REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
AND RECORD OF ACTION
October 20, 2026
FROM
MIGUEL FIGUEROA, Director, Land Use Services Department
SUBJECT
Title
Appeal of the Planning Commission Approval of the Muscoy Warehouse Project
End
RECOMMENDATION(S)
Recommendation
1. Conduct a public hearing to consider Appeal No. PAPL-2026-00005 related to the Planning Commission’s approval of Project No. PROJ-2023-00107, consisting of a Tentative Parcel Map, Minor Variance, and a Conditional Use Permit for the development of two industrial warehouse buildings.
• Appellant: Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility
• Applicant: Jack Luu
• Community: Muscoy
• Location: 3962 Cajon Boulevard
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision approving Project No. PROJ-2023-00107 by taking the following actions:
a. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.
b. Adopt the findings for approval of the Tentative Parcel Map, Minor Variance, and Conditional Use Permit.
c. Approve the Tentative Parcel Map #20798 to subdivide a 4.59-acre parcel into two parcels, subject to the conditions of approval.
d. Approve the Minor Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet.
e. Approve the Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate two industrial warehouse buildings and ancillary offices totaling 88,174 square feet on the 4.59-acre site, subject to the conditions of approval.
f. Direct the Land Use Services Department to file the 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.
Create, Maintain and Grow Employment Opportunities and Economic Value in the County.
Foster Sustainable Development Through Strategic Partnerships.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Approval of this item will not result in the use of Discretionary Funding (Net County Cost). Adequate appropriation and revenue to complete this action have been included in the Land Use Services Department (LUS), Planning Division 2026-27 budget. All costs of processing this appeal application are paid by Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (Appellant). The cost of processing the development application is paid by Jack Luu (Applicant).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This item is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Project No. PROJ-2023-00107 which consists of a request for a Tentative Parcel Map, Minor Variance, and Conditional Use Permit (collectively, Project) for the following:
• Two industrial warehouses totaling 88,174 square feet
o Building 1: 48,887 sq. ft.
o Building 2: 39,287 sq. ft.
• Ancillary Offices
The Applicant filed the project application and commenced the local entitlement process for the logistic use development on June 19, 2023. The Project site is in the Limited Industrial (LI) Land Use Category designation and is currently zoned General Commercial (CG). Since the General Plan and Land Use Zoning District designations for the Project site are not aligned, the implementing zoning district and general applicable law in which to apply the appropriate development standards for the application is the Community Industrial (IC) zoning district. The proposed warehouse development is allowed in the IC zone subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The Minor Variance request is for the reduction of the front yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet. A comprehensive analysis of the Project from a planning, zoning, and environmental perspective is included within the July 9, 2026, Planning Commission Staff Report and is attached as a supporting document to this item. In addition to land use map consistency and compatibility policies, the Project will be consistent with Policy LU-2.12, Office and Industrial Uses in the unincorporated Valley region, by promoting a countywide jobs-housing balance.
In total, LUS received 12 public comments in opposition to the Project and no comments in support. Additionally, two letters of opposition were received as a result of the April 30, 2026 Public Hearing Notice and one letter of opposition was received as a result of the June 23, 2026 Public Hearing Notice. No letters of support were received. Public concerns included truck traffic, air quality, and noise.
The Planning Commission initially considered the Project during its regularly scheduled meeting on May 21, 2026. Four people spoke in opposition to the Project at that hearing. A motion to approve the Project received a 2-1 vote and it was reported out that the Project was approved; however, under the Planning Commission’s Rules of Order, action of the Planning Commission requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the five-member commission. As a result, the motion to approve the Project from a majority of present commissioners at the meeting was not effective and, as a result, the Project was later reconsidered by the Planning Commission with four commissioners present at its regularly scheduled meeting on July 9, 2026. One person spoke at the hearing in opposition to the Project at the subsequent hearing. After closing the public hearing and deliberation, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 (1 commissioner absent) to approve the Project. As a corrective procedural step by the Planning Commission, the second hearing does not constitute a resubmittal of the project application.
APPEAL
On July 15, 2026, the Appellant filed an appeal to the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project. A copy of the Appellant’s appeal is included as an attachment to this item. The Applicant prepared a written response to the allegation asserted in the appeal and is also included as an attachment to this item. A summary of the Appellant’s primary arguments raised in the appeal, together with a response are summarized below.
Biological Baseline and Surveys
The Appellant argues that the biological assessment for the Project underestimated wildlife use of the site and failed to adequately identify special-status species, resulting in an incomplete biological baseline.
Response: The assessment included field surveys, database review, and habitat analysis. Additional wildlife observations and extrapolations raised in the appeal do not establish that special-status species occupy the Project site or would be significantly impacted by the Project.
Special-Status Species and Wildlife Use
The Appellant argues that observations of raptors (birds that use their physical characteristics to hunt and prey on other animals to eat), bats, monarch butterflies, and other wildlife demonstrate that the Project site provides habitat for sensitive species that was not adequately evaluated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
Response: Wildlife use of the Project site does not establish a significant impact. The observations did not identify an occupied nest, roost, breeding population, or other sensitive habitat on the Project site.
Habitat Loss and Avian Impacts
The Appellant argues that development would eliminate wildlife habitat and productive capacity, including an estimated loss equivalent to approximately 79 birds annually.
Response: The estimate asserted by the Appellant relies on data and assumptions derived from other locations rather than site-specific measurements and therefore does not demonstrate a significant Project-related habitat impact.
Wildlife Movement and Habitat Fragmentation
The Appellant argues that the development would interfere with wildlife movement and further fragment remaining habitat in an already developed area.
Response: No established wildlife corridor, linkage, nursery site, or significant movement route has been identified on the 4.59-acre Project site, which is surrounded by existing urban development.
Project-Generated Traffic and Wildlife Mortality
The Appellant argues that Project traffic could result in an estimated 481 to 1,277 wildlife deaths annually, creating an unmitigated biological impact.
Response: The estimate asserted by the Appellant relies on assumed trip lengths and mortality rates from unrelated locations without establishing comparable conditions or a site-specific connection between Project traffic and significant wildlife impacts.
Cumulative Biological Impacts
The Appellant argues that the MND inadequately analyzes whether the Project, together with surrounding development, would contribute to significant cumulative biological impacts.
Response: No specific cumulative biological resource or related project has been identified that, together with the Project, would result in a cumulatively considerable biological impact.
Adequacy of Mitigation Measure BIO-1
The Appellant argues that BIO-1 does not adequately address permanent habitat loss or other biological impacts, and additional surveys, habitat compensation, road-mortality measures, and other mitigation are necessary.
Response: BIO-1 establishes enforceable preconstruction surveys, avoidance requirements, and buffers to protect nesting birds. The additional mitigation requested is not tied to a demonstrated significant Project impact; therefore, the County maintains that an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
Based on the response to the appeal, and the record as a whole, LUS staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that a fair argument exits that will compel a need for an Environmental Impact Report, therefore LUS recommends that the Board of Supervisors uphold the Planning Commission approval of the Project and deny the appeal. If the Board of Supervisors denies the appeal and approves the Project, an updated set of findings and conditions of approval are attached to this item.
In the event the Board of Supervisors grants the appeal, LUS recommends the item be continued for LUS to prepare a set of proposed findings 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 22, 2026; and County Finance and Administration (Lizveth Varela, Administrative Analyst, 387-3077) on September 28, 2026.