REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
AND RECORD OF ACTION
November 3, 2026
FROM
MIGUEL FIGUEROA, Director, Land Use Services Department
SUBJECT
Title
Vacate Prior Approvals and Reconsideration of the Lovemore Ranch Project
End
RECOMMENDATION(S)
Recommendation
1. Set aside and vacate all actions and approvals related to Project No. PROJ-2021-00169 taken on April 8, 2025, as part of Item No. 72.
2. Conduct a public hearing to reconsider Project No. PROJ-2021-00169 consisting of Tentative Tract Map No. 20443 to subdivide a vacant 18.49-acre parcel into 64 single-family residential lots and two lettered lots.
3. Take the following actions to reapprove Project No. PROJ-2021-00169:
a. Adopt the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
b. Adopt the findings for approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 20443.
c. Direct the Land Use Services Department to file a Notice of Determination in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
• Applicant: Lovemore Investments, LLC
• Community: Joshua Tree
• Location: Between Hillview Drive and Sunset Road, north of Alta Loma Drive
(Presenter: Paul Gonzales, Planning Chief, 387-4110)
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.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Approval of this item will not result in the use of additional 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 tentative tract map application are paid for by the applicant.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This item consists of setting aside and vacating the prior approvals and reconsidering Project No. PROJ-2021-00169, commonly referred to as the Lovemore Ranch Project, consisting of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 20443 to subdivide a vacant 18.49-acre parcel into 64 single-family residential lots ranging from approximately 7,200 to 13,068 square feet and two lettered lots consisting of recreational facilities and open space, including an onsite wastewater treatment facility and a detention basin for drainage control purposes (Project). The Project is located in the community of Joshua Tree, between Hillview Drive and Sunset Road, north of Alta Loma Drive (Project Site).
Original Approval:
On April 8, 2025 (Item No. 72), the Board of Supervisors (Board) considered the Project on appeal by the Morongo Basin Conservation Association (MBCA). MBCA challenged the Planning Commission’s approval based on alleged deficiencies in the public review and noticing process, inadequacies in the environmental analysis, and issues concerning the Project’s density and consistency with the Policy Plan and Development Code. The Board denied the appeal and unanimously approved the Project by a vote of 5-0, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and TTM No. 20443 (collectively the Project Approvals). The MND, Project Approvals, and documents related to the appeal are available for review as attachments to Item No. 72 on the Board’s April 8, 2025, meeting agenda.
Legal Challenge:
On May 9, 2025, an unincorporated association known as Joshua Tree Village Neighbors (Petitioner) filed a petition for peremptory writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the County and the Board challenging the Project Approvals in San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. CIVSB2513295, entitled Joshua Tree Village Neighbors v. County of San Bernardino, et al. (Action).
On June 4, 2026, the Court issued a ruling in the Action granting the petition on limited grounds. The Court concluded that additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review was required with respect to two issues: (1) consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding the Project’s wastewater treatment facility (WWTF); and (2) recirculation of the MND to provide further public review and analysis of the Project’s stormwater impacts and drainage design features that were identified in the October 30, 2024, Hydrology Study and April 3, 2025, Errata, including measures to address post-development stormwater peak flow rates and accommodate the WWTF proposed on Lot A of the TTM (collectively Ruling). The Court directed the County and the Board to set aside approval of the MND and the Project Approvals that relied upon it and denied the petition on all other grounds raised by Petitioner.
Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration:
A Recirculated MND was prepared in response to the Court’s Ruling to address the issues identified by the Court and provide further public and agency review, including review by the RWQCB. Consistent with CEQA’s requirements following judicial remand, the County’s additional environmental review is limited to correcting the deficiencies identified by the Court and does not require reconsideration of other portions of the prior environmental review. Accordingly, the Recirculated MND incorporates the updated hydrology and drainage analysis previously reflected in April 3, 2025, Errata, together with other minor associated changes. The Project components and geographic footprint remain unchanged from those previously reviewed and approved in 2025.
The Recirculated MND includes the following updates:
• Site Plan: The Site Plan has been updated to reflect the current Project configuration and drainage infrastructure evaluated in the October 30, 2024, Hydrology Study, including the relationship between the proposed drainage improvements and the WWTF on Lot A.
• Hydrology and Water Quality - Section X, Subsection C: This section has been updated to incorporate October 30, 2024, Hydrology Study and its analysis of existing and post-development stormwater flows. The updated analysis identifies that post-development peak flow rates exceed pre-development peak flow rates for the evaluated storm events and that a detention basin or other drainage method will therefore be incorporated into the final Project design. The Hydrology Study evaluates two options for reducing flows to pre-development rates: (1) an on-site detention basin designed to detain the 100-year storm event; or (2) approximately 1,900 feet of on-site storm drainpipe to collect flows and limit peak off-site flows. Either option was determined to be independently sufficient to address the Project’s stormwater impacts. The Recirculated MND anticipates that the Project will utilize Option 1, consisting of an on-site detention basin designed to capture and detain a minimum of 20,233 cubic feet to reduce flows to pre-development rates and address the 100-year storm event. Alternatively, if necessary or desired to provide greater flexibility to accommodate the proposed WWTF on Lot A, the Project may utilize a combination of the detention basin (Option 1) and additional on-site storm drainpipe (Option 2). The Recirculated MND concludes that this flexible design approach would address the 100-year storm event while ensuring sufficient remaining area for the proposed WWTF.
• RWQCB Consultation: The Recirculated MND was made available for public and agency review between August 4, 2026, through September 3, 2026, including review by the Colorado River Basin RWQCB. The RWQCB reviewed the Recirculated MND and submitted a comment letter to the County on September 3, 2026. The RWQCB noted that it is the public agency with primary responsibility for the protection of ground and surface water quality within the region and stated that the “2024 [MND] and the 2026 Recirculated [MND] require further consideration of the wastewater treatment and impacts on groundwater.” The RWQCB further stated that an informed assessment and regulatory decision regarding the proposed WWTF could not be made without submittal of a complete Report of Waste Discharge and that the Project would require Waste Discharge Requirements from the RWQCB.
On September 21, 2026, LUS and Environmental Health Services staff met with RWQCB representatives to discuss the comments and clarify the RWQCB’s regulatory requirements for the proposed WWTF. During the meeting, RWQCB representatives clarified that, as part of their review of environmental documents circulated under CEQA, they do not conduct a technical review of the materials necessary to make a regulatory determination regarding the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal system. Rather, at the CEQA circulation stage, the RWQCB identifies the regulatory requirements and technical information that an applicant will be required to submit and satisfy as part of the subsequent permitting process following project entitlement. For this Project, that subsequent review would include submittal of a complete Report of Waste Discharge and issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements by the RWQCB.
The RWQCB subsequently provided a revised comment letter on October 9, 2026, which is included as an attachment to this item and which supersedes and replaces the prior September 3, 2026, letter. In the October 9 revised comment letter, the RWQCB confirmed that a Report of Waste Discharge is not required during the CEQA review stage and acknowledged that a complete Report of Waste Discharge, including detailed wastewater characterization, collection system design, treatment design, and water supply and waste resource analysis, would be submitted to the RWQCB post-entitlement as part of the Waste Discharge Requirements application process. The revised comment letter further acknowledged that the plan for the Project’s final, detailed stormwater and wastewater treatment facilities would be reviewed and processed by the RWQCB - which, under the County’s LAMP and RWQCB Guidelines is the agency responsible for overseeing permitting of the Project’s wastewater and stormwater facilities - as part of the Report of Waste Discharge regulatory process administered after the CEQA and entitlement process is completed at the County level. The October 9 comment letter contained no substantive comments and raised no substantive concerns regarding the adequacy of the CEQA analysis contained in the Recirculated MND.
In addition to the comments received from the RWQCB, LUS received 62 additional comments on the Recirculated MND. A response to the RWQCB’s comments has been prepared and is included as an attachment to this item. The other comments generally raised concerns regarding traffic, density, aesthetics, and whether an MND remains the appropriate CEQA document for the Project. Regarding traffic, a Transportation Study Screening Analysis was prepared for an earlier version of the Project consisting of 75 residential lots and determined that the Project would generate fewer than 100 peak-hour trips. The current Project proposes 64 residential lots. Regarding density, as discussed below, the Project complies with the applicable minimum parcel area and maximum density requirements. Regarding aesthetics, the Project would not include structures exceeding 35 feet in height, and the Project Site is located between Hillview Road and Sunset Road, north side of Alta Loma Road; these roadways are not designated Scenic Highways. Lastly, with respect to the adequacy of the environmental document, the Court’s Ruling identified specific CEQA deficiencies required additional review and recirculation of the MND but did not determine that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report was required.
Project Density
In addition to comments on the Recirculated MND, LUS continued to receive comments regarding the appropriate density of the Project. These comments conflate two separate Development Code standards: minimum parcel area and maximum density. Section 83.02.050(e) of the Development Code expressly establishes how the “minimum parcel area requirements” in Division 2 are calculated and, for Single Residential (RS) zoned lots smaller than one acre, requires use of net parcel area. This methodology applies in determining whether individual lots satisfy the applicable 7,200-square-foot minimum parcel area; it does not establish how maximum residential density is calculated.
Maximum density is separately governed by Section 82.04.060 and Table 82-9C of the Development Code, which allows a maximum of four dwelling units per acre in the RS zoning district and does not incorporate the net-area calculation in Section 83.02.050(e). The Project proposes 64 residential lots on the 18.49-acre Project Site, resulting in a density of approximately 3.5 dwelling units per acre, below the four-unit-per-acre maximum. The residential lots also range from approximately 7,200 to 13,068 square feet. Accordingly, the Project complies with both the applicable minimum parcel area and maximum density requirements.
Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), when a housing development project complies with applicable objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, an agency may not deny the Project or impose conditions that reduce its density unless it makes specified written findings, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the Project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot feasibly be mitigated or avoided. The HAA applies to both affordable and market-rate housing development projects, including subdivision maps and other discretionary land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of building permits.
Public Noticing
In addition to the County’s required noticing and publication procedures, LUS provided supplemental notice of the Project through Z107.7 FM Joshua Tree to further expand public awareness. This supplemental outreach is in addition to, and does not replace, any noticing or publication required by the Development Code or applicable law.
PROCUREMENT
N/A
REVIEW BY OTHERS
This item has been reviewed by County Counsel (Jason Searles, Supervising Deputy County Counsel, 387-5455) on October 23, 2026; and County Finance and Administration (Lizveth Varela, Administrative Analyst, 387-3077) on October 15, 2026.