Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves 105‑lot Verdemont subdivision despite calls for an EIR
Summary
The commission approved a tentative tract map for a 105‑lot subdivision north of Verdemont Drive and adopted a mitigated negative declaration after hearing opposition from SAFER, which urged an EIR because of alleged monarch butterfly habitat; the developer and staff said the MND and mitigation measures are sufficient.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve Subdivision 25‑01 (tentative tract map 20707), a proposal to subdivide roughly 107.7 acres north of Verdemont Drive into 105 single‑family lots, after a public hearing that included both resident support and environmental objections.
Staff planner Shantel Choice told the commission the request is for a tentative map at this time and that staff recommended adoption of a mitigated negative declaration (MND), the associated mitigation monitoring program and approval of the tentative map subject to conditions. "Staff currently recommends that the planning commission adopt resolution number 20 26 dash 0 18, adopting the mitigated negative declaration for Subdivision 25 Dash 01, tentative tract map number 20707," Shantel Choice said.
Several residents spoke in favor of the project, citing local access to services and the developer’s investment in infrastructure. Jonathan Seemson of JEC Enterprises, the applicant representative, said the developer has committed roughly a $1,000,000 deposit toward San Bernardino Water to develop a 2,300‑pressure zone, new storage and booster stations to serve the Verdemont area.
Chase Preciado, a paralegal representing Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), urged the commission not to approve the project and to require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Preciado said a SAFER biologist observed monarch butterflies roosting on a pine tree on or near the site and argued that constituted substantial evidence for a fair argument that significant biological impacts could occur.
The applicant rebutted that the SAFER report was not a project‑specific biological survey and that the project’s environmental review and proposed mitigation measures provide substantial evidence supporting the MND. "The initial study, mitigated and our biological assessment provides substantial evidence supporting the city's determination," Jonathan Seemson said. He also disputed SAFER’s characterization of the monarch observation as project‑defining.
After questioning from commissioners about phasing, traffic and fire access, and clarification that school impact fees are collected by the relevant school district at plan submittal, a motion to approve the MND and tentative map passed unanimously. Commissioners cited mitigation measures, developer infrastructure contributions and the project’s potential to bring homes and local commercial activity as reasons for support.
Next steps: the approval is for the tentative tract map and associated MND; subsequent development applications and conditions of approval will control construction timing and final design.
