The
Leader
Lucerne
Valley, CA
Did
Pluess Staufer and County violate state laws?
June
16 & 17, 1985
LUCERNE
VALLEY -- When Carol and Loyd Turner bought property here 16 years ago, they
had visions of developing pleasure ranches and spacious country homes.
They
weren't alone.
Dozens
of other people viewed the gentle sloping hills south of town as an idea
location to buy land.
On
a clear night, the view overlooking the valley is spectacular and the climate
is somewhat cooler than the rest of the desert.
But
plans to build on the land came to a halt last December when the San Bernardino
County Board of Supervisors denied the property owners a zone change that would
have allowed them to subdivide approximately 250 acres of property.
The
supervisors, as well as the county Planning Commission, objected to the proposed
zoning -- even though it conformed with the general plan -- because they fear
high-density development would eventually conflict with mining in the area.
Today,
Turner, along with 30 members of the Crystal Hills Property Owners Association,
say county officials betrayed them by suspending provisions of the general plan
to promote limestone mining by Pluess-Staufer of California Inc.
Furthermore,
the property owners are furious at the county for allowing Pluess-Staufer to
operate. They say that through a
series of oversights by county officials, and reluctance by Pluess-Staufer to
cooperate with the county, the mining company has been allowed to begin and to
expand operations without complying with state and county regulations.
The
Pluess-Staufer mill on Crystal Creek Road, and the near-by land owned by
members of the association, lie just beneath the foothills of the San
Bernardino Mountains, roughly eight miles south of town.
The
Swiss company quarries high-grade white limestone.
Turner,
a founder and current president of the association, began purchasing
undeveloped parcels in 1969.
Since
the late 1970's, the association has spent nearly $1 million to develop water
systems, utilities and miles of roads in the area, Turner said. All the improvements were made, he said,
with an eye on later developing the land for residential housing.
The
only hitch to getting plans off the drawing board and into the desert was
persuading county officials to grant a zone change.
And
members of the association recall they never suspected the county Planning
Commission would deny the zone change.
The
general plan for the area adopted in 1970 calls for residential development of
one home per 2.5 acres on four sections of land around the mill.
The
property owners were confident they would get the zoning they sought because
state planning, zoning and development laws require "county zoning ordinances
be consistent with the general plan of the county."
However,
the county planning staff objected to the first zone change proposal for 1,000
acres put forward by the property owners in 1981 and asked for a revision
reflecting lower density.
During
the next four years, the property owners submitted four different maps until
the staff finally agreed on a compromise.
But
when the zone change went before the commission with the endorsement of the
staff in February 1984, it was defeated.
Planning
Commissioner Tim Krantz, who voiced strong objection to the plan at that
meeting, said he considered the request incompatible with mining.
Of
particular concern, Krantz said, was the impact future high-density development
would have on Crystal Creek Road.
"It's
what I view as kind of an incompatible land use; the general plan may have
failed to address the compatibility of the mine with the residential use,"
Krantz said.
Dennis
Hansberger, a former county supervisor now employed as a private consultant
representing the mining company at county meetings, said the road is crucial to
Pluess-Staufer.
Since
Pluess-Staufer began operations in 1977, 85-ton trucks have used a two-mile
section of the road south of the plant to transport ore to the manufacturing
plant, Hansberger said.
If
the homeowners developed the land the way they want, traffic would increase
until the trucks could no longer use the road, Krantz said.
But
the property owners feel their right to develop their land and use the road is
being sold out for the mining corporation.
To
make their point, they note that Crystal Creek Road, the only access road to
the properties, doesn't belong to the company.
Fred
Contaoi, assistant director for the county department of transportation and
flood control, said the road south of the plant is a public road. Pluess-Staufer maintains it in exchange
for permit fees for hauling ore on a public road. Contaoi said Crystal Creek Road has been in the county system
for 37 years.
Property
owners question whether Krantz became too cozy with Pluess-Staufer to view the
matter objectively.
Late
last summer, Krantz did an environmental impact study on one of the quarries,
for which he received between $250 and $1,000 from Hansberger's firm.
But
Krantz insists he had no conflict of interest and points to the fact that he
abstained from voting whenever the zone change was discussed by the Planning
Commission the rest of last year.
Despite
several phone calls and a letter, officials from Pluess-Staufer declined to
comment on their operations or the dispute with the Crystal Hills Property
Owners Association.
When
the property owners appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the supervisors
in April last year, they were again asked to revise the zoning plan to achieve
a lower density.
Marion
Ely, a consultant hired by the property owners and a former mining geologist
for the county, submitted a final zoning proposal to the supervisors in December
-- the fifth zoning plan prepared by the association.
That
proposal encompassed one quarter the land area of the first proposal and
contained only 39 percent of the density permitted under the general plan, Ely
recalled.
Nevertheless,
the supervisors unanimously agreed that even the scaled back zoning request
would pose too many problems.
Today,
the Turners are making plans to take the matter to court in the hope a judge
will overrule the supervisors' decision.
"All
our rights have been denied since Day 1," said Doug Nelson, a Big Bear
Lake real estate broker who represents property owners with land near the
mill. "They have gone along with the mining
company all along."
Other
participants in the dispute are equally candid about their suspicion the
supervisors and the commission acted improperly by consistently reaching
decisions favoring Pluess-Staufer.
"I
think it's a prostitution of justice by the board by adjudicating the rights
of the homeowners as an expediency to Pluess-Staufer, which doesn't want any
encroachment," said Hal Harberts, a computer consultant in Orange County
and formulator of the general plan.
"The
residents literally put their life savings into that property and they're
being wiped out," he added.
But
Ron Bangert, Supervisor John Joyner's field representative for the Lucerne
Valley, said the property owners can still develop their property according
to the zones currently in existence.
"They're
not saying you can't build up there.
They're saying you can't increase the density."
Hansberger
contends the mining operation is too valuable to lose to residential
building. The company provides
jobs for the community, he said, and makes available a mineral with a wide
variety of industrial uses.
Currently,
the Lucerne Valley is the only place white limestone is mined in the west, he
said.
He
also maintains the county's decision is justified under the general plan. A provision of the mineral management
policies in the general plan allows county planners to restrict residential
land uses to 10-acre parcels within one mile of a mining operation, Hansberger
said.
But
Ely, who wrote that portion of the mineral management policies, said the plan
was not meant to be interpreted that way.
Ely
said the intent of that requirement was to restrict development near mining
operations and is generally used to limit development around quarry sites.
In
addition, the mineral management policies have never been approved by the
state, he added.
"The
most controversial part of a mine is the quarry," Ely said. "When I wrote the policies, we were
looking at the normal situation. They're
stretching it, which I don't think they should do."
Having
exhausted the appeals process, the homeowners today are contemplating taking
their case to the courts.
Historically,
property owners living in the hills just south of this desert community 20
miles from Victorville rarely had any disputes with mining operations in the
area.
For
decades, mining interests hauling ore out of the San Bernardino Mountains
seldom interfered with property owners, and both sides appeared content to
leave one another alone, said Doug Nelson, a real estate broker in Big Bear
Lake who represents property owners here.
But
that harmonious history ended abruptly a few years ago when Pluess-Staufer of
California Inc. bought out a small limestone mining operation and went to work.
Within
the community, sentiment toward the company is largely favorable. Pluess-Staufer is the town's major
employer, and without it many residents doubt they could make a living in this
part of the desert they call home.
But
to members of the Crystal Hills Property Owners Association, Pluess-Staufer is
an industrial anathema that has stood between them and their dreams of
developing land they own surrounding the company's mill on Crystal Creek Road.
The
discord began when San Bernardino County officials denied the property owners a
zone change that would have allowed them to develop their property.
The
Board of Supervisors, as well as the Planning Commission, defeated the proposal
last year because they considered the density to be incompatible with
Pluess-Staufer's mining activities.
When
Loyd Turner, president of the property owners association, invested in property
here 16 years ago, he never dreamed mining activities would conflict with
residential land uses.
The
land where Pluess-Staufer now has its mill formerly was occupied by La Habra
Co., a small, one-building mining outfit, recalled Marion Ely, a former mining
geologist for the county and consultant for the property owners.
But
in 1977, Pluess-Staufer bought out La Habra and embarked on an ambitious
expansion.
Increased
production resulted in a greater number of giant trucks on a two-mile section
of public road hauling ore to the mill from the quarries eight miles away.
Dennis
Hansberger, a consultant for Pluess-Staufer, estimates one truck passes along
Crystal Creek Road every 45 minutes.
Hansberger
said Pluess-Staufer is concerned that if more residential development is
permitted in the area, more cars will be using the road.
And
once traffic is substantially increased, the mining operation will suffer
because the road will be too congested to safely operate the ore trucks.
But
the property owners said they resent it when the county looks to Pluess-Staufer
as the measure of what land-use policy should be in the area.
Turner,
along with other planning and mining officials, questions whether state mining
law was complied with when Pluess-Staufer began and expanded its operation.
Adopted
in 1975, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) requires mining
companies to file a reclamation plan with a supervisory agency before any
operations begin, according to Joe Bellandi, mining geologist for the county.
The
reclamation plan requires a mining company to specify how it will restore
quarries when ore extraction concludes.
Bellandi emphasized it is important to file the plan before operations
start because mining companies should begin reclamation efforts as early as
possible.
In
addition, Bellandi said the county requires limestone mining companies to
secure a site approval plan before they expand their operations.
Site
approval involves a hearing process in which a company explains the scope,
duration and impact of the mining operation.
However,
Pluess-Staufer did not submit either document until last year --seven years
after it began operations.
Pluess-Staufer
has refused several opportunities to comment on the charges by property owners.
When
it was learned the mining company had not complied with state law, members of
the property owners association were irate.
The
way association Secretary Carol Turner sees it, if Pluess-Staufer had filed for
site approval for its manufacturing plant, then the issues of conflicting land
use and environmental impact could have been addressed long before the company
grew so large.
Furthermore,
Turner said that if the homeowners had known in the beginning that the county
intended to permit such a large operation in the midst of their property, the
association could have saved the money that was spent on infrastructure for the
homes association members thought they could build.
Since
the late '70's, the 30 association members have spent $1 million to develop
water system, streets and roads on their property.
"We
would have certainly been aware at that time, rather than after the fact seven
years later (and) we wouldn't have invested all the money on the electricity,
the plumbing, the roads," Mrs. Turner said. "If they had followed the legal, proper process, none
of this would have happened."
But
just how did Pluess-Staufer manage to get started without the necessary
documents?
Hansberger
contended the company thought it was in compliance with the law all along.
"Pluess-Staufer
was unaware they had no site approval.
They thought they had all the necessary approval before they got
started," Hansberger said.
A
source in the county land management department familiar with the issue and who
spoke on the condition he not be identified disputed Hansberger.
The
source said the county planning staff told company officials at least three
years before they began operations that they needed to meet the provisions of
SMARA and the county regulations.
"We
told them to go through the site approval process," the source said. "We were suggesting to them what
they needed to do and they weren't really sure they would be able to do it. The county wasn't really willing to force
them because they're a vital economic interest."
While
he was still working as the county's mining geologist, Ely recalls contacting
Pluess-Staufer officials several times between 1977 and 1983 asking them to
prepare reclamation and site approval plans.
"They
said they'd worry about it later and then push, push, push to get it through"
the various agencies, Ely said.
The
Turners question why county officials didn't pressure the company if they knew
Pluess-Staufer was not complying with regulations.
Robert
Sleppy, a former designation coordinator with the state Mining and Geology
board, followed the dispute between the property owners association and
Pluess-Staufer up until the time he left the Department of Conservation earlier
this year.
He
said counties are given broad discretion in regulating mining operations.
Some
counties, like Monterey and San Francisco, are rigorous in their enforcement of
SMARA while others, including San Bernardino, appear more laissez faire, Sleppy
said.
"The
county's stuck between a hard place and a rock. They've done this by being kind to Pluess-Staufer, but they've
got the home-owners upset," Sleppy said.
The
source in the county land management department believes county officials are
careful not to place too many demands on mining interests.
Over
the years, mining has been the county's biggest industry. Total revenue for the industry exceeds
a half billion dollars annually.
And
of the 15 top property taxpayers in the county in 1982, five were mining companies.
Concerning
Pluess-Staufer, the source in the land management department observed: "That corporation brings a lot of
economic well-being to this area and the powers that be are not really making a
lot of difficulty for them. They
don't want to make things too rough on them."
Ron
Bangert, the Lucerne Valley field representative for Supervisor John Joyner,
said county officials as a rule step carefully to avoid alienating mining
interests.
"When
you look at it, and you look at the economic base, you really don't want to
lose that. Let's face it, this
county is pro-mining, pro-development," Bangert said.
But
Ely believes it's not a matter of the county being too cozy with the mining
industry. Instead, county agencies
tend to be over-worked and understaffed, and as a result, sometimes make
mistakes.
While
he was the county geologist, Ely said he didn't have the resources to assume
an "enforcement posture."
As a result, he suspects a number of mining operations managed to slip
through the administrative cracks.
The
manner in which Pluess-Staufer received the necessary building permits for
expansion is one example of oversight, he explained.
Frank
Molina, the land use chief in the county building and safety department, admits
his department erred by issuing Pluess-Staufer building permits.
Between
1978 and 1984, the company received 26 permits valued at $12.8 million. Those permits allowed the company to
turn the small operation it bought out into one of the largest white limestone
mills in the West.
Molina
said the permits were issued because employees in the department assumed the
company had received site approval.
"The
state of California gets yelled at for messing things up, but I tell you the
counties don't do justice to anybody," Sleppy said. "The handling of the Lucerne Valley problem shows you can
really go out on a limb if you don't follow the state laws."
Pluess-Staufer's
site approval was granted by the county Planning Commission last September.
However,
property owner Lou Kershberg appealed the decision to the Board of Supervisors
amid concern that questions about the mill's impact on the environment were not
adequately addressed.
Supervisor
John Joyner agreed and in January, the board referred the matter to the
environmental review board for further study.
The
review board in April decided to recommend that the supervisors grant site
approval, as long as Pluess-Staufer agrees to certain conditions, said Chuck
Bell, the county environmental hearing officer.
Among
the conditions, the board requests the company to: Implement dust control measures on the limestone stockpiles
to comply with the Air Pollution Control District: dispose of oils and chemicals according to the county standards;
and exercise greater care in applying a dust control mixture on Crystal Creek
Road, since overflows of calcium lingo-sulfanate --a non-toxic road-binding
materials --have polluted nearby ponds.
The
ERB also asked Pluess-Staufer to realign and widen a portion of Crystal Creek Road
to help alleviate traffic problems.
Negotiations
between the property owners and the company to build a wider road have been
ongoing, though a solution remains elusive.