San Bernardino residents urged the City Council to require removal of demolition debris at the Oxbow property and opposed an option to grind the concrete on site, saying grinding would endanger nearby neighborhoods.

The matter drew the largest sustained public-comment period of the evening, with neighborhood residents, a former council member and the site's new owner all addressing the council. Speakers described respiratory problems, property damage, a long history of alleged violations at the site and a local resolution that residents say should bar on-site crushing.

Why it matters: Neighbors said the dumped debris has been in place for years and that on-site crushing could expose homes and schools to dust and contaminants. Residents argued the city should enforce prior decisions and remove the material rather than allow grinding in place.

Multiple speakers cited a long-running timeline. Henry Nicholl, identified as a former council member, told the council the city adopted a resolution requiring removal following the original dumping and urged officials not to repeal it. “Do not repeal resolution 2022-65,” Nicholl said. He noted a $1,000-per-day fine the city previously imposed on the property owner and estimated that, over roughly 1,800 days, fines could total about $1.8 million if fully collected.

Several residents described health impacts they attribute to the material at the site. Richard Hernandez, who identified himself as a Fifth Ward resident, said his son developed an ongoing cough and that his household replaced air-conditioning and heating equipment after the material was dumped nearby. “My son now has a coughing issue,” Hernandez said. “We were breathing it in.”

Hank Mitchell, speaking as a neighborhood resident from Vertamont, said council options presented to the public were inadequate and urged removal. “There’s only one moral solution to this and that is literally pick it up, haul it out, and get it out of there and clean up the soils below. To grind in place would be criminal,” Mitchell said.

The new owner of the property, Sharif Awad, said he closed on the site Sept. 5 and said he is willing to work with the city and neighbors. Awad described construction logistics and said crushing on-site could reduce truck traffic, while removal would require hundreds of truck trips. “We are willing to work with the neighbors, with the city, and see what is the best option that they want me to do,” Awad said.

Other speakers raised procedural and jurisdictional questions. One commenter cited an extension given by the city’s acting community development director and said a tentative tract approval had been terminated on June 21, 2024, and therefore would need to restart the planning process if the city intended to proceed with the project.

Not all technical details were clarified at the microphone. Speakers questioned what parts of the site had been tested for contamination, and whether footings, walls or mixed debris had been sampled. The public record and testing referenced during comments were described variously; one former city official said he could not stand by an earlier lab report.

Council action and next steps: The council did not take a final vote on a demolition method during public comment. Several residents said they want the city to enforce existing requirements for removal rather than permit grinding; the council’s formal consideration and any staff recommendations were not recorded in the public-comment remarks included in the transcript.

The issue has been on residents’ radar for years, and speakers repeatedly framed it as unresolved enforcement rather than a new dispute. Several urged the council to require removal and to hold developers accountable for fines and cleanup costs.

For residents: Speakers said they would welcome a community meeting and closer coordination with the developer and city staff. The new owner offered to hold a neighborhood meeting and to submit plans quickly if the council identifies an approved approach.

The council heard this item during the public-comment portion of its meeting; no final policy change or vote on the demolition method is recorded in the public comments provided.