Once again, plans are being evaluated for expansion of industrial-scale solar. MBCA's  letter to the BLM with comments on amendments to the Western Solar Plan emphasizes our support of Alternative 5, limiting projects to areas described as "Previously Disturbed Lands and Transmission Proximity." Another of our concerns is the lack of clear definitions in terminology describing "disturbed lands" or "well-sited" areas. We also ask for a pause on certain projects undergoing the Variance Review process.

MBCA's comment letter on the proposed 184-acre E Solar Project in 29 Palms questions some aspects of the plan and cites concerns with fugitive dust, lack of local air monitoring sites, and destroying the area's carbon sequestration value, illustrated with photos and maps. The document contains links to scientific data sources, and also references documents including 1) the report "Why do birds crash into solar panels?", 2) "California Desert's Role in 30x30: Carbon Sequestration and Biodiversity," and 3) a group comment letter with concerns about California's land classification explained in this recent MCBA News Post.

If expanded as planned, the Easley Solar Project would surround the small Lake Tamarisk Community in Desert Center, negatively affecting every aspect of their lives including air quality, views, and wildlife passage. The community has offered alternative suggestions to the developers to allow them some relief and MBCA has sent a letter in support of their plan. Read more in this article in the Coachella Valley Independent.

MBCA is among 109 organizational allies requesting that the state legislative bodies and the Governor protect and preserve the California Environmental Quality Act. The letter is presented in response to special interests seeking to scapegoat the Act as an impediment to progress in California, particularly in housing development. Within the letter are many examples of data proving the successes and value of the Act to environmental justice, climate change, preservation of species and ecosystems.

MBCA reported on December 17 about our response to the flawed Program 4 report commissioned by the County. The report concluded, "The County could not find clear and empirical data that indicates that short-term rentals (STRs) have a substantial impact on the availability of long-term, rental housing options in the unincorporated Mountain and East Desert communities."

We are now providing the full 62-page response letter that details what MBCA believes are fallacious arguments, inappropriate conclusions and inferences, and overlooked past County corroborations of the problem. Some new data arrays are also presented. 

Read the full "MBCA STR Letter" document.

The Center for Biological Diversity also submitted a letter of concern in December.

In a 3-2 vote on December 19, San Bernardino County Supervisors denied RoBott Land Company's appeal of the Planning Commission's earlier denial of their "campground" project in Flamingo Heights. MBCA's December 17 comments summarize the many concerns voiced by hundreds of area residents. All of the related documents are included on the County's page for this agenda item, including the video of the meeting. (Here is a timestamped list of the video of the Flamingo 640 Agenda Item). Supervisor and Chair Dawn Rowe introduced a substitute motion to replace Supervisor Hagman's motion to send the project back to the Planning Commission. Supervisors Cook and Baca joined Rowe in the majority decision to deny the RoBott Land Company's appeal. Extensive details can also be found on the Save Our Deserts FH 640 page.

Covering multiple areas of concern, MBCA has submitted two comment letters challenging the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND/IS) and in opposition to the granting of a Conditional use Permit (CUP) for this "Eco Dome Campground" project in Landers. One letter notes both the inappropriate designation as a campground, and the inaccurate characterization of the "Eco Domes" as related to the Integratron, a totally unique historic building that has nothing but the shape in common with the proposed domes. The second letter, which includes illustrations, cites many other concerns about the project, including likely negative effects on the community related to noise, dust, traffic, wildlife corridors, and impaired views.