|
Town Hall Meeting A Success
Almost 100 Fawnskin residents and friends of the valley attend the first annual Town Hall Meeting last June 21. Many questions and issues were discussed. We thank our Faawnskin businesses that prepared the breakfast goodies for the morning: Amangela's, Fawnskin Market, North Shore Cafe, and North Shore Brewing Company. Listed below is the list of questions that could not be answered that morning. We have written letters forwarding these comments to the appropriate agencies. If you have comments, please let us know at fawnskin@earthlink.net.
Questions/Comments from the public for Park and Rec:
With all the new parks in the Big Bear area, why can’t money be put towards Miller Park? (the tennis court and net, finishing the basket ball court) NSIA are the only ones that beautify the park.
Is Captain John’s Marina usage allowed to restrict public usage of the public park and public access to the lake? What is being done to make certain that does not happen?
We need a net for the tennis court and solar lights for Miller Park.
Who can deal to get the Fawn Park open?
Questions/Comments from the public for CalTrans:
We have concerns about increased traffic through Fawnskin. Is there any way to limit it?
Each year during the winter CalTrans is in the interest of public safety placing cinder on the highway through town. Every spring the cinder is removed from the driving lanes but very large amounts of cinder are left in front of all the businesses, 2 inches thick on the bridge and all over the “triangle”. Two days ago and 2 weeks earlier Fawnskinners removed what we could with brooms and shovels. I feel that if CalTrans places cinder where it is a public safety issue, they should remove all of it.
I am concerned about the increase in roadway signage. This is a national forest. Signage should be minimal and brown/green.
There are serious concerns about traffic safety with the large semi-trucks that travel the narrow curves through Fawnskin. They are often far across the center line because they cannot fit around those curves. What can CalTrans do about routing those large vehicles through another route or limiting the size of vehicle allowed on that section of the road?
We have heard that traffic will all be routed through Fawnskin when the new bridge is built by the dam. Is that true? And if so, what plans are being made to reduce the impact to Fawnskin?
Questions/Comments from the public for Code Enforcement:
Regarding weed and brush clearing on vacant lots not fully visible from the road, how is weed abatement enforcing cleanup if it’s not seen from the street?
Questions/Comments from the public for DWP:
Our water used to be wonderful—what happened? Why is it so cloudy when it comes out of the faucet?
What percentage of the water line replacements have been completed?
Regarding Moon Camp—The average home of 4 people uses 15,000 gallons per month times 12 times 50 homes = 9,000,000 gallons a year. Fawnskin will (sooner or later) have to subsidize this mess. At who’s cost?
Questions/Comments from the public for County Fire:
We are second-home owners at 1249 Ridge Road 1053 feet from the nearest fire hydrant (off Cline-Miller). We have installed a sprinkle system and Hardiplank. There are 14 properties even further away. From discussions with DWP and Fawnskin Fire Dept., it is our understanding that the line cannot be extended because of low water pressure and old, too small pipes. What can be done about this lack of fire protection? What role could the large green storage tank play?
What does a new fire engine cost?
Questions/Comments from the public for County Planning:
Please make a livable community with a good combination of houses and businesses.
Rezoning for more density is a problem in many areas—fire, water, traffic. How can the county justify the risks to the current residents?
Are there plans to increase commercial zoning in Fawnskin?
We need to be sure that development is in character with the community—commercial, of course, but neighborhood, too. What actions are you taking to take this into consideration?
NO—on MoonCamp. We don’t need any new development in Fawnskin.
Is anything being done to create a connection from downtown Fawnskin to the west end of the Alpine Pedal path?
Families United, a non-profit organization is working on purchasing the Fawnskin Lodge and restoring the building to original condition to have historical status. The building would then be used for community welfare and education in cooperation with San Bernardino county social services. Has someone contacted the planning department about this project?
When will the “public hearing” be held in relation to MoonCamp?
Questions/Comments from the public for the Sheriff’s Department:
We have a seeming lack of police/CHP presence in Fawnskin.
Questions/Comments from the public for organizations:
NSIA membership is too expensive.
Response: Membership is $10 per person per year or $20 for a household and has been the same since 1972 when the organization was formed.
When will new bus stop be built?
Response: NSIA has budgeted $2500 for a kiosk which will serve as a sheltered place for the bus stop. The kiosk was requested by Honorary Mayor Gene Cyr. After being sent to other government agencies to inquire about the process for establishing this, NSIA was sent back to CalTrans. The request is now in the hands of CalTrans for approval. Todd Murphy is managing the process for NSIA and currently has found an architect to work on it. Plans call for the kiosk to have three sides of available display space so that local organizations can display information there.
Bill Treadwell of Friends of the Moonridge Zoo would like to receive community opinions regarding the future possibility of Moonridge Animal Park moving next door to the Discovery Center within the next 2-3 years.
Response: Mr. Treadwell can be contacted at 909-878-4200.
ORIGINAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BACK
The first Friends of Fawnskin executive director, Sandy Steers, has agreed to resume that position after a year break. We would like to thank Steve Farrell for his outstanding work over that year and hope he will continue to work with us in other ways.
...Item donations are now being accepted…
for the Friends of Fawnskin
4th Annual Giant Yard Sale
One Day Only Sale—Labor Day Saturday
We started accepting donations of items for the yard sale on April 1, but we still have room for more in our storage locations. So isn’t it time to clean out those closets? And to make it easier for you, we will be happy to pick up your donation items. To arrange for pick up, call Sandy at 909-878-3091. As a tax-deductible 501(c)3 non-profit organization, Friends of Fawnskin provides donation receipts to all donors. Unfortunately, due to changing laws, we are unable to any longer accept donations of electronic equipment.
This year the Friends of Fawnskin annual yard sale will once again be set up in the center of beautiful downtown Fawnskin, at the Fawnskin Triangle, across from the Fawnskin Fire Department. The big event, with items donated from all around the Valley, will be on Saturday, August 30, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. As with years before, we receive donations from large numbers of people and organizations, so expect to have tons of selections at great prices. All proceeds from the yard sale go directly to Friends of Fawnskin. So, it’s one fabulous opportunity to take home that long-wanted treasure you can't find on eBay or anywhere else...and help out a good cause, at the same time!!
BALD EAGLE NEWS
Bald eagles have been wintering in Big Bear Valley for decades. For the past few years a couple of bald eagles have been staying in Big Bear Valley for the entire summer! And this summer that practice is continuing. Marc Stamer with the San Bernardino National Forest reports that people are still seeing at least one and maybe two adult bald eagles around the area.
This past winter, the official Forest Service eagle counts ranged between 6 and 10 in Big Bear Valley and 10 to 12 across the whole San Bernardino Mountains. Marc asks that anyone who spots a bald eagle this summer please leave him a voice mail saying where it was sighted, whether it was perched or flying, time of the sighting and whether it was an adult or juvenile. His number is 909-382-2828.
Marina Point/Cluster Pines
This 12.5 acre parcel on the lake at the east end of Fawnskin was approved in 1981 for 133 condominiums. The Marina Point developer, Irv Okovita from San Diego, initiated construction in mid-2003. After observation and photo-documenting a number of violations of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, Friends of Fawnskin and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a federal lawsuit against the developer in April 2004 and were granted a temporary Restraining Order a short time later. In August 2005, our case went to trial before a federal judge, who ruled in our favor in June 2006. The developer was ordered to pay $1.3 million in penalties to the U.S. government, was enjoined from further development without court approval and was ordered to restore the shoreline and wetlands. Since then, the developer has requested a new trial (denied), requested a stay of the order until after appeal (denied) and appealed the original order and every subsequent court order. The developer has also been found in contempt of court for not filing restoration plans for the wetlands area on the site, as originally ordered. (The developer has also appealed the contempt order.) Restoration plans are now in process and the case continues through the court system, with probably a few more years remaining until completion. Our legal team of Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi and the Center for Biological Diversity have been doing an outstanding job through this long and arduous process.
Moon Camp
In 2001, a development project on this 64-acre parcel was proposed, including 93 homes, a 100-slip marina and moving the highway to allow for lakefront lots in a gated community. Thanks to many letters the County received from members of Friends of Fawnskin, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required. The draft EIR was released in 2004 for public comment. After receiving all of our comments (the letter from FOF was 17 pages long!), the biological section was reanalyzed and again put out for review.
Since then, the developer redesigned the project to: reduce it to 50 homes; take out plans for moving the highway; and conserve the land between highway and the lake. There are outstanding issues on this project regarding water and other items. We are now awaiting a new EIR on this redesign. We will let you know when it comes out for public comment and would appreciate as many people as possible submitting comments on this document.
This property is currently zoned for one house per 40 acres and we support maintaining that zoning designation.
Mira Lago
A project for 68 homes on 70 acres near Brookside had been proposed and was making its way through the County process. The developer, however, missed his filing deadlines by a couple of hours. Unlike on other projects, (perhaps because FoF was watching this time!), the County told him he would have to start the process over. That was a few years ago and so far no new application has been submitted. The County has archived the files.
Canyon--Deer Trail
A 30-acre parcel between Canyon and Deer Trail on the east end of Fawnskin was being discussed for development by the owner. His original proposal for 70 homes has been cut to 21, but the application so far has not been accepted by the County due to issues with the design. The County has been awaiting design changes for over a year, but none have been forthcoming. The property is currently for sale. This parcel is zoned for one house per 20 acres and we support keeping that zoning designation.
COURT RULES ON MARINA POINT - 2006
A federal court recently ruled that the developers of Marina Point had violated the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act by destroying wetlands, altering the lake bottom, and damaging eagle habitat. The court granted an injunction against further development of the proposed 133 condominiums and ordered that the site be restored. A $1.3 million penalty was imposed, payable to the U.S. government, not to Friends of Fawnskin. The court recently denied the developers' request for a new trial. The developer says he will appeal and keep trying to build this dense project, which would destroy some of the last eagle foraging areas on Big Bear Lake. The Opinion of the Federal Judge (need Acrobat Reader to view) provides the complete set of rulings. The LA Times article appeared in mid June 2006 and provides a good overview of the events (See below).
FROM THE LOS ANGELES TIMES - June 14, 2006
Judge Bars Big Bear Condos, Cites Harm to Eagles
Jurist orders $1.3-million penalty, saying developer harmed eagle habitat.
By Henry Weinstein
Times Staff Writer
June 14, 2006
A Los Angeles federal judge has killed a luxury condominium project at Big Bear Lake and fined the developer $1.3 million for violating the federal Clean Water Act.
U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real said the developer of the Marina Point Project also violated the Endangered Species Act by harming nearby bald eagle habitat. Using unusually strong language in a ruling issued late Monday, Real said the developer "continually exhibited a lack of good faith in complying (or failing to comply) with" the Clean Water Act.
Robert Crockett, a lawyer for developer Irving Okovita, said he would ask Real to rehear the case or failing that, said he would challenge the ruling, which he called factually flawed, before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
But the environmentalists who opposed the project expressed confidence that the ruling would be upheld.
"We are very happy with the opinion," said attorney Adam Keats of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Big Bear still has its iconic bald eagles, but just barely. For their health and the lake's health, we need to come to grips with the fact that some forms of development, like this intensive lakeshore condominium project, are inappropriate."
"We're thrilled about the decision," said Sandy Steers, the activist from the tiny town of Fawnskin who led opposition to the development. "It has been a long struggle - over five years."
In 2004, Okovita filed a federal racketeering suit against Steers and three employees of the U.S. Forest Service - Robin Eliason, Scott Eliason and Gene Zimmerman - charging that they had illegally conspired to block his project. The suit was filed after U.S. District Judge Robert Timlin issued a preliminary injunction blocking the project. (The case was later transferred to Real.) Steers and the Forest Service workers asserted that Okovita sued to retaliate against them.
The suit raised eyebrows in legal and law enforcement circles because it was believed to be the first time the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - known as RICO - had been used against Forest Service workers.
Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, an Oregon-based public interest group, organized support for Steers and the Forest Service employees, helping arrange pro bono lawyers Frank Fraley of Los Angeles and David Greene of the First Amendment Project of Oakland to represent them.
Shortly after the suit came to light, the California attorney general's office said the suit was an improper use of the courts "by powerful interests against private citizens to suppress legitimate 1st Amendment activity."
Last year, Real dismissed the lawsuit and imposed $267,000 in sanctions against Foley & Lardner and two lawyers in its San Diego office for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Developer Okovita hired new lawyers from Latham & Watkins in Los Angeles to wage a legal battle against the environmental challenge filed by the Friends of Fawnskin and the Center for Biological Diversity, but they were no more successful.
Real ruled for the environmentalists on all the major issues.
In addition to blocking the project, Real ordered the developer to perform remedial work to try to correct some of the damage done to the lake - particularly to wetlands.
The proposal called for 132 luxury condominiums, a 175-slip marina and tennis courts. It was to be built on 12.5 acres on Grout Bay on the north shore of Big Bear Lake. Bald eagles, which are listed as threatened on the federal endangered species list, spend winters in the area, perching in pine trees and swooping down to the lake to feed on fish.
Real said that the developer took several actions that were harmful to the lake and to the bald eagles. He noted that in July 2003, the Army Corps of Engineers issued a cease and desist order on the project.
Three months later, the corps issued an order requiring the developer to complete remedial work by Dec. 1, 2003, ahead of the winter arrival of the bald eagles. Real said the developer failed to comply.
"The work they performed left the shoreline vulnerable to erosion from wind and precipitation, and the straw they placed on the site provided insufficient protection. As a result, by the middle of 2004 the lakebed had experienced substantial erosion, and by the time the major rains began in December 2004, the erosion of dirt and rocks into the lake had gotten much worse."
Then, Real wrote, the developer ignored a mandate from the corps to repair the erosion damage, repair a silt curtain in the lake and limit dredging. "They did next to nothing to prevent further erosion or ameliorate the damage they had already caused but continued to direct their energies" toward the condominium project.
"This damage, which remains today, has affected the bald eagle population," which was "rapidly dwindling" by the winter of 2005, Real wrote. "The defendants' dredging and grading activities not only impact the eagles' shallow water habitat - which works to evict their primary prey - but they deepen the lakefront as well - which makes it more difficult for them to see the prey that remain. In short, the project has significantly degraded the bald eagles' habitat," Real wrote.
The judge also said the developer violated the Clean Water Act by actions, which included depositing fill and dredged soil over all the wetlands.
Moreover, the judge said the developer's past violations and "their apparent contempt" for corps regulations "suggest a strong likelihood of future violations" unless he blocked the project.
Crockett, the developer's lawyer, said that Real had the "facts wrong in several respects," including statements that the developer did not obtain two necessary permits.
But Bernice Conn and Michael A. Geibelson, the Los Angeles attorneys who represented the environmental groups at trial without charging a fee, said: "We're confident the judge carefully considered all the evidence. We believe he reached the correct result. We are very proud to have helped these two organizations protect Big Bear Lake and the bald eagle."
| 
