Hello again neighbors! We’ve all been taking a breather since the Planning Commission on March 23 unanimously denied the Wonder Inn Project. But the Project is back, and so are we!
As expected, the Wonder Inn developers have appealed the Planning Commission decision. They will have a hearing before the Board of Supervisors probably on July 11, but possibly as early as June 27. Be sure to watch this space for updates, and if you’re not on our mailing list you can sign up in the sidebar. We will soon be posting another auto letter to help you get comments to the Supervisors and other information about how to be heard. It will take all of us to defeat the Wonder Inn again!
But right now, let’s look closer at the Planning Commission’s decision, and on what grounds the developers are appealing.
The Planning Commission denied the Project for essentially two reasons. The first of these is stated as follows in the Appeal: “Finding 1: proposed policy plan and zoning amendments do not provide a reasonable and logical extension of the existing land use pattern in the surrounding area.”
Let’s talk about “land use” as it applies to the Wonder Inn proposal. “Land use” in unincorporated areas such as Wonder Valley is governed by the San Bernardino Countywide Plan. Critically – and the Planning Commission appears to have agreed – the proposed Wonder Inn Project’s use of land is not in accord with the Principles and requirements of the Countywide Plan, including in the Wonder Valley Community Action Guide.
For example, the Countywide Policy Plan Land Use Element states as Principle: “New development should be focused in areas where there is potable water, wastewater treatment, roadways, and public services.” The Wonder Inn luxury resort would, of course, be “new development.” Wonder Valley, in its entirety, has no potable water, no septic systems, no wastewater treatment, mostly dirt and insufficient roadways, and grossly inadequate public services. Clearly, the Wonder Inn proposal is not consistent with this Land Use Element Principle.
The Countywide Plan further states in Goal LU-4.5: “We require that new development be consistent with and reinforce the physical and historical character and identity of our unincorporated communities, as described in Table LU‐3 and in the values section of Community Action Guides. In addition, we consider the aspirations section of Community Action Guides in our review of new development.”
The proposed project ignores these guidelines and requirements entirely, including the Wonder Valley Community Action Guide, as the project would only degrade the rural atmosphere and the natural desert beauty, diminish the starry night skies and desert views, and take away much of the respect for solitude, privacy, and community values. The Wonder Inn is not a small business that would serve the local community, and it is not compatible with our natural environment. So the proposed Wonder Inn does not meet the requirements of Policy LU-4.5, the referenced Table LU-3, and the Wonder Valley Community Action Guide, either.
County Plan Policy LU-2.3 requires that “new development is located, scaled, buffered, and designed for compatibility with the surrounding natural environment and biodiversity.” In fact, the proposed Project is HUGE in comparison with the surroundings, with sheer number and size of proposed additional structures NOT fitting with the surroundings, and it definitely is NOT “located, scaled, buffered, and designed for compatibility with the surrounding natural environment and biodiversity” as required.
So in making their decision, the Planning Commission considered the land use pattern that currently exists in Wonder Valley surrounding the Project site, and found the proposal would not be consistent with it as required by the County’s land use policy plans.
The developers disagree with this Finding. On what grounds? They list several. To be honest, their reasons don’t seem to have much to them. They don’t address the foundational issues with County policy as we just laid out. In the final comments that we’ll be submitting to Land Use Services we’ll be addressing their claims in full. But here’s a word on just a couple of points.
The Appeal states:
There are at least 110 homes used as vacation rentals within a 5-minute drive of the Project Site (refer to Figure 2 – Vacation Rental Homes Near Project Site). Therefore, there ample residences being used as businesses throughout the residential areas of Wonder Valley.
Residents have differing opinions about the role of short-term rentals (STR’s) in the Wonder Valley community, but STR’s are considered small businesses and do fit the requirements of the Countywide Plan Elements LU-4.5 and Table LU-3, above. As well, the proposed Wonder Inn DOES NOT meet the zoning requirements, whereas STR’s do.
Another point from the Appeal:
The applicant owns 134 acres adjacent to the developed area, therefore providing a significant buffer between the RL-5 and the development (refer to Figure 5 – Applicant Ownership). There are no plans for development of those parcels at this time.
This appears to be a nod to County Plan Policy LU-2.3, referenced above, which requires that new development be “buffered.” But what stands out for us here is the statement that the applicants own adjacent acreage they have no plans to develop on at this time. As per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Piecemealing requirements, if the developer EVER considers developing on adjacent properties they should do the required impact reports and be transparent about possible future development to the County. Notoriously, early marketing of luxury villas on those 134 adjacent acres was discovered last February. But in their public communications with the County, their denials of such plans usually include a qualifier such as “at this time” – a dodge that does not clear them from the requirements of CEQA.
Finally, just a quick note on zoning. The Project would involve creating 28 acres of Service Commercial (CS) zoning, rationalized as an expansion of a conjectured 3.18 acres of CS zoning at the pink building Per the Appeal:
The CS Zoning designation, irrespective of if it is a “zoning anomaly” has existed for three decades, therefore establishing a reasonable expectation of land uses that are applicable to the CS Zone as allowed by County Code.
There is no substantive evidence of the size of the CS zoned area or that this property still maintains, or ever has maintained, a CS designation. In the Appeal the applicants themselves can state nothing more definitive than that this 3.18-acre area was “likely designated as CS.” In the Planning Commission hearing, both the applicants’ representatives and County Staff admitted the origins of CS zoning were “just a guess”. We will be pushing back on this issue in detail when we submit our full comments to County Land Use Services.
Again, you can find the quoted Appeal Supplemental Documentation here, and the accompanying figures as follows: Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5.
On another day we’ll take a look at Finding 2 from the Planning Commission, the one regarding infrastructure, and the developers’ disagreements with that Finding in the Appeal.