San Bernardino County supervisors grant appeal of Piñon Hills Maverik gas station, send project back to Planning Commission
The Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 on Aug. 4 to grant an appeal of a 15-dispenser gas station and convenience store on Oasis Road, although county planning staff had recommended denying it.
The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors on Aug. 4 granted an appeal of a proposed Maverik gas station and convenience store in Piñon Hills and returned the project to the Planning Commission.
The board's record of action says the matter goes back to the commission "to reconsider all items raised by the appellant."
The vote was 4-0. Supervisor Joe Baca Jr. made the motion and Supervisor Jesse Armendarez seconded it. Supervisors Paul Cook and Dawn Rowe also voted yes. Supervisor Curt Hagman was absent.
What was proposed
The item, No. 106 on the agenda (file 14624), concerned a permit, known as a minor use permit, for a station at 10450 Oasis Road, according to the Land Use Services Department staff report.
The report describes a 5,637-square-foot store and a pair of canopies covering 15 fuel dispensers on an 8.78-acre parcel. The applicant is Maverik Inc. The appellant is identified as William Hale.
Staff had recommended the opposite outcome. The report asked the board to deny the appeal, adopt a mitigated negative declaration and approve the permit.
The staff report says the site is zoned General Commercial and that the proposed use is allowed there if a minor use permit is granted.
How the case reached the board
Maverik applied in February 2024, the report says. The county's zoning administrator approved the project on Dec. 11, 2025, and an appeal was filed Dec. 22 citing traffic, safety and environmental concerns.
The Planning Commission denied that appeal on Feb. 19, 2026, on a 3-0 vote with two members absent, after hearing from eight speakers in opposition. The appellant took the case to the board on March 2.
The board hearing had been continued twice, from May 19 and June 9. The staff report says the first delay came after staff found that an October 2025 traffic impact analysis and a November 2025 site plan had been left out of the packets for the earlier hearings.
The second delay followed a letter from an attorney asserting that an environmental impact report was required, the report says. The applicant asked for more time to respond.
Staff wrote that the updated site plan removed seven parking spaces, moved the underground storage tanks, reduced a landscape island, showed truck turning movements and narrowed the driveway aisles to a 34-foot width. The report says those changes did not require recirculating the environmental document.
The record of action lists three public speakers at the Aug. 4 hearing.
What happens next
The record does not set a date for the Planning Commission to take the project up again.
In its report, staff had said that if the board granted the appeal, the department recommended continuing the item so it could prepare findings consistent with that decision. The action recorded by the clerk instead returns the matter to the commission.
The staff report says the appellant pays the county's costs for the appeal and the applicant pays for processing of the development application.