Committee forwards 138-home PUD, amid applicant concerns about Foothill Boulevard improvements and fees

The Development and Environmental Review Committee on May 28 voted to forward a multi-application proposal — General Plan Amendment 24-01, zoning map amendments, Tentative Tract Map No. 20695 and Development Permit P24-04 — for a planned unit development of roughly 138 single-family homes on approximately 15.71 acres north of Hill Boulevard in San Bernardino.

Staff described the project as a General Plan land-use amendment from commercial to multiple-family residential, a rezoning from Commercial General to Residential Medium, and a tentative tract map consolidating 14 parcels into a 138-lot subdivision with individual lot sizes the applicant said would range roughly from 2,000–4,000 square feet and home footprints about 2,300–3,000 square feet. The environmental determination was listed as a mitigated negative declaration; staff said the final environmental document is complete and the item is scheduled for the Planning Commission hearing on June 10.

Bobby Nasir, identified in the record as the owner and developer, addressed the committee and asked staff to confirm conditions discussed in earlier meetings with city engineering and public works regarding Foothill Boulevard (Route 66). Nasir said an earlier meeting had identified a $200,000 in-lieu fee for undergrounding utility lines; the conditions in the packet list $485,000. He asked staff to confirm which figure is correct and requested that, consistent with prior discussion, the developer post a $500,000 bond only if Caltrans does not complete Foothill improvements before the project’s homes are finished. Nasir said requiring the developer to complete Foothill Boulevard improvements that Caltrans later removes would be inefficient. He also asked that potential Caltrans work not delay certificates of occupancy as long as safe resident access exists.

Staff and department representatives acknowledged the concerns and said they would review and, if needed, revise conditions. A building-division representative noted life-safety and utility-service concerns can affect certificate-of-occupancy timing, while public-works staff said Lynn (engineering/public works) had previously requested a bond to ensure completion of frontage work if Caltrans did not finish its project.

After discussion the committee voted to move the item to the Planning Commission on June 10. The transcript records a voice vote of "aye" and the motion passed; no roll-call tally was recorded in the transcript.

The committee also briefly addressed prior neighborhood concerns referenced in the packet, including past noise complaints about pickleball courts adjacent to other developments; no new conditions specific to those courts were adopted during the committee action.