Joshua Tree Barnstormer

The Facts Shall Set You Free

Tag: planning

Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone Solar Regional Mitigation Planning, Workshop #2

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is hosting a second public workshop for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) Solar Regional Mitigation Plan (SRMP) on October 24 and 25, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., at the Hampton Inn Tropicana, 4975 S. Dean Martin Dr., Las Vegas 89118.

Vegas baby!

The topic of the workshop will be baseline conditions and unavoidable impacts and will include a field tour to the SEZ on Oct. 24.  

Like I said, Vegas, baby!   Oh wait, does that say S-E-….Z?  My bad.

In August, BLM described their solar energy program and discussed the development of regional mitigation plans as outlined in the July 24 Final Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). At the first workshop, more than 70 participants, including representatives from federal, state and local government, Tribes, the solar industry, utilities, environmental and other non-governmental organizations were asked to provide thoughts and ideas about mitigation for the Dry Lake SEZ, as well as ideas on future environmental monitoring and adaptive management for the SEZ.

An agenda for the October workshop, summary of the August workshop, frequently-asked questions and a preliminary list of data sources BLM is reviewing in support of the identification of unavoidable adverse impacts can be found on the Dry Lake SEZ Mitigation Project website.   The impacts associated with the Dry Lake SEZ are listed in this memo.

Those interested in attending the Oct 24/25 workshop or who would like to provide comments on the materials posted on the website should RSVP and send comments to: drylakemitigation@blm.gov.

NOTE:  RSVP by October 17 to reserve a bus seat for the field trip. 

Visit the Solar Energy Development PEIS website for more information:  http://solareis.anl.gov

BLM Announces Availability of Final Solar PEIS / Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone Mitigation Workshop

On July 24, 2012, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Press Release announcing the availability of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States  (Final Solar PEIS) (BLM/DES 11–49, DOE/EIS–0403), together with proposed amendments to BLM’s Resource Management Plan (RMP). The Notice of Availability of the Final Solar PEIS was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2012, which marks the start of a 30-day protest period, after which Secretary Salazar may consider adopting the document through a Record of Decision.

The Solar PEIS planning effort evaluated BLM lands in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah to identify areas most suitable for solar energy development, based on criteria such as excellent solar resources, good energy transmission potential, and relatively low conflict with biological, cultural and historic resources.  According to the press release, “input from stakeholders has been extremely valuable throughout this process,” said Acting BLM Director Mike Pool. “Their comments have helped to refine the zones to make sure they’re “smart from the start,” to improve the transmission analyses and to build effective incentives into this blueprint for solar development.”  More than 80,000 comments from cooperating agencies and stakeholders were submitted in response to the Draft Solar PEIS.

The Final Solar PEIS identifies BLM’s preferred alternative – the solar energy development program alternative – which would prioritize and incentivize utility-scale solar energy development within approximately 285,000 acres in 17 solar energy development zones (SEZs) across six western states; establish 19 million acres of “variance areas” outside the SEZs, within which utility-scale solar development would be considered under a proposed variance process; establish a process for industry, the public, and other stakeholders to collaboratively propose future SEZs, which is already underway in California’s Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan and West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy Evaluation; and protects natural and cultural resources by excluding approximately 78 million acres from solar energy development.

The preferred/program alternative would also establish authorization policies and procedures for utility-scale solar energy development, design features applicable to all development on BLM-administered lands,  a framework for regional mitigation plans, and a strategy for monitoring and adaptive management (the first mitigation pilot project for the Dry Lake SEZ is already underway. In total, the Final Solar PEIS estimates a total development of 23,700 megawatts from the 17 SEZs and the variance areas, which is enough energy to power 7 million American homes.

Click here to access the Final Solar PEIS.

Click here for a list of the 17 SEZs.

HOW TO STAY INVOLVED

SUBMIT A COMMENT

Publication of a Final EIS Notice of Availability does not trigger a formal public comment period. The Agencies, however, may choose to review any comments submitted following the publication of the Final EIS NOA and use them to inform the Records of Decision. Those individuals wishing to submit comments are asked to do so through the Solar Programmatic EIS Project Website (http://solareis.anl.gov). Individuals should note that the Agencies will consider such comments only to the extent practicable and will not respond to comments individually.

FILE A PROTEST

Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the Final Programmatic EIS and Proposed RMP Amendments may be found in the ‘‘Dear Reader’’ Letter’’ of the Final Solar PEIS and at 43 CFR 1610.5–2. All protests must be in writing and mailed to the appropriate address, as set forth below. Emailed and faxed protests will not be accepted as valid protests unless the protesting party also provides the original letter by either regular or overnight mail postmarked by the close of the protest period. Under these conditions, the BLM will consider the emailed or faxed protest as an advance copy and it will receive full consideration. If you wish to provide the BLM with such advance notification, please direct emails to bhudgens@blm.gov and faxed protests to the attention of the BLM protest coordinator at 202–245–0028.

DEADLINES:  BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM’s Final Programmatic EIS and Proposed RMP Amendments. A person who meets the conditions and files a protest must file the protest within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register. The NOA was published on July 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES:  All protests must be in writing and mailed to one of the following addresses:

  • Regular Mail     BLM Director (210), Attention: Brenda Williams, P.O. Box 71383, Washington, DC 20024–1383.
  • Overnight Mail     BLM Director (210), Attention: Brenda Williams, 20 M Street SE., Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20003.

REQUEST MORE INFORMATION 

  • Shannon Stewart, Solar Energy Program Lead, BLM Washington Office, by email at shannon_stewart@blm.gov, or by telephone at 202–912–7219, to request CDs or printed copies of the Final Programmatic EIS, or for further information.
  • Jane Summerson, DOE Solar Programmatic EIS Document Manager, by email at jane.summerson@ee.doe.gov, or by telephone at 202–287–6188, for requests for information related to DOE’s proposed action.
  • Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC–54, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, by telephone at 202–586–4600, leave a message at 1–800–472–2756, or by email at askNEPA@hq.doe.gov, for general information regarding the DOE NEPA process.

NOTE:  Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

ATTEND THE DRY LAKE SEZ MITIGATION PILOT PROJECT PUBLIC WORKSHOP

On July 30, BLM announced that an upcoming public workshop on the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone Mitigation Pilot Project will be held on August 29 and 30, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., at the Tuscany Suites and Casino, 255 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas.

The BLM welcomes interested parties to attend the workshop, where they will share information about the solar energy program, hold discussions on developing the regional mitigation plans outlined in the Final Solar PEIS, and ask participants to provide thoughts and ideas about mitigation for the Dry Lake SEZ, as well as future environmental monitoring and adaptive management plans for the SEZ.

Comments on the Draft Solar PEIS revealed significant public interest in the cooperative development of regional mitigation plans for SEZs and a long-term and scientifically-based environmental monitoring and adaptive management plan for solar energy development on BLM-administered lands. Through the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone Mitigation Pilot Project, the BLM will test the concepts on regional mitigation plans and monitoring and adaptive management plans presented in Appendix A of the Final Solar PEIS (Volume 6, Part 1).

The Draft Agenda for the Workshop can be reviewed or downloaded by clicking here. If you are interested in attending, please RSVP by August 21st to: drylakemitigation@blm.gov. Comments on the Draft Agenda can also be submitted to this address.

Proposed Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone (SEZ), July 2012

Yucca Valley Long-range Planning and Public Involvement Opportunities

 

Deputy Town Manager, Shane Stueckle, announced today that the Town of Yucca Valley is now accepting applications from residents interested in participating in long-range community planning as a member of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC).  The GPAC will assist Town staff and consultants from The Planning Center in the review of draft General Plan elements and will function as a conduit between the community and local government.  The GPAC’s efforts will focus on the review of proposed draft goals and policies to ensure they reflect the adopted General Plan Vision and Values and address recent court cases, state laws, or guidelines enacted since the existing General Plan was adopted in 1995.

The GPAC will begin their work in September 2012 and will conclude their service in early 2013. Ten individuals will be appointed by the Town Council to the GPAC, and will join representatives from the Planning Commission, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Commission, and the Youth Commission. Five GPAC meetings are planned to occur between September 2012 and early 2013.   GPAC applications are available at in the Town Clerk’s Office at Town Hall, located at 57090 29 Palms Highway, Yucca Valley, and are also  available online.  Applications must be submitted by August 23, 2012.

The General Plan Update is among the “Sustainable Communities Strategies” highlighted on the Town of Yucca Valley’s Strong Cities Strong State webpage.  The “Strong Cities Strong State” campaign, a joint effort of the California City Management Foundation and League of California Cities, communicates the importance of local government in California residents’ everyday lives.  The Strong Cities Strong State website promotes city “success stories” by profiling city officials, managers, and agency partnerships, and providing a venue for cities to highlight their accomplishments, while emphasizing specific city services and community characteristics. The goal is to highlight all of California’s cities over the coming 18 months.

In addition to the General Plan Update, the Town highlights the following “sustainable communities strategies” on their Strong Cities Strong State webpage:

  • the SCAG COMPASS Blueprint funding to evaluate the Mid-Town area and identify alternative transportation strategies to more efficiently move traffic, improve pedestrian and transit access, and incorporate mixed-use development around the intersection of SR-62 and SR-247.

  • the Yucca Valley Senior Housing Project, for which the Town recently completed entitlements.  The Senior Housing Project is a 75-unit affordable senior apartment campus integrated on the Town Community Center campus, which, in turn, is integrated with the Town’s Senior Community Center, Hi Desert Nature Museum, Yucca Valley County Library, and Town Hall, and has two transit stops within a few hundred feet of the site. The Town and its development partner are competing for project funding at the Federal, State, and County level.

artist renderings of the proposed 75-unit Yucca Valley Senior Housing Project

  • the Old Town Specific Plan promotes pedestrian friendly, mixed use development in the original commercial core of the Town of Yucca Valley. The Specific Plan project area includes approximately 250 acres along SR 62 between Church Street on the east and Kickapoo Trail on the west. With densities approaching 40 units/acre, the Old Town Specific Plan envisions an active, vibrant, mixed use activity center as a redevelopment strategy for the Old Town gateway to the Morongo Basin. As part of the current General Plan Update, the scope of the Old Town Specific Plan is being expanded to include the former Blue Skies Golf Course and vacant properties around this area to improve mobility, livability, economic development and prosperity in Yucca Valley’s oldest commercial area.

On the “Collaborations” page, the Town highlights partnerships with the High Desert Water District to deliver a regional wastewater treatment facility; the County of San Bernardino to deliver a replacement animal shelter to serve the high desert region; and resources at the Federal, State, County, and local level to deliver Phase 1A of the Southside Community Park.

artist renderings of the proposed replacement Animal Shelter

JT Barnstormer Presents…Fundamentals of Planning and Public Participation

Attention residents, business owners, and stakeholders of unincorporated San Bernardino County, the Morongo Basin, and the High Desert:

Enrollment in the Fundamentals of Planning and Public Participation Workshop is officially OPEN!   It couldn’t have come at a better time, as far as I am concerned, given that comments on the Cadiz Final EIR are due by July 25, 2012, and the Joshua Tree Dollar General Project Initial Study is expected to be released any day now.

In addition to providing a general overview of the land use planning, environmental review, decision making, permitting, and site development process in San Bernardino County, the Workshop offers an in-depth, insider’s perspective on public outreach/involvement and the importance of public participation in decision making. The Workshop also offers participants a one-of-a-kind opportunity to work directly with a seasoned CEQA specialist who has for the last 13 years conducted public outreach, prepared CEQA documents, and written responses to public comments on Initial Studies, Notices of Preparation, and Draft EIRs.  During the session on August 6, Ms. Tuttle will define the characteristics of effective public comments, provide examples of effective and ineffective comments, and work one-on-one with attendees to review and develop powerful and informed public comments and testimony, based on an understanding of the context and criteria used in decision making.  If there is interest, additional seminars and/or letter-writiing sessions can be scheduled after the close of the Workshop on August 6.

The official Workshop announcements are posted below. The Workshop consists of three three-hour sessions that will be held on July 23, July 30, and August 6, from 5:30 to 8:30 pm  at the Joshua Tree Business Center, at 6393 Sunset Road in Joshua Tree, CA.

Parking is available in the lot in front of the Business Center, and there is street parking to the north and south.

Enrollment is now open!

Click HERE to enroll.

Workshop Summary / Flyerwith Detailed Course Descriptions

What’s the Deal on Dollar General?

A BRIEF HISTORY

Last fall, JT Barnstormer was approached by several Joshua Tree residents and business owners who were concerned about Dynamic Development LLC’s (DD LLC’s) application to develop a Dollar General store on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 0603-204-04, located at the northwest corner of Sunburst Drive along Twentynine Palms Highway / State Route 62 (SR-62).  Because it was a busy time of year and public comments were due within days, JT Barnstormer performed a cursory review of stakeholders’ emails and relevant San Bernardino County (County) policies and guidelines, then prepared and distributed a general brief / letter, anonymously, to a short list of concerned citizens.  The letter summarized key sections of San Bernardino County’s (the County’s) 2007 Development Code, which requires controversial projects to be processed under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (a more rigorous, complex approval process) rather than a Minor Use Permit.[1] (The letter also noted that, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Lead Agencies must consider the level of public controversy when determining whether an Initial Study / (Mitigated) Negative Declaration will be sufficient under CEQA or whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will need to be prepared. As Trustee Agency California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) explains, “the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. In cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR shall be prepared when there is serious public controversy concerning the environmental effect of a project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064).)

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

The application might not have been controversial at first glance, but it certainly was by the time fractured excerpts from the original letter met the inboxes of people inhabiting the sixth degrees of separation. Unsurprisingly, after receiving preliminary project feedback from dozens if not hundreds of concerned citizens, the County Planning Division elevated DD LLC’s application from a Minor Use Permit (MUP) to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), marking the first, albeit minor, victory for local residents, landowners, and business owners.  As mentioned above, compared to MUPs, CUP applications require a more thorough review and a higher level of internal scrutiny; too, the County changing gears meant that concerned citizens won some time, allowing them to research Dollar General Corp., more thoroughly evaluate DD LLC’s proposal; ask more questions of the County Planner; garner additional petition signatures; retain counsel and/or consulting services; and the like.

The CUP process requires the County to evaluate project consistency with the County General Plan and the Joshua Tree Community Plan, compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses, availability of public services, and the potential for the project to result in environmental impacts considered significant under CEQA. As shown above, when a CUP warrants detailed review, the County Planner forwards the application to the Development Review Committee (DRC) for a review and recommendation of technical design features to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, including adequate traffic and pedestrian circulation; proper grading; and proper erosion control; and an evaluation of public facilities and services and potential fire-hazard problems. Because of the controversy surrounding the proposed Dollar General store, the County has elevated the project to the County Planning Commission for final. Prior to deciding whether to approve or reject DD LLC’s CUP application, a public hearing will be held before the Commission. Chapter 85.06 of the Development Code describes the required findings that must be made before a CUP application can be approved.[2] Applications can be denied if the CUP findings cannot be made or if the proposal would result in environmental effects considered significant and unavoidable under CEQA. Planning Commission decisions can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors.

STATUS OF THE PROPOSED DOLLAR GENERAL STORE in JOSHUA TREE 

In January 2012, when I contacted the County to inquire about the status of DD LLC’s CUP application, I learned that:

  • the County Department of Public Works and Caltrans had recently reviewed Dollar General’s traffic study. Caltrans didn’t make any revisions or have comments or concerns, but the County made some minor revisions. Dollar General is now finalizing the Traffic Study (and may have already done so).
  • the County Planner was about halfway through the Draft Initial Study Checklist (“Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines”). She expected to be finished in 30 to 60 days (est. mid-February to mid-March).  When I contacted her, she was beginning to evaluate General Plan and Community Plan consistency, after which she felt she would have a better idea whether or not an EIR would be required for the project.
  • The Dollar General Project was running a bit behind schedule. Typically, it takes the County 2 to 6 months to issue conditions of approval for CUP applications.  At this rate, the public hearing will be scheduled for some time in March or early April.

REMAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING

Based on conversations with the County, my understanding of CEQA, and a review of the Development Code / CUP processing, there remain several very important opportunities for public involvement.  First and foremost, my advice to concerned citizens is don’t wait until the Public Hearing to voice your concerns and/or raise important questions, unless of course you don’t mind if Dollar General builds a store in Joshua Tree. In my experience, “waiting” for the public hearing to make important comments simply means that important comments are going to get short shrift.  Here’s why:

Imagine yourself…..in the position of a sitting member of the Planning Commission.  You arrived at the table this evening to join your fellow Commission members to make several decisions on projects that have been processed for the last 6 months to several years by the Planning Division.  Ten days prior to this meeting, you were handed (or emailed) a detailed brief documenting 6 months of project planning and decision making by the County Planner in charge of DD LLC’s Dollar General Project, with a summary memo on top in case you don’t have time to read all 20 pages.  The County Planner and Planning Director have also issued their recommendation to approve or deny the project.  That’s just one of six projects on tonight’s agenda, all of which have 20-page attachment briefs that you have read (or not).   That night, two hours in to what seems to be an extraordinarily long meeting, it is Dollar General’s turn to be considered.  The floor is opened to members of the public, and in addition to the 8 to 10 people whose names you recognize for their contributions throughout the process, there are 18 people waiting to speak tonight who have never provided any form of public feedback on the project.  “All of a sudden, you care?” you find yourself thinking.  “Keep an open mind,” you remind yourself, but it’s difficult:  you have only a few days before you must make a final decision on the matter.  You’ve getting pressure from Dollar General, as well as from political “higher-ups” who Dollar General may or may not have taken out to dinner – via private jet – to choose “for” the project.  It’s hard keeping track of how the information provided by these 18 strangers factors into the 20-page brief you were handed by the County Planner ten days ago.  How are you supposed to weigh this emotional stuff against the project record – facts, information, technical studies….and CEQA doesn’t have a category for “most significantly heart-wrenching story.….”.  What would YOU do?

 ****

Following is a short list of the ways in which the public can still participate in and/or influence the decision making related to Dollar General in Joshua Tree:

  • Submit a Comment Letter to the County.  By far, the best way to influence decision making is early on, when planners and decision makers retain some operational flexibility, still have time to influence the trajectory of the project, and still have time to consider whether to and, if so, how best to relay unwelcome news to the applicant.  The earlier that you can make substantive, technical comments based on the relative merits of the proposal and the points of decision making authority, the more you force the applicant to ‘show their hand,’ so to speak.  Yes, by giving your arguments early on, the applicant and County earn more time to generate counter-arguments, trump up contrary data, or hire different expert witnesses / technical consultants, all of which essentially ‘forces the hand’ of the applicant during the public disclosure process.  Ultimately, this is a good thing, making it more likely that you will be the only person with groundbreaking new data at the public hearing:  data that solidly refutes the applicants’ claims of no impact. Note: My next post will cover the types of issues you might want to address in your comment letters, with sample excerpts from actual letters that have been submitted to the County. The address to which letters can be sent is below.[3]
  • Attend A DRC Meeting.  DRC Meetings are held regularly; per the County Development Code, they are required to be open to the public, and notice is required to be given (usually 10 days in advance) “to any individual association, group, or organization that has requested in writing notification of meetings and hearings regarding the specific project or that have caused themselves to be property placed on a mailing list for all DRC agendas.” Note:  these will be highly technical meetings, so if you don’t have input regarding the technical data, (final design, grading plans, turning radii for trucks, how to construct ADA-compliant ramps, and the like, these are probably not the best fit for you).
  • Review / Comment on Draft Initial Study. An “Initial Study” is a checklist tool used to help determine whether a project’s environmental impacts are considered significant under CEQA. An Initial Study document lists numerous categories, or “environmental factors,” ranging from aesthetics to utilities & service systems, beside / underneath each of which are a series of questions. The Planner / Analyst checks one box next to each question, indicating whether the project would have ‘no impact,’ a ‘less than significant’ impact, an impact that will be rendered ‘less than significant after incorporation of mitigation,’ or a ‘potentially significant impact.’ If one or more “potentially significant impact” boxes are checked, an EIR must be prepared.  If, on the other hand, responses are all ‘less than significant’ (with or without mitigation), and the County decides an EIR is not required, they can/will circulate/publicize a Notice of Intent to Adopt a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration, which starts a 20- to 30-day public review period on the Draft Initial Study.[4]  The Notice of Intent is expected to be released between mid-February and mid-March.   Note:  look for content here when the Initial Study is released!  JT Barnstormer will publish a “cheat sheet” breakdown of issues as well as a more detailed discussion of our concerns, questions, and comments, as well as any perceived weaknesses / flaws in the analysis, missing technical information or erroneous information, and areas where “substantial evidence” exists that contradicts the County’s findings. Excerpts from our own response letters will be provided to help you craft your own thoughtful response.  You’ll probably be able to download the Initial Study from the San Bernardino County and JT MAC websites; copies will be made available at various public locations, TBD.  Hard copies can be requested from County Planning (for a nominal fee). After the review period, the County will review any comments received on the Initial Study and prepare responses and/or revise the document accordingly.  If it is determined that an EIR is still not necessary, the Planning Division will submit their recommendations to the Planning Commission and a public hearing will be scheduled and advertised. Note:  if no comments are received during the 30-day review period, the County will recommend approval of DD LLC’s application.
  • Attend a JT-MAC Meeting.  It is unclear to me whether the JT MAC functions as part of the DRC for Joshua Tree projects or the JT MAC offers yet another watchdog / bureaucratic layer above and beyond the DRC.  Hint:  perhaps a generous commenter can educate me regarding how and where the JT MAC fits into the overall CUP processing, in terms of roles and responsibilities and review/meeting schedules. I suspect the JT MAC schedules a local public meeting some time during the 30-day public review period on the Draft Initial Study, giving residents and business owners a chance to discuss the flaws and the technical merits of the proposal; provide general comment and ask general questions; and invite frank discourse relative to the pros and cons of proposed development.  What they do with that information following the meetings, I don’t exactly know.  Please note, however, that this may be another opportunity to voice concerns.
  • Attend the Planning Commission Meeting / Public Hearing. After the Planning Division provides their recommendations, a public hearing will be scheduled before the Planning Commission and all individuals requesting notice of such meetings should receive an announcement with the date, time, and location of the public hearing up to 10 days prior to the actual meeting. Public hearing notice requirements can be found in Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) of the California Government Code; notices must be mailed at least 10 days prior to the meeting. This will very likely be your last opportunity to provide any meaningful feedback to decision makers.  During the public hearing, you will have a chance to stand at the podium and enter (read) your final remarks into the public record.  Depending on a variety of factors (turnout, the time of day, the overall agenda) speakers’ time at the podium may be limited. Prepare your final statements in writing, prior to the public hearing, and time yourself to see how long your comment takes to read. If it’s longer than 5 minutes, you may want to prepare two versions – an abbreviated, to-the-point version as well as the original “full-length” version. Note:  the Planning Commission will be basing their decision to approve / deny applications based on pertinent regulations.  At this juncture, it is critical that you be familiar with the regulatory basis for your opposition, and, if there is one, tailor your responses / comments to speak to those regulations.  I will provide examples in a following post.
  • File an Appeal.  Planning Commission decisions can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors.
  • File a Lawsuit.  The County must file a Notice of Determination within 5 working days (15075(d)) of Planning Commission approval of a project. The Notice of Determination must be posted and available for public inspection for a period of at least 30 days (CEQA Guidelines §15094). Filing a Notice of Determination begins a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to approval. Otherwise, the statute of limitations is 180 days from the date the decision to carry out or approve the project is made, or commencement of the project where no formal approval is required (CEQA Guidelines §15112).

[1] Specifically, page 87.02 of the Development Code states:

For the purpose of this Section, “noncontroversial” shall mean:

(A) That no member of the Development Review Committee objects to the project or any portion of the project;

(B) No specific written request has been received requesting public hearing review of the project from a person notified; and

(C) In the opinion of the Director, there has been no substantial objection to the proposed project from members of the public.

[2] 85.06.040   Findings Required

(a) General findings for all Use Permits (Conditional and Minor). The review authority shall first find and justify that all of the following are true before approving a Conditional Use Permit or Minor Use Permit application.

(1) The site for the proposed use is adequate in terms of shape and size to accommodate the proposed use and all landscaping, loading areas, open spaces, parking areas, setbacks, walls and fences, yards, and other required features pertaining to the application.

(2) The site for the proposed use has adequate access, which means that the site design incorporates appropriate street and highway characteristics to serve the proposed use.

(3) The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse effect on abutting property or the allowed use of the abutting property, which means that the use will not generate excessive noise, traffic, vibration, or other disturbance. In addition, the use will not substantially interfere with the present or future ability to use solar energy systems.

(4) The proposed use and manner of development are consistent with the goals, maps, policies, and standards of the General Plan and any applicable community or specific plan.

(5) There is supporting infrastructure, existing or available, consistent with the intensity of development, to accommodate the proposed development without significantly lowering service levels.

(6) The lawful conditions stated in the approval are deemed reasonable and necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare.

(7) The design of the site has considered the potential for the use of solar energy systems and passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities.

Adopted Ordinance 4011 (2007)

[3] Mail your comment letters to:

  • Heidi Duron, County Planner; San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department / Planning Division; 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, 1st Floor; San Bernardino, CA  92415-0182
  • OR, email your letters to Heidi Duron, hduron@lusd.sbcounty.gov with a ‘cc’ to Alan Rasmussen, arasmussen@sbcounty.gov
  • Refer to the project as follows:  Dynamic Development LLC Proposed Dollar General Store ~ CUP Application for APN 0603-204-04

[4] Negative Declarations.  A lead agency must provide notice of the intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the county clerk of each county within which the proposed project is located (CEQA Guidelines §15072). The county clerk must post the notice within 24 hours of receipt. The notice of intent shall provide a review period of not less than 20 days. When submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, the review period must not be less than 30 days, unless a shorter review period, of not less than 20 days, is approved by the Clearinghouse (Public Resources Code §21091). The lead agency must mail the notice of intent to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested notice and shall also provide notice in at least one of the following ways to allow time for public review consistent with the previously stated time limits:

(a)    Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. If more than one area is affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas;

(b)    Posting of notice on and off-site in the area where the project is to be located; or

(c)    Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of contiguous property shown on the latest equalized assessment roll.

Helping Form the Future: Yucca Valley

Today, the Town of Yucca Valley launched “Open Town Hall”, an on-line forum for civic engagement. The Open Town Hall forum gives the opportunity for the community to offer valuable input on the update to the Town’s General Plan.

Currently, the forum is seeking input for the General Plan Visioning Statement. Readers will be able to see what other residents are saying about the General Plan Vision Statement and post their own individual view on the topic.

The Town of Yucca Valley will use the Open Town Hall forum throughout the General Plan Update process to stimulate a broad base of views and comments. The Town encourages sharing the forum with family, friends and coworkers to participate in sharing ideas, gems of the community, and areas needing improvement. To participate, go to the Town of Yucca Valley’s web site at www.yucca-valley.org, and click on the Open Town Hall icon;  or you can go to the following link.

http://www.yucca-valley.org/departments/gpu_forum.html

Note:  Before posting a statement, every author is required to provide their name and home address to Peak Democracy. Peak Democracy holds this information in strict confidence, per their privacy agreement with users.

What’s Going On

“I’m Right On Top Of That, Rose!”

Raise your hand if you think you’re well-informed about the various development projects slated to be constructed in California’s deserts in the next 5 to 10 years?  Ok, hands down. Now, raise your hand if you think you  grasp the extent (i.e., scope and magnitude) of the desert development scheduled for the next decade.

What if you’re wrong?

Today’s post consists of a fairly robust (but by no means exhaustive) list of California Desert Region projects, plans, and programs that have been approved or are being considered for approval by agencies at the local, state, and/or federal level. Included in the discussion for each listing is an estimate of the scope/magnitude/extent of the proposed development, and, for the active projects, the latest status, how you can get involved, and who to contact for more information. Though I’ll largely be focused on the Dollar General and JT Casino projects from this point forward (though I reserve the right to deviate from your regularly scheduled program every now and again), I encourage you to get involved and stay involved in the local and regional decisionmaking processes. Read the public documents, write thoughtful comment letters, and attend the public meetings and hearings.  One of the primary objectives of CEQA and NEPA is to inform the public and involve the community in local decisionmaking; thus, the way to ymake your voice heard, get your needs met, and  ensure that your conditions of approval are incorporated into the project design, is to participate in the process.

Put another way, I know for a fact that most decisionmakers interpret public silence as agreement; if you object, but fail to speak up, you are complicit.

What’s Going On In The California Desert

Local  and Regional Projects / Plans

Town of Yucca Valley:   The Town of Yucca Valley is going to update their General Plan (estimated to be complete in 2013), a key feature of which will be the proposed alternatives for circulating traffic through the Old Town planning area. Community workshops will be held during the General Plan Update process to solicit input from community members and capture the community’s vision(s) of what Yucca Valley should become in 20 to 30 years. Community input will shape the vision and goals of the General Plan, which, in turn, will shape the future of the community.  Sign up to stay informed, receive upcoming General Plan announcements, events and opportunities to get involved. Fore more information, contact the Community Development Department at: (760) 369-6575.

Dollar General – Yucca Valley Store Location:  In August, the Yucca Valley Planning Commission approved construction of a 12,500-square-foot Dollar General store on a vacant 1.3-acre lot on Twentynine Palms Highway at Hopi Trail. There was no public comment on the proposal or the site plan and California Environmental Quality Act documentation (an initial study checklist) during the meeting.  The CEQA Initial Study Checklist submitted by Dollar General is among the worst I’ve seen during my career, with blatantly false responses to the checklist questions, and what is known in the industry as a “naked checklist” in which few – if any – of the questions are elaborated on to justify the response, and there are few – if any – of the standard mitigation measures designed to limit construction and operations impacts.  For shame, Yucca Valley. For shame.

South Side Neighborhood Community Park:  Yucca Valley is proposing to develop a phased, multi-purpose neighborhood/ community park on 37.75 acres located at the northwest corner of Joshua Lane and Warren Vista Avenue over “multiple years.”   South Side Park would include approximately 10 acres of multi-use athletic fields; 3 acres of playground and picnic areas, including tot lots; informal open space; a splash pad/water play improvements; an approximate 1.5 acre dog park; restroom and concession buildings; approximately 2 acres of vehicle parking; an approximate 1 acre native plant garden; sand volleyball courts; an approximately 5,000 square foot maintenance building; a frisbee golf course; walking and exercise trails; a minimum 2-acre undisturbed area; and ancillary park improvements including field lighting; parking lot lighting; access and maintenance roads; hardscape and sidewalk improvements; picnic and shade shelters; barbecues; horseshoe and shuffleboard areas; jogging and exercise courses and related improvements. An Initial Study supporting a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been released for public review and will be available for review until January 23, 2012. The project will be considered for approval at the Planning Commission Hearing on January 24, 2012, at 6 pm. For more information, contact Robert Kirschmann, Associate Planner, at (760) 369-6575 x328.

Residential Projects in Yucca Valley:  Numerous private residential development projects that have been approved in the last 10 years are listed on Yucca Valley’s website, along with copies of tentative tract maps.  Additional review may be necessary in the event that one or more of the older projects moves forward, as existing conditions have changed since the projects were approved and the regulatory environment has changed considerably.

City of Twentynine Palms: The City of Twentynine Palms is nearing the completion of their General Plan Update.  Several solar projects, including SEPV2 – a 2 MW PV solar facility – and SEPV8 – a 12 MW solar facility – were approved in 2011.  Solar projects near the City limits, such as SEPV9 – only 1.5 miles outside the City boundaries – remain in questionable status, though SECP Development Company received a Conditional Use Permit to establish the 100 MW solar PV power generating facility on 560 acres  (APN 0592-251-01-0000) after an Initial Study was prepared for the project.

Cadiz Groundwater Project:  Forbes dubbed it “the Zombie Water Project” because it was left for dead in 2002, when Metropolitan Water District, the CEQA lead agency, rejected it. A decade later, it rises from the grave.  The Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project is located in San Bernardino County between Cadiz and Rice, California. Underlying Cadiz Inc.’s private landholdings just south of the Mojave National Preserve is a natural aquifer system that is roughly equivalent in capacity to Lake Mead, the nation’s largest surface reservoir. The aquifer acts as an underground “lake,” and a good deal of water that reaches the aquifer ends up just below ground surface, where it evaporates.  The project would “capture”  or “mine” the water “lost” through evaporation and deliver it to water providers in southern California; in addition, the project would establish a  groundwater banking project for storing water in the aquifer during wet years.  Project opponents have voiced concerns that the project removes more groundwater than it or nature recharges, with detrimental effects on surface springs and ephemeral water in desert lake beds. Others are concerned that lowering groundwater levels will cause dust storms similar to what is occurring at Owens Lake.

The draft environmental impact report was released in December 2011 and will be open for public comment until February 13, 2012. Two comment meetings will be held regarding the scope, content, and analysis in the DEIR:  Tuesday, January 24 at 6:00 p.m. at SMWD offices and Wednesday, February 1 at 6:00 p.m. at the Joshua Tree Community Center. Send written comments on the DEIR to Tom Barnes, ESA.  For more information, e-mail cadizproject@smwd.com.

Rice Solar Energy Project: Approved by the California Energy Commission in December 2010 and one of nine large-scale solar projects approved by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar in December 2011, the Rice Project is a 150 MW Solar Energy Project that will be constructed east of Twentynine Palms and south of Highway 62, on 1,410 acres of “previously disturbed private land” in Riverside County, with 8 miles (154 acres) of transmission lines across public (BLM) lands.  The project will utilize a Solar Thermal Power Tower with molten salt storage that can sapture solar energy and deliver power to the grid even after sunset, producing electricity to power 45,000 to 112,500 homes.  The project will generate up to 450 jobs during peak construction periods and 50 permanent jobs.

Other Nearby Desert Region Solar Projects:  In addition to the Rice Solar Energy Project, the CEC and Department of the Interior approved other large-scale solar projects in 2011, including the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm that will be constructed on 4,165 acres of public (BLM) lands in Riverside County, east of Palm Springs.  Desert Sunlight is a 550 MW thin film PV project that will generate electricity to power  over 165,000 homes and create 645 total jobs.  Abengoa Mojave Solar in San Bernardino County, north of Highway 58 and northwest of Barstow, is a 250 MW parabolic trough project that will be constructed on 1,765 acres of private, previously-disturbed lands (fallow agriculture), with 85 miles of transmission lines, 17 miles of which will cross public (BLM) lands. Abengoa will generate enough electricity to power 75000 to 187,500 homes and will create 830 jobs during construction and 60 permanent jobs.   Other large-scale approved projects are located in Imperial County, San Diego County, and Maricopa County (4,000 acres).

A decision on the 2011 Palen Solar Project is still pending by the Department of the Interior.  Palen Solar would consist of two identical 250 MW concentrated solar thermal plants.  Palen would be constructed 10 miles east of Desert Center along I-10, about halfway between Indio and Blythe in Riverside County, creating up to 1,145 jobs during peak construction.  An application has been filed with BLM for a right-of-way (ROW) grant of approximately 5,200 acres.

Of the priority 2012 projects located in California’s Desert Region,  the McCoy Solar Energy Project would be located in Riverside County, on about 7,700 acres of BLM land and 470 acres of private lands located about 13 miles northwest of Blythe.  A 16 mile generation tie-in line would be needed to tie the project to SoCal Edison’s infrastructure.  McCoy would power 225,000 homes and employ 600 workers during peak construction and 13 to 20 during operations.  The Desert Harvest Solar Farm would be located 6 miles north of Desert Center in Riverside County, on 1,280 acres of private lands.  The 150 MW project would power 45,000 homes and employ up to 300 workers.  Calico Solar, a 664 MW project that would be constructed on 4,604 acres of public (BLM) land, would be located in San Bernardino County, 37 miles east of Barstow, just north of I-40.  To stay informed, visit http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/energy/fasttrack.html

Regional Multi-state and Federal Plans / Programs

Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) / Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZs):   Of the 32 Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZs) identified in California, two are local – the Iron Mountain CREZ (~40,000 acres) and the Twentynine Palms CREZ (~18,256 acres). The Iron Mountain CREZ has an estimated capacity of 4,800 MW solar thermal and 62 MW wind, for a total 4,862 MW, but it ranked 32 of 32 (last) in terms of affordability (average weighted cost per MW). The Twentynine Palms CREZ has an estimated capacity of 1,805 MW solar thermal and ranked 17 of 32 (with 1 being best) in affordability. Currently, there are 6 solar projects or proposals in the Twentynine Palms CREZ (SEPV2, SEPV8, SEPV9, 29 Palms PV, Wonder Valley PV, and Cascade Solar – some of which are described above) and one in the Iron Mountain CREZ.

BLM’s Solar Energy Development ProgramBLM prepared a Draft Solar PEIS that evaluates utility-scale solar energy development in six southwestern states, Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.  A subset of the lands that would be available for ROW application under the Solar Energy Development Program Alternative would be identified as SEZs (i.e., areas with few impediments to utility-scale production of solar energy where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development). The Riverside East Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) is still under consideration (October 2011 Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS) along the I-10 near Desert Center, between Blythe and Indio, though 43,439 acres were eliminated from the NW portion of the SEZ and 11,547 acres identified as non-development areas to minimize environmental impacts.  The Iron Mountain SEZ, proposed near Rice, California, was eliminated from further consideration.  The public comment period for the Supplement to the Draft Solar Programmatic EIS (Draft Solar PEIS) began on October 28, 2011 and will close on January 27, 2012. Responses to comments received on the Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS, as well as to comments received on the Draft Solar PEIS, will be included in the Final PEIS. Five public meetingswere held during this period. Transcripts and materials from the meetings will be made available through the Solar PEIS website soon after the meetings are completed.

Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (RECP): The DRECP will facilitate and streamline the approval and permitting of renewable energy projects in the Desert Region and serve as the basis for one or more Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). Projects will include large-scale solar thermal, solar PV, wind, and associated infrastructure / transmission. Covered species include Mojave monkeyflower, Arroyo toad, desert tortoise, burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Mojave ground squirrel, and bighorn sheep. Agencies intend to complete the DRECP by June 1, 2012.

California Desert Protection Act of 2011 (CDPA) (S.138):  Introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in January 2011, the CDPA would preserve approximately 1.6 million acres of public lands, create two new National Monuments, expand Joshua Tree and Death Valley National Parks and the Mojave National Preserve, and establish new wilderness areas and wild and scenic river segments throughout Southern California. The bill would also preserve historic trails, Native American cultural areas, and portions of Old US 66.  The CDPA of 2011 would create the e 941,000-acre Mojave Trails National Monument and the Sand to Snow National Monument, which includes the Big Morongo Canyon Preserve, a local area with outstanding biodiversity and recreational opportunities. Big Morongo Canyon Preserve has been designated as a National Watchable Wildlife Site and is a world-class bird-watching destination due to the impressive diversity (almost 250 species) of both migratory and resident birds. The Canyon’s year-round stream flow is a critical water source for many of the desert bighorn sheep whose home range includes Big Morongo Canyon Preserve and Joshua Tree National Park.

On January 31, 2012, there will be a Community Meeting to update residents about the CDPA and the Sand to Snow National Monument.  The meeting will be held at Morongo Valley Elementary School, 10951 Hess Blvd, from 6:30 to 8:30 pm.  For more information, visit Morongo Valley News.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whew!   wish I could say that that was all that is going on in the desert, but of course I’ve left out the two projects that most interest the community of Joshua Tree. Tune in next time for the lo-down on the lo-dez tribe behind the Casino proposal, and check back tomorrow for some late-breaking updates on Dollar General and their ongoing plot to take over the world, one piece of crap Chinese export at a time…..

Location, Location, Location……

Somebody is getting a little bit ahead of themselves. A recent google search for news related to the local Dollar General proposal yielded the following store listings from Dad’s Cat Food, which can allegedly be purchased from any one of seven conveniently-located Dollar General stores in southeastern California…

Dad must have a time machine, because to my knowledge, no such stores have been built yet; at least one of them (Joshua Tree) is still subject to evaluation under CEQA as well as Planning Commission review for adherence to conditions of approval – prior to approval.

DAD'S Cat Food Store Locator

DOLLAR GENERAL STORE
1323 W. RAMSEY ST.
BANNING, CA 92220
Directions
CA
DOLLAR GENERAL STORE
NWC 29 PALMS HIGWAY AND SUNBUR
JOSHUA TREE, CA 92252
Directions
CA
DOLLAR GENERAL STORE
NWC 29 PALM HIGHWAY AND HOPI T
YUCCA VALLEY, CA 92284
Directions
CA
DOLLAR GENERAL STORE
NAVAJO STREET
APPLE VALLEY, CA 92308
Directions
CA
DOLLAR GENERAL STORE
NWQ BARSTOW RD
BARSTOW, CA 92311
Directions
CA
DOLLAR GENERAL STORE
NEC PALMDALE RD AND DEL GACO
VICTORVILLE, CA 92392
Directions
CA
DOLLAR GENERAL STORE
6790 WINTON WAY
WINTON, CA 95388
Directions
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“This is retail!” indeed.

MARKET STORE MANAGER/ Management Team – Colton, CA New Store – new

Dollar General Corp. – California

MARKET STORE MANAGER/ Management Team – Colton, CA New Stores! Description This is retail! Dollar… 1 to 2 years grocery store management and 5 years…

Dollar General Corp. – 24 days ago – save job – block – email – more…

MARKET STORE MANAGER/ Management Team – Hilmar, CA New Store – new

Dollar General Corp. – California

MARKET STORE MANAGER/ Management Team – Hilmar, CA New Stores! Description This is retail! Dollar… 1 to 2 years grocery store management and 5 years…

Dollar General Corp. – 24 days ago – save job – block – email – more…

MARKET STORE MANAGER/ Management Team – Merced, CA New Store – new

Dollar General Corp. – California

MARKET STORE MANAGER/ Management Team – Merced, CA New Stores! Description This is retail! Dollar… 1 to 2 years grocery store management and 5 years…

Dollar General Corp. – 24 days ago – save job – block – email – more…

MARKET STORE MANAGER/ Management Team – Victorville, CA New… – new

Dollar General Corp. – California

MARKET STORE MANAGER/ Management Team – Victorville, CA New Stores! Description This is retail! Dollar… 1 to 2 years grocery store management and 5 years…

Dollar General Corp. – 24 days ago – save job – block – email – more…

Welcome to the Jungle

An interesting letter is being circulated amongst Joshua Tree townfolk....

Joshua Tree, California, is a remote unincorporated community in the Mojave Desert of San Bernardino County with a 2010 census population of approximately 7.414. Like the Town of Yucca Valley to the west and the City of Twentynine Palms to the east, Joshua Tree is bisected by State Route 62 (SR-62), the San Bernardino County portion of which is eligible (but not designated) for the State Scenic Highway System (only the 9-mile-portion of SR-62 in Riverside County is officially designated as scenic).

Joshua Tree is the gateway to the National Park that bears its name, making tourism a major – in fact, the major – industry, and the locals who inhabit this sleepy town don’t cotton well to strangers, especially those barging into town expecting to “save” it from it’s sleepy self by paving half of it. The desert is a harsh mistress, and the sturdy “Hi-Dez” residents are quite self-sufficient, thank you very much. They don’t need saving. (Certain Visitors, on the other hand, have been known to underestimate the desert environs and get their rented SUVs stuck fast in ankle-deep sand not five miles outside of town, so it might behoove them to keep their opinions about “ignorant,” “small-minded,” “NIMBYist,” “enviro-wackos” to themselves, at least until they’re safely back in Texas, or wherever the hell it is they came from.)

But I digress.

Regionally, development is concentrated along the SR-62 commercial corridor in Yucca Valley and Twenty-nine Palms, the main population centers in Morongo Basin. In the less populated unincorporated areas, where, historically, development has been limited, recent proposals have been shelved temporarily or abandoned altogether for a variety of reasons, financial insolvency chief among them. The exceptions to this latter trend will be the focus of this blog for the foreseeable future.

Potable water for the community of Joshua Tree is supplied entirely by groundwater from the local aquifer, which has been overdrafted by 47,000 acre-feet (AF) since 1950. “Natural” recharge is not believed to be occurring; rather, replenishment of the groundwater system is taking place through discharge from septic systems, which will, over time, increase nitrate and other mineral concentrations beyond maximum allowable levels, requiring more intensive water treatment. Future water demand is projected to increase over the next 25 years, which will cause further overdraft. In addition to impaired water quality, a decrease in water levels over time means that wells will need to be drilled deeper and increased emissions and higher energy costs will result from pumping and treating less-accessible, contaminated water.

Joshua Basin Water District (JBWD) has an agreement with the Mojave Water Agency (MWA) that entitles it to 1,959 acre-feet annually (AFA) of State Water Project water until the year 2022, delivered via the Morongo Pipeline. As part of their long-term planning, JBWD is constructing a groundwater recharge project in Joshua Tree that will receive up to 1,959 AFA of State Water Project water through a new 24,000-linear-foot-extension of the Morongo Pipeline. The Morongo Pipeline terminates at Yucca Mesa Road; JBWD will extend it southward to SR-62, east along the north side of SR-62 to Sunset Road, north along Sunset Road to Commercial Avenue, then east to a new 32.5-acre recharge basin. The JBWD Recharge Project will help alleviate the overdraft condition by replenishing the groundwater basin, increase regional water supply reliability, and enable JBWD to receive the imported water to which it is entitled.

In total, the environmental review process for this project lasted approximately 4 years. JBWD completed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for the Recharge Project in 2010 and, because the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided funding, completed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process in February 2011 (an Environmental Assessment to support a Finding of No Significant Impact [FONSI] ). The project was determined to have a less than significant impact with incorporation of mitigation for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use/agriculture/recreation, and traffic/circulation. Biological resources impacts necessitated Endangered Species Act compliance at the state and federal levels and JBWD received permits and approvals from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2011.

And……well…..so what?

I realize that, to many of you, this discussion presents a lot of jolly-confusing jillywhompus jibberish jargon and the real question on your minds is, naturally: so what?

Following are several key take-home messages:

1. If “CEQA” is new to you, sit down. We’ve got some work to do.

Becoming familiar with the environmental review and approval processes, most notably CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act), is critical for anyone who wants to influence development trends and land use decision making and/or defeat one or more of the upcoming development projects. Take a class or two from one of your local experts and start reading policy primers (I will include a sidebar here shortly with recommended reading) and before you know it you’ll be finding grounds for any number of lawsuits based on weak CEQA documentation or failure to adhere to the CEQA process.

2. Learn to write a letter with teeth, THEN bite.

Letter-writing campaigns are often the first line of defense for opposition groups because they’re easy, fast, and cheap, but keep in mind that a poorly-written, overly emotional, vaguely threatening, and/or mis-informed letter can sometimes do more harm than good. The last thing you want to do is annoy or alienate the very person you’re trying to reach. Let’s not make this rookie error.

Pop Quiz: Which of these letters would you be more likely to finish reading:

A] Dear sir or madam; Your project is evil and I hate it.
B] Dear sir or madam; The project consists of 10 buildings scattered across 100 acres; the County should consider an alternative that minimizes the collective footprint and decreases the number of buildings by half.

Okay, I’ll admit it: letter “A” sounds juicier, in an asylum kind of way, but letter “B” would turn more professional heads. A well-written letter gets read when it has something to say and sticks to the facts. A well-written letter gets results when it points out the weaknesses and flaws in a process or proposal; suggests new or alternative measures that minimize environmental impacts; and suggests alternative project designs, project sites, project locations, and/or alternative project types for the lead agency to consider. This blog will share “real life” comment letters that will demonstrate how to address the big picture issues using real world examples….as well as how not to.

3. Be specific, be persistent, and be persistent (and redundant).

CEQA is a public disclosure process, but of the hundred or so public agencies I’ve evaluated, only a handful are proactive and inclusive in their approach to public outreach. The vast majority of agencies do only what is required by law, the absolute bare minimum, unless and until someone takes notice and/or says something. So, say something. Speak up. Let the decision makers know you know. That’s step one.

San Bernardino County, Yucca Valley, and Twentynine Palms each had a proposed Dollar General store application pass through their Planning Departments simultaneously. Each entity provided the exact same level of notice to the adjacent property owners per their noticing requirements, and each entity allowed the same amount of time to pass between noticing the property owners and making a final decision on the project. The ONLY difference between the three instances was this: when they heard of the proposal, the Joshua Tree community members spoke up, while the property owners in Yucca Valley and Twentynine Palms did not. Based on my conversations with County staff, the fact that dozens of people sent letters and/or emails to the County regarding the Dollar General application is what prompted the County to hold an impromptu public meeting on the application, and the public response that followed in the wake of that meeting is what elevated it from a Minor Use Permit to a Conditional Use Permit necessitating Planning Commission approval.

I’ve said it before (and will say again and again), but it bears repeating: CEQA sets a “low threshold” for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (No 0il Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974)13 Cal.3d 68, 84.), and in marginal cases, an EIR must be prepared if there is a “serious public controversy” or a “disagreement between experts” concerning the environmental effects of a project (CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(1),(2). Between you and me, this is the short-term goal for the Dollar General project in Joshua Tree, to become educated enough about the project that an EIR can be technically justified. I’ll discuss why next week.

Step two: get informed/stay informed. The rules of thumb to asking for information are be specific, be persistent, and be persistent (aka redundant). It’s best and safest to ask for what you want repeatedly than to assume you’ll get it eventually just because you asked for it once. Recall that the developer fees pay the County staff salaries: the lead agency doesn’t have to make it easy for you to get information; and the developer doesn’t want to make it easy for you to get information. The lead agency will often require you to come in person to pick up and pay cash for the copies you request. Don’t let that put you off! Be committed to the process, or find someone who is willing to do the legwork for you and disseminate copies to the interested community members back home.

The County anticipates that the Dollar General project will go before the Planning Commission in February 2012. (I think it will be more like March, or even later, given where the County is in the overall process – again, I’ll go over this next week.) If you want to be personally notified of the date of that meeting before it occurs, and you haven’t done so already, send Heidi Duron an email or letter that includes something like this:

Dear Heidi, I would like to stay informed of your progress on the proposed Dollar General project in Joshua Tree, California, and receive all project-related notices and announcements, including advance notice of the upcoming Planning Commission hearing that will be held in the spring. Please add my name, email, and mailing address to the project distribution and announcement list. Sincerely [insert your full name, mailing address, and email address here]”

Thank you for visiting the JT Barnstormer. I hope you come back for next week’s discussion of the Dollar General and Casino proposals. Between now and then, if you have any questions, suggestions, or comments, leave them in the box and I’ll respond as I’m able.

Cheers.