Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves 14‑lot subdivision with ADU plans; commissioners discuss future cul‑de‑sac and parking implications
Summary
The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map 20613 and Development Permit P23‑02 to subdivide a 4.64‑acre site into 14 single‑family lots with model ADU illustrations; staff and commissioners discussed ADU ministerial processing, parking impacts and potential future vacation/rededication of a cul‑de‑sac bulb.
The San Bernardino Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve Subdivision 23‑03 (Tentative Tract Map 20613) and Development Permit P23‑02, authorizing the subdivision of a 4.64‑acre site into 14 single‑family lots north of Rosemary Lane (APN 0261‑152‑08) and associated development standards, adopting Resolution No. 2025‑008 and finding the project categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15332 for infill development.
Staff said the project proposes two single‑story house plans (traditional and country themes) with attached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) illustrated for reference. Staff clarified that ADU approvals are ministerial under recent state law changes and are not part of the discretionary subdivision approval; nevertheless, the applicant included ADU designs for transparency. Staff and commissioners noted the project’s previous approval in 2005, which had reached its final extension in 2016, prompting resubmittal as a new project.
Commissioners asked technical questions about ADU configuration, parking and circulation. Staff advised that ADUs may be attached or detached depending on final building permits and that current state law allows ADUs to be counted toward the city’s RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) numbers; staff said the ADUs are processed ministerially and do not require a separate discretionary hearing. Commissioner Daley asked whether the subdivision would create 28 total dwelling units if all ADUs were later built; staff replied the commission is approving 14 lots and that ADUs are a separate ministerial process but that the physical potential for ADUs exists on the parcels.
Commissioners also discussed a cul‑de‑sac at the end of the Rosemary Lane extension and whether the bulb should be rededicated or vacated to adjacent property owners in a future process; staff said vacation/rededication is possible but would require a separate application and coordination with Public Works, fire, and solid waste services. The project includes perimeter block walls, drought‑tolerant landscaping and two primary access points (Rosemary Lane extension and Belmont access for Lots 1–3).
After concluding discussion, Commissioner Daley moved to adopt staff’s recommendation; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Staff noted the project includes typical conditions of approval, and that building permits and ministerial ADU applications remain the next steps for implementation.
Commissioners asked staff to follow up on public‑works details and the disposition of the cul‑de‑sac bulb for possible future action by property owners or developers.
