- Draft Renewable Energy and Conservation Element (RECE)
Community Plan Workshop (Land-Use Map)
- SB Co. Govt. Center - 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., 1st Floor, SB
- Burke Co. Govt. Center, 6427 White Feather Rd., Joshua Tree
Read MBCA's editorial published in the Hi Desert Star on October 29, 2016. It describes the problems with the County Supervisors' decision about the Altamira Housing Development and the lawsuit that has been filed by Joshua Tree residents.
- Eagle Crest Pumped Storage Transmission Line Alert
Please read this important alert provided by MBCA Board member Seth Shteir. MBCA loves our National Park and this issue is critical for the healthy future of the Park.Read more
Tuesday, September 27 - San Bernardino County Supervisors voted 3-2 to deny the appeal, thereby approving the Altamira Housing project to go forward.
The 2 votes for the appeal, therefore against the project, were District 3 Supervisor James Ramos and District 1 Supervisor Robert Lovingood.
Read MBCA's September 12, 2016 submission to the Hi Desert Star "Guest Soapbox"about the Altamira appeal.
In April 2016, San Bernardino County District 3 Supervisor James Ramos appointed the San Bernardino County Dark Sky Committee (SBCDSC) to interact with the County about its lighting regulations and code, in consideration of the need of dark skies to maintain both lifestyle and the tourism economy in the Desert and Mountain regions of the County.
Three MBCA Board members are part of this Committee: Pat Flanagan, Seth Shteir, and Laraine Turk.
As of October 2016, the Committee has worked with Joshua Tree National Park and the International Dark Sky Association as the Park pursues a Dark Sky Park designation from IDA. The Committee will also be involved in the Park's Night Sky Festival on October 28-30, 2016.
REPORT ON THE SUPERVISORS' HEARING ON YV105 LLP, AKA THE ALTAMIRA HOUSING PROJECT
Supervisors Meeting September 13, 1016
Action Recorded on the Altamira Issue
This is a summary of what happened during the Altamira Housing Project agenda Item at the San Bernardino County Supervisors Meeting of September 13, 2016. Agenda item #102 included a public hearing to consider the appeal by JT105 Alliance, and the staff had recommended that the Supervisors deny the appeal and go forward with the project.
Acting as representative for the JT105 Alliance appeal, Pat Flanagan made a very detailed, specific, and comprehensive statement of all the myriad problems with the project.
Here are the PowerPoint slides Pat presented. Here are the notes that she presented with each slide.
Then the Project Applicant YV105, LLP made their case. Public Comment was then opened, where about 30 people (most at the videoconference room at the Burke Government Center in Joshua Tree and several in San Bernardino) made eloquent, impassioned, and well-researched statements opposing the project.
Among the topics addressed were traffic safety, fire safety, native plant removal and other environmental issues, the presence of tortoises, water issues, historical (and questionable) up-zoning of the project property, and the incongruence of such a high density project in Joshua Tree. Repeated many times was the concern that the project plan never even mentioned the Joshua Tree Community Plan, and that state law requires that it be considered for such a project. In fact, according to both state and county law the Community Plan became part of the General Plan when adopted in 2007. At that time, according to the General Plan, the zoning should have been returned to its original density and it was not.
Both the project applicant and JT 105 Alliance’s representative were given one more 5-minute comment opportunity.
Supervisor Ramos made a motion to accept the appeal and deny the project, and Supervisor Lovingood seconded the motion. But then, the County’s attorney indicated there would be legal difficulties if the vote on this motion were 2-2. It was a complicated matter related to the County’s need to have “findings” supporting the denial. The Supervisors present also appeared to prefer the full attendance of all 5 Supervisors to conduct this vote. So Supervisor Rutherford, although stating that she was “for” the project, moved to Continue the decision to the next meeting. The other 3 Supervisors present agreed. We are uncertain under what protocol Supervisor Ramos’s motion to accept the appeal and deny the project was “dropped.”
So the issue will be taken up again at the next Supervisors’ meeting on September 27.