Council pauses decision on Waterman Business Center dispute over 9,000‑gallon nitrogen tank, gives parties 45 days to seek agreement

The San Bernardino City Council on Wednesday closed the public hearing and continued for 45 days an appeal over conditions attached to Administrative Development Permit ADP 22‑020 for a 9,000‑gallon outdoor liquid nitrogen tank at 379 East Industrial Way.

The case centers on whether seven conditions of approval — labeled conditions 20 through 26 and addressing truck parking, ingress/egress, hours of operation and landscaping — should remain on the permit after staff removed them in July 2023. The removal prompted an appeal by the Waterman Business Center Association (WBCA); another party, identified in city materials as ADESA, contested WBCA’s right to appeal as untimely.

The dispute drew more than an hour of testimony from the permit holder’s attorney and from attorneys representing the business‑center association and the association’s manager. ADP 22‑020 was originally issued in June 2022; the city issued an amended permit on July 20, 2023 that removed the contested conditions and the city stated the amendment became final on Aug. 4, 2023 unless an appeal was timely filed.

Attorney Kendra Carney Mayer, representing the permit holder (identified in the city packet as ADESA), told the council the association’s appeal was untimely and that the association failed to submit the appeal on the city’s appeal form and pay the required fee within 15 days. “The amendment became final on 08/04/2023 because no appeal had been filed,” Carney Mayer said, arguing that the lapse created a vested property right that the city cannot void.

Attorneys for the Waterman Business Center Association and its manager disputed that timeline and the city’s handling of the amendment. Attorney Mohammad Gause said WBCA filed a written objection within four days of the July 2023 amendment and repeatedly followed up with staff; he told the council the planning commission evaluated evidence of how large delivery trucks were operating inside the complex and properly restored the conditions. Craig Furness, manager of Waterman Business Center Association, described repeated problems with semis parking in fire lanes and blocking access for neighboring tenants and said the association sought enforcement and notice when the conditions were removed.

Planning staff and the community development director told the council the planning commission had restored the original conditions after receiving testimony in November 2024. Staff described lengthy internal delays in processing WBCA’s paperwork in 2023 and acknowledged the department had leadership turnover during that period.

Council members asked detailed legal and factual questions, including whether the July 2023 amendment was processed by the staff level authorized to make ADP amendments, whether the contested conditions were meant to be construction‑period controls or permanent operating conditions, and whether evidence of on‑site violations existed. Witnesses for WBCA pointed to photographs and complaint letters from neighboring businesses; the permit holder’s attorney said there were no notices of violation recorded by the city or the fire district as of the hearing.

After deliberation council member Ibarra moved — and council member Knauss seconded — to close the public hearing and continue the item for 45 days to give the parties time to reach an agreement; if agreement is not reached the item was set for a decision in November (the council established Nov. 19 as the date certain). The motion passed unanimously.

The council did not rule on whether to sustain or overturn the planning commission’s earlier decision; instead it asked the parties and staff to attempt negotiation and to, if necessary, follow a clarified amendment or appeal process before the matter returns to the dais.

What happens next: the council’s continuance gives the parties a window to negotiate (the council directed staff to return the item if negotiations fail). The record contains competing claims about whether the July 2023 amendment was procedurally defective, how and when the association made its protest known, and whether the contested conditions are construction‑stage measures or permanent operating restrictions. One council member explicitly urged the parties to refile any requested amendments using the city’s application process so the department can vet them in advance of any hearing.

Votes at a glance: motion to close the hearing and continue the item 45 days — mover: Council Member Ibarra; second: Council Member Canas; tally: unanimous yes (recorded as passing unanimously).