[0:01] >> Good morning. I'd like to

[0:02] call this meeting

[0:03] to order and thank you all

[0:04] for joining us. I'd also like

[0:05] to announce at the top

[0:07] of the meeting that since we

[0:08] have such a large amount

[0:09] of speakers for item number

[0:10] 76, that the limited time

[0:12] minute per speaker,

[0:14] both remote and in person,

[0:15] will be 2 minutes. And that

[0:17] will be true for any agenda

[0:18] item where we have speakers,

[0:20] more than 10 signed up. This

[0:22] morning, our invocation and

[0:23] pledge will be led by the 4th

[0:25] District.

[0:26] >> Thank you, Madam Chair, and

[0:27] good morning. I'd like

[0:29] to introduce Father David

[0:30] Tadros, who has served as

[0:32] priest at St. Mina Coptic

[0:34] Egyptian Orthodox Church in

[0:35] Colton for the last past 6

[0:37] months. He served

[0:39] for the last 5 years as an

[0:41] enterprise program analyst

[0:42] for the San Bernardino County

[0:43] Innovation and Technology

[0:45] Department. You may remember

[0:46] him as Sammy Tadros. His name

[0:48] was changed to Father David

[0:49] Tadros after the ordination.

[0:51] In February 2026, he was called

[0:53] by the St. Mina Coptic

[0:55] Egyptian Orthodox Church in

[0:57] Colton to the priesthood,

[0:58] a calling that he has received

[1:00] with gratitude, humility,

[1:02] and a deep sense

[1:03] of responsibility before God

[1:04] and the Church. The ministry

[1:06] has allowed Father Tadros

[1:07] to provide pastoral care

[1:09] for approximately 2,500 Church

[1:11] members. He serves alongside

[1:12] 137 priests through 50 Coptic

[1:14] Orthodox churches

[1:16] across the diocese. He is

[1:18] married to Mary Elias, who

[1:20] works as an engineer for San

[1:22] Bernardino County Public

[1:23] Works, and has 2 children, Joy

[1:24] and Joshua. His family is an

[1:25] essential part

[1:27] to both his life and ministry.

[1:28] In addition to the ministry,

[1:29] Father Tadros's personal

[1:31] interests include serving the

[1:32] community, traveling, cooking,

[1:33] and programming. And we had a

[1:35] great time with him working

[1:36] on my office software. Thank

[1:37] you for being here. Please lead

[1:38] us in prayer and pledge.

[1:46] >> Good morning. I would like

[1:48] to thank Supervisor Curt

[1:49] Hagman and the County of San

[1:50] Bernardino for the privilege of

[1:52] leading today's invocation and

[1:53] the Pledge of Allegiance.

[1:55] Before my ordination

[1:57] to the priesthood,

[1:58] I had the honor to serve the

[1:59] community as an employee of

[2:01] San Bernardino. It's an honor

[2:03] to be here with you today.

[2:04] On your behalf,

[2:06] I offer this invocation. As we

[2:08] begin, we invite the presence

[2:09] of our Lord and Savior Jesus

[2:11] Christ, to be with us, as our

[2:13] Lord said in Matthew 18:20, For

[2:18] where two or three are gathered

[2:20] together in my name,

[2:21] I am there in the midst

[2:23] of them." And Psalm 53:12

[2:26] declares, "Blessed is the nation

[2:30] whose God is the Lord, the

[2:32] people he has chosen as his own

[2:34] inheritance." We are reminded

[2:37] of words inscribed

[2:39] in this chamber, In God We

[2:42] Trust. May the trust guide the

[2:43] port, grant them,

[2:47] grant each supervisor wisdom,

[2:49] and help all who serve our

[2:50] county to lead

[2:52] with integrity, justice,

[2:54] and compassion. I invite you to

[2:56] bow your heads and let us pray.

[2:58] In the name of the Father, and

[3:00] the Son, and the Holy Spirit,

[3:01] one God. Amen. Oh Master Lord,

[3:04] God the Almighty, the Father

[3:06] of our Lord God and Savior

[3:07] Jesus Christ, we thank you

[3:09] for everything,

[3:11] concerning everything and

[3:12] in everything,

[3:13] for you have covered us,

[3:15] helped us, guarded us,

[3:16] accepted us to yourself,

[3:17] spared us, supported us

[3:19] to yourself, and brought us

[3:21] to this hour. We thank you for

[3:22] the opportunity and the sacred

[3:25] responsibility to serve our

[3:26] brothers and sisters and our

[3:28] beloved country. We recognize

[3:30] and acknowledge that the

[3:32] existing authorities are

[3:33] appointed by you. Prepare every

[3:36] heart, align every mind,

[3:39] and let your Holy Spirit guide

[3:40] them

[3:41] into clarity and understanding.

[3:43] We lift up the Board of

[3:44] Supervisors and all who serve

[3:46] San Bernardino County and every

[3:47] leader in this place. Empower

[3:50] them with wisdom, discernment,

[3:51] and integrity. Let justice be

[3:53] their standard. Truth be their

[3:57] foundation and service be their

[3:59] motive,

[4:00] so their decisions are rooted

[4:01] in justice and their words

[4:03] filled with kindness. Grant

[4:05] them, Lord, the humility to

[4:07] listen deeply and the strength

[4:08] to act boldly. Today, Lord, we

[4:12] ask you to replace tension

[4:13] with peace, division

[4:15] with unity, and uncertainty

[4:17] with clear purpose and wise

[4:19] direction. Let San Bernardino

[4:20] County flourish spiritually,

[4:22] economically, and socially,

[4:25] so that every family, every

[4:26] business, and every community

[4:27] may know well-being and

[4:29] opportunity. May the decisions

[4:31] made here today uplift the

[4:32] people,

[4:34] strengthen our communities.

[4:35] Bless everyone who works for

[4:36] San Bernardino County and

[4:38] everyone who works each day

[4:40] to keep our community safe,

[4:41] healthy, and strong. Oh

[4:44] Master, we especially pray

[4:45] for our families, our children,

[4:47] our elderly,

[4:48] and everyone who is going

[4:51] through a difficult time.

[4:52] Protect them, provide

[4:53] for them, and help us

[4:55] to always be willing

[4:57] to help those in need. As

[4:58] Jesus taught us in Matthew

[5:00] chapter 6 to pray, saying, our

[5:02] Father, who art in heaven,

[5:03] hallowed be thy name. Thy

[5:05] kingdom come, thy will be done

[5:06] on earth as it is in heaven.

[5:08] Give us this day our daily

[5:10] bread, and forgive us our

[5:11] trespasses,

[5:12] as we forgive those who

[5:13] trespass against us. And lead

[5:15] us not into temptation

[5:16] but deliver us

[5:17] from the evil one.

[5:18] For thine is the power, the

[5:19] glory, forever. Amen. Now, if

[5:23] you would please face the flag

[5:25] and let us pledge allegiance

[5:27] together. I pledge allegiance

[5:29] to the flag of the United

[5:31] States of America and the

[5:33] Republic for which it stands,

[5:35] one nation under God,

[5:37] indivisible,

[5:38] with liberty and justice for

[5:40] all. Thank you very much.

[5:45] >> We will now move on to our

[5:46] memorial adjournments. Vice

[5:48] Chair Baca? Supervisor Cook?

[5:53] Supervisor Armendarez?

[5:56] >> I do have one I would like

[5:57] to speak of. It is

[5:59] with great sorrow for me that

[6:02] on August 5th, Terry

[6:03] Kalinski.

[6:05] >> Supervisor, I need

[6:06] to ask you to pause

[6:08] for a moment. I'd like

[6:10] to announce, attention members

[6:11] of the board, the public,

[6:12] we are experiencing a

[6:13] disruption in remote

[6:14] participation services.

[6:15] Proceedings will pause

[6:16] for a few minutes until we can

[6:18] see if they can be restored.

[6:19] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.

[6:22] >> And as a reminder

[6:23] to those here in chambers,

[6:24] this is under the new state law

[6:26] that requires us

[6:27] to do this.

[6:28] [RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]

[9:55] >> Madam Chair, just as a quick

[9:56] update, we're still working

[9:57] on it. So, I just wanted to,

[9:59] to give an update

[10:00] on that.

[10:02] >> And for those of you, new

[10:03] to this law, it will be up to

[10:05] 1 hour that we have

[10:06] to continue trying to

[10:08] reestablish the connection.

[10:10] >> Yes, thank you.

[10:17] [RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]

[11:22] >> Madam Chair, I'm going

[11:23] to perform a mic test just to

[11:24] make sure that we have audio.

[11:26] So, this is part of the

[11:27] reestablishing communications,

[11:29] so we're,

[11:30] we're testing that right now.

[11:31] So this is a test

[11:32] to see if there is audio.

[11:34] Test, test.

[11:56] Testing to see if there is

[12:00] audio. And for clarification,

[12:02] it's on the phone connection. We

[12:03] have the stream

[12:04] to the public. The video stream

[12:06] is working. This is on the

[12:07] phone stream or the phone

[12:09] connection.

[12:16] [RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]

[14:13] >> Testing 1, 2. This is

[14:16] testing the Call

[14:19] for public input.

[14:23] 1, 2.

[15:02] [RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]

[15:09] >> Testing.

[15:11] >> This is testing public

[15:12] input. One, two, three, four.

[15:15] This is testing. One, two,

[15:18] three, four.

[15:27] [RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]

[15:53] >> I apologize

[15:54] for the inconvenience. Thank

[15:55] you for your patience.

[15:56] [RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]

[18:34] >> This is a public input test

[18:35] message to verify

[18:37] your connection.

[18:40] [RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]

[19:16] >> This is a test, test, test

[19:18] to see if we can hear.

[19:19] Okay.

[19:21] Madam Chair, it appears that

[19:22] we have restored the audio

[19:23] connection.

[19:25] >> All right. Remote

[19:26] participation services are

[19:27] restored. I will now reconvene

[19:28] the meeting. Supervisor

[19:29] Armendarez, memorial

[19:31] adjournments.

[19:33] >> Thank you. Let's see if it

[19:34] shuts off one more time. What I

[19:36] was speaking

[19:37] to earlier was the passing away

[19:38] of Terry Kalinski, who on

[19:39] August 5th, left to be

[19:42] with our Lord. Terry was a

[19:44] great man. Those who know me

[19:47] and know my story know that he

[19:48] was the person who gave me my

[19:50] first chance in life

[19:52] to be successful,

[19:54] starting as a pressure washer

[19:56] to a journeyman diesel

[19:57] mechanic, heavy equipment

[19:59] operator. I owe all of that

[20:00] to Terry Kalinski, who saw a

[20:02] 16-year-old kid and gave him a

[20:03] chance. He didn't have a story

[20:05] far off from mine. He, he

[20:07] started his own company at 16

[20:09] years old by borrowing $500

[20:11] to buy his first truck,

[20:13] and then in 1977 bought

[20:14] Dalton Trucking in the city

[20:16] of Fontana. where it started

[20:18] with 4 trucks and grew that

[20:20] business to one of the largest

[20:22] heavy hauling companies

[20:25] of trucking in Southern

[20:27] California. He was also a huge

[20:30] advocate for truck preservation

[20:33] and helped establish the

[20:35] Southern California chapter

[20:36] for American Truck History

[20:37] Society in 1982 and later was

[20:40] the national president. Terry

[20:43] held a really deep part

[20:45] in my heart because he,

[20:46] he was that guy who gave me a

[20:47] chance, and sorry

[20:48] to see him go

[20:50] in his later years. His legacy

[20:51] will continue with his sons

[20:53] Matt and Josh, who are deeply

[20:55] involved

[20:56] in the truck community also.

[20:57] And just wanted to adjourn

[20:59] in memory of Terry Kalinski.

[21:01] Thank you.

[21:02] >> Thank you, Supervisor

[21:03] Hagman. This morning, I would

[21:05] like to adjourn

[21:06] in memory. Adjourn in memory.

[21:15] >> Oh, I'll just add to, Terry

[21:16] also served for many years as a

[21:18] workforce developer

[21:19] on our workforce development

[21:20] for San Bernardino County.

[21:22] That's all.

[21:23] >> Thank you. This morning,

[21:24] I would like to adjourn

[21:25] in memory of Jackie, one

[21:26] of the famous Big Bear bald

[21:27] eagles. Jackie and her mate

[21:28] Shadow became local icons and

[21:29] touched the heart of millions

[21:31] of people around the world

[21:32] through the Eagle Cam. The

[21:33] Big Bear Valley will not be the

[21:35] same without her. We sadly have

[21:37] lost several county employees.

[21:41] I am very disheartened

[21:42] to hear that 3 county employees

[21:44] have passed away in July, so I

[21:46] would like to adjourn

[21:47] in their memories this morning.

[21:49] Casey Maldonado was a,

[21:51] served as a social worker

[21:52] with the Department of

[21:53] Children and Family Services

[21:54] for over 2 years. She was a

[21:55] passionate advocate and made a

[21:56] lasting impact on children,

[21:58] families, and the communities

[22:00] that she served. Our hearts go

[22:01] out to her family.

[22:03] Additionally, Angel Romero

[22:04] spent 20 years

[22:06] with the county. He worked

[22:07] across various departments

[22:08] including the Sheriff's

[22:09] Department, Facilities

[22:10] Management, Arrowhead

[22:11] Regional Medical Center. Angel

[22:12] is remembered for his strong

[22:14] work ethic and his dedication

[22:15] to his role. We extend our

[22:17] condolences to his family,

[22:18] friends, and co-workers. And

[22:20] Deputy Adam Saragih, who served

[22:24] the San Bernardino County

[22:25] Sheriff's Department for 6

[22:26] years. He began his career in

[22:28] Barstow and later transferred

[22:30] to the Fontana Station. Adam

[22:31] was actively preparing to

[22:33] become a detective specializing

[22:34] in crimes against children. He

[22:36] is remembered

[22:37] for his kindness, compassion,

[22:38] and dedication to service. We

[22:39] keep his family and thoughts

[22:41] in our prayers at this time.

[22:43] And we do not have any special

[22:45] presentations this morning,

[22:46] so we will move on

[22:47] to our reports from County

[22:48] Counsel, Laura?

[22:50] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I

[22:51] have 3 items to report on. The

[22:53] board considered or met

[22:54] in closed session

[22:55] for item number 1 and

[22:56] considered item 2

[22:58] under that agenda,

[22:59] which is the matter of Jason

[23:00] Faghi versus Mohit Kumar

[23:02] Sadiv, and voted 5-0

[23:04] to authorize the filing

[23:05] of a cross complaint against

[23:06] Insomniac Holdings LLC

[23:09] for indemnity

[23:10] under an encroachment permit.

[23:12] The board also considered item

[23:13] number six, the matter of

[23:15] Martha Bjulna versus County

[23:17] of San Bernardino and voted 5-0

[23:19] to ratify the filing

[23:21] of a cross complaint

[23:22] against SEA Financial LLC.

[23:26] And Bellasia Corporation

[23:28] for indemnity under lease and

[23:30] service contract terms. The

[23:33] board also considered item

[23:34] number 7 and voted 5-0

[23:37] to file an action against

[23:38] defendants that will be

[23:40] disclosed upon request

[23:41] after the action is filed.

[23:42] That is all of my report.

[23:44] >> Thank you very much. That

[23:45] brings us to our individual

[23:46] board member comments. Vice

[23:47] Chair Baca.

[23:48] >> Yeah, thank you, Madam

[23:49] Chair. First event I want

[23:50] to highlight was our National

[23:51] Night Out we had at

[23:52] Bloomington. I want

[23:53] to thank our Sheriff's

[23:54] Department

[23:55] for participating and the

[23:56] Probation Department and all

[23:57] our county departments that

[23:58] supported and want

[23:59] to thank the community

[24:00] for coming out. And one of the

[24:01] things we had the opportunity

[24:02] to celebrate was our $936,000

[24:04] investment in Ayala Park,

[24:06] adding new swings and 8 shaded

[24:08] covers. The community was very,

[24:10] very appreciative. So, I want

[24:11] to thank you all

[24:12] for joining us. Also, we had

[24:13] our Monterey Elementary

[24:14] back-to-school celebration,

[24:16] which is

[24:17] in our unincorporated area of

[24:18] Little Third. At that time,

[24:19] we provided 400 backpacks

[24:20] for many,

[24:21] many community students

[24:23] at the school. I want to thank

[24:25] the departments that helped us.

[24:26] One, want to thank the San

[24:28] Bernardino City Unified

[24:29] School District, Bank of

[24:30] America, ARMC Children's

[24:31] Fund, Molina Healthcare,

[24:33] Child Care Resource Center, and

[24:34] Public Health, and all the

[24:36] county departments that came

[24:37] out there. It was just a great

[24:38] event, and it's great to see

[24:39] those students receive

[24:40] backpacks, spirit shirts,

[24:42] socks, and school supplies.

[24:44] Also recently, last week,

[24:45] we just had our Little Third

[24:46] Street ribbon cutting,

[24:47] which was an improvement

[24:49] in the Little Third community,

[24:50] which is unincorporated area

[24:51] across the street from the

[24:52] Sheriff's Department. There was

[24:53] road improvements, ADA ramps,

[24:55] also fencing put up

[24:56] near the flood channel. It

[24:58] really revitalized that

[24:59] community. It was a $4 million

[25:00] investment, and Congressman

[25:02] Aguilar was present. He

[25:04] invested $2.5 million. So, I

[25:06] want to thank him

[25:07] for his support and want

[25:08] to thank our Public Works staff

[25:09] for being able to execute this

[25:10] one. I know this one was a long

[25:11] time and a lot of work,

[25:13] and it took just a little

[25:14] over 4 and a half years

[25:15] to get done. So, I want

[25:16] to thank Public Works

[25:17] for executing this project.

[25:18] Also

[25:19] at our preschool services,

[25:22] the Mill Street Development

[25:23] Center, we added STEM and

[25:25] playground improvements. What

[25:27] this will do is have new

[25:28] science features,

[25:29] interactive stations designed

[25:30] to encourage curiosity and

[25:32] learning. Also, the playground

[25:34] upgrades that have a painted

[25:35] bike path, enhanced privacy

[25:37] fencing, turf, port and play,

[25:39] safety surfacing. I want to

[25:40] thank the preschool department

[25:42] for those investments

[25:43] in the early education of all

[25:44] of our students in,

[25:45] in the entire county. Also,

[25:47] this weekend,

[25:49] we have the dump day at

[25:50] Arrowhead Farms community

[25:52] at the Our Lady of Assumption

[25:54] in the unincorporated area of

[25:55] Arrowhead Farms. Encourage

[25:57] those that live

[25:58] in that community to come

[25:59] out and take advantage

[26:00] of the services. Also, on one

[26:02] of the committees I serve

[26:03] on is the Inland Valley

[26:04] Development Agency. We approved

[26:06] a project on Tippecanoe 3rd and

[26:09] Alabama

[26:10] for some median landscaping

[26:11] to try to enhance the area

[26:12] near the airport.

[26:14] to make it more attractive

[26:15] for those that are interested

[26:16] in travel throughout the San

[26:17] Bernardino International

[26:18] Airport. And the last thing,

[26:19] just want

[26:20] to highlight some items that

[26:21] are on the agenda. Item 6 is

[26:24] modernized nutrition services

[26:25] for older adults

[26:26] to increase meals in the San

[26:28] Bernardino community. Item 21

[26:31] is $11 million commitment

[26:33] from the County of San

[26:35] Bernardino for commitment of a

[26:36] homeless outreach prevention

[26:38] education campus. Here in the

[26:40] City of San Bernardino. And the

[26:41] hopes is that we can mirror

[26:42] what they did on the West End

[26:44] with the West End Navigation

[26:45] and try

[26:46] to encourage other city

[26:48] partners to participate

[26:49] in this. Also, Item 29, I want

[26:52] to thank the Preschool

[26:53] Services Department

[26:54] in combination with our

[26:55] Community Action Partnership

[26:57] to provide diapers for many,

[26:59] many kids that are underserved

[27:00] families. And Item 34, we're

[27:03] looking at continued progress

[27:04] at the animal shelter,

[27:06] adding a phase 2, which phase

[27:07] 1 is under construction,

[27:09] which will be done this spring,

[27:10] but also looking at a phase 2

[27:12] that will allow us the

[27:13] opportunity to have some

[27:14] of our cities become partners

[27:16] with us at the county. And the

[27:18] last one, just want

[27:19] to highlight, is item 62,

[27:21] continued progress on Fire

[27:22] Station 227, which is located

[27:24] here in the City of San

[27:25] Bernardino. This is a great

[27:27] investment. It's

[27:28] under construction now,

[27:29] but this is to continue

[27:30] to keep it moving. Thank you,

[27:31] Madam Chair.

[27:33] >> Thank you very much.

[27:34] Supervisor Cook? Supervisor

[27:35] Armendarez?

[27:37] >> Thank you. A couple things I

[27:39] want to highlight August 20th,

[27:42] which is this Thursday, we will

[27:43] be having our next open house

[27:45] at our district office. We'll

[27:46] have a bunch

[27:48] of county departments there.

[27:54] We're going to have some

[27:56] of our, we'll have face

[27:57] painting, we'll have hot dogs

[27:58] for people to eat. It'll be an

[28:00] opportunity for people

[28:02] to see what the county does.

[28:03] So, feel free to come out.

[28:04] It'll be August 20th from 5 to

[28:06] at my district office

[28:08] on the corner of Arrow and

[28:09] Haven in Rancho Cucamonga.

[28:11] Also, we will be having our

[28:13] first annual Family Fun Day

[28:15] on August 29th in cooperation

[28:17] with our regional parks, where

[28:19] we will be hosting an event

[28:20] from 10 to 2 PM. We're going

[28:23] to have a bunch

[28:24] of games and just bring people

[28:25] out to just fellowship together

[28:27] and have fun. Also just give a

[28:29] couple of things that we

[28:31] highlighted that we've done

[28:32] recently. We actually went out

[28:35] to Brightline in Florida and

[28:36] took a tour of the actual

[28:37] high-speed train and what

[28:39] they're doing and seeing how

[28:40] the components of everything

[28:41] in their work. Also was able

[28:42] to sit down with some of the

[28:44] administrators there and go

[28:46] over what the financing

[28:47] of that train looks

[28:48] like and how far we are

[28:50] from getting it. But it looks

[28:51] like it's definitely

[28:52] within opportunity for us

[28:54] to obtain to have that

[28:55] high-speed rail come to us.

[28:58] The bad part is if,

[28:59] if we can't make it happen

[29:00] here, we're probably another

[29:01] 20 years away from actually

[29:02] making it ever happen. So, we

[29:05] got to do everything we can to

[29:06] make sure that that actually

[29:07] moves forward. We also did our

[29:09] scoops with the supervisor

[29:10] at the Jesse Turner Center

[29:11] in the city of Fontana. We also

[29:13] participated in a bunch of

[29:15] National Nights Out, and we

[29:17] attended the incredible edibles

[29:19] event. I want to highlight just

[29:22] one item. I believe it's item

[29:23] 26, and the Friends of the

[29:26] Library, we're accepting a gift

[29:29] of $125,000 from them. Just

[29:31] want to say thank you to the

[29:32] Friends of the Library. That's

[29:34] it.

[29:35] >> Thank you.

[29:36] Supervisor Hagman.

[29:37] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.

[29:38] Just a couple

[29:39] of agenda items. Item number

[29:40] 53 is approving the Prado

[29:41] Regional Park Master Plan, and

[29:43] I just want to congratulate

[29:45] Leotta and the whole team

[29:46] for all the work they've done

[29:47] in the last couple years. They

[29:48] finished the Prado new entry.

[29:50] The playground, which is

[29:51] fantastic, has a splash pad as

[29:53] well. RV and tent restrooms

[29:55] have been refurbished,

[29:57] the snack bar and boat docks

[29:58] are complete, and the big thing

[30:00] was the grass is staying green.

[30:02] So, thank you

[30:03] for all the hard work by,

[30:04] by the Parks Department and

[30:06] Real Estate Services and

[30:07] everybody working on that.

[30:09] Prado Sports Courts is

[30:10] with the Army Corps of

[30:11] Engineers for review. And item

[30:13] number 63 allows military

[30:15] service members transition

[30:16] to civilian life

[30:18] to apprentice and intern

[30:19] with the county fire

[30:20] to gain valuable job skills.

[30:22] From SCAG, SCAG has this last

[30:24] mile freight program rebate is

[30:26] accepting applications. This

[30:29] program supports conversion

[30:31] of last mile freight vehicles

[30:32] to battery electric models.

[30:35] And lastly, to, to also honor

[30:38] Jackie, the Ontario Tower

[30:40] Buzzards, we partner with

[30:42] Friends of Big Bear Valley

[30:44] for Fly High Jackie Night. On

[30:45] Sunday, August 23rd, at

[30:47] Ontario Field. The evening will

[30:48] honor the life and legacy of

[30:50] Jackie and the beloved Big

[30:51] Bear bald eagle, with 50%

[30:53] of the proceeds going toward

[30:54] Friends of Big Bear Valley.

[30:56] So, tickets are available

[30:57] online. Thank you.

[30:58] >> Thank you very much. This

[30:59] morning, I would like

[31:00] to highlight item number 58

[31:02] on our consent calendar. It is

[31:03] an item that will award

[31:05] construction contract

[31:06] in the amount of $3 million

[31:07] to make improvements to the

[31:08] Sunburst Park, which is our

[31:09] community park in Joshua

[31:11] Tree. The project is fully

[31:12] funded by the Clean

[31:13] California Local Grant Program

[31:14] and will include,

[31:15] include improvements

[31:16] like new playgrounds,

[31:17] accessible walkways, enhanced

[31:18] lighting, landscaping,

[31:20] and outdoor fitness zones. And

[31:22] I would also like to mention

[31:24] that we have a job and resource

[31:26] fair coming to Big Bear Lake

[31:27] on Thursday, August 27th,

[31:29] from 10 in the morning until 1

[31:30] in the afternoon,

[31:31] and that will take place at

[31:32] Hofert Hall located at 39707

[31:34] Big Bear Boulevard. We're

[31:36] hosting this free event

[31:38] in partnership with the

[31:39] County Workforce Development

[31:40] Department

[31:41] to bring together employers

[31:42] from a variety of industries,

[31:44] In addition

[31:45] to employment opportunities,

[31:46] representatives from the

[31:47] Public Defender's Office, the

[31:48] Assessor-Recorder-Clerk's

[31:49] Office, and the Department of

[31:50] Veterans Affairs will also be

[31:52] available

[31:53] to assist residents. You can

[31:54] register at this event

[31:56] on eventbrite.com. And Linda,

[31:58] Linda, do we have any revisions

[32:00] to today's agenda?

[32:01] >> Good morning, Madam Chair.

[32:03] No, no revisions today. Thank

[32:04] you.

[32:05] >> Very good. If we have any

[32:06] board members wishing

[32:07] to disclose a conflict

[32:08] of interest on any items

[32:09] on today's agenda,

[32:10] now would be the time

[32:11] to do so. All right, seeing

[32:14] none, we'll move on

[32:15] to our consent calendar,

[32:17] which today consists

[32:18] of items number 2 through 74.

[32:20] Do I have any members wishing

[32:21] to pull an item?

[32:24] >> Yes, yes, Chair, I'd like

[32:25] to pull item number 5.

[32:27] >> All right, thank you. And I

[32:29] have one request to speak.

[32:30] We'll take that before I do

[32:31] board member comments on any

[32:32] items. I have a remote

[32:34] participation by Michelle

[32:35] Tracy.

[32:49] >> Good morning, Supervisors.

[32:50] My name is Michelle Tracy, and

[32:52] I'm speaking today as a

[32:54] concerned member of our high

[32:55] desert community. I'm asking

[32:57] that you guys take a serious

[32:58] look

[32:59] at traffic safety and speeding

[33:00] in the Victor Valley,

[33:01] particularly along Ridgecrest

[33:02] Road and Apple Valley Road.

[33:04] with Yakima Road corridor. On

[33:07] August 14th, 2026, our

[33:10] community lost 2 teenage best

[33:11] friends, 17-year-old

[33:13] Madeline, Madeline Daly and

[33:16] 16-year-old Isabel Delaine at

[33:18] Ridgecrest Road and Elmwood

[33:20] Drive. Authorities report that

[33:21] 2 vehicles were traveling

[33:22] at high speed and rate on

[33:23] Ridgecrest

[33:24] before that collision. These

[33:26] girls had just started their

[33:27] senior year, and they should

[33:28] have been talking and thinking

[33:30] about graduations. college

[33:32] careers,

[33:33] and everything that was

[33:34] supposed to come next. This is

[33:35] especially concerning that this

[33:38] is not the first fatal accident

[33:41] on Ridgecrest and Elmwood. A

[33:42] 60-year-old woman was killed

[33:44] at the same intersection on

[33:45] November 2025.

[33:47] >> Ma'am, I hate

[33:48] to interrupt you,

[33:50] but I have you signed up

[33:51] to speak

[33:52] on agenda item number 2, and

[33:53] your topic sounds more like

[33:54] on items not

[33:55] on today's agenda.

[34:01] >> There's no spot for anyone

[34:03] to speak about, just speak

[34:04] out publicly.

[34:05] >> There is, and you are signed

[34:07] up to do that later

[34:08] in our meeting.

[34:10] >> Okay, so that's going

[34:11] to be later?

[34:12] >> If you, if you would like

[34:13] to continue on,

[34:14] and then I can remove you

[34:15] from that list later.

[34:19] >> Okay, please.

[34:20] >> Thank you. Please continue.

[34:24] >> This was not the first fatal

[34:25] accident at Ridgecrest and

[34:27] Elmwood. A 67-year-old woman

[34:28] was killed

[34:29] at the same intersection on

[34:30] November 2025. The residents

[34:33] were already publicly raising

[34:34] concerns

[34:35] about speeding and asking for

[34:37] additional traffic controls.

[34:40] The other intersection that

[34:41] concerns me is the one on

[34:44] Apple Valley Road and

[34:45] Yucca Loma Road. On July 29th,

[34:46] 2026, 39-year-old mother

[34:49] Theodora Wilson and her

[34:51] children, 7-year-old Rose

[34:53] Venezuela and 6-year-old

[34:56] Felix Venezuela, were killed.

[34:57] Their father and their

[34:58] 16-year-old sister suffered

[35:00] major injuries. And that was

[35:01] not the first fatality

[35:03] at the intersection this year.

[35:05] On February 7th, 2026,

[35:06] 6-year-old Marvin White was

[35:10] killed at Apple Valley Road and

[35:11] Yucca Loma Road. What I'm asking

[35:13] you guys to do is take a look

[35:15] at the Victor Valley,

[35:16] at these intersections. And see

[35:18] what we can do about them. How

[35:20] many families have

[35:22] to lose somebody before we

[35:23] decide that something needs

[35:24] to change? Our children are

[35:25] learning to drive

[35:26] on these roads every year.

[35:27] Another group of teenagers gets

[35:28] their permits and driver's

[35:30] licenses. They are sharing the

[35:32] roads where excessive speeds

[35:33] can turn one mistake into a

[35:34] fatal collision. I'm asking

[35:36] that the county representatives

[35:39] work with Victorville, Apple

[35:41] Valley, CHT,

[35:42] and the appropriate agencies

[35:43] to conduct urgent safety

[35:45] reviews of these corridors. We

[35:47] understand that the government

[35:48] cannot prevent every accident,

[35:51] but when the same roads and

[35:52] even these same intersections

[35:53] repeatedly appear in fatal and

[35:54] serious collisions.

[35:55] >> 30 seconds.

[35:56] >> We have a responsibility to

[35:58] ask whether we could do more.

[36:01] I'm asking that you guys can

[36:05] tell me what we do to have these

[36:08] places considered and not just

[36:11] passed off to the next person.

[36:14] Whether it's just speed bumps or

[36:17] anything to help these areas

[36:19] to prevent more fatalities.

[36:23] >> Thank you very much

[36:24] for your comment.

[36:25] >> Thank you.

[36:27] >> We will now move on

[36:28] to any board member comments

[36:29] on consent. Right, I'd like

[36:32] to speak on number 21. As we

[36:34] consider this item today,

[36:35] I don't want to pull it. I just

[36:37] have a comment to make. I'd

[36:38] like to express several

[36:39] concerns that I currently have

[36:40] about moving forward

[36:41] with this project. While the

[36:42] proposed $11 million investment

[36:43] would help advance the SB

[36:45] Hope Campus, I believe that we

[36:47] must proceed with caution

[36:49] on that. My priority,

[36:51] whether this project or any

[36:52] other, is to ensure that any

[36:53] investment is made both

[36:55] sustainable and effective. I

[36:57] would like to urge the county

[36:58] staff and our city partners

[37:00] to move carefully and

[37:01] diligently

[37:02] in recognizing that the success

[37:03] of this project depends on a

[37:05] strong ongoing coordination,

[37:08] not only with the City of San

[37:09] Bernardino, but also

[37:10] with our other cities who may

[37:12] be involved. It is critical

[37:13] that everybody remains closely

[37:14] aligned throughout this process

[37:16] to maximize the impact

[37:17] of our investment and to avoid

[37:19] unintended consequences.

[37:21] With this level

[37:22] of investment,

[37:23] I expect our partnership to

[37:24] deliver a robust coordination,

[37:25] long-term sustainability,

[37:26] and measurable outcomes. Our

[37:28] team must work together to

[37:29] ensure that the campus site is

[37:30] safe, well-managed,

[37:32] and focused

[37:33] on meaningful results

[37:34] from the outset. Ultimately, I

[37:35] believe this project can only

[37:37] succeed if everybody involved

[37:38] is committed

[37:40] to careful planning,

[37:41] transparency,

[37:42] and collaboration.

[37:43] By prioritizing these values,

[37:44] we can help build a facility

[37:45] that not only addresses

[37:46] immediate needs but also

[37:48] supports lasting progress for

[37:49] individuals and the broader

[37:50] community. I want to stress

[37:51] that the county's support

[37:52] of this project is contingent

[37:54] on seeing a clear path forward

[37:56] towards sustainability and

[37:57] effectiveness and knowing that

[37:59] the city and other partners are

[38:00] equally invested

[38:01] in these goals. Thank you. I

[38:04] will entertain a motion. I have

[38:06] a motion by Vice Chair,

[38:08] seconded by Supervisor

[38:09] Hagman. All those

[38:10] in favor?

[38:11] Aye.

[38:12] Any opposed? Any

[38:13] abstentions?

[38:14] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.

[38:15] With that, the consent calendar

[38:16] passes unanimously

[38:17] with number 5 being deferred.

[38:18] >> Thank you very much. We now

[38:19] move on to our deferred item.

[38:21] Item number 5 is this morning

[38:22] by our Department of Adults and

[38:24] Aging Services. Would you

[38:25] like a presentation,

[38:26] Supervisor?

[38:27] >> No, actually, I would, here

[38:29] would be my first ask. I'd ask

[38:31] if we could table the item to

[38:32] the next agendized meeting so I

[38:33] could actually sit

[38:34] with staff and work

[38:36] out the issue that I have

[38:37] with it. Or we can just go

[38:38] on record with my issues.

[38:40] >> If you want to do that,

[38:41] you'd need

[38:42] to make a motion.

[38:43] >> I'd like to make a motion

[38:44] that we table the item

[38:45] to the next meeting,

[38:46] so I have time to work

[38:47] on the issues that I have with

[38:48] the staff directly.

[38:49] >> I'll second that.

[38:51] >> Yes.

[38:52] >> Any public comment

[38:53] on this item?

[38:54] >> No, ma'am.

[38:55] >> All right.

[38:56] >> Seeing none,

[38:57] I have a motion and a second.

[38:58] All those in favor?

[38:59] >> Aye.

[39:00] >> Any opposed? Any

[39:01] abstentions?

[39:02] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.

[39:03] With that, number 5 is

[39:04] continued to September 1st.

[39:05] >> Thank you very much. And

[39:06] with that, we will move on to

[39:07] our discussion calendar today.

[39:08] Our first item is item number

[39:09] 75, which is a public hearing

[39:11] and bond issuance approval

[39:13] of the California Municipal

[39:15] Finance Authority and

[39:17] tax-exempt financing being

[39:19] presented by Robert Saldana.

[39:21] We'll open the public hearing

[39:23] and welcome your presentation.

[39:29] >> Thank you and good morning,

[39:30] Chair Rowe and members

[39:31] of the board. Robert Saldana,

[39:32] Deputy Executive

[39:34] Officer, County Finance. The

[39:35] purpose of this hearing is to

[39:37] grant the public an opportunity

[39:38] to comment

[39:39] on the proposed issuance

[39:40] of tax-exempt financing in a

[39:42] maximum principal amount not

[39:43] to exceed $31,440,000. The

[39:47] proceeds of these bonds issued

[39:49] through the California

[39:50] Municipal Finance Authority

[39:51] will be loaned to Augusta

[39:52] Communities, a nonprofit

[39:53] organization, and used to

[39:54] finance the acquisition and

[39:55] improvement of 3 mobile home

[39:57] parks located within San

[39:58] Bernardino County.

[40:00] Specifically in the cities of

[40:01] Victorville, Rialto, and

[40:02] Yucaipa. This hearing is

[40:04] required pursuant

[40:05] to the requirements of Section

[40:07] 147 of the Internal Revenue

[40:08] Code of 1986, as amended,

[40:10] and the Tax Equity and Fiscal

[40:12] Responsibility Act of 1982,

[40:14] commonly referred to as TEFRA.

[40:15] Under TEFRA law,

[40:17] a public hearing is

[40:18] to be conducted by a

[40:19] governmental entity that has

[40:20] jurisdiction over the area

[40:21] where the projects are located.

[40:23] In this case,

[40:24] as the projects span multiple

[40:25] cities, Augusta Communities

[40:27] approached the county

[40:28] to host a hearing covering all

[40:29] 3 projects. Please note there

[40:36] is no county financial

[40:38] obligation or liability arising

[40:39] from any bond issuance

[40:40] associated with this action.

[40:42] Additionally, as this action

[40:44] and all underlying details are

[40:45] the responsibility of Augusta

[40:46] Communities and CFMA,

[40:48] representatives are here to

[40:49] discuss should there be any

[40:51] questions. This concludes my

[40:52] presentation, Chair.

[40:53] >> Thank you very much. I do

[40:54] have one request to speak

[40:55] on this by Denise June

[40:57] Shearer.

[41:03] >> Madam Chair, the caller is

[41:04] not connected.

[41:06] >> Do we have connection?

[41:08] >> Yes, we do.

[41:09] >> Okay, she has dropped.

[41:12] >> She did. She registered.

[41:13] >> She signed up

[41:14] but didn't call in.

[41:15] >> Okay, very well. All right,

[41:17] are there any other requests

[41:18] to speak that I don't see?

[41:20] >> No, ma'am.

[41:21] >> Seeing none,

[41:23] I will entertain any questions

[41:25] from board members. I'm going

[41:26] to close the public hearing and

[41:27] entertain a motion. Thank you,

[41:29] Supervisor Hagman,

[41:30] for the motion and Vice Chair

[41:31] for the second. All those

[41:32] in favor?

[41:33] Aye.

[41:34] Any opposed? Any

[41:35] abstentions?

[41:36] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.

[41:37] With that, Item 75 passes

[41:38] unanimously.

[41:39] >> Very well. Item number 76 is

[41:41] our Surface Mining and

[41:42] Reclamation Ordinance being

[41:43] presented this morning by

[41:45] Paul Gonzalez. And as a

[41:46] reminder, as I announced

[41:47] at the top of the meeting,

[41:48] because we have so many

[41:49] speakers signed up

[41:50] on this item,

[41:51] public comment will be limited

[41:52] to 2 minutes. 2 minutes

[41:53] for each speaker,

[41:54] both remote and in person. I

[41:55] will open the public hearing.

[41:57] Good morning, gentlemen.

[42:03] >> Good morning, Chair Rowe and

[42:05] County Supervisors. I'm Paul

[42:06] Gonzalez, planning chief.

[42:08] Before you this morning is a

[42:09] proposed update to the county's

[42:11] mining regulation,

[42:13] regulation ordinance. The

[42:15] mining ordinance was last

[42:16] updated in 2007. The update

[42:19] ordinance provides greater

[42:20] clarity and accountability

[42:21] for both mine operators and the

[42:23] County of San Bernardino while

[42:25] bringing the local ordinance up

[42:27] to the current Surface Mining

[42:30] and Reclamation Act, also known

[42:31] as SMARA. The ordinance

[42:34] strengthens requirements for

[42:36] financial assurance and

[42:37] reclamation cost estimates,

[42:39] establishes clear

[42:40] responsibilities and

[42:41] procedures, and expands

[42:42] on enforcement tools for the

[42:43] County of San Bernardino.

[42:46] With that said, I'd like

[42:47] to introduce Chief Geologist

[42:49] Dan Walsh, who will provide you

[42:50] a presentation.

[42:53] >> Morning, Chair Rowe,

[42:54] Supervisors. As Paul mentioned,

[42:56] I'm Dan Walsh. I'm the Chief

[42:57] Engineering Geologist. I lead

[42:59] the Mining and Geology

[43:00] Division under Land Use

[43:02] Services, and this morning I'll

[43:03] be presenting a proposal

[43:06] to amend Title 8 of the

[43:07] Development Code related to the

[43:09] Surface Mining and Reclamation

[43:10] Ordinance.

[43:17] The amendment would repeal and

[43:18] reenact Chapter 88.03 of the

[43:21] Development Code to ensure our

[43:23] local regulations remain

[43:25] in compliance

[43:26] with the changes made

[43:27] to state law, specifically the

[43:28] statutes and regulations

[43:30] defined in the Surface Mining

[43:31] and Reclamation Act, or SMARA.

[43:34] Changes include content updates

[43:35] to align with SMARA,

[43:37] through removal

[43:38] of outdated sections, addition

[43:39] of new sections, and revisions

[43:41] of existing sections. SMARA is

[43:48] a statewide law enacted in

[43:49] 1975 to regulate surface mining

[43:52] and ensure that mined lands are

[43:53] properly reclaimed to a safe,

[43:55] stable, and usable condition

[43:57] while minimizing environmental

[43:59] impacts. It also requires lead

[44:01] agencies to adopt and implement

[44:02] compliant local ordinances

[44:04] governing mining permits,

[44:06] reclamation plans, and

[44:08] financial assurances. SMARA has

[44:10] been revised multiple times

[44:12] since 1975,

[44:14] with substantive revisions in

[44:16] 2017. The State Mining and

[44:19] Geology Board oversees and

[44:20] certifies the local ordinances.

[44:26] The county surface mining

[44:27] ordinance was adopted in 1999

[44:29] and certified by the State

[44:30] Mining and Geology Board on

[44:31] November 10th, 1999. The

[44:34] surface mining ordinance has

[44:35] not been significantly revised

[44:37] since the ordinance was

[44:38] originally adopted and is not

[44:40] up to date. As lead agency

[44:41] for permitting and regulation

[44:43] of surface mining and

[44:45] reclamation operations within

[44:46] the unincorporated county, the

[44:48] county regulates these

[44:49] operations in accordance

[44:50] with SMARA. This development

[44:52] code amendment would bring the

[44:54] county code back

[44:55] into alignment with current

[44:57] statutes and regulations

[44:58] provided in SMARA. There are

[45:00] over 85 surface mines currently

[45:01] in operation in the county.

[45:08] This ordinance update

[45:09] represents a comprehensive

[45:10] modernization of Chapter

[45:11] 88.03. It expands procedures,

[45:14] strengthens enforcement, and

[45:16] aligns the county's regulations

[45:17] with current state

[45:19] requirements. Overall, it

[45:20] updates the framework by adding

[45:21] new sections and replacing

[45:23] outdated provisions.

[45:28] To clarify, this ordinance

[45:29] update does not place new

[45:31] limits on the county's lead

[45:32] agency authority under SMARA,

[45:34] nor does it relax current

[45:35] required standards

[45:37] under state law. Furthermore,

[45:38] this amendment does not reduce

[45:40] the county's ability to enforce

[45:42] violations or maintain adequate

[45:43] financial assurances

[45:45] for reclamation, but rather it

[45:46] codifies the more structured

[45:48] processes currently being used

[45:50] by county staff. Several core

[45:57] sections have been

[45:58] significantly revised to

[46:00] provide clearer procedures and

[46:01] stronger oversight. The vested

[46:03] rights section now includes a

[46:05] detailed determination process

[46:07] which includes application

[46:09] requirements, evidentiary

[46:10] standards, and formal hearing

[46:11] and board decision processes.

[46:13] Application review has also

[46:15] been expanded to include

[46:17] specific submittal requirements

[46:19] defined timelines,

[46:20] and formal coordination

[46:21] with the State Division of

[46:22] Mine Reclamation.

[46:24] In addition, financial

[46:25] assurance requirements now

[46:26] include more rigorous cost

[46:28] estimate methodologies,

[46:29] contingency calculations,

[46:31] and provisions

[46:32] for release or forfeiture.

[46:34] Finally, enforcement has been

[46:36] transformed into a

[46:37] comprehensive framework that

[46:39] includes notices

[46:40] of violation, orders

[46:41] to comply, administrative

[46:43] penalties, appeals,

[46:45] and remedies for public health

[46:46] and safety concerns. The

[46:52] purpose of the ordinance has

[46:53] been broadened to reflect

[46:54] current statewide priorities,

[46:56] including supporting

[46:57] infrastructure needs and

[46:58] reducing transportation-related

[47:00] emissions

[47:02] from aggregate hauling. The

[47:04] ordinance also strengthens

[47:06] mineral resource protection

[47:07] by expanding policies related

[47:08] to mineral resource zones and

[47:10] incorporating updated mapping

[47:11] requirements. These policies

[47:13] are more directly integrated

[47:15] with the county's general plan

[47:17] to ensure long-term resource

[47:19] availability is considered

[47:20] in land use decisions.

[47:22] Overall, this shifts the

[47:23] ordinance

[47:24] from primarily regulatory to

[47:25] more policy-driven and

[47:26] forward-looking. A key update

[47:32] is the automatic incorporation

[47:34] of future amendments

[47:35] to SMARA, which ensures the

[47:36] county's ordinance remains

[47:37] current without needing

[47:38] frequent local updates. The

[47:40] ordinance also strengthens

[47:41] coordination

[47:42] with state agencies,

[47:43] including the Division of

[47:44] Mine Reclamation and the

[47:46] State Mining and Geology

[47:47] Board, particularly during

[47:48] application review and annual

[47:50] reporting. Reclamation

[47:52] standards have been updated to

[47:54] reflect current state

[47:55] regulations,

[47:56] including clear requirements

[47:57] for phased reclamation and

[47:58] reclamation success criteria.

[48:01] These changes ensure consistent

[48:02] implementation of state law

[48:04] at the local level. This update

[48:09] provides important

[48:10] clarifications to improve

[48:12] day-to-day administration

[48:13] of the ordinance.

[48:14] Applicability has been expanded

[48:16] to address federal lands and

[48:17] situations involving multiple

[48:18] agencies, reducing

[48:20] jurisdictional ambiguity.

[48:22] For example, Section 88.03.040

[48:27] Subsection B was added

[48:28] to codify the collaboration

[48:30] between the county and federal

[48:31] agencies. to provide joint

[48:33] environmental review

[48:34] over proposed mine operations

[48:36] on federal lands. This section

[48:39] references the 1992 Memorandum

[48:41] of Understanding between the

[48:43] state and federal agencies that

[48:45] confirms existing permitting

[48:46] and reclamation authority while

[48:48] affording both NEPA and CEQA

[48:50] environmental review for the

[48:51] entire proposed mining

[48:53] operation. While the federal

[48:54] agency has always had permit

[48:56] approval authority, The county

[48:58] will continue

[48:59] to provide CEQA review for the

[49:01] entire project and has approval

[49:02] authority

[49:03] over the reclamation plan. The

[49:05] permitting, reclamation plan,

[49:07] and vested rights approval

[49:08] framework has been expanded to

[49:09] better explain how these

[49:11] components interact. The

[49:12] application procedures now

[49:14] include more detailed submittal

[49:15] requirements, timelines,

[49:17] written responses

[49:18] to state comments,

[49:19] and recordation requirements.

[49:21] In addition, interim management

[49:22] plan requirements for idle

[49:24] mines have been further

[49:25] detailed. Including renewal

[49:27] timelines and standards

[49:28] for determining abandonment.

[49:35] Some outdated sections have

[49:36] been reorganized or replaced

[49:37] to reflect the new structure.

[49:39] For example, the prior

[49:40] application and violation

[49:42] sections have been replaced

[49:43] with more comprehensive updated

[49:45] frameworks. These changes

[49:46] reduce redundancy,

[49:48] improve overall organization,

[49:49] and make the ordinance more

[49:51] user-friendly

[49:52] for both staff and applicants.

[49:57] The amendment has been found

[49:58] to be consistent with the

[49:59] countywide policy plan as it

[50:01] meets various goals and

[50:02] policies designed to ensure the

[50:04] continued availability of

[50:05] important mineral resources

[50:07] while regulating surface mining

[50:08] operations as required

[50:09] by SMARA. The proposed

[50:15] amendment was determined

[50:17] by the county to be exempt

[50:18] under CEQA pursuant to Section

[50:20] 15061 subsection B3 of Title 14

[50:23] of the California Code of

[50:24] Regulations because the

[50:26] ordinance is limited

[50:27] to an administrative update of

[50:28] an existing surface mining and

[50:30] land reclamation ordinance and

[50:31] will not directly or indirectly

[50:33] authorize activity that may

[50:35] have a significant effect

[50:36] on the environment.

[50:42] In accordance

[50:43] with county code, notices

[50:44] of the Planning Commission and

[50:46] Board of Supervisors public

[50:47] hearings were published

[50:48] in the San Bernardino Sun

[50:49] newspaper. Which reaches a

[50:50] countywide audience.

[50:52] Publication dates were June

[50:54] 29th and August 7th, 2026,

[50:56] respectively. As a courtesy,

[50:58] the draft ordinance was made

[50:59] available to the public online

[51:01] from the Land Use Services

[51:02] website. 98 written comments

[51:05] were received prior to the

[51:06] Planning Commission hearing,

[51:07] and another 8 comments were

[51:09] received prior to the Board

[51:10] of Supervisors meeting. 33

[51:12] people spoke in opposition

[51:14] to the ordinance update

[51:15] at the Planning Commission

[51:16] hearing. The public comments

[51:18] expressed concern regarding

[51:19] review required for projects

[51:21] on federal lands, what projects

[51:23] would be considered

[51:24] non-substantial deviations

[51:25] which would not require public

[51:26] notification, why the ordinance

[51:28] update was exempt from CEQA,

[51:31] and expressed concerns related

[51:32] to pending mining projects

[51:34] which are not associated

[51:35] with this ordinance update.

[51:41] That concludes my presentation.

[51:43] And I'm available

[51:44] for any questions you may have.

[51:46] >> Thank you very much. We're

[51:47] going to move to our remote

[51:48] speakers first and then

[51:50] speakers in chambers,

[51:51] and then we'll go to board

[51:52] member comments and questions.

[51:57] Our first request to speak

[51:58] remotely that we have is

[52:00] Aaron Gatlin, followed by

[52:02] Bonnie Hawthorne, and then

[52:03] Jared Nijmark.

[52:09] >> Good morning. My name is

[52:10] Erin Gatlin. I'm a resident

[52:11] of Yucca Valley. I'm here

[52:12] to express my opposition

[52:14] to agenda item 76, project

[52:17] number EMISIC 20260029. The

[52:22] proposed rewrite of the chapter

[52:26] as described most recently

[52:28] by your, by the county staff is

[52:35] significantly different than I

[52:36] think most of us read the

[52:39] proposed changes. And we have a

[52:44] lot of concerns about them

[52:45] because they were written

[52:48] with industry

[52:49] without public input. And when

[52:51] public input was asked for,

[52:54] they were dismissed as saying

[52:56] we just didn't understand what

[52:57] was going on. The issue is we

[52:59] do understand,

[53:01] we understand the implications

[53:02] of the changes. The county's

[53:03] been trying

[53:04] to downplay as simply coming

[53:05] into compliance

[53:07] with state standards. If the

[53:08] modifications are approved, it

[53:10] means that just as federal

[53:11] agencies are making

[53:12] unprecedented changes to the

[53:14] National Environmental Policy

[53:15] Act review process to review,

[53:20] to narrow the review and shut

[53:21] out public comment.

[53:22] The county is proposing

[53:24] to walk away from their local

[53:25] permitting responsibilities.

[53:28] And then you have the proposed

[53:30] Music Valley Mine, which is

[53:32] actually related to the matter

[53:36] before you because it's an

[53:38] example of case study of

[53:40] potentially the county walking.

[53:41] >> 30 seconds.

[53:42] >> Away from its

[53:43] responsibility. I urge the

[53:45] county to vote no on the

[53:47] proposed chapter revisions, and

[53:49] at the very least remove text

[53:51] from lines 19 to 21 and lines

[53:55] 24 through 26. Thank you.

[53:57] >> Thank you very much, Bonnie

[53:58] Hawthorne, and then Jared

[53:59] Nymark and Liz Stevens.

[54:07] >> Good morning. My name is

[54:08] Bonnie Hawthorne. I'm a

[54:09] resident of Joshua Tree, and

[54:12] I'm calling in

[54:13] to oppose project listed

[54:17] in item number 76. I urge you

[54:19] to vote no and to encourage

[54:21] your fellow board members

[54:23] to do the same. This proposed

[54:25] rewrite of Chapter 88.03 would

[54:30] surrender a critical piece of

[54:32] San Bernardino County's local

[54:34] oversight of surface mining

[54:35] on federal land.

[54:37] Under the new Section

[54:38] 88.03.040B a mining operation

[54:44] with federal authorization

[54:46] could proceed

[54:47] without a county permit. This

[54:50] is a bigger deal than is being

[54:51] acknowledged. A county permit

[54:53] provides an opportunity

[54:54] for local review, public

[54:56] scrutiny, and environmental

[54:57] protections that our

[54:59] communities should not have to

[55:00] surrender simply because a

[55:02] federal agency has approved a

[55:03] project. The county should not

[55:05] be handing

[55:06] over its responsibility to

[55:07] protect the people and

[55:09] landscape of San Bernardino

[55:10] County. An open, open-pit

[55:13] mining operation is

[55:15] fundamentally inconsistent with

[55:17] our status as a national park

[55:19] gateway community. A

[55:21] designation whose beauty and

[55:23] significance I know you, Dawn

[55:24] Rowe, personally appreciate.

[55:27] I'm assuming you've been

[55:29] to the sad little town of

[55:30] Boron in Kern County. The mine

[55:33] there, with its giant Star

[55:35] Wars trucks and constant sounds

[55:38] of excavation, make a.

[55:39] >> 30 seconds.

[55:41] >> Nearly, what's that? I

[55:44] didn't hear what you said.

[55:45] >> 30 seconds left.

[55:47] >> Okay. All I have to say is

[55:50] the only time you don't have an

[55:52] open pit mine is

[55:54] before you approve one.

[55:56] >> Thank you.

[55:57] >> Thank you. Jared Nymark,

[55:59] followed by Liz Stevens, and

[56:00] then Lisa Belenky.

[56:21] >> Good morning, Chair, Vice

[56:22] Chair, and board. My name is

[56:24] Jared Naimark. I'm the Western

[56:25] Mining Senior Manager at

[56:27] Earthworks, a national

[56:28] nonprofit organization

[56:30] dedicated to protecting

[56:31] communities and the environment

[56:35] from the adverse impacts

[56:36] of mining, including here in

[56:37] the county. I'm commenting

[56:38] today to respectfully request

[56:39] that you deny the proposed

[56:41] mining ordinance update. until

[56:42] reasonable revisions are made

[56:43] to clarify the language. As we

[56:46] wrote in our comment letter,

[56:47] we continue to have serious

[56:48] concerns that the section

[56:51] regarding applicability on

[56:52] federal lands is problematic

[56:54] and will lead to confusion

[56:55] for applicants, agencies,

[56:56] and the public. In response

[56:58] to our comments, staff suggests

[56:59] that the ordinance

[57:00] distinguishes between a permit

[57:02] for land use entitlement and

[57:04] reclamation plan approval,

[57:05] but this is not at all clear

[57:06] from plain understanding

[57:08] of the text. Because permit can

[57:10] mean any approval

[57:11] by a lead agency,

[57:12] this could be interpreted

[57:13] by applicants to mean federal

[57:15] approval is all that they need

[57:17] to move forward. It would be

[57:18] extremely easy

[57:20] to fix this language

[57:21] for clarity

[57:23] for all stakeholders. This

[57:24] section is also problematic

[57:26] because it relies

[57:27] on an outdated MOU between

[57:28] California and the federal

[57:30] government. Staff suggests that

[57:32] this simply allows the county

[57:33] flexibility

[57:34] to avoid duplicating work

[57:35] on environmental review. But

[57:37] because NEPA and CEQA are so

[57:38] different due

[57:39] to recent changes made

[57:40] to NEPA, it means that federal

[57:41] documents are highly unlikely

[57:43] to fulfill CEQA requirements,

[57:45] and the public will have no way

[57:47] to understand the basis

[57:48] on which, on which the county

[57:50] made that decision. So again,

[57:52] we urge some simple fixes.

[57:53] >> 30 seconds.

[57:54] >> For more clarity

[57:55] for all stakeholders.

[57:56] I would also like to add

[57:57] for the record that this

[57:59] section on applicability is

[58:01] neither included in the State

[58:02] Mining and Geology Board's

[58:04] model language for its mining

[58:05] ordinance update, nor

[58:06] in the language adopted

[58:07] by the 2 counties that have

[58:09] already updated their

[58:10] ordinance. It's not necessary,

[58:12] and it's not part of the

[58:13] standard updates that other

[58:14] counties have adopted.

[58:16] Without revision, this draft

[58:17] risks allowing bad actors to

[58:19] avoid sensible environmental

[58:20] regulations that responsible

[58:22] operators.

[58:23] >> That's time.

[58:24] >> To comply with.

[58:25] >> Thank you. Liz Stevens,

[58:27] followed by Lisa Belenky, and

[58:29] then R. Eichhorn.

[58:33] >> Hi, thank you, Madam

[58:34] Chair, and thanks for working

[58:36] out the technical difficulties

[58:37] to have us. It's inspiring

[58:38] to hear

[58:39] about the county and how,

[58:41] be reminded how large it is,

[58:42] but I think we're all here

[58:43] to show you some close-up views

[58:45] of 29. My comments are a lot

[58:47] less technical than the others,

[58:49] but Bonnie's point about Boron

[58:51] is very well taken. Even

[58:53] without conservation value

[58:55] around this, space this in 29.

[59:01] We're in a kind

[59:02] of an economic renaissance

[59:03] of businesses and home values,

[59:05] and the mine,

[59:07] surface mine would be the view

[59:08] from the east entrance

[59:10] to the park. And I don't think

[59:11] we're aiming for Boron. We have

[59:12] a lot of stakeholders that are

[59:14] business owners, real estate

[59:16] agents, and hundreds

[59:17] of people showing up

[59:18] to local meetings to speak to

[59:21] the very inspiring direction

[59:23] that 29 is already headed.

[59:25] Rather than doubling down

[59:27] on industry. So not a

[59:29] conservation issue only,

[59:30] which is vitally important,

[59:32] but really about 29 and about

[59:34] Wonder Valley as spaces and

[59:35] towns and inappropriate places

[59:37] to introduce the mines,

[59:39] as it also affects our water

[59:41] and watershed, which we haven't

[59:42] really touched on. And that's

[59:46] all I'd like to contribute.

[59:47] Thank you so much

[59:48] for voting no

[59:49] on the language change. Thank

[59:50] you.

[59:52] >> Thank you very much. Lisa

[59:53] Belenky, followed by R.

[59:54] Eichhorn, and then Nicholas

[59:56] Graber.

[1:00:02] >> Oh, good morning. This

[1:00:03] is Lisa Belenky with the

[1:00:05] Center for Biological

[1:00:06] Diversity.

[1:00:07] I'm going to focus my

[1:00:08] comments on one aspect of the

[1:00:10] August 16th letter that we,

[1:00:14] August 6th letter that we

[1:00:17] submitted to the Board of

[1:00:19] Supervisors, and that is the

[1:00:20] implementation

[1:00:22] of the exemption under

[1:00:23] California Public Resources

[1:00:25] Code 2714D by the county.

[1:00:28] For many years,

[1:00:30] we have raised this issue with

[1:00:31] the county that the county has

[1:00:34] been not focusing

[1:00:36] on the actual language of the

[1:00:38] Public Resources Code

[1:00:39] but appears to be focusing

[1:00:41] on language that may be

[1:00:42] in the MOU from 1992 and is not

[1:00:45] really complying

[1:00:47] with the substance

[1:00:49] of this exemption.

[1:00:50] In one example,

[1:00:52] for a project called the Gold

[1:00:53] Discovery Group, which

[1:00:55] disturbed over 10 acres

[1:00:58] of land within the county and

[1:00:59] 15 acres overall. There was no

[1:01:02] SMARA compliance by the county

[1:01:04] for this project. And the

[1:01:06] statement that was made by this

[1:01:08] project itself is that they

[1:01:10] were told

[1:01:11] by the county they didn't need

[1:01:13] to comply because each separate

[1:01:15] piece

[1:01:16] of their project was less than

[1:01:17] 1 acre. That is the wrong

[1:01:19] interpretation

[1:01:21] of the statute clearly. It is

[1:01:23] not the interpretation that the

[1:01:25] courts have upheld, and it is

[1:01:26] not,

[1:01:28] it is not the plain language

[1:01:29] of the statute. We're very

[1:01:31] concerned that this update.

[1:01:33] >> 30 seconds.

[1:01:34] >> Regulations is not

[1:01:36] addressing this issue. The

[1:01:38] county should amend the

[1:01:40] proposed ordinance

[1:01:41] to clarify this exemption, that

[1:01:43] it will only be applied where

[1:01:45] the total disturbed acres are

[1:01:47] less than 1 acre, and that it

[1:01:50] will, the county will rely

[1:01:51] on the Public Resources Code

[1:01:54] and not the MOU for this kind

[1:01:56] of compliance. Thank you so

[1:01:57] much for your time.

[1:01:59] >> Thank you very much. R.

[1:02:01] Eichorn, followed by Nicholas

[1:02:02] Garver, and then we're going

[1:02:04] to bring it back here

[1:02:05] in chambers, and we're going

[1:02:07] to start with Jay Gammell.

[1:02:14] >> Hi, this is Rachel. I'm a

[1:02:16] resident of 29 Palms,

[1:02:17] and I actually have an art

[1:02:18] studio, I guess,

[1:02:19] where this mine is going

[1:02:20] to be going, which is great

[1:02:21] for me. I'm coming at less

[1:02:24] of a technical, I do want you

[1:02:25] to vote no, more

[1:02:26] from a just sort

[1:02:27] of a technical experience

[1:02:28] of working in construction. I'm

[1:02:30] an architectural lighting

[1:02:31] designer. I work

[1:02:32] on large projects,

[1:02:33] large commercial projects. And

[1:02:34] whenever I hear language where

[1:02:36] we're going to remove permits

[1:02:38] or remove reviews,

[1:02:39] I always get a pit in my

[1:02:43] stomach because I know things

[1:02:44] are about to go south. Those

[1:02:46] permits and those, those

[1:02:47] purposes,

[1:02:48] those processes were set up

[1:02:50] for a reason. And I've just

[1:02:53] constantly, my job every day,

[1:02:55] I have to deal with contractors

[1:02:56] not doing it correctly,

[1:02:58] not going to code because, and

[1:02:59] for reasons, usually

[1:03:00] to save money,

[1:03:02] or they just didn't want

[1:03:03] to deal with it. And those

[1:03:04] things are there

[1:03:05] to protect us. So, when,

[1:03:07] so that's why I would like you

[1:03:08] to vote no, anytime where

[1:03:09] they're removing permit

[1:03:10] processes. Any controls that we

[1:03:12] have, the local community is,

[1:03:13] it's just,

[1:03:17] I live this every day. It's

[1:03:18] just dumb. Don't do it.

[1:03:20] Vote no.

[1:03:21] Thank you.

[1:03:22] >> Thank you very much.

[1:03:23] Nicholas Garver, followed by

[1:03:24] Jay Gammell, and then

[1:03:26] Kimberly Sizics.

[1:03:33] >> Hi, this is Nicholas

[1:03:34] Graver. I'm speaking to

[1:03:36] wholeheartedly oppose the

[1:03:37] adoption of this ordinance.

[1:03:39] County and Planning Commission

[1:03:41] staff acknowledged at the

[1:03:42] planning meeting that this was

[1:03:43] our,

[1:03:44] that was our first opportunity

[1:03:45] to comment after years

[1:03:46] of them supposedly working

[1:03:47] on this regulation, I guess

[1:03:49] in secret. The county staff

[1:03:51] scoffed at the idea of further

[1:03:53] public comment because in their

[1:03:54] view the community has nothing

[1:03:55] of value to contribute because

[1:03:57] of our lack of expertise. They

[1:03:58] consulted with the mining

[1:03:59] industry professionals because

[1:04:01] they, quote unquote,

[1:04:03] understand mining regulations,

[1:04:04] but refused to consult

[1:04:05] with the public

[1:04:06] since apparently, we do not.

[1:04:07] Allow me to present myself as

[1:04:08] an alternative. I'm a

[1:04:10] professional biologist with 10

[1:04:11] years

[1:04:12] of experience living and

[1:04:13] working in San Bernardino

[1:04:14] County. I've worked

[1:04:15] on NEPA and CEQA projects,

[1:04:16] and I worked and consulted on

[1:04:17] state and federal endangered

[1:04:18] species protections. I worked

[1:04:19] on mine reclamation,

[1:04:21] particularly for the species

[1:04:23] in our county that matter most

[1:04:24] to us, like the desert tortoise

[1:04:25] and the Joshua tree. The staff

[1:04:29] characterized this as a joint

[1:04:30] environmental review conducted

[1:04:31] by,

[1:04:32] under NEPA and CEQA covered

[1:04:34] by the county. That's not a

[1:04:35] fair characterization

[1:04:36] of what's written in the

[1:04:38] regulations. I've read them. I

[1:04:40] don't know why they would

[1:04:42] characterize that in that way.

[1:04:43] But just wanted

[1:04:46] to call attention to the idea

[1:04:47] that when you institute a

[1:04:49] blanket regulation that a

[1:04:50] certain type of activity does

[1:04:51] not require a permit

[1:04:52] from the county,

[1:04:54] you're ceding all control

[1:04:55] to the offenders themselves to

[1:04:56] decide whether their activity

[1:04:58] applies or doesn't apply to the

[1:05:00] way that regulation is written.

[1:05:01] So they get to decide,

[1:05:02] not the county. We don't get

[1:05:03] to decide.

[1:05:04] >> 30 seconds.

[1:05:05] >> Whether we can require a

[1:05:07] permit or not for those kinds

[1:05:09] of things. And more

[1:05:10] fundamentally, there is no such

[1:05:11] thing as a mining project that

[1:05:12] takes place only

[1:05:13] on federal land

[1:05:14] in our county. No such thing.

[1:05:15] This is because those mine

[1:05:16] materials must be loaded onto

[1:05:17] trucks that pass through our

[1:05:19] residential communities,

[1:05:20] because the dust and emissions

[1:05:21] from those mines will be

[1:05:22] breathed by our children,

[1:05:23] because I live close enough

[1:05:24] to the proposed Music Valley

[1:05:25] mine that I know I will hear

[1:05:26] the sounds of mining

[1:05:27] from my house. We are a

[1:05:30] community that needs, all

[1:05:32] of our communities across San

[1:05:33] Bernardino County need the.

[1:05:34] >> That's time.

[1:05:35] >> The ability to have input

[1:05:36] on these regulations.

[1:05:37] >> Thank you very much. Jay

[1:05:39] Gamble, followed by Kimberly

[1:05:41] Zeisig, followed by Margaret

[1:05:44] Oystendorp.

[1:05:50] >> Good morning. My name is

[1:05:51] Jay Gamble. I'm from

[1:05:52] Wrightwood in the 1st

[1:05:53] District. I'm asking you

[1:05:54] to continue item 76. The

[1:05:57] ordinance does strengthen

[1:05:58] enforcement and inspections,

[1:06:00] but 3 areas still need work.

[1:06:02] Vested rights decisions would

[1:06:03] be final within the county with

[1:06:04] no administrative appeal or

[1:06:06] CEQA review. The reclamation

[1:06:08] plan process has 2 disclosure

[1:06:10] gaps. The director could

[1:06:12] approve some plan changes

[1:06:13] without public notice,

[1:06:15] as people have mentioned,

[1:06:16] and staff reports wouldn't have

[1:06:18] to include the Division of

[1:06:19] Mine Reclamation's written

[1:06:20] comments. The ordinance also

[1:06:22] lacks a transition rule

[1:06:24] for pending applications. The

[1:06:25] proposed Lone Pine Canyon

[1:06:26] Quarry

[1:06:27] near my home is pending, but

[1:06:28] the ordinance doesn't say what

[1:06:29] chapter would govern it. And

[1:06:32] for that, the, the staff report

[1:06:34] says that DMR reviewed and

[1:06:35] accepted that plan,

[1:06:37] then describes a December 2025

[1:06:39] letter finding the submission

[1:06:41] incomplete without attaching

[1:06:42] their actual letter. DMR

[1:06:44] confirmed to me last week that

[1:06:46] their incomplete notice is the

[1:06:47] only written comment

[1:06:49] for that project.

[1:06:50] Commissioners and the public

[1:06:51] should see DMR's comments

[1:06:53] alongside the county's response

[1:06:54] before the county acts

[1:06:56] on a reclamation plan

[1:06:57] for any project. This is a

[1:06:58] chance to fix that. My written

[1:07:02] comments do go

[1:07:03] into more detail

[1:07:04] on these issues,

[1:07:05] but please consider this item,

[1:07:06] consider them. Continue item

[1:07:08] 76 so residents and community

[1:07:10] groups have more time to review

[1:07:11] the ordinance and suggest

[1:07:13] changes. Thank you.

[1:07:14] >> Thank you very much,

[1:07:15] Kimberly Zeisig, followed by

[1:07:17] Margaret Oystendorp and then

[1:07:18] Beth Sheffield.

[1:07:42] >> Kimberly Zeisig.

[1:07:47] >> All right, we'll move on

[1:07:49] to Margaret Oystendorp,

[1:07:51] followed by Beth Sheffield, and

[1:07:52] then Mark Houston.

[1:07:54] >> Thank you very much to the

[1:07:55] Board of Supervisors

[1:07:56] for hearing us. Those of us who

[1:07:59] have traveled round trip 200

[1:08:03] miles from Wonder Valley

[1:08:05] to speak to you

[1:08:06] in person today,

[1:08:07] that's the depth

[1:08:08] of our feeling

[1:08:09] about this change

[1:08:11] of authority and permitting

[1:08:13] from the county to the federal

[1:08:15] government. I'm speaking

[1:08:17] in opposition to this change.

[1:08:20] I'm not speaking as an expert

[1:08:22] in geology or anything else.

[1:08:25] I'm speaking as a human being

[1:08:27] who lives in Wonder Valley,

[1:08:29] who moved

[1:08:31] to this community because

[1:08:32] of health issues, because

[1:08:34] of issues with my lungs. The

[1:08:36] 2.5 particulate pollutants that

[1:08:40] has been proven to be part

[1:08:43] of what happens in a mining

[1:08:45] project will greatly impact

[1:08:48] people like me. Our community

[1:08:50] has had a long history going

[1:08:53] back to Dr. Lucky and the work

[1:08:55] that he did with veterans

[1:08:57] from World War I coming

[1:08:58] to the area for our health. We

[1:09:02] know that the county has put

[1:09:04] on record about its obligation

[1:09:07] to the health and well-being

[1:09:10] of your constituents

[1:09:11] like myself. To pass and

[1:09:14] approve this ordinance will

[1:09:16] basically give over and go

[1:09:19] against what you have put in

[1:09:20] writing as what you're

[1:09:22] concerned about

[1:09:25] with the health and well-being

[1:09:26] of the community.

[1:09:27] >> 30 seconds.

[1:09:28] >> I also want to say that it's

[1:09:30] been very difficult for those

[1:09:33] of us coming this distance

[1:09:36] to be here. We would like

[1:09:38] to request that White Feather

[1:09:40] Road be again open for us

[1:09:42] to be able to comment

[1:09:44] in person. And we would

[1:09:46] like you very much

[1:09:47] to consider that,

[1:09:49] and we urge you to vote no

[1:09:51] on this and

[1:09:52] to show us that you care

[1:09:54] about us as you did.

[1:09:56] >> That's time.

[1:09:57] >> Helping us under the hat.

[1:10:01] >> Thank you. Beth Sheffield,

[1:10:03] followed by Mark Houston, and

[1:10:04] then Chris Caraher.

[1:10:08] >> Caraher.

[1:10:09] >> Before the clock begins,

[1:10:11] Kimberly Zajac is here. She was

[1:10:12] in the restroom. Can she speak?

[1:10:14] >> Sure.

[1:10:18] >> Hello, Board of

[1:10:19] Supervisors. Thank you

[1:10:20] for the time and for the

[1:10:21] restroom exception. I wanted

[1:10:23] to speak here today

[1:10:24] to note that the Bureau of

[1:10:26] Land Management has already

[1:10:27] designated the land, which the

[1:10:29] case study that we're all

[1:10:30] referring to, as an area of

[1:10:32] critical environmental concern.

[1:10:34] As I hope everyone here knows,

[1:10:36] this is critical habitat for

[1:10:37] endangered desert tortoises.

[1:10:39] Critical tortoises are a

[1:10:42] keystone species, which, as a

[1:10:44] reminder, those are the

[1:10:45] organisms that help hold the

[1:10:47] entire system together. So,

[1:10:48] before we consider changing

[1:10:49] language that has been cited

[1:10:51] by people with more expertise

[1:10:53] than I as unclear and not

[1:10:55] providing for enough review,

[1:10:59] I would urge you

[1:11:00] to consider some

[1:11:01] of the past projects of

[1:11:02] Dateline, like the Coliseum

[1:11:04] Mine, which closed in 1993

[1:11:07] but still. Years later,

[1:11:09] there are sulfate levels

[1:11:10] above normal. So, we have both

[1:11:12] case studies of this specific

[1:11:13] company and an example

[1:11:15] of how this could be abused in

[1:11:17] ways that are incredibly

[1:11:21] detrimental to the economics

[1:11:22] of our region. I live in

[1:11:23] Twentynine Palms, and

[1:11:24] for the past 22 years I've been

[1:11:25] an educator. My programs have

[1:11:26] always been offered

[1:11:28] at free or low cost,

[1:11:29] and we value things

[1:11:31] like teaching the youth

[1:11:33] to learn about themselves,

[1:11:35] learn about their history,

[1:11:36] and become stewards of those

[1:11:38] things and the environment that

[1:11:39] sustain us. So, if I am

[1:11:41] to continue working in

[1:11:42] education and helping raise

[1:11:44] youth that value these things,

[1:11:46] how can I do so while watching

[1:11:49] us give up the control that we

[1:11:50] have of local matters

[1:11:52] with great impact

[1:11:54] to everyone? Especially

[1:11:55] in times of such division,

[1:11:57] I would urge you to consider

[1:11:58] your role as government

[1:12:00] stewards

[1:12:01] in repairing the relationship

[1:12:02] between constituents,

[1:12:03] repairing that trust

[1:12:04] with those who are tasked with

[1:12:07] making the most good happen.

[1:12:08] So, as you heard

[1:12:09] in the invocation today, the

[1:12:10] hope is that your decisions can

[1:12:12] do the most good possible

[1:12:14] for the entire community,

[1:12:16] and I urge you to vote no and

[1:12:17] to get more specific and more

[1:12:20] help from the constituents who

[1:12:21] wish.

[1:12:22] >> That's time.

[1:12:23] >> Thank you very much. Mark

[1:12:24] Houston, followed by Chris

[1:12:25] Caraher, and then Catherine

[1:12:27] Powell.

[1:12:29] >> Good morning. I'm Beth

[1:12:30] Sheffield, and I'm here today

[1:12:31] to speak in opposition

[1:12:32] to the proposed ordinance

[1:12:33] to repeal and reenact Chapter

[1:12:35] 88.03 of the County

[1:12:37] Development Code.

[1:12:38] Specifically, I oppose the

[1:12:40] addition of Section

[1:12:41] 88.03.040B, as in bad. 2 parts

[1:12:45] of this section are concerning.

[1:12:47] To quote, the county may accept

[1:12:50] documents and environmental

[1:12:52] studies prepared by federal

[1:12:54] agencies as functionally

[1:12:55] equivalent to meet the county's

[1:12:57] requirements, and a permit

[1:12:59] shall not be required

[1:13:01] for those portions of surface

[1:13:02] mining operations that require

[1:13:04] and obtain a federally approved

[1:13:06] Plan of operation,

[1:13:07] or other federal authorization.

[1:13:10] As I understand this, any

[1:13:11] proposed mining projects will

[1:13:13] be able to bypass California

[1:13:15] CEQA review as well as any

[1:13:17] currently required county

[1:13:19] permitting. If this added

[1:13:21] section is passed, the county

[1:13:23] will give up local stewardship

[1:13:24] of these public lands and allow

[1:13:26] some unknown desk jockey in

[1:13:28] Washington, D.C. to make

[1:13:29] decisions that affect the

[1:13:31] residents of San Bernardino

[1:13:32] County. In addition, the public

[1:13:34] will be completely left out

[1:13:36] of the process. There is,

[1:13:37] as there is no opportunity

[1:13:39] for public input. You, as our

[1:13:42] county Board of Supervisors,

[1:13:43] are entrusted

[1:13:44] to protect our community, our

[1:13:46] assets, our lands, and

[1:13:48] to protect the way of life

[1:13:49] of the residents who have

[1:13:50] chosen to live in this

[1:13:51] beautiful and peaceful rural

[1:13:53] areas.

[1:13:54] Under this new ordinance, the

[1:13:56] county will also have no

[1:13:58] upfront input. On reassurances

[1:13:59] such as a reclamation plan?

[1:14:01] >> 30 seconds.

[1:14:02] >> Is the county prepared

[1:14:03] to foot the costs of cleanup

[1:14:04] once the mining companies have

[1:14:06] extracted what they want

[1:14:07] from our public lands? Do you

[1:14:09] trust the folks in Washington

[1:14:10] to negotiate

[1:14:11] with the mining companies in

[1:14:12] your best interest as the

[1:14:14] county managers? Using Music

[1:14:16] Valley as an example,

[1:14:18] will the taxpayers be left

[1:14:19] with the bill

[1:14:20] to clean up their mess,

[1:14:21] including the unsightly piles

[1:14:22] of toxic tailings That will

[1:14:24] greet tourists who visit 29

[1:14:26] Palms and use the Joshua Tree

[1:14:27] East Entrance. Please protect

[1:14:29] our lands and our peaceful way

[1:14:30] of life.

[1:14:31] >> That's time.

[1:14:33] Thank you. Mark Houston,

[1:14:35] followed by Chris Caraher, and

[1:14:36] then Catherine Powell.

[1:14:45] >> Good morning. I am a 40-year

[1:14:46] resident of Wonder Valley and a

[1:14:50] retired National Park Service

[1:14:51] science tech. On the topic

[1:14:54] of the county's plans to

[1:14:55] discontinue planning and

[1:14:57] permitting of mines

[1:14:58] on federal lands,

[1:14:59] it is my belief that San

[1:15:01] Bernardino County is abdicating

[1:15:02] its responsibilities

[1:15:04] to the residents and taxpayers

[1:15:06] to do so. The Morongo Basin

[1:15:08] Conservation Association and

[1:15:10] the National Park Association

[1:15:12] have both, or will soon submit,

[1:15:15] written comments addressing

[1:15:18] this issue, and they speak for

[1:15:19] me as well. I encourage this

[1:15:22] august body to do better.

[1:15:24] >> Thank you.

[1:15:26] >> Thank you very much. Chris

[1:15:27] Caraher, followed by

[1:15:28] Catherine Powell, and then

[1:15:29] Adrian.

[1:15:31] >> Good morning. I'll try

[1:15:33] to hurtle through this because

[1:15:34] of the cut time. My name is

[1:15:35] Chris Caraher, and I have been

[1:15:37] a resident of Wonder Valley

[1:15:38] east of Twentynine Palms

[1:15:40] for more than 30 years. Folks

[1:15:42] who live in Wonder Valley are

[1:15:44] almost all within potential

[1:15:46] walking distance

[1:15:47] of mining claims. And most

[1:15:48] of us depend on wells,

[1:15:50] as there is no piped water in

[1:15:51] Wonder Valley. Ground

[1:15:53] disturbance and mine tailings

[1:15:54] leaching chemicals can

[1:15:56] potentially make our properties

[1:15:57] uninhabitable. Clearly, the

[1:15:59] proper permitting and oversight

[1:16:00] of mining and operations is

[1:16:02] of vital importance to us, and

[1:16:04] local desert communities need

[1:16:06] to be fully informed and able

[1:16:08] to participate

[1:16:09] in that process. That did not

[1:16:10] happen

[1:16:11] in this case. I will cut

[1:16:12] out why exactly, but we have,

[1:16:14] as we've learned of this,

[1:16:17] tried to understand a few basic

[1:16:20] questions, and been having a

[1:16:22] hard time getting a straight

[1:16:24] answer. Therefore, I ask that

[1:16:26] before you vote on this item,

[1:16:27] you provide straightforward

[1:16:29] answers, straightforward so

[1:16:31] that the good people of

[1:16:32] Wonder Valley can understand

[1:16:34] them,

[1:16:35] to the following questions.

[1:16:36] 1, if this ordinance passes,

[1:16:37] will any mining operation or

[1:16:39] portion of any operation that

[1:16:41] currently goes through county

[1:16:43] permitting CEQA review, public

[1:16:45] notice, public hearings, or

[1:16:47] county-imposed conditions no

[1:16:49] longer go

[1:16:50] through those processes because

[1:16:52] of the new federal land

[1:16:53] provision? Yes or no? Number

[1:16:56] 2, specifically, is there any

[1:16:59] county or public oversight that

[1:17:01] exists under the current

[1:17:02] ordinance.

[1:17:03] >> 30 seconds.

[1:17:04] >> That would no longer exist

[1:17:05] or would be diminished

[1:17:07] under the proposed ordinance?

[1:17:08] Yes or no? Number 3, if the

[1:17:09] answer to question number 2 is

[1:17:11] no, please explain to our

[1:17:13] residents why the new permit

[1:17:14] shall not be required language

[1:17:16] is being added. The current

[1:17:18] ordinance does not specifically

[1:17:19] state that a county permit

[1:17:21] shall not be required for

[1:17:23] federally authorized mining.

[1:17:25] If the county truly has never

[1:17:26] had permitting authority

[1:17:28] in these circumstances, why is

[1:17:29] this new exemption necessary? I

[1:17:31] urge you to deny the adoption

[1:17:33] of the measure

[1:17:34] before you.

[1:17:35] >> That's time. Thank you.

[1:17:40] Adrian.

[1:17:41] Oh, I'm sorry, Catherine

[1:17:43] Powell, followed by Adrian, and

[1:17:44] then Martin Oistendorp.

[1:17:47] >> Thank you. My name is

[1:17:48] Catherine Powell. I am a San

[1:17:49] Bernardino County resident and

[1:17:50] I vote. I am here

[1:17:52] to strongly urge the board

[1:17:53] to vote no

[1:17:54] on the proposed changes to the

[1:17:56] county mining ordinances,

[1:17:57] the repeal and reenactment of

[1:17:59] Chapter 88.03,

[1:18:01] in particular the subsection

[1:18:03] 040B. This section will make it

[1:18:06] possible to remove county

[1:18:07] processes that provide critical

[1:18:08] local oversight and input

[1:18:10] by allowing the county to

[1:18:11] accept federal environmental

[1:18:12] documents as functionally

[1:18:14] equivalent to its own,

[1:18:15] and that a county permit shall,

[1:18:17] quote, not be required for

[1:18:18] mining that already holds a

[1:18:20] federal plan of operation or

[1:18:22] other federal authorization.

[1:18:24] It does not matter that this

[1:18:25] language is, quote unquote,

[1:18:27] permissive and still allows the

[1:18:28] county to conduct studies. It

[1:18:30] removes the requirement that

[1:18:31] they do so. As someone who

[1:18:33] lives

[1:18:34] in an unincorporated rural area

[1:18:35] of the county facing a

[1:18:36] potentially devastating,

[1:18:37] devastating mine at Music

[1:18:39] Valley near Joshua Tree

[1:18:40] National Park, I want to be

[1:18:41] sure my community has a say

[1:18:42] in what happens where we live.

[1:18:45] Most critical is that the

[1:18:46] county should not accept

[1:18:48] federal agencies' environmental

[1:18:49] studies in place

[1:18:50] of its own review, given

[1:18:51] federal reviews have been

[1:18:52] profoundly weakened and no

[1:18:54] longer have the same

[1:18:55] protections as California's.

[1:18:57] The premise that NEPA, the

[1:18:58] federal, and the state CEQA

[1:19:00] environmental reviews are

[1:19:02] equivalent is outdated.

[1:19:03] Of note is that in 2026,

[1:19:04] federal rules changed,

[1:19:06] rule changes have stripped NEPA

[1:19:08] of public notice and comments.

[1:19:11] steps. 2 other provisions that

[1:19:12] are highly problematic in the

[1:19:14] ordinance are the vested rights

[1:19:17] determination.

[1:19:18] >> 30 seconds.

[1:19:19] >> Is not a project

[1:19:21] within the meaning of CEQA and

[1:19:23] would not have review, and that

[1:19:24] non-substantial deviations from

[1:19:26] approved mining plans can be

[1:19:28] approved with no public input

[1:19:29] through a staff review process.

[1:19:31] Lastly, I want to call out the

[1:19:32] way that these ordinance

[1:19:35] changes have been handled

[1:19:36] by the county,

[1:19:38] that it was drafted

[1:19:39] in collaboration with mining

[1:19:40] associations and no input from

[1:19:41] the public, environmental

[1:19:43] groups,

[1:19:44] or tribal governments. That the

[1:19:45] announcement

[1:19:46] for this meeting was

[1:19:47] in one paper

[1:19:48] for the largest county.

[1:19:50] >> That's time, Adrian, followed

[1:19:52] by Martin Oystendorp, followed

[1:19:54] by then Lori Portillo.

[1:19:57] >> Hi, board members. Thank you

[1:19:59] for hearing my opposition

[1:20:00] to this proposal. I'm a

[1:20:03] resident of Wonder Valley.

[1:20:05] Yeah, that Wonder Valley. I

[1:20:09] guess in Wonder Valley, we

[1:20:11] learned to read the wind. And

[1:20:15] the wind that this proposal is

[1:20:18] bringing is not a good one

[1:20:20] for us. The key problem

[1:20:23] with this proposal starts right

[1:20:25] at the beginning, 3 years ago,

[1:20:29] when the county first started

[1:20:30] conversations

[1:20:32] with mining companies. And

[1:20:33] associated companies and did

[1:20:35] not include residents,

[1:20:38] did not include the

[1:20:39] stakeholders, as they called

[1:20:41] the people that they were

[1:20:43] talking to stakeholders, but

[1:20:44] they did not include the

[1:20:46] public. They did not include

[1:20:48] the residents and your

[1:20:49] constituents. So that's the

[1:20:51] basic problem here,

[1:20:52] and everything else springs

[1:20:54] from that. The short,

[1:20:55] shortness of notice

[1:20:57] of meetings, 2 minutes to talk

[1:21:00] on a very complicated issue,

[1:21:02] actually. So, I vote,

[1:21:04] I ask you to vote no

[1:21:07] on this proposal. Bring it back

[1:21:09] to the table, have people talk

[1:21:10] about it, but this is,

[1:21:12] this is too short to agree

[1:21:15] with this proposal. So please

[1:21:17] vote no on this. Thank you.

[1:21:18] >> Thank you. Martin

[1:21:20] Oistendorp, followed by Lori

[1:21:22] Portillo, and then Pauline

[1:21:24] Pisano.

[1:21:33] >> Supervisors, good morning.

[1:21:34] My name is Martin Oistendorp.

[1:21:36] I'm also a resident of Wonder

[1:21:38] Valley. Supervisors, we all

[1:21:41] know that currently

[1:21:43] for mining projects

[1:21:45] over a certain magnitude, even

[1:21:47] on federal lands, that San

[1:21:50] Bernardino County's Land Use

[1:21:54] Services by state law and

[1:21:55] by precedent,

[1:21:57] is the permitting agency. That

[1:22:00] is the law

[1:22:01] in the ordinance as it stands.

[1:22:05] The proposed changes in the

[1:22:08] ordinance include language that

[1:22:13] says a permit shall not be

[1:22:17] required. That's very clear

[1:22:21] language. There's no ambiguity

[1:22:23] there. If you accept the

[1:22:26] proposed language

[1:22:29] to the ordinance, you are not

[1:22:31] only relinquishing your

[1:22:32] authority. You are also

[1:22:34] silencing the voices of those

[1:22:37] who are directly impacted. The

[1:22:40] proposed change will lead to

[1:22:43] harming the economy and the

[1:22:45] health of the residents in and

[1:22:47] near rural and environmentally

[1:22:50] protected areas. It's a change

[1:22:52] that your constituents oppose.

[1:22:57] Supervisors, the proposed

[1:22:58] change, if you accept it,

[1:23:00] will taint your legacy.

[1:23:03] >> 30 seconds.

[1:23:04] >> It will taint your legacy

[1:23:06] forever, and I urge you

[1:23:08] to reject it. Thank you.

[1:23:10] >> Thank you very much. Lori

[1:23:12] Portillo, followed by Pauline

[1:23:14] Pisano, and then Vandem

[1:23:17] Altshuller.

[1:23:22] >> Hello, my name is Lori

[1:23:23] Portillo.

[1:23:25] >> I've lived in Joshua Tree

[1:23:26] for 45 years, and I can't

[1:23:29] believe that you guys are even

[1:23:30] thinking about stopping this

[1:23:33] when this company that wants

[1:23:35] to tear up 20,000 acres in

[1:23:37] Joshua Tree is being stopped

[1:23:40] from doing something that

[1:23:42] they're doing in Mojave.

[1:23:44] Mojave Preserve right now.

[1:23:46] They're tearing it up and we're

[1:23:48] taking them to court. And are

[1:23:49] we going to be taking them

[1:23:50] to court 20 years from now when

[1:23:53] they've torn up these 20,000

[1:23:54] acres? Or are we going

[1:23:56] to look closely

[1:23:57] at what's going on? Thank you.

[1:24:00] >> Thank you very much.

[1:24:05] Pauline Pisano, followed by

[1:24:07] Vandam Altshuller.

[1:24:11] >> Hi, everyone. My name is

[1:24:12] Pauline Pisano. I'm a resident

[1:24:13] of Flamingo Heights. I want

[1:24:15] to reshare my remarks

[1:24:16] from the Planning Commission

[1:24:18] meeting in July when this item

[1:24:19] was also on the agenda. I

[1:24:21] invite board members to read

[1:24:22] the comments and oppositions

[1:24:23] from the community. The room

[1:24:25] was packed that day. I'm a

[1:24:26] social worker, artist, auntie,

[1:24:28] and daughter. I'm sharing all

[1:24:30] of this because my occupations

[1:24:32] led me to visit Flint,

[1:24:33] Michigan

[1:24:35] during their water crisis. The

[1:24:36] residents there were the true

[1:24:38] heroes of that crisis. They

[1:24:39] made sure that their neighbors

[1:24:40] knew the dangers and saved

[1:24:42] people when governance had

[1:24:44] failed. The folks I spoke to

[1:24:45] in Flint, Michigan never framed

[1:24:48] the crisis as a water crisis.

[1:24:50] They said it was a crisis

[1:24:52] of democracy. I think everyone

[1:24:54] in this room should heed the

[1:24:56] people of Flint

[1:24:58] to repeal and rewrite Chapter

[1:24:59] 88.03 to give up the county's

[1:25:02] permitting authority. Feels

[1:25:04] undemocratic because it is. It

[1:25:07] feels unjust because it is

[1:25:09] unjust

[1:25:10] to every single human being

[1:25:12] in this room. Are big

[1:25:13] corporations the new unelected

[1:25:14] emergency managers

[1:25:16] of our day? You know,

[1:25:18] I mentioned this earlier,

[1:25:19] I'm also an auntie,

[1:25:21] and it is our responsibility

[1:25:22] to be good stewards

[1:25:24] of the earth and our

[1:25:25] communities

[1:25:26] for future generations. Mining

[1:25:27] projects are exploitative.

[1:25:29] They've exploited our time so

[1:25:30] far. They disintegrate

[1:25:34] surrounding communities, mine,

[1:25:36] the earth, the water,

[1:25:38] and the air. Everyone knows

[1:25:41] this, which is why they are

[1:25:43] very unpopular.

[1:25:44] >> 30 seconds.

[1:25:45] >> This is how the crisis of

[1:25:47] Flint is with us here

[1:25:48] in this room right now. We have

[1:25:51] this amazing opportunity

[1:25:52] in front of us

[1:25:54] to do what is right. The time

[1:25:56] is always right

[1:25:57] to do what is right. Say no.

[1:25:59] Say no to the rollback

[1:26:01] of our voices mattering.

[1:26:05] >> Thank you. Vandam Altshuller

[1:26:10] followed by Mason Osgood.

[1:26:15] >> Hello, my name is Vandam

[1:26:16] Altshuller. I'm from 29 Palms.

[1:26:17] I'm a resident, taxpayer,

[1:26:19] and a voter, and I'm here

[1:26:21] to oppose item 76. Do not adopt

[1:26:24] this ordinance today. Continue

[1:26:26] it. Put the full public record

[1:26:27] before the board and remove the

[1:26:28] federal land loophole. This is

[1:26:30] being sold as an administrative

[1:26:32] update, but it is not. This is

[1:26:34] a countywide rewrite

[1:26:35] of the mining rules brought for

[1:26:37] public hearing and first

[1:26:38] reading with real momentum

[1:26:39] toward adoption before the

[1:26:40] public has had a fair process.

[1:26:43] This is not modernization.

[1:26:44] This is surrender. And

[1:26:45] surrender to whom? The record

[1:26:47] says the ordinance was

[1:26:48] developed with CalCIMA, the

[1:26:50] Mining Industry Association.

[1:26:52] At the same time, more than

[1:26:53] 100 public comments from the

[1:26:54] July hearing are not even

[1:26:56] on the board packet today.

[1:26:57] So, the mining lobby is

[1:26:58] in the room,

[1:26:59] but people's voices are missing

[1:27:00] from the record. This is

[1:27:01] anti-resident governance.

[1:27:03] We're not talking

[1:27:04] about empty land. We're talking

[1:27:05] about Wonder Valley,

[1:27:06] Twentynine Palms, Joshua Tree

[1:27:08] homes, wealth, wildlife,

[1:27:09] children,

[1:27:10] and the gateway economy

[1:27:11] of the national park. Music

[1:27:13] Valley is not imaginary.

[1:27:14] Dateline Resource reports more

[1:27:16] than 21,000 acres of claims on

[1:27:18] this rare earth project area.

[1:27:21] EPA says that rare earths

[1:27:22] Processing can involve uranium

[1:27:23] and thorium and can produce

[1:27:25] radioactive tinorm waste. EPA

[1:27:27] also says particular pollution

[1:27:28] can aggravate asthma,

[1:27:30] reduce lung function,

[1:27:31] and harm children who are among

[1:27:32] the most vulnerable. A child

[1:27:34] gasping through asthma doesn't

[1:27:35] care whether the dust came

[1:27:37] through a county permit or

[1:27:38] federal authorization. A family

[1:27:39] with poisoned well doesn't care

[1:27:41] which agency signed the

[1:27:42] paperwork. Do not bring the

[1:27:43] lessons of the past here and

[1:27:45] say you had no idea.

[1:27:46] >> 30 seconds.

[1:27:48] >> I'll add, I'm from

[1:27:50] Russia, and I know this looks

[1:27:51] like, I know what it looks

[1:27:52] like when laws are twisted

[1:27:54] to accommodate oligarchs,

[1:27:55] extraction, and administrative

[1:27:57] convenience while ordinary

[1:27:58] people are told it is

[1:27:59] procedure. But this is

[1:28:00] America. Here you swear an oath

[1:28:02] to protect the public and

[1:28:03] defend constitutional

[1:28:04] governments. The oath is not

[1:28:06] ceremonial language. It means

[1:28:07] you do not help private

[1:28:08] extractive powers strip

[1:28:09] residents of local voice,

[1:28:10] local review, and local

[1:28:11] protection,

[1:28:12] and do not confuse desert quiet

[1:28:13] with consent. Vote no.

[1:28:18] >> Thank you. Mason Osgood,

[1:28:19] followed by Krystian Lahage.

[1:28:23] I'm sorry about the

[1:28:24] mispronunciation if I did.

[1:28:27] >> Good morning. My name is

[1:28:28] Mason Osgood. I'm the

[1:28:30] California Desert Program

[1:28:31] Manager for the National

[1:28:32] Parks Conservation

[1:28:33] Association. I'm commenting

[1:28:35] today to respectfully request

[1:28:36] that you deny the proposed

[1:28:38] mining ordinance update until

[1:28:40] reasonable revisions are made

[1:28:41] to clarify the language. As we

[1:28:43] wrote

[1:28:45] in our comment letter submitted

[1:28:46] with the Center for

[1:28:47] Biological Diversity, Sierra

[1:28:49] Club, and Earthworks, we

[1:28:50] continue to have serious

[1:28:52] concerns that this ordinance's

[1:28:53] language regarding

[1:28:55] applicability on federal lands

[1:28:56] is problematic and will lead

[1:28:58] to confusion for applicants,

[1:28:59] agencies, and the public.

[1:29:03] Changes must be made

[1:29:04] to the ordinance

[1:29:05] to clarify that mining projects

[1:29:06] on federal lands are subject

[1:29:08] to CEQA and the California

[1:29:09] Surface Mining and

[1:29:11] Reclamation Act, or SMARA,

[1:29:13] policies that provide

[1:29:14] reasonable protections and

[1:29:15] public participation

[1:29:16] requirements. Furthermore, the

[1:29:18] county needs to update its

[1:29:20] Memorandum of Understanding, or

[1:29:21] MOU, to align with modern

[1:29:23] environmental review

[1:29:25] procedures. Currently, the

[1:29:27] outdated MOU allows for a path

[1:29:29] for mining projects to bypass

[1:29:31] CEQA and SMARA regulations.

[1:29:33] Recent changes to NEPA mean it

[1:29:36] is highly unlikely that federal

[1:29:37] documents will satisfy the

[1:29:39] current requirements for,

[1:29:40] of CEQA, and we urge clarity

[1:29:42] in the text

[1:29:44] to avoid improper reliance

[1:29:45] on this MOU.

[1:29:47] Without revision, these current

[1:29:48] draft risks allowing bad actors

[1:29:50] to avoid reasonable

[1:29:52] environmental regulations that

[1:29:53] responsible applicants would

[1:29:55] otherwise comply with. This

[1:29:56] creates a possibility of harm.

[1:29:58] >> 30 seconds.

[1:29:59] >> To the county's vast

[1:30:00] environmental resources and

[1:30:02] will create unnecessary delays

[1:30:03] and potential for litigation

[1:30:04] over mining permits.

[1:30:06] >> I urge you

[1:30:07] to deny the resolution before

[1:30:09] you today and take the time to

[1:30:10] make the simple changes as

[1:30:12] outlined

[1:30:13] in our written comments

[1:30:14] to avoid ambiguity

[1:30:15] in the regulation. Thank you.

[1:30:17] >> Thank you very much.

[1:30:18] Krystian Lahage, followed by

[1:30:19] Chance Wilcox.

[1:30:21] >> Good morning, Supervisors.

[1:30:23] My name is Krystian Lahage.

[1:30:24] I'm the public policy officer

[1:30:25] for the Mojave Desert Land

[1:30:26] Trust, and I'm a resident of

[1:30:27] Joshua Tree, California.

[1:30:29] Before my comments, I wanted

[1:30:31] to acknowledge 2 things. And

[1:30:32] the first is that we recognize

[1:30:33] that the county has the right

[1:30:34] and need

[1:30:35] to update these ordinances.

[1:30:36] And I also want to recognize

[1:30:37] that we recently met with Dan

[1:30:39] Walsh and had some

[1:30:41] of this clarified

[1:30:42] for us as well. So, I want to

[1:30:43] acknowledge that and thank him

[1:30:44] for hearing our concerns.

[1:30:45] We've shared our,

[1:30:46] our comment letter

[1:30:47] with both the board and, and

[1:30:49] with the Land Use Services

[1:30:50] Department. I think our

[1:30:51] comments revolve around the

[1:30:53] same general areas here. And I

[1:30:54] heard Dan say it again today

[1:30:56] that projects at the federal

[1:30:57] level that are not subjected

[1:30:59] to, to review that is as strong

[1:31:01] as CEQA would have CEQA. What

[1:31:03] we're looking for here is just

[1:31:05] to update the language to,

[1:31:06] to confirm that. We are not

[1:31:08] opposed to the county having

[1:31:09] mining ordinance, not opposed

[1:31:11] to mining in general. We just

[1:31:12] want to make sure that it's

[1:31:13] done responsibly and

[1:31:14] sustainably. And we feel that

[1:31:16] it would be stronger both

[1:31:17] in terms of understanding

[1:31:19] for the community

[1:31:20] to have that strong language,

[1:31:22] guaranteeing the CEQA review.

[1:31:25] And I think because of how long

[1:31:26] this ordinance has been

[1:31:27] out there, there's conflicting

[1:31:28] language online in terms

[1:31:29] of the permitting and things

[1:31:30] like that, which I've heard

[1:31:31] would be addressed as well.

[1:31:32] So, I wanted

[1:31:33] to say thank you for that.

[1:31:35] Strongly encourage some

[1:31:36] refinement to make it a little

[1:31:37] bit more clear here. And thank

[1:31:39] you to the county

[1:31:40] for their time and listening

[1:31:41] to our comments. Thank you.

[1:31:43] >> Thank you very much.

[1:31:44] Chance Wilcox.

[1:31:46] >> Good morning, Supervisors.

[1:31:48] I'm commenting both as a

[1:31:50] resident of the Morongo Basin

[1:31:51] and as the California Desert

[1:31:53] Director for the National

[1:31:54] Parks Conservation

[1:31:55] Association. I'm asking that

[1:31:56] you deny this ordinance and

[1:31:57] continue the item simply

[1:31:59] to create more time for

[1:32:00] language review and public

[1:32:02] input. There are many language

[1:32:03] and potential legal issues with

[1:32:04] the ordinance that create

[1:32:05] ambiguity and that are not

[1:32:06] aligned with the State Mining

[1:32:08] and Geology Board provided

[1:32:09] language. I am not opposed

[1:32:11] to an ordinance

[1:32:12] in general and not opposed

[1:32:13] to all mining in San

[1:32:14] Bernardino County but want

[1:32:15] to ensure that the language of

[1:32:16] this ordinance ensures proper

[1:32:18] oversight on the part of the

[1:32:19] county and that the language

[1:32:20] used is legally sound and does

[1:32:22] not create loopholes

[1:32:23] for mining corporations. My

[1:32:25] organization submitted written

[1:32:26] comment along the Center for

[1:32:27] Biological Diversity, MDLT,

[1:32:29] and Earthworks, so I will not

[1:32:30] go into the details, but it

[1:32:32] outlines the language changes

[1:32:33] that would tighten up this

[1:32:34] ordinance and make the language

[1:32:36] more sound. The State Mining

[1:32:37] and Geology Board also has

[1:32:38] ordinance templates readily

[1:32:40] available to make this process

[1:32:41] streamlined and legally sound,

[1:32:42] but it does not seem as though

[1:32:44] this was, this already approved

[1:32:45] language was used

[1:32:46] for this ordinance.

[1:32:47] In addition, the process

[1:32:49] to build out this ordinance did

[1:32:50] not include the public

[1:32:51] in all the 3 years

[1:32:52] of its construction. Mining

[1:32:54] corporations and mining

[1:32:55] contractors such as CalCIMA

[1:32:56] were consulted, but there was

[1:32:57] little awareness sent out

[1:32:58] to the public. The only notice

[1:33:00] of a public meeting was placed

[1:33:01] in the San Bernardino Sun, a

[1:33:03] newspaper with a paywall that

[1:33:04] many residents

[1:33:05] of the far reaches of our vast

[1:33:07] county do not turn to.

[1:33:08] During the Land Use Planning

[1:33:10] Commission meeting,

[1:33:11] the public was brushed off as

[1:33:12] not understanding mining, but I

[1:33:13] think we can all disagree based

[1:33:15] on the broad representation of

[1:33:16] community members here who have

[1:33:18] thoughtfully reviewed,

[1:33:19] thoughtfully reviewed.

[1:33:20] >> 30 seconds.

[1:33:21] >> The language presented

[1:33:22] before you.

[1:33:23] And have commented

[1:33:24] with very real, very

[1:33:25] knowledgeable, and very valid

[1:33:26] concerns. I ask that you

[1:33:27] consider delaying the approval

[1:33:29] of this ordinance for further

[1:33:30] language review and public

[1:33:31] input. It's obvious that San

[1:33:32] Bernardino County residents are

[1:33:34] concerned and care about

[1:33:35] ensuring the county is engaged

[1:33:37] in mining project permitting

[1:33:38] and thoughtful

[1:33:39] in protecting residents. Thank

[1:33:41] you.

[1:33:42] >> Thank you very much. That is

[1:33:43] the last request

[1:33:44] to speak that I have.

[1:33:48] >> Gentlemen that aren't looking

[1:33:49] at me, thank you. We have a lot

[1:33:54] of passionate residents. I, I

[1:33:56] know that you and I have worked

[1:33:59] through this. I had many

[1:34:00] questions that were brought on

[1:34:02] by public comment

[1:34:03] over the last several days,

[1:34:04] including late

[1:34:05] into the night last night,

[1:34:06] and then here today. So, we

[1:34:08] have, if nothing else,

[1:34:09] a disconnect between what the

[1:34:12] public perceives and what we

[1:34:14] are doing at a minimum. And I

[1:34:17] very much appreciate

[1:34:19] Krystian Lahage's perspective

[1:34:20] and comments,

[1:34:21] and I know that you did meet

[1:34:22] with several organizations

[1:34:24] to make clarifications. And

[1:34:26] then we've heard some

[1:34:27] additional suggestions brought

[1:34:28] by them. So perhaps I can start

[1:34:31] with having you help me

[1:34:33] understand the disconnect

[1:34:35] on how the public has, and I

[1:34:37] know I've seen media articles

[1:34:39] that have run

[1:34:40] with misinformation. I know

[1:34:41] Morongo Basin Conservation

[1:34:42] Association had misinformation

[1:34:44] that was put out,

[1:34:45] and then the narrative becomes,

[1:34:47] what's out there and how do we

[1:34:49] correct that? And, and that is

[1:34:50] going

[1:34:51] to be incumbent upon you today.

[1:34:53] So, I'm going to start with a

[1:34:55] question that you have heard

[1:34:57] significant concern that the

[1:34:58] county is giving up its

[1:34:59] jurisdiction over mining

[1:35:00] on federal lands. Can you

[1:35:02] explain exactly what authority

[1:35:03] the county has today and what

[1:35:05] authority will have

[1:35:07] after adoption of this

[1:35:08] ordinance and whether we're

[1:35:10] relinquishing any authority

[1:35:11] that we currently possess?

[1:35:14] >> Yeah, thanks

[1:35:15] for the question. It might help

[1:35:16] if I go

[1:35:17] through just a brief history of

[1:35:19] federal regulation as far as

[1:35:22] mining goes on federal land.

[1:35:23] So, it starts in.

[1:35:25] >> Can you speak

[1:35:26] into the mic?

[1:35:27] >> Sorry.

[1:35:28] >> Thank you.

[1:35:29] >> So it starts,

[1:35:30] the first date is 1872.

[1:35:32] Before that date,

[1:35:33] mining was illegal

[1:35:34] on federal property,

[1:35:36] just illegal. After 1872, the

[1:35:38] General Mining Act went

[1:35:40] into effect. It was enacted

[1:35:42] by Congress, and at that point

[1:35:44] it was pretty much a

[1:35:45] free-for-all. And we're seeing

[1:35:46] the vestiges

[1:35:47] of those disturbances still

[1:35:48] in our county, all

[1:35:49] over the county, in the

[1:35:51] Mojave Preserve and out

[1:35:52] in the desert,

[1:35:53] pretty much everywhere

[1:35:55] in the mountains. And that was

[1:35:56] for a little over 100 years.

[1:35:59] And then in 1976, Congress

[1:36:01] enacted the Federal Land

[1:36:03] Policy and Management Act.

[1:36:05] which actually was the

[1:36:07] beginning of requiring permits

[1:36:09] and reclamation standards

[1:36:10] for federal lands. That was

[1:36:13] right around the same time that

[1:36:15] SMARA came out and just

[1:36:17] after CEQA. So, we have all

[1:36:19] these new regulations coming

[1:36:20] into effect and NEPA. And

[1:36:25] agencies were kind of butting

[1:36:27] heads and not really knowing

[1:36:28] what was going on. There's a

[1:36:30] lot of duplicity in the,

[1:36:32] in the reviews, and the

[1:36:35] industry, the public are going,

[1:36:37] hey, let's get our act together

[1:36:39] here, guys. So in 1992,

[1:36:40] California got together

[1:36:42] with the federal agencies. And

[1:36:44] it was the 1992 MOU that is

[1:36:46] referenced in that section that

[1:36:49] everybody's talking

[1:36:50] about now,

[1:36:51] federal land section. It's

[1:36:53] referenced in that. And the MOU

[1:36:56] was signed by, on the

[1:36:58] California,

[1:37:00] on the state side,

[1:37:01] it was signed by the State

[1:37:02] Mining Geology Board and the

[1:37:04] Department of Conservation.

[1:37:05] On the federal side,

[1:37:07] it was signed by the

[1:37:08] Department of Interior, namely

[1:37:09] the Bureau of Land Management

[1:37:11] and the U.S. Forest Service.

[1:37:13] So, we have a state agreement

[1:37:15] with those agencies

[1:37:16] on the federal side. So as far

[1:37:18] as the county authorities is

[1:37:20] concerned,

[1:37:22] we're giving our authority

[1:37:24] to regulate surface mines

[1:37:25] by SMARA. That's a state law.

[1:37:28] So, the state gives us that

[1:37:29] authority, okay? So, the MOU

[1:37:31] has clarified the

[1:37:34] jurisdictional

[1:37:35] responsibilities, right,

[1:37:38] to help us work through this so

[1:37:39] we are working together and not

[1:37:41] just separating. So that allows

[1:37:43] us to take the project as a

[1:37:45] whole when, say,

[1:37:48] if BLM gets an application

[1:37:50] for a plan of operation,

[1:37:53] which is their permit. They

[1:37:56] contact, or they have the

[1:37:57] applicant contact the county

[1:37:59] and say, we want

[1:38:00] to start a mine

[1:38:01] on federal property. We say,

[1:38:02] great, you're going to have

[1:38:03] to bring in an application

[1:38:04] for a reclamation plan. And

[1:38:06] then we contact,

[1:38:07] we have great relationships

[1:38:08] with each field office

[1:38:09] for BLM. We contact them and we

[1:38:10] start that conversation.

[1:38:12] Sometimes we even make an MOU

[1:38:13] for that specific project if

[1:38:16] it's big enough,

[1:38:18] if there's enough moving parts.

[1:38:19] Just so there's more

[1:38:21] clarification on authority.

[1:38:23] And there is actually another

[1:38:25] MOU that affords that as well.

[1:38:27] So once the plan

[1:38:30] of operation application's in

[1:38:31] and the rec plan application's

[1:38:33] in, we work with BLM. We can

[1:38:36] take, the ordinance says we

[1:38:40] may take studies and documents

[1:38:44] that are submitted

[1:38:46] for the plan of operation. If

[1:38:48] you read the MOU,

[1:38:50] the actual language is we may

[1:38:51] take those if they meet or

[1:38:54] exceed the standard of CEQA.

[1:38:56] We didn't,

[1:38:57] we didn't reproduce everything

[1:38:58] in the ordinance. We're trying

[1:39:00] to make it sort of dry, but we

[1:39:01] reference all these sections so

[1:39:03] that they are, you know,

[1:39:06] you can go and look

[1:39:07] at the actual language. We're

[1:39:08] trying not to duplicate every

[1:39:10] mining regulation

[1:39:12] in the state and

[1:39:14] in the federal government

[1:39:15] into our document. We're trying

[1:39:17] to make it so that it is a

[1:39:18] referral

[1:39:19] to those documents.

[1:39:22] >> So, but clearly that has led

[1:39:24] to some either misunderstanding

[1:39:27] or vagaries that in county

[1:39:30] government our residents don't

[1:39:32] appreciate. So, I understand

[1:39:34] what you're trying to do

[1:39:35] from a staff perspective. The

[1:39:36] residents don't appreciate that

[1:39:38] from their standpoint.

[1:39:39] >> I understand that.

[1:39:40] >> So, at a minimum,

[1:39:41] can we add

[1:39:42] in clarifying language like we

[1:39:43] had heard as a suggestion? And

[1:39:45] were there any other

[1:39:46] suggestions when you met with

[1:39:47] Mojave Desert Land Trust and

[1:39:48] the other entities that they

[1:39:50] provided that could be added to

[1:39:51] strengthen that so that we

[1:39:53] could absolve the concerns that

[1:39:54] the residents brought forward

[1:39:55] today?

[1:39:56] >> There were other

[1:39:57] suggestions. The issue we would

[1:39:58] have there would be that it is

[1:40:02] approaching the level

[1:40:03] of trying

[1:40:04] to rewrite the memorandum

[1:40:06] of understanding. And since the

[1:40:07] county didn't write it or

[1:40:09] wouldn't sign it, okay,

[1:40:11] that would be trying to kind

[1:40:13] of circumvent state law and a,

[1:40:18] a, an agreement

[1:40:19] between the state and the feds,

[1:40:22] right? Trying to rewrite that

[1:40:24] from our ordinance standpoint.

[1:40:26] And that's not appropriate.

[1:40:27] And that's not going to pass

[1:40:28] through the state.

[1:40:30] >> Well, let's answer this

[1:40:31] question. If I could have the

[1:40:32] audience remain quiet,

[1:40:33] please. Why are we here today?

[1:40:34] Why are we even redoing this?

[1:40:37] >> Oh, because our ordinance is

[1:40:39] grossly out of date. It is

[1:40:42] missing sections,

[1:40:44] it has sections that are

[1:40:45] obsolete, and it doesn't have

[1:40:47] the current language that's

[1:40:49] written in state law. The state

[1:40:51] statutes and regulations that

[1:40:53] form SMARA have been changed,

[1:40:55] and even 2017 they were changed

[1:40:58] significantly. So, we need

[1:41:00] to update our ordinance to put

[1:41:03] in our code for reference and

[1:41:07] for enforcement priorities so

[1:41:11] that our code matches what is

[1:41:15] written in the state law.

[1:41:17] >> And what happens if we don't

[1:41:18] do that?

[1:41:19] >> If we don't have a,

[1:41:21] a certified ordinance,

[1:41:22] if we don't have a,

[1:41:25] a verified ordinance from the

[1:41:27] State Mining and Geology

[1:41:29] Board, they would have

[1:41:31] jurisdiction to take

[1:41:32] over as lead agency.

[1:41:33] >> But we've been out

[1:41:34] of compliance for a number

[1:41:36] of years now with BAMO.

[1:41:38] >> And we were, we were told

[1:41:39] many, I'd say most

[1:41:41] of the lead agencies

[1:41:42] in the state were told in

[1:41:43] 2023, hey, get your,

[1:41:44] get your ordinances updated.

[1:41:46] And they're hounding them.

[1:41:47] They're, they're, they're

[1:41:52] encouraging them constantly get

[1:41:54] that,

[1:41:55] get those ordinances in. We

[1:41:56] need

[1:41:57] to get everybody updated. And

[1:41:59] San Bernardino County is a very

[1:42:00] important agency because we

[1:42:02] have the most mines,

[1:42:03] we're the biggest county.

[1:42:04] >> So at a minimum,

[1:42:05] can you add

[1:42:06] in clarifying language into the

[1:42:07] MOU or our ordinance that

[1:42:09] doesn't negate the MOU,

[1:42:11] that clarifies that these have

[1:42:12] to go through CEQA?

[1:42:14] >> We could probably add

[1:42:16] something like,

[1:42:17] like I said before, as long as

[1:42:19] the documents meet or exceed

[1:42:21] CEQA standards. We know we

[1:42:23] could probably add something

[1:42:25] like that without having

[1:42:26] to do a whole new revision,

[1:42:28] like new revision

[1:42:31] from the state or review

[1:42:32] from the state.

[1:42:34] >> I'm about to look at

[1:42:35] County Counsel here,

[1:42:36] because if you can probably do

[1:42:37] it, then I might probably vote

[1:42:39] on it. If you can't probably do

[1:42:41] it, then I would ask you

[1:42:42] to continue the hearing

[1:42:44] to have staff work on it.

[1:42:46] >> If you wanted

[1:42:47] to add language similar

[1:42:48] to what's being suggested,

[1:42:49] we could do that

[1:42:50] at the meeting.

[1:42:51] We would need a motion that

[1:42:52] specifies what subsection

[1:42:53] you're amending and exactly how

[1:42:55] you are amending it.

[1:42:57] >> Would you like

[1:42:58] to make that suggestion based

[1:43:00] on the public comments that

[1:43:01] we've heard today,

[1:43:02] how you would like to amend it

[1:43:03] without dramatically changing

[1:43:04] the intent of the MOU?

[1:43:06] >> Yeah, if we, as long as it's

[1:43:07] written exactly how it is

[1:43:08] in the MOU and we're not trying

[1:43:09] to rewrite any part of that,

[1:43:11] then I would be, I'd be

[1:43:12] in favor of that.

[1:43:13] >> Okay. Would you like

[1:43:14] to recess for, say, 10 minutes

[1:43:17] to work on that and then come

[1:43:19] back and present the suggested

[1:43:20] changes based

[1:43:21] on what we've heard today?

[1:43:22] >> Yeah, that sounds great.

[1:43:23] Okay. All right.

[1:43:24] >> We will recess this for 10

[1:43:27] minutes and we will continue

[1:43:28] the public hearing at how

[1:43:32] about 12 o'clock noon

[1:43:34] on the dot? 13 minutes.

[1:43:38] >> The way you presented this,

[1:43:40] with this, it leaves the

[1:43:42] impression that.

[1:43:46] >> I don't have any idea what

[1:43:47] the vote will be on this. I just

[1:43:49] said if.

[1:43:50] >> I just don't

[1:43:51] want to get ahead of themselves

[1:43:52] because I'll be very candid.

[1:43:54] I'm going to vote no on this

[1:43:55] for a variety of reasons. I

[1:43:57] probably got more time

[1:43:59] in that damn hole than anybody

[1:44:00] in this building here,

[1:44:02] and I'll explain that later.

[1:44:04] But I'm just wondering,

[1:44:06] are we getting ahead

[1:44:07] of ourselves in having this

[1:44:09] language when we don't have

[1:44:12] at least a vote

[1:44:14] on whether we're going

[1:44:15] to support this,

[1:44:17] this language. Whether.

[1:44:19] >> Let's take other board

[1:44:20] member comments

[1:44:21] before recess.

[1:44:22] >> Not trying to be.

[1:44:23] >> All right, let's take other

[1:44:24] board member comments

[1:44:25] before we recess to then see if

[1:44:26] there are additional items

[1:44:27] to be worked on. Okay,

[1:44:29] Supervisor Cook, any additional

[1:44:31] comments?

[1:44:35] >> No, no, I, I think I made my

[1:44:37] comments very clear in that,

[1:44:42] based upon my history,

[1:44:45] I have spent a lot

[1:44:47] of time and a lot

[1:44:52] of nights there, and I just

[1:44:54] have some reservations. I am

[1:44:57] going

[1:44:58] to vote no. I'll be very candid

[1:44:59] with you. And

[1:45:01] before we get ahead

[1:45:04] of ourselves, maybe we need a

[1:45:08] vote whether there's a majority

[1:45:13] to go forward

[1:45:14] with this instead of making

[1:45:18] changes that won't be necessary

[1:45:20] if it's voted down.

[1:45:24] >> I see the issue as whether

[1:45:25] the board,

[1:45:26] that you're willing

[1:45:27] to entertain a motion to

[1:45:29] consider the ordinance as

[1:45:30] proposed.

[1:45:31] Is that the motion that

[1:45:32] you're making, Supervisor?

[1:45:33] >> I'm not making any motion

[1:45:35] right now. I thought that was

[1:45:36] the one that was before as

[1:45:38] proposed right now?

[1:45:40] >> There is no motion currently

[1:45:41] pending.

[1:45:44] >> I am not going to support

[1:45:45] the ordinance. However, the

[1:45:47] lawyers want to propose it, I,

[1:45:53] I am against it.

[1:45:55] >> It sounds like the Chair is

[1:45:56] going to be making a motion to

[1:45:58] adopt the ordinance as amended,

[1:46:00] and if that motion is made, you

[1:46:03] can vote no on that.

[1:46:05] >> Well, that's what I was

[1:46:06] planning on.

[1:46:07] >> Okay, so I think we're

[1:46:08] proceeding properly.

[1:46:09] >> Okay, other board member

[1:46:11] comments?

[1:46:17] >> There's a, there's a,

[1:46:18] I think you said a lot, Madam

[1:46:20] Chair, as far as the

[1:46:21] clarification. And obviously

[1:46:22] when they have this many people

[1:46:23] come out and against it

[1:46:25] for different angles, there's

[1:46:27] definitely some clarity that

[1:46:29] needs to be put in there.

[1:46:30] But I'll go back to the,

[1:46:31] what you were saying in your,

[1:46:33] on the previous comments. If we

[1:46:34] do nothing, kind of go

[1:46:37] through what happens.

[1:46:40] >> If we don't, if we don't

[1:46:42] update our ordinance?

[1:46:43] >> Yes.

[1:46:44] >> Okay, so if we don't update

[1:46:46] our ordinance, SMGB will

[1:46:47] continue to put pressure

[1:46:48] on us if we just refuse,

[1:46:50] and they will have the

[1:46:52] opportunity, they'll have the

[1:46:53] author, the, the authority To

[1:46:55] take the mining regulation

[1:46:59] over, they'll be able to take

[1:47:03] our lead agency authority away

[1:47:05] from us and become the lead

[1:47:06] order.

[1:47:07] >> Just like in, several

[1:47:08] of us have served

[1:47:09] at different levels

[1:47:10] of government. Generally, the

[1:47:12] higher level of government

[1:47:13] doesn't necessarily need a

[1:47:14] lower level of government

[1:47:15] to do something. So, the

[1:47:16] federal government

[1:47:17] on their lands will want

[1:47:18] to give a permit for mining,

[1:47:20] and we refuse,

[1:47:21] they could bypass us. Is that a

[1:47:22] clarified way

[1:47:23] to say that?

[1:47:24] >> Yeah, that's part of the

[1:47:25] Supremacy Clause.

[1:47:27] >> Okay. Same thing

[1:47:28] on the state level. State

[1:47:29] supersedes the county,

[1:47:30] and it's a higher level

[1:47:31] of policy. So, what the State

[1:47:32] of California does,

[1:47:33] it's made an agreement

[1:47:35] with the federal government

[1:47:36] on their lands, this is going

[1:47:37] to be the process

[1:47:38] of what we're going to do,

[1:47:40] which combines generally NEPA

[1:47:41] and CEQA

[1:47:42] in those applications.

[1:47:44] But they're giving it to us

[1:47:46] to be that lead agency. So, if

[1:47:48] we do not have an up-to-date

[1:47:53] ordinance, then we lose that

[1:47:55] participation potentially

[1:47:58] at all at a local level

[1:47:59] to even look at these.

[1:48:02] >> Yes, that's correct.

[1:48:04] >> Okay, so, you know, I think

[1:48:06] that's the bigger question

[1:48:07] for me is how do we get

[1:48:09] to the point where we're still

[1:48:11] at least at the table? We may

[1:48:13] not like all the things

[1:48:14] at the table, but

[1:48:15] at least we're participating

[1:48:16] in and

[1:48:17] with our county being so rich

[1:48:18] in land and materials

[1:48:19] in all the sense,

[1:48:20] we're always being looked at

[1:48:21] for everything, especially

[1:48:22] in our desert. So going back

[1:48:25] to the concerns

[1:48:26] of our residents

[1:48:27] about the clarity

[1:48:28] of the CEQA and NEPA,

[1:48:30] and I think that's where the

[1:48:31] Chair was kind

[1:48:32] of leading us to, is there was,

[1:48:34] when I heard the public speak,

[1:48:36] there was a lot of uncertainty

[1:48:37] of what language was in our

[1:48:39] ordinance because you referred

[1:48:40] to that MOU between state and

[1:48:42] the federal government because

[1:48:44] that has already been worked

[1:48:46] out. And so, we refer to

[1:48:48] Government Code section blah

[1:48:50] blah blah and blah blah blah

[1:48:51] for that. And it's going

[1:48:54] to be difficult

[1:48:55] from a referral document to

[1:48:56] educate all the residents who

[1:48:58] have say into this,

[1:49:00] who have concerns

[1:49:02] about all that, just by having

[1:49:04] them do the research that they

[1:49:06] would need to do to understand

[1:49:07] that entire ordinance.

[1:49:09] But I want to, you know,

[1:49:10] go back to the point where if

[1:49:11] we do nothing,

[1:49:12] maybe it's not necessary today,

[1:49:14] but if we do nothing and keep

[1:49:16] kicking this can

[1:49:17] down the road, then eventually

[1:49:18] the state or the federal

[1:49:20] government say, okay,

[1:49:21] we're just not going

[1:49:22] to let you be the lead agency.

[1:49:23] State of California will be,

[1:49:24] or the U.S. government will be.

[1:49:26] And we just have to, oh,

[1:49:27] by the way,

[1:49:28] we got a new mine here. We

[1:49:29] don't have any say

[1:49:30] in it whatsoever. Can you

[1:49:32] portray by the document,

[1:49:34] the ordinance we have right

[1:49:35] now, that California, and

[1:49:37] especially California, has

[1:49:39] probably the strictest CEQA

[1:49:42] laws out there for these type

[1:49:43] of things. Is that level

[1:49:44] compared to other states' MOUs

[1:49:46] with the federal government

[1:49:48] at a different level? Is that a

[1:49:49] higher level? Because most

[1:49:51] of our developments go through

[1:49:53] a very strenuous CEQA.

[1:49:56] >> There's only a few states

[1:49:57] in the union that allow

[1:49:59] for local lead agency

[1:50:02] regulation of mines.

[1:50:04] >> So, the other states are

[1:50:05] this, the federal government

[1:50:07] says we're giving you this

[1:50:08] permission, you go do it,

[1:50:09] and they don't have much say

[1:50:10] in it at all?

[1:50:11] >> Correct.

[1:50:12] >> Okay, so California is one

[1:50:13] of the stricter states for

[1:50:14] these mining ordinance

[1:50:15] residents,

[1:50:16] and it does give our residents,

[1:50:17] when a new project comes,

[1:50:19] even though another lead agency

[1:50:22] may have done that

[1:50:23] environmental work,

[1:50:24] it does come to the county

[1:50:26] to proceed and does allow us to

[1:50:27] notify our residents and allow

[1:50:29] those comments to come in

[1:50:31] before that. So, we don't

[1:50:32] abdicate that ability

[1:50:34] to do that process

[1:50:36] to another agency

[1:50:37] in this ordinance?

[1:50:38] >> No, we don't.

[1:50:39] >> So we still hold that local

[1:50:41] authority versus us giving that

[1:50:43] authority up to a state or a

[1:50:45] federal agency?

[1:50:46] >> Correct.

[1:50:48] >> So I, I'm not going

[1:50:50] to say I'm an expert on mining

[1:50:51] ordinances. I know that there's

[1:50:53] a lot out here. I think You

[1:50:55] know, for me, I just want the

[1:50:57] assurances that that process,

[1:50:58] if we stay as a lead agency,

[1:51:01] still has that visibility

[1:51:03] for our residents, that

[1:51:05] to come out through the

[1:51:06] Planning Commission,

[1:51:07] through the board meetings, to

[1:51:08] address whatever the

[1:51:09] environmental work was done

[1:51:10] by the applicant, when that

[1:51:14] NEPA or CEQA and all the rest

[1:51:15] of it, those standards are

[1:51:16] still there. And that maybe we

[1:51:17] clarify that in the ordinance

[1:51:18] so that gives a sense

[1:51:20] of security that

[1:51:21] these are the things that we do

[1:51:23] that is no different. So,

[1:51:24] in updating this ordinance, do

[1:51:27] we lose any control that we had

[1:51:29] in the old ordinance

[1:51:31] to the new ordinance?

[1:51:33] >> No, it's, it's based

[1:51:35] on the same 1992 agreement

[1:51:36] between the state and the

[1:51:37] federal government

[1:51:38] on federal lands. What is

[1:51:40] updated are better processes

[1:51:44] for enforcement,

[1:51:47] more information needed

[1:51:48] for applications

[1:51:50] for reclamation plans. The,

[1:51:54] in 2017, the state surrendered

[1:51:59] its right to be lead agency for

[1:52:05] vested rights determinations.

[1:52:07] Turned that back to just the

[1:52:09] local lead agencies. So that's

[1:52:11] one area that we've had to

[1:52:12] develop because the state has

[1:52:14] bowed out of it.

[1:52:16] >> And do you feel these

[1:52:18] updates that were, want

[1:52:19] to propose to this ordinance,

[1:52:21] does it make it, I don't want

[1:52:23] to say easier or harder. I know

[1:52:25] some of the things align. We do

[1:52:26] updates

[1:52:27] on state laws all the time for,

[1:52:29] you know, county ordinances. I

[1:52:30] think we do that once,

[1:52:31] once a year. There's

[1:52:32] constantly, every time the

[1:52:33] state passes a new law,

[1:52:34] we have

[1:52:35] to update our local ordinances.

[1:52:36] So that's more of a ministerial

[1:52:37] administrative thing. Some of

[1:52:39] those things are major changes,

[1:52:40] some are not, more

[1:52:41] in language. On this update, do

[1:52:43] you see that things are even

[1:52:45] any kind of easier

[1:52:47] for the applicant, a mining

[1:52:48] company, or is it harder, or

[1:52:50] what,

[1:52:51] how would you take it?

[1:52:53] >> It's, it's more organized.

[1:52:55] It, and remember, just because

[1:52:57] we're changing the language of

[1:52:59] our ordinance doesn't mean

[1:53:01] that, you know, we're going

[1:53:02] to be doing things differently.

[1:53:03] We're already doing this. This

[1:53:06] is our day-to-day operations.

[1:53:07] We're just kind of putting it

[1:53:08] on paper and making it code.

[1:53:09] Right? We still have a

[1:53:12] responsibility to follow the

[1:53:14] most current iteration

[1:53:16] of SMARA

[1:53:17] on a day-to-day basis.

[1:53:18] >> The 1992?

[1:53:19] >> No, which is.

[1:53:21] >> The 2017 one?

[1:53:22] >> Which is, it's updated

[1:53:24] periodically,

[1:53:25] just minor tweaks. The last

[1:53:26] major revision was in 2017.

[1:53:30] They revamped all sorts

[1:53:32] of things, reclamation

[1:53:33] requirements, success criteria,

[1:53:35] what's required

[1:53:38] in the reclamation plan. So,

[1:53:41] we're beholden to those

[1:53:42] regulations as they evolve year

[1:53:44] for year. We're beholden

[1:53:46] to that. That's why we tried

[1:53:47] to make this kind

[1:53:48] of an outline of referencing

[1:53:51] the sections instead

[1:53:53] of spelling it all out, just

[1:53:54] making it another duplication

[1:53:56] of SMARA. We're spelling it

[1:53:57] out, so we don't have

[1:53:58] to revise whenever they revise.

[1:54:00] We just.

[1:54:01] >> We just reference the master

[1:54:02] document, so to speak.

[1:54:03] >> Yeah.

[1:54:04] >> So as that gets updated

[1:54:06] through the legislature, or

[1:54:09] very infrequently the MOU

[1:54:10] change between the federal and

[1:54:11] state government, it

[1:54:13] automatically updates our

[1:54:14] ordinance. So, we don't have

[1:54:15] to go through this every few

[1:54:16] years is what you're saying?

[1:54:17] >> Correct.

[1:54:18] >> So I, I get that the

[1:54:19] technical side, I get the

[1:54:20] purpose,

[1:54:21] I understand what you're doing.

[1:54:23] It goes back to,

[1:54:24] is there a better way for us

[1:54:26] to be putting this out there?

[1:54:28] There's many groups that are

[1:54:29] representative, do you feel that

[1:54:31] you had enough face time

[1:54:33] with those groups? Or let me

[1:54:35] rephrase that. If we were

[1:54:37] to put this off

[1:54:39] for another month and you sat

[1:54:40] down and kind

[1:54:42] of pointed those things out,

[1:54:43] do you think that would give

[1:54:46] our agency, our department,

[1:54:48] our staff the ability

[1:54:49] to communicate this in a better

[1:54:51] way where it doesn't look

[1:54:53] like it's a, a change

[1:54:54] where they're very fearful of?

[1:54:58] >> I, I think that the county

[1:55:00] could definitely do better in,

[1:55:01] in their outreach in general

[1:55:03] for mining projects. However,

[1:55:05] for the SMARA update,

[1:55:08] this is state law.

[1:55:10] >> Yeah, I'm not asking you to

[1:55:12] change the ordinance

[1:55:13] necessarily. Obviously, there's

[1:55:15] a lot of questions about the

[1:55:16] ordinance that they were asking

[1:55:18] for clarifying information

[1:55:19] in the ordinance, and if we

[1:55:22] were able

[1:55:23] to have a workshop. I, I don't

[1:55:25] know, I don't know

[1:55:26] what we have done enough

[1:55:27] to get up here. I know it's

[1:55:29] been in the works

[1:55:30] for a long time, but to show

[1:55:32] where these critical safeguards

[1:55:34] in their mines,

[1:55:35] the NEPA and CEQA, the ability

[1:55:37] for local residents to chime

[1:55:39] in on a project,

[1:55:42] and when those stages, even

[1:55:44] though that's what we practice

[1:55:45] today and that you're amending

[1:55:47] this ordinance that those

[1:55:48] practices will stay there. Is

[1:55:50] there a better way to, to, I

[1:55:52] guess, transmit that, to

[1:55:53] communicate that than what we

[1:55:55] have done?

[1:55:57] >> If, if I may, County

[1:55:59] Supervisors and Chair, I do

[1:56:00] want

[1:56:01] to give a little more

[1:56:02] background to what Dan had

[1:56:03] actually said as well. So we do

[1:56:05] have, this is our local

[1:56:07] ordinance, correct? So, this is

[1:56:08] what we do

[1:56:10] for the county. A lot of what

[1:56:11] we do already is what state

[1:56:13] requires,

[1:56:14] what the feds require. And as

[1:56:16] Dan said,

[1:56:17] now we're just putting it

[1:56:18] in writing. We have

[1:56:19] to do it anyways,

[1:56:20] and now here it is

[1:56:21] in a document. So what we're

[1:56:22] doing, what we're enforcing our

[1:56:23] local ordinance is by adding

[1:56:25] additional things we could do

[1:56:26] for enforcement and those types

[1:56:28] of things

[1:56:29] to better monitor the mines.

[1:56:31] So that's what we're trying

[1:56:33] to want

[1:56:34] to get that information as well

[1:56:35] in in this in this document.

[1:56:37] There are other agencies that

[1:56:38] are that are also involved.

[1:56:39] They have

[1:56:41] to get permits through DMR

[1:56:43] through Air Quality

[1:56:45] Management District. There's a

[1:56:46] bunch of different agencies

[1:56:47] that they have

[1:56:48] to also get compliance with,

[1:56:49] not just the county, not just

[1:56:50] with the state or federal

[1:56:51] level. This will also,

[1:56:52] currently, when you have a

[1:56:54] project, a mine,

[1:56:55] if you have a reclamation plan,

[1:56:57] you still have to come

[1:56:58] through the County of San

[1:56:59] Bernardino

[1:57:00] to get your permit,

[1:57:01] get your conditional use

[1:57:02] permit, and none

[1:57:03] of that is changing. There is

[1:57:05] an environmental review that's

[1:57:07] for that specific project as

[1:57:08] well. that will have

[1:57:09] to be done, and it will have

[1:57:10] to be reviewed

[1:57:11] for the environmental

[1:57:12] for rec plans or a new mine

[1:57:14] in the county. So, all that

[1:57:15] will still remain the same.

[1:57:19] That is,

[1:57:20] that is not changing. We do

[1:57:21] have current mines

[1:57:22] in the county that are going

[1:57:24] through this process. We've had

[1:57:25] a lot of communication

[1:57:27] with the public. When you,

[1:57:28] when you have a specific mine

[1:57:31] or location, there is

[1:57:32] notification that's done

[1:57:33] for that project. There is

[1:57:35] environmental review. There is

[1:57:37] scoping meetings for

[1:57:39] environmental impact reports if

[1:57:40] that's required as well. So,

[1:57:41] there is still that same

[1:57:43] process that will be

[1:57:44] in place as well. Wanted

[1:57:48] to make that clear because

[1:57:49] of what, I'm not sure if there

[1:57:50] was, sounds

[1:57:51] like there's miscommunication

[1:57:53] with we're taking all

[1:57:54] environmental review out of

[1:57:55] at least the county process,

[1:57:56] but that still will be reviewed

[1:57:57] through the county.

[1:57:59] >> I think I can help explain.

[1:58:00] So, Music Valley Mine is a

[1:58:02] proposed mine out in the

[1:58:04] Twentynine Palms, Wonder

[1:58:05] Valley area that abuts the

[1:58:07] national park. There has been a

[1:58:08] lot of concern

[1:58:10] about what that may or may not

[1:58:12] be, and that's not

[1:58:13] before the county

[1:58:14] at this time. But that is where

[1:58:15] I think you feel the heartfelt

[1:58:17] concern from the community.

[1:58:18] And with this, is this related

[1:58:21] to that or not? You say it's

[1:58:23] not,

[1:58:24] not everybody believes that.

[1:58:25] And so, there is substantial

[1:58:27] community concern. I,

[1:58:30] I have a question for you that

[1:58:31] I believe this is strengthen

[1:58:34] our inspection, reclamation,

[1:58:35] financial assurances,

[1:58:36] and enforcement authority, or

[1:58:38] do the proposed changes weaken

[1:58:41] it? I mean, I heard Curt ask

[1:58:42] that, but can you clarify that

[1:58:44] this strengthens it,

[1:58:45] doesn't weaken it?

[1:58:47] >> Yeah, what this does is,

[1:58:48] like I said, it organizes it

[1:58:50] better and it gives it more

[1:58:51] teeth. I think I explained it

[1:58:53] at Planning Commission this

[1:58:55] way. The operators that want

[1:58:57] to be good stewards

[1:58:58] of the land, that want to work

[1:59:00] with the county and be in

[1:59:01] compliance because that's what

[1:59:02] makes their business plan work.

[1:59:04] They don't want to. They want

[1:59:05] to know what they're getting

[1:59:06] into. They want to know exactly

[1:59:08] what happens if they do this or

[1:59:10] don't do this, right? That's

[1:59:12] how they set a business plan.

[1:59:13] That's how they make a profit,

[1:59:15] right? The good operators want

[1:59:16] to stay

[1:59:17] in compliance because being

[1:59:19] out

[1:59:20] of compliance doesn't pay.

[1:59:21] This ordinance will hold their

[1:59:23] feet to the fire. Will hold

[1:59:24] them accountable to any kind

[1:59:26] of indiscretions they have

[1:59:28] on their site. And it makes it

[1:59:30] easier for my staff, my

[1:59:32] inspectors, to,

[1:59:33] to identify the violations,

[1:59:35] to give them notices

[1:59:37] of violation, orders

[1:59:38] to comply, and go up on, on up

[1:59:40] to the ladder until we're,

[1:59:42] until there's administrative

[1:59:44] fees, penalties. and potential

[1:59:45] for losing their approval

[1:59:48] for their reclamation plan.

[1:59:50] >> Well, here's a more

[1:59:51] simplistic question, I think,

[1:59:52] from the community. If we don't

[1:59:53] adopt this today, does Music

[1:59:54] Valley Mine, if it were

[1:59:55] to move forward,

[1:59:57] have less control at the county

[1:59:58] level or more control

[1:59:59] at the county level?

[2:00:00] >> It has the same. It has the

[2:00:01] same as we've had all along.

[2:00:03] All right, what, what the new

[2:00:05] ordinance does is kind of what

[2:00:07] the old ordinance didn't do.

[2:00:09] It didn't bring

[2:00:10] in that language from the 1992

[2:00:11] MOU,

[2:00:12] that agreement that spelled out

[2:00:14] what the different authority

[2:00:16] was on federal land. So, Music

[2:00:19] Valley, when it comes

[2:00:20] into the county, yes,

[2:00:22] we will do how we do

[2:00:24] on every project

[2:00:25] on federal land. We work

[2:00:26] with BLM or U.S. Forest

[2:00:27] Service to coordinate a

[2:00:30] collaborative review

[2:00:32] of both NEPA and CEQA. And if

[2:00:35] we get documents and studies

[2:00:36] that don't meet the

[2:00:38] requirements of CEQA, then we

[2:00:40] will keep giving review

[2:00:43] comments. Over and over

[2:00:45] until that does rise

[2:00:46] to that standard. And only then,

[2:00:49] is when we can approve the

[2:00:52] reclamation plan. Now remember,

[2:00:54] there's 3 parts. There's 3

[2:00:55] parts

[2:00:56] of a mining operation approval.

[2:00:57] There's the permit,

[2:00:59] there's the reclamation plan,

[2:01:00] and there's the financial

[2:01:01] assurances, okay? So, we have

[2:01:03] control of reclamation plan and

[2:01:06] financial assurances,

[2:01:07] but we have, authority

[2:01:09] to review the whole project

[2:01:11] in its entirety. We're not

[2:01:13] putting blinders

[2:01:14] on reclamation. Okay,

[2:01:16] on federal land, we review the

[2:01:18] whole, that means offsite,

[2:01:19] haul roads, means going

[2:01:20] through town,

[2:01:21] whatever the truck traffic is,

[2:01:22] emissions, and all that.

[2:01:23] That's all part of CEQA. And

[2:01:26] these studies have to answer

[2:01:27] all those questions that CEQA

[2:01:29] asks. Okay, otherwise,

[2:01:32] they don't get a reclamation

[2:01:33] plan, which means their permit

[2:01:35] is worthless.

[2:01:37] >> But if we don't adopt this

[2:01:38] at some point today or

[2:01:40] otherwise, then we're

[2:01:41] relinquishing our authority

[2:01:43] to have that. We're giving it

[2:01:45] to the state and the federal

[2:01:46] government,

[2:01:47] and then we have no say.

[2:01:48] >> Correct.

[2:01:49] >> That's correct?

[2:01:50] >> Yes.

[2:01:51] >> Okay.

[2:01:52] >> Well, we would,

[2:01:53] we would still be CEQA lead

[2:01:54] agency, but we would not be

[2:01:56] SMARA lead agency.

[2:01:57] >> Okay.

[2:01:58] >> So we couldn't regulate the

[2:01:59] mines.

[2:02:04] >> For, for.

[2:02:07] >> No, we went in order.

[2:02:08] >> All intensive.

[2:02:09] >> He's been waiting.

[2:02:11] >> I had my had my. All right,

[2:02:13] forget it.

[2:02:14] >> Mine is very. I feel like

[2:02:17] this is something, no

[2:02:20] one's going

[2:02:21] to be completely happy

[2:02:23] from the look in the room that

[2:02:24] I'm seeing and want

[2:02:25] to change. We have to do this

[2:02:26] change is my understanding

[2:02:28] of this. But what I have to say

[2:02:31] is this has been terribly

[2:02:34] communicated to the public

[2:02:35] in understanding what we have

[2:02:38] to do, what we don't have

[2:02:39] to do and getting them

[2:02:42] to understand what we're trying

[2:02:43] to accomplish here. I, I think

[2:02:45] we totally dropped the ball on

[2:02:47] that. I think you're a super

[2:02:49] smart guy. I just think that

[2:02:51] how this was presented didn't

[2:02:54] give anyone any confidence

[2:02:55] here.

[2:02:58] to understand what we're trying

[2:02:59] to accomplish here. Like, I get

[2:03:00] what you're saying. I just

[2:03:03] think, I don't,

[2:03:04] and I don't know how

[2:03:05] to fix that. I don't know how

[2:03:07] to change perception

[2:03:08] from the public to say,

[2:03:10] here's what we're doing,

[2:03:11] here's what we're trying

[2:03:12] to accomplish. And I think no

[2:03:13] matter how we vote today.

[2:03:15] We're going to have people not

[2:03:17] happy because we really failed

[2:03:20] in the outreach. And I think

[2:03:24] it's too far

[2:03:25] to fix now. I think we're going

[2:03:26] to have to just deal

[2:03:27] with it and do what we're

[2:03:28] doing. But I just think

[2:03:30] in future, or even

[2:03:31] after this,

[2:03:32] whether it's a yes or no,

[2:03:33] we need to go back

[2:03:34] to the public and explain

[2:03:36] to them. And if it has

[2:03:37] to come back again and refine,

[2:03:39] to refine it so that there's

[2:03:40] some comfort,

[2:03:41] then let's so be it. Like,

[2:03:42] let's really be on top

[2:03:43] of this. Let's, let's get

[2:03:44] to where we need to go,

[2:03:45] but we need to really have real

[2:03:46] true dialogue

[2:03:48] with the stakeholders that are

[2:03:49] out here who obviously have a

[2:03:50] concern.

[2:03:53] And see how we can tweak it

[2:03:54] in a way that gives them,

[2:03:55] maybe, maybe they're not going

[2:03:57] to be 100% happy no matter

[2:03:58] what. I can't change that.

[2:04:00] But give them some sort

[2:04:01] of comfort to find that happy

[2:04:02] medium that we could all

[2:04:04] swallow the pill and deal

[2:04:05] with what we need

[2:04:06] to deal with. You know, the

[2:04:07] people who have the signs up

[2:04:08] who are like, this is not here,

[2:04:09] let's find a way

[2:04:10] to make that question here.

[2:04:11] Let's, let's put that very

[2:04:13] clear for them so that they

[2:04:14] understand that we are

[2:04:15] addressing their concerns. And

[2:04:16] those are all my comments.

[2:04:18] >> Supervisor Cook.

[2:04:22] >> Yeah, I don't think you're

[2:04:26] going

[2:04:27] to understand the problem

[2:04:29] on this board here until we

[2:04:31] pack up our gear and we go

[2:04:35] out there in the middle

[2:04:37] of the day at 12 noon. Unless

[2:04:42] you have been out there You

[2:04:44] will never understand it. The

[2:04:47] desert is very unforgiving.

[2:04:50] Now, I don't know who's been

[2:04:52] out there. I've been

[2:04:54] out there more times than I

[2:04:56] want to remember. It's brutal,

[2:04:59] particularly in the summer.

[2:05:02] And any type of changes that

[2:05:06] you have there that doesn't

[2:05:07] take

[2:05:08] into consideration safety. You

[2:05:11] cannot have people wandering

[2:05:12] around there or they're going

[2:05:14] to die. And there's a long

[2:05:16] history of the number

[2:05:17] of people that have died,

[2:05:19] maybe not in that slice

[2:05:22] of the desert,

[2:05:23] but anywhere else. Very, very

[2:05:25] unforgiving. So, I'm,

[2:05:28] I'm very sensitive

[2:05:30] to this. I thought it's part of

[2:05:32] the best training area. I

[2:05:35] probably swore more than I ever

[2:05:36] did when I was

[2:05:38] out there. Because

[2:05:41] it's so damn hot and very

[2:05:43] unforgiving. Now, I'm

[2:05:45] sympathetic, but I also,

[2:05:50] I don't know, want to make sure

[2:05:56] that we don't change what they

[2:06:00] have there as a training area,

[2:06:04] a live, live-fire training area.

[2:06:08] And I'll be honest with you,

[2:06:09] because it's live-fire,

[2:06:11] accidents happen. And there,

[2:06:13] I don't have a list today

[2:06:14] of the number

[2:06:15] of people that have been killed

[2:06:17] out there. And not just because

[2:06:20] you're operating in an

[2:06:21] environment where when it's

[2:06:22] 120 in the shade or so,

[2:06:24] you're going

[2:06:25] to make mistakes, and you got

[2:06:27] to always be vigilant. All I'm

[2:06:30] worried about is when we handle

[2:06:31] this problem here,

[2:06:33] I think we got to be very, very

[2:06:35] aware that this is not an

[2:06:37] ordinary piece of land. And so,

[2:06:42] I, I'm very protective

[2:06:43] of it because I want it

[2:06:45] to be maintained as one of the

[2:06:47] few training areas that the

[2:06:50] armed forces of the United

[2:06:52] States has live-fire training

[2:06:55] area. You can't do that

[2:06:56] anywhere else because you don't

[2:06:59] have that much. It's not,

[2:07:03] it is a huge, huge area. And

[2:07:07] so, I don't know. Right now,

[2:07:10] I'm not prepared to vote

[2:07:12] for this. And I think we need

[2:07:16] more conversations. And if,

[2:07:21] if you guys got the guts,

[2:07:23] let's go out on a high day,

[2:07:25] high note, and bring your beer

[2:07:27] or what have you. And

[2:07:28] we'll go out there and we'll

[2:07:29] see what the real desert is

[2:07:32] like. I'm done.

[2:07:35] >> Question for you all.

[2:07:36] There's a lady sitting

[2:07:37] behind you. She was very

[2:07:39] well-spoken and kind

[2:07:40] in a yellow shirt, and she had

[2:07:41] 3 questions for us. I don't

[2:07:43] necessarily think that I got

[2:07:44] them answered today. I thought

[2:07:46] her approach was very

[2:07:47] reasonable. We heard lots of

[2:07:48] public comment. I don't know

[2:07:51] that we have addressed some of

[2:07:53] the things that you probably

[2:07:54] view as misinformation, and

[2:07:56] there are still questions

[2:07:58] pending that I would

[2:07:59] like answered. What I would

[2:08:00] suggest that we do is I'm going

[2:08:02] to close the public hearing,

[2:08:04] which will close the public

[2:08:05] comment, ask you to return

[2:08:06] to us at a date certain that

[2:08:08] you determine that you can make

[2:08:10] the additional comments that we

[2:08:12] heard from the, the entity.

[2:08:15] And I wrote his name down,

[2:08:18] Krystian Lahage.

[2:08:19] Thank you.

[2:08:21] The, the additional

[2:08:22] language, what you can fit into

[2:08:23] the ordinance that will not

[2:08:24] mess up the MOU, and to address

[2:08:27] the questions that we've heard

[2:08:28] here today that I thought were

[2:08:29] very reasonable. And put them

[2:08:32] together and come back

[2:08:34] to a board meeting. It is a

[2:08:36] long drive down from Wonder

[2:08:37] Valley. I know that they can

[2:08:38] tune in on YouTube

[2:08:39] to get those answers,

[2:08:40] and we can do a much better job

[2:08:42] of reviewing all the questions

[2:08:43] that we've heard here today

[2:08:44] to get answers. If there is

[2:08:46] misinformation,

[2:08:47] to correct it, and that is the

[2:08:48] minimum that we need to do for

[2:08:50] our residents that have taken

[2:08:51] the time

[2:08:52] to provide thoughtful input.

[2:08:53] And then also for you to make

[2:08:54] the changes that are possible

[2:08:55] to make based

[2:08:57] on the public input today. So

[2:08:59] that would be my recommendation

[2:09:01] to close the public hearing,

[2:09:03] have staff return at a date you

[2:09:05] contemplate it now. I know that

[2:09:07] some of our meetings are a

[2:09:08] little bit more densely packed

[2:09:10] in the near future. If you

[2:09:11] gentlemen want to look

[2:09:12] at the calendar on when you

[2:09:13] think you can bring the public

[2:09:15] hearing back so that the public

[2:09:17] knows when to tune in, I can

[2:09:18] continue it if I have board

[2:09:19] approval

[2:09:21] to that date certain.

[2:09:22] >> Yeah, I would,

[2:09:23] I would second your motion,

[2:09:26] but we really need

[2:09:27] to have that outreach. I want

[2:09:29] to emphasize, we need to make

[2:09:30] sure that we have that outreach

[2:09:32] to the community so that,

[2:09:34] I'll be honest, I don't think

[2:09:36] all your needs are going to be

[2:09:37] met because there are legal

[2:09:38] obligations that we have

[2:09:39] to have.

[2:09:40] But anything we can fit

[2:09:41] in there, we should be trying

[2:09:42] to fit in there to give people

[2:09:43] the comfort that they need in

[2:09:44] understanding this is just

[2:09:46] merely a policy issue. This

[2:09:47] isn't having

[2:09:48] to go towards any development

[2:09:50] in particular. So, make sure we

[2:09:52] have that outreach.

[2:09:53] >> And we have all, I mean,

[2:09:54] I get them to my email. Every

[2:09:55] public comment that came

[2:09:56] in came to my email. So, if

[2:09:58] your department doesn't have

[2:09:59] the bandwidth,

[2:10:00] then you can produce a

[2:10:01] document, I will send it back

[2:10:02] to everybody

[2:10:03] to answer their questions. And

[2:10:04] we can put it into a format of

[2:10:06] frequently asked questions so

[2:10:07] that we can either dispel

[2:10:09] misinformation, clarify

[2:10:10] misinformation, or

[2:10:12] at least answer some of the

[2:10:13] questions that we've heard here

[2:10:15] today. Because I don't think

[2:10:16] that any of us are satisfied

[2:10:17] with the level. And then if you

[2:10:19] can bring back those changes

[2:10:22] within SMARA or our MOU that

[2:10:24] you believe that we can do

[2:10:26] without substantially rewriting

[2:10:27] it that comply

[2:10:28] with state law, At the

[2:10:29] continued public hearing?

[2:10:32] >> I would recommend that we

[2:10:34] continue it to October 20th.

[2:10:36] That would give us sufficient

[2:10:37] time to engage

[2:10:38] with the public. And also,

[2:10:39] if the changes are recommended

[2:10:41] to that would if the changes

[2:10:43] had not been previously

[2:10:45] considered by planning, we may

[2:10:46] need to return the matter

[2:10:47] to planning, and that would

[2:10:48] give us sufficient time to do

[2:10:50] that and then have planning

[2:10:51] respond.

[2:10:52] >> Very well.

[2:10:53] >> Is that.

[2:10:54] >> Chair, I'll make the motion

[2:10:55] to continue October 20th.

[2:10:56] >> Second.

[2:10:57] >> 20.

[2:10:58] >> to October 20th.

[2:11:00] >> October 20th. So, close the

[2:11:03] public comment,

[2:11:04] continue the hearing until

[2:11:06] October 20th. I have a motion

[2:11:07] from Vice Chair Baca. Thank

[2:11:09] you, Supervisor Hagman,

[2:11:11] for the second. All those

[2:11:12] in favor?

[2:11:13] Aye.

[2:11:14] Any opposed?

[2:11:18] >> I don't know the motion that

[2:11:21] I want, I don't know [INAUDIBLE]

[2:11:25] how I can get that

[2:11:26] in there.

[2:11:28] >> Well, we have a majority

[2:11:29] vote at this point.

[2:11:30] >> Explain it without.

[2:11:32] >> You're more than welcome to,

[2:11:33] sure.

[2:11:35] >> What I was going to suggest,

[2:11:37] if you guys are gutsy enough,

[2:11:39] is that we go out in the

[2:11:42] Mojave Desert at 12 noon and,

[2:11:46] and actually see what it's

[2:11:50] like out there. When you're

[2:11:51] there, physically there, it

[2:11:53] really makes a big difference.

[2:11:56] You don't have

[2:11:58] to stay there that long, and

[2:12:01] after the manager passes out,

[2:12:03] then we'll stop someplace and

[2:12:05] have a beer. But this way you

[2:12:07] can actually see the physical

[2:12:09] environment that we're talking

[2:12:11] about. The desert is a very,

[2:12:13] very unforgiving place. And

[2:12:16] when you make decisions

[2:12:18] on what you're going to do

[2:12:20] out there, you better make sure

[2:12:21] you do it right. That's all I'm

[2:12:23] saying.

[2:12:24] >> I appreciate that. In terms

[2:12:26] of continuing this item

[2:12:28] in addition to your,

[2:12:32] and I'm all for it,

[2:12:33] that's the backyard, so.

[2:12:34] >> It would be fun.

[2:12:35] >> It would be, but

[2:12:36] in terms of this, if

[2:12:38] >> It's 120, God, wouldn't it?

[2:12:46] No, it's too cold.

[2:12:47] >> Are you in, are you

[2:12:48] in favor, Paul? Are you

[2:12:49] in favor

[2:12:50] of continuing this item to

[2:12:51] October 20th so staff can do

[2:12:53] further outreach, provide

[2:12:54] clarification,

[2:12:55] and then bring it back

[2:12:56] to us?

[2:12:57] >> Well, it's starting

[2:12:58] to get cold out there. I want

[2:12:59] to go

[2:13:00] out there when it's hotter,

[2:13:01] the better to understand.

[2:13:03] >> Nothing's stopping that

[2:13:04] from happening. Nothing will

[2:13:06] stop that from happening.

[2:13:07] >> Why? We're not a bunch

[2:13:09] of candy asses. We can go out

[2:13:10] there and see what it's like.

[2:13:13] >> I need a yes. No or an

[2:13:14] abstention?

[2:13:18] >> A yes, no.

[2:13:20] >> To continue.

[2:13:21] >> To continue this item.

[2:13:24] >> Yeah, he's telling me I can

[2:13:25] continue it.

[2:13:27] >> I'm going to take that as an

[2:13:28] affirmative yes. Thank you.

[2:13:30] >> So, Madam Chair, if I can

[2:13:32] please confirm the motion that

[2:13:33] we are continuing the closed

[2:13:35] public hearing. So, we are

[2:13:38] continuing the closed public

[2:13:40] hearing to October 20th

[2:13:42] to amend. For,

[2:13:43] to allow staff to.

[2:13:44] >> Yes. And then depending upon

[2:13:46] what changes you recommend,

[2:13:48] then it goes back to either

[2:13:49] planning or it moves forward

[2:13:50] to the board. Is that correct,

[2:13:53] Laura?

[2:13:55] >> Oh, depending on, yeah,

[2:13:56] depending

[2:13:57] on how substantial the changes,

[2:13:58] it may need to return

[2:13:59] to planning.

[2:14:00] >> It also may need to return

[2:14:02] to the State Mining and

[2:14:03] Geology Board.

[2:14:04] >> I'm sorry?

[2:14:05] >> It also may need to state,

[2:14:06] to return to the State Mining

[2:14:07] and Geology Board. We'd rather

[2:14:09] get their concurrence

[2:14:10] before we approve it.

[2:14:11] Otherwise, it's just going

[2:14:12] to be.

[2:14:13] >> I understand.

[2:14:14] >> Back and forth.

[2:14:15] >> Okay.

[2:14:16] >> So, Madam Chair, I have one

[2:14:17] just thing. You had mentioned,

[2:14:19] Dan, that there was risk

[2:14:20] of us losing our authority

[2:14:23] within this window. Do you see

[2:14:25] that as a risk over the next 2

[2:14:26] months? This is not an imminent

[2:14:28] risk.

[2:14:29] >> No, I don't see that risk.

[2:14:30] >> Okay.

[2:14:31] >> Just so that.

[2:14:33] >> All right. And for those

[2:14:34] in the audience,

[2:14:35] and I haven't. Final vote?

[2:14:36] >> I don't,

[2:14:37] I was just going to ask. I

[2:14:38] don't believe we have a final

[2:14:39] vote. Yes.

[2:14:40] >> Okay. So to reiterate, all

[2:14:42] those in favor

[2:14:43] of continuing the public

[2:14:44] hearing to October 20th, aye.

[2:14:46] Any opposed? Any abstentions?

[2:14:47] >> Thank you,

[2:14:49] Madam Chair.

[2:14:53] >> If you are here today and

[2:14:55] you provided comment or

[2:14:57] questions in writing,

[2:14:59] we have them all. If you

[2:15:00] verbally provided them,

[2:15:02] I have a staff member in the

[2:15:04] audience who is raising her

[2:15:05] hand in the back

[2:15:06] on your left. If you have

[2:15:08] written comments, confide

[2:15:09] to her. She can give you a

[2:15:10] card. Email us those so we can

[2:15:12] get, make sure that your

[2:15:13] questions get answered. All

[2:15:14] right. And with that,

[2:15:17] we will move on

[2:15:18] to our public comment

[2:15:20] on items not

[2:15:21] on today's agenda. And as a

[2:15:24] reminder, as I stated

[2:15:25] at the top of the meeting,

[2:15:26] we have a number

[2:15:28] of speakers both

[2:15:30] on teleconference and

[2:15:31] in person. Our public comment

[2:15:33] on items not

[2:15:34] on the agenda will be limited

[2:15:35] to 2 minutes. And our first

[2:15:37] request to speak is Bonnie

[2:15:40] Hawthorne, followed by Denise

[2:15:41] June Shearer, and then Keith.

[2:15:54] >> I think that was some kind

[2:15:55] of mistake because I've already

[2:15:57] spoken. I spoke in regard to

[2:15:58] 76, so maybe I filled out the

[2:16:01] form wrong. I'm not sure.

[2:16:06] >> I, we did receive your

[2:16:08] comments earlier. So, if you

[2:16:10] have anything additional that

[2:16:11] you would like to add

[2:16:12] on items not

[2:16:13] on today's agenda,

[2:16:14] you are welcome to do so.

[2:16:17] >> No, I was,

[2:16:18] I was only commenting on item

[2:16:19] 76 and thank you

[2:16:21] for continuing it to October. I

[2:16:24] agree with you. There's been a

[2:16:26] lot of confusion. So, I really

[2:16:29] do hope you straighten it out

[2:16:31] for us. Thank you.

[2:16:32] >> Thank you very much.

[2:16:33] >> Denise June Shear, followed

[2:16:35] by Keith.

[2:16:43] All right. We'll move on

[2:16:44] to Keith.

[2:16:53] >> Hi. Yes, Supervisors, thank

[2:16:55] you for taking the time today

[2:16:56] listening to the public. I

[2:16:58] believe it was the responsible

[2:17:00] thing to push this agenda item

[2:17:02] off for further study. I'd

[2:17:06] like to see a pattern in this

[2:17:07] county and its governance that

[2:17:09] we don't play the state as a

[2:17:11] boogeyman card so much. Let's

[2:17:14] be sensible. Let's not rush

[2:17:16] things. Let's get community

[2:17:17] input.

[2:17:18] Excuse me.

[2:17:19] I think especially

[2:17:22] considering what we're seeing

[2:17:23] in Big Bend National Park. And

[2:17:25] how the federal government is

[2:17:27] rushing

[2:17:28] to bulldoze and draw a line

[2:17:30] through our public lands. It's

[2:17:31] critically important that,

[2:17:33] at least

[2:17:34] at the county and state level,

[2:17:35] that we hold the line and we

[2:17:36] adhere to the laws

[2:17:38] in our state. Surface mining

[2:17:41] on federal lands doesn't happen

[2:17:42] in a vacuum. The scars from any

[2:17:44] potential mine will be visible

[2:17:46] from space long after all

[2:17:47] of us have passed and gone.

[2:17:50] The immediate effects

[2:17:53] on transit lines, the air, the

[2:17:54] water, the night sky,

[2:17:56] the noise. Like, there's so

[2:17:58] many factors to take

[2:17:59] into place. And I don't think

[2:18:01] anyone that lives in

[2:18:02] Twentynine Palms or

[2:18:03] in the high desert region wants

[2:18:05] to see their property values

[2:18:06] plummet if a gigantic open pit

[2:18:08] mine like the one we see in

[2:18:10] Boron is allowed to go forward

[2:18:12] in this county. So, I think

[2:18:13] it's important that we take a

[2:18:15] stance, not

[2:18:16] for the short-term gain,

[2:18:18] for a you know, foreign

[2:18:20] transnational mining

[2:18:21] corporation to extract our

[2:18:23] resources and take them out

[2:18:24] of the.

[2:18:25] >> 30 seconds.

[2:18:26] >> That profit out of this

[2:18:28] county. I think it's important

[2:18:29] that we focus

[2:18:30] on getting this right. So,

[2:18:32] there's no loopholes. So, I

[2:18:33] appreciate you tabling the

[2:18:34] matter. Thank you.

[2:18:35] >> Thank you very much.

[2:18:36] >> And as a reminder, this is

[2:18:37] for items not

[2:18:38] on today's agenda. Next up is

[2:18:40] Nicholas Garver, followed by

[2:18:41] Anna Gonzalez.

[2:18:50] >> Who? Nicholas?

[2:18:52] >> And Anna Gonzalez is not,

[2:18:53] neither of them are still

[2:18:55] on the line. Okay, we're going

[2:18:56] to, we're going

[2:19:01] to bring it back here

[2:19:03] to in-person comments. Our

[2:19:04] first request to speak is

[2:19:06] Daniel DeMeyer, followed by

[2:19:08] Joanne Genesis.

[2:19:12] >> Good afternoon, board. My

[2:19:13] name is Dan Demyer. I'm a

[2:19:15] resident of 29 Palms. I've been

[2:19:17] approaching this problem I have

[2:19:19] a little wrong,

[2:19:21] and I think I'm going

[2:19:22] to do it a little different.

[2:19:24] So with that, I'm going

[2:19:25] to say I'm sorry

[2:19:26] to bother your sheriffs about

[2:19:27] the vandalism and the

[2:19:29] trespassing calls that I've

[2:19:30] been making the last 6 months.

[2:19:33] I'm sorry that your sheriffs,

[2:19:35] 9, 7 of them, came out

[2:19:37] to my house and held guns

[2:19:38] to my head on a SWAT call.

[2:19:40] What's SWAT? A SWAT is when

[2:19:42] somebody calls your law

[2:19:43] enforcement agency and lies and

[2:19:45] tells them BS so they could

[2:19:48] come

[2:19:49] to your house and hold guns to

[2:19:50] your head. I'm sorry that I'm

[2:19:52] helping the neighbors

[2:19:53] with my tractor work after a

[2:19:55] massive flash flood. I'm sorry

[2:19:58] I'm maintaining the road for my

[2:20:00] neighbors as my one neighbor

[2:20:02] destroys it. I have a neighbor

[2:20:04] that blocks the road. And

[2:20:07] nobody does anything, so no one

[2:20:09] can get through. I'm sorry that

[2:20:12] my neighbor is digging up the

[2:20:14] underground utility poles and

[2:20:16] moving them. I find that very

[2:20:19] dangerous. I'm sorry that my

[2:20:21] neighbor dumps his trash along

[2:20:22] with human waste

[2:20:24] around the desert and

[2:20:25] in people's trash cans. He

[2:20:28] calls the cops, and when he

[2:20:30] calls the cops and they

[2:20:31] respond, they go

[2:20:33] to his house,

[2:20:34] and he doesn't answer the door.

[2:20:35] We fix the damage that he

[2:20:37] creates, and he calls the

[2:20:39] police and tells them we did

[2:20:41] the damage. That's false

[2:20:43] reporting.

[2:20:44] >> 30 seconds.

[2:20:45] >> Yes. The main one is,

[2:20:47] is he chased my roommate

[2:20:48] down the road 2.5 miles. I have

[2:20:51] a restraining order,

[2:20:52] so does my roommate. The police

[2:20:54] did nothing. So with that,

[2:20:56] I'm going to say 7 months

[2:20:58] of investigation, 3 violations

[2:20:59] of restraining order, and the

[2:21:01] cops will not return my call.

[2:21:03] The sheriff. They are either

[2:21:05] corrupt or they're incompetent

[2:21:08] because they do not uphold the

[2:21:10] law to serve and protect.

[2:21:13] Thank you.

[2:21:14] >> Thank you for your comments.

[2:21:15] >> Joanne Jenis, then Jane

[2:21:17] Hunt-Rubel.

[2:21:19] >> Good afternoon,

[2:21:21] Supervisors. My name is

[2:21:22] Joanne Jenis and I live

[2:21:23] in the city of Chino Hills.

[2:21:24] Let's talk about homelessness

[2:21:25] and matters related to it. Did

[2:21:27] you hear about the city of

[2:21:29] Riverside's new drop-off

[2:21:30] ordinance? I'm aware Riverside

[2:21:31] is in another county,

[2:21:33] but I believe looking at this

[2:21:34] ordinance could potentially

[2:21:35] benefit our own communities

[2:21:38] in our own county, especially

[2:21:40] with the 2028 Olympics coming

[2:21:43] to, coming into LA. The

[2:21:45] ordinance requires law

[2:21:46] enforcement, medical

[2:21:47] facilities, behavioral health

[2:21:48] providers, cities and county

[2:21:49] agencies,

[2:21:50] and other organizations to

[2:21:52] provide 24-hour advance notice

[2:21:53] before dropping off an

[2:21:55] individual experiencing

[2:21:56] homelessness in their city.

[2:21:58] The goal is to give the city

[2:21:59] and service providers an

[2:22:01] opportunity to coordinate

[2:22:02] behavioral health services,

[2:22:04] shelter housing,

[2:22:05] and other support instead

[2:22:07] of simply leaving them

[2:22:08] somewhere without the resources

[2:22:09] they need. I believe a similar

[2:22:11] policy should be considered in

[2:22:13] the county and statewide levels

[2:22:15] with the possibility of

[2:22:16] eventually becoming state law.

[2:22:18] Here's why I'm so passionate

[2:22:20] about this homeless ordinance.

[2:22:21] Some of you probably remember

[2:22:23] my story. My son was accepted

[2:22:25] into the AOT Laura's Law

[2:22:28] program medical. He was

[2:22:30] evaluated. The court ordered,

[2:22:31] the judge ordered

[2:22:32] for an evaluation. He went

[2:22:34] through the evaluation. He went

[2:22:36] to Arrowhead Regional. 72 hours

[2:22:38] later, even though diagnosed

[2:22:40] severe mental illness and

[2:22:41] gravely disabled,

[2:22:42] they released him. No support.

[2:22:44] 31 miles. Gave him a bus pass.

[2:22:45] No support. No cell phone. No

[2:22:47] money. Somehow, he made it

[2:22:48] home. 7 days later,

[2:22:49] he was killed crossing

[2:22:50] at a crosswalk. while being

[2:22:53] out of his head,

[2:22:55] and he was killed

[2:22:56] by a hit-and-run felony EMT.

[2:22:59] So, let's try and see,

[2:23:01] improve what's happening with

[2:23:02] these mental health patients

[2:23:03] and homelessness out

[2:23:05] on the streets. Thank you

[2:23:06] for your time.

[2:23:07] >> Thank you

[2:23:08] for your comments.

[2:23:09] >> Jane Hunt Ruble, then

[2:23:10] Randy Bekendam, and then

[2:23:11] Carmen Gallegos.

[2:23:18] >> Excuse me. Good afternoon. I

[2:23:20] got hungry,

[2:23:22] so I brought a candy bar

[2:23:23] with me. Anyway, I'm here

[2:23:26] to talk about, well,

[2:23:29] I love those people from

[2:23:31] Wonder Valley, and I wish my

[2:23:33] community was like that a long

[2:23:35] time ago when we were fighting

[2:23:36] other things in Lytle, Cohon

[2:23:38] Wash. But anyway, I'm here

[2:23:40] to talk about, I came

[2:23:43] across this yesterday. It's

[2:23:45] about the unincorporated truck

[2:23:49] routes, because that's one

[2:23:51] thing I'm concerned about.

[2:23:53] Because earlier this year,

[2:23:54] thank you, Baca,

[2:23:55] for finally coming out

[2:23:56] to our community

[2:23:58] about the truck routes,

[2:23:59] but it's gotten worse

[2:24:00] over the past few months. It's

[2:24:02] just, I hate going down Macy

[2:24:05] Street anymore, but I have to

[2:24:06] on Thursday because I have,

[2:24:08] I work for a friend of mine

[2:24:09] over in Rialto, and it's

[2:24:11] Getting big rigs coming

[2:24:12] down there, and also the

[2:24:14] vendors. I don't even

[2:24:16] like going to the, the library

[2:24:19] there anymore because it's just

[2:24:21] overwhelmed with,

[2:24:23] on both sides of Darby

[2:24:25] Street, the vendors, and

[2:24:27] they're there apparently every

[2:24:29] day. And I just want something

[2:24:31] done about it because it even

[2:24:33] bothers the people that work

[2:24:34] in the library. And I was

[2:24:37] shocked to learn that.

[2:24:38] But some, we have a lot

[2:24:40] of people that live out in

[2:24:42] Muscoy. I guess they moved here

[2:24:45] to Muscoy that are truck

[2:24:46] drivers,

[2:24:47] and they have big rigs. And the

[2:24:49] one thing I wanted

[2:24:50] to talk about.

[2:24:51] >> 30 seconds.

[2:24:52] >> Is that I caught somebody

[2:24:53] on the corner of June and 2nd

[2:24:56] that they have signs up saying

[2:24:58] no parking at all. They've been

[2:24:59] up there for years, but I

[2:25:02] caught somebody doing it again,

[2:25:03] and I want something done

[2:25:04] about it. So, I please beg you

[2:25:07] to do something about it

[2:25:08] because they're blocking the

[2:25:10] view of traffic going and

[2:25:13] they're blatant about it. So, I

[2:25:14] really like,

[2:25:15] appreciate it.

[2:25:16] Also, are the cameras up

[2:25:19] because people are still.

[2:25:20] >> That's time.

[2:25:21] >> On second and thank.

[2:25:23] >> Thank you, Randy Bekendam

[2:25:24] followed by Carmen Gallegos.

[2:25:30] >> Good afternoon,

[2:25:31] Supervisors. I'm Randy

[2:25:33] Bekendam, Executive Director

[2:25:35] of the Southern California

[2:25:37] Agricultural Land Foundation,

[2:25:40] and I'm also a local farmer.

[2:25:43] Our nonprofit has managed. We

[2:25:46] did manage the Prop 70 lands

[2:25:48] for the first 15 years

[2:25:50] of their existence. About 20

[2:25:52] years ago,

[2:25:54] the county dismissed the

[2:25:55] Executive Director and took

[2:25:57] management of the properties

[2:25:59] in-house. which generated this

[2:26:00] letter that I have here

[2:26:02] from the Planning and

[2:26:04] Conservation League, and they

[2:26:06] were the ones who initiated

[2:26:08] Prop 70. The contents of this

[2:26:12] letter are why we kept the

[2:26:13] nonprofit alive and active

[2:26:16] to this point. This letter

[2:26:18] threatens citizen action unless

[2:26:22] the county complies

[2:26:24] with the contents

[2:26:26] of this letter. The county has

[2:26:27] been out of compliance with

[2:26:29] Prop 70 from the beginning, so

[2:26:32] 38 years in violation

[2:26:34] of the public trust. The

[2:26:36] citizens of California own the

[2:26:38] Prop 70 land. The county is a

[2:26:41] steward of the land. You have a

[2:26:44] fiduciary responsibility

[2:26:45] to comply with the mandate of

[2:26:49] Prop 70, which is

[2:26:51] to preserve the land

[2:26:52] for agriculture. And so,

[2:26:54] the letter of this,

[2:26:56] the contents of this letter,

[2:26:58] very self-explanatory. Who can

[2:27:01] I leave this letter with?

[2:27:02] >> That's 30 seconds.

[2:27:04] >> As many copies as you need.

[2:27:08] >> Madam Chair, sorry,

[2:27:10] we can take it. The Clerk

[2:27:11] of the Board

[2:27:12] down here can take it

[2:27:13] from you. Thank you.

[2:27:14] >> Okay, thank you.

[2:27:15] >> Carmen Gallegos,

[2:27:16] followed by Leticia Howard, and

[2:27:18] then Joaquin Castillejos.

[2:27:24] >> Is this on? Okay. Yeah, I

[2:27:27] had brought this up before.

[2:27:28] Where I'm located,

[2:27:30] I noticed that sometimes I do

[2:27:32] go to places that have way too

[2:27:33] much things going on

[2:27:34] at one time. It also affects

[2:27:35] the city and also the people

[2:27:37] around it. A lot

[2:27:39] of times right now I'm dealing

[2:27:40] with this right now I want

[2:27:42] to bring in sidewalks and

[2:27:44] streets and lights. And because

[2:27:46] that they're hitting

[2:27:48] pedestrians,

[2:27:49] and the pedestrians are in the

[2:27:50] streets because there's no

[2:27:52] sidewalks. And this was

[2:27:53] with a lot

[2:27:55] of humans and animals. They

[2:27:57] can't walk their dog or cat. I

[2:27:58] mean, they have to take care

[2:28:02] of just basically like the

[2:28:04] fireworks. I had so many

[2:28:05] fireworks. I go, I've never

[2:28:06] seen so many fireworks

[2:28:07] in my life, or they should have

[2:28:08] been contained a long time ago

[2:28:10] because it made a war zone

[2:28:11] of your city.

[2:28:12] And in county and city areas. So

[2:28:14] right now, I'm

[2:28:15] in a county area. Before I was

[2:28:17] in a city area,

[2:28:18] but still dealing

[2:28:19] with fireworks, which is really

[2:28:20] crazy. I got a disturb the

[2:28:22] peace, and I had to laugh

[2:28:23] at that because I got a ticket

[2:28:25] for that. But

[2:28:27] to overlook the obvious,

[2:28:29] if we're to let it go

[2:28:31] to businesses and burning it,

[2:28:32] even Homeland Security said

[2:28:34] they only took care

[2:28:35] of federal buildings.

[2:28:36] But aside from that,

[2:28:37] right now. And even hearing a

[2:28:38] comment, you know,

[2:28:40] I'm too far away

[2:28:42] to get there. Well, that's why

[2:28:43] I said adopt a planet, and we

[2:28:44] need clean air and clean water.

[2:28:45] Because you let the,

[2:28:47] you overlook the fireworks,

[2:28:49] and they should,

[2:28:50] they weren't even

[2:28:51] in a contained area where, I

[2:28:52] mean, in the area that they had

[2:28:53] permits for.

[2:28:54] But even the permit area.

[2:28:55] >> 30 seconds.

[2:28:57] >> But anyway, so again,

[2:28:58] transportation and

[2:29:02] for humans and animals, but

[2:29:03] like sidewalks to keep them

[2:29:04] off the streets. Thank you.

[2:29:06] >> Thank you very much.

[2:29:08] >> From drunk drivers and

[2:29:09] people flipping cars.

[2:29:11] >> Leticia Howard, followed

[2:29:13] by Joaquin Castillejos, and then

[2:29:14] Terry Lewis.

[2:29:20] >> For over a year,

[2:29:21] parents and advocates have come

[2:29:22] before this board reporting

[2:29:23] corruption, fraud, perjury,

[2:29:25] abuse of power, violations of,

[2:29:27] of our right to due process,

[2:29:28] and harm to our children

[2:29:30] within Children and Family

[2:29:32] Services. What was the

[2:29:33] response? The board pushed to

[2:29:35] make sure parents received

[2:29:37] their court reports on time.

[2:29:39] Well, let me tell you how that

[2:29:40] correction is working. On July

[2:29:42] 8th, my parental rights were

[2:29:44] terminated. One of the most

[2:29:45] important documents that

[2:29:47] in that proceeding was the 26

[2:29:49] report. I don't have that

[2:29:51] report. I did not have that

[2:29:53] report the day of the hearing.

[2:29:54] I do not have it as of today. I

[2:29:56] made multiple written requests

[2:29:58] for it, and today,

[2:29:59] more than a month after my

[2:30:00] rights were terminated, I still

[2:30:01] don't have that report. report.

[2:30:03] So, when Jeannie Glasgow says

[2:30:04] that the problems have been

[2:30:05] corrected, I ask you,

[2:30:07] does that sound

[2:30:08] like it's been corrected?

[2:30:09] Today I'm no longer speaking

[2:30:10] to the board. I'm speaking

[2:30:11] to parents, advocates,

[2:30:13] attorneys, civil rights

[2:30:14] organizations, lawmakers,

[2:30:15] journalists, taxpayers, and

[2:30:16] everyone believes the

[2:30:18] government must have, the

[2:30:19] government power must have

[2:30:21] limits. We have spent too much

[2:30:23] time asking the very system we

[2:30:25] accuse of corruption, fraud,

[2:30:28] and abuse of power to

[2:30:29] investigate or correct itself.

[2:30:30] When will, when will we

[2:30:32] understand the system is

[2:30:34] working exactly the way it was

[2:30:35] designed to work? It survives

[2:30:36] because families are isolated

[2:30:38] and afraid. It survives because

[2:30:39] people believe they are

[2:30:41] powerless when they walk

[2:30:42] into courtrooms,

[2:30:43] and it survives when the rest

[2:30:45] of us remain silent. I am not

[2:30:46] here today asking the board to

[2:30:48] save us. I am asking the people

[2:30:49] to stand together.

[2:30:51] >> 30 seconds.

[2:30:52] >> Learn the law,

[2:30:53] preserve your records,

[2:30:54] request your documents,

[2:30:55] request answer, ask questions,

[2:30:57] demand evidence, show up

[2:30:58] to these meetings, contact

[2:30:59] lawmakers,

[2:31:00] contact civil rights

[2:31:02] organizations, because history

[2:31:04] has never been changed by

[2:31:05] people quietly accepting

[2:31:06] injustice. Change happens when

[2:31:08] ordinary people decide,

[2:31:09] decide enough is enough. They

[2:31:11] may have the titles, they may

[2:31:13] have attorneys, they may have

[2:31:14] the funding,

[2:31:16] but we have the numbers. And

[2:31:17] when the communities stand

[2:31:18] together, we have the power

[2:31:19] to enforce accountability.

[2:31:20] >> That's time.

[2:31:22] >> Joaquin Castillejos,

[2:31:24] followed by Terry Lewis, and

[2:31:26] then Karen Reich.

[2:31:30] >> Good morning,

[2:31:32] county staff and community. My

[2:31:34] name is Joaquin Castillejos. I

[2:31:36] am an organizer with the

[2:31:38] Center for Community Action and

[2:31:39] Environmental Justice. I'm here

[2:31:41] today to just remind the board

[2:31:43] of its duty to protect Prop 70

[2:31:46] land and to be stewards of this

[2:31:48] preserved agricultural land.

[2:31:50] that was meant to be used

[2:31:52] for generations to come. In

[2:31:55] 19, in 1984, when this was

[2:31:58] passed, it was because voters

[2:32:00] decided that it was important

[2:32:01] to save agricultural land, to

[2:32:04] set it aside and make sure that

[2:32:07] future generations, no matter

[2:32:09] how developed their

[2:32:11] surroundings were,

[2:32:12] they would always have access

[2:32:13] to this Prop 70 land. And San

[2:32:15] Bernardino County started off,

[2:32:17] became part of this process.

[2:32:23] They used, the county used $20

[2:32:24] million in Prop 70 funding

[2:32:26] to buy up agricultural land

[2:32:28] across the county and was meant

[2:32:31] to preserve it and save it and

[2:32:33] make sure that it's preserved

[2:32:35] for future generations,

[2:32:37] that it was used

[2:32:38] for regenerative agriculture,

[2:32:39] green spaces, things that

[2:32:41] benefit the community. And it

[2:32:44] is, it is a duty, and under

[2:32:46] Prop 70, it should continue

[2:32:48] to be the main priority. The

[2:32:51] county should not be using

[2:32:54] these, this land

[2:32:55] for any other reason,

[2:32:56] transferring it

[2:32:57] to any other entity, or, or,

[2:33:00] you know, letting it be used

[2:33:01] to be.

[2:33:02] >> 30 seconds.

[2:33:03] >> To become anything else

[2:33:05] that's not an agricultural

[2:33:07] easement. So, I'm just here

[2:33:08] to urge the county

[2:33:09] to remember its role with Prop

[2:33:11] 70 to take care of that land

[2:33:13] and make sure that it will

[2:33:16] continue to be used

[2:33:17] in what it is supposed

[2:33:19] to be used, which is

[2:33:20] through natural lands, open

[2:33:22] space, and agriculture. Thank

[2:33:24] you.

[2:33:25] >> Thank you very much. Karen

[2:33:27] Reich, followed by Lisa Finn,

[2:33:29] and then Eric Vasquez. Oh, I'm

[2:33:34] sorry. My Thing shows it's

[2:33:36] highlighted. Terry Lewis first,

[2:33:38] and then Karen.

[2:33:48] >> Hi, my name is Terry Lewis.

[2:33:52] I just wanted

[2:33:53] to ask a question. Why is it

[2:33:55] okay for social workers

[2:33:57] to lie, to lie to parents,

[2:33:59] to lie in court? They,

[2:34:03] in my own personal case,

[2:34:05] the social worker lied 24 times

[2:34:07] in her report,

[2:34:09] and we can prove like 3

[2:34:10] of them for sure. And no one's

[2:34:12] heard our story. No one's cared

[2:34:14] to even listen. Our twins had

[2:34:16] been gone,

[2:34:18] and the baby had been gone

[2:34:19] through 2 years now. And it,

[2:34:21] for what reason? There were no

[2:34:22] allegations of anything. The

[2:34:24] kids were

[2:34:25] with their grandmother. They

[2:34:27] weren't even with the mom.

[2:34:28] They went to the mom's home,

[2:34:29] and based on her home,

[2:34:30] they took the kids.

[2:34:31] But the kids had been living

[2:34:33] with the grandmother

[2:34:34] for a month. So, it really

[2:34:35] doesn't make sense. And when we

[2:34:36] go to court, no one hears our

[2:34:38] story because we don't have an

[2:34:39] attorney. And it's

[2:34:41] unacceptable.

[2:34:42] But why is it okay for them

[2:34:44] to lie? Cops can't lie. I used

[2:34:46] to be a correctional officer,

[2:34:47] and we had

[2:34:48] to follow the WIC codes to the

[2:34:49] letter because there was

[2:34:51] oversight. And the county CPS

[2:34:52] has no oversight. I missed that

[2:34:55] June 23rd, I think it was the

[2:34:57] 23rd meeting where Jeannie

[2:34:58] Glasgow and the other man sat

[2:35:00] here and gave their statistics.

[2:35:02] and how they never take

[2:35:04] children from parents unless

[2:35:05] it's dire circumstances,

[2:35:07] and they always do everything

[2:35:09] to keep them with family. And

[2:35:11] that is a blatant lie,

[2:35:13] complete, at least

[2:35:15] in my case. And I believe the

[2:35:16] other parents too. They could

[2:35:18] have left the kids

[2:35:19] at my house that night.

[2:35:21] >> 30 seconds.

[2:35:22] >> They said that someone in my

[2:35:23] home didn't pass the

[2:35:24] background. So I said, well,

[2:35:25] he'll leave. And they, and she

[2:35:27] goes, it doesn't work

[2:35:28] like that, when it absolutely

[2:35:29] does according

[2:35:31] to the WIC codes. And, you

[2:35:32] know, it's unacceptable. There

[2:35:35] needs to be oversight. There

[2:35:36] needs to be, they should wear

[2:35:38] body cameras so that they have

[2:35:39] to, you know, transparency. But

[2:35:42] they don't want transparency

[2:35:43] because they're the ones who's

[2:35:45] lying and they're the ones who

[2:35:46] are harming the kids, not us.

[2:35:47] There was no reason for them

[2:35:49] to take our twins.

[2:35:50] >> That's time.

[2:35:55] >> Karen Reich, followed by

[2:35:56] Lisa Finn.

[2:35:57] >> Hello, my name is Karen

[2:35:58] Reich. I'm the grandmother to

[2:36:01] Jovi, Jace, and Myla Wood. I'm

[2:36:05] here because I'm angry. I'm

[2:36:07] pissed off that we come here

[2:36:10] twice a month. Well, I missed

[2:36:13] the, I've missed a couple of

[2:36:14] them because I've been busy

[2:36:16] trying to get RFA approved

[2:36:17] to get my grandkids.

[2:36:19] But you guys sit up there, and

[2:36:21] you hear these horrific

[2:36:23] situations where people's kids

[2:36:26] have been legally kidnapped and

[2:36:29] you do nothing. That, I, I

[2:36:31] mean, nothing has changed.

[2:36:33] Laws need changed. Reform needs

[2:36:35] to happen. My grandkids were

[2:36:37] removed by a woman named

[2:36:39] Betty Thompson Larkin, and they

[2:36:41] were put with a social worker

[2:36:44] foster mom named Kyra Larkin.

[2:36:47] Are they of relation? Is this a

[2:36:49] coincidence, or is

[2:36:51] trafficking, because that's

[2:36:54] what it would be. It's called

[2:36:55] trafficking. And San

[2:36:57] Bernardino County is

[2:36:59] trafficking our kids and using

[2:37:01] them. They're exploiting them

[2:37:02] for the sole purpose

[2:37:04] of gaining financial money

[2:37:06] for the title for refunding.

[2:37:07] And that

[2:37:08] to me is disgusting. I'm Mama

[2:37:12] Bear. I'm Mama Bear, and I'm

[2:37:14] coming after my grandkids,

[2:37:16] and hell's coming with me.

[2:37:17] Thank you.

[2:37:19] >> Thank you. Lisa Finn

[2:37:21] followed by Eric Vasquez.

[2:37:24] >> Good afternoon. My name is

[2:37:25] Lisa Finn. This is, I don't

[2:37:27] know, my 6th time or so

[2:37:28] speaking. I'm speaking

[2:37:31] to share my experience

[2:37:32] with the Child Protective

[2:37:34] Services and family court

[2:37:35] system because I believe there

[2:37:36] are serious injustices that

[2:37:37] need to be brought to light.

[2:37:39] My children were removed

[2:37:40] from my care,

[2:37:41] and throughout the court

[2:37:42] proceedings, I felt I was not

[2:37:43] given a fair opportunity to

[2:37:44] defend myself. or challenge the

[2:37:46] allegations being made

[2:37:47] against me. Reports were served

[2:37:49] on, to me

[2:37:51] on the same day as court,

[2:37:52] leaving me little or no

[2:37:53] meaningful opportunity to

[2:37:54] review the information or

[2:37:56] prepare a response. I was not

[2:37:58] given the opportunity

[2:37:59] to question my accusers. My

[2:38:01] attorneys did not adequately

[2:38:02] advise me that I could contest

[2:38:03] the allegations,

[2:38:06] and witnesses who were willing

[2:38:07] to testify

[2:38:08] on my behalf were not permitted

[2:38:09] to do so. I believe these

[2:38:10] circumstances denied me a

[2:38:12] meaningful opportunity

[2:38:13] to be heard. Sorry. The

[2:38:23] allegations against me were

[2:38:24] eventually proven

[2:38:26] to be false. However, even

[2:38:27] after those allegations were

[2:38:28] shown to be false,

[2:38:30] my children were not returned

[2:38:32] to me. Approximately 3 months

[2:38:35] after my children were removed,

[2:38:36] the reunification social worker

[2:38:37] brought my children

[2:38:38] to the home.

[2:38:39] During that visit, they were

[2:38:40] told, take everything you love

[2:38:42] as you're never coming back

[2:38:43] here. Those words have stayed

[2:38:44] with me. I could not understand

[2:38:46] how genuine reunification

[2:38:47] efforts could be when the

[2:38:49] person responsible for helping

[2:38:50] with reunification was telling

[2:38:51] us that my children were never

[2:38:53] coming back. As the case

[2:38:55] continued.

[2:38:56] >> 30 seconds.

[2:38:57] >> As the case continued,

[2:38:59] the allegations changed. False

[2:39:01] narratives stacked up court

[2:39:03] proceeding

[2:39:04] after court proceeding.

[2:39:05] Something is terribly wrong

[2:39:07] with this system, and we,

[2:39:09] we're going

[2:39:10] to keep coming asking you guys

[2:39:11] to change it, fix it. Thank you.

[2:39:14] >> Thank you very much. Eric

[2:39:15] Vasquez, followed by Delina

[2:39:17] Murillo, and then Amethyst

[2:39:18] Yates.

[2:39:21] >> Yes, good afternoon, Madam

[2:39:23] Chair, Vice Chair, Board of

[2:39:25] Supervisors, members

[2:39:26] of the staff, and members

[2:39:28] of the community. My name is

[2:39:29] Eric Vasquez, and I'm from

[2:39:30] True Impact, a nonprofit

[2:39:31] organization that exists

[2:39:33] to mentor at-promise youth

[2:39:34] to heal from their trauma and

[2:39:36] to find purpose.

[2:39:37] In that process, we focus

[2:39:39] on restorative practices,

[2:39:40] restorative justice,

[2:39:42] and a big emphasis

[2:39:44] on mentoring. Recently, you

[2:39:46] know, well, over the years,

[2:39:47] I've explored so many different

[2:39:49] things to touch the heart of

[2:39:50] these beautiful young people,

[2:39:52] to help them rehabilitate and

[2:39:56] find real change. And, you

[2:39:58] know, in that process, I came

[2:40:00] across regenerative farming.

[2:40:02] And so, I'm here today due

[2:40:04] to a recent collaboration

[2:40:06] with the Southern California

[2:40:08] Agricultural Land Foundation.

[2:40:10] What we've been doing is taking

[2:40:12] these system-impacted young

[2:40:14] people,

[2:40:15] current or former foster youth,

[2:40:17] at-promise youth,

[2:40:18] and bringing them

[2:40:19] into these green spaces,

[2:40:21] providing them workforce

[2:40:23] development, and seeing healing

[2:40:25] take place as they put their

[2:40:26] hands

[2:40:27] to honest and good work.

[2:40:28] There's something about being

[2:40:30] out in nature, that touches and

[2:40:32] changes the young heart. And

[2:40:34] so, I'm here because I'm

[2:40:36] concerned, as I've learned

[2:40:37] about Prop 70 and how it's not

[2:40:40] necessarily being adhered to,

[2:40:42] or that there is a threat

[2:40:44] to some of these lands being

[2:40:46] developed. I feel

[2:40:48] like finally, after 25 years

[2:40:50] of youth work,

[2:40:51] urban youth work.

[2:40:52] >> 30 seconds.

[2:40:54] >> That I have found gold, you

[2:40:55] know, that I have found

[2:40:57] something that 100%

[2:40:58] of the time works

[2:41:00] in touching the heart

[2:41:01] of these young people. And so,

[2:41:02] I just ask that you all take a

[2:41:04] look into this and that you

[2:41:05] ensure that we are running

[2:41:08] in our lane and adhering to

[2:41:10] Prop 70 as a county. This has

[2:41:12] many impacts,

[2:41:13] particularly impacts to the

[2:41:15] At Promise community. Thank you

[2:41:16] for hearing me today.

[2:41:18] >> Thank you very much, Delina

[2:41:20] Murillo, followed by Amethyst

[2:41:22] Yates and then Alejandra

[2:41:23] Contreras.

[2:41:24] >> Board members, we have come

[2:41:26] here time and time again

[2:41:28] to listen to Jeanne Glasgow

[2:41:29] talk about changes,

[2:41:30] about oversight,

[2:41:32] about reform. I want to know

[2:41:33] what has actually been done.

[2:41:34] You opened up 2 more courtrooms

[2:41:36] this year. The county's own

[2:41:37] record says it's because

[2:41:38] caseloads has outgrown the

[2:41:40] building. I'm asking you

[2:41:42] directly, does that mean more

[2:41:43] children being removed?

[2:41:45] Because nobody up there has

[2:41:46] answered that question,

[2:41:48] and families like mine deserve

[2:41:50] to know. Thank you.

[2:41:51] Meanwhile, my case keeps

[2:41:52] getting the same treatment your

[2:41:54] oversight was supposed

[2:41:55] to fix. My reports are still

[2:41:56] being filed the morning

[2:41:58] of hearings. For instance,

[2:41:59] today's report, the one used

[2:42:01] at my hearing,

[2:42:03] has a last documented entry

[2:42:05] from 13 days ago. 13 days,

[2:42:06] and it still showed up too late

[2:42:09] to properly review. And here's

[2:42:11] what should concern everybody

[2:42:13] in this room. The agency's own

[2:42:15] report states in writing that

[2:42:17] my daughter is too young

[2:42:18] to understand or form an

[2:42:19] opinion about adoption. And

[2:42:21] then in the same report,

[2:42:23] the answers of the same, sorry,

[2:42:26] they use her answer anyways,

[2:42:29] that adoption means she gets

[2:42:31] to stay in the house forever as

[2:42:34] it's informed consent. No one

[2:42:36] has told this 6-year-old what

[2:42:39] adoption actually means, that

[2:42:40] she will never see her mother

[2:42:42] again until she's 18 years old.

[2:42:44] 12 years, that is not staying

[2:42:46] somewhere forever. That is

[2:42:47] losing her mother and no one

[2:42:49] explained to her before asking

[2:42:50] her that question. So, my

[2:42:52] question for this board is not

[2:42:54] something that is taken

[2:42:55] lightly.

[2:42:56] >> 30 seconds.

[2:42:59] >> What oversight exists?

[2:43:00] Who is checking the agency's

[2:43:01] work? Because right now it

[2:43:02] doesn't seem

[2:43:03] like anyone still is. Thank

[2:43:04] you.

[2:43:05] >> Thank you very much.

[2:43:07] Amethyst Yates, followed by

[2:43:08] Alejandra Contreras, and then

[2:43:09] Stephanie.

[2:43:12] >> Good afternoon, Chair and

[2:43:13] members of the board. My name

[2:43:15] is Amethyst Yates, and I'm

[2:43:16] with the Family Reunification

[2:43:17] Equity and Empowerment Project

[2:43:19] at Starting Over. I was able

[2:43:26] to go to a conference. There

[2:43:28] was a bunch

[2:43:29] of foster agencies, social

[2:43:31] workers,

[2:43:34] people that implement the

[2:43:36] policy, remove children,

[2:43:38] and all that stuff. As of July

[2:43:42] 1st, 2027, each child removed

[2:43:46] from the home

[2:43:48] at minimum will receive

[2:43:51] $1,700. My numbers are a little

[2:43:54] off, it's a little bit more

[2:43:56] than that. However, under

[2:43:59] Title VII of the Social

[2:44:01] Security Act, there is money

[2:44:03] there available

[2:44:05] for prevention services

[2:44:07] In-home. The $1,700 is for only

[2:44:10] out-of-home placements. Okay,

[2:44:14] so under Title IV-E,

[2:44:17] they can get reimbursements for

[2:44:20] these prevention services. I'm

[2:44:23] really asking the board

[2:44:25] to stop funding things like

[2:44:27] Victor Outreach because I also

[2:44:28] ran into a parent partner over

[2:44:30] there that was devastated that

[2:44:32] the mother got her children

[2:44:33] back. Okay, this is not okay. I

[2:44:37] was also privy to go

[2:44:39] into CFT meetings with some

[2:44:41] of the people from Victor

[2:44:42] Outreach.

[2:44:43] >> 30 seconds.

[2:44:44] >> And they falsified

[2:44:47] everything. I was like,

[2:44:49] the parent never said that.

[2:44:51] But when the report came back,

[2:44:52] that's what was written, that

[2:44:54] the mother said that when I was

[2:44:56] the one that asked the

[2:44:57] questions. Thank you.

[2:45:01] >> Thank you. Alejandra

[2:45:02] Contreras, followed by

[2:45:03] Stephanie, and then Rita

[2:45:04] Espinoza.

[2:45:07] >> Hello, good afternoon. My

[2:45:08] name is Alejandra. This is the

[2:45:09] 4th time I've been coming. I'm

[2:45:11] here to ask you

[2:45:13] to please investigate the

[2:45:15] Office on Family Services and

[2:45:16] 1094s. I just came

[2:45:19] from court. I had mediation

[2:45:21] with them when the judge

[2:45:22] ordered reunification,

[2:45:24] and give authority

[2:45:27] to give me unsupervised visits,

[2:45:28] but they don't want

[2:45:29] to move forward. They want me

[2:45:31] to keep going trial case,

[2:45:32] spending my money, because I'm

[2:45:33] paying my private attorney

[2:45:35] because I don't trust them.

[2:45:36] They've been lying. And I had

[2:45:40] to say this, I questioned my,

[2:45:42] my social worker today and he

[2:45:44] couldn't answer any

[2:45:45] of my questions. The one he was

[2:45:47] stepping in

[2:45:48] in every question, it was

[2:45:49] Janice. I want you

[2:45:51] to investigate Janice Navas.

[2:45:53] Jos Mac as, because every

[2:45:55] moment kids from the second

[2:45:57] home that they were abused,

[2:45:58] neglected, keeping in a room

[2:46:01] day and night as they were as a

[2:46:04] basement. It was not a

[2:46:06] basement, but the suffer and

[2:46:07] mentally and emotionally it was

[2:46:09] the same as being

[2:46:10] on the basement. They knew all

[2:46:12] this abuse, and they tried

[2:46:13] to not expose it. Now that they

[2:46:18] are in a new caregiver, I'm

[2:46:19] concerning. because they want

[2:46:21] to remove it now. But my

[2:46:23] concern is that the newest

[2:46:25] caregiver told me that before

[2:46:26] they placed them as emergency,

[2:46:28] they knew that he, that her

[2:46:31] husband has sexually abused

[2:46:34] accusations in the past,

[2:46:35] and they placed my kids with

[2:46:37] them when I have relatives.

[2:46:38] >> 30 seconds.

[2:46:39] >> And they tried to avoid

[2:46:40] to go

[2:46:41] with my relative and put it

[2:46:42] with person that has sexually

[2:46:44] abused accusations. And my kids

[2:46:46] right now, they want to remove

[2:46:48] it because those allegations

[2:46:49] How come they doing this? The

[2:46:51] social worker that he couldn't

[2:46:53] reply to me,

[2:46:55] saying that we're here to ask

[2:46:57] about the business, not

[2:46:58] about this.

[2:46:59] But this is concerning

[2:47:00] for me because my kids are

[2:47:01] in danger. Every second,

[2:47:03] they're in danger.

[2:47:05] And I'm here to advocate.

[2:47:07] Please help us. I saw Mr.

[2:47:08] Hagman be

[2:47:09] on the investigation.

[2:47:10] >> That's time.

[2:47:11] >> Thank you, Stephanie,

[2:47:12] followed by Rita Espinoza and

[2:47:13] then Gregory.

[2:47:19] >> Hi, I'm with the Family

[2:47:21] Reunification Equity and

[2:47:23] Empowerment Program. I am a

[2:47:26] former foster kid, so I do know

[2:47:29] what they mean when they say

[2:47:31] their kids are struggling.

[2:47:35] They're deprived of things.

[2:47:37] They can't eat. They're forced

[2:47:39] to eat, and if they don't want

[2:47:40] to eat, they get choked.

[2:47:43] And now you guys are

[2:47:44] offering money to stay there

[2:47:47] till they turn 18? What's,

[2:47:50] what's the point of that?

[2:47:55] What's, what's the point

[2:47:56] of giving money to a

[2:47:57] 15-year-old when she leaves the

[2:47:59] foster home at 18? What is she

[2:48:04] supposed to do with that money?

[2:48:06] Instead of actually helping

[2:48:08] us educate ourselves and

[2:48:10] helping us get resources,

[2:48:12] you guys are, oh, if you guys

[2:48:14] stay, I'll give you guys so

[2:48:15] much money. I was tortured in

[2:48:21] foster care. I got removed

[2:48:23] twice from a home because they

[2:48:27] were SAing. The parent that

[2:48:32] needed to leave or the adult

[2:48:34] that needed to leave the house

[2:48:35] left the house. So why were we

[2:48:37] still not allowed to stay

[2:48:39] at our home?

[2:48:44] Why?

[2:48:50] Because you guys don't care.

[2:48:51] >> Thirty seconds.

[2:48:52] >> Trafficking kids.

[2:48:57] Sadly, but that's true.

[2:48:59] That's what you guys are

[2:49:01] doing, offering money for them

[2:49:02] to stay there for 3 extra years

[2:49:03] for what? So, they can get

[2:49:07] snatched up, go through worse

[2:49:11] things than what they were

[2:49:13] living at home?

[2:49:17] Removing them and putting

[2:49:18] with strangers that you guys

[2:49:21] don't even personally know.

[2:49:22] >> That's time.

[2:49:23] >> Stephanie, followed by

[2:49:25] Rita Espinoza. Stephanie? That

[2:49:34] was Stephanie?

[2:49:35] >> Yes.

[2:49:37] >> Okay, thank you. Rita

[2:49:38] Espinoza, followed by

[2:49:41] Gregory. Rita? All right,

[2:49:54] moving on to Gregory.

[2:49:57] >> Thank you. Oh eternal God

[2:50:00] of vengeance, Oh God who sets

[2:50:02] things right, shine upon us.

[2:50:03] Rise, Oh Judge who presides

[2:50:05] over the earth, and pronounce

[2:50:06] your sentence upon the proud.

[2:50:08] Give them what they deserve.

[2:50:09] How long, oh Eternal One, how

[2:50:11] long will the guilty revel

[2:50:12] in their prosperity? Arrogance

[2:50:13] pours from their mouths. All

[2:50:16] these troublemakers brag

[2:50:17] of their exploits. They have

[2:50:19] broken your people to pieces,

[2:50:20] Oh Eternal One, and brought ruin

[2:50:22] to your future generations.

[2:50:24] They slay a widow, kill a

[2:50:25] newcomer,

[2:50:26] and murder an orphan. Then they

[2:50:28] say, the Eternal One can't see

[2:50:30] what we're up to. The God of

[2:50:32] Jacob's people pays no

[2:50:33] attention to us. Think,

[2:50:35] brainless people,

[2:50:37] stupid people. When will you

[2:50:39] get it? Does the God who set

[2:50:40] the ear

[2:50:41] in its place not hear? Does the

[2:50:43] God who made the eye not see?

[2:50:46] Does the God who teaches the

[2:50:47] nations and guides humanity to

[2:50:49] knowledge not exercise just

[2:50:51] correction? The Eternal knows

[2:50:52] the highest thoughts

[2:50:53] of the wise,

[2:50:54] and they are worthless. How

[2:50:57] fortunate are those you

[2:50:58] discipline, Oh Eternal One,

[2:50:59] those you train

[2:51:00] by your divine law! You relieve

[2:51:03] them in times of distress

[2:51:04] until a grave is dug

[2:51:05] for evildoers. The Eternal will

[2:51:07] not abandon his people. He will

[2:51:09] not turn away

[2:51:10] from those he redeemed.

[2:51:12] Because justice is coming

[2:51:13] for those who do what is right,

[2:51:16] and all the good-hearted will

[2:51:17] pursue it. Who will back me up

[2:51:19] when evildoers come

[2:51:20] against me? Who is willing

[2:51:22] to take my side

[2:51:23] against the wicked? If the

[2:51:24] Eternal had not come

[2:51:25] to my rescue,

[2:51:27] my soul would have descended to

[2:51:28] the land where death silences

[2:51:30] every voice. When I said,

[2:51:32] my foot is slipping!

[2:51:35] >> 30 seconds.

[2:51:36] >> Your unfailing love, Oh

[2:51:38] Eternal One, held me up. When

[2:51:39] anxiety overtakes me and

[2:51:40] worries are many,

[2:51:41] your comfort lightens my soul.

[2:51:43] Can wicked tyrants be your

[2:51:44] allies? Will you align

[2:51:45] with rulers who create havoc,

[2:51:48] just unjust decrees? They have

[2:51:50] joined forces against the life

[2:51:51] of the just living, the right

[2:51:53] seeking,

[2:51:54] and have sentenced the innocent

[2:51:56] to death. But the Eternal has

[2:51:57] been my citadel, my God, a sure

[2:51:59] safe haven. He will fold their

[2:52:01] wickedness back upon it.

[2:52:02] >> That's time.

[2:52:04] >> Thank you. Our last request

[2:52:05] to speak is from Shaniqua.

[2:52:07] >> Oh, she's right here.

[2:52:08] You're up, you're up,

[2:52:09] you're up.

[2:52:15] >> She's coming.

[2:52:25] >> Yeah, unfortunately. Hello

[2:52:26] everybody, my name is

[2:52:27] Shaniqua Shepherd. I'm the

[2:52:28] National Hub affiliate

[2:52:31] for the FREE Project. My

[2:52:33] question is, why does CPS

[2:52:34] prioritize separation over

[2:52:37] for serving our families? Why

[2:52:39] do we allow doctors to take our

[2:52:41] mentally ill children,

[2:52:44] who we as parents have dealt

[2:52:45] with the challenges,

[2:52:46] but you can take them off

[2:52:47] of all their medications? When

[2:52:49] that child goes home and

[2:52:50] attempts to kill his mother,

[2:52:51] we blame mom

[2:52:53] for being the problem.

[2:52:56] But how? If I took my child

[2:52:58] to be assessed,

[2:53:00] and I say his medicine isn't

[2:53:02] working, you all agree.

[2:53:04] But a doctor who had too much

[2:53:05] to drink and came

[2:53:07] to work said otherwise,

[2:53:08] took my child off

[2:53:09] of his medication,

[2:53:10] but I lose my kids. Me. So I

[2:53:16] went from being a victim

[2:53:19] of CPS to surviving CPS

[2:53:22] to advocating

[2:53:23] for other families. My question

[2:53:24] to you is, when do we stop

[2:53:27] using these kids as a paycheck

[2:53:30] and take the money that we're

[2:53:31] giving to these foster parents

[2:53:33] who are sometimes not doing

[2:53:34] what they need

[2:53:35] to do and giving it to the

[2:53:36] family so that we can give them

[2:53:38] beds, give them food, give them

[2:53:39] the help that they need?

[2:53:41] Better yet, can we start

[2:53:42] prioritizing preventative

[2:53:45] measures and services versus

[2:53:46] removing these children? When

[2:53:48] is enough? 25, 22, 19, the ages

[2:53:55] of my children today.

[2:53:56] >> 30 seconds.

[2:53:58] >> 3-year-old grandson. You all

[2:54:00] didn't help my kids. You didn't

[2:54:01] teach them anything. They

[2:54:03] learned more at home

[2:54:04] from mom, the person you said

[2:54:05] that was a threat to them.

[2:54:06] Thank you for your time.

[2:54:08] >> Thank you very much. We're

[2:54:09] going to move on

[2:54:10] to our reports from our CEO,

[2:54:12] Luther.

[2:54:13] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.

[2:54:14] When we wrap up this meeting

[2:54:15] today

[2:54:16] in just a couple minutes,

[2:54:17] we're actually going to shift

[2:54:19] over and recognize some county

[2:54:22] staff who have some incredible

[2:54:23] tenure. 85 different county

[2:54:25] employees hitting over 25 years

[2:54:27] of service, 2

[2:54:29] of our employees hitting 40

[2:54:30] years of service,

[2:54:32] and one an incredible 45 years

[2:54:33] of service

[2:54:34] to this great county. So

[2:54:36] excited to, to go

[2:54:37] over and be able to recognize

[2:54:38] these fine employees. So, thank

[2:54:40] you very much, Madam Chair, and

[2:54:41] appreciate the opportunity.

[2:54:43] >> Thank you very much. This

[2:54:44] meeting stands adjourned. Our

[2:54:45] next regularly scheduled Board

[2:54:47] of Supervisors meeting will be

[2:54:48] here at 10 AM on September 1st.

[2:54:50] Thank you very much.

Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting on 2026-08-18 10:00 AM

Agenda

Transcript