|
| |
LVEDA'S SUMMARY OF MAJOR LUCERNE VALLEY ISSUES
Following are our notes (in bold italics) from our 10/26/10 LVEDA/First District
meeting that Dawn arranged.
NOTE: STATUS AS OF 2/11/11 – IN CAPS.
Chuck Bell and Richard Selby.
*Impact of “High Desert Corridor Project” on Lucerne/Johnson/Morongo Valleys.
The Corridor’s eastern terminus ends at Joshua Rd. in Apple Valley. Its 4 to 6
lanes -
dumping traffic on 2 lane Hwy 18 (with a significant ADT increase in both
directions due
to the Corridor’s link between I-14 and the I-10) will create congestion and
safety
hazards on Hwys 18, 247 and 62. This is a “trade corridor” that has to be
addressed in its
entirety. LVEDA’S position: The best long-term solution would be to incorporate
improvements to these eastern segments in the planning and funding for the High
Desert
Corridor project. Without said planning and a financing link to the project, the
Corridor EIR’s “off-site” analysis for these eastern segments will have to show
“a
significant, adverse environmental impact” that will be difficult or impossible
to
ignore with “findings of overriding consideration”. The EIR will likely be
challenged.
Per Laurie Hunter: "There is a 63 mile EIR underway, but completion of an EIR
does not lead into construction until there is money available. A Public Private
Partnership is planned for only the segment between SR 14 in Palmdale and I-15
in Victorville. There are no constituencies asking for funding into Lucerne
Valley. With hundred billion dollar shortage in transportation funds nationally,
and no money available from bonds or the STIP at the state level, there will be
no funding to build to the SR 18 for decades". LVEDA is aware of funding
shortages - doesn't expect construction in the near term - however the EIR is a
critical document that sets the stage for development - it must deal with and
mitigate all project impacts east of its "boundary" - and we need to think
long-term and show our concern in order to have future legal standing. We have
asked "for funding into Lucerne Valley" to be included as part of the project.
2/11: NO ADDITIONAL RESPONSE/ACTION.
*Numerous solar/wind projects: Cumulative effects of which will dilute the
integrity of our land-use configuration and Community Plan. LVEDA has commented
on every project. County Planning has provided us a map of known projects on
private and BLM land. We are drafting an "energy element" for our community plan
- with siting criteria applicable to our environment. We need County overview to
help us deal with the "whole" - not get buried in the "parts". Waiting for
response from First District. Per Andy: “Projected costs could range from $30k
to 60k”. But we're not looking for a new "zoning plan" - only siting criteria to
be used by staff and us in evaluating project types and locations - which can be
added to our community plan at minimal costs - especially if we draft it to help
staff. To be subject of future meeting.
2/11: ONLY SUMMARILY DISCUSSED AT 1/13/11 MEETING. LUAC/LVEDA TO UTILIZE
INTERNAL SITING CRITERIA IN RESPONSE TO INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS – AS OF NOW – NOT
INCORPORATE INTO LV COM PLAN. WILL SEND SAID CRITERIA LIST TO LUSD JUST FOR ITS
INFO..
*LVEDA commented extensively on the Chevron Solar project - on BLM land east of
town. LVEDA "protested" BLM's approval. LVEDA's protest was trumped by the Dept.
of Interior's "fast-track" approval - circumventing the conventional BLM process
- nothing County can do about it.
2/11: OUR “SOLUTIONS” TO CORRECT “FAST TRACKING” SENT TO DOI (TITLED: “NOTES TO
MEETING” NPCA) – CC:ed COUNTY – HOPING COUNTY WOULD ADOPT. NO RESPONSE
*LVEDA submitted comments on Granite Wind EIS/EIR (BLM and County jurisdiction).
Requesting a meeting at LVEDA prior to decision. Granite Wind agreed to meeting
in early 2011.
2/11: HELD UP BY BLM DUE TO EAGLES.
*NextEra's solar PV project in n. Valley going thru County review. Asked County
for status - no response. Dawn provided list of on-going projects and respective
planners. We will ask Doug F. for update per requests from n. Valley residents.
2/11: DOUG PREVIOUSLY RESPONDED. APPARENTLY NO NEW STATUS.
*Edison Mission's 2 PV solar projects (Now "First Solar"): The "Strawberry Peak"
site s. of Hwy 18 west of Rabbit Dry Lake proceeding under County review. The
Rabbit Springs Rd./Barstow Rd. site currently "on hold".
2/11: NO NEW STATUS – APPARENTLY SEEKING UTILITY CONTRACT?
*AB 32 gives the state authority to treat CO2 as a "pollutant" - which can't end
well with our dysfunctional legislature and enforcement agencies (ie: Air
Resources Bd.). The "cap and trade" concept can work when certain resources
become limited -such as groundwater adjudication - but not with CO2 that comes
from natural sources - including we humans! First Dist./Brad has taken strong
opposition position - (appreciated).
2/11: CALIF VOTERS DID NOT RESCIND – MAJOR PROBLEM FOR LOCAL CEMENT, ETC.
INDUSTRY.
*AB 811: Waiting (long time) for County action which allows property owners
loans for home solar - repaid via prop. tax bills. Per Robert: On hold - no
County plans for widespread use - no funding (either gen. fund or bonds).
Certainly not likely to be implemented in next 2 years - County not really
interested due to up front costs. Residents can "do on their own - using
stimulus or rebate $".
2/11: NO CHANGE IN COUNTY POSITION?
*A declining economy - that affects our very survival as a functioning
community. Related to future permit/processing meeting - and possibly any County
small business programs that might work in LV.
2/11: LVEDA DRAFTED “ECON. TO DO LIST” – SENT TO COUNTY – NEEDS COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT AND COUNTY HELP (EDA’S MARY JANE ATTENDED LVEDA MEETING).
*Effects of the Feinstein "Monument" Act (S2921) - and the Marine Base expansion
into LV and JV: The "Monument" Act only protects the integrity of the portion of
the JV OHV area not consumed by the military expansion.
The bill doesn’t “protect” those “joint military/OHV use” portions of the JV OHV
area that the Marines – once training started on the ground – could eventually
decide were necessary for full-time use – thus becoming “closed to the public”.
LVEDA is requesting the County and Cong. Lewis to deal with this issue if and
when Congress makes a decision on the expansion. Weekend OHV traffic is a
significant economic benefit to our struggling town businesses. Gerry Hillier
updated this at last LVEDA meeting. Per Robert: County "asked for a 2:1
mitigation" to replace any lost OHV area with new locations. (Our perspective -
that's not likely to get approval due to few locations remaining that are not
tied up with solar/wind projects - already in wilderness/other protective
designations via WMP etc. - if too distant won't do LV's economy any good - plus
always the threat of litigation opposing any new OHV area). Apparently DOD no
longer considers "joint use" as an option (which is our concern). We all agree -
DOD could start off with "joint use" plan to make everyone feel good - then
revert to "DOD use only" later. That's why we need Brad and Gerry's pressure on
Cong. Lewis.
2/11: S. FEINSTEIN RE-INTRODUCED IT – LVEDA STILL CONCERNED RE: ABOVE ISSUES –
ANY COUNTY ACTION W/LEWIS, ETC.??
*Illegal grading/de-brushing of parcels with numerous reported violations over
the years - with no County enforcement. Hopefully a subject at future meeting
re: permit/process issues. The Mojave Desert RCD sent some "Illegal
Land-Scraping" brochures it and MDAQMD prepared to the First Dist. - and gave a
stack to CE (which said it didn't need any more). Andy will work with MDAQMD
(Alan) re: possibly covering printing costs so County can distribute - no $
available from gen. fund. The RCD can taylor brochures for County Fire, CE, B/S,
Planning etc. - specific to their respective needs.
2/11: PER 1/13/11 “PERMIT/PROCESS MEETING” – COUNTY SEEMS UNWILLING/UNABLE? TO
ENFORCE. 2000 MORE MDRCD BROCHURES PRINTED – PAID FOR BY MDAQMD – SOME AVAILABLE
TO COUNTY.
*MAJOR ISSUE FOR US: Unresolved County water hauling policy. Denial of water
hauling and building permits to new development - a disaster to our outlying
residents with no or poor groundwater sources. This is more than just a "water
issue" - it is a "property right taking". LVEDA and our eastern neighbors have
made numerous written and verbal requests for a County fix - for a copy of the
official "policy" - demanding the County to confine the requirement to "legal
source and legal hauling only". The State only "recommends no hauling". No real
County response - no matter how much we request. Likely no choice but asking for
legal help from a public interest law firm. Per Robert: Depts. met about 3 weeks
ago. Sup. Derry's position has not changed - "wells only" for any new res. dev.
Chuck's discussion with Sup. Derry indicated he was under the impression the
State DPH "mandated no hauling" - but which State documents indicate is only a
"strong recommendation". The State only requires "legal haulers" - (which we
support). Currently the County's only stated "policy" is the Dev. Code's section
"referring water hauling" authorization to EHS. The currently practiced "no
haul" policy seems to be nothing more than an internal EHS position - not vetted
by official County action. We asked that this "go back to Brad" - to be
recognized as a "property right taking" with no logical purpose since "health
and safety" can be enforced under existing regs. Whatever the County is going to
do with it - it needs to be institutionalized via Bd. of Sup. action - with CEQA
compliance. We need "written rules" - not applicants being "told" at the front
counter that they can't get a building permit w/o a well just because of a
confusing internal dept. position.
2/11: WAITING FOR WRITTEN POLICY FROM EHS – AS AGREED TO AT 1/13/11 MEETING.
FINALLY RECEIVED – NO CHANGE TO POLICY.
*County's "500lb/trash load" limitation: At our transfer station (with no scales
to verify weights, creating more trips (traffic and pollution), ending the
practice of combined loads from multiple households, etc. Just another
government dictate with no rational forsight - creating problems for residents
and transfer station staff - likely inducing more dumping in the desert. Per
Dawn: Likely comes from some State regulation or recommendation. Transfer
stations will continue as before (no scales to weigh loads anyway) - only
restrict obvious "commercial" loads.
2/11: SEEMS TO BE THE PRACTICE – COUNTY SOLID WASTE AND BURRTEC HELPING TO MAKE
TRANSFER STATIONS MORE ACCOMMODATING – HOPEFULLY REDUCING ILLEGAL DUMPING.
*County's change to the OHV Ordinance: Making sure that more allowance of
"staging" on private land won't make it more difficult-to-enforce OHV trespass
on our properties. Robert to send us info. re: complaints to Sher. Dept. and CE
- but no real indication that the ordinance's revision has caused increased
trespass.
2/11: CONTINUED OHV “TREPASS” – BUT LIKELY NOT RELATED TO CHANGE IN ORDINANCE.
SHERIFF’S DEPT. WANTS INSTANCES CALLED IN FOR ITS “LOG” – EVEN IF CAN’T RESPOND
– SO CAN ID “PROBLEM AREAS” FOR ENFORCEMENT.
*County land-use permitting problems: We were making headway with some
resolution - had meetings - but now stalled due to resignations/problems/reduced
funding, etc. within County Land-Use Services Dept. Will re-start process. Needs
First Dist. support. Next meeting.
2/11: MET 1/13/11. (SEE SEPARATE NOTES RE: STATUS).
*Code Enforcement: With Burrtec and volunteer help - plus a warrant obtained by
CE - finally removed the abandoned mobile home on Barstow Rd. n. of town. CE has
"promised" us that its new "administrative" process will reduce court
requirements and they can act faster on the major health/safety violations. We
certainly hope so - numerous violations not dealt with. Next meeting.
2/11: NEED TO MEET WITH CE RE: OPTIONS.
*Status of water/sewer grant applications: Waiting for Special Districts in
inform us of status of Props. 84 and 50 full grant $ allocations. Nolte
Engineering drafted the applications submitted by the County. Per Jeff R.:
Rankings of our applications for Prop. 50 and 84 funding not yet posted. Jeff to
check with James Owens of Nolte Eng. to see if he has recent info. - and with
Charlie Boone (if not retired) re: our USDA (rural community) application. The
USDA grant option is for a water system link among the schools, County, market
and Center Water Co. - probably a 1/2 grant/loan - thus not likely affordable by
the parties due to current economics - and maybe shouldn't be pursued at this
time - since all said water systems are currently functional.
2/11: PER NOLTE ENG. AND SD (ORAVETS): “SEWER” APPS. NOT FILED. WOULD LIKELY GET
“LOW” RANKING ANYWAY SINCE NITRATE “PRE-EMPTION” NOT RANKED AS HIGH AS
“REMEDIATION” – (GOTTA HAVE POLLUTION PROBLEM FIRST). USDA LOAN FOR SYSTEMS
CONSOLIDATION WAS NOT PROCESSED – COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE NECESSARY “COLLATERAL”.
MAY STILL BE NEWS RE: PROP. 84 “PRE-APS” TO STATE DHS FOR CONSOLIDATIONS.
SUCCESS UNLIKELY THIS GO-AROUND.
*Utility Undergrounding along commercial strip: Worked with County Special
Districts and SCE to issue another notice that better explains the project to
land-owners to change their easements from overhead to underground. Special
Districts and/or SCE to personally contact prop. owners in October? 2 letters
with forms sent to commercial property owners from Custer Rd. east to Fire
Stations - one from SCE - the other from LVEDA and MAC. Only 6 or so have
responded. Latest info. from Pam at Special Districts: SCE to hire retired
employee to personally contact every property owner re: exchanging the overhead
powerline easement (elec. and phone) to underground. SCE has shifted employees
which might slow the process. Jeff to check with Pam re: status. If SCE won't
make contacts - we will. Richard requested Jeff to agendize this for the Nov.
MAC meeting.
2/11: CSA 29 (REESE) WORKING W/SCE AND SD – AGENDIZED FOR PENDING MAC MEETING.
WE MEET W/SCE AND SD 3/10/11.
*Caltrans/County road improvements: Making slow headway - some projects done -
some way behind schedule. We will continue to work directly with SANBAG/Caltrans/County
Trans. - but will need First Dist. help.
2/11: LVEDA’S “ROAD LIST” TO BE UPDATED SOON – SEND OUT FOR RESPONSE.
*Mojave Ground Squirrel: Need County help to fight Department of Fish and Game's
requirement to mitigate for the squirrel - which beyond a doubt isn't present in
Lucerne Valley. If DFG succeeds - terrible precedent - every project in LV on
any parcel with any vegetation could get hit with it - which is only resolved by
a very expensive trapping in the spring - another hit on our economics. Chevron
Solar still opposing the need to mitigate. Need First Dist. to help oppose.
2/11: NO RESPONSE. STATUS??
|
