In the rush leading up to the March 23 Planning Commission hearing we missed letting you know of some important press regarding the campaign to stop the Wonder Inn, so we’re linking to two of those below. As well, we link to coverage of the hearing itself from KCDZ as well as an in-depth blow-by-blow account of the hearing as featured in the San Bernardino County Sentinel.
As these first two pieces out of Los Angeles indicate, the Wonder Inn issue is not important just to us here in Wonder Valley. It’s also of concern to visitors and friends of our desert from throughout California and the nation and around the world. And astute journalists and media outlets have it on their radar.
First up: SWI’s Rick Hamburg and Pat Flanagan were interviewed by Margaret Prescod in the March 22 episode of Pacifica radio’s Sojourner Truth and heard nationally, as part of a larger look at climate change. Listen to it here.
And also from Los Angeles, Lauren Abunassar of LA Magazine brings together the Wonder Inn Hotel/Resort and the Flamingo Heights 640 Glamping Resort proposals and the threats they represent to the desert in “The War on Glamping in the Joshua Tree Desert“.
As for coverage of the March 23 hearing itself, Z107.7/KCDZ’s Hillary Sloane was on-site from 9 a.m. at the Bob Burke Government Building in Joshua Tree, where a satellite link allowed citizens to view and address the Planning Commissioners. The article cites the numerous concerns of Morongo Basin residents who “filled two County rooms and spoke for 3 minutes a piece until about 3:00”, including “…most importantly, this project and its proposed expansion of commercial zoning would establish a ‘foot-in-the-door’ precedent for additional development.”
Finally, the San Bernardino County Sentinel published “Hiding Tortoise Data Tripped Up Wonder Valley Inn Proponents” on March 31, but it’s about a whole lot more than tortoise data. Setting the scene with the first sentence (“What appeared to be clear sailing toward the routine approval of a proposal to establish a resort hotel in the desert community of Wonder Valley ran into a ruinous typhoon…”), the lengthy and comprehensive article walks the reader through the entire hearing, including many quotes from this community’s strong and knowledgeable presentations in opposition to the project.
Leading off, the exchange between Wonder Inn applicant Jason Landver and Planning Commissioner Jonathan Weldy regarding the developer’s “right” to build a hotel at the site of the “pink post office” is covered in detail. Another issue that concerned Weldy was the future of any commercial designation:
“You said two things that I want to ask about,” said Weldy, who then quoted Landver as saying, “‘We are allowed to develop by right.’ I’m a little bit confused about that piece of it. And the second part of it is you said, ‘We’re not Motel 6.’ I don’t want to take on Motel 6. On the other hand, a land use designation doesn’t go with an owner. Which means you could sell to Motel 6. When we begin to look at this and we listen to the story of what it is that you are doing, it’s appealing. But the other piece of this is once we make that zoning designation, that zoning designation goes with the land. And its next owner may not be as virtuous or visionary as you in the fullness of time. So, it’s appealing, but I want to make sure you understand that we are required to separate that. What we are looking at is the appropriateness of the land use designation and whether or not that changes there with your vision but also as a facility without your vision.”
Weldy continued, “So, to Dave’s [Mlynarski’s] comment that we have a twelve-acre footprint on a 24-acre site and there’s open space around it, that designation we’re talking about would be the entire 24 acres, which means subsequent design or build or change or evolution or expansion would not be prohibited. So, could you address that comment about the development of a hotel is allowed by right?”
Landver responded, “The site [i.e., the 3.18-acres around which the remaining 21.22 acres is situated and upon which an existing structure, known as “the pink building” to locals stands] is commercially zoned and if we wanted to have less than 20 rooms, for example, and there was less than 10,000 square feet, we would be able to bypass this process. You’re allowed to have a hotel at this site. The only question is, we wanted to do something, a little bit larger, go to a larger footprint to work here.”
At that point, Heidi Duron, who has now advanced to the position of county planner and in her more than two decades with the county has established herself as being more than accommodating of development, disputed Landver’s assertion that he and Greenberg had an unencumbered right to proceed with the project as they envision it.
“It is commercially zoned,” Duron said, “and it is permitted. It is not allowed by right. It would still require a discretionary review.”
At best, Weldy said, indicating even that was doubtful, the duo might be able to construct a modest motel. “You’d need a conditional use permit as opposed to a zoning change, which are in my opinion, galactically different. The way that sounded was ‘We can do this anyway.’ And you can do this maybe, but on a de minimis scale.”
The article also covers the exchanges regarding issues that were exposed by the Stop the Wonder Inn team and addressed in depth in our submitted comments, including the tortoise survey controversy and the “inexplicable” failure of the proponents and their consultants to address the original use of the building as a facility of the Desert Electric Cooperative, with attendant potential for hazardous contamination on site. Per the Sentinel: “Given the availability of the information pertaining to the previous history of the building in question, the pointed reference to it during the meeting brought into question the thoroughness of [lead consultant David] Mlynarski’s research into the property and, by extension, the validity of his other conclusions relating to its suitability for the development proposed.”
There were almost 50 public commenters, including many from Wonder Valley but also a heartening showing of residents from across the Basin who are concerned about inappropriate growth in our communities. We especially note members of the venerable Morongo Basin Conservation Association, who have been with us from the start, and our neighbors to the west who are opposing the Flamingo Heights 640 Glamping Proposal and showed up in numbers to join us in our fight. This support from our desert allies was a real boost and bodes well for the future of coalition work in our communities. The public comments by all were informed, heartfelt, effective, and well worth reviewing either in the Sentinel article or in a video excerpt on our YouTube channel. (If you’re watching the entire video of the hearing, the public comments start at 1:35:00.)
And the opposition? As the Sentinel puts it: “Despite Landver’s assertion at the meeting and in previous public statements that support for the project runs as high or higher that opposition to it, all 47 of those local residents who addressed the planning commission by means of video/audio hook-up from the county facility in Joshua Tree went on record as opposed to the project. No one made any statement in favor of the proposal.”
The final discussion among the Commissioners is informative:
When Weldy sought from the commission what its sentiments were, Commissioner Michael Stoffel said, “Everything that I’ve heard and read, I’m not able to support it as it is,” Michael Stoffel said. “I would make a motion to not recommend the project – or deny the project – based on the land use designation and the scope of going from the small property to such a large property in the area.”
Weldy stated his opinion that “Environmental [issues are] not a concern. This is a grand change between them [zoning allowances] and I can’t support this.”
Commissioner Kareem Gongora indicated he was apprehensive about supporting the project without an environmental impact report. He said, “I find the project itself very appealing but I think the land use concern, the access to services, resources and the multitude of concern in this area make me not in favor of the project in this certain location. From a land use perspective, I’m not inclined to support this project at this time.”
A refinement of the motion was articulated by Weldy to declare the commission as making a finding that the zoning Landver and Greenberg were seeking is incompatible in size and intensity to the zoning around it.
Stoffel’s motion was seconded by Matthew Slowik. The motion passed unanimously with the support of Weldy, Stoffel, Slowik and Commissioner Kareem Gongora.
The refinement of the motion’s language by Weldy was intended to give Landver and Greenberg a basis upon which to appeal the commission’s decision to the board of supervisors, which has the authority to grant or deny the project proposal, including the conditional use permit, policy land use amendment, zone change and mitigated negative declaration.
You can watch this final portion of the hearing on our video channel. Note that Commissioner Demirci was not present for the hearing. And also of note, the decision of the Planning Commission has indeed been appealed to the Board of Supervisors, with more information to come.
So if you want details of the hearing without watching the entire five-plus hours of the video record, the Sentinel can fill you in. If you’re having trouble opening the Sentinel web page, you may view a pdf of the article here.
A few errors in the Sentinel do need correcting: The applicants have 10 days to appeal, not 30; the building was used by the Desert Electric Cooperative not “Homestead Valley Rural Electrical Cooperative”; and the facility was not a switching station but a headquarters and storage and maintenance yard.
