REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
AND RECORD OF ACTION
October 6, 2026
FROM
MIGUEL FIGUEROA, Director, Land Use Services Department
SUBJECT
Title
Appeal of the Planning Commission Approval of the Lake Arrowhead Estates Project
End
RECOMMENDATION(S)
Recommendation
1. Conduct a public hearing to consider Appeal No. PAPL-2026-00004 related to the Planning Commission’s approval of Project No. PROJ-2021-00161, consisting of Tentative Tract Map No. 20480 to subdivide a 15.95-acre open space area comprised of two parcels into 37 single-family residential lots for lot sales and one remainder open space parcel.
• Appellant: Riener Nielsen
• Applicant: Lake Arrowhead Development Corporation / Jessie Wright
• Community: Lake Arrowhead
• Location: Generally located east of Sugar Pine Drive, south of White Fir Drive, and west of North Bay Road, Lake Arrowhead
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision approving Project No. PROJ-2021-00161 by taking the following actions:
a. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
b. Adopt the findings for approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 20480.
c. Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 20480 to subdivide a 15.95-acre open space area comprised of two parcels into 37 single-family residential lots for lot sales and one remainder open space parcel, subject to the Conditions of Approval.
d. Direct the Land Use Services Department to file a Notice of Determination in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
(Presenter: Paul Gonzales, Planning Chief, 387-4000)
Body
COUNTY AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Promote and Fulfill the Countywide Vision.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Approval of this item will not result in the use of Discretionary General Funding (Net County Cost). Adequate appropriation and revenue to complete this action have been included in the Land Use Services Department (LUS) Planning Division’s 2026-2027 budget. All costs of processing this appeal application are paid by Riener Nielsen (Appellant). The cost of processing the development application is paid by Lake Arrowhead Development Corporation and Jesse Wright (Applicants).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This item is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving Project No. PROJ-2021-00161, for Tentative Tract Map No. 20480, to subdivide a 15.95-acre site comprised of two (2) parcels into 37 single-family residential lots for lot sales and one remainder open space parcel (Project).
On December 7, 2021, the Applicant applied for a Tentative Tract Map designed as a “lot sale” single-family residential development for 37 custom homes with private streets. The Project site is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) under the County’s Policy Plan (General Plan) but remains zoned Multiple Residential (RM), meaning the existing zoning does not reflect the site’s current General Plan designation.
Section 6 of Resolution No. 2020-197, which amended the General Plan, sets forth criteria on the procedure for development while a nonconformity in the General Plan and zoning exists. The local procedure for resolving conflicts was further altered with subsequent changes in State law.
Specifically, State law provides that in the event that the zoning of a property becomes inconsistent with a general plan by reason of amendment to the general plan and a local agency receives a development application for a project that is consistent with the general plan but inconsistent with the zoning, the local agency shall process the development application in accordance with all applicable laws, including the application of objective general plan standards to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan.
Under Government Code section 65860, the County may process a project that is consistent with the General Plan without first requiring a zoning change. Accordingly, the Project is being processed under the Single Residential (RS) Land Use Zoning District, which implements the LDR designation and allows the proposed single-family subdivision.
The proposed lots range in size from 24,109 square feet to 10,083 square feet with an average lot size of 14,106 square feet and comply with the RS district’s 7,200-square-foot minimum lot size.
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the previously proposed project description of 41 residential lots in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The IS/MND concluded that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures related to the Project’s impacts on Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Wildfire, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Tribal Cultural Resources.
With the reduction from 41 to 37 residential lots and the corresponding reconfiguration and revised layout of the map, an Errata to the IS/MND has been prepared. The Errata concludes that the revisions do not constitute a substantial revision to the MND, which is defined to mean the identification of new, avoidable significant environmental impacts or the addition of new mitigation that is required to avoid a significant environmental impact, that would trigger recirculation of the IS/MND.
As explained in the Errata and responses to comments, the changes to the IS/MND are information that merely clarifies, amplifies, and makes insignificant modifications unrelated to a new significant environmental impact and includes the revision and addition of mitigation on environmental impacts already identified in the IS/MND which are equivalent to or more effective at mitigating environmental impacts than the original measures and will not themselves create any new adverse impacts.
Additional details regarding the Project, including a comprehensive discussion of the planning, land use, and environmental considerations, are provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report included as a supporting document to this item.
Following LUS review of the Project, the matter proceeded to a public hearing before the Planning Commission (Commission). Prior to the hearing, one public comment letter in support of the Project and five letters in opposition were received, expressing concerns regarding increased traffic, emergency evacuation, degradation of hillsides, loss of endangered species and trees. At its May 21, 2026, meeting, the Commission approved the Project by a 3-0 vote, with two members absent, subject to recommended conditions of approval.
APPEAL
Following the Planning Commission approval, the Appellant filed an appeal on June 6, 2026. The Appellant’s appeal and related materials submitted in support of the appeal are included as an attachment to this item. As detailed below, the appeal does not include factual or legal grounds for the Board of Supervisors (Board) to deny the Project. Instead, the Appellant’s appeal includes seven requests for the Board to modify or conditionally approve the version of the Project approved by the Commission. A summary of the Appellant’s requests and the LUS response to each is provided below:
Appellant Request No. 1 - Access and Construction Routes
§ Remove Sugar Pine Drive and White Fir Drive from designations as Construction Traffic Routes for both the initial construction of the roads and also for the future home construction on the 37 lots.
Response:
§ The Project has three access points. The existing gated entrance located at North Bay Road provides access from the north, a proposed gated entrance located at the terminus of Cedarwood Drive provides access from the south, and the existing gated entrance at Old Toll Road provides emergency access from the west. The Project’s private streets and access have been reviewed by the Department of Public Works (DPW) and San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (Fire District) and determined to meet applicable standards for use as construction and access.
§ During construction, access to the Project will be available through the approved street network, including North Bay Road, Sugar Pine Drive, White Fir Drive, and Cedarwood Drive. These construction routes have also been reviewed and approved by the DPW and Fire District. Accordingly, LUS recommends Request No. 1 be denied.
Appellant Request No. 2 - Rear Yard Setback
§ Lots 1-7 and 29-33 should provide a dimension of 75 feet from the back of the residence to the edge of the street as a maximum dimension to increase the rear yard setback.
Response:
§ The minimum front setback of structures to be constructed on Lots 1 through 7 and Lots 29 through 33 is 20 feet from the private street to the garage and 25 feet from the private street to the living area of the structure. The maximum depth of the residence is 55 feet. This addresses the Appellant’s request. Setbacks will be reviewed and will be formally determined at building permit review.
§ As these lots slope downhill, away from the street, LUS believes there is no benefit to significantly increasing the approved setbacks.
Appellant Request No. 3 - Planned Development Permit
§ The Project should be processed as a Planned Development because the creation of 37 lots creates a cumulative impact of removing trees across 37 lots. The Appellant asserts that the requirement for a tree removal permit as a controlling mechanism is essentially voided by the Fire District notes on distances of removal for combustible vegetation.
Response:
§ Mass grading or tree removal is not proposed for the development of the subdivision given the Project will be developed for individual “lot sales” for single-family residences. Each individual lot will be processed with its own permitting process, which includes grading and tree removal permits. Additionally, the road corridors for the private streets have been previously cleared, graded, and utilities installed. Live tree removal (trunks greater than 4” diameter) is not part of the Fire Hazard Abatement requirements. The future removal of trees from the individual lot sales is not a criterion that requires an applicant to file for a Planned Development Permit.
Appellant Request No. 4 - Road Maintenance
§ Condition stating existing concrete streets need to remain concrete, and the extension of Sugar Pine Drive needs to be concrete for the first 50 feet.
Response:
§ The existing roadway portions of White Fir Drive and its connection to Sugar Pine Drive near the existing clubhouse will be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer and will be maintained, repaired or replaced per his or her recommendations and best engineering practices in accordance with County standards.
Appellant Request No. 5 - Fencing
§ Condition that any new fencing matches the existing green wrought iron fence that surrounds the community and others along North Bay Road. The plans call out a different type.
Response:
§ The Development Code does not require perimeter fencing for proposed subdivisions. The Tentative Tract Map does not propose fencing around the perimeter and the conditions of approval do not include a requirement for fencing. The proposed subdivision will become part of the existing North Bay Lodge Owner’s Association (NBLOA). As a lot of sales build-to-suit development, the building design of the residences and any fencing will be regulated and subject to the review and approval by the NBLOA. New project fencing will be constructed as approved by LUS Planning and Building & Safety Division.
Appellant Request No. 6 - Construction Hours
§ Change the allowable working hours from Monday through Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. to Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Response:
§ The County approved work period is 7:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m, Monday through Saturday. This is a typical and reasonable work period that allows an owner/builder to construct his/her home after work on weekdays and on Saturday. Similarly, the Project will be subject to countywide development standards, including, but not limited to, noise standards that allow temporary construction, maintenance, repair, or demolition activities between the same work period. Accordingly, LUS believes this is an acceptable and reasonable work period and recommends denying the request.
Appellant Request No. 7 - Improvement Securities
§ Condition that the developer post a bond to ensure payment for repair of streets and gates, not only for the construction of roads but also for the further buildouts of the 37 lots.
Response:
§ The conditions of approval require the Applicant to provide improvement securities for any required public road, drainage, or utility improvements that have not already been constructed and approved before recordation of the Final Tract Map. A one-year maintenance bond is also required following completion and approval of the improvements. The Appellant’s request extends beyond the improvement securities required for approval of the subdivision. Any damage caused to off-site improvements not associated with the subdivision is generally outside the scope of the County’s permitting and would be a private matter.
Based on the responses to the Appellant’s requests, LUS recommends that the Board deny the appeal and approve the Project. Findings supporting approval of the Project and the Conditions of Approval are attached to this item.
If the Board instead determines that the appeal should be granted and Project denied, LUS recommends continuing the item to allow LUS to prepare findings supporting denial of the Project consistent with the decision.
PROCUREMENT
N/A
REVIEW BY OTHERS
This item has been reviewed by County Counsel (Jason Searles, Supervising Deputy County Counsel, 387-5455) on September 1, 2026; and County Finance and Administration (Lizveth Varela, Administrative Analyst, 387-3077) on September 3, 2026.