-term vision of San Bernardino. This is about honoring the community's vision and moving San Bernardino forward together. The residents of San Bernardino deserve development that reflects our potential, not our past. I respectfully ask you to deny this appeal and stand with the residents who believe San Bernardino deserves better than another fast food restaurant. Thank you. Thank you.

Next speaker, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Hello. Dolores Armstead. Everyone was so eloquent. I'm going to be pretty straight. I believe there's a housing development getting ready to break ground fairly close, so that's why McDonald's thought it was a good opportunity. Obviously, they were looking. Another one, part-time positions, they have no benefits. I have never seen a McDonald's with 17 people on a shift, okay? Never. And then the new ones you're building are highly automated. So the few people you have on, you're gonna get rid of them too, because it's highly automated now. What is the community benefit? You kept going on and on about the great community benefits. What's the community benefit? Another fast food, more cars, It's part-time jobs with no benefits, low-paying jobs with no benefits. So what is the community, what are we getting out of it? Nothing. There's no nutritional value in McDonald's food. There really isn't. We need restaurants that provide nutritional foods, not fast food with chemicals. We don't need that. One last question I do have. Is McDonald's your number one pick when you go out to dinner? It's a question. Is that your number one pick? That's why you're pushing it on our neighborhood? Because I'm sure McDonald's is not your first pick when you go out to eat. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Joe Salas, Fort Ford. I am not against McDonald's. I would be hypocritical if I told you that if you didn't see me regularly at the Del Taco on 40th Street. But what I'm against, though, is irresponsible planning. I would like to see this and all future development done when the general plan is finally commenced, I believe, in January or February of 2027. Thank you, City Council and staff, for getting that to us. addressed within a specific plan. Where there would be other local mom and pop stores like Magusa Cafe on, I'll just give them a little shout out there. It's my favorite place now to converse with community members. So having a McDonald's in our community along with other mixed use, along with other mom and pop, something like a retail zone specifically for the second ward for those residents who live within there, because everyone focuses on downtown. They think the second ward's downtown, but right around in that neighborhood, that's where I first lived when I moved to this city, so I know the city pretty well. I used to run and jog around that neighborhood. There needs to be something that's there, but a larger vision for our residents with community feedback. After having ran for office, it's so important to actually get feedback from the community on what they want to see in that place. And I think a specific plan along with city staff and when we get our economic development director to really direct what development is in specific neighborhoods, because each neighborhood should have its own flavor. with feedback from the residents, because I think someone said earlier, it is a generational decision. Once a building's made, it's there for 40 or 50 years, so I think I'd like to see the council think a little more long-term vision. This council is starting to do that, which is great, and you're getting feedback from the community, so I'd like to see you guys deny this application.

Next speaker, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Hello, Mayor, Council. Good evening. Good evening, community. We don't need more unhealthy food. I ask that you deny the appeal. Listen to your commissioners. We have enough McDonald's in our neighborhoods. What we need is culinary gems and cultural gems like Miyagi's, the Lotus. We have a really good fish fry right there on baseline as well, and Alfredo's, of course, an Italian staple here in San Bernardino, all on baseline. As we're thinking about the East Street corridor and developing that, we need to start thinking deeper about other corridors and thinking, how do we start changing that identity from being a place that has ladies of the night to be a cultural corridor of food, of arts, of housing that's affordable housing, where we have projects like the Launchpad, right? So yeah, let's think about that. And then let's think about the cost of fast food now. It's risen so much that you could actually go to a local place, and it costs just the same. So you can go eat at the Lotus or eat at one of these restaurants, and you're spending the same amount. So you're not only spending the same amount, but you're getting healthier food, and it also tastes better. If blight's the problem, which was cited earlier, why aren't we looking at some placemaking, arts-based strategies that we could have some local muralists paint these walls? We have blighted walls, and if muralists paint them, people will stop tagging on them, because most of those local muralists may be the taggers, or maybe related to the taggers, just so you're aware. And I think you've seen how successful murals have been in the city over time, and you've seen me leading some of those movements. Knowing the Launchpad is being built across the street, a project that aims at equipping people with housing, workforce skills, and other necessities to succeed and become homeowners in our economy and get out of the cycle of poverty, Why are we continuing investing in these businesses that, like my friend said, Alicia, continue that structure that puts us into this cycle of poverty, a community like San Bernardino? And then let's just think long-term development, long-term cultural identity like I mentioned earlier. Do we wanna be known for more fast food locations or for a culinary district that has unique character, that offers food experiences that McDonald's failed to offer our community? So thank you for listening and hopefully you abide by what the Planning Commission has already made a decision on. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Hello, Council and Mayor, my name is Miriam Nieto, and I am a resident in the Seventh Ward. Yes, I'm here to just echo what the community is saying, and I think the community has, I'm so proud of the city and the community, because I think we've also come a long way where we are saying, like, hey, we deserve better, and development should be better than just McDonald's, and only because a person from out of state who owns land can't find somebody to purchase their land, so they're just gonna sell it off to the highest bidder to the fast food restaurant, which is McDonald's, which is honestly what happens when you have out of state owners, people that don't know the community, people who don't have an understanding of our community, and then they sell off to a corporation. Again, that's exactly what the city of San Bernardino is really known for, right? So kind of like that cheap land or that land where anybody's willing to sell it. I don't think we should be that anymore. I think that we have an opportunity. I think you guys have talked about Blue Zones in the past. I remember the University of Loma Linda coming in at a past council meeting. They were talking about Blue Zones. Is McDonald's a Blue Zone restaurant? Absolutely not. They are definitely not a Blue Zone restaurant. We need more restaurants. And like Michael mentioned, we actually are a family here of four now, and it is pricey. It is pricey out there, but we are also very busy. So we go to our mom and pop restaurants to purchase some of that food instead of McDonald's, because believe it or not, McDonald's is more expensive than taco shop. McDonald's is more expensive than that fried fish market restaurant that is down the street on Baseline. If you give the community an opportunity to explore their city, to understand their city better, they will find better choices for our local economy. McDonald's is not our local economy. They're a corporation that are coming in, and they're taking advantage of our community. They're taking advantage of our land. They're taking advantage of our workforce. We deserve better. As somebody said, it will get automized. People are going to be... dealing with robots at McDonald's. They already are. We see some of the robots at McDonald's. So what's going to happen when that takes place? They're going to say, oh, well, well, you know, we're here now. So we won't be able to kick them out. I think it's just really listen to the community. Listen to your commissioners. They've already spoke. Please counsel. Do good. I think you guys have already been doing some really good conversations and talking to each other and really planning for our city. So continue to do the good work and say no to this McDonald's. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Hello, Mayor and City Council, Robert Carrillo, Seventh Ward resident, small business owner, and emerging developer here in San Bernardino. I have some written comments, but I think there are some points, some falsities, if you will, that have been said that I think we need to address, especially since they came from somebody who is I guess has some land planning use history and experience. That may sound like very official and formal and so you may believe some of that stuff. So let me just clear some things up. First, the state has made the development of housing easier. Assembly Bill 2011 actually promotes mixed use developments along commercial corridors, which this is one of, and the typical two-year entitlement process, correct. It would normally take that long, but AB 2011 mandates its ministerial rights, basically locks down the whole entitlement period to about six to seven months. That is intentionally done to increase housing. Another falsity is that this site is too small for mixed-use development. Ladies and gentlemen, public, right across the street from this site, we are talking about one that is .312 acres. That is 17,000 square feet, half the size of this lot here. We went through AB 2011, our planning director is here, he will tell you. 48 residential units, almost 10,000 square feet of commercial space. Directly across the street from this site, I've done the research on this site across the street using Assembly Bill 2011, you can actually build almost 25,000 square feet of commercial space and 125 residential units. I'm just saying, right? The other thing, right, the other thing is that this community outreach, man, look, I'm almost 50 years old. That's almost older than all of you out there, except for Mr. Frecherette, right? But no, but I'll say something. Mr. Frecherette, you said something when the Airbnbs were up. Revenues are not for the city. This four, five million, we'll give you five million dollars. I doubt it's that, but we'll give you five million dollars. Do you know what the revenue for the city is? The sales taxes? 1%, $50,000. I'll give you a couple of more, you know, for some planning fees, et cetera. I'll give you $55,000. That is the economic benefit of having a McDonald's open, and that's a tax benefit. Yo, look it up. I'm not just talking. These are facts, but we gotta bring it out there. And then, again, another one. I'm sorry, I'm not shouting you out, director, but in your appeal, you also misstated that the site is too small, that there aren't any, yo, I've talked to the owner. You said she, he's a he. Thank you. But come on, folks. Thank you.

Madam City Clerk, any more speakers? There are no more speakers for this item, and we did also receive written comments in opposition to this.

We received four. Thank you. At this time, I invite the appellant to provide any rebuttal evidence and testimony. You will have five minutes to address the council.

Hello again. This is Sean Yunus, Kerr Pringle & Associates, representing McDonald's. It's hard to have a direct rebuttal to things that, as I mentioned, have been made very clear as amorphous. The most significant evidence you have is that over the last seven years, there has been no interest in this property from any other applicant, anybody else that's been viable. The owner, yes, currently no longer lives in this state. Should that be held against them? That's up to you to determine. This is a property rights issue. As it relates to murals and green spaces and third spaces, this is not a city-owned property. Those initiatives are interesting and they're certainly valued, but as it relates to private property and the ability to develop private property, that is a private property ownership decision based on the applicable economics and the market that's been brought to them. The viable market that this owner is interested in pursuing is a quick service restaurant. McDonald's didn't fall into this deal. They were sought out. This is an owner who is actively trying to create a launching pad to the entrance of your TOD. We are at the very edge of your TOD. Right now, if somebody enters into that area, they have really nothing to look at currently. We know what the alternative is based on current evidence. There's a lot of passion in the room, there's a lot of interest in the room, but none of that has ever translated into actual viable economic opportunity for this owner. If it had, you would have heard about it, staff would have communicated to you, and it would have been part of the evidence of this hearing tonight. McDonald's provides jobs, they provide economic development, and they have a local franchisee that's interested in being a part of this community. There was raisin canes mentioned, so maybe it's not an issue of drive-throughs, it's not an issue of fried chicken, maybe it's just an issue of what a McDonald's means in a neighborhood versus what a raisin canes means in a neighborhood. As I mentioned, I've been in this situation before. We had a project that was slated in another city in Orange County, almost identical parameters, McDonald's walked away from that site. To this day, almost 10 years later, it is still vacant, derelict, literally burnt to the ground. That owner wanted to pursue housing. They pursued Housing Accountability Act. They pursued 2011. Just because those things exist doesn't mean that they're automatic yeses. All of you are understanding as it relates to housing policy. That's why you're elected officials. You have to take the information in front of you and look at the pragmatic approach to your policy and look at how it determines a parcel-to-parcel, site-to-site strategy for your city. McDonald's is an eager applicant. They put in the time with your staff. We're asking for no variances, no variables. We're providing enhanced landscaping, lighting. The overall sentiment of food choices is exactly that. It is a choice. What's not mentioned in a lot of these conversations is the psychological effect of walking by dirt, trash, crime, and drugs on a daily basis. This is an opportunity to address that. I have literally seen it in my own backyard. I live in a 100-year-old home. On the other side of a wall was a dirt lot filled with trash, filled with graffiti, no lighting. I didn't like to walk through it. I didn't like any of my guests to walk through it. Now it's a quick service restaurant. As I mentioned, it's not a McDonald's. This isn't a McDonald's bias. It is a land use bias as somebody who's been in this field for a long time, who understands development changes perspectives. It changes the ability for you to literally go from looking at a turned over shopping cart filled with garbage to, oh, I know that teacher. Oh, that person's on my soccer team. Oh, I can ride my bike here. There's a hub. There's a nucleus. There's an opportunity to incite development and bring in new economic interest. We've seen all across the state when a McDonald's pops up, it actually supports local mom and pop businesses. There's an example in Fountain Valley. It's next to a Fish and Chub in a boba spot. We talked to them six months after opening. Those folks have literally never done better because people come and they get french fries from McDonald's and then they get boba or they get fish from the fish fry spot and then they get an ice cream from McDonald's. This isn't to take away business. It's to augment opportunity. This opportunity is here. It's real. A denial means more of the same. It will remain as is, I imagine, for many years. That is a decision up to all of you. Once again, thank you for your time.

Thank you. I will turn back to the council. At this time, I can take any council final questions, comments. Council Member Ortiz, followed by Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, community. Thank you, applicant. I did have a question for the city, if possible. Do we know the assessed property value, roughly, what this property is valued at?

Unfortunately, I don't have that information from the top of my head.

Is it anything that's public that we would know? Like, is it five bucks, a million bucks? What do we know?

It's probably public knowledge. I just don't have it in front of me as far as the assessed value.

What will we guess property's going for on baseline right now? All right, we'll go half a million. I'm just going to say that. Because I think this is important because I'm going to say some things you're probably not going to like and some things other people are going to like. But I think they need to be said when we talk about developing the city. To the applicant, you're not wrong. Nothing you said was wrong. I want you to know that because this is someone's private property. And I want the community to understand no one's going to give their property away for free so you can go build a garden. I mean, unless they've got a lot of money and they can endow it, it's not going to happen because I don't want to know how many people are giving their homes up to the homeless so someone else has somewhere to live. We've got to be realistic about the markets and capitalism and because it's important to the conversation and to your point yeah if this was a viable option since 2019 where are all the bidders so we we do this and as a community member I say the same thing you know we don't want that but yet you have nothing so again amorphous right the vision is versus the reality. Can't argue with that. I wish there was this level of energy to fight unhappy development when they were trying to build storage units in the sixth ward across the street from the Ingram Library instead of allowing for housing development, which it could have been zoned for. So as we move forward, I think here's where the community is right. We're in a very different position because y'all are awake now. This wasn't like this six years ago when I was sitting here by myself in most meetings. You guys are now here and you're showing up and you're fighting for something. And there is a reason why the general plan was allowed to go 25 years without being re-approved because everybody was asleep at the wheel. And now community, you've gotten in the car. You put some gas in it. and you drove yourself to a meeting and you're fighting for something that you believe, I would rather not have this right now because I have a vision and a dream for something better. And that is amazing and I give you a million props for that. But understand that with any denial of this, there could be another six year lull. But that's on the community. We have to accept responsibility for fighting things that want to come here, just as much as when we get the things, we have to invest into it. Miyagi's is only Miyagi's because we go to Miyagi's. Migas is only Migas because we go to Migas. Red Dragon, Little Dragon, the Mongolian barbecue, it's because those are our spots. And I do worry about fast food going. They tried to bring a Mr. I don't see how bad fast food is up there. On 40th Street, they tried to bring in one burger spot, and it failed. And then they tried to bring in another burger spot, and it's failed. And it's on a good corridor, which we should be investing into. But these markets are failing. So it is something for us to continue to consider. And I think right now we are right on the verge of actually being able to establish a council and leadership that has the community in mind that like you said, the housing element element, I love how everybody's like, yeah, we have a housing element, but you don't implement the housing element. You don't do what we need to do. East street is the same thing. This is supposed to be multi-use development, um, mixed housing and the same thing with the baseline corridor. So, um, To the city, when we talk about these vacant properties and we're looking at why the Planning Commission is doing what we're doing, the real issue we have is that we allow buildings to remain vacant for years with no penalty. Whether there's a buyer or not, or any more than they have any type of relief in a bad economy. For us to say, you're going to pay to maintain, right? This, I mean, this has become this way we're pushing so hard because there's nothing but a dilapidated, unkept, out of state owned, which is by their choice not to have to live here, but by God, you should have to maintain here. It's not enough to be a tax write-off in our city. And so we really need to look at, I think what the council has assessed, which is if we don't approve this, a vacant blighted maintenance fee for buildings that sit on our large corridors that do nothing but bring drugs and homeless issues and crime and blight and all of those things. So I hear the community and the passion to the community. And if you want this to remain, then you I will not support it as long as you understand as a community, these are the choices that we make for nothing rather than what's, you rather order at a different restaurant, you haven't even seen the menu, than order at this one. And so I can't support this item tonight, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

Well I have to say Council Member Ortiz, we're very in line. I think you just literally read all of my sentiments. I agree from the start of the property rights of the owner, totally agree with that. but I also have to say, we had a city manager that came and moonlighted here like we've had so often, and I had asked, because they had experience in Rancho Cucamonga, which we all term as the land of milk and honey, and I had asked, what's the difference between Rancho and San Bernardino? Why have they had such success in their economic development? Obviously, there's many other points, but one thing that really stood out that he said is, because we say no, and that hit me, because San Bernardino, we continually fall into this rut because of our situation financially. We continually say, well, we don't get property taxes. We only get sales taxes, so we have to accept the quick car washes. We have to have all the Starbucks' because if we say no, we don't get the sales tax. But at what point do we start really designing the community that we want to see for our future? At what point do we start saying no So we can actually have a decent quality of life that we all want. We've all chosen, I always say it's a choice for us to live in this city. We didn't pick up and move to Rancho. We didn't pick up and move to Fontana. We're still here. And I do applaud the community because not only are we still here, we're still here fighting for our community for what we want and what our needs are for us and our family. And so I do sincerely appreciate what you guys have done. I appreciate the owner. Now what I will say is I do agree with what you're saying as far as the onus is on the community. but at the same time, that is where I do differ a little bit, because no, the honest is on us. We're elected. They put us here in these seats for a reason. It is time that we do start creating the city that makes it conducive for people to want to build housing on the corner of a TOD area. It is time for us to really start having a different mindset, and that starts with leadership. It starts at the top. So I will take that honest on us, Can't say it's gonna change tomorrow. It is a very highly possibility that lot is going to sit empty for some time. But again, that challenge is for us to really work through. It's going to be a challenge, especially when we have budget discussions of facing over $40 million deficits. But it's a challenge that I think we were all elected to take on. So with that, I do support saying no to this.

Thank you.

Any other council members? Can I make a motion to, oh I'm sorry.

No worries. Council Member Ibarra. Thank you community members for coming out. There was others that didn't come out, but their voices have been heard and yours have been heard. You know, I would like to propose, I know the applicant here is McDonald's specifically, and I don't know if the applicant can consider other options. I'm here listening to everybody, and I'm thinking, why can't we just have a Sprouts in that corner? Just an example. So I mean, I have a McDonald's close to me. Andy and I share that McDonald's. And yes, it is being automated. That McDonald's, probably I only see maybe five employees at a time when I go there. And it's rare when I go. I don't go daily. but I only see five employees, and they do work part-time. I've worked in the fast food industry. They don't give us over 20 hours a week. We don't qualify for benefits. Rare are the people who do get benefits who work in the fast food. And then I know Council Member Ortiz asked about the property value. In a simple search, just for this address of 116 West Baseline, it's saying that its estimated market value is approximately $1.3 And other areas nearby are between 1.5. I think we can do better for San Bernardino. If this property is going to be vacant for a little longer, then it will be vacant for a little longer. We just have to be able to start working on our city and our image out there. instead of trashing our city, speak highly about our city, encourage other developers to want to look into this corner. It's a corner property. It's got a lot of potential. So, I mean, I go by what I've seen in my neighborhood, and what I've heard from the community, and I also will be voting against the, I'll be in favor of the Planning Commission's denial for this application.

Thank you, council member. Mayor Poteau? And I'm sorry, just one more thing, because I did bring forward, and it was approved unanimously by the council, the vacant property ordinance. And so I would like to know how that would come into play with this, because we are saying no, but if that is the final decision, but then looking forward to penalizing people for holding onto vacant properties. So I do want to be fair to the property owner. I know we keep on, again, putting the onus, but we do have an economic development team here, Is it possible that we can have our team consult with the property owner and try to do what we can to help market that property in a way that is conducive and fits with what our community really desires to see?

Yeah, we can work with the property owner. You're right on the vacant property owners. If they try to put a... a use there and then you deny it, we would have to look at whether or not that would apply.

Thank you. Council Member Ortiz. Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, I think, you know, this is why we go to ICSC as well every year. I mean, the team did an amazing job, but this is literally what we have a division for that goes to Las Vegas with every single realtor, whatever's there to build a plan here. And so I think our community and economic development director and housing, like, we need to be doing more. If we need to assess every business up and down Baseline Highland and E Street Corridor, so that we, and knocking on it and say, what do you guys want to do? Are you looking to sell? Do you want to expand? What is it that you want to do? We're either going to drive the results or we're going to keep sitting here voting against what's, what will come, right? I mean, it's kind of ironic and I won't let it leave tonight that we were the home of McDonald's, but you know what? I think it's time for someone to move out. And that's really what the community is saying. So it's, but it is a thing. And I think Mayor Pro Tem is right, right? The onus is on the community to tell us no. We're going to take responsibility for that vote. But we've got to put our money where our mouth is. We've got to put an economic development team together and assess what we're doing, when we're doing it, and how we're doing it, and if these are specific. that overlay but what is the specific plan look like for baseline highland mount vernon east street where this is this is the goal because we don't want to be dragging people along for two years either that this this should have been shopped to the community two years ago because this is also what happens right this is also to his point to your doubt again nothing you're nothing you're saying is wrong who wants to come here and do this who wants to spend all this time and energy to shop a property, get a property, work to develop a property, meet with our people, only to be denied here at this point. And because we are not in tune and in alignment with the needs and wants of our community because we're 25 years out of a general plan. We have no specific plans. We have no more of a relationship with the community than we do the development community. And so we've got to fix that. We've got to bridge that gap. And so I appreciate Mayor Pro Tem's step.

Thank you. Mayor Pulte?

Just one more because that does bring up another point and I think that might be more of like a policy or process change that we can maybe implement and I'll leave that to you but we do see this a lot. This isn't new where a developer or investor has gotten to the point of being at the planning commission and at that point they have already exerted copious funds with architectural renderings and whatever it entails with going through that process to get to that point, they have exerted copious amounts of money. And then it makes us look un-business friendly, which is not what we want. That's not the goal here. We do want to be seen as business friendly. So I think if we can maybe think about ways to where we can integrate the community input way before it gets to this point. So we are not having this back and forth, which is not conducive to us being seen as a business friendly community. So maybe that's something that you and the team can think about on how we can kind of go about facilitating some different various methods on how we can accomplish that. That would be great.

Thank you. Council Member Ortiz? Just to her point, like when he was walking, right, and knocking, where were we? You know what I mean? Like where was our relationship in that to see who was going to respond and walk and knock as well? And so do we even have a process or policy that you know of right now that besides the notice of hearing?

I would ask the community development director, Christian, to answer that question.

We sent out the notice in mailers in regards to the outreach. From my understanding, that's as far as what staff did for the mailers for the planning commission and for tonight's hearing.

Prior to the public, when development's coming, do we notice or even survey any portion of the community before someone comes and buys property or before a property is moved forward in any way other than this type of hearing?

Well, we do not.

Okay. That's what I'm talking about. That's something I think would be important to look at.

Thank you. So Mark Bersieker, who was our previous community, and I said last one, I'm sorry, I really mean it this time, but he was our previous economic development director, community and housing economic development director. And what he did, and this was just for a resident, I obviously wasn't an elected official, but he would send out a email communication that had permits that were pulled for and it was categorized by ward. And that was really insightful because we as the community knew what was slated to come, even if it may have not actually been completed, approved, but we knew what the interest was in our community. For instance, when the Rancho Palma Strata development came, I knew about that beforehand because he was very diligent in sending that communication out to the community. I'll find the email and send it, but it would be nice, especially for us as elected officials that are representatives of individual wards, We don't even know what's coming. We find out when things come before us because of agendas. And that kind of is unfair because we don't even, I know I try my best to really be active and engaged with my community. I have community meetings. I could facilitate that conversation right there, those meetings, if I have the opportunity to.

Thank you. Any other comments? Council Member Figueroa.

Just kind of a technical question for legal. If it doesn't get approved, does the board, is the board required to provide which of the findings it does not meet or how does that work? So there's an obligation of the board to give a reason as to which of the findings this application does not legally meet, correct?

Yes, you are correct. The draft resolution before you does that. Specifically, so you have a subdivision, you have a CUP. Each of them has one finding for denial and you only need one to deny. Let me focus on the CUP one because that's the one that specifically talks about the transit overlay district. So this is finding number one for the CUP. The finding that has to be met is that 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. And you have a finding of fact that supports that. Um, and then I would, I would suggest adding one thing if I'm hearing correctly, it sounds like a majority of you are in favor of denying the project. So let me read what you have now. The finding of factories, the project site is located within the commercial general CG one and the transit overlay district TOD zone. And the project would impair the integrity and character of the transit overlay district. The proposed drive-through 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 vehicle dominant. Also, the project does not support the concept of mixed use development. One thing that I would suggest that you add if the will of the council is to deny this project is The transit-oriented development has a list of prohibited uses. Restaurants with a drive-through is on that list, but there's an exception. And the exception is if the project stimulates economic development activity. Now, there is no definition for what that is. You have the discretion to determine what that actually means, stimulate economic development activity. What I think that you can do is to tie it to the purposes of the transit-oriented development. So we would add a sentence that says that the project does not simulate economic development activity as defined by the purposes of the transit overlay district. That is to mean the economic development activity that the TOD wants is a walkable economic activity, a pedestrian-friendly economic activity. And so from what I hear the comments on the dais, I would suggest adding that. And I would also add a section, I was reviewing the resolution, hearing everyone's comments, to add a section to affirmatively state that the subdivision and CUP are denied. You have the findings there, but I would also recommend adding just one additional section that affirmatively states the project is denied. Does that answer your question, Councilman Figueroa? It does, thank you. Do you have any follow-up questions? For me at least. Not for you.

Okay. I do have other questions, but I'm still kind of formulating them right now. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member. Any other comments? I do have some comments because I really want us to walk through this as a body and also because I kind of see where it's going, but I also don't want to see this happen in the future because we want to be proactive and to ensure that we have successful projects coming forward And it is a, you know, it's successful. So when this was brought forward to staff to start the process and it was presented to the Planning Commission, was it recommended by staff or was it not?

It was recommended by staff.

How was that formulated so the body understands?

We recommended the approval due to the fact that of economic factor for the revenue that this McDonald's will generate. So that was the basis of the approval or the recommendation.

Now, this is probably a question for you, Mr. City Manager, because you heard the feedback from the community and from the council body or those who spoke as far as wanting more projects that's conducive and it makes sense for that area and the community. How can you proceed moving forward would factor those in? Because what I'm hearing is what's missing is there's feedback input from electeds who oversees those districts or at least having engagements without Violent Brown Act and community input. But also I don't want to see us drag folks like developers or applicants through the process when it doesn't end up where they would like to see. So it's taking this and really how do we make sure we're going down this path that makes sense where staff does recommend factoring all those in because you understand this community, the electeds, you know, needs or to represent the community. I guess I just need to understand. Mr. Sinmacher.

Well, typically what you want as a city is you want to have zone, I mean, what a developer wants usually if they're going to bring in a commercial activity, so let's take McDonald's aside, but commercial activity, a restaurant, or any type of activity, a developer likes certainty. So the more you put in that you're going to need to come to us to look at different things, the more difficult you make it, and so then the more likely, it will affect development opportunities. So, because they like certainty, so they like to, through zoning or CUPs, they like to have a certain level of certainty. Obviously they know that there isn't certainty, so like if you have to do a rezoning, that's less certainty, so they have to make a calculated decision on their, on their economics. This one, they needed a CUP, so that's usually, so usually they'll think that that would probably be a doable thing. I'd say in this case, the biggest issue is probably this new zoning that the TOD probably added another component to this particular parcel. So that is something we'll have to think through, because what you try to do as a city, if you're trying to encourage economic development, so that's the question council will have to ask itself. If you're trying to encourage economic development, the more you put in restrictions, the more you put in that they're gonna have to go through certain types of processes, it does create some level of uncertainty for them, and so then some people will do it, some won't. So what we're trying to do I try to do through permitting and through streamlining is try to create more certainty. But this is a discussion where I think you want a little bit different element, and we'll have to look at how we would do that.

Thank you. And this is why the general plan is so important, and to have certainty. And I'm not trying to get us off path and trying to stay focused, but just the feedback. And staff, you guys are subject matter experts to help us drive the results. Please take this into consideration. and how do we have a path forward? Please. Mr. City Attorney.

Mayor Durant, I wanted to add some clarification to your question because if I'm reading behind your question, I think what you're asking is could the city have avoided the time if you heard the public, the public is saying we don't want this project, how could this project have been stopped before it got to Planning Commissioner or us and save us time? Is that accurate, kind of what you're thinking? Yes. Okay. So there's two things going on. One is that a developer has the right to be heard. They have the right to be heard. So let's just imagine that for this project, it was noticed as the public hearing for Planning Commission. But instead of maybe five or 10 comments in opposition to the project, let's imagine there were 10,000. That still would not prevent them from being heard before the Planning Commission. and then whatever happens there, they still have an appeal right to come here. The way to get to what you're trying to do is what the city manager said, which is to clarify the code. So one solution as for this kind of project would be amend your transit-oriented development code to remove the exception for a restaurant with drive-through so that there is no exception. If that were the case, then staff could tell them at the counter, No, we're not taking in this application because it's not allowed per the code, and that would have stopped it. So does that answer your question?

It does, but this is also why we have so much work to do to really to ensure certainty, right? To advertise our city, we are open for business to create that certainty, and I think it's so important that this is for staff to really take back and understand from the elected body And at this point, we haven't called for the votes yet, but it's just what I'm gauging is what staff needs to pay attention closely.

I just want to reiterate what our city attorney has mentioned. Just to give a timeline of context what happened in the past two and a half years, the applicant reached out to community development for myself and one of the senior planners at that time in regards to the viability of this project. Because of the condition that allows prohibited land use to go through an approved conditional use permit, we were able to justify this project. And similarly in the past, we have approved restaurants and drive-thrus and TODs. So during that meeting in late 2024, that was a determination that staff, that as long as there's an economic benefit, economic factor of the land use, that we are able to suggest approval or recommendation to the Planning Commission.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem?

And this is no slight on you guys whatsoever. I know that you guys recommended and you guys did your job and you did it well. You did it in a perspective from your expertise and your background in planning to recommend this as what you felt was appropriate for the use and per the code and being eligible for a possible CUP. So this is no slight on our city staff whatsoever. I think what we're trying to determine is even with the code, which I think is very necessary, what our city attorney had mentioned, having clarity and certainty I think any developer needs that, especially with the investments that they're making. I think what we're trying to bridge is that gap of it is a possibility that it might even be properly coded, zoned appropriately, but the communities just still may not want it. And I don't think any developer wants to be where they're not wanted. And so I think that's what we're really trying to get to. And I don't have a specific answer for it. I think there maybe just needs to be a little bit more dialogue internally with staff and how we can accomplish a process that is conducive to where, again, we just aren't going through this back and forth. We want to be seen as a business-friendly city. That is our goal. We all said that at our goal-setting meeting. We are open for business. Our doors, we want that. But at the same time, we want good businesses. We want smart development. We do want a city that isn't just fast food chains, quick-crack car washes. I mean, that seems to be the nature of San Bernardino and all that we get. I hear it at every community meeting. If I pull out that community visioning survey that I always refer to, it is robust comments about what my community wants to see. And it's not a McDonald's on there. There's not a car wash on there. It's actually quite opposite. So again, it's just how do we start designing the city that we all want?

Thank you. Council Member Barra, followed by Council Member Ortiz. And I just want to confirm with city staff. When an applicant comes before... our planning department, right? They will present an application, they'll put a proposal, what it is they wanna do at specific address. From there, it goes through the DERC, correct? Which is our staffing? Correct. Okay, at that point, when a project, I think this is where we can actually help preventing what happened with McDonald's here. If there's a project that's not abiding by the current zoning per se that they need additional permitting. Maybe at that point, this is where staff can reach out to the community members in that area instead of waiting for this huge process to go through. Many times, I mean, we've had even developers submit applications and they mislead the public as far as what it is that they're building. They're not being very specific. But if we have a developer, they should know exactly what it is that they're building and be very upfront with the community members before they go through this process. You know, I do apologize that McDonald's had to go through this, wait two years to work with staff back and forth, but I think a lot of this would have halted when they applied the first time. And that's something that maybe we can start fixing with the city manager and our future economic development, but that's my understanding. First, these applicants, they submit their application to our planning department, it goes to our staff, And from there, it goes to our planning commissioners. And from there, if they get denied, they appeal, and then they come before us. That is what the process is from the way I see it. But that would be my suggestion. Maybe in the future, if a project does need additional permitting, have that developer go to the community members and get that approval from the community before we get to this point. No. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Ortiz?

Yes, Mayor. Thank you. Well, I want to make sure that we're clear, though, because I think to Council Member Figueroa's point, there is a point where then, but we don't have total control because, and I know they're not going to do this, but say McDonald's all of a sudden didn't have a drive-through model. They had an only open restaurant model, and we were to take out that provision that you can't have a drive-through, and they had an alternative, there's nothing then that they haven't met the standards of in this particular thing. So, I mean, that's, I think, why the specifics of it is not everything that we're going to bring to... As we're fixing things, as we're adjusting and laying out plans, we can come to the community. But at some point, to Mayor Pro Tem's position, is we're going to correct things so that we can't... We're not even going to get here because I don't think anybody wants to be this guy. I don't want to be this guy sitting here because I think two years ago, if someone would have done this two years ago, I'd have been like... nope, we're moving on. So what we don't want to do is ever do that again to somebody because it sucks. I could just sit here and tell you I feel bad for you because I feel like this sucks, but there's always a movement to grow and to do better, and so let's get our codes to where we are in an established way because what's going to come is going to come, but we're going to have it in alignment with no wiggle room, and here's what the community's expectations are. And so I would like to amend my motion to add the additional language of which the city attorney had said that I couldn't repeat if I wanted to, but it sounds great. I could repeat it.

If your motion is seconded and we get to that point, I can read it before you vote.

Thank you. There's a motion. Is there a second? May I protest? May I protest?

I'm sorry. I was going to say I still second.

And council member Figueroa has a question.

Thank you. I'm looking at the transit overlay district, the map. It looks very gerrymandered here. How was that designed or how did you come up or did you come up with this or you grabbed it from somewhere else?

So that map was actually created decades ago. So there's 13 TODs. The purpose of that is to create interaction with the transit and stations. So it's spread out throughout the city to incorporate any commercial uses in that specific. So there's nothing particular in regards to where they're at. It's usually for downtown or wherever the most commercial uses are located at.

Okay. And then when I look at the zoning designation map, it looks like this property falls... The TOD covers maybe about five-eighths of the property. So it doesn't fully cover it. So I'm wondering... How was it measured? Was it measured from center point there on Baseline and E Street, I'm guessing? Or was it measured from the actual bus stop? Because I doubt the bus is dropping people off in the middle of the street. Do we know that?

Unfortunately, at this moment, I wouldn't know the answer for that one. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. There's a motion and a second. I'm to the clerk. Yes, Council Member Charette.

I'm just going to make one comment about that and about the TODs and the 13 or so TODs. Those were largely developed around that bus line that runs up and down E Street and runs to Loma Linda. It takes longer to get there than it does to drive to Ontario and get an airplane into Redlands. And that has been proven to be unused and pretty much worthless. And it's created a lot of problems on E Street and on Hospitality Lane, and that's where those TODs came from, and they have proven to not be very effective.

Thank you.

Madam City Clerk. Mayor, we need to close the public hearing before we take the vote. Oh, that's right.

I am now closing the public hearing at 8.03 p.m., and I invite a motion for this item, which Councilmember Ortiz motioned and Mayor Pro Tem seconded.

And Mayor Tran, if I may, for clarity, included in Councilmember Ortiz's motion is in Section 3 of the resolution, finding of fact to finding number one, to add a sentence that states the project does not simulate economic development activity that furthers the mission and purposes of the TUD. And secondly, to add a section to the resolution that states that subdivision 26-03 and CUP 25-02 are hereby denied. Thank you.

Council Member Sanchez?

No.

Council Member Ibarra? Yes. Council Member Figueroa?

No.

Council Member Charette?

No.

Mayor Pro Tem Canas?

Yes.

Council Member Flores? Yes.

Yes.

Council Member Ortiz?

Yes.

Motion passes four to three with Council Member Sanchez, Figueroa, and Charette voting in opposition.

Thank you. Madam City Clerk, please read the motion to the record followed by, oh, you did that already, right? We'll move on to item four, commercial cannabis business permit 26-001, request to amend CBP 22-004 for P-T-R-E, Management LLC located at 225 East Airport Drive to provide a change location transfer of ownership. I'm open to public hearing at 8.04 p.m. Could city staff provide a presentation on this item?

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Staff is here to present an amendment to commercial cannabis business permit 22-004. Before I go too much further into the presentation, I would like to note that council should have received a correction memo, attachment one.

Staff, can we stop? We have two council members. Can we take a five-minute recess to make sure? Is that okay? Just a five-minute recess. Thank you.

Music Music ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¦ ¦ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ . . .

¶¶

Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ . . . . . . ¶¶ ¦ ¦ ¶¶ . . ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ . . . . .

Your time. Do we have all the council members? We are back at 8.19. And we will continue to have staff present this item.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council. So tonight staff brings you commercial cannabis business application CCB 26001. It is an application to amend commercial cannabis business permit CBP 22004. Um, before proceeding further into the presentation, I would like to note that a correction memo was shared and distributed. Um, uh, the attachment one listed in the staff report was inadvertently not attached to the item when submitted. Uh, so council has been provided that attachment of the application as listed in the staff report and copies have been made to the public. So as we move forward in the item, it is a request to amend originally issued CBP 22-004 and this is to approve a change in location and a transfer of ownership. The current location of the operator is at 225 East Airport Drive and the application calls to move the location to 1602 West Highland Avenue. This application also encompasses a transfer of ownership. The current owners are PTRE management, who are currently in partnership with RD San Bernardino. And the ownership will be changing to OG Ventures, which is an entity owned by RD San Bernardino. The current location of the operation is shown here. You'll notice that it's within a business park, just off Hospitality and Airport Drive. On the right, you'll see a street view from Hospitality of the location currently as it's built out. The new location will be located at the corner of West Highland Avenue and Medical Center Drive. The aerial shot here shows that location. The zoning designation of the new proposed location falls within commercial general, which per the guidelines suits the cannabis operation as proposed. The surrounding zoning consists of commercial to the west and to the south, to the north and east it is industrial. That's important to know, as sensitive use buffers would typically dictate that commercial cannabis businesses cannot be within 600 feet of a residence. But per our cannabis ordinance, section 510.250 says that a commercial cannabis operation can be no closer than 600 feet of any residentially zoned parcels. In this case, the location is within commercial. There is no residential zoning surrounding the proposed location, which puts it into compliance with our regulations. Also, it's worth noting that this proposed location is next to two different churches. So per section 510.250 under location and design of cannabis businesses, section B3, the city shall consider the proximity of the proposed commercial cannabis business to religious facilities and libraries in existence at the time the permit is granted. Churches in this case are not exclusions for approving the cannabis operation, but it is for consideration by the council. The existing site is a vacant market. It has, per our records, been vacant as of October of 2023. The business license was not renewed and it has remained vacant since then. The proposed elevations for the work to be done at the new location show new paint, new signage, improved landscaping. This particular elevation is shown from the south side. This would be the elevation east facing. And then we also have north and west facing from the backside of the proposed location. I would like to note that the particular operator who is looking to have the business transferred to them is a current operator within the city. They operate higher ground on the south side on Redlands Boulevard, they have done exceptionally well in the city. They have always been compliant. They are current on their taxes, have not lapsed on their annual fees. They're considered a good operator per our guidelines and the annual inspections and financial audits that we've been able to conduct. So based on that and the review of the application, staff is recommending for mayor and city council to approve commercial cannabis business permit 26-001 that would approve the location change and the transfer of ownership from PTRE to OG Ventures at the new location at 1602 West Highland Avenue. I would like to note that the applicant is here. If there are any direct questions for the applicant, otherwise staff is available for questions. Thank you.

Do you have any requests to speak from the members of the public?

Yes, we have three requests to speak from Trevor T, David, and Delores Armstead.

Please approach the podium at this time. State your name, we have three minutes.

Good evening again. This is an emphatic note. We do not need another pot shop. on the west side, okay? This one that you're looking, change in ownership, we could care less who owns it. It's the location. We don't need another pot shop on the west side. We're already saturated with liquor stores, now you wanna bring a pot shop here too. The location is near churches, a hospital, senior housing, restaurants, and new housing to be built. So we don't need the pot shop there. Look at your maps. Your staff, look at your map. We don't, the churches don't want it. The hospital sure doesn't need it. And the seniors? You're gonna have it for the seniors? No, we don't need a pie chop, another drug, anything on the west side. Why do you keep throwing crap on the west side? Put it somewhere else. But we don't need this on the west side. We've got more than our share of liquor stores. Now you want to bring this too? We don't need it, people. We want to uplift the west side. We can do better. We don't care who owns it. We just don't like the location. Locate it in one of your other wards, but we don't need it on the west side. We need better. We need good stores. We need small business, not this kind of business, but we need small businesses. We need something to lift up our ward, not something else to bring it down. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. This is really a reflection of the meeting that you just already had earlier that we took about an hour and a half on, deciding what is best for community. And it becomes more and more obvious to me, and especially after sitting four years on the dais with some of you, that that is never what is in the forefront of your minds. Because just as we voted to not bring the McDonald's here, you voted to bring storages and all type of things to the west side of the town. But what I want to ask is that, what have you brought to the town, to that portion of the town, that the community wanted, was able to utilize on their daily, part of their daily lives. Because did you know that the west side, that the sixth ward, has not one Starbucks? Not one coffee shop where you can go in and sit down and buy yourself a cup of coffee and have something to eat with it. Not one Dutch Brothers. not a franchise other than a McDonald's. What seems to be the problem? Now you wanna say that this is not racist, this is not biased, that every ward in this city has the same things. That's an absolute lie. And for there to be nothing on the agenda, Council Member Flores, for the last year and a half, that would bring something thriving to the sixth ward. But yet here we come, the first item, and it is a dispensary. In the middle of a senior complex, churches, neighborhoods, this is the best that we can do. So you're all hypocrites when it comes down to understanding, hearing the community. Yeah, that is just propaganda. It is what you continue to do and say so that we become believers and believe that you want what is best for the city. And if you do, then that would travel and cross over every single ward. That's what that would be. So there is no new development that is coming to the Sixth Ward that you all can foresee that is what is in the best interest of community other than a dispensary. That's where we are. Other than McDonald's. That's where we are. And it should not take the people to have to be here all night long in order to make sure that you understand that. Because if you live here, you should understand that. If you read Next Door, you should understand that. If you read Facebook, Instagram, you should understand that. If you drive your ward, council member, you should understand that. We will not accept another dispensary.

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please state your name. We have three minutes.

Al Palazzo. That is one block from where I live. I'm going to cry. I came back from Rancho Cucamonga to make this a better city. My family begged me to stay in Rancho with my children and grandchildren. Just next to it is historical properties. The Mug was an institution. And now we have a nice restaurant there. And a block away, a church that was on Mount Vernon. And that building on Mount Vernon next to the Fiestas was a fine dining restaurant in the 50s. It was called Tinty's. And Mrs. Tinty's lived on the Scooby Abbey. How are we going to bring back Mount Vernon? Look at Rancho Cucamonga. They stole our history. And they had no right to do it because I was a kid. My brother-in-law was born in the barrio in Rancho. And I would tag along with my sister. And nobody stopped in Rancho. There were vineyards as far as the eye could see. Don't you see the big picture? That's what the people have been telling you. And now this is what you're going to bring across from a senior center complex? A block or two from the community hospital? Dr. Garland saved my life. I got pneumonia at 16 years of age. I told David Gong, our classmate, when my mother took me to see him on Waterman, he's going straight to the community. He said, if he had not come in, maybe in two days he would have passed away. Me. That neighborhood has so much potential, so many vacant parcels. We could build assisted living. We could have parks. Where's the nearest park, the Shirell Park? Oh, the Gutierrez, yeah. I'm writing a paper for Mount Vernon. Thank you, Mayor, for getting the paper. I'll comment later when I have three minutes.

Don't you get it?

It's about telling the people of San Bernardino, you deserve better and you represent us. And you're going to say, hey, just like when I went trick-or-treating in the sixth grade to Muscovy Abbey, go back to the west side. That's where you belong. And nothing has changed in, what, 65 years? Because I'm approaching 80. God, please.

Thank you. Can you state your name? You have three minutes.

Good evening. My name is Tanya Smith. I'm a resident of San Bernardino, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you tonight about a particular solution to some of our city's most pressing challenges, the sensible regulation and integration of legal cannabis dispensaries. When we look around the community, we see the same hurdles year after year. Our public schools need structural and resource support. Our local infrastructures need repair. Our commercial corridors have vacant storefronts that invite the wrong kind of activity. We don't have to look for... for a blueprint on how to change this, when cities across California and states like Colorado open the door to strictly regulated dispensaries, they didn't just create a new market, they built a massive engine for community reinvestment. If San Bernardino embraces this industry responsibly, a licensed dispensary can help our city in three major ways. First, direct funding for our youth and school. A significant portion of local cannabis tax revenue can be legally earmarked for our public school system, youth programs, and community parks. This means new textbooks, updated technology, and safe playgrounds and after school programs that keep our kids on the right track. Second, we're violating our local economy. A dispensary isn't just a retail shop. It creates stable jobs with living wages for local residents. It drives traffic to surrounding businesses. Furthermore, it cultivates and retailers step in to renovate vacant commercial properties, transforming empty spaces into high-security, beautiful, tax-paying storefronts that uplift the entire neighborhood look. Third, funding public safety and health. By licensing reputable operators, we take the market out of the shadows. The local tax revenue generated gives our city a new dedicated stream of funding to support our local first responders, repair our roads, and invest in robust mental health and substance abuse prevention programs. We have a choice. We can let consumer dollars leave San Bernardino and go to neighboring cities, or we can capture the revenue and put it to work right here for our families, our schools, and our future. Let's build a safe, well-regulated framework that makes the industry work for San Bernardino. Just because it's a marijuana shop doesn't mean it's bad. Colorado took their dispensaries and they are out of debt because of how they did their dispensaries. Think about that because it could save us.

Thank you. There are no more speakers for this item and we did also receive one written comment in opposition to this item that has been distributed to the mayor and council. Thank you.

I'm now closing the public hearing at 8 36 PM for deliberation action. Any comments from the council? I do see councilman Ortiz and then a council member Flores. Thank you, Mary.

Um, so I think again, like with this, um, I always had always believed the city in its infinite wisdom should have created a cannabis row. Well a jurisdiction of where cannabis is allowed to be because I did I hear it correctly there What there's no housing around there is that?

There is housing, but the way that I need to not just want to make sure I thought I heard you say there was no housing But because there is a senior complex right across the street Correct, so there is housing residential residences in the area but the way that the surrounding area is zoned and the way that our cannabis ordinance reads is that the buffer zone applies when residences are on residentially zoned areas. Uh, in this case, because the surrounding area is industrial light and commercially zoned areas that that particular sensitive use buffer does not apply.

So here's what, here's what concerns me about that. Cause we're going to go, we're going to go back to the storage facility that is allowed to be built across the street from Ingram library because the residents came to that planning commission. In fact, y'all exempted councilwoman Calvin from even being able to vote or be in the public hearing because she had opposed it. Um, is that the, that this is allowed to happen because housing is being denied. to be put into a plan, like a future overlay plan for mixed use and economic development. And these guys may be great cannabis landlords, but when we look at the future of what is happening, it's the same thing, right? Highland is a substantial commercial corridor. West side, I mean, it runs literally from the west side all the way to the mountains. And we still have no plan. So whatever's vacant and what's ever available people can move to. And again, same thing like with McDonald's, it's just, I think we have another opportunity to really start determining and I'll let, you know, councilman Flores speak more for his word, but It's not enough that someone pays their rent because cannabis really doesn't pay off for us. So I'm really not impressed because all we get is $3 million a year. So when you talk about Colorado, that didn't happen here. For the amount of weed that I smell everywhere, no one's paying their fair share. They're either growing it and doing it at home, but the 18 retail licenses we're supposed to have and the amount of just criminal activity and people hanging out with the mayor and bars and stuff, our previous mayor, when all this stuff was going. I'm sorry. You would have thought we were going to be like the weed capital of the world, and we're not. And so I just think that it's important for us to, again, reassess, reposition, and plan for the future. So thank you for that.

Thank you. I have Council Member Flores followed by Council Member Figueroa, then Ibarra.

Thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank the members of the public that came to speak at the podium. I've had the chance to, as soon as I saw the item come up, I went through that neighboring community and just engaged with neighbors, the mobile home park community, the business owners, and they all share the same sentiment that was expressed here during our public comments. And I never want to be the person that is opposed to business and development, but to Council Member Ortiz's point there, we have to do better in the terms of like our zoning. and really identifying where these spaces are close to because we're close to two churches where the library, right almost across the street, we have empty land that is soon to be developed into housing. We're in the process of looking for that, and also like the senior complexes, it's not something that is enticing to them when we're thinking about the future for them and somewhere where they can literally walk across the street and be a patronite. So with that being said, I share the same sentiments, never want to deny businesses from being here, but I don't think this location is the suitable location for that business.

Thank you. Council Member Figueroa, followed by Council Member Ibarra.

Stephanie, I hate to put you on the spot here because I don't know if you have this information or not, but do you happen to have a breakdown of the CCBs and their locations as far as how many are in each ward? Do you happen to know that? Do you have the information, know it off the top of your head?

I don't have the exact number in each of the wards. I do know that the concentration is in the lower half of the city. We have a total of 16 that are open and operational between dedicated retail dispensaries and micro-businesses.

And over the last Since the CCBs have been issued, I guess it's what, six years or something like that, approximately, I think. How many level one crimes have been attributed to their locations?

So overall, through the updates that I've been able to provide to council over the years, there's been a very low number of incidents that occur at the cannabis locations. So just at the last update, I had included information that there were about three to four incidents that resulted in either robbery or break in out of a total number of maybe 25, 30 calls for service that went to those specific areas of location. Um, so by no means are any of the cannabis locations, um, high crime or high number of crime for the city.

And is it still a requirement for them to have 24 hour onsite security?

Is that still, it is all of our locations do have 24 hour security and surveillance.

Um, And then I believe there's, I think I can point to at least three locations that currently have, I think there's one on, there's two on H Street across from like a teleco. And then there's another location on E Street or something near a church as well too. Have there been any incidences or issues at those locations?

Not that we've been made aware of, no.

No more questions.

Thank you.

Council Member Ibarra. Yes, just real quickly.

I was here when we were approving the addresses and I do not recall 1602 West Highland being one of the addresses for cannabis permits.

I can clarify. So this is part of the action on this item is a change in location. So the current license and operation resides at 225 East Airport Drive. It's currently listed as culture is the operator under PTRE management. It has never opened. It has never been operational. Correct.

But I don't remember us approving that address specifically for any cannabis permits. That's where I'm trying to remember. And that information is not even the backup information. It just says that... that there was a permit granted to them, but it doesn't say what address. And so for me, I would have to look back at my old notes to confirm, but I don't recall us having an approved location on Highland Avenue.

So as part of the original 17 that were awarded, Um, PTRE came from filling additional licenses. Um, so they weren't part of the initial 17 that were awarded, but they were awarded subsequently as part of us attempting to fill additional retail licenses that we had available. Once we increase the overall number allowed in the city. Um, so they are an awarded and permitted operator in our city. They have been issued a cannabis business permit for operation. They have just never opened for operation.

Right. But again, it's not an address that we approved here at the council level. Correct. That's I don't, I don't, I don't remember. I remember a lot of the addresses that we approved. Like you said, they were south of the city. I know I have one in the second ward. that never opened either, but I don't recall us approving this one in the sixth ward. That's, and until I see.

No, no, no, the 1602 is not approved. What I'm saying is this is a relocation from 225. They're looking to relocate that operation from that address to 1602 West Highland to this new location. So they're relocating the operation as part of this action.

Okay, so that's where we are. They're just changing address, But once again, it wasn't one of the locations that we had approved for cannabis permits.

Not originally, no, but it didn't need to be. Per the zoning designation and our guidelines, an approved location based on the requirements, not by action, but by the regulations.

And I know we have restrictions. We had restrictions also. There was that spacing between churches, sensitive locations, and that is very close to a lot of the sensitive areas. So we pointed out to staff.

The only locations that fall within any type of exclusions would be the churches, and that's on a case-by-case basis. So under the location and design of cannabis businesses, section 510.250, it states the city shall consider the proximity of the proposed cannabis business to religious facilities and libraries in existence time the permit is granted but churches are not exclusions like it does not fall within a firm sensitive use buffer per the guidelines but council can consider the churches as part of the action so you can look at this location and look at the churches in proximity and say Since there's a church right next door, I don't want to approve this, but it's not necessarily a firm requirement that there be no churches within 600 feet of a proposed cannabis location.

Okay, because I remember being in those meetings that were very lengthy. We had six thick notebooks to go through of applicants, and I remember we did not want them near any sensitive areas, whether it's schools, residential, churches, but... I'm just going off of information that I can recall right now from 2019.

For additional clarification, Council did take action on July 17th of 2019 approving development code amendment 1901 and ultimately updating the ordinance to MC 1519 that would change the verbiage on the zoning. Originally the verbiage stated that a cannabis operation could not be within 600 feet of a residentially used or zoned parcel. The development code amendment changed that language. to only require that it be residentially zoned, not used. So in this case, because the surrounding areas are industrial and commercially zoned, then the housing on those properties does not exclude this location for approval for cannabis use.

And maybe my colleagues can confirm. Those are homes north of that area, isn't it? Okay.

To the north of the property, there is housing. To the south and southeast, there is housing. But again, it's not residentially zoned. Thank you.

That's all for me. Thank you. Any other comments? Council Member Ortiz, did you have a comment?

I guess I'm just, I still don't know how something across the street doesn't matter. I mean, that's what we're down the street because they just built like 40 brand new units. And then, I mean, but I understand the, you know, the church thing, which it says it's not a requirement, but you can use it. So, I mean, I guess that's why we're here, right, is our determinant. I don't know who you are. Sorry. Did you...

I'm actually the owner, and whenever it's appropriate, I'd like to speak.

I guess the question then is the provision allows for us to determine within the 600 feet, but not within the distance of a residence. That's the only thing is the church. Correct. Okay. That's where I was misunderstanding. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments?

I have some questions. This is not different from the last item that we just had. But you said staff recommended to have this to move forward and transfer. And it's based on the criteria you've mentioned. And it's based on the zoning. So that is on the body to decide how that area should be zoned. Would that be accurate? Is this, it's a policy decision goes back to that and over to staff to have criteria to abide by.

Right? So our job when we take in the application is to look at whether they meet the criteria if they're in compliance with the ordinance and the guidelines that we've set. So they meet the zoning requirement. Um, they've met all other application requirements. We've done the noticing to the surrounding area within 600 feet. Um, they are taking a non operational cannabis business, moving it to a location into a vacant building, which they are willing to renovate, do a tenant improvement and start contributing to the sales tax and revenue base. Um, So at this point, it's not necessarily policy that we're looking at, but the factors on this.

And I understand that, and I don't believe this body's anti-business at all, because I think we are all for business. We're all for economic vitality of the city. I just want to understand, how are we determining what goes there, and are we being mindful of that? I think that's what I'm trying to just really understand and if staff could help assist on bringing in what makes most sense on certain areas. Like for instance, the west side. The biggest thing they keep saying is we don't have Starbucks, we don't have a bank, we don't have things that other districts have and how do we help an area like the Sixth Ward to have more opportunities and such. again, not trying to be anti or a business or, you know, because we want more business coming. We want to create certainty. But I think the challenges or what we need to really get to the bottom of is how do we be more mindful of moving our city forward the way we want as a community? And because we have to remind ourselves how we govern is for the people by the people. and we're elected by the 2026,000 residents and we are a makeup of that and we answer to the public, to the community and staff is gonna help drive those vision for us who represents the people. So it's just, again, I think this is a, tonight is a lot to take note of and really have a path forward.

Again, Council, I appreciate your feedback, and I think we have someone here who would like to... Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to deny the transfer based on the exemption of its proximity to the church in the sixth ward. I'll second.

Okay. Mayor, if you... Yes.

I would just like to add, before we take a vote on that motion, if it is the will of the council to deny the location... would the council still be amenable with the applicant's approval to still transfer the ownership for the location that is currently permitted on airport drive?

Yeah. Madam Mayor, I would agree with the staff member regarding that these are two separate actions. The other thing is the owner didn't speak during the public hearing. If you want to hear from the owner, you may... want to reopen the public hearing.

So I think that's what we need to understand. I don't think there's that clarity as far as there's two actions. So we just need to make sure. Yeah, it is two actions. Two actions. Okay. Council Member Ortiz.

I think my question is why has it been dormant? Like why hasn't it been operable? What, I mean, is it just because you went and got a building so that you could get a license and then decide when you want to use it? Is that what we were doing? Just holding on to them? So, I mean, I just want to know why it hasn't been operable.

I THINK OUR APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CURRENT OWNER, AFTER THEY BUILT OUT THE LOCATION, THERE WAS JUST NO FEASIBILITY TO OPEN IT, SO IT REMAINED CLOSED UNTIL THEY WERE ABLE TO BRING ON A PARTNER THAT WAS WILLING TO MAKE IT OPERATIONAL.

THANK YOU. I'M SORRY, MAYOR, CAN WE REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING?

YES, I WILL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Thank you, could you state your name and who you are?

Yeah, hi, I'm Ryan Oganesian. I'm the owner of OG Ventures, my co-owner, my brother Darren's back here too, he's my partner. And we, for the last four or five years, we've had an active compliant license and retail operation in Ward 3 called Higher Ground on Redlands. Very successful, providing a lot of tax revenue to the city. I think somebody mentioned $3 million, which is a lot of money, actually. And if I had to guess, we probably contribute at least 20 to 30% of that $3 million. We have a very successful shop. Thankfully, location is key. The industry is hurting a lot. There's a lot of saturation down in Ward 3. Somebody mentioned, are things equal in different parts of the city? No, they're not. I don't think there's one compliant license dispensary in Ward 6. And so the idea is, PTRE essentially has this license. It's a failed operation. There's too much congestion with other dispensaries down there that are cannibalizing each other. On top of the illegal smoke shops that are selling intoxicating hemp products, and same thing with the illegal dispensaries in the city. So it's this battle for Customers it's very congregated and congested down on the south end. So Essentially, we acquired this license followed all the city rules and regulations And so this is not adding a permit This is actually just moving it to another location that we think will do very well in the city. It's not so Saturated like it is down on the south end. So we will be uplifting the the property landscaping I mean, we have 24 armed guards. It's safe. We've done this. I mean, we literally proved this down on the south end of the city. So we're invested. We're actually acquiring that property. Um, so we went from one investment to wanting to reinvest in the city. We consider the city good business, a good city to do business and good business partners. We're compliant. We're licensed. We haven't any problems where we're fully unionized. We, we provide, you know, wages and full benefits. that meter exceed, you know, living wage ordinance. And, you know, we'd just like you guys to reconsider this location. This airport location where it exists today is a loser. You're making zero money. We move it here, you have a chance to make money. So to add to that $3 million, we'd love to contribute and actually open a store. We're self-funded. We have a track record. We have almost 12 stores now. And I think if anything, it's gonna uplift the community. I respect the residents and the business community, everybody's comments, but at the end of the day, it's not the boogeyman anymore. Prop 64 passed on a state level, 56% in 2016, 17. The city created an ordinance and operating a permitting system, so I'm not sure why there's a controversy with this. We have other stores that are near churches or residents and it literally makes it a safer environment. We haven't any issues in any other cities we're in, and I would just ask that you would consider pushing this through. We have a lot of money invested. We're already partners in the city, and it's gonna be a successful project. It's taking a loser and making it a winner.

Thank you. Are there any further comments from council? Councillor Ibarra?

I just heard a contradiction. I don't know if anybody caught on to it, sir. You mentioned you've made millions at that airport location, and then you said it's a loser location. So which is it? Is it a good location or not location? Because I heard it.

Okay, so we operate higher ground on Redlands Avenue, Redlands Boulevard. Not airport. We bought airport.

And the Redlands is okay. If you look at the map and where I'm coming from, it's too close to the residential areas and the churches. And I hear you're saying that it's going to help the community. Unfortunately, the way we approve this, we have to bear in mind our community, make sure that. There's a certain distance between a cannabis dispensary. The problem, like you mentioned, the illegal cannabis operators that we have, that's what they're doing. They're building near residential areas. That's why they're not allowed there. That's why they're illegal.

Well, they're illegal, not allowed there, but there's one, two shopping center down away from the church you're talking about. It's existing today, it's called Dino's, and you guys haven't shut them down in five years. And there's other illegal smoke shops that are selling illegal intoxicating hemp products, and most of the time they're selling cannabis as well. So there's an existing illegal shop near the church today, and we're trying to bring in, and nobody's done anything about it. And we're actually putting a legal shop, we got a zoning verification that allows for this thing to be on this particular parcel. So I'm just, I'm still kind of confused.

So maybe staff can follow up on his claims of that dispensary that's close by.

Yeah, you can Google it up. It's there, it exists.

As far as I'm concerned, sir, yeah, as far as I'm concerned, you're really close to residential and that's where I come in as a policymaker. I want to make sure that we don't, we abide by our own goals that we set forth in the very beginning.

Well, and we're trying to abide by the rules that were set, which is, You can't be near a residential zone. That's not a residential zone.

Correct. I understand that. It's just you're close to the residential.

That could have been fixed, I don't know, years ago. You guys could have changed the zoning. I'm just dealing with, like, the cards I'm dealt now and the actual parameters we have to work around, compliantly and legally. And we have a recommendation from staff who worked very hard and I think did a great job between Stephanie Castro and Eric Levitt. I think they did a heck of a job.

Thank you. Steph, you had mentioned earlier, thank you, Councilmember, Two actions. So one is to transfer the name, and that's something that you encourage as staff to have the council body do. And I guess my question to the second action regarding about the location, is that something that staff can help this person or this owner to look at alternative location that makes sense, is the question.

To clarify, Staff is supportive of both actions. But looking at alternate locations is something that we can do. But this current operator is fully invested in the property that we're looking to move to at 1602 West Highland with the investment that they've made to the property with the investment that they're willing to make at that location. We're happy to work with the applicant. I know that that's not necessarily the outcome that they would like for this particular item, but staff is always willing to work with any of our applicants for site selection.

Okay. Thank you. Council Member Sanchez?

So we set out the policy, we made the rules, and the rules said that we don't take into account non-conforming use of residential. There are several legal operating licenses that are operating in close proximity to residential or what we call soft or what we call sensitive zones that are non-conforming use. The example are three of them in downtown that are all within arm's length of residential senior homes, community centers and they have not had a negative impact on the quality of life of those what we call those sensitive zones. So now we are handing off this impossible task of, we don't like this, go find another location, when this location is already compliant. So what are they supposed to look for? What if they're five miles away from any sensitive receptors, are completely compliant in accordance with our ordinance, and we say, well, you know, this time we think it's a little too close. Yeah, five miles is a little too close. Maybe go six miles. They have looked over. the set of rules. Their location complies with the ordinance. So are we just supposed to send them off again and tell them, hey, take another guess. Go buy another property and then come back to us later and tell us if we think that this is OK, regardless of whether it's compliant with the law or not. Which, by the way, it wasn't a state mandate. It's something that we approved. I remember that. Most of us were here when we approved that, that we were not to consider non-conforming use. So, I mean, we've already sent plenty of messages just tonight that it's very difficult to do business in the city of San Bernardino, and I don't want to continue to do that. So I'm going to move to approve both staff recommendations. Substitute motion.

There's a substitute motion. And a second to substitute motion. Council Member Ortiz, before we move.

Yeah. This isn't about the housing, right? The housing isn't what allows the exception. It's the church. You guys approved. You said that if there is discretion, that it's too close to a church. Otherwise, we wouldn't be sitting here. If we didn't have an option, again, like in the last one, if there wasn't an option to do something different, then it couldn't be brought to us. They would automatically get their site and And I think when we just had this discussion, because I don't really understand how you could be like, yeah, let's go put a weed shop in, but you can't have a McDonald's. I mean, that makes zero sense. I mean, just tell me you don't care without telling me you don't care. Because this is what we just talked about. Why if there is discretion amongst the council to make choices, would staff move forward in a direction with an owner to make financial investments and improvements on properties that they may or may not get a license to? That to me feels like a failure on the city side because you have to get through seven people to do that. If it doesn't need us, then why are we here? Because staff recommendation isn't the gospel according to the city of San Bernardino. And I feel like too often, that's what it comes to us is, hey, council, guess what you're gonna do? And then we get the people who say, hey, guess what we don't want you to do? And then we end up here. Because as long as the council is gonna have discretion over policy, if you're not gonna write it right the first time, and if you're not gonna correct issues, then you're gonna continue to run up against this type of problem every two years when you have a different council with a different perspective who wasn't bought and sold by a bunch of cannabis people when they were running for elections in 2019 and 20. And we can go check 460s to see how that worked out. So what I say is I have no objection to you having the license. The license isn't a problem. The issue is the community doesn't want you in their community. And even more of a problem, we're not doing our jobs, and we've talked about this for two or three years, that we are not properly enforcing and shutting down the illegal businesses that make it hard for the retailers who went through at HDL and all the $5,000 application fees and everything that they were being charged to be able to properly function in the sites of which they were told they could originally be in. So I think there's a lot of things working, but when the community is like, hey, no, and the city didn't tell a person, or maybe they did, I wasn't there, that you're going to go improve a site that may or may not be something you can have, that's not our problem. That's your problem. So why create problems? I think we have a problem here, Eric.

Can I?

Because we have two things. So I still, my original motion is to move forward with them being able to transfer that business to their name, but to not approve the use of that business because of within the exception of the distance to the church.

Thank you. Council Member Charette?

First, I have a question. Was there ever a second term motion?

But there's a substitute, so we're going to go with that first.

Was there a second?

There was a second with Council Member Barra.

But then Council Member Sanchez is a substitute.

Correct. Which I'm seconding. Yes.

And I'm going to be very brief. There's no sense. We've left one vacant corner tonight in a really blighted area, a difficult area that could have been improved. But people don't want McDonald's. which makes no sense to me. We're the home of McDonald's. San Bernardino is the home of McDonald's. The McDonald brothers lived up on Little Mountain and they sold their business to Ray Kroc who built it into what it is. And we've got a museum for McDonald's. And here we are sending great messages to the community that we leave two buildings vacant that are not gonna be sold or not gonna be developed any other way. And I wanna know, I understand we should be working with developers and with builders and with the community to help them through the process. But it is not our job to go out and find real estate for somebody that walks in the door and says, oh, by the way, I'd like to open up a cannabis shop and I've got a million and a half dollars. Find me a building that's in compliance. So we send our real estate people or our staff out to find them a location. Is that what we're doing? And on top of that... They're in compliance. They've played according to the rules. They've been successful in another location. And we're just sending a very, very dangerous message to the building community, to the developers, to other people. I have friends that are home builders that are in the building business that I've said, why don't you come and apply to build some of your homes in this location? And his answer to me, and it's a very, very profitable, successful, not so much profitable, successful home builder, says, why would I come to San Bernardino when I can go to all these other regional cities and it's so much easier to work with them? We're all up here giving lip service to trying to make this place business friendly and trying to make this place easier and we're not doing it. We're not fulfilling that conversation that we've all talked about doing. So again, I'll close with, as I say, I second the motion and I will call for the question.

Thank you. Council Member Flores and then we will go ahead with the substitute motion. Thank you, Mayor.

So I guess it's more of a question for staff or the city manager. So we have two options right now to ownership of the license and then we have the transfer of property to where it's at. Are we able to only approve at the moment the transfer of ownership and move this, the property matter to a different meeting date?

No, because we've got a motion.

No, but this is a question for staff. And this is all, of course, if the motion passes and if Maybe some of my colleagues are amenable to a substitute motion in that regards.

No, we have to go through with the motion first, Council Member. So there's a substitute motion. We'll go ahead and call for the vote. And then there's the original motion to go back to.

If I heard you right, you definitely have the option that you could create two motions if that's what your question is.

Thank you for the answer. Mayor Tran and Council Member Flores. Yes. There's no limit on how many substitute motions can be made. If you wanted to make an additional substitute motion to what you stated, you are free to do so.

Okay. So I will make an additional substitute motion where we approve the transfer of the permit to new ownership, and then we move the permit the new property transferred to a different council date than our next council date, which is the middle of the second month of July, and I think that'll allow time for us to engage with communities, see if there is some buy-in, if they're willing to do that, and that way we afford you the opportunity to engage in that matter, see if you're able to get that buy-in from them.

man. We're real investors in the city. It's our real money. I don't see the entire church here that showed up. And I love churches. We're a religious family ourselves, but Some of the folks up here are making it sound like there's some crazy outcry, like the whole church is backed up down the block because of this thing. It's not. That's false. It's a farce. I don't know why it's getting political up here. This is a non-controversial item that should get pushed through.

Thank you.

I just want clarification on his motion. Isn't that basically what Mr. Ortiz said? No, it was not.

Because Council Member Flores' motion is to move forward with the transfer of the name, and the other action is to continue that action to a future meeting so it provides more time for community engagement. Is that correct, Council Member Flores? Correct. Is there a second to that additional substitute motion? Can I just ask a question? Yes, Mayor.

I'm always for community engagement, never opposed to that, but if you could just maybe clarify, what would that look like? Are you wanting to host a community meeting? Are you doing the outreach? Is it incumbent upon the staff Just to be fair, being that we are pushing this down, I think we need some kind of clear guidelines as to what the expectations are.

Yeah, so the expectation is to do community meeting in the surrounding area of that and get the residents to have their voices. It's important that we offer this applicant the opportunity to sell his vision his business to the community and see if the community is willing to buy in on that. And then after that, we can engage in further conversation to see if we can move.

So do you want to maybe work with staff in order to conduct a community meeting? I guess we just need clarity for staff.

Staff, did you have a comment to make?

Yeah, as far as community engagement, The area surrounding the proposed location within 600 feet all received mailers and notification for tonight's hearing. all of those mailers afforded the public the opportunity to either address the project, send in comment if there were any concerns to that effect. We have not conducted any community outreach in prior applications for a cannabis location. It would be out of the norm for an application like this. But just for clarity and for addition that the public was notified within the 600 feet of that location that this would be coming.