>> Good morning. I'd like to
call this meeting
to order and thank you all
for joining us. I'd also like
to announce at the top
of the meeting that since we
have such a large amount
of speakers for item number
76, that the limited time
minute per speaker,
both remote and in person,
will be 2 minutes. And that
will be true for any agenda
item where we have speakers,
more than 10 signed up. This
morning, our invocation and
pledge will be led by the 4th
District.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair, and
good morning. I'd like
to introduce Father David
Tadros, who has served as
priest at St. Mina Coptic
Egyptian Orthodox Church in
Colton for the last past 6
months. He served
for the last 5 years as an
enterprise program analyst
for the San Bernardino County
Innovation and Technology
Department. You may remember
him as Sammy Tadros. His name
was changed to Father David
Tadros after the ordination.
In February 2026, he was called
by the St. Mina Coptic
Egyptian Orthodox Church in
Colton to the priesthood,
a calling that he has received
with gratitude, humility,
and a deep sense
of responsibility before God
and the Church. The ministry
has allowed Father Tadros
to provide pastoral care
for approximately 2,500 Church
members. He serves alongside
137 priests through 50 Coptic
Orthodox churches
across the diocese. He is
married to Mary Elias, who
works as an engineer for San
Bernardino County Public
Works, and has 2 children, Joy
and Joshua. His family is an
essential part
to both his life and ministry.
In addition to the ministry,
Father Tadros's personal
interests include serving the
community, traveling, cooking,
and programming. And we had a
great time with him working
on my office software. Thank
you for being here. Please lead
us in prayer and pledge.
>> Good morning. I would like
to thank Supervisor Curt
Hagman and the County of San
Bernardino for the privilege of
leading today's invocation and
the Pledge of Allegiance.
Before my ordination
to the priesthood,
I had the honor to serve the
community as an employee of
San Bernardino. It's an honor
to be here with you today.
On your behalf,
I offer this invocation. As we
begin, we invite the presence
of our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ, to be with us, as our
Lord said in Matthew 18:20, For
where two or three are gathered
together in my name,
I am there in the midst
of them." And Psalm 53:12
declares, "Blessed is the nation
whose God is the Lord, the
people he has chosen as his own
inheritance." We are reminded
of words inscribed
in this chamber, In God We
Trust. May the trust guide the
port, grant them,
grant each supervisor wisdom,
and help all who serve our
county to lead
with integrity, justice,
and compassion. I invite you to
bow your heads and let us pray.
In the name of the Father, and
the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
one God. Amen. Oh Master Lord,
God the Almighty, the Father
of our Lord God and Savior
Jesus Christ, we thank you
for everything,
concerning everything and
in everything,
for you have covered us,
helped us, guarded us,
accepted us to yourself,
spared us, supported us
to yourself, and brought us
to this hour. We thank you for
the opportunity and the sacred
responsibility to serve our
brothers and sisters and our
beloved country. We recognize
and acknowledge that the
existing authorities are
appointed by you. Prepare every
heart, align every mind,
and let your Holy Spirit guide
them
into clarity and understanding.
We lift up the Board of
Supervisors and all who serve
San Bernardino County and every
leader in this place. Empower
them with wisdom, discernment,
and integrity. Let justice be
their standard. Truth be their
foundation and service be their
motive,
so their decisions are rooted
in justice and their words
filled with kindness. Grant
them, Lord, the humility to
listen deeply and the strength
to act boldly. Today, Lord, we
ask you to replace tension
with peace, division
with unity, and uncertainty
with clear purpose and wise
direction. Let San Bernardino
County flourish spiritually,
economically, and socially,
so that every family, every
business, and every community
may know well-being and
opportunity. May the decisions
made here today uplift the
people,
strengthen our communities.
Bless everyone who works for
San Bernardino County and
everyone who works each day
to keep our community safe,
healthy, and strong. Oh
Master, we especially pray
for our families, our children,
our elderly,
and everyone who is going
through a difficult time.
Protect them, provide
for them, and help us
to always be willing
to help those in need. As
Jesus taught us in Matthew
chapter 6 to pray, saying, our
Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name. Thy
kingdom come, thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily
bread, and forgive us our
trespasses,
as we forgive those who
trespass against us. And lead
us not into temptation
but deliver us
from the evil one.
For thine is the power, the
glory, forever. Amen. Now, if
you would please face the flag
and let us pledge allegiance
together. I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United
States of America and the
Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for
all. Thank you very much.
>> We will now move on to our
memorial adjournments. Vice
Chair Baca? Supervisor Cook?
Supervisor Armendarez?
>> I do have one I would like
to speak of. It is
with great sorrow for me that
on August 5th, Terry
Kalinski.
>> Supervisor, I need
to ask you to pause
for a moment. I'd like
to announce, attention members
of the board, the public,
we are experiencing a
disruption in remote
participation services.
Proceedings will pause
for a few minutes until we can
see if they can be restored.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> And as a reminder
to those here in chambers,
this is under the new state law
that requires us
to do this.
[RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]
>> Madam Chair, just as a quick
update, we're still working
on it. So, I just wanted to,
to give an update
on that.
>> And for those of you, new
to this law, it will be up to
1 hour that we have
to continue trying to
reestablish the connection.
>> Yes, thank you.
[RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]
>> Madam Chair, I'm going
to perform a mic test just to
make sure that we have audio.
So, this is part of the
reestablishing communications,
so we're,
we're testing that right now.
So this is a test
to see if there is audio.
Test, test.
Testing to see if there is
audio. And for clarification,
it's on the phone connection. We
have the stream
to the public. The video stream
is working. This is on the
phone stream or the phone
connection.
[RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]
>> Testing 1, 2. This is
testing the Call
for public input.
1, 2.
[RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]
>> Testing.
>> This is testing public
input. One, two, three, four.
This is testing. One, two,
three, four.
[RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]
>> I apologize
for the inconvenience. Thank
you for your patience.
[RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]
>> This is a public input test
message to verify
your connection.
[RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]
>> This is a test, test, test
to see if we can hear.
Okay.
Madam Chair, it appears that
we have restored the audio
connection.
>> All right. Remote
participation services are
restored. I will now reconvene
the meeting. Supervisor
Armendarez, memorial
adjournments.
>> Thank you. Let's see if it
shuts off one more time. What I
was speaking
to earlier was the passing away
of Terry Kalinski, who on
August 5th, left to be
with our Lord. Terry was a
great man. Those who know me
and know my story know that he
was the person who gave me my
first chance in life
to be successful,
starting as a pressure washer
to a journeyman diesel
mechanic, heavy equipment
operator. I owe all of that
to Terry Kalinski, who saw a
16-year-old kid and gave him a
chance. He didn't have a story
far off from mine. He, he
started his own company at 16
years old by borrowing $500
to buy his first truck,
and then in 1977 bought
Dalton Trucking in the city
of Fontana. where it started
with 4 trucks and grew that
business to one of the largest
heavy hauling companies
of trucking in Southern
California. He was also a huge
advocate for truck preservation
and helped establish the
Southern California chapter
for American Truck History
Society in 1982 and later was
the national president. Terry
held a really deep part
in my heart because he,
he was that guy who gave me a
chance, and sorry
to see him go
in his later years. His legacy
will continue with his sons
Matt and Josh, who are deeply
involved
in the truck community also.
And just wanted to adjourn
in memory of Terry Kalinski.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Supervisor
Hagman. This morning, I would
like to adjourn
in memory. Adjourn in memory.
>> Oh, I'll just add to, Terry
also served for many years as a
workforce developer
on our workforce development
for San Bernardino County.
That's all.
>> Thank you. This morning,
I would like to adjourn
in memory of Jackie, one
of the famous Big Bear bald
eagles. Jackie and her mate
Shadow became local icons and
touched the heart of millions
of people around the world
through the Eagle Cam. The
Big Bear Valley will not be the
same without her. We sadly have
lost several county employees.
I am very disheartened
to hear that 3 county employees
have passed away in July, so I
would like to adjourn
in their memories this morning.
Casey Maldonado was a,
served as a social worker
with the Department of
Children and Family Services
for over 2 years. She was a
passionate advocate and made a
lasting impact on children,
families, and the communities
that she served. Our hearts go
out to her family.
Additionally, Angel Romero
spent 20 years
with the county. He worked
across various departments
including the Sheriff's
Department, Facilities
Management, Arrowhead
Regional Medical Center. Angel
is remembered for his strong
work ethic and his dedication
to his role. We extend our
condolences to his family,
friends, and co-workers. And
Deputy Adam Saragih, who served
the San Bernardino County
Sheriff's Department for 6
years. He began his career in
Barstow and later transferred
to the Fontana Station. Adam
was actively preparing to
become a detective specializing
in crimes against children. He
is remembered
for his kindness, compassion,
and dedication to service. We
keep his family and thoughts
in our prayers at this time.
And we do not have any special
presentations this morning,
so we will move on
to our reports from County
Counsel, Laura?
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. I
have 3 items to report on. The
board considered or met
in closed session
for item number 1 and
considered item 2
under that agenda,
which is the matter of Jason
Faghi versus Mohit Kumar
Sadiv, and voted 5-0
to authorize the filing
of a cross complaint against
Insomniac Holdings LLC
for indemnity
under an encroachment permit.
The board also considered item
number six, the matter of
Martha Bjulna versus County
of San Bernardino and voted 5-0
to ratify the filing
of a cross complaint
against SEA Financial LLC.
And Bellasia Corporation
for indemnity under lease and
service contract terms. The
board also considered item
number 7 and voted 5-0
to file an action against
defendants that will be
disclosed upon request
after the action is filed.
That is all of my report.
>> Thank you very much. That
brings us to our individual
board member comments. Vice
Chair Baca.
>> Yeah, thank you, Madam
Chair. First event I want
to highlight was our National
Night Out we had at
Bloomington. I want
to thank our Sheriff's
Department
for participating and the
Probation Department and all
our county departments that
supported and want
to thank the community
for coming out. And one of the
things we had the opportunity
to celebrate was our $936,000
investment in Ayala Park,
adding new swings and 8 shaded
covers. The community was very,
very appreciative. So, I want
to thank you all
for joining us. Also, we had
our Monterey Elementary
back-to-school celebration,
which is
in our unincorporated area of
Little Third. At that time,
we provided 400 backpacks
for many,
many community students
at the school. I want to thank
the departments that helped us.
One, want to thank the San
Bernardino City Unified
School District, Bank of
America, ARMC Children's
Fund, Molina Healthcare,
Child Care Resource Center, and
Public Health, and all the
county departments that came
out there. It was just a great
event, and it's great to see
those students receive
backpacks, spirit shirts,
socks, and school supplies.
Also recently, last week,
we just had our Little Third
Street ribbon cutting,
which was an improvement
in the Little Third community,
which is unincorporated area
across the street from the
Sheriff's Department. There was
road improvements, ADA ramps,
also fencing put up
near the flood channel. It
really revitalized that
community. It was a $4 million
investment, and Congressman
Aguilar was present. He
invested $2.5 million. So, I
want to thank him
for his support and want
to thank our Public Works staff
for being able to execute this
one. I know this one was a long
time and a lot of work,
and it took just a little
over 4 and a half years
to get done. So, I want
to thank Public Works
for executing this project.
Also
at our preschool services,
the Mill Street Development
Center, we added STEM and
playground improvements. What
this will do is have new
science features,
interactive stations designed
to encourage curiosity and
learning. Also, the playground
upgrades that have a painted
bike path, enhanced privacy
fencing, turf, port and play,
safety surfacing. I want to
thank the preschool department
for those investments
in the early education of all
of our students in,
in the entire county. Also,
this weekend,
we have the dump day at
Arrowhead Farms community
at the Our Lady of Assumption
in the unincorporated area of
Arrowhead Farms. Encourage
those that live
in that community to come
out and take advantage
of the services. Also, on one
of the committees I serve
on is the Inland Valley
Development Agency. We approved
a project on Tippecanoe 3rd and
Alabama
for some median landscaping
to try to enhance the area
near the airport.
to make it more attractive
for those that are interested
in travel throughout the San
Bernardino International
Airport. And the last thing,
just want
to highlight some items that
are on the agenda. Item 6 is
modernized nutrition services
for older adults
to increase meals in the San
Bernardino community. Item 21
is $11 million commitment
from the County of San
Bernardino for commitment of a
homeless outreach prevention
education campus. Here in the
City of San Bernardino. And the
hopes is that we can mirror
what they did on the West End
with the West End Navigation
and try
to encourage other city
partners to participate
in this. Also, Item 29, I want
to thank the Preschool
Services Department
in combination with our
Community Action Partnership
to provide diapers for many,
many kids that are underserved
families. And Item 34, we're
looking at continued progress
at the animal shelter,
adding a phase 2, which phase
1 is under construction,
which will be done this spring,
but also looking at a phase 2
that will allow us the
opportunity to have some
of our cities become partners
with us at the county. And the
last one, just want
to highlight, is item 62,
continued progress on Fire
Station 227, which is located
here in the City of San
Bernardino. This is a great
investment. It's
under construction now,
but this is to continue
to keep it moving. Thank you,
Madam Chair.
>> Thank you very much.
Supervisor Cook? Supervisor
Armendarez?
>> Thank you. A couple things I
want to highlight August 20th,
which is this Thursday, we will
be having our next open house
at our district office. We'll
have a bunch
of county departments there.
We're going to have some
of our, we'll have face
painting, we'll have hot dogs
for people to eat. It'll be an
opportunity for people
to see what the county does.
So, feel free to come out.
It'll be August 20th from 5 to
at my district office
on the corner of Arrow and
Haven in Rancho Cucamonga.
Also, we will be having our
first annual Family Fun Day
on August 29th in cooperation
with our regional parks, where
we will be hosting an event
from 10 to 2 PM. We're going
to have a bunch
of games and just bring people
out to just fellowship together
and have fun. Also just give a
couple of things that we
highlighted that we've done
recently. We actually went out
to Brightline in Florida and
took a tour of the actual
high-speed train and what
they're doing and seeing how
the components of everything
in their work. Also was able
to sit down with some of the
administrators there and go
over what the financing
of that train looks
like and how far we are
from getting it. But it looks
like it's definitely
within opportunity for us
to obtain to have that
high-speed rail come to us.
The bad part is if,
if we can't make it happen
here, we're probably another
20 years away from actually
making it ever happen. So, we
got to do everything we can to
make sure that that actually
moves forward. We also did our
scoops with the supervisor
at the Jesse Turner Center
in the city of Fontana. We also
participated in a bunch of
National Nights Out, and we
attended the incredible edibles
event. I want to highlight just
one item. I believe it's item
26, and the Friends of the
Library, we're accepting a gift
of $125,000 from them. Just
want to say thank you to the
Friends of the Library. That's
it.
>> Thank you.
Supervisor Hagman.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just a couple
of agenda items. Item number
53 is approving the Prado
Regional Park Master Plan, and
I just want to congratulate
Leotta and the whole team
for all the work they've done
in the last couple years. They
finished the Prado new entry.
The playground, which is
fantastic, has a splash pad as
well. RV and tent restrooms
have been refurbished,
the snack bar and boat docks
are complete, and the big thing
was the grass is staying green.
So, thank you
for all the hard work by,
by the Parks Department and
Real Estate Services and
everybody working on that.
Prado Sports Courts is
with the Army Corps of
Engineers for review. And item
number 63 allows military
service members transition
to civilian life
to apprentice and intern
with the county fire
to gain valuable job skills.
From SCAG, SCAG has this last
mile freight program rebate is
accepting applications. This
program supports conversion
of last mile freight vehicles
to battery electric models.
And lastly, to, to also honor
Jackie, the Ontario Tower
Buzzards, we partner with
Friends of Big Bear Valley
for Fly High Jackie Night. On
Sunday, August 23rd, at
Ontario Field. The evening will
honor the life and legacy of
Jackie and the beloved Big
Bear bald eagle, with 50%
of the proceeds going toward
Friends of Big Bear Valley.
So, tickets are available
online. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. This
morning, I would like
to highlight item number 58
on our consent calendar. It is
an item that will award
construction contract
in the amount of $3 million
to make improvements to the
Sunburst Park, which is our
community park in Joshua
Tree. The project is fully
funded by the Clean
California Local Grant Program
and will include,
include improvements
like new playgrounds,
accessible walkways, enhanced
lighting, landscaping,
and outdoor fitness zones. And
I would also like to mention
that we have a job and resource
fair coming to Big Bear Lake
on Thursday, August 27th,
from 10 in the morning until 1
in the afternoon,
and that will take place at
Hofert Hall located at 39707
Big Bear Boulevard. We're
hosting this free event
in partnership with the
County Workforce Development
Department
to bring together employers
from a variety of industries,
In addition
to employment opportunities,
representatives from the
Public Defender's Office, the
Assessor-Recorder-Clerk's
Office, and the Department of
Veterans Affairs will also be
available
to assist residents. You can
register at this event
on eventbrite.com. And Linda,
Linda, do we have any revisions
to today's agenda?
>> Good morning, Madam Chair.
No, no revisions today. Thank
you.
>> Very good. If we have any
board members wishing
to disclose a conflict
of interest on any items
on today's agenda,
now would be the time
to do so. All right, seeing
none, we'll move on
to our consent calendar,
which today consists
of items number 2 through 74.
Do I have any members wishing
to pull an item?
>> Yes, yes, Chair, I'd like
to pull item number 5.
>> All right, thank you. And I
have one request to speak.
We'll take that before I do
board member comments on any
items. I have a remote
participation by Michelle
Tracy.
>> Good morning, Supervisors.
My name is Michelle Tracy, and
I'm speaking today as a
concerned member of our high
desert community. I'm asking
that you guys take a serious
look
at traffic safety and speeding
in the Victor Valley,
particularly along Ridgecrest
Road and Apple Valley Road.
with Yakima Road corridor. On
August 14th, 2026, our
community lost 2 teenage best
friends, 17-year-old
Madeline, Madeline Daly and
16-year-old Isabel Delaine at
Ridgecrest Road and Elmwood
Drive. Authorities report that
2 vehicles were traveling
at high speed and rate on
Ridgecrest
before that collision. These
girls had just started their
senior year, and they should
have been talking and thinking
about graduations. college
careers,
and everything that was
supposed to come next. This is
especially concerning that this
is not the first fatal accident
on Ridgecrest and Elmwood. A
60-year-old woman was killed
at the same intersection on
November 2025.
>> Ma'am, I hate
to interrupt you,
but I have you signed up
to speak
on agenda item number 2, and
your topic sounds more like
on items not
on today's agenda.
>> There's no spot for anyone
to speak about, just speak
out publicly.
>> There is, and you are signed
up to do that later
in our meeting.
>> Okay, so that's going
to be later?
>> If you, if you would like
to continue on,
and then I can remove you
from that list later.
>> Okay, please.
>> Thank you. Please continue.
>> This was not the first fatal
accident at Ridgecrest and
Elmwood. A 67-year-old woman
was killed
at the same intersection on
November 2025. The residents
were already publicly raising
concerns
about speeding and asking for
additional traffic controls.
The other intersection that
concerns me is the one on
Apple Valley Road and
Yucca Loma Road. On July 29th,
2026, 39-year-old mother
Theodora Wilson and her
children, 7-year-old Rose
Venezuela and 6-year-old
Felix Venezuela, were killed.
Their father and their
16-year-old sister suffered
major injuries. And that was
not the first fatality
at the intersection this year.
On February 7th, 2026,
6-year-old Marvin White was
killed at Apple Valley Road and
Yucca Loma Road. What I'm asking
you guys to do is take a look
at the Victor Valley,
at these intersections. And see
what we can do about them. How
many families have
to lose somebody before we
decide that something needs
to change? Our children are
learning to drive
on these roads every year.
Another group of teenagers gets
their permits and driver's
licenses. They are sharing the
roads where excessive speeds
can turn one mistake into a
fatal collision. I'm asking
that the county representatives
work with Victorville, Apple
Valley, CHT,
and the appropriate agencies
to conduct urgent safety
reviews of these corridors. We
understand that the government
cannot prevent every accident,
but when the same roads and
even these same intersections
repeatedly appear in fatal and
serious collisions.
>> 30 seconds.
>> We have a responsibility to
ask whether we could do more.
I'm asking that you guys can
tell me what we do to have these
places considered and not just
passed off to the next person.
Whether it's just speed bumps or
anything to help these areas
to prevent more fatalities.
>> Thank you very much
for your comment.
>> Thank you.
>> We will now move on
to any board member comments
on consent. Right, I'd like
to speak on number 21. As we
consider this item today,
I don't want to pull it. I just
have a comment to make. I'd
like to express several
concerns that I currently have
about moving forward
with this project. While the
proposed $11 million investment
would help advance the SB
Hope Campus, I believe that we
must proceed with caution
on that. My priority,
whether this project or any
other, is to ensure that any
investment is made both
sustainable and effective. I
would like to urge the county
staff and our city partners
to move carefully and
diligently
in recognizing that the success
of this project depends on a
strong ongoing coordination,
not only with the City of San
Bernardino, but also
with our other cities who may
be involved. It is critical
that everybody remains closely
aligned throughout this process
to maximize the impact
of our investment and to avoid
unintended consequences.
With this level
of investment,
I expect our partnership to
deliver a robust coordination,
long-term sustainability,
and measurable outcomes. Our
team must work together to
ensure that the campus site is
safe, well-managed,
and focused
on meaningful results
from the outset. Ultimately, I
believe this project can only
succeed if everybody involved
is committed
to careful planning,
transparency,
and collaboration.
By prioritizing these values,
we can help build a facility
that not only addresses
immediate needs but also
supports lasting progress for
individuals and the broader
community. I want to stress
that the county's support
of this project is contingent
on seeing a clear path forward
towards sustainability and
effectiveness and knowing that
the city and other partners are
equally invested
in these goals. Thank you. I
will entertain a motion. I have
a motion by Vice Chair,
seconded by Supervisor
Hagman. All those
in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed? Any
abstentions?
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
With that, the consent calendar
passes unanimously
with number 5 being deferred.
>> Thank you very much. We now
move on to our deferred item.
Item number 5 is this morning
by our Department of Adults and
Aging Services. Would you
like a presentation,
Supervisor?
>> No, actually, I would, here
would be my first ask. I'd ask
if we could table the item to
the next agendized meeting so I
could actually sit
with staff and work
out the issue that I have
with it. Or we can just go
on record with my issues.
>> If you want to do that,
you'd need
to make a motion.
>> I'd like to make a motion
that we table the item
to the next meeting,
so I have time to work
on the issues that I have with
the staff directly.
>> I'll second that.
>> Yes.
>> Any public comment
on this item?
>> No, ma'am.
>> All right.
>> Seeing none,
I have a motion and a second.
All those in favor?
>> Aye.
>> Any opposed? Any
abstentions?
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
With that, number 5 is
continued to September 1st.
>> Thank you very much. And
with that, we will move on to
our discussion calendar today.
Our first item is item number
75, which is a public hearing
and bond issuance approval
of the California Municipal
Finance Authority and
tax-exempt financing being
presented by Robert Saldana.
We'll open the public hearing
and welcome your presentation.
>> Thank you and good morning,
Chair Rowe and members
of the board. Robert Saldana,
Deputy Executive
Officer, County Finance. The
purpose of this hearing is to
grant the public an opportunity
to comment
on the proposed issuance
of tax-exempt financing in a
maximum principal amount not
to exceed $31,440,000. The
proceeds of these bonds issued
through the California
Municipal Finance Authority
will be loaned to Augusta
Communities, a nonprofit
organization, and used to
finance the acquisition and
improvement of 3 mobile home
parks located within San
Bernardino County.
Specifically in the cities of
Victorville, Rialto, and
Yucaipa. This hearing is
required pursuant
to the requirements of Section
147 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended,
and the Tax Equity and Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 1982,
commonly referred to as TEFRA.
Under TEFRA law,
a public hearing is
to be conducted by a
governmental entity that has
jurisdiction over the area
where the projects are located.
In this case,
as the projects span multiple
cities, Augusta Communities
approached the county
to host a hearing covering all
3 projects. Please note there
is no county financial
obligation or liability arising
from any bond issuance
associated with this action.
Additionally, as this action
and all underlying details are
the responsibility of Augusta
Communities and CFMA,
representatives are here to
discuss should there be any
questions. This concludes my
presentation, Chair.
>> Thank you very much. I do
have one request to speak
on this by Denise June
Shearer.
>> Madam Chair, the caller is
not connected.
>> Do we have connection?
>> Yes, we do.
>> Okay, she has dropped.
>> She did. She registered.
>> She signed up
but didn't call in.
>> Okay, very well. All right,
are there any other requests
to speak that I don't see?
>> No, ma'am.
>> Seeing none,
I will entertain any questions
from board members. I'm going
to close the public hearing and
entertain a motion. Thank you,
Supervisor Hagman,
for the motion and Vice Chair
for the second. All those
in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed? Any
abstentions?
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
With that, Item 75 passes
unanimously.
>> Very well. Item number 76 is
our Surface Mining and
Reclamation Ordinance being
presented this morning by
Paul Gonzalez. And as a
reminder, as I announced
at the top of the meeting,
because we have so many
speakers signed up
on this item,
public comment will be limited
to 2 minutes. 2 minutes
for each speaker,
both remote and in person. I
will open the public hearing.
Good morning, gentlemen.
>> Good morning, Chair Rowe and
County Supervisors. I'm Paul
Gonzalez, planning chief.
Before you this morning is a
proposed update to the county's
mining regulation,
regulation ordinance. The
mining ordinance was last
updated in 2007. The update
ordinance provides greater
clarity and accountability
for both mine operators and the
County of San Bernardino while
bringing the local ordinance up
to the current Surface Mining
and Reclamation Act, also known
as SMARA. The ordinance
strengthens requirements for
financial assurance and
reclamation cost estimates,
establishes clear
responsibilities and
procedures, and expands
on enforcement tools for the
County of San Bernardino.
With that said, I'd like
to introduce Chief Geologist
Dan Walsh, who will provide you
a presentation.
>> Morning, Chair Rowe,
Supervisors. As Paul mentioned,
I'm Dan Walsh. I'm the Chief
Engineering Geologist. I lead
the Mining and Geology
Division under Land Use
Services, and this morning I'll
be presenting a proposal
to amend Title 8 of the
Development Code related to the
Surface Mining and Reclamation
Ordinance.
The amendment would repeal and
reenact Chapter 88.03 of the
Development Code to ensure our
local regulations remain
in compliance
with the changes made
to state law, specifically the
statutes and regulations
defined in the Surface Mining
and Reclamation Act, or SMARA.
Changes include content updates
to align with SMARA,
through removal
of outdated sections, addition
of new sections, and revisions
of existing sections. SMARA is
a statewide law enacted in
1975 to regulate surface mining
and ensure that mined lands are
properly reclaimed to a safe,
stable, and usable condition
while minimizing environmental
impacts. It also requires lead
agencies to adopt and implement
compliant local ordinances
governing mining permits,
reclamation plans, and
financial assurances. SMARA has
been revised multiple times
since 1975,
with substantive revisions in
2017. The State Mining and
Geology Board oversees and
certifies the local ordinances.
The county surface mining
ordinance was adopted in 1999
and certified by the State
Mining and Geology Board on
November 10th, 1999. The
surface mining ordinance has
not been significantly revised
since the ordinance was
originally adopted and is not
up to date. As lead agency
for permitting and regulation
of surface mining and
reclamation operations within
the unincorporated county, the
county regulates these
operations in accordance
with SMARA. This development
code amendment would bring the
county code back
into alignment with current
statutes and regulations
provided in SMARA. There are
over 85 surface mines currently
in operation in the county.
This ordinance update
represents a comprehensive
modernization of Chapter
88.03. It expands procedures,
strengthens enforcement, and
aligns the county's regulations
with current state
requirements. Overall, it
updates the framework by adding
new sections and replacing
outdated provisions.
To clarify, this ordinance
update does not place new
limits on the county's lead
agency authority under SMARA,
nor does it relax current
required standards
under state law. Furthermore,
this amendment does not reduce
the county's ability to enforce
violations or maintain adequate
financial assurances
for reclamation, but rather it
codifies the more structured
processes currently being used
by county staff. Several core
sections have been
significantly revised to
provide clearer procedures and
stronger oversight. The vested
rights section now includes a
detailed determination process
which includes application
requirements, evidentiary
standards, and formal hearing
and board decision processes.
Application review has also
been expanded to include
specific submittal requirements
defined timelines,
and formal coordination
with the State Division of
Mine Reclamation.
In addition, financial
assurance requirements now
include more rigorous cost
estimate methodologies,
contingency calculations,
and provisions
for release or forfeiture.
Finally, enforcement has been
transformed into a
comprehensive framework that
includes notices
of violation, orders
to comply, administrative
penalties, appeals,
and remedies for public health
and safety concerns. The
purpose of the ordinance has
been broadened to reflect
current statewide priorities,
including supporting
infrastructure needs and
reducing transportation-related
emissions
from aggregate hauling. The
ordinance also strengthens
mineral resource protection
by expanding policies related
to mineral resource zones and
incorporating updated mapping
requirements. These policies
are more directly integrated
with the county's general plan
to ensure long-term resource
availability is considered
in land use decisions.
Overall, this shifts the
ordinance
from primarily regulatory to
more policy-driven and
forward-looking. A key update
is the automatic incorporation
of future amendments
to SMARA, which ensures the
county's ordinance remains
current without needing
frequent local updates. The
ordinance also strengthens
coordination
with state agencies,
including the Division of
Mine Reclamation and the
State Mining and Geology
Board, particularly during
application review and annual
reporting. Reclamation
standards have been updated to
reflect current state
regulations,
including clear requirements
for phased reclamation and
reclamation success criteria.
These changes ensure consistent
implementation of state law
at the local level. This update
provides important
clarifications to improve
day-to-day administration
of the ordinance.
Applicability has been expanded
to address federal lands and
situations involving multiple
agencies, reducing
jurisdictional ambiguity.
For example, Section 88.03.040
Subsection B was added
to codify the collaboration
between the county and federal
agencies. to provide joint
environmental review
over proposed mine operations
on federal lands. This section
references the 1992 Memorandum
of Understanding between the
state and federal agencies that
confirms existing permitting
and reclamation authority while
affording both NEPA and CEQA
environmental review for the
entire proposed mining
operation. While the federal
agency has always had permit
approval authority, The county
will continue
to provide CEQA review for the
entire project and has approval
authority
over the reclamation plan. The
permitting, reclamation plan,
and vested rights approval
framework has been expanded to
better explain how these
components interact. The
application procedures now
include more detailed submittal
requirements, timelines,
written responses
to state comments,
and recordation requirements.
In addition, interim management
plan requirements for idle
mines have been further
detailed. Including renewal
timelines and standards
for determining abandonment.
Some outdated sections have
been reorganized or replaced
to reflect the new structure.
For example, the prior
application and violation
sections have been replaced
with more comprehensive updated
frameworks. These changes
reduce redundancy,
improve overall organization,
and make the ordinance more
user-friendly
for both staff and applicants.
The amendment has been found
to be consistent with the
countywide policy plan as it
meets various goals and
policies designed to ensure the
continued availability of
important mineral resources
while regulating surface mining
operations as required
by SMARA. The proposed
amendment was determined
by the county to be exempt
under CEQA pursuant to Section
15061 subsection B3 of Title 14
of the California Code of
Regulations because the
ordinance is limited
to an administrative update of
an existing surface mining and
land reclamation ordinance and
will not directly or indirectly
authorize activity that may
have a significant effect
on the environment.
In accordance
with county code, notices
of the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors public
hearings were published
in the San Bernardino Sun
newspaper. Which reaches a
countywide audience.
Publication dates were June
29th and August 7th, 2026,
respectively. As a courtesy,
the draft ordinance was made
available to the public online
from the Land Use Services
website. 98 written comments
were received prior to the
Planning Commission hearing,
and another 8 comments were
received prior to the Board
of Supervisors meeting. 33
people spoke in opposition
to the ordinance update
at the Planning Commission
hearing. The public comments
expressed concern regarding
review required for projects
on federal lands, what projects
would be considered
non-substantial deviations
which would not require public
notification, why the ordinance
update was exempt from CEQA,
and expressed concerns related
to pending mining projects
which are not associated
with this ordinance update.
That concludes my presentation.
And I'm available
for any questions you may have.
>> Thank you very much. We're
going to move to our remote
speakers first and then
speakers in chambers,
and then we'll go to board
member comments and questions.
Our first request to speak
remotely that we have is
Aaron Gatlin, followed by
Bonnie Hawthorne, and then
Jared Nijmark.
>> Good morning. My name is
Erin Gatlin. I'm a resident
of Yucca Valley. I'm here
to express my opposition
to agenda item 76, project
number EMISIC 20260029. The
proposed rewrite of the chapter
as described most recently
by your, by the county staff is
significantly different than I
think most of us read the
proposed changes. And we have a
lot of concerns about them
because they were written
with industry
without public input. And when
public input was asked for,
they were dismissed as saying
we just didn't understand what
was going on. The issue is we
do understand,
we understand the implications
of the changes. The county's
been trying
to downplay as simply coming
into compliance
with state standards. If the
modifications are approved, it
means that just as federal
agencies are making
unprecedented changes to the
National Environmental Policy
Act review process to review,
to narrow the review and shut
out public comment.
The county is proposing
to walk away from their local
permitting responsibilities.
And then you have the proposed
Music Valley Mine, which is
actually related to the matter
before you because it's an
example of case study of
potentially the county walking.
>> 30 seconds.
>> Away from its
responsibility. I urge the
county to vote no on the
proposed chapter revisions, and
at the very least remove text
from lines 19 to 21 and lines
24 through 26. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, Bonnie
Hawthorne, and then Jared
Nymark and Liz Stevens.
>> Good morning. My name is
Bonnie Hawthorne. I'm a
resident of Joshua Tree, and
I'm calling in
to oppose project listed
in item number 76. I urge you
to vote no and to encourage
your fellow board members
to do the same. This proposed
rewrite of Chapter 88.03 would
surrender a critical piece of
San Bernardino County's local
oversight of surface mining
on federal land.
Under the new Section
88.03.040B a mining operation
with federal authorization
could proceed
without a county permit. This
is a bigger deal than is being
acknowledged. A county permit
provides an opportunity
for local review, public
scrutiny, and environmental
protections that our
communities should not have to
surrender simply because a
federal agency has approved a
project. The county should not
be handing
over its responsibility to
protect the people and
landscape of San Bernardino
County. An open, open-pit
mining operation is
fundamentally inconsistent with
our status as a national park
gateway community. A
designation whose beauty and
significance I know you, Dawn
Rowe, personally appreciate.
I'm assuming you've been
to the sad little town of
Boron in Kern County. The mine
there, with its giant Star
Wars trucks and constant sounds
of excavation, make a.
>> 30 seconds.
>> Nearly, what's that? I
didn't hear what you said.
>> 30 seconds left.
>> Okay. All I have to say is
the only time you don't have an
open pit mine is
before you approve one.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Jared Nymark,
followed by Liz Stevens, and
then Lisa Belenky.
>> Good morning, Chair, Vice
Chair, and board. My name is
Jared Naimark. I'm the Western
Mining Senior Manager at
Earthworks, a national
nonprofit organization
dedicated to protecting
communities and the environment
from the adverse impacts
of mining, including here in
the county. I'm commenting
today to respectfully request
that you deny the proposed
mining ordinance update. until
reasonable revisions are made
to clarify the language. As we
wrote in our comment letter,
we continue to have serious
concerns that the section
regarding applicability on
federal lands is problematic
and will lead to confusion
for applicants, agencies,
and the public. In response
to our comments, staff suggests
that the ordinance
distinguishes between a permit
for land use entitlement and
reclamation plan approval,
but this is not at all clear
from plain understanding
of the text. Because permit can
mean any approval
by a lead agency,
this could be interpreted
by applicants to mean federal
approval is all that they need
to move forward. It would be
extremely easy
to fix this language
for clarity
for all stakeholders. This
section is also problematic
because it relies
on an outdated MOU between
California and the federal
government. Staff suggests that
this simply allows the county
flexibility
to avoid duplicating work
on environmental review. But
because NEPA and CEQA are so
different due
to recent changes made
to NEPA, it means that federal
documents are highly unlikely
to fulfill CEQA requirements,
and the public will have no way
to understand the basis
on which, on which the county
made that decision. So again,
we urge some simple fixes.
>> 30 seconds.
>> For more clarity
for all stakeholders.
I would also like to add
for the record that this
section on applicability is
neither included in the State
Mining and Geology Board's
model language for its mining
ordinance update, nor
in the language adopted
by the 2 counties that have
already updated their
ordinance. It's not necessary,
and it's not part of the
standard updates that other
counties have adopted.
Without revision, this draft
risks allowing bad actors to
avoid sensible environmental
regulations that responsible
operators.
>> That's time.
>> To comply with.
>> Thank you. Liz Stevens,
followed by Lisa Belenky, and
then R. Eichhorn.
>> Hi, thank you, Madam
Chair, and thanks for working
out the technical difficulties
to have us. It's inspiring
to hear
about the county and how,
be reminded how large it is,
but I think we're all here
to show you some close-up views
of 29. My comments are a lot
less technical than the others,
but Bonnie's point about Boron
is very well taken. Even
without conservation value
around this, space this in 29.
We're in a kind
of an economic renaissance
of businesses and home values,
and the mine,
surface mine would be the view
from the east entrance
to the park. And I don't think
we're aiming for Boron. We have
a lot of stakeholders that are
business owners, real estate
agents, and hundreds
of people showing up
to local meetings to speak to
the very inspiring direction
that 29 is already headed.
Rather than doubling down
on industry. So not a
conservation issue only,
which is vitally important,
but really about 29 and about
Wonder Valley as spaces and
towns and inappropriate places
to introduce the mines,
as it also affects our water
and watershed, which we haven't
really touched on. And that's
all I'd like to contribute.
Thank you so much
for voting no
on the language change. Thank
you.
>> Thank you very much. Lisa
Belenky, followed by R.
Eichhorn, and then Nicholas
Graber.
>> Oh, good morning. This
is Lisa Belenky with the
Center for Biological
Diversity.
I'm going to focus my
comments on one aspect of the
August 16th letter that we,
August 6th letter that we
submitted to the Board of
Supervisors, and that is the
implementation
of the exemption under
California Public Resources
Code 2714D by the county.
For many years,
we have raised this issue with
the county that the county has
been not focusing
on the actual language of the
Public Resources Code
but appears to be focusing
on language that may be
in the MOU from 1992 and is not
really complying
with the substance
of this exemption.
In one example,
for a project called the Gold
Discovery Group, which
disturbed over 10 acres
of land within the county and
15 acres overall. There was no
SMARA compliance by the county
for this project. And the
statement that was made by this
project itself is that they
were told
by the county they didn't need
to comply because each separate
piece
of their project was less than
1 acre. That is the wrong
interpretation
of the statute clearly. It is
not the interpretation that the
courts have upheld, and it is
not,
it is not the plain language
of the statute. We're very
concerned that this update.
>> 30 seconds.
>> Regulations is not
addressing this issue. The
county should amend the
proposed ordinance
to clarify this exemption, that
it will only be applied where
the total disturbed acres are
less than 1 acre, and that it
will, the county will rely
on the Public Resources Code
and not the MOU for this kind
of compliance. Thank you so
much for your time.
>> Thank you very much. R.
Eichorn, followed by Nicholas
Garver, and then we're going
to bring it back here
in chambers, and we're going
to start with Jay Gammell.
>> Hi, this is Rachel. I'm a
resident of 29 Palms,
and I actually have an art
studio, I guess,
where this mine is going
to be going, which is great
for me. I'm coming at less
of a technical, I do want you
to vote no, more
from a just sort
of a technical experience
of working in construction. I'm
an architectural lighting
designer. I work
on large projects,
large commercial projects. And
whenever I hear language where
we're going to remove permits
or remove reviews,
I always get a pit in my
stomach because I know things
are about to go south. Those
permits and those, those
purposes,
those processes were set up
for a reason. And I've just
constantly, my job every day,
I have to deal with contractors
not doing it correctly,
not going to code because, and
for reasons, usually
to save money,
or they just didn't want
to deal with it. And those
things are there
to protect us. So, when,
so that's why I would like you
to vote no, anytime where
they're removing permit
processes. Any controls that we
have, the local community is,
it's just,
I live this every day. It's
just dumb. Don't do it.
Vote no.
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
Nicholas Garver, followed by
Jay Gammell, and then
Kimberly Sizics.
>> Hi, this is Nicholas
Graver. I'm speaking to
wholeheartedly oppose the
adoption of this ordinance.
County and Planning Commission
staff acknowledged at the
planning meeting that this was
our,
that was our first opportunity
to comment after years
of them supposedly working
on this regulation, I guess
in secret. The county staff
scoffed at the idea of further
public comment because in their
view the community has nothing
of value to contribute because
of our lack of expertise. They
consulted with the mining
industry professionals because
they, quote unquote,
understand mining regulations,
but refused to consult
with the public
since apparently, we do not.
Allow me to present myself as
an alternative. I'm a
professional biologist with 10
years
of experience living and
working in San Bernardino
County. I've worked
on NEPA and CEQA projects,
and I worked and consulted on
state and federal endangered
species protections. I worked
on mine reclamation,
particularly for the species
in our county that matter most
to us, like the desert tortoise
and the Joshua tree. The staff
characterized this as a joint
environmental review conducted
by,
under NEPA and CEQA covered
by the county. That's not a
fair characterization
of what's written in the
regulations. I've read them. I
don't know why they would
characterize that in that way.
But just wanted
to call attention to the idea
that when you institute a
blanket regulation that a
certain type of activity does
not require a permit
from the county,
you're ceding all control
to the offenders themselves to
decide whether their activity
applies or doesn't apply to the
way that regulation is written.
So they get to decide,
not the county. We don't get
to decide.
>> 30 seconds.
>> Whether we can require a
permit or not for those kinds
of things. And more
fundamentally, there is no such
thing as a mining project that
takes place only
on federal land
in our county. No such thing.
This is because those mine
materials must be loaded onto
trucks that pass through our
residential communities,
because the dust and emissions
from those mines will be
breathed by our children,
because I live close enough
to the proposed Music Valley
mine that I know I will hear
the sounds of mining
from my house. We are a
community that needs, all
of our communities across San
Bernardino County need the.
>> That's time.
>> The ability to have input
on these regulations.
>> Thank you very much. Jay
Gamble, followed by Kimberly
Zeisig, followed by Margaret
Oystendorp.
>> Good morning. My name is
Jay Gamble. I'm from
Wrightwood in the 1st
District. I'm asking you
to continue item 76. The
ordinance does strengthen
enforcement and inspections,
but 3 areas still need work.
Vested rights decisions would
be final within the county with
no administrative appeal or
CEQA review. The reclamation
plan process has 2 disclosure
gaps. The director could
approve some plan changes
without public notice,
as people have mentioned,
and staff reports wouldn't have
to include the Division of
Mine Reclamation's written
comments. The ordinance also
lacks a transition rule
for pending applications. The
proposed Lone Pine Canyon
Quarry
near my home is pending, but
the ordinance doesn't say what
chapter would govern it. And
for that, the, the staff report
says that DMR reviewed and
accepted that plan,
then describes a December 2025
letter finding the submission
incomplete without attaching
their actual letter. DMR
confirmed to me last week that
their incomplete notice is the
only written comment
for that project.
Commissioners and the public
should see DMR's comments
alongside the county's response
before the county acts
on a reclamation plan
for any project. This is a
chance to fix that. My written
comments do go
into more detail
on these issues,
but please consider this item,
consider them. Continue item
76 so residents and community
groups have more time to review
the ordinance and suggest
changes. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much,
Kimberly Zeisig, followed by
Margaret Oystendorp and then
Beth Sheffield.
>> Kimberly Zeisig.
>> All right, we'll move on
to Margaret Oystendorp,
followed by Beth Sheffield, and
then Mark Houston.
>> Thank you very much to the
Board of Supervisors
for hearing us. Those of us who
have traveled round trip 200
miles from Wonder Valley
to speak to you
in person today,
that's the depth
of our feeling
about this change
of authority and permitting
from the county to the federal
government. I'm speaking
in opposition to this change.
I'm not speaking as an expert
in geology or anything else.
I'm speaking as a human being
who lives in Wonder Valley,
who moved
to this community because
of health issues, because
of issues with my lungs. The
2.5 particulate pollutants that
has been proven to be part
of what happens in a mining
project will greatly impact
people like me. Our community
has had a long history going
back to Dr. Lucky and the work
that he did with veterans
from World War I coming
to the area for our health. We
know that the county has put
on record about its obligation
to the health and well-being
of your constituents
like myself. To pass and
approve this ordinance will
basically give over and go
against what you have put in
writing as what you're
concerned about
with the health and well-being
of the community.
>> 30 seconds.
>> I also want to say that it's
been very difficult for those
of us coming this distance
to be here. We would like
to request that White Feather
Road be again open for us
to be able to comment
in person. And we would
like you very much
to consider that,
and we urge you to vote no
on this and
to show us that you care
about us as you did.
>> That's time.
>> Helping us under the hat.
>> Thank you. Beth Sheffield,
followed by Mark Houston, and
then Chris Caraher.
>> Caraher.
>> Before the clock begins,
Kimberly Zajac is here. She was
in the restroom. Can she speak?
>> Sure.
>> Hello, Board of
Supervisors. Thank you
for the time and for the
restroom exception. I wanted
to speak here today
to note that the Bureau of
Land Management has already
designated the land, which the
case study that we're all
referring to, as an area of
critical environmental concern.
As I hope everyone here knows,
this is critical habitat for
endangered desert tortoises.
Critical tortoises are a
keystone species, which, as a
reminder, those are the
organisms that help hold the
entire system together. So,
before we consider changing
language that has been cited
by people with more expertise
than I as unclear and not
providing for enough review,
I would urge you
to consider some
of the past projects of
Dateline, like the Coliseum
Mine, which closed in 1993
but still. Years later,
there are sulfate levels
above normal. So, we have both
case studies of this specific
company and an example
of how this could be abused in
ways that are incredibly
detrimental to the economics
of our region. I live in
Twentynine Palms, and
for the past 22 years I've been
an educator. My programs have
always been offered
at free or low cost,
and we value things
like teaching the youth
to learn about themselves,
learn about their history,
and become stewards of those
things and the environment that
sustain us. So, if I am
to continue working in
education and helping raise
youth that value these things,
how can I do so while watching
us give up the control that we
have of local matters
with great impact
to everyone? Especially
in times of such division,
I would urge you to consider
your role as government
stewards
in repairing the relationship
between constituents,
repairing that trust
with those who are tasked with
making the most good happen.
So, as you heard
in the invocation today, the
hope is that your decisions can
do the most good possible
for the entire community,
and I urge you to vote no and
to get more specific and more
help from the constituents who
wish.
>> That's time.
>> Thank you very much. Mark
Houston, followed by Chris
Caraher, and then Catherine
Powell.
>> Good morning. I'm Beth
Sheffield, and I'm here today
to speak in opposition
to the proposed ordinance
to repeal and reenact Chapter
88.03 of the County
Development Code.
Specifically, I oppose the
addition of Section
88.03.040B, as in bad. 2 parts
of this section are concerning.
To quote, the county may accept
documents and environmental
studies prepared by federal
agencies as functionally
equivalent to meet the county's
requirements, and a permit
shall not be required
for those portions of surface
mining operations that require
and obtain a federally approved
Plan of operation,
or other federal authorization.
As I understand this, any
proposed mining projects will
be able to bypass California
CEQA review as well as any
currently required county
permitting. If this added
section is passed, the county
will give up local stewardship
of these public lands and allow
some unknown desk jockey in
Washington, D.C. to make
decisions that affect the
residents of San Bernardino
County. In addition, the public
will be completely left out
of the process. There is,
as there is no opportunity
for public input. You, as our
county Board of Supervisors,
are entrusted
to protect our community, our
assets, our lands, and
to protect the way of life
of the residents who have
chosen to live in this
beautiful and peaceful rural
areas.
Under this new ordinance, the
county will also have no
upfront input. On reassurances
such as a reclamation plan?
>> 30 seconds.
>> Is the county prepared
to foot the costs of cleanup
once the mining companies have
extracted what they want
from our public lands? Do you
trust the folks in Washington
to negotiate
with the mining companies in
your best interest as the
county managers? Using Music
Valley as an example,
will the taxpayers be left
with the bill
to clean up their mess,
including the unsightly piles
of toxic tailings That will
greet tourists who visit 29
Palms and use the Joshua Tree
East Entrance. Please protect
our lands and our peaceful way
of life.
>> That's time.
Thank you. Mark Houston,
followed by Chris Caraher, and
then Catherine Powell.
>> Good morning. I am a 40-year
resident of Wonder Valley and a
retired National Park Service
science tech. On the topic
of the county's plans to
discontinue planning and
permitting of mines
on federal lands,
it is my belief that San
Bernardino County is abdicating
its responsibilities
to the residents and taxpayers
to do so. The Morongo Basin
Conservation Association and
the National Park Association
have both, or will soon submit,
written comments addressing
this issue, and they speak for
me as well. I encourage this
august body to do better.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Chris
Caraher, followed by
Catherine Powell, and then
Adrian.
>> Good morning. I'll try
to hurtle through this because
of the cut time. My name is
Chris Caraher, and I have been
a resident of Wonder Valley
east of Twentynine Palms
for more than 30 years. Folks
who live in Wonder Valley are
almost all within potential
walking distance
of mining claims. And most
of us depend on wells,
as there is no piped water in
Wonder Valley. Ground
disturbance and mine tailings
leaching chemicals can
potentially make our properties
uninhabitable. Clearly, the
proper permitting and oversight
of mining and operations is
of vital importance to us, and
local desert communities need
to be fully informed and able
to participate
in that process. That did not
happen
in this case. I will cut
out why exactly, but we have,
as we've learned of this,
tried to understand a few basic
questions, and been having a
hard time getting a straight
answer. Therefore, I ask that
before you vote on this item,
you provide straightforward
answers, straightforward so
that the good people of
Wonder Valley can understand
them,
to the following questions.
1, if this ordinance passes,
will any mining operation or
portion of any operation that
currently goes through county
permitting CEQA review, public
notice, public hearings, or
county-imposed conditions no
longer go
through those processes because
of the new federal land
provision? Yes or no? Number
2, specifically, is there any
county or public oversight that
exists under the current
ordinance.
>> 30 seconds.
>> That would no longer exist
or would be diminished
under the proposed ordinance?
Yes or no? Number 3, if the
answer to question number 2 is
no, please explain to our
residents why the new permit
shall not be required language
is being added. The current
ordinance does not specifically
state that a county permit
shall not be required for
federally authorized mining.
If the county truly has never
had permitting authority
in these circumstances, why is
this new exemption necessary? I
urge you to deny the adoption
of the measure
before you.
>> That's time. Thank you.
Adrian.
Oh, I'm sorry, Catherine
Powell, followed by Adrian, and
then Martin Oistendorp.
>> Thank you. My name is
Catherine Powell. I am a San
Bernardino County resident and
I vote. I am here
to strongly urge the board
to vote no
on the proposed changes to the
county mining ordinances,
the repeal and reenactment of
Chapter 88.03,
in particular the subsection
040B. This section will make it
possible to remove county
processes that provide critical
local oversight and input
by allowing the county to
accept federal environmental
documents as functionally
equivalent to its own,
and that a county permit shall,
quote, not be required for
mining that already holds a
federal plan of operation or
other federal authorization.
It does not matter that this
language is, quote unquote,
permissive and still allows the
county to conduct studies. It
removes the requirement that
they do so. As someone who
lives
in an unincorporated rural area
of the county facing a
potentially devastating,
devastating mine at Music
Valley near Joshua Tree
National Park, I want to be
sure my community has a say
in what happens where we live.
Most critical is that the
county should not accept
federal agencies' environmental
studies in place
of its own review, given
federal reviews have been
profoundly weakened and no
longer have the same
protections as California's.
The premise that NEPA, the
federal, and the state CEQA
environmental reviews are
equivalent is outdated.
Of note is that in 2026,
federal rules changed,
rule changes have stripped NEPA
of public notice and comments.
steps. 2 other provisions that
are highly problematic in the
ordinance are the vested rights
determination.
>> 30 seconds.
>> Is not a project
within the meaning of CEQA and
would not have review, and that
non-substantial deviations from
approved mining plans can be
approved with no public input
through a staff review process.
Lastly, I want to call out the
way that these ordinance
changes have been handled
by the county,
that it was drafted
in collaboration with mining
associations and no input from
the public, environmental
groups,
or tribal governments. That the
announcement
for this meeting was
in one paper
for the largest county.
>> That's time, Adrian, followed
by Martin Oystendorp, followed
by then Lori Portillo.
>> Hi, board members. Thank you
for hearing my opposition
to this proposal. I'm a
resident of Wonder Valley.
Yeah, that Wonder Valley. I
guess in Wonder Valley, we
learned to read the wind. And
the wind that this proposal is
bringing is not a good one
for us. The key problem
with this proposal starts right
at the beginning, 3 years ago,
when the county first started
conversations
with mining companies. And
associated companies and did
not include residents,
did not include the
stakeholders, as they called
the people that they were
talking to stakeholders, but
they did not include the
public. They did not include
the residents and your
constituents. So that's the
basic problem here,
and everything else springs
from that. The short,
shortness of notice
of meetings, 2 minutes to talk
on a very complicated issue,
actually. So, I vote,
I ask you to vote no
on this proposal. Bring it back
to the table, have people talk
about it, but this is,
this is too short to agree
with this proposal. So please
vote no on this. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Martin
Oistendorp, followed by Lori
Portillo, and then Pauline
Pisano.
>> Supervisors, good morning.
My name is Martin Oistendorp.
I'm also a resident of Wonder
Valley. Supervisors, we all
know that currently
for mining projects
over a certain magnitude, even
on federal lands, that San
Bernardino County's Land Use
Services by state law and
by precedent,
is the permitting agency. That
is the law
in the ordinance as it stands.
The proposed changes in the
ordinance include language that
says a permit shall not be
required. That's very clear
language. There's no ambiguity
there. If you accept the
proposed language
to the ordinance, you are not
only relinquishing your
authority. You are also
silencing the voices of those
who are directly impacted. The
proposed change will lead to
harming the economy and the
health of the residents in and
near rural and environmentally
protected areas. It's a change
that your constituents oppose.
Supervisors, the proposed
change, if you accept it,
will taint your legacy.
>> 30 seconds.
>> It will taint your legacy
forever, and I urge you
to reject it. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Lori
Portillo, followed by Pauline
Pisano, and then Vandem
Altshuller.
>> Hello, my name is Lori
Portillo.
>> I've lived in Joshua Tree
for 45 years, and I can't
believe that you guys are even
thinking about stopping this
when this company that wants
to tear up 20,000 acres in
Joshua Tree is being stopped
from doing something that
they're doing in Mojave.
Mojave Preserve right now.
They're tearing it up and we're
taking them to court. And are
we going to be taking them
to court 20 years from now when
they've torn up these 20,000
acres? Or are we going
to look closely
at what's going on? Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
Pauline Pisano, followed by
Vandam Altshuller.
>> Hi, everyone. My name is
Pauline Pisano. I'm a resident
of Flamingo Heights. I want
to reshare my remarks
from the Planning Commission
meeting in July when this item
was also on the agenda. I
invite board members to read
the comments and oppositions
from the community. The room
was packed that day. I'm a
social worker, artist, auntie,
and daughter. I'm sharing all
of this because my occupations
led me to visit Flint,
Michigan
during their water crisis. The
residents there were the true
heroes of that crisis. They
made sure that their neighbors
knew the dangers and saved
people when governance had
failed. The folks I spoke to
in Flint, Michigan never framed
the crisis as a water crisis.
They said it was a crisis
of democracy. I think everyone
in this room should heed the
people of Flint
to repeal and rewrite Chapter
88.03 to give up the county's
permitting authority. Feels
undemocratic because it is. It
feels unjust because it is
unjust
to every single human being
in this room. Are big
corporations the new unelected
emergency managers
of our day? You know,
I mentioned this earlier,
I'm also an auntie,
and it is our responsibility
to be good stewards
of the earth and our
communities
for future generations. Mining
projects are exploitative.
They've exploited our time so
far. They disintegrate
surrounding communities, mine,
the earth, the water,
and the air. Everyone knows
this, which is why they are
very unpopular.
>> 30 seconds.
>> This is how the crisis of
Flint is with us here
in this room right now. We have
this amazing opportunity
in front of us
to do what is right. The time
is always right
to do what is right. Say no.
Say no to the rollback
of our voices mattering.
>> Thank you. Vandam Altshuller
followed by Mason Osgood.
>> Hello, my name is Vandam
Altshuller. I'm from 29 Palms.
I'm a resident, taxpayer,
and a voter, and I'm here
to oppose item 76. Do not adopt
this ordinance today. Continue
it. Put the full public record
before the board and remove the
federal land loophole. This is
being sold as an administrative
update, but it is not. This is
a countywide rewrite
of the mining rules brought for
public hearing and first
reading with real momentum
toward adoption before the
public has had a fair process.
This is not modernization.
This is surrender. And
surrender to whom? The record
says the ordinance was
developed with CalCIMA, the
Mining Industry Association.
At the same time, more than
100 public comments from the
July hearing are not even
on the board packet today.
So, the mining lobby is
in the room,
but people's voices are missing
from the record. This is
anti-resident governance.
We're not talking
about empty land. We're talking
about Wonder Valley,
Twentynine Palms, Joshua Tree
homes, wealth, wildlife,
children,
and the gateway economy
of the national park. Music
Valley is not imaginary.
Dateline Resource reports more
than 21,000 acres of claims on
this rare earth project area.
EPA says that rare earths
Processing can involve uranium
and thorium and can produce
radioactive tinorm waste. EPA
also says particular pollution
can aggravate asthma,
reduce lung function,
and harm children who are among
the most vulnerable. A child
gasping through asthma doesn't
care whether the dust came
through a county permit or
federal authorization. A family
with poisoned well doesn't care
which agency signed the
paperwork. Do not bring the
lessons of the past here and
say you had no idea.
>> 30 seconds.
>> I'll add, I'm from
Russia, and I know this looks
like, I know what it looks
like when laws are twisted
to accommodate oligarchs,
extraction, and administrative
convenience while ordinary
people are told it is
procedure. But this is
America. Here you swear an oath
to protect the public and
defend constitutional
governments. The oath is not
ceremonial language. It means
you do not help private
extractive powers strip
residents of local voice,
local review, and local
protection,
and do not confuse desert quiet
with consent. Vote no.
>> Thank you. Mason Osgood,
followed by Krystian Lahage.
I'm sorry about the
mispronunciation if I did.
>> Good morning. My name is
Mason Osgood. I'm the
California Desert Program
Manager for the National
Parks Conservation
Association. I'm commenting
today to respectfully request
that you deny the proposed
mining ordinance update until
reasonable revisions are made
to clarify the language. As we
wrote
in our comment letter submitted
with the Center for
Biological Diversity, Sierra
Club, and Earthworks, we
continue to have serious
concerns that this ordinance's
language regarding
applicability on federal lands
is problematic and will lead
to confusion for applicants,
agencies, and the public.
Changes must be made
to the ordinance
to clarify that mining projects
on federal lands are subject
to CEQA and the California
Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act, or SMARA,
policies that provide
reasonable protections and
public participation
requirements. Furthermore, the
county needs to update its
Memorandum of Understanding, or
MOU, to align with modern
environmental review
procedures. Currently, the
outdated MOU allows for a path
for mining projects to bypass
CEQA and SMARA regulations.
Recent changes to NEPA mean it
is highly unlikely that federal
documents will satisfy the
current requirements for,
of CEQA, and we urge clarity
in the text
to avoid improper reliance
on this MOU.
Without revision, these current
draft risks allowing bad actors
to avoid reasonable
environmental regulations that
responsible applicants would
otherwise comply with. This
creates a possibility of harm.
>> 30 seconds.
>> To the county's vast
environmental resources and
will create unnecessary delays
and potential for litigation
over mining permits.
>> I urge you
to deny the resolution before
you today and take the time to
make the simple changes as
outlined
in our written comments
to avoid ambiguity
in the regulation. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
Krystian Lahage, followed by
Chance Wilcox.
>> Good morning, Supervisors.
My name is Krystian Lahage.
I'm the public policy officer
for the Mojave Desert Land
Trust, and I'm a resident of
Joshua Tree, California.
Before my comments, I wanted
to acknowledge 2 things. And
the first is that we recognize
that the county has the right
and need
to update these ordinances.
And I also want to recognize
that we recently met with Dan
Walsh and had some
of this clarified
for us as well. So, I want to
acknowledge that and thank him
for hearing our concerns.
We've shared our,
our comment letter
with both the board and, and
with the Land Use Services
Department. I think our
comments revolve around the
same general areas here. And I
heard Dan say it again today
that projects at the federal
level that are not subjected
to, to review that is as strong
as CEQA would have CEQA. What
we're looking for here is just
to update the language to,
to confirm that. We are not
opposed to the county having
mining ordinance, not opposed
to mining in general. We just
want to make sure that it's
done responsibly and
sustainably. And we feel that
it would be stronger both
in terms of understanding
for the community
to have that strong language,
guaranteeing the CEQA review.
And I think because of how long
this ordinance has been
out there, there's conflicting
language online in terms
of the permitting and things
like that, which I've heard
would be addressed as well.
So, I wanted
to say thank you for that.
Strongly encourage some
refinement to make it a little
bit more clear here. And thank
you to the county
for their time and listening
to our comments. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
Chance Wilcox.
>> Good morning, Supervisors.
I'm commenting both as a
resident of the Morongo Basin
and as the California Desert
Director for the National
Parks Conservation
Association. I'm asking that
you deny this ordinance and
continue the item simply
to create more time for
language review and public
input. There are many language
and potential legal issues with
the ordinance that create
ambiguity and that are not
aligned with the State Mining
and Geology Board provided
language. I am not opposed
to an ordinance
in general and not opposed
to all mining in San
Bernardino County but want
to ensure that the language of
this ordinance ensures proper
oversight on the part of the
county and that the language
used is legally sound and does
not create loopholes
for mining corporations. My
organization submitted written
comment along the Center for
Biological Diversity, MDLT,
and Earthworks, so I will not
go into the details, but it
outlines the language changes
that would tighten up this
ordinance and make the language
more sound. The State Mining
and Geology Board also has
ordinance templates readily
available to make this process
streamlined and legally sound,
but it does not seem as though
this was, this already approved
language was used
for this ordinance.
In addition, the process
to build out this ordinance did
not include the public
in all the 3 years
of its construction. Mining
corporations and mining
contractors such as CalCIMA
were consulted, but there was
little awareness sent out
to the public. The only notice
of a public meeting was placed
in the San Bernardino Sun, a
newspaper with a paywall that
many residents
of the far reaches of our vast
county do not turn to.
During the Land Use Planning
Commission meeting,
the public was brushed off as
not understanding mining, but I
think we can all disagree based
on the broad representation of
community members here who have
thoughtfully reviewed,
thoughtfully reviewed.
>> 30 seconds.
>> The language presented
before you.
And have commented
with very real, very
knowledgeable, and very valid
concerns. I ask that you
consider delaying the approval
of this ordinance for further
language review and public
input. It's obvious that San
Bernardino County residents are
concerned and care about
ensuring the county is engaged
in mining project permitting
and thoughtful
in protecting residents. Thank
you.
>> Thank you very much. That is
the last request
to speak that I have.
>> Gentlemen that aren't looking
at me, thank you. We have a lot
of passionate residents. I, I
know that you and I have worked
through this. I had many
questions that were brought on
by public comment
over the last several days,
including late
into the night last night,
and then here today. So, we
have, if nothing else,
a disconnect between what the
public perceives and what we
are doing at a minimum. And I
very much appreciate
Krystian Lahage's perspective
and comments,
and I know that you did meet
with several organizations
to make clarifications. And
then we've heard some
additional suggestions brought
by them. So perhaps I can start
with having you help me
understand the disconnect
on how the public has, and I
know I've seen media articles
that have run
with misinformation. I know
Morongo Basin Conservation
Association had misinformation
that was put out,
and then the narrative becomes,
what's out there and how do we
correct that? And, and that is
going
to be incumbent upon you today.
So, I'm going to start with a
question that you have heard
significant concern that the
county is giving up its
jurisdiction over mining
on federal lands. Can you
explain exactly what authority
the county has today and what
authority will have
after adoption of this
ordinance and whether we're
relinquishing any authority
that we currently possess?
>> Yeah, thanks
for the question. It might help
if I go
through just a brief history of
federal regulation as far as
mining goes on federal land.
So, it starts in.
>> Can you speak
into the mic?
>> Sorry.
>> Thank you.
>> So it starts,
the first date is 1872.
Before that date,
mining was illegal
on federal property,
just illegal. After 1872, the
General Mining Act went
into effect. It was enacted
by Congress, and at that point
it was pretty much a
free-for-all. And we're seeing
the vestiges
of those disturbances still
in our county, all
over the county, in the
Mojave Preserve and out
in the desert,
pretty much everywhere
in the mountains. And that was
for a little over 100 years.
And then in 1976, Congress
enacted the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act.
which actually was the
beginning of requiring permits
and reclamation standards
for federal lands. That was
right around the same time that
SMARA came out and just
after CEQA. So, we have all
these new regulations coming
into effect and NEPA. And
agencies were kind of butting
heads and not really knowing
what was going on. There's a
lot of duplicity in the,
in the reviews, and the
industry, the public are going,
hey, let's get our act together
here, guys. So in 1992,
California got together
with the federal agencies. And
it was the 1992 MOU that is
referenced in that section that
everybody's talking
about now,
federal land section. It's
referenced in that. And the MOU
was signed by, on the
California,
on the state side,
it was signed by the State
Mining Geology Board and the
Department of Conservation.
On the federal side,
it was signed by the
Department of Interior, namely
the Bureau of Land Management
and the U.S. Forest Service.
So, we have a state agreement
with those agencies
on the federal side. So as far
as the county authorities is
concerned,
we're giving our authority
to regulate surface mines
by SMARA. That's a state law.
So, the state gives us that
authority, okay? So, the MOU
has clarified the
jurisdictional
responsibilities, right,
to help us work through this so
we are working together and not
just separating. So that allows
us to take the project as a
whole when, say,
if BLM gets an application
for a plan of operation,
which is their permit. They
contact, or they have the
applicant contact the county
and say, we want
to start a mine
on federal property. We say,
great, you're going to have
to bring in an application
for a reclamation plan. And
then we contact,
we have great relationships
with each field office
for BLM. We contact them and we
start that conversation.
Sometimes we even make an MOU
for that specific project if
it's big enough,
if there's enough moving parts.
Just so there's more
clarification on authority.
And there is actually another
MOU that affords that as well.
So once the plan
of operation application's in
and the rec plan application's
in, we work with BLM. We can
take, the ordinance says we
may take studies and documents
that are submitted
for the plan of operation. If
you read the MOU,
the actual language is we may
take those if they meet or
exceed the standard of CEQA.
We didn't,
we didn't reproduce everything
in the ordinance. We're trying
to make it sort of dry, but we
reference all these sections so
that they are, you know,
you can go and look
at the actual language. We're
trying not to duplicate every
mining regulation
in the state and
in the federal government
into our document. We're trying
to make it so that it is a
referral
to those documents.
>> So, but clearly that has led
to some either misunderstanding
or vagaries that in county
government our residents don't
appreciate. So, I understand
what you're trying to do
from a staff perspective. The
residents don't appreciate that
from their standpoint.
>> I understand that.
>> So, at a minimum,
can we add
in clarifying language like we
had heard as a suggestion? And
were there any other
suggestions when you met with
Mojave Desert Land Trust and
the other entities that they
provided that could be added to
strengthen that so that we
could absolve the concerns that
the residents brought forward
today?
>> There were other
suggestions. The issue we would
have there would be that it is
approaching the level
of trying
to rewrite the memorandum
of understanding. And since the
county didn't write it or
wouldn't sign it, okay,
that would be trying to kind
of circumvent state law and a,
a, an agreement
between the state and the feds,
right? Trying to rewrite that
from our ordinance standpoint.
And that's not appropriate.
And that's not going to pass
through the state.
>> Well, let's answer this
question. If I could have the
audience remain quiet,
please. Why are we here today?
Why are we even redoing this?
>> Oh, because our ordinance is
grossly out of date. It is
missing sections,
it has sections that are
obsolete, and it doesn't have
the current language that's
written in state law. The state
statutes and regulations that
form SMARA have been changed,
and even 2017 they were changed
significantly. So, we need
to update our ordinance to put
in our code for reference and
for enforcement priorities so
that our code matches what is
written in the state law.
>> And what happens if we don't
do that?
>> If we don't have a,
a certified ordinance,
if we don't have a,
a verified ordinance from the
State Mining and Geology
Board, they would have
jurisdiction to take
over as lead agency.
>> But we've been out
of compliance for a number
of years now with BAMO.
>> And we were, we were told
many, I'd say most
of the lead agencies
in the state were told in
2023, hey, get your,
get your ordinances updated.
And they're hounding them.
They're, they're, they're
encouraging them constantly get
that,
get those ordinances in. We
need
to get everybody updated. And
San Bernardino County is a very
important agency because we
have the most mines,
we're the biggest county.
>> So at a minimum,
can you add
in clarifying language into the
MOU or our ordinance that
doesn't negate the MOU,
that clarifies that these have
to go through CEQA?
>> We could probably add
something like,
like I said before, as long as
the documents meet or exceed
CEQA standards. We know we
could probably add something
like that without having
to do a whole new revision,
like new revision
from the state or review
from the state.
>> I'm about to look at
County Counsel here,
because if you can probably do
it, then I might probably vote
on it. If you can't probably do
it, then I would ask you
to continue the hearing
to have staff work on it.
>> If you wanted
to add language similar
to what's being suggested,
we could do that
at the meeting.
We would need a motion that
specifies what subsection
you're amending and exactly how
you are amending it.
>> Would you like
to make that suggestion based
on the public comments that
we've heard today,
how you would like to amend it
without dramatically changing
the intent of the MOU?
>> Yeah, if we, as long as it's
written exactly how it is
in the MOU and we're not trying
to rewrite any part of that,
then I would be, I'd be
in favor of that.
>> Okay. Would you like
to recess for, say, 10 minutes
to work on that and then come
back and present the suggested
changes based
on what we've heard today?
>> Yeah, that sounds great.
Okay. All right.
>> We will recess this for 10
minutes and we will continue
the public hearing at how
about 12 o'clock noon
on the dot? 13 minutes.
>> The way you presented this,
with this, it leaves the
impression that.
>> I don't have any idea what
the vote will be on this. I just
said if.
>> I just don't
want to get ahead of themselves
because I'll be very candid.
I'm going to vote no on this
for a variety of reasons. I
probably got more time
in that damn hole than anybody
in this building here,
and I'll explain that later.
But I'm just wondering,
are we getting ahead
of ourselves in having this
language when we don't have
at least a vote
on whether we're going
to support this,
this language. Whether.
>> Let's take other board
member comments
before recess.
>> Not trying to be.
>> All right, let's take other
board member comments
before we recess to then see if
there are additional items
to be worked on. Okay,
Supervisor Cook, any additional
comments?
>> No, no, I, I think I made my
comments very clear in that,
based upon my history,
I have spent a lot
of time and a lot
of nights there, and I just
have some reservations. I am
going
to vote no. I'll be very candid
with you. And
before we get ahead
of ourselves, maybe we need a
vote whether there's a majority
to go forward
with this instead of making
changes that won't be necessary
if it's voted down.
>> I see the issue as whether
the board,
that you're willing
to entertain a motion to
consider the ordinance as
proposed.
Is that the motion that
you're making, Supervisor?
>> I'm not making any motion
right now. I thought that was
the one that was before as
proposed right now?
>> There is no motion currently
pending.
>> I am not going to support
the ordinance. However, the
lawyers want to propose it, I,
I am against it.
>> It sounds like the Chair is
going to be making a motion to
adopt the ordinance as amended,
and if that motion is made, you
can vote no on that.
>> Well, that's what I was
planning on.
>> Okay, so I think we're
proceeding properly.
>> Okay, other board member
comments?
>> There's a, there's a,
I think you said a lot, Madam
Chair, as far as the
clarification. And obviously
when they have this many people
come out and against it
for different angles, there's
definitely some clarity that
needs to be put in there.
But I'll go back to the,
what you were saying in your,
on the previous comments. If we
do nothing, kind of go
through what happens.
>> If we don't, if we don't
update our ordinance?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, so if we don't update
our ordinance, SMGB will
continue to put pressure
on us if we just refuse,
and they will have the
opportunity, they'll have the
author, the, the authority To
take the mining regulation
over, they'll be able to take
our lead agency authority away
from us and become the lead
order.
>> Just like in, several
of us have served
at different levels
of government. Generally, the
higher level of government
doesn't necessarily need a
lower level of government
to do something. So, the
federal government
on their lands will want
to give a permit for mining,
and we refuse,
they could bypass us. Is that a
clarified way
to say that?
>> Yeah, that's part of the
Supremacy Clause.
>> Okay. Same thing
on the state level. State
supersedes the county,
and it's a higher level
of policy. So, what the State
of California does,
it's made an agreement
with the federal government
on their lands, this is going
to be the process
of what we're going to do,
which combines generally NEPA
and CEQA
in those applications.
But they're giving it to us
to be that lead agency. So, if
we do not have an up-to-date
ordinance, then we lose that
participation potentially
at all at a local level
to even look at these.
>> Yes, that's correct.
>> Okay, so, you know, I think
that's the bigger question
for me is how do we get
to the point where we're still
at least at the table? We may
not like all the things
at the table, but
at least we're participating
in and
with our county being so rich
in land and materials
in all the sense,
we're always being looked at
for everything, especially
in our desert. So going back
to the concerns
of our residents
about the clarity
of the CEQA and NEPA,
and I think that's where the
Chair was kind
of leading us to, is there was,
when I heard the public speak,
there was a lot of uncertainty
of what language was in our
ordinance because you referred
to that MOU between state and
the federal government because
that has already been worked
out. And so, we refer to
Government Code section blah
blah blah and blah blah blah
for that. And it's going
to be difficult
from a referral document to
educate all the residents who
have say into this,
who have concerns
about all that, just by having
them do the research that they
would need to do to understand
that entire ordinance.
But I want to, you know,
go back to the point where if
we do nothing,
maybe it's not necessary today,
but if we do nothing and keep
kicking this can
down the road, then eventually
the state or the federal
government say, okay,
we're just not going
to let you be the lead agency.
State of California will be,
or the U.S. government will be.
And we just have to, oh,
by the way,
we got a new mine here. We
don't have any say
in it whatsoever. Can you
portray by the document,
the ordinance we have right
now, that California, and
especially California, has
probably the strictest CEQA
laws out there for these type
of things. Is that level
compared to other states' MOUs
with the federal government
at a different level? Is that a
higher level? Because most
of our developments go through
a very strenuous CEQA.
>> There's only a few states
in the union that allow
for local lead agency
regulation of mines.
>> So, the other states are
this, the federal government
says we're giving you this
permission, you go do it,
and they don't have much say
in it at all?
>> Correct.
>> Okay, so California is one
of the stricter states for
these mining ordinance
residents,
and it does give our residents,
when a new project comes,
even though another lead agency
may have done that
environmental work,
it does come to the county
to proceed and does allow us to
notify our residents and allow
those comments to come in
before that. So, we don't
abdicate that ability
to do that process
to another agency
in this ordinance?
>> No, we don't.
>> So we still hold that local
authority versus us giving that
authority up to a state or a
federal agency?
>> Correct.
>> So I, I'm not going
to say I'm an expert on mining
ordinances. I know that there's
a lot out here. I think You
know, for me, I just want the
assurances that that process,
if we stay as a lead agency,
still has that visibility
for our residents, that
to come out through the
Planning Commission,
through the board meetings, to
address whatever the
environmental work was done
by the applicant, when that
NEPA or CEQA and all the rest
of it, those standards are
still there. And that maybe we
clarify that in the ordinance
so that gives a sense
of security that
these are the things that we do
that is no different. So,
in updating this ordinance, do
we lose any control that we had
in the old ordinance
to the new ordinance?
>> No, it's, it's based
on the same 1992 agreement
between the state and the
federal government
on federal lands. What is
updated are better processes
for enforcement,
more information needed
for applications
for reclamation plans. The,
in 2017, the state surrendered
its right to be lead agency for
vested rights determinations.
Turned that back to just the
local lead agencies. So that's
one area that we've had to
develop because the state has
bowed out of it.
>> And do you feel these
updates that were, want
to propose to this ordinance,
does it make it, I don't want
to say easier or harder. I know
some of the things align. We do
updates
on state laws all the time for,
you know, county ordinances. I
think we do that once,
once a year. There's
constantly, every time the
state passes a new law,
we have
to update our local ordinances.
So that's more of a ministerial
administrative thing. Some of
those things are major changes,
some are not, more
in language. On this update, do
you see that things are even
any kind of easier
for the applicant, a mining
company, or is it harder, or
what,
how would you take it?
>> It's, it's more organized.
It, and remember, just because
we're changing the language of
our ordinance doesn't mean
that, you know, we're going
to be doing things differently.
We're already doing this. This
is our day-to-day operations.
We're just kind of putting it
on paper and making it code.
Right? We still have a
responsibility to follow the
most current iteration
of SMARA
on a day-to-day basis.
>> The 1992?
>> No, which is.
>> The 2017 one?
>> Which is, it's updated
periodically,
just minor tweaks. The last
major revision was in 2017.
They revamped all sorts
of things, reclamation
requirements, success criteria,
what's required
in the reclamation plan. So,
we're beholden to those
regulations as they evolve year
for year. We're beholden
to that. That's why we tried
to make this kind
of an outline of referencing
the sections instead
of spelling it all out, just
making it another duplication
of SMARA. We're spelling it
out, so we don't have
to revise whenever they revise.
We just.
>> We just reference the master
document, so to speak.
>> Yeah.
>> So as that gets updated
through the legislature, or
very infrequently the MOU
change between the federal and
state government, it
automatically updates our
ordinance. So, we don't have
to go through this every few
years is what you're saying?
>> Correct.
>> So I, I get that the
technical side, I get the
purpose,
I understand what you're doing.
It goes back to,
is there a better way for us
to be putting this out there?
There's many groups that are
representative, do you feel that
you had enough face time
with those groups? Or let me
rephrase that. If we were
to put this off
for another month and you sat
down and kind
of pointed those things out,
do you think that would give
our agency, our department,
our staff the ability
to communicate this in a better
way where it doesn't look
like it's a, a change
where they're very fearful of?
>> I, I think that the county
could definitely do better in,
in their outreach in general
for mining projects. However,
for the SMARA update,
this is state law.
>> Yeah, I'm not asking you to
change the ordinance
necessarily. Obviously, there's
a lot of questions about the
ordinance that they were asking
for clarifying information
in the ordinance, and if we
were able
to have a workshop. I, I don't
know, I don't know
what we have done enough
to get up here. I know it's
been in the works
for a long time, but to show
where these critical safeguards
in their mines,
the NEPA and CEQA, the ability
for local residents to chime
in on a project,
and when those stages, even
though that's what we practice
today and that you're amending
this ordinance that those
practices will stay there. Is
there a better way to, to, I
guess, transmit that, to
communicate that than what we
have done?
>> If, if I may, County
Supervisors and Chair, I do
want
to give a little more
background to what Dan had
actually said as well. So we do
have, this is our local
ordinance, correct? So, this is
what we do
for the county. A lot of what
we do already is what state
requires,
what the feds require. And as
Dan said,
now we're just putting it
in writing. We have
to do it anyways,
and now here it is
in a document. So what we're
doing, what we're enforcing our
local ordinance is by adding
additional things we could do
for enforcement and those types
of things
to better monitor the mines.
So that's what we're trying
to want
to get that information as well
in in this in this document.
There are other agencies that
are that are also involved.
They have
to get permits through DMR
through Air Quality
Management District. There's a
bunch of different agencies
that they have
to also get compliance with,
not just the county, not just
with the state or federal
level. This will also,
currently, when you have a
project, a mine,
if you have a reclamation plan,
you still have to come
through the County of San
Bernardino
to get your permit,
get your conditional use
permit, and none
of that is changing. There is
an environmental review that's
for that specific project as
well. that will have
to be done, and it will have
to be reviewed
for the environmental
for rec plans or a new mine
in the county. So, all that
will still remain the same.
That is,
that is not changing. We do
have current mines
in the county that are going
through this process. We've had
a lot of communication
with the public. When you,
when you have a specific mine
or location, there is
notification that's done
for that project. There is
environmental review. There is
scoping meetings for
environmental impact reports if
that's required as well. So,
there is still that same
process that will be
in place as well. Wanted
to make that clear because
of what, I'm not sure if there
was, sounds
like there's miscommunication
with we're taking all
environmental review out of
at least the county process,
but that still will be reviewed
through the county.
>> I think I can help explain.
So, Music Valley Mine is a
proposed mine out in the
Twentynine Palms, Wonder
Valley area that abuts the
national park. There has been a
lot of concern
about what that may or may not
be, and that's not
before the county
at this time. But that is where
I think you feel the heartfelt
concern from the community.
And with this, is this related
to that or not? You say it's
not,
not everybody believes that.
And so, there is substantial
community concern. I,
I have a question for you that
I believe this is strengthen
our inspection, reclamation,
financial assurances,
and enforcement authority, or
do the proposed changes weaken
it? I mean, I heard Curt ask
that, but can you clarify that
this strengthens it,
doesn't weaken it?
>> Yeah, what this does is,
like I said, it organizes it
better and it gives it more
teeth. I think I explained it
at Planning Commission this
way. The operators that want
to be good stewards
of the land, that want to work
with the county and be in
compliance because that's what
makes their business plan work.
They don't want to. They want
to know what they're getting
into. They want to know exactly
what happens if they do this or
don't do this, right? That's
how they set a business plan.
That's how they make a profit,
right? The good operators want
to stay
in compliance because being
out
of compliance doesn't pay.
This ordinance will hold their
feet to the fire. Will hold
them accountable to any kind
of indiscretions they have
on their site. And it makes it
easier for my staff, my
inspectors, to,
to identify the violations,
to give them notices
of violation, orders
to comply, and go up on, on up
to the ladder until we're,
until there's administrative
fees, penalties. and potential
for losing their approval
for their reclamation plan.
>> Well, here's a more
simplistic question, I think,
from the community. If we don't
adopt this today, does Music
Valley Mine, if it were
to move forward,
have less control at the county
level or more control
at the county level?
>> It has the same. It has the
same as we've had all along.
All right, what, what the new
ordinance does is kind of what
the old ordinance didn't do.
It didn't bring
in that language from the 1992
MOU,
that agreement that spelled out
what the different authority
was on federal land. So, Music
Valley, when it comes
into the county, yes,
we will do how we do
on every project
on federal land. We work
with BLM or U.S. Forest
Service to coordinate a
collaborative review
of both NEPA and CEQA. And if
we get documents and studies
that don't meet the
requirements of CEQA, then we
will keep giving review
comments. Over and over
until that does rise
to that standard. And only then,
is when we can approve the
reclamation plan. Now remember,
there's 3 parts. There's 3
parts
of a mining operation approval.
There's the permit,
there's the reclamation plan,
and there's the financial
assurances, okay? So, we have
control of reclamation plan and
financial assurances,
but we have, authority
to review the whole project
in its entirety. We're not
putting blinders
on reclamation. Okay,
on federal land, we review the
whole, that means offsite,
haul roads, means going
through town,
whatever the truck traffic is,
emissions, and all that.
That's all part of CEQA. And
these studies have to answer
all those questions that CEQA
asks. Okay, otherwise,
they don't get a reclamation
plan, which means their permit
is worthless.
>> But if we don't adopt this
at some point today or
otherwise, then we're
relinquishing our authority
to have that. We're giving it
to the state and the federal
government,
and then we have no say.
>> Correct.
>> That's correct?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Well, we would,
we would still be CEQA lead
agency, but we would not be
SMARA lead agency.
>> Okay.
>> So we couldn't regulate the
mines.
>> For, for.
>> No, we went in order.
>> All intensive.
>> He's been waiting.
>> I had my had my. All right,
forget it.
>> Mine is very. I feel like
this is something, no
one's going
to be completely happy
from the look in the room that
I'm seeing and want
to change. We have to do this
change is my understanding
of this. But what I have to say
is this has been terribly
communicated to the public
in understanding what we have
to do, what we don't have
to do and getting them
to understand what we're trying
to accomplish here. I, I think
we totally dropped the ball on
that. I think you're a super
smart guy. I just think that
how this was presented didn't
give anyone any confidence
here.
to understand what we're trying
to accomplish here. Like, I get
what you're saying. I just
think, I don't,
and I don't know how
to fix that. I don't know how
to change perception
from the public to say,
here's what we're doing,
here's what we're trying
to accomplish. And I think no
matter how we vote today.
We're going to have people not
happy because we really failed
in the outreach. And I think
it's too far
to fix now. I think we're going
to have to just deal
with it and do what we're
doing. But I just think
in future, or even
after this,
whether it's a yes or no,
we need to go back
to the public and explain
to them. And if it has
to come back again and refine,
to refine it so that there's
some comfort,
then let's so be it. Like,
let's really be on top
of this. Let's, let's get
to where we need to go,
but we need to really have real
true dialogue
with the stakeholders that are
out here who obviously have a
concern.
And see how we can tweak it
in a way that gives them,
maybe, maybe they're not going
to be 100% happy no matter
what. I can't change that.
But give them some sort
of comfort to find that happy
medium that we could all
swallow the pill and deal
with what we need
to deal with. You know, the
people who have the signs up
who are like, this is not here,
let's find a way
to make that question here.
Let's, let's put that very
clear for them so that they
understand that we are
addressing their concerns. And
those are all my comments.
>> Supervisor Cook.
>> Yeah, I don't think you're
going
to understand the problem
on this board here until we
pack up our gear and we go
out there in the middle
of the day at 12 noon. Unless
you have been out there You
will never understand it. The
desert is very unforgiving.
Now, I don't know who's been
out there. I've been
out there more times than I
want to remember. It's brutal,
particularly in the summer.
And any type of changes that
you have there that doesn't
take
into consideration safety. You
cannot have people wandering
around there or they're going
to die. And there's a long
history of the number
of people that have died,
maybe not in that slice
of the desert,
but anywhere else. Very, very
unforgiving. So, I'm,
I'm very sensitive
to this. I thought it's part of
the best training area. I
probably swore more than I ever
did when I was
out there. Because
it's so damn hot and very
unforgiving. Now, I'm
sympathetic, but I also,
I don't know, want to make sure
that we don't change what they
have there as a training area,
a live, live-fire training area.
And I'll be honest with you,
because it's live-fire,
accidents happen. And there,
I don't have a list today
of the number
of people that have been killed
out there. And not just because
you're operating in an
environment where when it's
120 in the shade or so,
you're going
to make mistakes, and you got
to always be vigilant. All I'm
worried about is when we handle
this problem here,
I think we got to be very, very
aware that this is not an
ordinary piece of land. And so,
I, I'm very protective
of it because I want it
to be maintained as one of the
few training areas that the
armed forces of the United
States has live-fire training
area. You can't do that
anywhere else because you don't
have that much. It's not,
it is a huge, huge area. And
so, I don't know. Right now,
I'm not prepared to vote
for this. And I think we need
more conversations. And if,
if you guys got the guts,
let's go out on a high day,
high note, and bring your beer
or what have you. And
we'll go out there and we'll
see what the real desert is
like. I'm done.
>> Question for you all.
There's a lady sitting
behind you. She was very
well-spoken and kind
in a yellow shirt, and she had
3 questions for us. I don't
necessarily think that I got
them answered today. I thought
her approach was very
reasonable. We heard lots of
public comment. I don't know
that we have addressed some of
the things that you probably
view as misinformation, and
there are still questions
pending that I would
like answered. What I would
suggest that we do is I'm going
to close the public hearing,
which will close the public
comment, ask you to return
to us at a date certain that
you determine that you can make
the additional comments that we
heard from the, the entity.
And I wrote his name down,
Krystian Lahage.
Thank you.
The, the additional
language, what you can fit into
the ordinance that will not
mess up the MOU, and to address
the questions that we've heard
here today that I thought were
very reasonable. And put them
together and come back
to a board meeting. It is a
long drive down from Wonder
Valley. I know that they can
tune in on YouTube
to get those answers,
and we can do a much better job
of reviewing all the questions
that we've heard here today
to get answers. If there is
misinformation,
to correct it, and that is the
minimum that we need to do for
our residents that have taken
the time
to provide thoughtful input.
And then also for you to make
the changes that are possible
to make based
on the public input today. So
that would be my recommendation
to close the public hearing,
have staff return at a date you
contemplate it now. I know that
some of our meetings are a
little bit more densely packed
in the near future. If you
gentlemen want to look
at the calendar on when you
think you can bring the public
hearing back so that the public
knows when to tune in, I can
continue it if I have board
approval
to that date certain.
>> Yeah, I would,
I would second your motion,
but we really need
to have that outreach. I want
to emphasize, we need to make
sure that we have that outreach
to the community so that,
I'll be honest, I don't think
all your needs are going to be
met because there are legal
obligations that we have
to have.
But anything we can fit
in there, we should be trying
to fit in there to give people
the comfort that they need in
understanding this is just
merely a policy issue. This
isn't having
to go towards any development
in particular. So, make sure we
have that outreach.
>> And we have all, I mean,
I get them to my email. Every
public comment that came
in came to my email. So, if
your department doesn't have
the bandwidth,
then you can produce a
document, I will send it back
to everybody
to answer their questions. And
we can put it into a format of
frequently asked questions so
that we can either dispel
misinformation, clarify
misinformation, or
at least answer some of the
questions that we've heard here
today. Because I don't think
that any of us are satisfied
with the level. And then if you
can bring back those changes
within SMARA or our MOU that
you believe that we can do
without substantially rewriting
it that comply
with state law, At the
continued public hearing?
>> I would recommend that we
continue it to October 20th.
That would give us sufficient
time to engage
with the public. And also,
if the changes are recommended
to that would if the changes
had not been previously
considered by planning, we may
need to return the matter
to planning, and that would
give us sufficient time to do
that and then have planning
respond.
>> Very well.
>> Is that.
>> Chair, I'll make the motion
to continue October 20th.
>> Second.
>> 20.
>> to October 20th.
>> October 20th. So, close the
public comment,
continue the hearing until
October 20th. I have a motion
from Vice Chair Baca. Thank
you, Supervisor Hagman,
for the second. All those
in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed?
>> I don't know the motion that
I want, I don't know [INAUDIBLE]
how I can get that
in there.
>> Well, we have a majority
vote at this point.
>> Explain it without.
>> You're more than welcome to,
sure.
>> What I was going to suggest,
if you guys are gutsy enough,
is that we go out in the
Mojave Desert at 12 noon and,
and actually see what it's
like out there. When you're
there, physically there, it
really makes a big difference.
You don't have
to stay there that long, and
after the manager passes out,
then we'll stop someplace and
have a beer. But this way you
can actually see the physical
environment that we're talking
about. The desert is a very,
very unforgiving place. And
when you make decisions
on what you're going to do
out there, you better make sure
you do it right. That's all I'm
saying.
>> I appreciate that. In terms
of continuing this item
in addition to your,
and I'm all for it,
that's the backyard, so.
>> It would be fun.
>> It would be, but
in terms of this, if
>> It's 120, God, wouldn't it?
No, it's too cold.
>> Are you in, are you
in favor, Paul? Are you
in favor
of continuing this item to
October 20th so staff can do
further outreach, provide
clarification,
and then bring it back
to us?
>> Well, it's starting
to get cold out there. I want
to go
out there when it's hotter,
the better to understand.
>> Nothing's stopping that
from happening. Nothing will
stop that from happening.
>> Why? We're not a bunch
of candy asses. We can go out
there and see what it's like.
>> I need a yes. No or an
abstention?
>> A yes, no.
>> To continue.
>> To continue this item.
>> Yeah, he's telling me I can
continue it.
>> I'm going to take that as an
affirmative yes. Thank you.
>> So, Madam Chair, if I can
please confirm the motion that
we are continuing the closed
public hearing. So, we are
continuing the closed public
hearing to October 20th
to amend. For,
to allow staff to.
>> Yes. And then depending upon
what changes you recommend,
then it goes back to either
planning or it moves forward
to the board. Is that correct,
Laura?
>> Oh, depending on, yeah,
depending
on how substantial the changes,
it may need to return
to planning.
>> It also may need to return
to the State Mining and
Geology Board.
>> I'm sorry?
>> It also may need to state,
to return to the State Mining
and Geology Board. We'd rather
get their concurrence
before we approve it.
Otherwise, it's just going
to be.
>> I understand.
>> Back and forth.
>> Okay.
>> So, Madam Chair, I have one
just thing. You had mentioned,
Dan, that there was risk
of us losing our authority
within this window. Do you see
that as a risk over the next 2
months? This is not an imminent
risk.
>> No, I don't see that risk.
>> Okay.
>> Just so that.
>> All right. And for those
in the audience,
and I haven't. Final vote?
>> I don't,
I was just going to ask. I
don't believe we have a final
vote. Yes.
>> Okay. So to reiterate, all
those in favor
of continuing the public
hearing to October 20th, aye.
Any opposed? Any abstentions?
>> Thank you,
Madam Chair.
>> If you are here today and
you provided comment or
questions in writing,
we have them all. If you
verbally provided them,
I have a staff member in the
audience who is raising her
hand in the back
on your left. If you have
written comments, confide
to her. She can give you a
card. Email us those so we can
get, make sure that your
questions get answered. All
right. And with that,
we will move on
to our public comment
on items not
on today's agenda. And as a
reminder, as I stated
at the top of the meeting,
we have a number
of speakers both
on teleconference and
in person. Our public comment
on items not
on the agenda will be limited
to 2 minutes. And our first
request to speak is Bonnie
Hawthorne, followed by Denise
June Shearer, and then Keith.
>> I think that was some kind
of mistake because I've already
spoken. I spoke in regard to
76, so maybe I filled out the
form wrong. I'm not sure.
>> I, we did receive your
comments earlier. So, if you
have anything additional that
you would like to add
on items not
on today's agenda,
you are welcome to do so.
>> No, I was,
I was only commenting on item
76 and thank you
for continuing it to October. I
agree with you. There's been a
lot of confusion. So, I really
do hope you straighten it out
for us. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Denise June Shear, followed
by Keith.
All right. We'll move on
to Keith.
>> Hi. Yes, Supervisors, thank
you for taking the time today
listening to the public. I
believe it was the responsible
thing to push this agenda item
off for further study. I'd
like to see a pattern in this
county and its governance that
we don't play the state as a
boogeyman card so much. Let's
be sensible. Let's not rush
things. Let's get community
input.
Excuse me.
I think especially
considering what we're seeing
in Big Bend National Park. And
how the federal government is
rushing
to bulldoze and draw a line
through our public lands. It's
critically important that,
at least
at the county and state level,
that we hold the line and we
adhere to the laws
in our state. Surface mining
on federal lands doesn't happen
in a vacuum. The scars from any
potential mine will be visible
from space long after all
of us have passed and gone.
The immediate effects
on transit lines, the air, the
water, the night sky,
the noise. Like, there's so
many factors to take
into place. And I don't think
anyone that lives in
Twentynine Palms or
in the high desert region wants
to see their property values
plummet if a gigantic open pit
mine like the one we see in
Boron is allowed to go forward
in this county. So, I think
it's important that we take a
stance, not
for the short-term gain,
for a you know, foreign
transnational mining
corporation to extract our
resources and take them out
of the.
>> 30 seconds.
>> That profit out of this
county. I think it's important
that we focus
on getting this right. So,
there's no loopholes. So, I
appreciate you tabling the
matter. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
>> And as a reminder, this is
for items not
on today's agenda. Next up is
Nicholas Garver, followed by
Anna Gonzalez.
>> Who? Nicholas?
>> And Anna Gonzalez is not,
neither of them are still
on the line. Okay, we're going
to, we're going
to bring it back here
to in-person comments. Our
first request to speak is
Daniel DeMeyer, followed by
Joanne Genesis.
>> Good afternoon, board. My
name is Dan Demyer. I'm a
resident of 29 Palms. I've been
approaching this problem I have
a little wrong,
and I think I'm going
to do it a little different.
So with that, I'm going
to say I'm sorry
to bother your sheriffs about
the vandalism and the
trespassing calls that I've
been making the last 6 months.
I'm sorry that your sheriffs,
9, 7 of them, came out
to my house and held guns
to my head on a SWAT call.
What's SWAT? A SWAT is when
somebody calls your law
enforcement agency and lies and
tells them BS so they could
come
to your house and hold guns to
your head. I'm sorry that I'm
helping the neighbors
with my tractor work after a
massive flash flood. I'm sorry
I'm maintaining the road for my
neighbors as my one neighbor
destroys it. I have a neighbor
that blocks the road. And
nobody does anything, so no one
can get through. I'm sorry that
my neighbor is digging up the
underground utility poles and
moving them. I find that very
dangerous. I'm sorry that my
neighbor dumps his trash along
with human waste
around the desert and
in people's trash cans. He
calls the cops, and when he
calls the cops and they
respond, they go
to his house,
and he doesn't answer the door.
We fix the damage that he
creates, and he calls the
police and tells them we did
the damage. That's false
reporting.
>> 30 seconds.
>> Yes. The main one is,
is he chased my roommate
down the road 2.5 miles. I have
a restraining order,
so does my roommate. The police
did nothing. So with that,
I'm going to say 7 months
of investigation, 3 violations
of restraining order, and the
cops will not return my call.
The sheriff. They are either
corrupt or they're incompetent
because they do not uphold the
law to serve and protect.
Thank you.
>> Thank you for your comments.
>> Joanne Jenis, then Jane
Hunt-Rubel.
>> Good afternoon,
Supervisors. My name is
Joanne Jenis and I live
in the city of Chino Hills.
Let's talk about homelessness
and matters related to it. Did
you hear about the city of
Riverside's new drop-off
ordinance? I'm aware Riverside
is in another county,
but I believe looking at this
ordinance could potentially
benefit our own communities
in our own county, especially
with the 2028 Olympics coming
to, coming into LA. The
ordinance requires law
enforcement, medical
facilities, behavioral health
providers, cities and county
agencies,
and other organizations to
provide 24-hour advance notice
before dropping off an
individual experiencing
homelessness in their city.
The goal is to give the city
and service providers an
opportunity to coordinate
behavioral health services,
shelter housing,
and other support instead
of simply leaving them
somewhere without the resources
they need. I believe a similar
policy should be considered in
the county and statewide levels
with the possibility of
eventually becoming state law.
Here's why I'm so passionate
about this homeless ordinance.
Some of you probably remember
my story. My son was accepted
into the AOT Laura's Law
program medical. He was
evaluated. The court ordered,
the judge ordered
for an evaluation. He went
through the evaluation. He went
to Arrowhead Regional. 72 hours
later, even though diagnosed
severe mental illness and
gravely disabled,
they released him. No support.
31 miles. Gave him a bus pass.
No support. No cell phone. No
money. Somehow, he made it
home. 7 days later,
he was killed crossing
at a crosswalk. while being
out of his head,
and he was killed
by a hit-and-run felony EMT.
So, let's try and see,
improve what's happening with
these mental health patients
and homelessness out
on the streets. Thank you
for your time.
>> Thank you
for your comments.
>> Jane Hunt Ruble, then
Randy Bekendam, and then
Carmen Gallegos.
>> Excuse me. Good afternoon. I
got hungry,
so I brought a candy bar
with me. Anyway, I'm here
to talk about, well,
I love those people from
Wonder Valley, and I wish my
community was like that a long
time ago when we were fighting
other things in Lytle, Cohon
Wash. But anyway, I'm here
to talk about, I came
across this yesterday. It's
about the unincorporated truck
routes, because that's one
thing I'm concerned about.
Because earlier this year,
thank you, Baca,
for finally coming out
to our community
about the truck routes,
but it's gotten worse
over the past few months. It's
just, I hate going down Macy
Street anymore, but I have to
on Thursday because I have,
I work for a friend of mine
over in Rialto, and it's
Getting big rigs coming
down there, and also the
vendors. I don't even
like going to the, the library
there anymore because it's just
overwhelmed with,
on both sides of Darby
Street, the vendors, and
they're there apparently every
day. And I just want something
done about it because it even
bothers the people that work
in the library. And I was
shocked to learn that.
But some, we have a lot
of people that live out in
Muscoy. I guess they moved here
to Muscoy that are truck
drivers,
and they have big rigs. And the
one thing I wanted
to talk about.
>> 30 seconds.
>> Is that I caught somebody
on the corner of June and 2nd
that they have signs up saying
no parking at all. They've been
up there for years, but I
caught somebody doing it again,
and I want something done
about it. So, I please beg you
to do something about it
because they're blocking the
view of traffic going and
they're blatant about it. So, I
really like,
appreciate it.
Also, are the cameras up
because people are still.
>> That's time.
>> On second and thank.
>> Thank you, Randy Bekendam
followed by Carmen Gallegos.
>> Good afternoon,
Supervisors. I'm Randy
Bekendam, Executive Director
of the Southern California
Agricultural Land Foundation,
and I'm also a local farmer.
Our nonprofit has managed. We
did manage the Prop 70 lands
for the first 15 years
of their existence. About 20
years ago,
the county dismissed the
Executive Director and took
management of the properties
in-house. which generated this
letter that I have here
from the Planning and
Conservation League, and they
were the ones who initiated
Prop 70. The contents of this
letter are why we kept the
nonprofit alive and active
to this point. This letter
threatens citizen action unless
the county complies
with the contents
of this letter. The county has
been out of compliance with
Prop 70 from the beginning, so
38 years in violation
of the public trust. The
citizens of California own the
Prop 70 land. The county is a
steward of the land. You have a
fiduciary responsibility
to comply with the mandate of
Prop 70, which is
to preserve the land
for agriculture. And so,
the letter of this,
the contents of this letter,
very self-explanatory. Who can
I leave this letter with?
>> That's 30 seconds.
>> As many copies as you need.
>> Madam Chair, sorry,
we can take it. The Clerk
of the Board
down here can take it
from you. Thank you.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Carmen Gallegos,
followed by Leticia Howard, and
then Joaquin Castillejos.
>> Is this on? Okay. Yeah, I
had brought this up before.
Where I'm located,
I noticed that sometimes I do
go to places that have way too
much things going on
at one time. It also affects
the city and also the people
around it. A lot
of times right now I'm dealing
with this right now I want
to bring in sidewalks and
streets and lights. And because
that they're hitting
pedestrians,
and the pedestrians are in the
streets because there's no
sidewalks. And this was
with a lot
of humans and animals. They
can't walk their dog or cat. I
mean, they have to take care
of just basically like the
fireworks. I had so many
fireworks. I go, I've never
seen so many fireworks
in my life, or they should have
been contained a long time ago
because it made a war zone
of your city.
And in county and city areas. So
right now, I'm
in a county area. Before I was
in a city area,
but still dealing
with fireworks, which is really
crazy. I got a disturb the
peace, and I had to laugh
at that because I got a ticket
for that. But
to overlook the obvious,
if we're to let it go
to businesses and burning it,
even Homeland Security said
they only took care
of federal buildings.
But aside from that,
right now. And even hearing a
comment, you know,
I'm too far away
to get there. Well, that's why
I said adopt a planet, and we
need clean air and clean water.
Because you let the,
you overlook the fireworks,
and they should,
they weren't even
in a contained area where, I
mean, in the area that they had
permits for.
But even the permit area.
>> 30 seconds.
>> But anyway, so again,
transportation and
for humans and animals, but
like sidewalks to keep them
off the streets. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
>> From drunk drivers and
people flipping cars.
>> Leticia Howard, followed
by Joaquin Castillejos, and then
Terry Lewis.
>> For over a year,
parents and advocates have come
before this board reporting
corruption, fraud, perjury,
abuse of power, violations of,
of our right to due process,
and harm to our children
within Children and Family
Services. What was the
response? The board pushed to
make sure parents received
their court reports on time.
Well, let me tell you how that
correction is working. On July
8th, my parental rights were
terminated. One of the most
important documents that
in that proceeding was the 26
report. I don't have that
report. I did not have that
report the day of the hearing.
I do not have it as of today. I
made multiple written requests
for it, and today,
more than a month after my
rights were terminated, I still
don't have that report. report.
So, when Jeannie Glasgow says
that the problems have been
corrected, I ask you,
does that sound
like it's been corrected?
Today I'm no longer speaking
to the board. I'm speaking
to parents, advocates,
attorneys, civil rights
organizations, lawmakers,
journalists, taxpayers, and
everyone believes the
government must have, the
government power must have
limits. We have spent too much
time asking the very system we
accuse of corruption, fraud,
and abuse of power to
investigate or correct itself.
When will, when will we
understand the system is
working exactly the way it was
designed to work? It survives
because families are isolated
and afraid. It survives because
people believe they are
powerless when they walk
into courtrooms,
and it survives when the rest
of us remain silent. I am not
here today asking the board to
save us. I am asking the people
to stand together.
>> 30 seconds.
>> Learn the law,
preserve your records,
request your documents,
request answer, ask questions,
demand evidence, show up
to these meetings, contact
lawmakers,
contact civil rights
organizations, because history
has never been changed by
people quietly accepting
injustice. Change happens when
ordinary people decide,
decide enough is enough. They
may have the titles, they may
have attorneys, they may have
the funding,
but we have the numbers. And
when the communities stand
together, we have the power
to enforce accountability.
>> That's time.
>> Joaquin Castillejos,
followed by Terry Lewis, and
then Karen Reich.
>> Good morning,
county staff and community. My
name is Joaquin Castillejos. I
am an organizer with the
Center for Community Action and
Environmental Justice. I'm here
today to just remind the board
of its duty to protect Prop 70
land and to be stewards of this
preserved agricultural land.
that was meant to be used
for generations to come. In
19, in 1984, when this was
passed, it was because voters
decided that it was important
to save agricultural land, to
set it aside and make sure that
future generations, no matter
how developed their
surroundings were,
they would always have access
to this Prop 70 land. And San
Bernardino County started off,
became part of this process.
They used, the county used $20
million in Prop 70 funding
to buy up agricultural land
across the county and was meant
to preserve it and save it and
make sure that it's preserved
for future generations,
that it was used
for regenerative agriculture,
green spaces, things that
benefit the community. And it
is, it is a duty, and under
Prop 70, it should continue
to be the main priority. The
county should not be using
these, this land
for any other reason,
transferring it
to any other entity, or, or,
you know, letting it be used
to be.
>> 30 seconds.
>> To become anything else
that's not an agricultural
easement. So, I'm just here
to urge the county
to remember its role with Prop
70 to take care of that land
and make sure that it will
continue to be used
in what it is supposed
to be used, which is
through natural lands, open
space, and agriculture. Thank
you.
>> Thank you very much. Karen
Reich, followed by Lisa Finn,
and then Eric Vasquez. Oh, I'm
sorry. My Thing shows it's
highlighted. Terry Lewis first,
and then Karen.
>> Hi, my name is Terry Lewis.
I just wanted
to ask a question. Why is it
okay for social workers
to lie, to lie to parents,
to lie in court? They,
in my own personal case,
the social worker lied 24 times
in her report,
and we can prove like 3
of them for sure. And no one's
heard our story. No one's cared
to even listen. Our twins had
been gone,
and the baby had been gone
through 2 years now. And it,
for what reason? There were no
allegations of anything. The
kids were
with their grandmother. They
weren't even with the mom.
They went to the mom's home,
and based on her home,
they took the kids.
But the kids had been living
with the grandmother
for a month. So, it really
doesn't make sense. And when we
go to court, no one hears our
story because we don't have an
attorney. And it's
unacceptable.
But why is it okay for them
to lie? Cops can't lie. I used
to be a correctional officer,
and we had
to follow the WIC codes to the
letter because there was
oversight. And the county CPS
has no oversight. I missed that
June 23rd, I think it was the
23rd meeting where Jeannie
Glasgow and the other man sat
here and gave their statistics.
and how they never take
children from parents unless
it's dire circumstances,
and they always do everything
to keep them with family. And
that is a blatant lie,
complete, at least
in my case. And I believe the
other parents too. They could
have left the kids
at my house that night.
>> 30 seconds.
>> They said that someone in my
home didn't pass the
background. So I said, well,
he'll leave. And they, and she
goes, it doesn't work
like that, when it absolutely
does according
to the WIC codes. And, you
know, it's unacceptable. There
needs to be oversight. There
needs to be, they should wear
body cameras so that they have
to, you know, transparency. But
they don't want transparency
because they're the ones who's
lying and they're the ones who
are harming the kids, not us.
There was no reason for them
to take our twins.
>> That's time.
>> Karen Reich, followed by
Lisa Finn.
>> Hello, my name is Karen
Reich. I'm the grandmother to
Jovi, Jace, and Myla Wood. I'm
here because I'm angry. I'm
pissed off that we come here
twice a month. Well, I missed
the, I've missed a couple of
them because I've been busy
trying to get RFA approved
to get my grandkids.
But you guys sit up there, and
you hear these horrific
situations where people's kids
have been legally kidnapped and
you do nothing. That, I, I
mean, nothing has changed.
Laws need changed. Reform needs
to happen. My grandkids were
removed by a woman named
Betty Thompson Larkin, and they
were put with a social worker
foster mom named Kyra Larkin.
Are they of relation? Is this a
coincidence, or is
trafficking, because that's
what it would be. It's called
trafficking. And San
Bernardino County is
trafficking our kids and using
them. They're exploiting them
for the sole purpose
of gaining financial money
for the title for refunding.
And that
to me is disgusting. I'm Mama
Bear. I'm Mama Bear, and I'm
coming after my grandkids,
and hell's coming with me.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Lisa Finn
followed by Eric Vasquez.
>> Good afternoon. My name is
Lisa Finn. This is, I don't
know, my 6th time or so
speaking. I'm speaking
to share my experience
with the Child Protective
Services and family court
system because I believe there
are serious injustices that
need to be brought to light.
My children were removed
from my care,
and throughout the court
proceedings, I felt I was not
given a fair opportunity to
defend myself. or challenge the
allegations being made
against me. Reports were served
on, to me
on the same day as court,
leaving me little or no
meaningful opportunity to
review the information or
prepare a response. I was not
given the opportunity
to question my accusers. My
attorneys did not adequately
advise me that I could contest
the allegations,
and witnesses who were willing
to testify
on my behalf were not permitted
to do so. I believe these
circumstances denied me a
meaningful opportunity
to be heard. Sorry. The
allegations against me were
eventually proven
to be false. However, even
after those allegations were
shown to be false,
my children were not returned
to me. Approximately 3 months
after my children were removed,
the reunification social worker
brought my children
to the home.
During that visit, they were
told, take everything you love
as you're never coming back
here. Those words have stayed
with me. I could not understand
how genuine reunification
efforts could be when the
person responsible for helping
with reunification was telling
us that my children were never
coming back. As the case
continued.
>> 30 seconds.
>> As the case continued,
the allegations changed. False
narratives stacked up court
proceeding
after court proceeding.
Something is terribly wrong
with this system, and we,
we're going
to keep coming asking you guys
to change it, fix it. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Eric
Vasquez, followed by Delina
Murillo, and then Amethyst
Yates.
>> Yes, good afternoon, Madam
Chair, Vice Chair, Board of
Supervisors, members
of the staff, and members
of the community. My name is
Eric Vasquez, and I'm from
True Impact, a nonprofit
organization that exists
to mentor at-promise youth
to heal from their trauma and
to find purpose.
In that process, we focus
on restorative practices,
restorative justice,
and a big emphasis
on mentoring. Recently, you
know, well, over the years,
I've explored so many different
things to touch the heart of
these beautiful young people,
to help them rehabilitate and
find real change. And, you
know, in that process, I came
across regenerative farming.
And so, I'm here today due
to a recent collaboration
with the Southern California
Agricultural Land Foundation.
What we've been doing is taking
these system-impacted young
people,
current or former foster youth,
at-promise youth,
and bringing them
into these green spaces,
providing them workforce
development, and seeing healing
take place as they put their
hands
to honest and good work.
There's something about being
out in nature, that touches and
changes the young heart. And
so, I'm here because I'm
concerned, as I've learned
about Prop 70 and how it's not
necessarily being adhered to,
or that there is a threat
to some of these lands being
developed. I feel
like finally, after 25 years
of youth work,
urban youth work.
>> 30 seconds.
>> That I have found gold, you
know, that I have found
something that 100%
of the time works
in touching the heart
of these young people. And so,
I just ask that you all take a
look into this and that you
ensure that we are running
in our lane and adhering to
Prop 70 as a county. This has
many impacts,
particularly impacts to the
At Promise community. Thank you
for hearing me today.
>> Thank you very much, Delina
Murillo, followed by Amethyst
Yates and then Alejandra
Contreras.
>> Board members, we have come
here time and time again
to listen to Jeanne Glasgow
talk about changes,
about oversight,
about reform. I want to know
what has actually been done.
You opened up 2 more courtrooms
this year. The county's own
record says it's because
caseloads has outgrown the
building. I'm asking you
directly, does that mean more
children being removed?
Because nobody up there has
answered that question,
and families like mine deserve
to know. Thank you.
Meanwhile, my case keeps
getting the same treatment your
oversight was supposed
to fix. My reports are still
being filed the morning
of hearings. For instance,
today's report, the one used
at my hearing,
has a last documented entry
from 13 days ago. 13 days,
and it still showed up too late
to properly review. And here's
what should concern everybody
in this room. The agency's own
report states in writing that
my daughter is too young
to understand or form an
opinion about adoption. And
then in the same report,
the answers of the same, sorry,
they use her answer anyways,
that adoption means she gets
to stay in the house forever as
it's informed consent. No one
has told this 6-year-old what
adoption actually means, that
she will never see her mother
again until she's 18 years old.
12 years, that is not staying
somewhere forever. That is
losing her mother and no one
explained to her before asking
her that question. So, my
question for this board is not
something that is taken
lightly.
>> 30 seconds.
>> What oversight exists?
Who is checking the agency's
work? Because right now it
doesn't seem
like anyone still is. Thank
you.
>> Thank you very much.
Amethyst Yates, followed by
Alejandra Contreras, and then
Stephanie.
>> Good afternoon, Chair and
members of the board. My name
is Amethyst Yates, and I'm
with the Family Reunification
Equity and Empowerment Project
at Starting Over. I was able
to go to a conference. There
was a bunch
of foster agencies, social
workers,
people that implement the
policy, remove children,
and all that stuff. As of July
1st, 2027, each child removed
from the home
at minimum will receive
$1,700. My numbers are a little
off, it's a little bit more
than that. However, under
Title VII of the Social
Security Act, there is money
there available
for prevention services
In-home. The $1,700 is for only
out-of-home placements. Okay,
so under Title IV-E,
they can get reimbursements for
these prevention services. I'm
really asking the board
to stop funding things like
Victor Outreach because I also
ran into a parent partner over
there that was devastated that
the mother got her children
back. Okay, this is not okay. I
was also privy to go
into CFT meetings with some
of the people from Victor
Outreach.
>> 30 seconds.
>> And they falsified
everything. I was like,
the parent never said that.
But when the report came back,
that's what was written, that
the mother said that when I was
the one that asked the
questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Alejandra
Contreras, followed by
Stephanie, and then Rita
Espinoza.
>> Hello, good afternoon. My
name is Alejandra. This is the
4th time I've been coming. I'm
here to ask you
to please investigate the
Office on Family Services and
1094s. I just came
from court. I had mediation
with them when the judge
ordered reunification,
and give authority
to give me unsupervised visits,
but they don't want
to move forward. They want me
to keep going trial case,
spending my money, because I'm
paying my private attorney
because I don't trust them.
They've been lying. And I had
to say this, I questioned my,
my social worker today and he
couldn't answer any
of my questions. The one he was
stepping in
in every question, it was
Janice. I want you
to investigate Janice Navas.
Jos Mac as, because every
moment kids from the second
home that they were abused,
neglected, keeping in a room
day and night as they were as a
basement. It was not a
basement, but the suffer and
mentally and emotionally it was
the same as being
on the basement. They knew all
this abuse, and they tried
to not expose it. Now that they
are in a new caregiver, I'm
concerning. because they want
to remove it now. But my
concern is that the newest
caregiver told me that before
they placed them as emergency,
they knew that he, that her
husband has sexually abused
accusations in the past,
and they placed my kids with
them when I have relatives.
>> 30 seconds.
>> And they tried to avoid
to go
with my relative and put it
with person that has sexually
abused accusations. And my kids
right now, they want to remove
it because those allegations
How come they doing this? The
social worker that he couldn't
reply to me,
saying that we're here to ask
about the business, not
about this.
But this is concerning
for me because my kids are
in danger. Every second,
they're in danger.
And I'm here to advocate.
Please help us. I saw Mr.
Hagman be
on the investigation.
>> That's time.
>> Thank you, Stephanie,
followed by Rita Espinoza and
then Gregory.
>> Hi, I'm with the Family
Reunification Equity and
Empowerment Program. I am a
former foster kid, so I do know
what they mean when they say
their kids are struggling.
They're deprived of things.
They can't eat. They're forced
to eat, and if they don't want
to eat, they get choked.
And now you guys are
offering money to stay there
till they turn 18? What's,
what's the point of that?
What's, what's the point
of giving money to a
15-year-old when she leaves the
foster home at 18? What is she
supposed to do with that money?
Instead of actually helping
us educate ourselves and
helping us get resources,
you guys are, oh, if you guys
stay, I'll give you guys so
much money. I was tortured in
foster care. I got removed
twice from a home because they
were SAing. The parent that
needed to leave or the adult
that needed to leave the house
left the house. So why were we
still not allowed to stay
at our home?
Why?
Because you guys don't care.
>> Thirty seconds.
>> Trafficking kids.
Sadly, but that's true.
That's what you guys are
doing, offering money for them
to stay there for 3 extra years
for what? So, they can get
snatched up, go through worse
things than what they were
living at home?
Removing them and putting
with strangers that you guys
don't even personally know.
>> That's time.
>> Stephanie, followed by
Rita Espinoza. Stephanie? That
was Stephanie?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, thank you. Rita
Espinoza, followed by
Gregory. Rita? All right,
moving on to Gregory.
>> Thank you. Oh eternal God
of vengeance, Oh God who sets
things right, shine upon us.
Rise, Oh Judge who presides
over the earth, and pronounce
your sentence upon the proud.
Give them what they deserve.
How long, oh Eternal One, how
long will the guilty revel
in their prosperity? Arrogance
pours from their mouths. All
these troublemakers brag
of their exploits. They have
broken your people to pieces,
Oh Eternal One, and brought ruin
to your future generations.
They slay a widow, kill a
newcomer,
and murder an orphan. Then they
say, the Eternal One can't see
what we're up to. The God of
Jacob's people pays no
attention to us. Think,
brainless people,
stupid people. When will you
get it? Does the God who set
the ear
in its place not hear? Does the
God who made the eye not see?
Does the God who teaches the
nations and guides humanity to
knowledge not exercise just
correction? The Eternal knows
the highest thoughts
of the wise,
and they are worthless. How
fortunate are those you
discipline, Oh Eternal One,
those you train
by your divine law! You relieve
them in times of distress
until a grave is dug
for evildoers. The Eternal will
not abandon his people. He will
not turn away
from those he redeemed.
Because justice is coming
for those who do what is right,
and all the good-hearted will
pursue it. Who will back me up
when evildoers come
against me? Who is willing
to take my side
against the wicked? If the
Eternal had not come
to my rescue,
my soul would have descended to
the land where death silences
every voice. When I said,
my foot is slipping!
>> 30 seconds.
>> Your unfailing love, Oh
Eternal One, held me up. When
anxiety overtakes me and
worries are many,
your comfort lightens my soul.
Can wicked tyrants be your
allies? Will you align
with rulers who create havoc,
just unjust decrees? They have
joined forces against the life
of the just living, the right
seeking,
and have sentenced the innocent
to death. But the Eternal has
been my citadel, my God, a sure
safe haven. He will fold their
wickedness back upon it.
>> That's time.
>> Thank you. Our last request
to speak is from Shaniqua.
>> Oh, she's right here.
You're up, you're up,
you're up.
>> She's coming.
>> Yeah, unfortunately. Hello
everybody, my name is
Shaniqua Shepherd. I'm the
National Hub affiliate
for the FREE Project. My
question is, why does CPS
prioritize separation over
for serving our families? Why
do we allow doctors to take our
mentally ill children,
who we as parents have dealt
with the challenges,
but you can take them off
of all their medications? When
that child goes home and
attempts to kill his mother,
we blame mom
for being the problem.
But how? If I took my child
to be assessed,
and I say his medicine isn't
working, you all agree.
But a doctor who had too much
to drink and came
to work said otherwise,
took my child off
of his medication,
but I lose my kids. Me. So I
went from being a victim
of CPS to surviving CPS
to advocating
for other families. My question
to you is, when do we stop
using these kids as a paycheck
and take the money that we're
giving to these foster parents
who are sometimes not doing
what they need
to do and giving it to the
family so that we can give them
beds, give them food, give them
the help that they need?
Better yet, can we start
prioritizing preventative
measures and services versus
removing these children? When
is enough? 25, 22, 19, the ages
of my children today.
>> 30 seconds.
>> 3-year-old grandson. You all
didn't help my kids. You didn't
teach them anything. They
learned more at home
from mom, the person you said
that was a threat to them.
Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you very much. We're
going to move on
to our reports from our CEO,
Luther.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
When we wrap up this meeting
today
in just a couple minutes,
we're actually going to shift
over and recognize some county
staff who have some incredible
tenure. 85 different county
employees hitting over 25 years
of service, 2
of our employees hitting 40
years of service,
and one an incredible 45 years
of service
to this great county. So
excited to, to go
over and be able to recognize
these fine employees. So, thank
you very much, Madam Chair, and
appreciate the opportunity.
>> Thank you very much. This
meeting stands adjourned. Our
next regularly scheduled Board
of Supervisors meeting will be
here at 10 AM on September 1st.
Thank you very much.