[0:01] >> Good morning. I'd like to
[0:02] call this meeting
[0:03] to order and thank you all
[0:04] for joining us. I'd also like
[0:05] to announce at the top
[0:07] of the meeting that since we
[0:08] have such a large amount
[0:09] of speakers for item number
[0:10] 76, that the limited time
[0:12] minute per speaker,
[0:14] both remote and in person,
[0:15] will be 2 minutes. And that
[0:17] will be true for any agenda
[0:18] item where we have speakers,
[0:20] more than 10 signed up. This
[0:22] morning, our invocation and
[0:23] pledge will be led by the 4th
[0:25] District.
[0:26] >> Thank you, Madam Chair, and
[0:27] good morning. I'd like
[0:29] to introduce Father David
[0:30] Tadros, who has served as
[0:32] priest at St. Mina Coptic
[0:34] Egyptian Orthodox Church in
[0:35] Colton for the last past 6
[0:37] months. He served
[0:39] for the last 5 years as an
[0:41] enterprise program analyst
[0:42] for the San Bernardino County
[0:43] Innovation and Technology
[0:45] Department. You may remember
[0:46] him as Sammy Tadros. His name
[0:48] was changed to Father David
[0:49] Tadros after the ordination.
[0:51] In February 2026, he was called
[0:53] by the St. Mina Coptic
[0:55] Egyptian Orthodox Church in
[0:57] Colton to the priesthood,
[0:58] a calling that he has received
[1:00] with gratitude, humility,
[1:02] and a deep sense
[1:03] of responsibility before God
[1:04] and the Church. The ministry
[1:06] has allowed Father Tadros
[1:07] to provide pastoral care
[1:09] for approximately 2,500 Church
[1:11] members. He serves alongside
[1:12] 137 priests through 50 Coptic
[1:14] Orthodox churches
[1:16] across the diocese. He is
[1:18] married to Mary Elias, who
[1:20] works as an engineer for San
[1:22] Bernardino County Public
[1:23] Works, and has 2 children, Joy
[1:24] and Joshua. His family is an
[1:25] essential part
[1:27] to both his life and ministry.
[1:28] In addition to the ministry,
[1:29] Father Tadros's personal
[1:31] interests include serving the
[1:32] community, traveling, cooking,
[1:33] and programming. And we had a
[1:35] great time with him working
[1:36] on my office software. Thank
[1:37] you for being here. Please lead
[1:38] us in prayer and pledge.
[1:46] >> Good morning. I would like
[1:48] to thank Supervisor Curt
[1:49] Hagman and the County of San
[1:50] Bernardino for the privilege of
[1:52] leading today's invocation and
[1:53] the Pledge of Allegiance.
[1:55] Before my ordination
[1:57] to the priesthood,
[1:58] I had the honor to serve the
[1:59] community as an employee of
[2:01] San Bernardino. It's an honor
[2:03] to be here with you today.
[2:04] On your behalf,
[2:06] I offer this invocation. As we
[2:08] begin, we invite the presence
[2:09] of our Lord and Savior Jesus
[2:11] Christ, to be with us, as our
[2:13] Lord said in Matthew 18:20, For
[2:18] where two or three are gathered
[2:20] together in my name,
[2:21] I am there in the midst
[2:23] of them." And Psalm 53:12
[2:26] declares, "Blessed is the nation
[2:30] whose God is the Lord, the
[2:32] people he has chosen as his own
[2:34] inheritance." We are reminded
[2:37] of words inscribed
[2:39] in this chamber, In God We
[2:42] Trust. May the trust guide the
[2:43] port, grant them,
[2:47] grant each supervisor wisdom,
[2:49] and help all who serve our
[2:50] county to lead
[2:52] with integrity, justice,
[2:54] and compassion. I invite you to
[2:56] bow your heads and let us pray.
[2:58] In the name of the Father, and
[3:00] the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
[3:01] one God. Amen. Oh Master Lord,
[3:04] God the Almighty, the Father
[3:06] of our Lord God and Savior
[3:07] Jesus Christ, we thank you
[3:09] for everything,
[3:11] concerning everything and
[3:12] in everything,
[3:13] for you have covered us,
[3:15] helped us, guarded us,
[3:16] accepted us to yourself,
[3:17] spared us, supported us
[3:19] to yourself, and brought us
[3:21] to this hour. We thank you for
[3:22] the opportunity and the sacred
[3:25] responsibility to serve our
[3:26] brothers and sisters and our
[3:28] beloved country. We recognize
[3:30] and acknowledge that the
[3:32] existing authorities are
[3:33] appointed by you. Prepare every
[3:36] heart, align every mind,
[3:39] and let your Holy Spirit guide
[3:40] them
[3:41] into clarity and understanding.
[3:43] We lift up the Board of
[3:44] Supervisors and all who serve
[3:46] San Bernardino County and every
[3:47] leader in this place. Empower
[3:50] them with wisdom, discernment,
[3:51] and integrity. Let justice be
[3:53] their standard. Truth be their
[3:57] foundation and service be their
[3:59] motive,
[4:00] so their decisions are rooted
[4:01] in justice and their words
[4:03] filled with kindness. Grant
[4:05] them, Lord, the humility to
[4:07] listen deeply and the strength
[4:08] to act boldly. Today, Lord, we
[4:12] ask you to replace tension
[4:13] with peace, division
[4:15] with unity, and uncertainty
[4:17] with clear purpose and wise
[4:19] direction. Let San Bernardino
[4:20] County flourish spiritually,
[4:22] economically, and socially,
[4:25] so that every family, every
[4:26] business, and every community
[4:27] may know well-being and
[4:29] opportunity. May the decisions
[4:31] made here today uplift the
[4:32] people,
[4:34] strengthen our communities.
[4:35] Bless everyone who works for
[4:36] San Bernardino County and
[4:38] everyone who works each day
[4:40] to keep our community safe,
[4:41] healthy, and strong. Oh
[4:44] Master, we especially pray
[4:45] for our families, our children,
[4:47] our elderly,
[4:48] and everyone who is going
[4:51] through a difficult time.
[4:52] Protect them, provide
[4:53] for them, and help us
[4:55] to always be willing
[4:57] to help those in need. As
[4:58] Jesus taught us in Matthew
[5:00] chapter 6 to pray, saying, our
[5:02] Father, who art in heaven,
[5:03] hallowed be thy name. Thy
[5:05] kingdom come, thy will be done
[5:06] on earth as it is in heaven.
[5:08] Give us this day our daily
[5:10] bread, and forgive us our
[5:11] trespasses,
[5:12] as we forgive those who
[5:13] trespass against us. And lead
[5:15] us not into temptation
[5:16] but deliver us
[5:17] from the evil one.
[5:18] For thine is the power, the
[5:19] glory, forever. Amen. Now, if
[5:23] you would please face the flag
[5:25] and let us pledge allegiance
[5:27] together. I pledge allegiance
[5:29] to the flag of the United
[5:31] States of America and the
[5:33] Republic for which it stands,
[5:35] one nation under God,
[5:37] indivisible,
[5:38] with liberty and justice for
[5:40] all. Thank you very much.
[5:45] >> We will now move on to our
[5:46] memorial adjournments. Vice
[5:48] Chair Baca? Supervisor Cook?
[5:53] Supervisor Armendarez?
[5:56] >> I do have one I would like
[5:57] to speak of. It is
[5:59] with great sorrow for me that
[6:02] on August 5th, Terry
[6:03] Kalinski.
[6:05] >> Supervisor, I need
[6:06] to ask you to pause
[6:08] for a moment. I'd like
[6:10] to announce, attention members
[6:11] of the board, the public,
[6:12] we are experiencing a
[6:13] disruption in remote
[6:14] participation services.
[6:15] Proceedings will pause
[6:16] for a few minutes until we can
[6:18] see if they can be restored.
[6:19] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.
[6:22] >> And as a reminder
[6:23] to those here in chambers,
[6:24] this is under the new state law
[6:26] that requires us
[6:27] to do this.
[6:28] [RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]
[9:55] >> Madam Chair, just as a quick
[9:56] update, we're still working
[9:57] on it. So, I just wanted to,
[9:59] to give an update
[10:00] on that.
[10:02] >> And for those of you, new
[10:03] to this law, it will be up to
[10:05] 1 hour that we have
[10:06] to continue trying to
[10:08] reestablish the connection.
[10:10] >> Yes, thank you.
[10:17] [RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]
[11:22] >> Madam Chair, I'm going
[11:23] to perform a mic test just to
[11:24] make sure that we have audio.
[11:26] So, this is part of the
[11:27] reestablishing communications,
[11:29] so we're,
[11:30] we're testing that right now.
[11:31] So this is a test
[11:32] to see if there is audio.
[11:34] Test, test.
[11:56] Testing to see if there is
[12:00] audio. And for clarification,
[12:02] it's on the phone connection. We
[12:03] have the stream
[12:04] to the public. The video stream
[12:06] is working. This is on the
[12:07] phone stream or the phone
[12:09] connection.
[12:16] [RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]
[14:13] >> Testing 1, 2. This is
[14:16] testing the Call
[14:19] for public input.
[14:23] 1, 2.
[15:02] [RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]
[15:09] >> Testing.
[15:11] >> This is testing public
[15:12] input. One, two, three, four.
[15:15] This is testing. One, two,
[15:18] three, four.
[15:27] [RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]
[15:53] >> I apologize
[15:54] for the inconvenience. Thank
[15:55] you for your patience.
[15:56] [RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]
[18:34] >> This is a public input test
[18:35] message to verify
[18:37] your connection.
[18:40] [RE-ESTABLISHING CONNECTION]
[19:16] >> This is a test, test, test
[19:18] to see if we can hear.
[19:19] Okay.
[19:21] Madam Chair, it appears that
[19:22] we have restored the audio
[19:23] connection.
[19:25] >> All right. Remote
[19:26] participation services are
[19:27] restored. I will now reconvene
[19:28] the meeting. Supervisor
[19:29] Armendarez, memorial
[19:31] adjournments.
[19:33] >> Thank you. Let's see if it
[19:34] shuts off one more time. What I
[19:36] was speaking
[19:37] to earlier was the passing away
[19:38] of Terry Kalinski, who on
[19:39] August 5th, left to be
[19:42] with our Lord. Terry was a
[19:44] great man. Those who know me
[19:47] and know my story know that he
[19:48] was the person who gave me my
[19:50] first chance in life
[19:52] to be successful,
[19:54] starting as a pressure washer
[19:56] to a journeyman diesel
[19:57] mechanic, heavy equipment
[19:59] operator. I owe all of that
[20:00] to Terry Kalinski, who saw a
[20:02] 16-year-old kid and gave him a
[20:03] chance. He didn't have a story
[20:05] far off from mine. He, he
[20:07] started his own company at 16
[20:09] years old by borrowing $500
[20:11] to buy his first truck,
[20:13] and then in 1977 bought
[20:14] Dalton Trucking in the city
[20:16] of Fontana. where it started
[20:18] with 4 trucks and grew that
[20:20] business to one of the largest
[20:22] heavy hauling companies
[20:25] of trucking in Southern
[20:27] California. He was also a huge
[20:30] advocate for truck preservation
[20:33] and helped establish the
[20:35] Southern California chapter
[20:36] for American Truck History
[20:37] Society in 1982 and later was
[20:40] the national president. Terry
[20:43] held a really deep part
[20:45] in my heart because he,
[20:46] he was that guy who gave me a
[20:47] chance, and sorry
[20:48] to see him go
[20:50] in his later years. His legacy
[20:51] will continue with his sons
[20:53] Matt and Josh, who are deeply
[20:55] involved
[20:56] in the truck community also.
[20:57] And just wanted to adjourn
[20:59] in memory of Terry Kalinski.
[21:01] Thank you.
[21:02] >> Thank you, Supervisor
[21:03] Hagman. This morning, I would
[21:05] like to adjourn
[21:06] in memory. Adjourn in memory.
[21:15] >> Oh, I'll just add to, Terry
[21:16] also served for many years as a
[21:18] workforce developer
[21:19] on our workforce development
[21:20] for San Bernardino County.
[21:22] That's all.
[21:23] >> Thank you. This morning,
[21:24] I would like to adjourn
[21:25] in memory of Jackie, one
[21:26] of the famous Big Bear bald
[21:27] eagles. Jackie and her mate
[21:28] Shadow became local icons and
[21:29] touched the heart of millions
[21:31] of people around the world
[21:32] through the Eagle Cam. The
[21:33] Big Bear Valley will not be the
[21:35] same without her. We sadly have
[21:37] lost several county employees.
[21:41] I am very disheartened
[21:42] to hear that 3 county employees
[21:44] have passed away in July, so I
[21:46] would like to adjourn
[21:47] in their memories this morning.
[21:49] Casey Maldonado was a,
[21:51] served as a social worker
[21:52] with the Department of
[21:53] Children and Family Services
[21:54] for over 2 years. She was a
[21:55] passionate advocate and made a
[21:56] lasting impact on children,
[21:58] families, and the communities
[22:00] that she served. Our hearts go
[22:01] out to her family.
[22:03] Additionally, Angel Romero
[22:04] spent 20 years
[22:06] with the county. He worked
[22:07] across various departments
[22:08] including the Sheriff's
[22:09] Department, Facilities
[22:10] Management, Arrowhead
[22:11] Regional Medical Center. Angel
[22:12] is remembered for his strong
[22:14] work ethic and his dedication
[22:15] to his role. We extend our
[22:17] condolences to his family,
[22:18] friends, and co-workers. And
[22:20] Deputy Adam Saragih, who served
[22:24] the San Bernardino County
[22:25] Sheriff's Department for 6
[22:26] years. He began his career in
[22:28] Barstow and later transferred
[22:30] to the Fontana Station. Adam
[22:31] was actively preparing to
[22:33] become a detective specializing
[22:34] in crimes against children. He
[22:36] is remembered
[22:37] for his kindness, compassion,
[22:38] and dedication to service. We
[22:39] keep his family and thoughts
[22:41] in our prayers at this time.
[22:43] And we do not have any special
[22:45] presentations this morning,
[22:46] so we will move on
[22:47] to our reports from County
[22:48] Counsel, Laura?
[22:50] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I
[22:51] have 3 items to report on. The
[22:53] board considered or met
[22:54] in closed session
[22:55] for item number 1 and
[22:56] considered item 2
[22:58] under that agenda,
[22:59] which is the matter of Jason
[23:00] Faghi versus Mohit Kumar
[23:02] Sadiv, and voted 5-0
[23:04] to authorize the filing
[23:05] of a cross complaint against
[23:06] Insomniac Holdings LLC
[23:09] for indemnity
[23:10] under an encroachment permit.
[23:12] The board also considered item
[23:13] number six, the matter of
[23:15] Martha Bjulna versus County
[23:17] of San Bernardino and voted 5-0
[23:19] to ratify the filing
[23:21] of a cross complaint
[23:22] against SEA Financial LLC.
[23:26] And Bellasia Corporation
[23:28] for indemnity under lease and
[23:30] service contract terms. The
[23:33] board also considered item
[23:34] number 7 and voted 5-0
[23:37] to file an action against
[23:38] defendants that will be
[23:40] disclosed upon request
[23:41] after the action is filed.
[23:42] That is all of my report.
[23:44] >> Thank you very much. That
[23:45] brings us to our individual
[23:46] board member comments. Vice
[23:47] Chair Baca.
[23:48] >> Yeah, thank you, Madam
[23:49] Chair. First event I want
[23:50] to highlight was our National
[23:51] Night Out we had at
[23:52] Bloomington. I want
[23:53] to thank our Sheriff's
[23:54] Department
[23:55] for participating and the
[23:56] Probation Department and all
[23:57] our county departments that
[23:58] supported and want
[23:59] to thank the community
[24:00] for coming out. And one of the
[24:01] things we had the opportunity
[24:02] to celebrate was our $936,000
[24:04] investment in Ayala Park,
[24:06] adding new swings and 8 shaded
[24:08] covers. The community was very,
[24:10] very appreciative. So, I want
[24:11] to thank you all
[24:12] for joining us. Also, we had
[24:13] our Monterey Elementary
[24:14] back-to-school celebration,
[24:16] which is
[24:17] in our unincorporated area of
[24:18] Little Third. At that time,
[24:19] we provided 400 backpacks
[24:20] for many,
[24:21] many community students
[24:23] at the school. I want to thank
[24:25] the departments that helped us.
[24:26] One, want to thank the San
[24:28] Bernardino City Unified
[24:29] School District, Bank of
[24:30] America, ARMC Children's
[24:31] Fund, Molina Healthcare,
[24:33] Child Care Resource Center, and
[24:34] Public Health, and all the
[24:36] county departments that came
[24:37] out there. It was just a great
[24:38] event, and it's great to see
[24:39] those students receive
[24:40] backpacks, spirit shirts,
[24:42] socks, and school supplies.
[24:44] Also recently, last week,
[24:45] we just had our Little Third
[24:46] Street ribbon cutting,
[24:47] which was an improvement
[24:49] in the Little Third community,
[24:50] which is unincorporated area
[24:51] across the street from the
[24:52] Sheriff's Department. There was
[24:53] road improvements, ADA ramps,
[24:55] also fencing put up
[24:56] near the flood channel. It
[24:58] really revitalized that
[24:59] community. It was a $4 million
[25:00] investment, and Congressman
[25:02] Aguilar was present. He
[25:04] invested $2.5 million. So, I
[25:06] want to thank him
[25:07] for his support and want
[25:08] to thank our Public Works staff
[25:09] for being able to execute this
[25:10] one. I know this one was a long
[25:11] time and a lot of work,
[25:13] and it took just a little
[25:14] over 4 and a half years
[25:15] to get done. So, I want
[25:16] to thank Public Works
[25:17] for executing this project.
[25:18] Also
[25:19] at our preschool services,
[25:22] the Mill Street Development
[25:23] Center, we added STEM and
[25:25] playground improvements. What
[25:27] this will do is have new
[25:28] science features,
[25:29] interactive stations designed
[25:30] to encourage curiosity and
[25:32] learning. Also, the playground
[25:34] upgrades that have a painted
[25:35] bike path, enhanced privacy
[25:37] fencing, turf, port and play,
[25:39] safety surfacing. I want to
[25:40] thank the preschool department
[25:42] for those investments
[25:43] in the early education of all
[25:44] of our students in,
[25:45] in the entire county. Also,
[25:47] this weekend,
[25:49] we have the dump day at
[25:50] Arrowhead Farms community
[25:52] at the Our Lady of Assumption
[25:54] in the unincorporated area of
[25:55] Arrowhead Farms. Encourage
[25:57] those that live
[25:58] in that community to come
[25:59] out and take advantage
[26:00] of the services. Also, on one
[26:02] of the committees I serve
[26:03] on is the Inland Valley
[26:04] Development Agency. We approved
[26:06] a project on Tippecanoe 3rd and
[26:09] Alabama
[26:10] for some median landscaping
[26:11] to try to enhance the area
[26:12] near the airport.
[26:14] to make it more attractive
[26:15] for those that are interested
[26:16] in travel throughout the San
[26:17] Bernardino International
[26:18] Airport. And the last thing,
[26:19] just want
[26:20] to highlight some items that
[26:21] are on the agenda. Item 6 is
[26:24] modernized nutrition services
[26:25] for older adults
[26:26] to increase meals in the San
[26:28] Bernardino community. Item 21
[26:31] is $11 million commitment
[26:33] from the County of San
[26:35] Bernardino for commitment of a
[26:36] homeless outreach prevention
[26:38] education campus. Here in the
[26:40] City of San Bernardino. And the
[26:41] hopes is that we can mirror
[26:42] what they did on the West End
[26:44] with the West End Navigation
[26:45] and try
[26:46] to encourage other city
[26:48] partners to participate
[26:49] in this. Also, Item 29, I want
[26:52] to thank the Preschool
[26:53] Services Department
[26:54] in combination with our
[26:55] Community Action Partnership
[26:57] to provide diapers for many,
[26:59] many kids that are underserved
[27:00] families. And Item 34, we're
[27:03] looking at continued progress
[27:04] at the animal shelter,
[27:06] adding a phase 2, which phase
[27:07] 1 is under construction,
[27:09] which will be done this spring,
[27:10] but also looking at a phase 2
[27:12] that will allow us the
[27:13] opportunity to have some
[27:14] of our cities become partners
[27:16] with us at the county. And the
[27:18] last one, just want
[27:19] to highlight, is item 62,
[27:21] continued progress on Fire
[27:22] Station 227, which is located
[27:24] here in the City of San
[27:25] Bernardino. This is a great
[27:27] investment. It's
[27:28] under construction now,
[27:29] but this is to continue
[27:30] to keep it moving. Thank you,
[27:31] Madam Chair.
[27:33] >> Thank you very much.
[27:34] Supervisor Cook? Supervisor
[27:35] Armendarez?
[27:37] >> Thank you. A couple things I
[27:39] want to highlight August 20th,
[27:42] which is this Thursday, we will
[27:43] be having our next open house
[27:45] at our district office. We'll
[27:46] have a bunch
[27:48] of county departments there.
[27:54] We're going to have some
[27:56] of our, we'll have face
[27:57] painting, we'll have hot dogs
[27:58] for people to eat. It'll be an
[28:00] opportunity for people
[28:02] to see what the county does.
[28:03] So, feel free to come out.
[28:04] It'll be August 20th from 5 to
[28:06] at my district office
[28:08] on the corner of Arrow and
[28:09] Haven in Rancho Cucamonga.
[28:11] Also, we will be having our
[28:13] first annual Family Fun Day
[28:15] on August 29th in cooperation
[28:17] with our regional parks, where
[28:19] we will be hosting an event
[28:20] from 10 to 2 PM. We're going
[28:23] to have a bunch
[28:24] of games and just bring people
[28:25] out to just fellowship together
[28:27] and have fun. Also just give a
[28:29] couple of things that we
[28:31] highlighted that we've done
[28:32] recently. We actually went out
[28:35] to Brightline in Florida and
[28:36] took a tour of the actual
[28:37] high-speed train and what
[28:39] they're doing and seeing how
[28:40] the components of everything
[28:41] in their work. Also was able
[28:42] to sit down with some of the
[28:44] administrators there and go
[28:46] over what the financing
[28:47] of that train looks
[28:48] like and how far we are
[28:50] from getting it. But it looks
[28:51] like it's definitely
[28:52] within opportunity for us
[28:54] to obtain to have that
[28:55] high-speed rail come to us.
[28:58] The bad part is if,
[28:59] if we can't make it happen
[29:00] here, we're probably another
[29:01] 20 years away from actually
[29:02] making it ever happen. So, we
[29:05] got to do everything we can to
[29:06] make sure that that actually
[29:07] moves forward. We also did our
[29:09] scoops with the supervisor
[29:10] at the Jesse Turner Center
[29:11] in the city of Fontana. We also
[29:13] participated in a bunch of
[29:15] National Nights Out, and we
[29:17] attended the incredible edibles
[29:19] event. I want to highlight just
[29:22] one item. I believe it's item
[29:23] 26, and the Friends of the
[29:26] Library, we're accepting a gift
[29:29] of $125,000 from them. Just
[29:31] want to say thank you to the
[29:32] Friends of the Library. That's
[29:34] it.
[29:35] >> Thank you.
[29:36] Supervisor Hagman.
[29:37] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.
[29:38] Just a couple
[29:39] of agenda items. Item number
[29:40] 53 is approving the Prado
[29:41] Regional Park Master Plan, and
[29:43] I just want to congratulate
[29:45] Leotta and the whole team
[29:46] for all the work they've done
[29:47] in the last couple years. They
[29:48] finished the Prado new entry.
[29:50] The playground, which is
[29:51] fantastic, has a splash pad as
[29:53] well. RV and tent restrooms
[29:55] have been refurbished,
[29:57] the snack bar and boat docks
[29:58] are complete, and the big thing
[30:00] was the grass is staying green.
[30:02] So, thank you
[30:03] for all the hard work by,
[30:04] by the Parks Department and
[30:06] Real Estate Services and
[30:07] everybody working on that.
[30:09] Prado Sports Courts is
[30:10] with the Army Corps of
[30:11] Engineers for review. And item
[30:13] number 63 allows military
[30:15] service members transition
[30:16] to civilian life
[30:18] to apprentice and intern
[30:19] with the county fire
[30:20] to gain valuable job skills.
[30:22] From SCAG, SCAG has this last
[30:24] mile freight program rebate is
[30:26] accepting applications. This
[30:29] program supports conversion
[30:31] of last mile freight vehicles
[30:32] to battery electric models.
[30:35] And lastly, to, to also honor
[30:38] Jackie, the Ontario Tower
[30:40] Buzzards, we partner with
[30:42] Friends of Big Bear Valley
[30:44] for Fly High Jackie Night. On
[30:45] Sunday, August 23rd, at
[30:47] Ontario Field. The evening will
[30:48] honor the life and legacy of
[30:50] Jackie and the beloved Big
[30:51] Bear bald eagle, with 50%
[30:53] of the proceeds going toward
[30:54] Friends of Big Bear Valley.
[30:56] So, tickets are available
[30:57] online. Thank you.
[30:58] >> Thank you very much. This
[30:59] morning, I would like
[31:00] to highlight item number 58
[31:02] on our consent calendar. It is
[31:03] an item that will award
[31:05] construction contract
[31:06] in the amount of $3 million
[31:07] to make improvements to the
[31:08] Sunburst Park, which is our
[31:09] community park in Joshua
[31:11] Tree. The project is fully
[31:12] funded by the Clean
[31:13] California Local Grant Program
[31:14] and will include,
[31:15] include improvements
[31:16] like new playgrounds,
[31:17] accessible walkways, enhanced
[31:18] lighting, landscaping,
[31:20] and outdoor fitness zones. And
[31:22] I would also like to mention
[31:24] that we have a job and resource
[31:26] fair coming to Big Bear Lake
[31:27] on Thursday, August 27th,
[31:29] from 10 in the morning until 1
[31:30] in the afternoon,
[31:31] and that will take place at
[31:32] Hofert Hall located at 39707
[31:34] Big Bear Boulevard. We're
[31:36] hosting this free event
[31:38] in partnership with the
[31:39] County Workforce Development
[31:40] Department
[31:41] to bring together employers
[31:42] from a variety of industries,
[31:44] In addition
[31:45] to employment opportunities,
[31:46] representatives from the
[31:47] Public Defender's Office, the
[31:48] Assessor-Recorder-Clerk's
[31:49] Office, and the Department of
[31:50] Veterans Affairs will also be
[31:52] available
[31:53] to assist residents. You can
[31:54] register at this event
[31:56] on eventbrite.com. And Linda,
[31:58] Linda, do we have any revisions
[32:00] to today's agenda?
[32:01] >> Good morning, Madam Chair.
[32:03] No, no revisions today. Thank
[32:04] you.
[32:05] >> Very good. If we have any
[32:06] board members wishing
[32:07] to disclose a conflict
[32:08] of interest on any items
[32:09] on today's agenda,
[32:10] now would be the time
[32:11] to do so. All right, seeing
[32:14] none, we'll move on
[32:15] to our consent calendar,
[32:17] which today consists
[32:18] of items number 2 through 74.
[32:20] Do I have any members wishing
[32:21] to pull an item?
[32:24] >> Yes, yes, Chair, I'd like
[32:25] to pull item number 5.
[32:27] >> All right, thank you. And I
[32:29] have one request to speak.
[32:30] We'll take that before I do
[32:31] board member comments on any
[32:32] items. I have a remote
[32:34] participation by Michelle
[32:35] Tracy.
[32:49] >> Good morning, Supervisors.
[32:50] My name is Michelle Tracy, and
[32:52] I'm speaking today as a
[32:54] concerned member of our high
[32:55] desert community. I'm asking
[32:57] that you guys take a serious
[32:58] look
[32:59] at traffic safety and speeding
[33:00] in the Victor Valley,
[33:01] particularly along Ridgecrest
[33:02] Road and Apple Valley Road.
[33:04] with Yakima Road corridor. On
[33:07] August 14th, 2026, our
[33:10] community lost 2 teenage best
[33:11] friends, 17-year-old
[33:13] Madeline, Madeline Daly and
[33:16] 16-year-old Isabel Delaine at
[33:18] Ridgecrest Road and Elmwood
[33:20] Drive. Authorities report that
[33:21] 2 vehicles were traveling
[33:22] at high speed and rate on
[33:23] Ridgecrest
[33:24] before that collision. These
[33:26] girls had just started their
[33:27] senior year, and they should
[33:28] have been talking and thinking
[33:30] about graduations. college
[33:32] careers,
[33:33] and everything that was
[33:34] supposed to come next. This is
[33:35] especially concerning that this
[33:38] is not the first fatal accident
[33:41] on Ridgecrest and Elmwood. A
[33:42] 60-year-old woman was killed
[33:44] at the same intersection on
[33:45] November 2025.
[33:47] >> Ma'am, I hate
[33:48] to interrupt you,
[33:50] but I have you signed up
[33:51] to speak
[33:52] on agenda item number 2, and
[33:53] your topic sounds more like
[33:54] on items not
[33:55] on today's agenda.
[34:01] >> There's no spot for anyone
[34:03] to speak about, just speak
[34:04] out publicly.
[34:05] >> There is, and you are signed
[34:07] up to do that later
[34:08] in our meeting.
[34:10] >> Okay, so that's going
[34:11] to be later?
[34:12] >> If you, if you would like
[34:13] to continue on,
[34:14] and then I can remove you
[34:15] from that list later.
[34:19] >> Okay, please.
[34:20] >> Thank you. Please continue.
[34:24] >> This was not the first fatal
[34:25] accident at Ridgecrest and
[34:27] Elmwood. A 67-year-old woman
[34:28] was killed
[34:29] at the same intersection on
[34:30] November 2025. The residents
[34:33] were already publicly raising
[34:34] concerns
[34:35] about speeding and asking for
[34:37] additional traffic controls.
[34:40] The other intersection that
[34:41] concerns me is the one on
[34:44] Apple Valley Road and
[34:45] Yucca Loma Road. On July 29th,
[34:46] 2026, 39-year-old mother
[34:49] Theodora Wilson and her
[34:51] children, 7-year-old Rose
[34:53] Venezuela and 6-year-old
[34:56] Felix Venezuela, were killed.
[34:57] Their father and their
[34:58] 16-year-old sister suffered
[35:00] major injuries. And that was
[35:01] not the first fatality
[35:03] at the intersection this year.
[35:05] On February 7th, 2026,
[35:06] 6-year-old Marvin White was
[35:10] killed at Apple Valley Road and
[35:11] Yucca Loma Road. What I'm asking
[35:13] you guys to do is take a look
[35:15] at the Victor Valley,
[35:16] at these intersections. And see
[35:18] what we can do about them. How
[35:20] many families have
[35:22] to lose somebody before we
[35:23] decide that something needs
[35:24] to change? Our children are
[35:25] learning to drive
[35:26] on these roads every year.
[35:27] Another group of teenagers gets
[35:28] their permits and driver's
[35:30] licenses. They are sharing the
[35:32] roads where excessive speeds
[35:33] can turn one mistake into a
[35:34] fatal collision. I'm asking
[35:36] that the county representatives
[35:39] work with Victorville, Apple
[35:41] Valley, CHT,
[35:42] and the appropriate agencies
[35:43] to conduct urgent safety
[35:45] reviews of these corridors. We
[35:47] understand that the government
[35:48] cannot prevent every accident,
[35:51] but when the same roads and
[35:52] even these same intersections
[35:53] repeatedly appear in fatal and
[35:54] serious collisions.
[35:55] >> 30 seconds.
[35:56] >> We have a responsibility to
[35:58] ask whether we could do more.
[36:01] I'm asking that you guys can
[36:05] tell me what we do to have these
[36:08] places considered and not just
[36:11] passed off to the next person.
[36:14] Whether it's just speed bumps or
[36:17] anything to help these areas
[36:19] to prevent more fatalities.
[36:23] >> Thank you very much
[36:24] for your comment.
[36:25] >> Thank you.
[36:27] >> We will now move on
[36:28] to any board member comments
[36:29] on consent. Right, I'd like
[36:32] to speak on number 21. As we
[36:34] consider this item today,
[36:35] I don't want to pull it. I just
[36:37] have a comment to make. I'd
[36:38] like to express several
[36:39] concerns that I currently have
[36:40] about moving forward
[36:41] with this project. While the
[36:42] proposed $11 million investment
[36:43] would help advance the SB
[36:45] Hope Campus, I believe that we
[36:47] must proceed with caution
[36:49] on that. My priority,
[36:51] whether this project or any
[36:52] other, is to ensure that any
[36:53] investment is made both
[36:55] sustainable and effective. I
[36:57] would like to urge the county
[36:58] staff and our city partners
[37:00] to move carefully and
[37:01] diligently
[37:02] in recognizing that the success
[37:03] of this project depends on a
[37:05] strong ongoing coordination,
[37:08] not only with the City of San
[37:09] Bernardino, but also
[37:10] with our other cities who may
[37:12] be involved. It is critical
[37:13] that everybody remains closely
[37:14] aligned throughout this process
[37:16] to maximize the impact
[37:17] of our investment and to avoid
[37:19] unintended consequences.
[37:21] With this level
[37:22] of investment,
[37:23] I expect our partnership to
[37:24] deliver a robust coordination,
[37:25] long-term sustainability,
[37:26] and measurable outcomes. Our
[37:28] team must work together to
[37:29] ensure that the campus site is
[37:30] safe, well-managed,
[37:32] and focused
[37:33] on meaningful results
[37:34] from the outset. Ultimately, I
[37:35] believe this project can only
[37:37] succeed if everybody involved
[37:38] is committed
[37:40] to careful planning,
[37:41] transparency,
[37:42] and collaboration.
[37:43] By prioritizing these values,
[37:44] we can help build a facility
[37:45] that not only addresses
[37:46] immediate needs but also
[37:48] supports lasting progress for
[37:49] individuals and the broader
[37:50] community. I want to stress
[37:51] that the county's support
[37:52] of this project is contingent
[37:54] on seeing a clear path forward
[37:56] towards sustainability and
[37:57] effectiveness and knowing that
[37:59] the city and other partners are
[38:00] equally invested
[38:01] in these goals. Thank you. I
[38:04] will entertain a motion. I have
[38:06] a motion by Vice Chair,
[38:08] seconded by Supervisor
[38:09] Hagman. All those
[38:10] in favor?
[38:11] Aye.
[38:12] Any opposed? Any
[38:13] abstentions?
[38:14] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.
[38:15] With that, the consent calendar
[38:16] passes unanimously
[38:17] with number 5 being deferred.
[38:18] >> Thank you very much. We now
[38:19] move on to our deferred item.
[38:21] Item number 5 is this morning
[38:22] by our Department of Adults and
[38:24] Aging Services. Would you
[38:25] like a presentation,
[38:26] Supervisor?
[38:27] >> No, actually, I would, here
[38:29] would be my first ask. I'd ask
[38:31] if we could table the item to
[38:32] the next agendized meeting so I
[38:33] could actually sit
[38:34] with staff and work
[38:36] out the issue that I have
[38:37] with it. Or we can just go
[38:38] on record with my issues.
[38:40] >> If you want to do that,
[38:41] you'd need
[38:42] to make a motion.
[38:43] >> I'd like to make a motion
[38:44] that we table the item
[38:45] to the next meeting,
[38:46] so I have time to work
[38:47] on the issues that I have with
[38:48] the staff directly.
[38:49] >> I'll second that.
[38:51] >> Yes.
[38:52] >> Any public comment
[38:53] on this item?
[38:54] >> No, ma'am.
[38:55] >> All right.
[38:56] >> Seeing none,
[38:57] I have a motion and a second.
[38:58] All those in favor?
[38:59] >> Aye.
[39:00] >> Any opposed? Any
[39:01] abstentions?
[39:02] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.
[39:03] With that, number 5 is
[39:04] continued to September 1st.
[39:05] >> Thank you very much. And
[39:06] with that, we will move on to
[39:07] our discussion calendar today.
[39:08] Our first item is item number
[39:09] 75, which is a public hearing
[39:11] and bond issuance approval
[39:13] of the California Municipal
[39:15] Finance Authority and
[39:17] tax-exempt financing being
[39:19] presented by Robert Saldana.
[39:21] We'll open the public hearing
[39:23] and welcome your presentation.
[39:29] >> Thank you and good morning,
[39:30] Chair Rowe and members
[39:31] of the board. Robert Saldana,
[39:32] Deputy Executive
[39:34] Officer, County Finance. The
[39:35] purpose of this hearing is to
[39:37] grant the public an opportunity
[39:38] to comment
[39:39] on the proposed issuance
[39:40] of tax-exempt financing in a
[39:42] maximum principal amount not
[39:43] to exceed $31,440,000. The
[39:47] proceeds of these bonds issued
[39:49] through the California
[39:50] Municipal Finance Authority
[39:51] will be loaned to Augusta
[39:52] Communities, a nonprofit
[39:53] organization, and used to
[39:54] finance the acquisition and
[39:55] improvement of 3 mobile home
[39:57] parks located within San
[39:58] Bernardino County.
[40:00] Specifically in the cities of
[40:01] Victorville, Rialto, and
[40:02] Yucaipa. This hearing is
[40:04] required pursuant
[40:05] to the requirements of Section
[40:07] 147 of the Internal Revenue
[40:08] Code of 1986, as amended,
[40:10] and the Tax Equity and Fiscal
[40:12] Responsibility Act of 1982,
[40:14] commonly referred to as TEFRA.
[40:15] Under TEFRA law,
[40:17] a public hearing is
[40:18] to be conducted by a
[40:19] governmental entity that has
[40:20] jurisdiction over the area
[40:21] where the projects are located.
[40:23] In this case,
[40:24] as the projects span multiple
[40:25] cities, Augusta Communities
[40:27] approached the county
[40:28] to host a hearing covering all
[40:29] 3 projects. Please note there
[40:36] is no county financial
[40:38] obligation or liability arising
[40:39] from any bond issuance
[40:40] associated with this action.
[40:42] Additionally, as this action
[40:44] and all underlying details are
[40:45] the responsibility of Augusta
[40:46] Communities and CFMA,
[40:48] representatives are here to
[40:49] discuss should there be any
[40:51] questions. This concludes my
[40:52] presentation, Chair.
[40:53] >> Thank you very much. I do
[40:54] have one request to speak
[40:55] on this by Denise June
[40:57] Shearer.
[41:03] >> Madam Chair, the caller is
[41:04] not connected.
[41:06] >> Do we have connection?
[41:08] >> Yes, we do.
[41:09] >> Okay, she has dropped.
[41:12] >> She did. She registered.
[41:13] >> She signed up
[41:14] but didn't call in.
[41:15] >> Okay, very well. All right,
[41:17] are there any other requests
[41:18] to speak that I don't see?
[41:20] >> No, ma'am.
[41:21] >> Seeing none,
[41:23] I will entertain any questions
[41:25] from board members. I'm going
[41:26] to close the public hearing and
[41:27] entertain a motion. Thank you,
[41:29] Supervisor Hagman,
[41:30] for the motion and Vice Chair
[41:31] for the second. All those
[41:32] in favor?
[41:33] Aye.
[41:34] Any opposed? Any
[41:35] abstentions?
[41:36] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.
[41:37] With that, Item 75 passes
[41:38] unanimously.
[41:39] >> Very well. Item number 76 is
[41:41] our Surface Mining and
[41:42] Reclamation Ordinance being
[41:43] presented this morning by
[41:45] Paul Gonzalez. And as a
[41:46] reminder, as I announced
[41:47] at the top of the meeting,
[41:48] because we have so many
[41:49] speakers signed up
[41:50] on this item,
[41:51] public comment will be limited
[41:52] to 2 minutes. 2 minutes
[41:53] for each speaker,
[41:54] both remote and in person. I
[41:55] will open the public hearing.
[41:57] Good morning, gentlemen.
[42:03] >> Good morning, Chair Rowe and
[42:05] County Supervisors. I'm Paul
[42:06] Gonzalez, planning chief.
[42:08] Before you this morning is a
[42:09] proposed update to the county's
[42:11] mining regulation,
[42:13] regulation ordinance. The
[42:15] mining ordinance was last
[42:16] updated in 2007. The update
[42:19] ordinance provides greater
[42:20] clarity and accountability
[42:21] for both mine operators and the
[42:23] County of San Bernardino while
[42:25] bringing the local ordinance up
[42:27] to the current Surface Mining
[42:30] and Reclamation Act, also known
[42:31] as SMARA. The ordinance
[42:34] strengthens requirements for
[42:36] financial assurance and
[42:37] reclamation cost estimates,
[42:39] establishes clear
[42:40] responsibilities and
[42:41] procedures, and expands
[42:42] on enforcement tools for the
[42:43] County of San Bernardino.
[42:46] With that said, I'd like
[42:47] to introduce Chief Geologist
[42:49] Dan Walsh, who will provide you
[42:50] a presentation.
[42:53] >> Morning, Chair Rowe,
[42:54] Supervisors. As Paul mentioned,
[42:56] I'm Dan Walsh. I'm the Chief
[42:57] Engineering Geologist. I lead
[42:59] the Mining and Geology
[43:00] Division under Land Use
[43:02] Services, and this morning I'll
[43:03] be presenting a proposal
[43:06] to amend Title 8 of the
[43:07] Development Code related to the
[43:09] Surface Mining and Reclamation
[43:10] Ordinance.
[43:17] The amendment would repeal and
[43:18] reenact Chapter 88.03 of the
[43:21] Development Code to ensure our
[43:23] local regulations remain
[43:25] in compliance
[43:26] with the changes made
[43:27] to state law, specifically the
[43:28] statutes and regulations
[43:30] defined in the Surface Mining
[43:31] and Reclamation Act, or SMARA.
[43:34] Changes include content updates
[43:35] to align with SMARA,
[43:37] through removal
[43:38] of outdated sections, addition
[43:39] of new sections, and revisions
[43:41] of existing sections. SMARA is
[43:48] a statewide law enacted in
[43:49] 1975 to regulate surface mining
[43:52] and ensure that mined lands are
[43:53] properly reclaimed to a safe,
[43:55] stable, and usable condition
[43:57] while minimizing environmental
[43:59] impacts. It also requires lead
[44:01] agencies to adopt and implement
[44:02] compliant local ordinances
[44:04] governing mining permits,
[44:06] reclamation plans, and
[44:08] financial assurances. SMARA has
[44:10] been revised multiple times
[44:12] since 1975,
[44:14] with substantive revisions in
[44:16] 2017. The State Mining and
[44:19] Geology Board oversees and
[44:20] certifies the local ordinances.
[44:26] The county surface mining
[44:27] ordinance was adopted in 1999
[44:29] and certified by the State
[44:30] Mining and Geology Board on
[44:31] November 10th, 1999. The
[44:34] surface mining ordinance has
[44:35] not been significantly revised
[44:37] since the ordinance was
[44:38] originally adopted and is not
[44:40] up to date. As lead agency
[44:41] for permitting and regulation
[44:43] of surface mining and
[44:45] reclamation operations within
[44:46] the unincorporated county, the
[44:48] county regulates these
[44:49] operations in accordance
[44:50] with SMARA. This development
[44:52] code amendment would bring the
[44:54] county code back
[44:55] into alignment with current
[44:57] statutes and regulations
[44:58] provided in SMARA. There are
[45:00] over 85 surface mines currently
[45:01] in operation in the county.
[45:08] This ordinance update
[45:09] represents a comprehensive
[45:10] modernization of Chapter
[45:11] 88.03. It expands procedures,
[45:14] strengthens enforcement, and
[45:16] aligns the county's regulations
[45:17] with current state
[45:19] requirements. Overall, it
[45:20] updates the framework by adding
[45:21] new sections and replacing
[45:23] outdated provisions.
[45:28] To clarify, this ordinance
[45:29] update does not place new
[45:31] limits on the county's lead
[45:32] agency authority under SMARA,
[45:34] nor does it relax current
[45:35] required standards
[45:37] under state law. Furthermore,
[45:38] this amendment does not reduce
[45:40] the county's ability to enforce
[45:42] violations or maintain adequate
[45:43] financial assurances
[45:45] for reclamation, but rather it
[45:46] codifies the more structured
[45:48] processes currently being used
[45:50] by county staff. Several core
[45:57] sections have been
[45:58] significantly revised to
[46:00] provide clearer procedures and
[46:01] stronger oversight. The vested
[46:03] rights section now includes a
[46:05] detailed determination process
[46:07] which includes application
[46:09] requirements, evidentiary
[46:10] standards, and formal hearing
[46:11] and board decision processes.
[46:13] Application review has also
[46:15] been expanded to include
[46:17] specific submittal requirements
[46:19] defined timelines,
[46:20] and formal coordination
[46:21] with the State Division of
[46:22] Mine Reclamation.
[46:24] In addition, financial
[46:25] assurance requirements now
[46:26] include more rigorous cost
[46:28] estimate methodologies,
[46:29] contingency calculations,
[46:31] and provisions
[46:32] for release or forfeiture.
[46:34] Finally, enforcement has been
[46:36] transformed into a
[46:37] comprehensive framework that
[46:39] includes notices
[46:40] of violation, orders
[46:41] to comply, administrative
[46:43] penalties, appeals,
[46:45] and remedies for public health
[46:46] and safety concerns. The
[46:52] purpose of the ordinance has
[46:53] been broadened to reflect
[46:54] current statewide priorities,
[46:56] including supporting
[46:57] infrastructure needs and
[46:58] reducing transportation-related
[47:00] emissions
[47:02] from aggregate hauling. The
[47:04] ordinance also strengthens
[47:06] mineral resource protection
[47:07] by expanding policies related
[47:08] to mineral resource zones and
[47:10] incorporating updated mapping
[47:11] requirements. These policies
[47:13] are more directly integrated
[47:15] with the county's general plan
[47:17] to ensure long-term resource
[47:19] availability is considered
[47:20] in land use decisions.
[47:22] Overall, this shifts the
[47:23] ordinance
[47:24] from primarily regulatory to
[47:25] more policy-driven and
[47:26] forward-looking. A key update
[47:32] is the automatic incorporation
[47:34] of future amendments
[47:35] to SMARA, which ensures the
[47:36] county's ordinance remains
[47:37] current without needing
[47:38] frequent local updates. The
[47:40] ordinance also strengthens
[47:41] coordination
[47:42] with state agencies,
[47:43] including the Division of
[47:44] Mine Reclamation and the
[47:46] State Mining and Geology
[47:47] Board, particularly during
[47:48] application review and annual
[47:50] reporting. Reclamation
[47:52] standards have been updated to
[47:54] reflect current state
[47:55] regulations,
[47:56] including clear requirements
[47:57] for phased reclamation and
[47:58] reclamation success criteria.
[48:01] These changes ensure consistent
[48:02] implementation of state law
[48:04] at the local level. This update
[48:09] provides important
[48:10] clarifications to improve
[48:12] day-to-day administration
[48:13] of the ordinance.
[48:14] Applicability has been expanded
[48:16] to address federal lands and
[48:17] situations involving multiple
[48:18] agencies, reducing
[48:20] jurisdictional ambiguity.
[48:22] For example, Section 88.03.040
[48:27] Subsection B was added
[48:28] to codify the collaboration
[48:30] between the county and federal
[48:31] agencies. to provide joint
[48:33] environmental review
[48:34] over proposed mine operations
[48:36] on federal lands. This section
[48:39] references the 1992 Memorandum
[48:41] of Understanding between the
[48:43] state and federal agencies that
[48:45] confirms existing permitting
[48:46] and reclamation authority while
[48:48] affording both NEPA and CEQA
[48:50] environmental review for the
[48:51] entire proposed mining
[48:53] operation. While the federal
[48:54] agency has always had permit
[48:56] approval authority, The county
[48:58] will continue
[48:59] to provide CEQA review for the
[49:01] entire project and has approval
[49:02] authority
[49:03] over the reclamation plan. The
[49:05] permitting, reclamation plan,
[49:07] and vested rights approval
[49:08] framework has been expanded to
[49:09] better explain how these
[49:11] components interact. The
[49:12] application procedures now
[49:14] include more detailed submittal
[49:15] requirements, timelines,
[49:17] written responses
[49:18] to state comments,
[49:19] and recordation requirements.
[49:21] In addition, interim management
[49:22] plan requirements for idle
[49:24] mines have been further
[49:25] detailed. Including renewal
[49:27] timelines and standards
[49:28] for determining abandonment.
[49:35] Some outdated sections have
[49:36] been reorganized or replaced
[49:37] to reflect the new structure.
[49:39] For example, the prior
[49:40] application and violation
[49:42] sections have been replaced
[49:43] with more comprehensive updated
[49:45] frameworks. These changes
[49:46] reduce redundancy,
[49:48] improve overall organization,
[49:49] and make the ordinance more
[49:51] user-friendly
[49:52] for both staff and applicants.
[49:57] The amendment has been found
[49:58] to be consistent with the
[49:59] countywide policy plan as it
[50:01] meets various goals and
[50:02] policies designed to ensure the
[50:04] continued availability of
[50:05] important mineral resources
[50:07] while regulating surface mining
[50:08] operations as required
[50:09] by SMARA. The proposed
[50:15] amendment was determined
[50:17] by the county to be exempt
[50:18] under CEQA pursuant to Section
[50:20] 15061 subsection B3 of Title 14
[50:23] of the California Code of
[50:24] Regulations because the
[50:26] ordinance is limited
[50:27] to an administrative update of
[50:28] an existing surface mining and
[50:30] land reclamation ordinance and
[50:31] will not directly or indirectly
[50:33] authorize activity that may
[50:35] have a significant effect
[50:36] on the environment.
[50:42] In accordance
[50:43] with county code, notices
[50:44] of the Planning Commission and
[50:46] Board of Supervisors public
[50:47] hearings were published
[50:48] in the San Bernardino Sun
[50:49] newspaper. Which reaches a
[50:50] countywide audience.
[50:52] Publication dates were June
[50:54] 29th and August 7th, 2026,
[50:56] respectively. As a courtesy,
[50:58] the draft ordinance was made
[50:59] available to the public online
[51:01] from the Land Use Services
[51:02] website. 98 written comments
[51:05] were received prior to the
[51:06] Planning Commission hearing,
[51:07] and another 8 comments were
[51:09] received prior to the Board
[51:10] of Supervisors meeting. 33
[51:12] people spoke in opposition
[51:14] to the ordinance update
[51:15] at the Planning Commission
[51:16] hearing. The public comments
[51:18] expressed concern regarding
[51:19] review required for projects
[51:21] on federal lands, what projects
[51:23] would be considered
[51:24] non-substantial deviations
[51:25] which would not require public
[51:26] notification, why the ordinance
[51:28] update was exempt from CEQA,
[51:31] and expressed concerns related
[51:32] to pending mining projects
[51:34] which are not associated
[51:35] with this ordinance update.
[51:41] That concludes my presentation.
[51:43] And I'm available
[51:44] for any questions you may have.
[51:46] >> Thank you very much. We're
[51:47] going to move to our remote
[51:48] speakers first and then
[51:50] speakers in chambers,
[51:51] and then we'll go to board
[51:52] member comments and questions.
[51:57] Our first request to speak
[51:58] remotely that we have is
[52:00] Aaron Gatlin, followed by
[52:02] Bonnie Hawthorne, and then
[52:03] Jared Nijmark.
[52:09] >> Good morning. My name is
[52:10] Erin Gatlin. I'm a resident
[52:11] of Yucca Valley. I'm here
[52:12] to express my opposition
[52:14] to agenda item 76, project
[52:17] number EMISIC 20260029. The
[52:22] proposed rewrite of the chapter
[52:26] as described most recently
[52:28] by your, by the county staff is
[52:35] significantly different than I
[52:36] think most of us read the
[52:39] proposed changes. And we have a
[52:44] lot of concerns about them
[52:45] because they were written
[52:48] with industry
[52:49] without public input. And when
[52:51] public input was asked for,
[52:54] they were dismissed as saying
[52:56] we just didn't understand what
[52:57] was going on. The issue is we
[52:59] do understand,
[53:01] we understand the implications
[53:02] of the changes. The county's
[53:03] been trying
[53:04] to downplay as simply coming
[53:05] into compliance
[53:07] with state standards. If the
[53:08] modifications are approved, it
[53:10] means that just as federal
[53:11] agencies are making
[53:12] unprecedented changes to the
[53:14] National Environmental Policy
[53:15] Act review process to review,
[53:20] to narrow the review and shut
[53:21] out public comment.
[53:22] The county is proposing
[53:24] to walk away from their local
[53:25] permitting responsibilities.
[53:28] And then you have the proposed
[53:30] Music Valley Mine, which is
[53:32] actually related to the matter
[53:36] before you because it's an
[53:38] example of case study of
[53:40] potentially the county walking.
[53:41] >> 30 seconds.
[53:42] >> Away from its
[53:43] responsibility. I urge the
[53:45] county to vote no on the
[53:47] proposed chapter revisions, and
[53:49] at the very least remove text
[53:51] from lines 19 to 21 and lines
[53:55] 24 through 26. Thank you.
[53:57] >> Thank you very much, Bonnie
[53:58] Hawthorne, and then Jared
[53:59] Nymark and Liz Stevens.
[54:07] >> Good morning. My name is
[54:08] Bonnie Hawthorne. I'm a
[54:09] resident of Joshua Tree, and
[54:12] I'm calling in
[54:13] to oppose project listed
[54:17] in item number 76. I urge you
[54:19] to vote no and to encourage
[54:21] your fellow board members
[54:23] to do the same. This proposed
[54:25] rewrite of Chapter 88.03 would
[54:30] surrender a critical piece of
[54:32] San Bernardino County's local
[54:34] oversight of surface mining
[54:35] on federal land.
[54:37] Under the new Section
[54:38] 88.03.040B a mining operation
[54:44] with federal authorization
[54:46] could proceed
[54:47] without a county permit. This
[54:50] is a bigger deal than is being
[54:51] acknowledged. A county permit
[54:53] provides an opportunity
[54:54] for local review, public
[54:56] scrutiny, and environmental
[54:57] protections that our
[54:59] communities should not have to
[55:00] surrender simply because a
[55:02] federal agency has approved a
[55:03] project. The county should not
[55:05] be handing
[55:06] over its responsibility to
[55:07] protect the people and
[55:09] landscape of San Bernardino
[55:10] County. An open, open-pit
[55:13] mining operation is
[55:15] fundamentally inconsistent with
[55:17] our status as a national park
[55:19] gateway community. A
[55:21] designation whose beauty and
[55:23] significance I know you, Dawn
[55:24] Rowe, personally appreciate.
[55:27] I'm assuming you've been
[55:29] to the sad little town of
[55:30] Boron in Kern County. The mine
[55:33] there, with its giant Star
[55:35] Wars trucks and constant sounds
[55:38] of excavation, make a.
[55:39] >> 30 seconds.
[55:41] >> Nearly, what's that? I
[55:44] didn't hear what you said.
[55:45] >> 30 seconds left.
[55:47] >> Okay. All I have to say is
[55:50] the only time you don't have an
[55:52] open pit mine is
[55:54] before you approve one.
[55:56] >> Thank you.
[55:57] >> Thank you. Jared Nymark,
[55:59] followed by Liz Stevens, and
[56:00] then Lisa Belenky.
[56:21] >> Good morning, Chair, Vice
[56:22] Chair, and board. My name is
[56:24] Jared Naimark. I'm the Western
[56:25] Mining Senior Manager at
[56:27] Earthworks, a national
[56:28] nonprofit organization
[56:30] dedicated to protecting
[56:31] communities and the environment
[56:35] from the adverse impacts
[56:36] of mining, including here in
[56:37] the county. I'm commenting
[56:38] today to respectfully request
[56:39] that you deny the proposed
[56:41] mining ordinance update. until
[56:42] reasonable revisions are made
[56:43] to clarify the language. As we
[56:46] wrote in our comment letter,
[56:47] we continue to have serious
[56:48] concerns that the section
[56:51] regarding applicability on
[56:52] federal lands is problematic
[56:54] and will lead to confusion
[56:55] for applicants, agencies,
[56:56] and the public. In response
[56:58] to our comments, staff suggests
[56:59] that the ordinance
[57:00] distinguishes between a permit
[57:02] for land use entitlement and
[57:04] reclamation plan approval,
[57:05] but this is not at all clear
[57:06] from plain understanding
[57:08] of the text. Because permit can
[57:10] mean any approval
[57:11] by a lead agency,
[57:12] this could be interpreted
[57:13] by applicants to mean federal
[57:15] approval is all that they need
[57:17] to move forward. It would be
[57:18] extremely easy
[57:20] to fix this language
[57:21] for clarity
[57:23] for all stakeholders. This
[57:24] section is also problematic
[57:26] because it relies
[57:27] on an outdated MOU between
[57:28] California and the federal
[57:30] government. Staff suggests that
[57:32] this simply allows the county
[57:33] flexibility
[57:34] to avoid duplicating work
[57:35] on environmental review. But
[57:37] because NEPA and CEQA are so
[57:38] different due
[57:39] to recent changes made
[57:40] to NEPA, it means that federal
[57:41] documents are highly unlikely
[57:43] to fulfill CEQA requirements,
[57:45] and the public will have no way
[57:47] to understand the basis
[57:48] on which, on which the county
[57:50] made that decision. So again,
[57:52] we urge some simple fixes.
[57:53] >> 30 seconds.
[57:54] >> For more clarity
[57:55] for all stakeholders.
[57:56] I would also like to add
[57:57] for the record that this
[57:59] section on applicability is
[58:01] neither included in the State
[58:02] Mining and Geology Board's
[58:04] model language for its mining
[58:05] ordinance update, nor
[58:06] in the language adopted
[58:07] by the 2 counties that have
[58:09] already updated their
[58:10] ordinance. It's not necessary,
[58:12] and it's not part of the
[58:13] standard updates that other
[58:14] counties have adopted.
[58:16] Without revision, this draft
[58:17] risks allowing bad actors to
[58:19] avoid sensible environmental
[58:20] regulations that responsible
[58:22] operators.
[58:23] >> That's time.
[58:24] >> To comply with.
[58:25] >> Thank you. Liz Stevens,
[58:27] followed by Lisa Belenky, and
[58:29] then R. Eichhorn.
[58:33] >> Hi, thank you, Madam
[58:34] Chair, and thanks for working
[58:36] out the technical difficulties
[58:37] to have us. It's inspiring
[58:38] to hear
[58:39] about the county and how,
[58:41] be reminded how large it is,
[58:42] but I think we're all here
[58:43] to show you some close-up views
[58:45] of 29. My comments are a lot
[58:47] less technical than the others,
[58:49] but Bonnie's point about Boron
[58:51] is very well taken. Even
[58:53] without conservation value
[58:55] around this, space this in 29.
[59:01] We're in a kind
[59:02] of an economic renaissance
[59:03] of businesses and home values,
[59:05] and the mine,
[59:07] surface mine would be the view
[59:08] from the east entrance
[59:10] to the park. And I don't think
[59:11] we're aiming for Boron. We have
[59:12] a lot of stakeholders that are
[59:14] business owners, real estate
[59:16] agents, and hundreds
[59:17] of people showing up
[59:18] to local meetings to speak to
[59:21] the very inspiring direction
[59:23] that 29 is already headed.
[59:25] Rather than doubling down
[59:27] on industry. So not a
[59:29] conservation issue only,
[59:30] which is vitally important,
[59:32] but really about 29 and about
[59:34] Wonder Valley as spaces and
[59:35] towns and inappropriate places
[59:37] to introduce the mines,
[59:39] as it also affects our water
[59:41] and watershed, which we haven't
[59:42] really touched on. And that's
[59:46] all I'd like to contribute.
[59:47] Thank you so much
[59:48] for voting no
[59:49] on the language change. Thank
[59:50] you.
[59:52] >> Thank you very much. Lisa
[59:53] Belenky, followed by R.
[59:54] Eichhorn, and then Nicholas
[59:56] Graber.
[1:00:02] >> Oh, good morning. This
[1:00:03] is Lisa Belenky with the
[1:00:05] Center for Biological
[1:00:06] Diversity.
[1:00:07] I'm going to focus my
[1:00:08] comments on one aspect of the
[1:00:10] August 16th letter that we,
[1:00:14] August 6th letter that we
[1:00:17] submitted to the Board of
[1:00:19] Supervisors, and that is the
[1:00:20] implementation
[1:00:22] of the exemption under
[1:00:23] California Public Resources
[1:00:25] Code 2714D by the county.
[1:00:28] For many years,
[1:00:30] we have raised this issue with
[1:00:31] the county that the county has
[1:00:34] been not focusing
[1:00:36] on the actual language of the
[1:00:38] Public Resources Code
[1:00:39] but appears to be focusing
[1:00:41] on language that may be
[1:00:42] in the MOU from 1992 and is not
[1:00:45] really complying
[1:00:47] with the substance
[1:00:49] of this exemption.
[1:00:50] In one example,
[1:00:52] for a project called the Gold
[1:00:53] Discovery Group, which
[1:00:55] disturbed over 10 acres
[1:00:58] of land within the county and
[1:00:59] 15 acres overall. There was no
[1:01:02] SMARA compliance by the county
[1:01:04] for this project. And the
[1:01:06] statement that was made by this
[1:01:08] project itself is that they
[1:01:10] were told
[1:01:11] by the county they didn't need
[1:01:13] to comply because each separate
[1:01:15] piece
[1:01:16] of their project was less than
[1:01:17] 1 acre. That is the wrong
[1:01:19] interpretation
[1:01:21] of the statute clearly. It is
[1:01:23] not the interpretation that the
[1:01:25] courts have upheld, and it is
[1:01:26] not,
[1:01:28] it is not the plain language
[1:01:29] of the statute. We're very
[1:01:31] concerned that this update.
[1:01:33] >> 30 seconds.
[1:01:34] >> Regulations is not
[1:01:36] addressing this issue. The
[1:01:38] county should amend the
[1:01:40] proposed ordinance
[1:01:41] to clarify this exemption, that
[1:01:43] it will only be applied where
[1:01:45] the total disturbed acres are
[1:01:47] less than 1 acre, and that it
[1:01:50] will, the county will rely
[1:01:51] on the Public Resources Code
[1:01:54] and not the MOU for this kind
[1:01:56] of compliance. Thank you so
[1:01:57] much for your time.
[1:01:59] >> Thank you very much. R.
[1:02:01] Eichorn, followed by Nicholas
[1:02:02] Garver, and then we're going
[1:02:04] to bring it back here
[1:02:05] in chambers, and we're going
[1:02:07] to start with Jay Gammell.
[1:02:14] >> Hi, this is Rachel. I'm a
[1:02:16] resident of 29 Palms,
[1:02:17] and I actually have an art
[1:02:18] studio, I guess,
[1:02:19] where this mine is going
[1:02:20] to be going, which is great
[1:02:21] for me. I'm coming at less
[1:02:24] of a technical, I do want you
[1:02:25] to vote no, more
[1:02:26] from a just sort
[1:02:27] of a technical experience
[1:02:28] of working in construction. I'm
[1:02:30] an architectural lighting
[1:02:31] designer. I work
[1:02:32] on large projects,
[1:02:33] large commercial projects. And
[1:02:34] whenever I hear language where
[1:02:36] we're going to remove permits
[1:02:38] or remove reviews,
[1:02:39] I always get a pit in my
[1:02:43] stomach because I know things
[1:02:44] are about to go south. Those
[1:02:46] permits and those, those
[1:02:47] purposes,
[1:02:48] those processes were set up
[1:02:50] for a reason. And I've just
[1:02:53] constantly, my job every day,
[1:02:55] I have to deal with contractors
[1:02:56] not doing it correctly,
[1:02:58] not going to code because, and
[1:02:59] for reasons, usually
[1:03:00] to save money,
[1:03:02] or they just didn't want
[1:03:03] to deal with it. And those
[1:03:04] things are there
[1:03:05] to protect us. So, when,
[1:03:07] so that's why I would like you
[1:03:08] to vote no, anytime where
[1:03:09] they're removing permit
[1:03:10] processes. Any controls that we
[1:03:12] have, the local community is,
[1:03:13] it's just,
[1:03:17] I live this every day. It's
[1:03:18] just dumb. Don't do it.
[1:03:20] Vote no.
[1:03:21] Thank you.
[1:03:22] >> Thank you very much.
[1:03:23] Nicholas Garver, followed by
[1:03:24] Jay Gammell, and then
[1:03:26] Kimberly Sizics.
[1:03:33] >> Hi, this is Nicholas
[1:03:34] Graver. I'm speaking to
[1:03:36] wholeheartedly oppose the
[1:03:37] adoption of this ordinance.
[1:03:39] County and Planning Commission
[1:03:41] staff acknowledged at the
[1:03:42] planning meeting that this was
[1:03:43] our,
[1:03:44] that was our first opportunity
[1:03:45] to comment after years
[1:03:46] of them supposedly working
[1:03:47] on this regulation, I guess
[1:03:49] in secret. The county staff
[1:03:51] scoffed at the idea of further
[1:03:53] public comment because in their
[1:03:54] view the community has nothing
[1:03:55] of value to contribute because
[1:03:57] of our lack of expertise. They
[1:03:58] consulted with the mining
[1:03:59] industry professionals because
[1:04:01] they, quote unquote,
[1:04:03] understand mining regulations,
[1:04:04] but refused to consult
[1:04:05] with the public
[1:04:06] since apparently, we do not.
[1:04:07] Allow me to present myself as
[1:04:08] an alternative. I'm a
[1:04:10] professional biologist with 10
[1:04:11] years
[1:04:12] of experience living and
[1:04:13] working in San Bernardino
[1:04:14] County. I've worked
[1:04:15] on NEPA and CEQA projects,
[1:04:16] and I worked and consulted on
[1:04:17] state and federal endangered
[1:04:18] species protections. I worked
[1:04:19] on mine reclamation,
[1:04:21] particularly for the species
[1:04:23] in our county that matter most
[1:04:24] to us, like the desert tortoise
[1:04:25] and the Joshua tree. The staff
[1:04:29] characterized this as a joint
[1:04:30] environmental review conducted
[1:04:31] by,
[1:04:32] under NEPA and CEQA covered
[1:04:34] by the county. That's not a
[1:04:35] fair characterization
[1:04:36] of what's written in the
[1:04:38] regulations. I've read them. I
[1:04:40] don't know why they would
[1:04:42] characterize that in that way.
[1:04:43] But just wanted
[1:04:46] to call attention to the idea
[1:04:47] that when you institute a
[1:04:49] blanket regulation that a
[1:04:50] certain type of activity does
[1:04:51] not require a permit
[1:04:52] from the county,
[1:04:54] you're ceding all control
[1:04:55] to the offenders themselves to
[1:04:56] decide whether their activity
[1:04:58] applies or doesn't apply to the
[1:05:00] way that regulation is written.
[1:05:01] So they get to decide,
[1:05:02] not the county. We don't get
[1:05:03] to decide.
[1:05:04] >> 30 seconds.
[1:05:05] >> Whether we can require a
[1:05:07] permit or not for those kinds
[1:05:09] of things. And more
[1:05:10] fundamentally, there is no such
[1:05:11] thing as a mining project that
[1:05:12] takes place only
[1:05:13] on federal land
[1:05:14] in our county. No such thing.
[1:05:15] This is because those mine
[1:05:16] materials must be loaded onto
[1:05:17] trucks that pass through our
[1:05:19] residential communities,
[1:05:20] because the dust and emissions
[1:05:21] from those mines will be
[1:05:22] breathed by our children,
[1:05:23] because I live close enough
[1:05:24] to the proposed Music Valley
[1:05:25] mine that I know I will hear
[1:05:26] the sounds of mining
[1:05:27] from my house. We are a
[1:05:30] community that needs, all
[1:05:32] of our communities across San
[1:05:33] Bernardino County need the.
[1:05:34] >> That's time.
[1:05:35] >> The ability to have input
[1:05:36] on these regulations.
[1:05:37] >> Thank you very much. Jay
[1:05:39] Gamble, followed by Kimberly
[1:05:41] Zeisig, followed by Margaret
[1:05:44] Oystendorp.
[1:05:50] >> Good morning. My name is
[1:05:51] Jay Gamble. I'm from
[1:05:52] Wrightwood in the 1st
[1:05:53] District. I'm asking you
[1:05:54] to continue item 76. The
[1:05:57] ordinance does strengthen
[1:05:58] enforcement and inspections,
[1:06:00] but 3 areas still need work.
[1:06:02] Vested rights decisions would
[1:06:03] be final within the county with
[1:06:04] no administrative appeal or
[1:06:06] CEQA review. The reclamation
[1:06:08] plan process has 2 disclosure
[1:06:10] gaps. The director could
[1:06:12] approve some plan changes
[1:06:13] without public notice,
[1:06:15] as people have mentioned,
[1:06:16] and staff reports wouldn't have
[1:06:18] to include the Division of
[1:06:19] Mine Reclamation's written
[1:06:20] comments. The ordinance also
[1:06:22] lacks a transition rule
[1:06:24] for pending applications. The
[1:06:25] proposed Lone Pine Canyon
[1:06:26] Quarry
[1:06:27] near my home is pending, but
[1:06:28] the ordinance doesn't say what
[1:06:29] chapter would govern it. And
[1:06:32] for that, the, the staff report
[1:06:34] says that DMR reviewed and
[1:06:35] accepted that plan,
[1:06:37] then describes a December 2025
[1:06:39] letter finding the submission
[1:06:41] incomplete without attaching
[1:06:42] their actual letter. DMR
[1:06:44] confirmed to me last week that
[1:06:46] their incomplete notice is the
[1:06:47] only written comment
[1:06:49] for that project.
[1:06:50] Commissioners and the public
[1:06:51] should see DMR's comments
[1:06:53] alongside the county's response
[1:06:54] before the county acts
[1:06:56] on a reclamation plan
[1:06:57] for any project. This is a
[1:06:58] chance to fix that. My written
[1:07:02] comments do go
[1:07:03] into more detail
[1:07:04] on these issues,
[1:07:05] but please consider this item,
[1:07:06] consider them. Continue item
[1:07:08] 76 so residents and community
[1:07:10] groups have more time to review
[1:07:11] the ordinance and suggest
[1:07:13] changes. Thank you.
[1:07:14] >> Thank you very much,
[1:07:15] Kimberly Zeisig, followed by
[1:07:17] Margaret Oystendorp and then
[1:07:18] Beth Sheffield.
[1:07:42] >> Kimberly Zeisig.
[1:07:47] >> All right, we'll move on
[1:07:49] to Margaret Oystendorp,
[1:07:51] followed by Beth Sheffield, and
[1:07:52] then Mark Houston.
[1:07:54] >> Thank you very much to the
[1:07:55] Board of Supervisors
[1:07:56] for hearing us. Those of us who
[1:07:59] have traveled round trip 200
[1:08:03] miles from Wonder Valley
[1:08:05] to speak to you
[1:08:06] in person today,
[1:08:07] that's the depth
[1:08:08] of our feeling
[1:08:09] about this change
[1:08:11] of authority and permitting
[1:08:13] from the county to the federal
[1:08:15] government. I'm speaking
[1:08:17] in opposition to this change.
[1:08:20] I'm not speaking as an expert
[1:08:22] in geology or anything else.
[1:08:25] I'm speaking as a human being
[1:08:27] who lives in Wonder Valley,
[1:08:29] who moved
[1:08:31] to this community because
[1:08:32] of health issues, because
[1:08:34] of issues with my lungs. The
[1:08:36] 2.5 particulate pollutants that
[1:08:40] has been proven to be part
[1:08:43] of what happens in a mining
[1:08:45] project will greatly impact
[1:08:48] people like me. Our community
[1:08:50] has had a long history going
[1:08:53] back to Dr. Lucky and the work
[1:08:55] that he did with veterans
[1:08:57] from World War I coming
[1:08:58] to the area for our health. We
[1:09:02] know that the county has put
[1:09:04] on record about its obligation
[1:09:07] to the health and well-being
[1:09:10] of your constituents
[1:09:11] like myself. To pass and
[1:09:14] approve this ordinance will
[1:09:16] basically give over and go
[1:09:19] against what you have put in
[1:09:20] writing as what you're
[1:09:22] concerned about
[1:09:25] with the health and well-being
[1:09:26] of the community.
[1:09:27] >> 30 seconds.
[1:09:28] >> I also want to say that it's
[1:09:30] been very difficult for those
[1:09:33] of us coming this distance
[1:09:36] to be here. We would like
[1:09:38] to request that White Feather
[1:09:40] Road be again open for us
[1:09:42] to be able to comment
[1:09:44] in person. And we would
[1:09:46] like you very much
[1:09:47] to consider that,
[1:09:49] and we urge you to vote no
[1:09:51] on this and
[1:09:52] to show us that you care
[1:09:54] about us as you did.
[1:09:56] >> That's time.
[1:09:57] >> Helping us under the hat.
[1:10:01] >> Thank you. Beth Sheffield,
[1:10:03] followed by Mark Houston, and
[1:10:04] then Chris Caraher.
[1:10:08] >> Caraher.
[1:10:09] >> Before the clock begins,
[1:10:11] Kimberly Zajac is here. She was
[1:10:12] in the restroom. Can she speak?
[1:10:14] >> Sure.
[1:10:18] >> Hello, Board of
[1:10:19] Supervisors. Thank you
[1:10:20] for the time and for the
[1:10:21] restroom exception. I wanted
[1:10:23] to speak here today
[1:10:24] to note that the Bureau of
[1:10:26] Land Management has already
[1:10:27] designated the land, which the
[1:10:29] case study that we're all
[1:10:30] referring to, as an area of
[1:10:32] critical environmental concern.
[1:10:34] As I hope everyone here knows,
[1:10:36] this is critical habitat for
[1:10:37] endangered desert tortoises.
[1:10:39] Critical tortoises are a
[1:10:42] keystone species, which, as a
[1:10:44] reminder, those are the
[1:10:45] organisms that help hold the
[1:10:47] entire system together. So,
[1:10:48] before we consider changing
[1:10:49] language that has been cited
[1:10:51] by people with more expertise
[1:10:53] than I as unclear and not
[1:10:55] providing for enough review,
[1:10:59] I would urge you
[1:11:00] to consider some
[1:11:01] of the past projects of
[1:11:02] Dateline, like the Coliseum
[1:11:04] Mine, which closed in 1993
[1:11:07] but still. Years later,
[1:11:09] there are sulfate levels
[1:11:10] above normal. So, we have both
[1:11:12] case studies of this specific
[1:11:13] company and an example
[1:11:15] of how this could be abused in
[1:11:17] ways that are incredibly
[1:11:21] detrimental to the economics
[1:11:22] of our region. I live in
[1:11:23] Twentynine Palms, and
[1:11:24] for the past 22 years I've been
[1:11:25] an educator. My programs have
[1:11:26] always been offered
[1:11:28] at free or low cost,
[1:11:29] and we value things
[1:11:31] like teaching the youth
[1:11:33] to learn about themselves,
[1:11:35] learn about their history,
[1:11:36] and become stewards of those
[1:11:38] things and the environment that
[1:11:39] sustain us. So, if I am
[1:11:41] to continue working in
[1:11:42] education and helping raise
[1:11:44] youth that value these things,
[1:11:46] how can I do so while watching
[1:11:49] us give up the control that we
[1:11:50] have of local matters
[1:11:52] with great impact
[1:11:54] to everyone? Especially
[1:11:55] in times of such division,
[1:11:57] I would urge you to consider
[1:11:58] your role as government
[1:12:00] stewards
[1:12:01] in repairing the relationship
[1:12:02] between constituents,
[1:12:03] repairing that trust
[1:12:04] with those who are tasked with
[1:12:07] making the most good happen.
[1:12:08] So, as you heard
[1:12:09] in the invocation today, the
[1:12:10] hope is that your decisions can
[1:12:12] do the most good possible
[1:12:14] for the entire community,
[1:12:16] and I urge you to vote no and
[1:12:17] to get more specific and more
[1:12:20] help from the constituents who
[1:12:21] wish.
[1:12:22] >> That's time.
[1:12:23] >> Thank you very much. Mark
[1:12:24] Houston, followed by Chris
[1:12:25] Caraher, and then Catherine
[1:12:27] Powell.
[1:12:29] >> Good morning. I'm Beth
[1:12:30] Sheffield, and I'm here today
[1:12:31] to speak in opposition
[1:12:32] to the proposed ordinance
[1:12:33] to repeal and reenact Chapter
[1:12:35] 88.03 of the County
[1:12:37] Development Code.
[1:12:38] Specifically, I oppose the
[1:12:40] addition of Section
[1:12:41] 88.03.040B, as in bad. 2 parts
[1:12:45] of this section are concerning.
[1:12:47] To quote, the county may accept
[1:12:50] documents and environmental
[1:12:52] studies prepared by federal
[1:12:54] agencies as functionally
[1:12:55] equivalent to meet the county's
[1:12:57] requirements, and a permit
[1:12:59] shall not be required
[1:13:01] for those portions of surface
[1:13:02] mining operations that require
[1:13:04] and obtain a federally approved
[1:13:06] Plan of operation,
[1:13:07] or other federal authorization.
[1:13:10] As I understand this, any
[1:13:11] proposed mining projects will
[1:13:13] be able to bypass California
[1:13:15] CEQA review as well as any
[1:13:17] currently required county
[1:13:19] permitting. If this added
[1:13:21] section is passed, the county
[1:13:23] will give up local stewardship
[1:13:24] of these public lands and allow
[1:13:26] some unknown desk jockey in
[1:13:28] Washington, D.C. to make
[1:13:29] decisions that affect the
[1:13:31] residents of San Bernardino
[1:13:32] County. In addition, the public
[1:13:34] will be completely left out
[1:13:36] of the process. There is,
[1:13:37] as there is no opportunity
[1:13:39] for public input. You, as our
[1:13:42] county Board of Supervisors,
[1:13:43] are entrusted
[1:13:44] to protect our community, our
[1:13:46] assets, our lands, and
[1:13:48] to protect the way of life
[1:13:49] of the residents who have
[1:13:50] chosen to live in this
[1:13:51] beautiful and peaceful rural
[1:13:53] areas.
[1:13:54] Under this new ordinance, the
[1:13:56] county will also have no
[1:13:58] upfront input. On reassurances
[1:13:59] such as a reclamation plan?
[1:14:01] >> 30 seconds.
[1:14:02] >> Is the county prepared
[1:14:03] to foot the costs of cleanup
[1:14:04] once the mining companies have
[1:14:06] extracted what they want
[1:14:07] from our public lands? Do you
[1:14:09] trust the folks in Washington
[1:14:10] to negotiate
[1:14:11] with the mining companies in
[1:14:12] your best interest as the
[1:14:14] county managers? Using Music
[1:14:16] Valley as an example,
[1:14:18] will the taxpayers be left
[1:14:19] with the bill
[1:14:20] to clean up their mess,
[1:14:21] including the unsightly piles
[1:14:22] of toxic tailings That will
[1:14:24] greet tourists who visit 29
[1:14:26] Palms and use the Joshua Tree
[1:14:27] East Entrance. Please protect
[1:14:29] our lands and our peaceful way
[1:14:30] of life.
[1:14:31] >> That's time.
[1:14:33] Thank you. Mark Houston,
[1:14:35] followed by Chris Caraher, and
[1:14:36] then Catherine Powell.
[1:14:45] >> Good morning. I am a 40-year
[1:14:46] resident of Wonder Valley and a
[1:14:50] retired National Park Service
[1:14:51] science tech. On the topic
[1:14:54] of the county's plans to
[1:14:55] discontinue planning and
[1:14:57] permitting of mines
[1:14:58] on federal lands,
[1:14:59] it is my belief that San
[1:15:01] Bernardino County is abdicating
[1:15:02] its responsibilities
[1:15:04] to the residents and taxpayers
[1:15:06] to do so. The Morongo Basin
[1:15:08] Conservation Association and
[1:15:10] the National Park Association
[1:15:12] have both, or will soon submit,
[1:15:15] written comments addressing
[1:15:18] this issue, and they speak for
[1:15:19] me as well. I encourage this
[1:15:22] august body to do better.
[1:15:24] >> Thank you.
[1:15:26] >> Thank you very much. Chris
[1:15:27] Caraher, followed by
[1:15:28] Catherine Powell, and then
[1:15:29] Adrian.
[1:15:31] >> Good morning. I'll try
[1:15:33] to hurtle through this because
[1:15:34] of the cut time. My name is
[1:15:35] Chris Caraher, and I have been
[1:15:37] a resident of Wonder Valley
[1:15:38] east of Twentynine Palms
[1:15:40] for more than 30 years. Folks
[1:15:42] who live in Wonder Valley are
[1:15:44] almost all within potential
[1:15:46] walking distance
[1:15:47] of mining claims. And most
[1:15:48] of us depend on wells,
[1:15:50] as there is no piped water in
[1:15:51] Wonder Valley. Ground
[1:15:53] disturbance and mine tailings
[1:15:54] leaching chemicals can
[1:15:56] potentially make our properties
[1:15:57] uninhabitable. Clearly, the
[1:15:59] proper permitting and oversight
[1:16:00] of mining and operations is
[1:16:02] of vital importance to us, and
[1:16:04] local desert communities need
[1:16:06] to be fully informed and able
[1:16:08] to participate
[1:16:09] in that process. That did not
[1:16:10] happen
[1:16:11] in this case. I will cut
[1:16:12] out why exactly, but we have,
[1:16:14] as we've learned of this,
[1:16:17] tried to understand a few basic
[1:16:20] questions, and been having a
[1:16:22] hard time getting a straight
[1:16:24] answer. Therefore, I ask that
[1:16:26] before you vote on this item,
[1:16:27] you provide straightforward
[1:16:29] answers, straightforward so
[1:16:31] that the good people of
[1:16:32] Wonder Valley can understand
[1:16:34] them,
[1:16:35] to the following questions.
[1:16:36] 1, if this ordinance passes,
[1:16:37] will any mining operation or
[1:16:39] portion of any operation that
[1:16:41] currently goes through county
[1:16:43] permitting CEQA review, public
[1:16:45] notice, public hearings, or
[1:16:47] county-imposed conditions no
[1:16:49] longer go
[1:16:50] through those processes because
[1:16:52] of the new federal land
[1:16:53] provision? Yes or no? Number
[1:16:56] 2, specifically, is there any
[1:16:59] county or public oversight that
[1:17:01] exists under the current
[1:17:02] ordinance.
[1:17:03] >> 30 seconds.
[1:17:04] >> That would no longer exist
[1:17:05] or would be diminished
[1:17:07] under the proposed ordinance?
[1:17:08] Yes or no? Number 3, if the
[1:17:09] answer to question number 2 is
[1:17:11] no, please explain to our
[1:17:13] residents why the new permit
[1:17:14] shall not be required language
[1:17:16] is being added. The current
[1:17:18] ordinance does not specifically
[1:17:19] state that a county permit
[1:17:21] shall not be required for
[1:17:23] federally authorized mining.
[1:17:25] If the county truly has never
[1:17:26] had permitting authority
[1:17:28] in these circumstances, why is
[1:17:29] this new exemption necessary? I
[1:17:31] urge you to deny the adoption
[1:17:33] of the measure
[1:17:34] before you.
[1:17:35] >> That's time. Thank you.
[1:17:40] Adrian.
[1:17:41] Oh, I'm sorry, Catherine
[1:17:43] Powell, followed by Adrian, and
[1:17:44] then Martin Oistendorp.
[1:17:47] >> Thank you. My name is
[1:17:48] Catherine Powell. I am a San
[1:17:49] Bernardino County resident and
[1:17:50] I vote. I am here
[1:17:52] to strongly urge the board
[1:17:53] to vote no
[1:17:54] on the proposed changes to the
[1:17:56] county mining ordinances,
[1:17:57] the repeal and reenactment of
[1:17:59] Chapter 88.03,
[1:18:01] in particular the subsection
[1:18:03] 040B. This section will make it
[1:18:06] possible to remove county
[1:18:07] processes that provide critical
[1:18:08] local oversight and input
[1:18:10] by allowing the county to
[1:18:11] accept federal environmental
[1:18:12] documents as functionally
[1:18:14] equivalent to its own,
[1:18:15] and that a county permit shall,
[1:18:17] quote, not be required for
[1:18:18] mining that already holds a
[1:18:20] federal plan of operation or
[1:18:22] other federal authorization.
[1:18:24] It does not matter that this
[1:18:25] language is, quote unquote,
[1:18:27] permissive and still allows the
[1:18:28] county to conduct studies. It
[1:18:30] removes the requirement that
[1:18:31] they do so. As someone who
[1:18:33] lives
[1:18:34] in an unincorporated rural area
[1:18:35] of the county facing a
[1:18:36] potentially devastating,
[1:18:37] devastating mine at Music
[1:18:39] Valley near Joshua Tree
[1:18:40] National Park, I want to be
[1:18:41] sure my community has a say
[1:18:42] in what happens where we live.
[1:18:45] Most critical is that the
[1:18:46] county should not accept
[1:18:48] federal agencies' environmental
[1:18:49] studies in place
[1:18:50] of its own review, given
[1:18:51] federal reviews have been
[1:18:52] profoundly weakened and no
[1:18:54] longer have the same
[1:18:55] protections as California's.
[1:18:57] The premise that NEPA, the
[1:18:58] federal, and the state CEQA
[1:19:00] environmental reviews are
[1:19:02] equivalent is outdated.
[1:19:03] Of note is that in 2026,
[1:19:04] federal rules changed,
[1:19:06] rule changes have stripped NEPA
[1:19:08] of public notice and comments.
[1:19:11] steps. 2 other provisions that
[1:19:12] are highly problematic in the
[1:19:14] ordinance are the vested rights
[1:19:17] determination.
[1:19:18] >> 30 seconds.
[1:19:19] >> Is not a project
[1:19:21] within the meaning of CEQA and
[1:19:23] would not have review, and that
[1:19:24] non-substantial deviations from
[1:19:26] approved mining plans can be
[1:19:28] approved with no public input
[1:19:29] through a staff review process.
[1:19:31] Lastly, I want to call out the
[1:19:32] way that these ordinance
[1:19:35] changes have been handled
[1:19:36] by the county,
[1:19:38] that it was drafted
[1:19:39] in collaboration with mining
[1:19:40] associations and no input from
[1:19:41] the public, environmental
[1:19:43] groups,
[1:19:44] or tribal governments. That the
[1:19:45] announcement
[1:19:46] for this meeting was
[1:19:47] in one paper
[1:19:48] for the largest county.
[1:19:50] >> That's time, Adrian, followed
[1:19:52] by Martin Oystendorp, followed
[1:19:54] by then Lori Portillo.
[1:19:57] >> Hi, board members. Thank you
[1:19:59] for hearing my opposition
[1:20:00] to this proposal. I'm a
[1:20:03] resident of Wonder Valley.
[1:20:05] Yeah, that Wonder Valley. I
[1:20:09] guess in Wonder Valley, we
[1:20:11] learned to read the wind. And
[1:20:15] the wind that this proposal is
[1:20:18] bringing is not a good one
[1:20:20] for us. The key problem
[1:20:23] with this proposal starts right
[1:20:25] at the beginning, 3 years ago,
[1:20:29] when the county first started
[1:20:30] conversations
[1:20:32] with mining companies. And
[1:20:33] associated companies and did
[1:20:35] not include residents,
[1:20:38] did not include the
[1:20:39] stakeholders, as they called
[1:20:41] the people that they were
[1:20:43] talking to stakeholders, but
[1:20:44] they did not include the
[1:20:46] public. They did not include
[1:20:48] the residents and your
[1:20:49] constituents. So that's the
[1:20:51] basic problem here,
[1:20:52] and everything else springs
[1:20:54] from that. The short,
[1:20:55] shortness of notice
[1:20:57] of meetings, 2 minutes to talk
[1:21:00] on a very complicated issue,
[1:21:02] actually. So, I vote,
[1:21:04] I ask you to vote no
[1:21:07] on this proposal. Bring it back
[1:21:09] to the table, have people talk
[1:21:10] about it, but this is,
[1:21:12] this is too short to agree
[1:21:15] with this proposal. So please
[1:21:17] vote no on this. Thank you.
[1:21:18] >> Thank you. Martin
[1:21:20] Oistendorp, followed by Lori
[1:21:22] Portillo, and then Pauline
[1:21:24] Pisano.
[1:21:33] >> Supervisors, good morning.
[1:21:34] My name is Martin Oistendorp.
[1:21:36] I'm also a resident of Wonder
[1:21:38] Valley. Supervisors, we all
[1:21:41] know that currently
[1:21:43] for mining projects
[1:21:45] over a certain magnitude, even
[1:21:47] on federal lands, that San
[1:21:50] Bernardino County's Land Use
[1:21:54] Services by state law and
[1:21:55] by precedent,
[1:21:57] is the permitting agency. That
[1:22:00] is the law
[1:22:01] in the ordinance as it stands.
[1:22:05] The proposed changes in the
[1:22:08] ordinance include language that
[1:22:13] says a permit shall not be
[1:22:17] required. That's very clear
[1:22:21] language. There's no ambiguity
[1:22:23] there. If you accept the
[1:22:26] proposed language
[1:22:29] to the ordinance, you are not
[1:22:31] only relinquishing your
[1:22:32] authority. You are also
[1:22:34] silencing the voices of those
[1:22:37] who are directly impacted. The
[1:22:40] proposed change will lead to
[1:22:43] harming the economy and the
[1:22:45] health of the residents in and
[1:22:47] near rural and environmentally
[1:22:50] protected areas. It's a change
[1:22:52] that your constituents oppose.
[1:22:57] Supervisors, the proposed
[1:22:58] change, if you accept it,
[1:23:00] will taint your legacy.
[1:23:03] >> 30 seconds.
[1:23:04] >> It will taint your legacy
[1:23:06] forever, and I urge you
[1:23:08] to reject it. Thank you.
[1:23:10] >> Thank you very much. Lori
[1:23:12] Portillo, followed by Pauline
[1:23:14] Pisano, and then Vandem
[1:23:17] Altshuller.
[1:23:22] >> Hello, my name is Lori
[1:23:23] Portillo.
[1:23:25] >> I've lived in Joshua Tree
[1:23:26] for 45 years, and I can't
[1:23:29] believe that you guys are even
[1:23:30] thinking about stopping this
[1:23:33] when this company that wants
[1:23:35] to tear up 20,000 acres in
[1:23:37] Joshua Tree is being stopped
[1:23:40] from doing something that
[1:23:42] they're doing in Mojave.
[1:23:44] Mojave Preserve right now.
[1:23:46] They're tearing it up and we're
[1:23:48] taking them to court. And are
[1:23:49] we going to be taking them
[1:23:50] to court 20 years from now when
[1:23:53] they've torn up these 20,000
[1:23:54] acres? Or are we going
[1:23:56] to look closely
[1:23:57] at what's going on? Thank you.
[1:24:00] >> Thank you very much.
[1:24:05] Pauline Pisano, followed by
[1:24:07] Vandam Altshuller.
[1:24:11] >> Hi, everyone. My name is
[1:24:12] Pauline Pisano. I'm a resident
[1:24:13] of Flamingo Heights. I want
[1:24:15] to reshare my remarks
[1:24:16] from the Planning Commission
[1:24:18] meeting in July when this item
[1:24:19] was also on the agenda. I
[1:24:21] invite board members to read
[1:24:22] the comments and oppositions
[1:24:23] from the community. The room
[1:24:25] was packed that day. I'm a
[1:24:26] social worker, artist, auntie,
[1:24:28] and daughter. I'm sharing all
[1:24:30] of this because my occupations
[1:24:32] led me to visit Flint,
[1:24:33] Michigan
[1:24:35] during their water crisis. The
[1:24:36] residents there were the true
[1:24:38] heroes of that crisis. They
[1:24:39] made sure that their neighbors
[1:24:40] knew the dangers and saved
[1:24:42] people when governance had
[1:24:44] failed. The folks I spoke to
[1:24:45] in Flint, Michigan never framed
[1:24:48] the crisis as a water crisis.
[1:24:50] They said it was a crisis
[1:24:52] of democracy. I think everyone
[1:24:54] in this room should heed the
[1:24:56] people of Flint
[1:24:58] to repeal and rewrite Chapter
[1:24:59] 88.03 to give up the county's
[1:25:02] permitting authority. Feels
[1:25:04] undemocratic because it is. It
[1:25:07] feels unjust because it is
[1:25:09] unjust
[1:25:10] to every single human being
[1:25:12] in this room. Are big
[1:25:13] corporations the new unelected
[1:25:14] emergency managers
[1:25:16] of our day? You know,
[1:25:18] I mentioned this earlier,
[1:25:19] I'm also an auntie,
[1:25:21] and it is our responsibility
[1:25:22] to be good stewards
[1:25:24] of the earth and our
[1:25:25] communities
[1:25:26] for future generations. Mining
[1:25:27] projects are exploitative.
[1:25:29] They've exploited our time so
[1:25:30] far. They disintegrate
[1:25:34] surrounding communities, mine,
[1:25:36] the earth, the water,
[1:25:38] and the air. Everyone knows
[1:25:41] this, which is why they are
[1:25:43] very unpopular.
[1:25:44] >> 30 seconds.
[1:25:45] >> This is how the crisis of
[1:25:47] Flint is with us here
[1:25:48] in this room right now. We have
[1:25:51] this amazing opportunity
[1:25:52] in front of us
[1:25:54] to do what is right. The time
[1:25:56] is always right
[1:25:57] to do what is right. Say no.
[1:25:59] Say no to the rollback
[1:26:01] of our voices mattering.
[1:26:05] >> Thank you. Vandam Altshuller
[1:26:10] followed by Mason Osgood.
[1:26:15] >> Hello, my name is Vandam
[1:26:16] Altshuller. I'm from 29 Palms.
[1:26:17] I'm a resident, taxpayer,
[1:26:19] and a voter, and I'm here
[1:26:21] to oppose item 76. Do not adopt
[1:26:24] this ordinance today. Continue
[1:26:26] it. Put the full public record
[1:26:27] before the board and remove the
[1:26:28] federal land loophole. This is
[1:26:30] being sold as an administrative
[1:26:32] update, but it is not. This is
[1:26:34] a countywide rewrite
[1:26:35] of the mining rules brought for
[1:26:37] public hearing and first
[1:26:38] reading with real momentum
[1:26:39] toward adoption before the
[1:26:40] public has had a fair process.
[1:26:43] This is not modernization.
[1:26:44] This is surrender. And
[1:26:45] surrender to whom? The record
[1:26:47] says the ordinance was
[1:26:48] developed with CalCIMA, the
[1:26:50] Mining Industry Association.
[1:26:52] At the same time, more than
[1:26:53] 100 public comments from the
[1:26:54] July hearing are not even
[1:26:56] on the board packet today.
[1:26:57] So, the mining lobby is
[1:26:58] in the room,
[1:26:59] but people's voices are missing
[1:27:00] from the record. This is
[1:27:01] anti-resident governance.
[1:27:03] We're not talking
[1:27:04] about empty land. We're talking
[1:27:05] about Wonder Valley,
[1:27:06] Twentynine Palms, Joshua Tree
[1:27:08] homes, wealth, wildlife,
[1:27:09] children,
[1:27:10] and the gateway economy
[1:27:11] of the national park. Music
[1:27:13] Valley is not imaginary.
[1:27:14] Dateline Resource reports more
[1:27:16] than 21,000 acres of claims on
[1:27:18] this rare earth project area.
[1:27:21] EPA says that rare earths
[1:27:22] Processing can involve uranium
[1:27:23] and thorium and can produce
[1:27:25] radioactive tinorm waste. EPA
[1:27:27] also says particular pollution
[1:27:28] can aggravate asthma,
[1:27:30] reduce lung function,
[1:27:31] and harm children who are among
[1:27:32] the most vulnerable. A child
[1:27:34] gasping through asthma doesn't
[1:27:35] care whether the dust came
[1:27:37] through a county permit or
[1:27:38] federal authorization. A family
[1:27:39] with poisoned well doesn't care
[1:27:41] which agency signed the
[1:27:42] paperwork. Do not bring the
[1:27:43] lessons of the past here and
[1:27:45] say you had no idea.
[1:27:46] >> 30 seconds.
[1:27:48] >> I'll add, I'm from
[1:27:50] Russia, and I know this looks
[1:27:51] like, I know what it looks
[1:27:52] like when laws are twisted
[1:27:54] to accommodate oligarchs,
[1:27:55] extraction, and administrative
[1:27:57] convenience while ordinary
[1:27:58] people are told it is
[1:27:59] procedure. But this is
[1:28:00] America. Here you swear an oath
[1:28:02] to protect the public and
[1:28:03] defend constitutional
[1:28:04] governments. The oath is not
[1:28:06] ceremonial language. It means
[1:28:07] you do not help private
[1:28:08] extractive powers strip
[1:28:09] residents of local voice,
[1:28:10] local review, and local
[1:28:11] protection,
[1:28:12] and do not confuse desert quiet
[1:28:13] with consent. Vote no.
[1:28:18] >> Thank you. Mason Osgood,
[1:28:19] followed by Krystian Lahage.
[1:28:23] I'm sorry about the
[1:28:24] mispronunciation if I did.
[1:28:27] >> Good morning. My name is
[1:28:28] Mason Osgood. I'm the
[1:28:30] California Desert Program
[1:28:31] Manager for the National
[1:28:32] Parks Conservation
[1:28:33] Association. I'm commenting
[1:28:35] today to respectfully request
[1:28:36] that you deny the proposed
[1:28:38] mining ordinance update until
[1:28:40] reasonable revisions are made
[1:28:41] to clarify the language. As we
[1:28:43] wrote
[1:28:45] in our comment letter submitted
[1:28:46] with the Center for
[1:28:47] Biological Diversity, Sierra
[1:28:49] Club, and Earthworks, we
[1:28:50] continue to have serious
[1:28:52] concerns that this ordinance's
[1:28:53] language regarding
[1:28:55] applicability on federal lands
[1:28:56] is problematic and will lead
[1:28:58] to confusion for applicants,
[1:28:59] agencies, and the public.
[1:29:03] Changes must be made
[1:29:04] to the ordinance
[1:29:05] to clarify that mining projects
[1:29:06] on federal lands are subject
[1:29:08] to CEQA and the California
[1:29:09] Surface Mining and
[1:29:11] Reclamation Act, or SMARA,
[1:29:13] policies that provide
[1:29:14] reasonable protections and
[1:29:15] public participation
[1:29:16] requirements. Furthermore, the
[1:29:18] county needs to update its
[1:29:20] Memorandum of Understanding, or
[1:29:21] MOU, to align with modern
[1:29:23] environmental review
[1:29:25] procedures. Currently, the
[1:29:27] outdated MOU allows for a path
[1:29:29] for mining projects to bypass
[1:29:31] CEQA and SMARA regulations.
[1:29:33] Recent changes to NEPA mean it
[1:29:36] is highly unlikely that federal
[1:29:37] documents will satisfy the
[1:29:39] current requirements for,
[1:29:40] of CEQA, and we urge clarity
[1:29:42] in the text
[1:29:44] to avoid improper reliance
[1:29:45] on this MOU.
[1:29:47] Without revision, these current
[1:29:48] draft risks allowing bad actors
[1:29:50] to avoid reasonable
[1:29:52] environmental regulations that
[1:29:53] responsible applicants would
[1:29:55] otherwise comply with. This
[1:29:56] creates a possibility of harm.
[1:29:58] >> 30 seconds.
[1:29:59] >> To the county's vast
[1:30:00] environmental resources and
[1:30:02] will create unnecessary delays
[1:30:03] and potential for litigation
[1:30:04] over mining permits.
[1:30:06] >> I urge you
[1:30:07] to deny the resolution before
[1:30:09] you today and take the time to
[1:30:10] make the simple changes as
[1:30:12] outlined
[1:30:13] in our written comments
[1:30:14] to avoid ambiguity
[1:30:15] in the regulation. Thank you.
[1:30:17] >> Thank you very much.
[1:30:18] Krystian Lahage, followed by
[1:30:19] Chance Wilcox.
[1:30:21] >> Good morning, Supervisors.
[1:30:23] My name is Krystian Lahage.
[1:30:24] I'm the public policy officer
[1:30:25] for the Mojave Desert Land
[1:30:26] Trust, and I'm a resident of
[1:30:27] Joshua Tree, California.
[1:30:29] Before my comments, I wanted
[1:30:31] to acknowledge 2 things. And
[1:30:32] the first is that we recognize
[1:30:33] that the county has the right
[1:30:34] and need
[1:30:35] to update these ordinances.
[1:30:36] And I also want to recognize
[1:30:37] that we recently met with Dan
[1:30:39] Walsh and had some
[1:30:41] of this clarified
[1:30:42] for us as well. So, I want to
[1:30:43] acknowledge that and thank him
[1:30:44] for hearing our concerns.
[1:30:45] We've shared our,
[1:30:46] our comment letter
[1:30:47] with both the board and, and
[1:30:49] with the Land Use Services
[1:30:50] Department. I think our
[1:30:51] comments revolve around the
[1:30:53] same general areas here. And I
[1:30:54] heard Dan say it again today
[1:30:56] that projects at the federal
[1:30:57] level that are not subjected
[1:30:59] to, to review that is as strong
[1:31:01] as CEQA would have CEQA. What
[1:31:03] we're looking for here is just
[1:31:05] to update the language to,
[1:31:06] to confirm that. We are not
[1:31:08] opposed to the county having
[1:31:09] mining ordinance, not opposed
[1:31:11] to mining in general. We just
[1:31:12] want to make sure that it's
[1:31:13] done responsibly and
[1:31:14] sustainably. And we feel that
[1:31:16] it would be stronger both
[1:31:17] in terms of understanding
[1:31:19] for the community
[1:31:20] to have that strong language,
[1:31:22] guaranteeing the CEQA review.
[1:31:25] And I think because of how long
[1:31:26] this ordinance has been
[1:31:27] out there, there's conflicting
[1:31:28] language online in terms
[1:31:29] of the permitting and things
[1:31:30] like that, which I've heard
[1:31:31] would be addressed as well.
[1:31:32] So, I wanted
[1:31:33] to say thank you for that.
[1:31:35] Strongly encourage some
[1:31:36] refinement to make it a little
[1:31:37] bit more clear here. And thank
[1:31:39] you to the county
[1:31:40] for their time and listening
[1:31:41] to our comments. Thank you.
[1:31:43] >> Thank you very much.
[1:31:44] Chance Wilcox.
[1:31:46] >> Good morning, Supervisors.
[1:31:48] I'm commenting both as a
[1:31:50] resident of the Morongo Basin
[1:31:51] and as the California Desert
[1:31:53] Director for the National
[1:31:54] Parks Conservation
[1:31:55] Association. I'm asking that
[1:31:56] you deny this ordinance and
[1:31:57] continue the item simply
[1:31:59] to create more time for
[1:32:00] language review and public
[1:32:02] input. There are many language
[1:32:03] and potential legal issues with
[1:32:04] the ordinance that create
[1:32:05] ambiguity and that are not
[1:32:06] aligned with the State Mining
[1:32:08] and Geology Board provided
[1:32:09] language. I am not opposed
[1:32:11] to an ordinance
[1:32:12] in general and not opposed
[1:32:13] to all mining in San
[1:32:14] Bernardino County but want
[1:32:15] to ensure that the language of
[1:32:16] this ordinance ensures proper
[1:32:18] oversight on the part of the
[1:32:19] county and that the language
[1:32:20] used is legally sound and does
[1:32:22] not create loopholes
[1:32:23] for mining corporations. My
[1:32:25] organization submitted written
[1:32:26] comment along the Center for
[1:32:27] Biological Diversity, MDLT,
[1:32:29] and Earthworks, so I will not
[1:32:30] go into the details, but it
[1:32:32] outlines the language changes
[1:32:33] that would tighten up this
[1:32:34] ordinance and make the language
[1:32:36] more sound. The State Mining
[1:32:37] and Geology Board also has
[1:32:38] ordinance templates readily
[1:32:40] available to make this process
[1:32:41] streamlined and legally sound,
[1:32:42] but it does not seem as though
[1:32:44] this was, this already approved
[1:32:45] language was used
[1:32:46] for this ordinance.
[1:32:47] In addition, the process
[1:32:49] to build out this ordinance did
[1:32:50] not include the public
[1:32:51] in all the 3 years
[1:32:52] of its construction. Mining
[1:32:54] corporations and mining
[1:32:55] contractors such as CalCIMA
[1:32:56] were consulted, but there was
[1:32:57] little awareness sent out
[1:32:58] to the public. The only notice
[1:33:00] of a public meeting was placed
[1:33:01] in the San Bernardino Sun, a
[1:33:03] newspaper with a paywall that
[1:33:04] many residents
[1:33:05] of the far reaches of our vast
[1:33:07] county do not turn to.
[1:33:08] During the Land Use Planning
[1:33:10] Commission meeting,
[1:33:11] the public was brushed off as
[1:33:12] not understanding mining, but I
[1:33:13] think we can all disagree based
[1:33:15] on the broad representation of
[1:33:16] community members here who have
[1:33:18] thoughtfully reviewed,
[1:33:19] thoughtfully reviewed.
[1:33:20] >> 30 seconds.
[1:33:21] >> The language presented
[1:33:22] before you.
[1:33:23] And have commented
[1:33:24] with very real, very
[1:33:25] knowledgeable, and very valid
[1:33:26] concerns. I ask that you
[1:33:27] consider delaying the approval
[1:33:29] of this ordinance for further
[1:33:30] language review and public
[1:33:31] input. It's obvious that San
[1:33:32] Bernardino County residents are
[1:33:34] concerned and care about
[1:33:35] ensuring the county is engaged
[1:33:37] in mining project permitting
[1:33:38] and thoughtful
[1:33:39] in protecting residents. Thank
[1:33:41] you.
[1:33:42] >> Thank you very much. That is
[1:33:43] the last request
[1:33:44] to speak that I have.
[1:33:48] >> Gentlemen that aren't looking
[1:33:49] at me, thank you. We have a lot
[1:33:54] of passionate residents. I, I
[1:33:56] know that you and I have worked
[1:33:59] through this. I had many
[1:34:00] questions that were brought on
[1:34:02] by public comment
[1:34:03] over the last several days,
[1:34:04] including late
[1:34:05] into the night last night,
[1:34:06] and then here today. So, we
[1:34:08] have, if nothing else,
[1:34:09] a disconnect between what the
[1:34:12] public perceives and what we
[1:34:14] are doing at a minimum. And I
[1:34:17] very much appreciate
[1:34:19] Krystian Lahage's perspective
[1:34:20] and comments,
[1:34:21] and I know that you did meet
[1:34:22] with several organizations
[1:34:24] to make clarifications. And
[1:34:26] then we've heard some
[1:34:27] additional suggestions brought
[1:34:28] by them. So perhaps I can start
[1:34:31] with having you help me
[1:34:33] understand the disconnect
[1:34:35] on how the public has, and I
[1:34:37] know I've seen media articles
[1:34:39] that have run
[1:34:40] with misinformation. I know
[1:34:41] Morongo Basin Conservation
[1:34:42] Association had misinformation
[1:34:44] that was put out,
[1:34:45] and then the narrative becomes,
[1:34:47] what's out there and how do we
[1:34:49] correct that? And, and that is
[1:34:50] going
[1:34:51] to be incumbent upon you today.
[1:34:53] So, I'm going to start with a
[1:34:55] question that you have heard
[1:34:57] significant concern that the
[1:34:58] county is giving up its
[1:34:59] jurisdiction over mining
[1:35:00] on federal lands. Can you
[1:35:02] explain exactly what authority
[1:35:03] the county has today and what
[1:35:05] authority will have
[1:35:07] after adoption of this
[1:35:08] ordinance and whether we're
[1:35:10] relinquishing any authority
[1:35:11] that we currently possess?
[1:35:14] >> Yeah, thanks
[1:35:15] for the question. It might help
[1:35:16] if I go
[1:35:17] through just a brief history of
[1:35:19] federal regulation as far as
[1:35:22] mining goes on federal land.
[1:35:23] So, it starts in.
[1:35:25] >> Can you speak
[1:35:26] into the mic?
[1:35:27] >> Sorry.
[1:35:28] >> Thank you.
[1:35:29] >> So it starts,
[1:35:30] the first date is 1872.
[1:35:32] Before that date,
[1:35:33] mining was illegal
[1:35:34] on federal property,
[1:35:36] just illegal. After 1872, the
[1:35:38] General Mining Act went
[1:35:40] into effect. It was enacted
[1:35:42] by Congress, and at that point
[1:35:44] it was pretty much a
[1:35:45] free-for-all. And we're seeing
[1:35:46] the vestiges
[1:35:47] of those disturbances still
[1:35:48] in our county, all
[1:35:49] over the county, in the
[1:35:51] Mojave Preserve and out
[1:35:52] in the desert,
[1:35:53] pretty much everywhere
[1:35:55] in the mountains. And that was
[1:35:56] for a little over 100 years.
[1:35:59] And then in 1976, Congress
[1:36:01] enacted the Federal Land
[1:36:03] Policy and Management Act.
[1:36:05] which actually was the
[1:36:07] beginning of requiring permits
[1:36:09] and reclamation standards
[1:36:10] for federal lands. That was
[1:36:13] right around the same time that
[1:36:15] SMARA came out and just
[1:36:17] after CEQA. So, we have all
[1:36:19] these new regulations coming
[1:36:20] into effect and NEPA. And
[1:36:25] agencies were kind of butting
[1:36:27] heads and not really knowing
[1:36:28] what was going on. There's a
[1:36:30] lot of duplicity in the,
[1:36:32] in the reviews, and the
[1:36:35] industry, the public are going,
[1:36:37] hey, let's get our act together
[1:36:39] here, guys. So in 1992,
[1:36:40] California got together
[1:36:42] with the federal agencies. And
[1:36:44] it was the 1992 MOU that is
[1:36:46] referenced in that section that
[1:36:49] everybody's talking
[1:36:50] about now,
[1:36:51] federal land section. It's
[1:36:53] referenced in that. And the MOU
[1:36:56] was signed by, on the
[1:36:58] California,
[1:37:00] on the state side,
[1:37:01] it was signed by the State
[1:37:02] Mining Geology Board and the
[1:37:04] Department of Conservation.
[1:37:05] On the federal side,
[1:37:07] it was signed by the
[1:37:08] Department of Interior, namely
[1:37:09] the Bureau of Land Management
[1:37:11] and the U.S. Forest Service.
[1:37:13] So, we have a state agreement
[1:37:15] with those agencies
[1:37:16] on the federal side. So as far
[1:37:18] as the county authorities is
[1:37:20] concerned,
[1:37:22] we're giving our authority
[1:37:24] to regulate surface mines
[1:37:25] by SMARA. That's a state law.
[1:37:28] So, the state gives us that
[1:37:29] authority, okay? So, the MOU
[1:37:31] has clarified the
[1:37:34] jurisdictional
[1:37:35] responsibilities, right,
[1:37:38] to help us work through this so
[1:37:39] we are working together and not
[1:37:41] just separating. So that allows
[1:37:43] us to take the project as a
[1:37:45] whole when, say,
[1:37:48] if BLM gets an application
[1:37:50] for a plan of operation,
[1:37:53] which is their permit. They
[1:37:56] contact, or they have the
[1:37:57] applicant contact the county
[1:37:59] and say, we want
[1:38:00] to start a mine
[1:38:01] on federal property. We say,
[1:38:02] great, you're going to have
[1:38:03] to bring in an application
[1:38:04] for a reclamation plan. And
[1:38:06] then we contact,
[1:38:07] we have great relationships
[1:38:08] with each field office
[1:38:09] for BLM. We contact them and we
[1:38:10] start that conversation.
[1:38:12] Sometimes we even make an MOU
[1:38:13] for that specific project if
[1:38:16] it's big enough,
[1:38:18] if there's enough moving parts.
[1:38:19] Just so there's more
[1:38:21] clarification on authority.
[1:38:23] And there is actually another
[1:38:25] MOU that affords that as well.
[1:38:27] So once the plan
[1:38:30] of operation application's in
[1:38:31] and the rec plan application's
[1:38:33] in, we work with BLM. We can
[1:38:36] take, the ordinance says we
[1:38:40] may take studies and documents
[1:38:44] that are submitted
[1:38:46] for the plan of operation. If
[1:38:48] you read the MOU,
[1:38:50] the actual language is we may
[1:38:51] take those if they meet or
[1:38:54] exceed the standard of CEQA.
[1:38:56] We didn't,
[1:38:57] we didn't reproduce everything
[1:38:58] in the ordinance. We're trying
[1:39:00] to make it sort of dry, but we
[1:39:01] reference all these sections so
[1:39:03] that they are, you know,
[1:39:06] you can go and look
[1:39:07] at the actual language. We're
[1:39:08] trying not to duplicate every
[1:39:10] mining regulation
[1:39:12] in the state and
[1:39:14] in the federal government
[1:39:15] into our document. We're trying
[1:39:17] to make it so that it is a
[1:39:18] referral
[1:39:19] to those documents.
[1:39:22] >> So, but clearly that has led
[1:39:24] to some either misunderstanding
[1:39:27] or vagaries that in county
[1:39:30] government our residents don't
[1:39:32] appreciate. So, I understand
[1:39:34] what you're trying to do
[1:39:35] from a staff perspective. The
[1:39:36] residents don't appreciate that
[1:39:38] from their standpoint.
[1:39:39] >> I understand that.
[1:39:40] >> So, at a minimum,
[1:39:41] can we add
[1:39:42] in clarifying language like we
[1:39:43] had heard as a suggestion? And
[1:39:45] were there any other
[1:39:46] suggestions when you met with
[1:39:47] Mojave Desert Land Trust and
[1:39:48] the other entities that they
[1:39:50] provided that could be added to
[1:39:51] strengthen that so that we
[1:39:53] could absolve the concerns that
[1:39:54] the residents brought forward
[1:39:55] today?
[1:39:56] >> There were other
[1:39:57] suggestions. The issue we would
[1:39:58] have there would be that it is
[1:40:02] approaching the level
[1:40:03] of trying
[1:40:04] to rewrite the memorandum
[1:40:06] of understanding. And since the
[1:40:07] county didn't write it or
[1:40:09] wouldn't sign it, okay,
[1:40:11] that would be trying to kind
[1:40:13] of circumvent state law and a,
[1:40:18] a, an agreement
[1:40:19] between the state and the feds,
[1:40:22] right? Trying to rewrite that
[1:40:24] from our ordinance standpoint.
[1:40:26] And that's not appropriate.
[1:40:27] And that's not going to pass
[1:40:28] through the state.
[1:40:30] >> Well, let's answer this
[1:40:31] question. If I could have the
[1:40:32] audience remain quiet,
[1:40:33] please. Why are we here today?
[1:40:34] Why are we even redoing this?
[1:40:37] >> Oh, because our ordinance is
[1:40:39] grossly out of date. It is
[1:40:42] missing sections,
[1:40:44] it has sections that are
[1:40:45] obsolete, and it doesn't have
[1:40:47] the current language that's
[1:40:49] written in state law. The state
[1:40:51] statutes and regulations that
[1:40:53] form SMARA have been changed,
[1:40:55] and even 2017 they were changed
[1:40:58] significantly. So, we need
[1:41:00] to update our ordinance to put
[1:41:03] in our code for reference and
[1:41:07] for enforcement priorities so
[1:41:11] that our code matches what is
[1:41:15] written in the state law.
[1:41:17] >> And what happens if we don't
[1:41:18] do that?
[1:41:19] >> If we don't have a,
[1:41:21] a certified ordinance,
[1:41:22] if we don't have a,
[1:41:25] a verified ordinance from the
[1:41:27] State Mining and Geology
[1:41:29] Board, they would have
[1:41:31] jurisdiction to take
[1:41:32] over as lead agency.
[1:41:33] >> But we've been out
[1:41:34] of compliance for a number
[1:41:36] of years now with BAMO.
[1:41:38] >> And we were, we were told
[1:41:39] many, I'd say most
[1:41:41] of the lead agencies
[1:41:42] in the state were told in
[1:41:43] 2023, hey, get your,
[1:41:44] get your ordinances updated.
[1:41:46] And they're hounding them.
[1:41:47] They're, they're, they're
[1:41:52] encouraging them constantly get
[1:41:54] that,
[1:41:55] get those ordinances in. We
[1:41:56] need
[1:41:57] to get everybody updated. And
[1:41:59] San Bernardino County is a very
[1:42:00] important agency because we
[1:42:02] have the most mines,
[1:42:03] we're the biggest county.
[1:42:04] >> So at a minimum,
[1:42:05] can you add
[1:42:06] in clarifying language into the
[1:42:07] MOU or our ordinance that
[1:42:09] doesn't negate the MOU,
[1:42:11] that clarifies that these have
[1:42:12] to go through CEQA?
[1:42:14] >> We could probably add
[1:42:16] something like,
[1:42:17] like I said before, as long as
[1:42:19] the documents meet or exceed
[1:42:21] CEQA standards. We know we
[1:42:23] could probably add something
[1:42:25] like that without having
[1:42:26] to do a whole new revision,
[1:42:28] like new revision
[1:42:31] from the state or review
[1:42:32] from the state.
[1:42:34] >> I'm about to look at
[1:42:35] County Counsel here,
[1:42:36] because if you can probably do
[1:42:37] it, then I might probably vote
[1:42:39] on it. If you can't probably do
[1:42:41] it, then I would ask you
[1:42:42] to continue the hearing
[1:42:44] to have staff work on it.
[1:42:46] >> If you wanted
[1:42:47] to add language similar
[1:42:48] to what's being suggested,
[1:42:49] we could do that
[1:42:50] at the meeting.
[1:42:51] We would need a motion that
[1:42:52] specifies what subsection
[1:42:53] you're amending and exactly how
[1:42:55] you are amending it.
[1:42:57] >> Would you like
[1:42:58] to make that suggestion based
[1:43:00] on the public comments that
[1:43:01] we've heard today,
[1:43:02] how you would like to amend it
[1:43:03] without dramatically changing
[1:43:04] the intent of the MOU?
[1:43:06] >> Yeah, if we, as long as it's
[1:43:07] written exactly how it is
[1:43:08] in the MOU and we're not trying
[1:43:09] to rewrite any part of that,
[1:43:11] then I would be, I'd be
[1:43:12] in favor of that.
[1:43:13] >> Okay. Would you like
[1:43:14] to recess for, say, 10 minutes
[1:43:17] to work on that and then come
[1:43:19] back and present the suggested
[1:43:20] changes based
[1:43:21] on what we've heard today?
[1:43:22] >> Yeah, that sounds great.
[1:43:23] Okay. All right.
[1:43:24] >> We will recess this for 10
[1:43:27] minutes and we will continue
[1:43:28] the public hearing at how
[1:43:32] about 12 o'clock noon
[1:43:34] on the dot? 13 minutes.
[1:43:38] >> The way you presented this,
[1:43:40] with this, it leaves the
[1:43:42] impression that.
[1:43:46] >> I don't have any idea what
[1:43:47] the vote will be on this. I just
[1:43:49] said if.
[1:43:50] >> I just don't
[1:43:51] want to get ahead of themselves
[1:43:52] because I'll be very candid.
[1:43:54] I'm going to vote no on this
[1:43:55] for a variety of reasons. I
[1:43:57] probably got more time
[1:43:59] in that damn hole than anybody
[1:44:00] in this building here,
[1:44:02] and I'll explain that later.
[1:44:04] But I'm just wondering,
[1:44:06] are we getting ahead
[1:44:07] of ourselves in having this
[1:44:09] language when we don't have
[1:44:12] at least a vote
[1:44:14] on whether we're going
[1:44:15] to support this,
[1:44:17] this language. Whether.
[1:44:19] >> Let's take other board
[1:44:20] member comments
[1:44:21] before recess.
[1:44:22] >> Not trying to be.
[1:44:23] >> All right, let's take other
[1:44:24] board member comments
[1:44:25] before we recess to then see if
[1:44:26] there are additional items
[1:44:27] to be worked on. Okay,
[1:44:29] Supervisor Cook, any additional
[1:44:31] comments?
[1:44:35] >> No, no, I, I think I made my
[1:44:37] comments very clear in that,
[1:44:42] based upon my history,
[1:44:45] I have spent a lot
[1:44:47] of time and a lot
[1:44:52] of nights there, and I just
[1:44:54] have some reservations. I am
[1:44:57] going
[1:44:58] to vote no. I'll be very candid
[1:44:59] with you. And
[1:45:01] before we get ahead
[1:45:04] of ourselves, maybe we need a
[1:45:08] vote whether there's a majority
[1:45:13] to go forward
[1:45:14] with this instead of making
[1:45:18] changes that won't be necessary
[1:45:20] if it's voted down.
[1:45:24] >> I see the issue as whether
[1:45:25] the board,
[1:45:26] that you're willing
[1:45:27] to entertain a motion to
[1:45:29] consider the ordinance as
[1:45:30] proposed.
[1:45:31] Is that the motion that
[1:45:32] you're making, Supervisor?
[1:45:33] >> I'm not making any motion
[1:45:35] right now. I thought that was
[1:45:36] the one that was before as
[1:45:38] proposed right now?
[1:45:40] >> There is no motion currently
[1:45:41] pending.
[1:45:44] >> I am not going to support
[1:45:45] the ordinance. However, the
[1:45:47] lawyers want to propose it, I,
[1:45:53] I am against it.
[1:45:55] >> It sounds like the Chair is
[1:45:56] going to be making a motion to
[1:45:58] adopt the ordinance as amended,
[1:46:00] and if that motion is made, you
[1:46:03] can vote no on that.
[1:46:05] >> Well, that's what I was
[1:46:06] planning on.
[1:46:07] >> Okay, so I think we're
[1:46:08] proceeding properly.
[1:46:09] >> Okay, other board member
[1:46:11] comments?
[1:46:17] >> There's a, there's a,
[1:46:18] I think you said a lot, Madam
[1:46:20] Chair, as far as the
[1:46:21] clarification. And obviously
[1:46:22] when they have this many people
[1:46:23] come out and against it
[1:46:25] for different angles, there's
[1:46:27] definitely some clarity that
[1:46:29] needs to be put in there.
[1:46:30] But I'll go back to the,
[1:46:31] what you were saying in your,
[1:46:33] on the previous comments. If we
[1:46:34] do nothing, kind of go
[1:46:37] through what happens.
[1:46:40] >> If we don't, if we don't
[1:46:42] update our ordinance?
[1:46:43] >> Yes.
[1:46:44] >> Okay, so if we don't update
[1:46:46] our ordinance, SMGB will
[1:46:47] continue to put pressure
[1:46:48] on us if we just refuse,
[1:46:50] and they will have the
[1:46:52] opportunity, they'll have the
[1:46:53] author, the, the authority To
[1:46:55] take the mining regulation
[1:46:59] over, they'll be able to take
[1:47:03] our lead agency authority away
[1:47:05] from us and become the lead
[1:47:06] order.
[1:47:07] >> Just like in, several
[1:47:08] of us have served
[1:47:09] at different levels
[1:47:10] of government. Generally, the
[1:47:12] higher level of government
[1:47:13] doesn't necessarily need a
[1:47:14] lower level of government
[1:47:15] to do something. So, the
[1:47:16] federal government
[1:47:17] on their lands will want
[1:47:18] to give a permit for mining,
[1:47:20] and we refuse,
[1:47:21] they could bypass us. Is that a
[1:47:22] clarified way
[1:47:23] to say that?
[1:47:24] >> Yeah, that's part of the
[1:47:25] Supremacy Clause.
[1:47:27] >> Okay. Same thing
[1:47:28] on the state level. State
[1:47:29] supersedes the county,
[1:47:30] and it's a higher level
[1:47:31] of policy. So, what the State
[1:47:32] of California does,
[1:47:33] it's made an agreement
[1:47:35] with the federal government
[1:47:36] on their lands, this is going
[1:47:37] to be the process
[1:47:38] of what we're going to do,
[1:47:40] which combines generally NEPA
[1:47:41] and CEQA
[1:47:42] in those applications.
[1:47:44] But they're giving it to us
[1:47:46] to be that lead agency. So, if
[1:47:48] we do not have an up-to-date
[1:47:53] ordinance, then we lose that
[1:47:55] participation potentially
[1:47:58] at all at a local level
[1:47:59] to even look at these.
[1:48:02] >> Yes, that's correct.
[1:48:04] >> Okay, so, you know, I think
[1:48:06] that's the bigger question
[1:48:07] for me is how do we get
[1:48:09] to the point where we're still
[1:48:11] at least at the table? We may
[1:48:13] not like all the things
[1:48:14] at the table, but
[1:48:15] at least we're participating
[1:48:16] in and
[1:48:17] with our county being so rich
[1:48:18] in land and materials
[1:48:19] in all the sense,
[1:48:20] we're always being looked at
[1:48:21] for everything, especially
[1:48:22] in our desert. So going back
[1:48:25] to the concerns
[1:48:26] of our residents
[1:48:27] about the clarity
[1:48:28] of the CEQA and NEPA,
[1:48:30] and I think that's where the
[1:48:31] Chair was kind
[1:48:32] of leading us to, is there was,
[1:48:34] when I heard the public speak,
[1:48:36] there was a lot of uncertainty
[1:48:37] of what language was in our
[1:48:39] ordinance because you referred
[1:48:40] to that MOU between state and
[1:48:42] the federal government because
[1:48:44] that has already been worked
[1:48:46] out. And so, we refer to
[1:48:48] Government Code section blah
[1:48:50] blah blah and blah blah blah
[1:48:51] for that. And it's going
[1:48:54] to be difficult
[1:48:55] from a referral document to
[1:48:56] educate all the residents who
[1:48:58] have say into this,
[1:49:00] who have concerns
[1:49:02] about all that, just by having
[1:49:04] them do the research that they
[1:49:06] would need to do to understand
[1:49:07] that entire ordinance.
[1:49:09] But I want to, you know,
[1:49:10] go back to the point where if
[1:49:11] we do nothing,
[1:49:12] maybe it's not necessary today,
[1:49:14] but if we do nothing and keep
[1:49:16] kicking this can
[1:49:17] down the road, then eventually
[1:49:18] the state or the federal
[1:49:20] government say, okay,
[1:49:21] we're just not going
[1:49:22] to let you be the lead agency.
[1:49:23] State of California will be,
[1:49:24] or the U.S. government will be.
[1:49:26] And we just have to, oh,
[1:49:27] by the way,
[1:49:28] we got a new mine here. We
[1:49:29] don't have any say
[1:49:30] in it whatsoever. Can you
[1:49:32] portray by the document,
[1:49:34] the ordinance we have right
[1:49:35] now, that California, and
[1:49:37] especially California, has
[1:49:39] probably the strictest CEQA
[1:49:42] laws out there for these type
[1:49:43] of things. Is that level
[1:49:44] compared to other states' MOUs
[1:49:46] with the federal government
[1:49:48] at a different level? Is that a
[1:49:49] higher level? Because most
[1:49:51] of our developments go through
[1:49:53] a very strenuous CEQA.
[1:49:56] >> There's only a few states
[1:49:57] in the union that allow
[1:49:59] for local lead agency
[1:50:02] regulation of mines.
[1:50:04] >> So, the other states are
[1:50:05] this, the federal government
[1:50:07] says we're giving you this
[1:50:08] permission, you go do it,
[1:50:09] and they don't have much say
[1:50:10] in it at all?
[1:50:11] >> Correct.
[1:50:12] >> Okay, so California is one
[1:50:13] of the stricter states for
[1:50:14] these mining ordinance
[1:50:15] residents,
[1:50:16] and it does give our residents,
[1:50:17] when a new project comes,
[1:50:19] even though another lead agency
[1:50:22] may have done that
[1:50:23] environmental work,
[1:50:24] it does come to the county
[1:50:26] to proceed and does allow us to
[1:50:27] notify our residents and allow
[1:50:29] those comments to come in
[1:50:31] before that. So, we don't
[1:50:32] abdicate that ability
[1:50:34] to do that process
[1:50:36] to another agency
[1:50:37] in this ordinance?
[1:50:38] >> No, we don't.
[1:50:39] >> So we still hold that local
[1:50:41] authority versus us giving that
[1:50:43] authority up to a state or a
[1:50:45] federal agency?
[1:50:46] >> Correct.
[1:50:48] >> So I, I'm not going
[1:50:50] to say I'm an expert on mining
[1:50:51] ordinances. I know that there's
[1:50:53] a lot out here. I think You
[1:50:55] know, for me, I just want the
[1:50:57] assurances that that process,
[1:50:58] if we stay as a lead agency,
[1:51:01] still has that visibility
[1:51:03] for our residents, that
[1:51:05] to come out through the
[1:51:06] Planning Commission,
[1:51:07] through the board meetings, to
[1:51:08] address whatever the
[1:51:09] environmental work was done
[1:51:10] by the applicant, when that
[1:51:14] NEPA or CEQA and all the rest
[1:51:15] of it, those standards are
[1:51:16] still there. And that maybe we
[1:51:17] clarify that in the ordinance
[1:51:18] so that gives a sense
[1:51:20] of security that
[1:51:21] these are the things that we do
[1:51:23] that is no different. So,
[1:51:24] in updating this ordinance, do
[1:51:27] we lose any control that we had
[1:51:29] in the old ordinance
[1:51:31] to the new ordinance?
[1:51:33] >> No, it's, it's based
[1:51:35] on the same 1992 agreement
[1:51:36] between the state and the
[1:51:37] federal government
[1:51:38] on federal lands. What is
[1:51:40] updated are better processes
[1:51:44] for enforcement,
[1:51:47] more information needed
[1:51:48] for applications
[1:51:50] for reclamation plans. The,
[1:51:54] in 2017, the state surrendered
[1:51:59] its right to be lead agency for
[1:52:05] vested rights determinations.
[1:52:07] Turned that back to just the
[1:52:09] local lead agencies. So that's
[1:52:11] one area that we've had to
[1:52:12] develop because the state has
[1:52:14] bowed out of it.
[1:52:16] >> And do you feel these
[1:52:18] updates that were, want
[1:52:19] to propose to this ordinance,
[1:52:21] does it make it, I don't want
[1:52:23] to say easier or harder. I know
[1:52:25] some of the things align. We do
[1:52:26] updates
[1:52:27] on state laws all the time for,
[1:52:29] you know, county ordinances. I
[1:52:30] think we do that once,
[1:52:31] once a year. There's
[1:52:32] constantly, every time the
[1:52:33] state passes a new law,
[1:52:34] we have
[1:52:35] to update our local ordinances.
[1:52:36] So that's more of a ministerial
[1:52:37] administrative thing. Some of
[1:52:39] those things are major changes,
[1:52:40] some are not, more
[1:52:41] in language. On this update, do
[1:52:43] you see that things are even
[1:52:45] any kind of easier
[1:52:47] for the applicant, a mining
[1:52:48] company, or is it harder, or
[1:52:50] what,
[1:52:51] how would you take it?
[1:52:53] >> It's, it's more organized.
[1:52:55] It, and remember, just because
[1:52:57] we're changing the language of
[1:52:59] our ordinance doesn't mean
[1:53:01] that, you know, we're going
[1:53:02] to be doing things differently.
[1:53:03] We're already doing this. This
[1:53:06] is our day-to-day operations.
[1:53:07] We're just kind of putting it
[1:53:08] on paper and making it code.
[1:53:09] Right? We still have a
[1:53:12] responsibility to follow the
[1:53:14] most current iteration
[1:53:16] of SMARA
[1:53:17] on a day-to-day basis.
[1:53:18] >> The 1992?
[1:53:19] >> No, which is.
[1:53:21] >> The 2017 one?
[1:53:22] >> Which is, it's updated
[1:53:24] periodically,
[1:53:25] just minor tweaks. The last
[1:53:26] major revision was in 2017.
[1:53:30] They revamped all sorts
[1:53:32] of things, reclamation
[1:53:33] requirements, success criteria,
[1:53:35] what's required
[1:53:38] in the reclamation plan. So,
[1:53:41] we're beholden to those
[1:53:42] regulations as they evolve year
[1:53:44] for year. We're beholden
[1:53:46] to that. That's why we tried
[1:53:47] to make this kind
[1:53:48] of an outline of referencing
[1:53:51] the sections instead
[1:53:53] of spelling it all out, just
[1:53:54] making it another duplication
[1:53:56] of SMARA. We're spelling it
[1:53:57] out, so we don't have
[1:53:58] to revise whenever they revise.
[1:54:00] We just.
[1:54:01] >> We just reference the master
[1:54:02] document, so to speak.
[1:54:03] >> Yeah.
[1:54:04] >> So as that gets updated
[1:54:06] through the legislature, or
[1:54:09] very infrequently the MOU
[1:54:10] change between the federal and
[1:54:11] state government, it
[1:54:13] automatically updates our
[1:54:14] ordinance. So, we don't have
[1:54:15] to go through this every few
[1:54:16] years is what you're saying?
[1:54:17] >> Correct.
[1:54:18] >> So I, I get that the
[1:54:19] technical side, I get the
[1:54:20] purpose,
[1:54:21] I understand what you're doing.
[1:54:23] It goes back to,
[1:54:24] is there a better way for us
[1:54:26] to be putting this out there?
[1:54:28] There's many groups that are
[1:54:29] representative, do you feel that
[1:54:31] you had enough face time
[1:54:33] with those groups? Or let me
[1:54:35] rephrase that. If we were
[1:54:37] to put this off
[1:54:39] for another month and you sat
[1:54:40] down and kind
[1:54:42] of pointed those things out,
[1:54:43] do you think that would give
[1:54:46] our agency, our department,
[1:54:48] our staff the ability
[1:54:49] to communicate this in a better
[1:54:51] way where it doesn't look
[1:54:53] like it's a, a change
[1:54:54] where they're very fearful of?
[1:54:58] >> I, I think that the county
[1:55:00] could definitely do better in,
[1:55:01] in their outreach in general
[1:55:03] for mining projects. However,
[1:55:05] for the SMARA update,
[1:55:08] this is state law.
[1:55:10] >> Yeah, I'm not asking you to
[1:55:12] change the ordinance
[1:55:13] necessarily. Obviously, there's
[1:55:15] a lot of questions about the
[1:55:16] ordinance that they were asking
[1:55:18] for clarifying information
[1:55:19] in the ordinance, and if we
[1:55:22] were able
[1:55:23] to have a workshop. I, I don't
[1:55:25] know, I don't know
[1:55:26] what we have done enough
[1:55:27] to get up here. I know it's
[1:55:29] been in the works
[1:55:30] for a long time, but to show
[1:55:32] where these critical safeguards
[1:55:34] in their mines,
[1:55:35] the NEPA and CEQA, the ability
[1:55:37] for local residents to chime
[1:55:39] in on a project,
[1:55:42] and when those stages, even
[1:55:44] though that's what we practice
[1:55:45] today and that you're amending
[1:55:47] this ordinance that those
[1:55:48] practices will stay there. Is
[1:55:50] there a better way to, to, I
[1:55:52] guess, transmit that, to
[1:55:53] communicate that than what we
[1:55:55] have done?
[1:55:57] >> If, if I may, County
[1:55:59] Supervisors and Chair, I do
[1:56:00] want
[1:56:01] to give a little more
[1:56:02] background to what Dan had
[1:56:03] actually said as well. So we do
[1:56:05] have, this is our local
[1:56:07] ordinance, correct? So, this is
[1:56:08] what we do
[1:56:10] for the county. A lot of what
[1:56:11] we do already is what state
[1:56:13] requires,
[1:56:14] what the feds require. And as
[1:56:16] Dan said,
[1:56:17] now we're just putting it
[1:56:18] in writing. We have
[1:56:19] to do it anyways,
[1:56:20] and now here it is
[1:56:21] in a document. So what we're
[1:56:22] doing, what we're enforcing our
[1:56:23] local ordinance is by adding
[1:56:25] additional things we could do
[1:56:26] for enforcement and those types
[1:56:28] of things
[1:56:29] to better monitor the mines.
[1:56:31] So that's what we're trying
[1:56:33] to want
[1:56:34] to get that information as well
[1:56:35] in in this in this document.
[1:56:37] There are other agencies that
[1:56:38] are that are also involved.
[1:56:39] They have
[1:56:41] to get permits through DMR
[1:56:43] through Air Quality
[1:56:45] Management District. There's a
[1:56:46] bunch of different agencies
[1:56:47] that they have
[1:56:48] to also get compliance with,
[1:56:49] not just the county, not just
[1:56:50] with the state or federal
[1:56:51] level. This will also,
[1:56:52] currently, when you have a
[1:56:54] project, a mine,
[1:56:55] if you have a reclamation plan,
[1:56:57] you still have to come
[1:56:58] through the County of San
[1:56:59] Bernardino
[1:57:00] to get your permit,
[1:57:01] get your conditional use
[1:57:02] permit, and none
[1:57:03] of that is changing. There is
[1:57:05] an environmental review that's
[1:57:07] for that specific project as
[1:57:08] well. that will have
[1:57:09] to be done, and it will have
[1:57:10] to be reviewed
[1:57:11] for the environmental
[1:57:12] for rec plans or a new mine
[1:57:14] in the county. So, all that
[1:57:15] will still remain the same.
[1:57:19] That is,
[1:57:20] that is not changing. We do
[1:57:21] have current mines
[1:57:22] in the county that are going
[1:57:24] through this process. We've had
[1:57:25] a lot of communication
[1:57:27] with the public. When you,
[1:57:28] when you have a specific mine
[1:57:31] or location, there is
[1:57:32] notification that's done
[1:57:33] for that project. There is
[1:57:35] environmental review. There is
[1:57:37] scoping meetings for
[1:57:39] environmental impact reports if
[1:57:40] that's required as well. So,
[1:57:41] there is still that same
[1:57:43] process that will be
[1:57:44] in place as well. Wanted
[1:57:48] to make that clear because
[1:57:49] of what, I'm not sure if there
[1:57:50] was, sounds
[1:57:51] like there's miscommunication
[1:57:53] with we're taking all
[1:57:54] environmental review out of
[1:57:55] at least the county process,
[1:57:56] but that still will be reviewed
[1:57:57] through the county.
[1:57:59] >> I think I can help explain.
[1:58:00] So, Music Valley Mine is a
[1:58:02] proposed mine out in the
[1:58:04] Twentynine Palms, Wonder
[1:58:05] Valley area that abuts the
[1:58:07] national park. There has been a
[1:58:08] lot of concern
[1:58:10] about what that may or may not
[1:58:12] be, and that's not
[1:58:13] before the county
[1:58:14] at this time. But that is where
[1:58:15] I think you feel the heartfelt
[1:58:17] concern from the community.
[1:58:18] And with this, is this related
[1:58:21] to that or not? You say it's
[1:58:23] not,
[1:58:24] not everybody believes that.
[1:58:25] And so, there is substantial
[1:58:27] community concern. I,
[1:58:30] I have a question for you that
[1:58:31] I believe this is strengthen
[1:58:34] our inspection, reclamation,
[1:58:35] financial assurances,
[1:58:36] and enforcement authority, or
[1:58:38] do the proposed changes weaken
[1:58:41] it? I mean, I heard Curt ask
[1:58:42] that, but can you clarify that
[1:58:44] this strengthens it,
[1:58:45] doesn't weaken it?
[1:58:47] >> Yeah, what this does is,
[1:58:48] like I said, it organizes it
[1:58:50] better and it gives it more
[1:58:51] teeth. I think I explained it
[1:58:53] at Planning Commission this
[1:58:55] way. The operators that want
[1:58:57] to be good stewards
[1:58:58] of the land, that want to work
[1:59:00] with the county and be in
[1:59:01] compliance because that's what
[1:59:02] makes their business plan work.
[1:59:04] They don't want to. They want
[1:59:05] to know what they're getting
[1:59:06] into. They want to know exactly
[1:59:08] what happens if they do this or
[1:59:10] don't do this, right? That's
[1:59:12] how they set a business plan.
[1:59:13] That's how they make a profit,
[1:59:15] right? The good operators want
[1:59:16] to stay
[1:59:17] in compliance because being
[1:59:19] out
[1:59:20] of compliance doesn't pay.
[1:59:21] This ordinance will hold their
[1:59:23] feet to the fire. Will hold
[1:59:24] them accountable to any kind
[1:59:26] of indiscretions they have
[1:59:28] on their site. And it makes it
[1:59:30] easier for my staff, my
[1:59:32] inspectors, to,
[1:59:33] to identify the violations,
[1:59:35] to give them notices
[1:59:37] of violation, orders
[1:59:38] to comply, and go up on, on up
[1:59:40] to the ladder until we're,
[1:59:42] until there's administrative
[1:59:44] fees, penalties. and potential
[1:59:45] for losing their approval
[1:59:48] for their reclamation plan.
[1:59:50] >> Well, here's a more
[1:59:51] simplistic question, I think,
[1:59:52] from the community. If we don't
[1:59:53] adopt this today, does Music
[1:59:54] Valley Mine, if it were
[1:59:55] to move forward,
[1:59:57] have less control at the county
[1:59:58] level or more control
[1:59:59] at the county level?
[2:00:00] >> It has the same. It has the
[2:00:01] same as we've had all along.
[2:00:03] All right, what, what the new
[2:00:05] ordinance does is kind of what
[2:00:07] the old ordinance didn't do.
[2:00:09] It didn't bring
[2:00:10] in that language from the 1992
[2:00:11] MOU,
[2:00:12] that agreement that spelled out
[2:00:14] what the different authority
[2:00:16] was on federal land. So, Music
[2:00:19] Valley, when it comes
[2:00:20] into the county, yes,
[2:00:22] we will do how we do
[2:00:24] on every project
[2:00:25] on federal land. We work
[2:00:26] with BLM or U.S. Forest
[2:00:27] Service to coordinate a
[2:00:30] collaborative review
[2:00:32] of both NEPA and CEQA. And if
[2:00:35] we get documents and studies
[2:00:36] that don't meet the
[2:00:38] requirements of CEQA, then we
[2:00:40] will keep giving review
[2:00:43] comments. Over and over
[2:00:45] until that does rise
[2:00:46] to that standard. And only then,
[2:00:49] is when we can approve the
[2:00:52] reclamation plan. Now remember,
[2:00:54] there's 3 parts. There's 3
[2:00:55] parts
[2:00:56] of a mining operation approval.
[2:00:57] There's the permit,
[2:00:59] there's the reclamation plan,
[2:01:00] and there's the financial
[2:01:01] assurances, okay? So, we have
[2:01:03] control of reclamation plan and
[2:01:06] financial assurances,
[2:01:07] but we have, authority
[2:01:09] to review the whole project
[2:01:11] in its entirety. We're not
[2:01:13] putting blinders
[2:01:14] on reclamation. Okay,
[2:01:16] on federal land, we review the
[2:01:18] whole, that means offsite,
[2:01:19] haul roads, means going
[2:01:20] through town,
[2:01:21] whatever the truck traffic is,
[2:01:22] emissions, and all that.
[2:01:23] That's all part of CEQA. And
[2:01:26] these studies have to answer
[2:01:27] all those questions that CEQA
[2:01:29] asks. Okay, otherwise,
[2:01:32] they don't get a reclamation
[2:01:33] plan, which means their permit
[2:01:35] is worthless.
[2:01:37] >> But if we don't adopt this
[2:01:38] at some point today or
[2:01:40] otherwise, then we're
[2:01:41] relinquishing our authority
[2:01:43] to have that. We're giving it
[2:01:45] to the state and the federal
[2:01:46] government,
[2:01:47] and then we have no say.
[2:01:48] >> Correct.
[2:01:49] >> That's correct?
[2:01:50] >> Yes.
[2:01:51] >> Okay.
[2:01:52] >> Well, we would,
[2:01:53] we would still be CEQA lead
[2:01:54] agency, but we would not be
[2:01:56] SMARA lead agency.
[2:01:57] >> Okay.
[2:01:58] >> So we couldn't regulate the
[2:01:59] mines.
[2:02:04] >> For, for.
[2:02:07] >> No, we went in order.
[2:02:08] >> All intensive.
[2:02:09] >> He's been waiting.
[2:02:11] >> I had my had my. All right,
[2:02:13] forget it.
[2:02:14] >> Mine is very. I feel like
[2:02:17] this is something, no
[2:02:20] one's going
[2:02:21] to be completely happy
[2:02:23] from the look in the room that
[2:02:24] I'm seeing and want
[2:02:25] to change. We have to do this
[2:02:26] change is my understanding
[2:02:28] of this. But what I have to say
[2:02:31] is this has been terribly
[2:02:34] communicated to the public
[2:02:35] in understanding what we have
[2:02:38] to do, what we don't have
[2:02:39] to do and getting them
[2:02:42] to understand what we're trying
[2:02:43] to accomplish here. I, I think
[2:02:45] we totally dropped the ball on
[2:02:47] that. I think you're a super
[2:02:49] smart guy. I just think that
[2:02:51] how this was presented didn't
[2:02:54] give anyone any confidence
[2:02:55] here.
[2:02:58] to understand what we're trying
[2:02:59] to accomplish here. Like, I get
[2:03:00] what you're saying. I just
[2:03:03] think, I don't,
[2:03:04] and I don't know how
[2:03:05] to fix that. I don't know how
[2:03:07] to change perception
[2:03:08] from the public to say,
[2:03:10] here's what we're doing,
[2:03:11] here's what we're trying
[2:03:12] to accomplish. And I think no
[2:03:13] matter how we vote today.
[2:03:15] We're going to have people not
[2:03:17] happy because we really failed
[2:03:20] in the outreach. And I think
[2:03:24] it's too far
[2:03:25] to fix now. I think we're going
[2:03:26] to have to just deal
[2:03:27] with it and do what we're
[2:03:28] doing. But I just think
[2:03:30] in future, or even
[2:03:31] after this,
[2:03:32] whether it's a yes or no,
[2:03:33] we need to go back
[2:03:34] to the public and explain
[2:03:36] to them. And if it has
[2:03:37] to come back again and refine,
[2:03:39] to refine it so that there's
[2:03:40] some comfort,
[2:03:41] then let's so be it. Like,
[2:03:42] let's really be on top
[2:03:43] of this. Let's, let's get
[2:03:44] to where we need to go,
[2:03:45] but we need to really have real
[2:03:46] true dialogue
[2:03:48] with the stakeholders that are
[2:03:49] out here who obviously have a
[2:03:50] concern.
[2:03:53] And see how we can tweak it
[2:03:54] in a way that gives them,
[2:03:55] maybe, maybe they're not going
[2:03:57] to be 100% happy no matter
[2:03:58] what. I can't change that.
[2:04:00] But give them some sort
[2:04:01] of comfort to find that happy
[2:04:02] medium that we could all
[2:04:04] swallow the pill and deal
[2:04:05] with what we need
[2:04:06] to deal with. You know, the
[2:04:07] people who have the signs up
[2:04:08] who are like, this is not here,
[2:04:09] let's find a way
[2:04:10] to make that question here.
[2:04:11] Let's, let's put that very
[2:04:13] clear for them so that they
[2:04:14] understand that we are
[2:04:15] addressing their concerns. And
[2:04:16] those are all my comments.
[2:04:18] >> Supervisor Cook.
[2:04:22] >> Yeah, I don't think you're
[2:04:26] going
[2:04:27] to understand the problem
[2:04:29] on this board here until we
[2:04:31] pack up our gear and we go
[2:04:35] out there in the middle
[2:04:37] of the day at 12 noon. Unless
[2:04:42] you have been out there You
[2:04:44] will never understand it. The
[2:04:47] desert is very unforgiving.
[2:04:50] Now, I don't know who's been
[2:04:52] out there. I've been
[2:04:54] out there more times than I
[2:04:56] want to remember. It's brutal,
[2:04:59] particularly in the summer.
[2:05:02] And any type of changes that
[2:05:06] you have there that doesn't
[2:05:07] take
[2:05:08] into consideration safety. You
[2:05:11] cannot have people wandering
[2:05:12] around there or they're going
[2:05:14] to die. And there's a long
[2:05:16] history of the number
[2:05:17] of people that have died,
[2:05:19] maybe not in that slice
[2:05:22] of the desert,
[2:05:23] but anywhere else. Very, very
[2:05:25] unforgiving. So, I'm,
[2:05:28] I'm very sensitive
[2:05:30] to this. I thought it's part of
[2:05:32] the best training area. I
[2:05:35] probably swore more than I ever
[2:05:36] did when I was
[2:05:38] out there. Because
[2:05:41] it's so damn hot and very
[2:05:43] unforgiving. Now, I'm
[2:05:45] sympathetic, but I also,
[2:05:50] I don't know, want to make sure
[2:05:56] that we don't change what they
[2:06:00] have there as a training area,
[2:06:04] a live, live-fire training area.
[2:06:08] And I'll be honest with you,
[2:06:09] because it's live-fire,
[2:06:11] accidents happen. And there,
[2:06:13] I don't have a list today
[2:06:14] of the number
[2:06:15] of people that have been killed
[2:06:17] out there. And not just because
[2:06:20] you're operating in an
[2:06:21] environment where when it's
[2:06:22] 120 in the shade or so,
[2:06:24] you're going
[2:06:25] to make mistakes, and you got
[2:06:27] to always be vigilant. All I'm
[2:06:30] worried about is when we handle
[2:06:31] this problem here,
[2:06:33] I think we got to be very, very
[2:06:35] aware that this is not an
[2:06:37] ordinary piece of land. And so,
[2:06:42] I, I'm very protective
[2:06:43] of it because I want it
[2:06:45] to be maintained as one of the
[2:06:47] few training areas that the
[2:06:50] armed forces of the United
[2:06:52] States has live-fire training
[2:06:55] area. You can't do that
[2:06:56] anywhere else because you don't
[2:06:59] have that much. It's not,
[2:07:03] it is a huge, huge area. And
[2:07:07] so, I don't know. Right now,
[2:07:10] I'm not prepared to vote
[2:07:12] for this. And I think we need
[2:07:16] more conversations. And if,
[2:07:21] if you guys got the guts,
[2:07:23] let's go out on a high day,
[2:07:25] high note, and bring your beer
[2:07:27] or what have you. And
[2:07:28] we'll go out there and we'll
[2:07:29] see what the real desert is
[2:07:32] like. I'm done.
[2:07:35] >> Question for you all.
[2:07:36] There's a lady sitting
[2:07:37] behind you. She was very
[2:07:39] well-spoken and kind
[2:07:40] in a yellow shirt, and she had
[2:07:41] 3 questions for us. I don't
[2:07:43] necessarily think that I got
[2:07:44] them answered today. I thought
[2:07:46] her approach was very
[2:07:47] reasonable. We heard lots of
[2:07:48] public comment. I don't know
[2:07:51] that we have addressed some of
[2:07:53] the things that you probably
[2:07:54] view as misinformation, and
[2:07:56] there are still questions
[2:07:58] pending that I would
[2:07:59] like answered. What I would
[2:08:00] suggest that we do is I'm going
[2:08:02] to close the public hearing,
[2:08:04] which will close the public
[2:08:05] comment, ask you to return
[2:08:06] to us at a date certain that
[2:08:08] you determine that you can make
[2:08:10] the additional comments that we
[2:08:12] heard from the, the entity.
[2:08:15] And I wrote his name down,
[2:08:18] Krystian Lahage.
[2:08:19] Thank you.
[2:08:21] The, the additional
[2:08:22] language, what you can fit into
[2:08:23] the ordinance that will not
[2:08:24] mess up the MOU, and to address
[2:08:27] the questions that we've heard
[2:08:28] here today that I thought were
[2:08:29] very reasonable. And put them
[2:08:32] together and come back
[2:08:34] to a board meeting. It is a
[2:08:36] long drive down from Wonder
[2:08:37] Valley. I know that they can
[2:08:38] tune in on YouTube
[2:08:39] to get those answers,
[2:08:40] and we can do a much better job
[2:08:42] of reviewing all the questions
[2:08:43] that we've heard here today
[2:08:44] to get answers. If there is
[2:08:46] misinformation,
[2:08:47] to correct it, and that is the
[2:08:48] minimum that we need to do for
[2:08:50] our residents that have taken
[2:08:51] the time
[2:08:52] to provide thoughtful input.
[2:08:53] And then also for you to make
[2:08:54] the changes that are possible
[2:08:55] to make based
[2:08:57] on the public input today. So
[2:08:59] that would be my recommendation
[2:09:01] to close the public hearing,
[2:09:03] have staff return at a date you
[2:09:05] contemplate it now. I know that
[2:09:07] some of our meetings are a
[2:09:08] little bit more densely packed
[2:09:10] in the near future. If you
[2:09:11] gentlemen want to look
[2:09:12] at the calendar on when you
[2:09:13] think you can bring the public
[2:09:15] hearing back so that the public
[2:09:17] knows when to tune in, I can
[2:09:18] continue it if I have board
[2:09:19] approval
[2:09:21] to that date certain.
[2:09:22] >> Yeah, I would,
[2:09:23] I would second your motion,
[2:09:26] but we really need
[2:09:27] to have that outreach. I want
[2:09:29] to emphasize, we need to make
[2:09:30] sure that we have that outreach
[2:09:32] to the community so that,
[2:09:34] I'll be honest, I don't think
[2:09:36] all your needs are going to be
[2:09:37] met because there are legal
[2:09:38] obligations that we have
[2:09:39] to have.
[2:09:40] But anything we can fit
[2:09:41] in there, we should be trying
[2:09:42] to fit in there to give people
[2:09:43] the comfort that they need in
[2:09:44] understanding this is just
[2:09:46] merely a policy issue. This
[2:09:47] isn't having
[2:09:48] to go towards any development
[2:09:50] in particular. So, make sure we
[2:09:52] have that outreach.
[2:09:53] >> And we have all, I mean,
[2:09:54] I get them to my email. Every
[2:09:55] public comment that came
[2:09:56] in came to my email. So, if
[2:09:58] your department doesn't have
[2:09:59] the bandwidth,
[2:10:00] then you can produce a
[2:10:01] document, I will send it back
[2:10:02] to everybody
[2:10:03] to answer their questions. And
[2:10:04] we can put it into a format of
[2:10:06] frequently asked questions so
[2:10:07] that we can either dispel
[2:10:09] misinformation, clarify
[2:10:10] misinformation, or
[2:10:12] at least answer some of the
[2:10:13] questions that we've heard here
[2:10:15] today. Because I don't think
[2:10:16] that any of us are satisfied
[2:10:17] with the level. And then if you
[2:10:19] can bring back those changes
[2:10:22] within SMARA or our MOU that
[2:10:24] you believe that we can do
[2:10:26] without substantially rewriting
[2:10:27] it that comply
[2:10:28] with state law, At the
[2:10:29] continued public hearing?
[2:10:32] >> I would recommend that we
[2:10:34] continue it to October 20th.
[2:10:36] That would give us sufficient
[2:10:37] time to engage
[2:10:38] with the public. And also,
[2:10:39] if the changes are recommended
[2:10:41] to that would if the changes
[2:10:43] had not been previously
[2:10:45] considered by planning, we may
[2:10:46] need to return the matter
[2:10:47] to planning, and that would
[2:10:48] give us sufficient time to do
[2:10:50] that and then have planning
[2:10:51] respond.
[2:10:52] >> Very well.
[2:10:53] >> Is that.
[2:10:54] >> Chair, I'll make the motion
[2:10:55] to continue October 20th.
[2:10:56] >> Second.
[2:10:57] >> 20.
[2:10:58] >> to October 20th.
[2:11:00] >> October 20th. So, close the
[2:11:03] public comment,
[2:11:04] continue the hearing until
[2:11:06] October 20th. I have a motion
[2:11:07] from Vice Chair Baca. Thank
[2:11:09] you, Supervisor Hagman,
[2:11:11] for the second. All those
[2:11:12] in favor?
[2:11:13] Aye.
[2:11:14] Any opposed?
[2:11:18] >> I don't know the motion that
[2:11:21] I want, I don't know [INAUDIBLE]
[2:11:25] how I can get that
[2:11:26] in there.
[2:11:28] >> Well, we have a majority
[2:11:29] vote at this point.
[2:11:30] >> Explain it without.
[2:11:32] >> You're more than welcome to,
[2:11:33] sure.
[2:11:35] >> What I was going to suggest,
[2:11:37] if you guys are gutsy enough,
[2:11:39] is that we go out in the
[2:11:42] Mojave Desert at 12 noon and,
[2:11:46] and actually see what it's
[2:11:50] like out there. When you're
[2:11:51] there, physically there, it
[2:11:53] really makes a big difference.
[2:11:56] You don't have
[2:11:58] to stay there that long, and
[2:12:01] after the manager passes out,
[2:12:03] then we'll stop someplace and
[2:12:05] have a beer. But this way you
[2:12:07] can actually see the physical
[2:12:09] environment that we're talking
[2:12:11] about. The desert is a very,
[2:12:13] very unforgiving place. And
[2:12:16] when you make decisions
[2:12:18] on what you're going to do
[2:12:20] out there, you better make sure
[2:12:21] you do it right. That's all I'm
[2:12:23] saying.
[2:12:24] >> I appreciate that. In terms
[2:12:26] of continuing this item
[2:12:28] in addition to your,
[2:12:32] and I'm all for it,
[2:12:33] that's the backyard, so.
[2:12:34] >> It would be fun.
[2:12:35] >> It would be, but
[2:12:36] in terms of this, if
[2:12:38] >> It's 120, God, wouldn't it?
[2:12:46] No, it's too cold.
[2:12:47] >> Are you in, are you
[2:12:48] in favor, Paul? Are you
[2:12:49] in favor
[2:12:50] of continuing this item to
[2:12:51] October 20th so staff can do
[2:12:53] further outreach, provide
[2:12:54] clarification,
[2:12:55] and then bring it back
[2:12:56] to us?
[2:12:57] >> Well, it's starting
[2:12:58] to get cold out there. I want
[2:12:59] to go
[2:13:00] out there when it's hotter,
[2:13:01] the better to understand.
[2:13:03] >> Nothing's stopping that
[2:13:04] from happening. Nothing will
[2:13:06] stop that from happening.
[2:13:07] >> Why? We're not a bunch
[2:13:09] of candy asses. We can go out
[2:13:10] there and see what it's like.
[2:13:13] >> I need a yes. No or an
[2:13:14] abstention?
[2:13:18] >> A yes, no.
[2:13:20] >> To continue.
[2:13:21] >> To continue this item.
[2:13:24] >> Yeah, he's telling me I can
[2:13:25] continue it.
[2:13:27] >> I'm going to take that as an
[2:13:28] affirmative yes. Thank you.
[2:13:30] >> So, Madam Chair, if I can
[2:13:32] please confirm the motion that
[2:13:33] we are continuing the closed
[2:13:35] public hearing. So, we are
[2:13:38] continuing the closed public
[2:13:40] hearing to October 20th
[2:13:42] to amend. For,
[2:13:43] to allow staff to.
[2:13:44] >> Yes. And then depending upon
[2:13:46] what changes you recommend,
[2:13:48] then it goes back to either
[2:13:49] planning or it moves forward
[2:13:50] to the board. Is that correct,
[2:13:53] Laura?
[2:13:55] >> Oh, depending on, yeah,
[2:13:56] depending
[2:13:57] on how substantial the changes,
[2:13:58] it may need to return
[2:13:59] to planning.
[2:14:00] >> It also may need to return
[2:14:02] to the State Mining and
[2:14:03] Geology Board.
[2:14:04] >> I'm sorry?
[2:14:05] >> It also may need to state,
[2:14:06] to return to the State Mining
[2:14:07] and Geology Board. We'd rather
[2:14:09] get their concurrence
[2:14:10] before we approve it.
[2:14:11] Otherwise, it's just going
[2:14:12] to be.
[2:14:13] >> I understand.
[2:14:14] >> Back and forth.
[2:14:15] >> Okay.
[2:14:16] >> So, Madam Chair, I have one
[2:14:17] just thing. You had mentioned,
[2:14:19] Dan, that there was risk
[2:14:20] of us losing our authority
[2:14:23] within this window. Do you see
[2:14:25] that as a risk over the next 2
[2:14:26] months? This is not an imminent
[2:14:28] risk.
[2:14:29] >> No, I don't see that risk.
[2:14:30] >> Okay.
[2:14:31] >> Just so that.
[2:14:33] >> All right. And for those
[2:14:34] in the audience,
[2:14:35] and I haven't. Final vote?
[2:14:36] >> I don't,
[2:14:37] I was just going to ask. I
[2:14:38] don't believe we have a final
[2:14:39] vote. Yes.
[2:14:40] >> Okay. So to reiterate, all
[2:14:42] those in favor
[2:14:43] of continuing the public
[2:14:44] hearing to October 20th, aye.
[2:14:46] Any opposed? Any abstentions?
[2:14:47] >> Thank you,
[2:14:49] Madam Chair.
[2:14:53] >> If you are here today and
[2:14:55] you provided comment or
[2:14:57] questions in writing,
[2:14:59] we have them all. If you
[2:15:00] verbally provided them,
[2:15:02] I have a staff member in the
[2:15:04] audience who is raising her
[2:15:05] hand in the back
[2:15:06] on your left. If you have
[2:15:08] written comments, confide
[2:15:09] to her. She can give you a
[2:15:10] card. Email us those so we can
[2:15:12] get, make sure that your
[2:15:13] questions get answered. All
[2:15:14] right. And with that,
[2:15:17] we will move on
[2:15:18] to our public comment
[2:15:20] on items not
[2:15:21] on today's agenda. And as a
[2:15:24] reminder, as I stated
[2:15:25] at the top of the meeting,
[2:15:26] we have a number
[2:15:28] of speakers both
[2:15:30] on teleconference and
[2:15:31] in person. Our public comment
[2:15:33] on items not
[2:15:34] on the agenda will be limited
[2:15:35] to 2 minutes. And our first
[2:15:37] request to speak is Bonnie
[2:15:40] Hawthorne, followed by Denise
[2:15:41] June Shearer, and then Keith.
[2:15:54] >> I think that was some kind
[2:15:55] of mistake because I've already
[2:15:57] spoken. I spoke in regard to
[2:15:58] 76, so maybe I filled out the
[2:16:01] form wrong. I'm not sure.
[2:16:06] >> I, we did receive your
[2:16:08] comments earlier. So, if you
[2:16:10] have anything additional that
[2:16:11] you would like to add
[2:16:12] on items not
[2:16:13] on today's agenda,
[2:16:14] you are welcome to do so.
[2:16:17] >> No, I was,
[2:16:18] I was only commenting on item
[2:16:19] 76 and thank you
[2:16:21] for continuing it to October. I
[2:16:24] agree with you. There's been a
[2:16:26] lot of confusion. So, I really
[2:16:29] do hope you straighten it out
[2:16:31] for us. Thank you.
[2:16:32] >> Thank you very much.
[2:16:33] >> Denise June Shear, followed
[2:16:35] by Keith.
[2:16:43] All right. We'll move on
[2:16:44] to Keith.
[2:16:53] >> Hi. Yes, Supervisors, thank
[2:16:55] you for taking the time today
[2:16:56] listening to the public. I
[2:16:58] believe it was the responsible
[2:17:00] thing to push this agenda item
[2:17:02] off for further study. I'd
[2:17:06] like to see a pattern in this
[2:17:07] county and its governance that
[2:17:09] we don't play the state as a
[2:17:11] boogeyman card so much. Let's
[2:17:14] be sensible. Let's not rush
[2:17:16] things. Let's get community
[2:17:17] input.
[2:17:18] Excuse me.
[2:17:19] I think especially
[2:17:22] considering what we're seeing
[2:17:23] in Big Bend National Park. And
[2:17:25] how the federal government is
[2:17:27] rushing
[2:17:28] to bulldoze and draw a line
[2:17:30] through our public lands. It's
[2:17:31] critically important that,
[2:17:33] at least
[2:17:34] at the county and state level,
[2:17:35] that we hold the line and we
[2:17:36] adhere to the laws
[2:17:38] in our state. Surface mining
[2:17:41] on federal lands doesn't happen
[2:17:42] in a vacuum. The scars from any
[2:17:44] potential mine will be visible
[2:17:46] from space long after all
[2:17:47] of us have passed and gone.
[2:17:50] The immediate effects
[2:17:53] on transit lines, the air, the
[2:17:54] water, the night sky,
[2:17:56] the noise. Like, there's so
[2:17:58] many factors to take
[2:17:59] into place. And I don't think
[2:18:01] anyone that lives in
[2:18:02] Twentynine Palms or
[2:18:03] in the high desert region wants
[2:18:05] to see their property values
[2:18:06] plummet if a gigantic open pit
[2:18:08] mine like the one we see in
[2:18:10] Boron is allowed to go forward
[2:18:12] in this county. So, I think
[2:18:13] it's important that we take a
[2:18:15] stance, not
[2:18:16] for the short-term gain,
[2:18:18] for a you know, foreign
[2:18:20] transnational mining
[2:18:21] corporation to extract our
[2:18:23] resources and take them out
[2:18:24] of the.
[2:18:25] >> 30 seconds.
[2:18:26] >> That profit out of this
[2:18:28] county. I think it's important
[2:18:29] that we focus
[2:18:30] on getting this right. So,
[2:18:32] there's no loopholes. So, I
[2:18:33] appreciate you tabling the
[2:18:34] matter. Thank you.
[2:18:35] >> Thank you very much.
[2:18:36] >> And as a reminder, this is
[2:18:37] for items not
[2:18:38] on today's agenda. Next up is
[2:18:40] Nicholas Garver, followed by
[2:18:41] Anna Gonzalez.
[2:18:50] >> Who? Nicholas?
[2:18:52] >> And Anna Gonzalez is not,
[2:18:53] neither of them are still
[2:18:55] on the line. Okay, we're going
[2:18:56] to, we're going
[2:19:01] to bring it back here
[2:19:03] to in-person comments. Our
[2:19:04] first request to speak is
[2:19:06] Daniel DeMeyer, followed by
[2:19:08] Joanne Genesis.
[2:19:12] >> Good afternoon, board. My
[2:19:13] name is Dan Demyer. I'm a
[2:19:15] resident of 29 Palms. I've been
[2:19:17] approaching this problem I have
[2:19:19] a little wrong,
[2:19:21] and I think I'm going
[2:19:22] to do it a little different.
[2:19:24] So with that, I'm going
[2:19:25] to say I'm sorry
[2:19:26] to bother your sheriffs about
[2:19:27] the vandalism and the
[2:19:29] trespassing calls that I've
[2:19:30] been making the last 6 months.
[2:19:33] I'm sorry that your sheriffs,
[2:19:35] 9, 7 of them, came out
[2:19:37] to my house and held guns
[2:19:38] to my head on a SWAT call.
[2:19:40] What's SWAT? A SWAT is when
[2:19:42] somebody calls your law
[2:19:43] enforcement agency and lies and
[2:19:45] tells them BS so they could
[2:19:48] come
[2:19:49] to your house and hold guns to
[2:19:50] your head. I'm sorry that I'm
[2:19:52] helping the neighbors
[2:19:53] with my tractor work after a
[2:19:55] massive flash flood. I'm sorry
[2:19:58] I'm maintaining the road for my
[2:20:00] neighbors as my one neighbor
[2:20:02] destroys it. I have a neighbor
[2:20:04] that blocks the road. And
[2:20:07] nobody does anything, so no one
[2:20:09] can get through. I'm sorry that
[2:20:12] my neighbor is digging up the
[2:20:14] underground utility poles and
[2:20:16] moving them. I find that very
[2:20:19] dangerous. I'm sorry that my
[2:20:21] neighbor dumps his trash along
[2:20:22] with human waste
[2:20:24] around the desert and
[2:20:25] in people's trash cans. He
[2:20:28] calls the cops, and when he
[2:20:30] calls the cops and they
[2:20:31] respond, they go
[2:20:33] to his house,
[2:20:34] and he doesn't answer the door.
[2:20:35] We fix the damage that he
[2:20:37] creates, and he calls the
[2:20:39] police and tells them we did
[2:20:41] the damage. That's false
[2:20:43] reporting.
[2:20:44] >> 30 seconds.
[2:20:45] >> Yes. The main one is,
[2:20:47] is he chased my roommate
[2:20:48] down the road 2.5 miles. I have
[2:20:51] a restraining order,
[2:20:52] so does my roommate. The police
[2:20:54] did nothing. So with that,
[2:20:56] I'm going to say 7 months
[2:20:58] of investigation, 3 violations
[2:20:59] of restraining order, and the
[2:21:01] cops will not return my call.
[2:21:03] The sheriff. They are either
[2:21:05] corrupt or they're incompetent
[2:21:08] because they do not uphold the
[2:21:10] law to serve and protect.
[2:21:13] Thank you.
[2:21:14] >> Thank you for your comments.
[2:21:15] >> Joanne Jenis, then Jane
[2:21:17] Hunt-Rubel.
[2:21:19] >> Good afternoon,
[2:21:21] Supervisors. My name is
[2:21:22] Joanne Jenis and I live
[2:21:23] in the city of Chino Hills.
[2:21:24] Let's talk about homelessness
[2:21:25] and matters related to it. Did
[2:21:27] you hear about the city of
[2:21:29] Riverside's new drop-off
[2:21:30] ordinance? I'm aware Riverside
[2:21:31] is in another county,
[2:21:33] but I believe looking at this
[2:21:34] ordinance could potentially
[2:21:35] benefit our own communities
[2:21:38] in our own county, especially
[2:21:40] with the 2028 Olympics coming
[2:21:43] to, coming into LA. The
[2:21:45] ordinance requires law
[2:21:46] enforcement, medical
[2:21:47] facilities, behavioral health
[2:21:48] providers, cities and county
[2:21:49] agencies,
[2:21:50] and other organizations to
[2:21:52] provide 24-hour advance notice
[2:21:53] before dropping off an
[2:21:55] individual experiencing
[2:21:56] homelessness in their city.
[2:21:58] The goal is to give the city
[2:21:59] and service providers an
[2:22:01] opportunity to coordinate
[2:22:02] behavioral health services,
[2:22:04] shelter housing,
[2:22:05] and other support instead
[2:22:07] of simply leaving them
[2:22:08] somewhere without the resources
[2:22:09] they need. I believe a similar
[2:22:11] policy should be considered in
[2:22:13] the county and statewide levels
[2:22:15] with the possibility of
[2:22:16] eventually becoming state law.
[2:22:18] Here's why I'm so passionate
[2:22:20] about this homeless ordinance.
[2:22:21] Some of you probably remember
[2:22:23] my story. My son was accepted
[2:22:25] into the AOT Laura's Law
[2:22:28] program medical. He was
[2:22:30] evaluated. The court ordered,
[2:22:31] the judge ordered
[2:22:32] for an evaluation. He went
[2:22:34] through the evaluation. He went
[2:22:36] to Arrowhead Regional. 72 hours
[2:22:38] later, even though diagnosed
[2:22:40] severe mental illness and
[2:22:41] gravely disabled,
[2:22:42] they released him. No support.
[2:22:44] 31 miles. Gave him a bus pass.
[2:22:45] No support. No cell phone. No
[2:22:47] money. Somehow, he made it
[2:22:48] home. 7 days later,
[2:22:49] he was killed crossing
[2:22:50] at a crosswalk. while being
[2:22:53] out of his head,
[2:22:55] and he was killed
[2:22:56] by a hit-and-run felony EMT.
[2:22:59] So, let's try and see,
[2:23:01] improve what's happening with
[2:23:02] these mental health patients
[2:23:03] and homelessness out
[2:23:05] on the streets. Thank you
[2:23:06] for your time.
[2:23:07] >> Thank you
[2:23:08] for your comments.
[2:23:09] >> Jane Hunt Ruble, then
[2:23:10] Randy Bekendam, and then
[2:23:11] Carmen Gallegos.
[2:23:18] >> Excuse me. Good afternoon. I
[2:23:20] got hungry,
[2:23:22] so I brought a candy bar
[2:23:23] with me. Anyway, I'm here
[2:23:26] to talk about, well,
[2:23:29] I love those people from
[2:23:31] Wonder Valley, and I wish my
[2:23:33] community was like that a long
[2:23:35] time ago when we were fighting
[2:23:36] other things in Lytle, Cohon
[2:23:38] Wash. But anyway, I'm here
[2:23:40] to talk about, I came
[2:23:43] across this yesterday. It's
[2:23:45] about the unincorporated truck
[2:23:49] routes, because that's one
[2:23:51] thing I'm concerned about.
[2:23:53] Because earlier this year,
[2:23:54] thank you, Baca,
[2:23:55] for finally coming out
[2:23:56] to our community
[2:23:58] about the truck routes,
[2:23:59] but it's gotten worse
[2:24:00] over the past few months. It's
[2:24:02] just, I hate going down Macy
[2:24:05] Street anymore, but I have to
[2:24:06] on Thursday because I have,
[2:24:08] I work for a friend of mine
[2:24:09] over in Rialto, and it's
[2:24:11] Getting big rigs coming
[2:24:12] down there, and also the
[2:24:14] vendors. I don't even
[2:24:16] like going to the, the library
[2:24:19] there anymore because it's just
[2:24:21] overwhelmed with,
[2:24:23] on both sides of Darby
[2:24:25] Street, the vendors, and
[2:24:27] they're there apparently every
[2:24:29] day. And I just want something
[2:24:31] done about it because it even
[2:24:33] bothers the people that work
[2:24:34] in the library. And I was
[2:24:37] shocked to learn that.
[2:24:38] But some, we have a lot
[2:24:40] of people that live out in
[2:24:42] Muscoy. I guess they moved here
[2:24:45] to Muscoy that are truck
[2:24:46] drivers,
[2:24:47] and they have big rigs. And the
[2:24:49] one thing I wanted
[2:24:50] to talk about.
[2:24:51] >> 30 seconds.
[2:24:52] >> Is that I caught somebody
[2:24:53] on the corner of June and 2nd
[2:24:56] that they have signs up saying
[2:24:58] no parking at all. They've been
[2:24:59] up there for years, but I
[2:25:02] caught somebody doing it again,
[2:25:03] and I want something done
[2:25:04] about it. So, I please beg you
[2:25:07] to do something about it
[2:25:08] because they're blocking the
[2:25:10] view of traffic going and
[2:25:13] they're blatant about it. So, I
[2:25:14] really like,
[2:25:15] appreciate it.
[2:25:16] Also, are the cameras up
[2:25:19] because people are still.
[2:25:20] >> That's time.
[2:25:21] >> On second and thank.
[2:25:23] >> Thank you, Randy Bekendam
[2:25:24] followed by Carmen Gallegos.
[2:25:30] >> Good afternoon,
[2:25:31] Supervisors. I'm Randy
[2:25:33] Bekendam, Executive Director
[2:25:35] of the Southern California
[2:25:37] Agricultural Land Foundation,
[2:25:40] and I'm also a local farmer.
[2:25:43] Our nonprofit has managed. We
[2:25:46] did manage the Prop 70 lands
[2:25:48] for the first 15 years
[2:25:50] of their existence. About 20
[2:25:52] years ago,
[2:25:54] the county dismissed the
[2:25:55] Executive Director and took
[2:25:57] management of the properties
[2:25:59] in-house. which generated this
[2:26:00] letter that I have here
[2:26:02] from the Planning and
[2:26:04] Conservation League, and they
[2:26:06] were the ones who initiated
[2:26:08] Prop 70. The contents of this
[2:26:12] letter are why we kept the
[2:26:13] nonprofit alive and active
[2:26:16] to this point. This letter
[2:26:18] threatens citizen action unless
[2:26:22] the county complies
[2:26:24] with the contents
[2:26:26] of this letter. The county has
[2:26:27] been out of compliance with
[2:26:29] Prop 70 from the beginning, so
[2:26:32] 38 years in violation
[2:26:34] of the public trust. The
[2:26:36] citizens of California own the
[2:26:38] Prop 70 land. The county is a
[2:26:41] steward of the land. You have a
[2:26:44] fiduciary responsibility
[2:26:45] to comply with the mandate of
[2:26:49] Prop 70, which is
[2:26:51] to preserve the land
[2:26:52] for agriculture. And so,
[2:26:54] the letter of this,
[2:26:56] the contents of this letter,
[2:26:58] very self-explanatory. Who can
[2:27:01] I leave this letter with?
[2:27:02] >> That's 30 seconds.
[2:27:04] >> As many copies as you need.
[2:27:08] >> Madam Chair, sorry,
[2:27:10] we can take it. The Clerk
[2:27:11] of the Board
[2:27:12] down here can take it
[2:27:13] from you. Thank you.
[2:27:14] >> Okay, thank you.
[2:27:15] >> Carmen Gallegos,
[2:27:16] followed by Leticia Howard, and
[2:27:18] then Joaquin Castillejos.
[2:27:24] >> Is this on? Okay. Yeah, I
[2:27:27] had brought this up before.
[2:27:28] Where I'm located,
[2:27:30] I noticed that sometimes I do
[2:27:32] go to places that have way too
[2:27:33] much things going on
[2:27:34] at one time. It also affects
[2:27:35] the city and also the people
[2:27:37] around it. A lot
[2:27:39] of times right now I'm dealing
[2:27:40] with this right now I want
[2:27:42] to bring in sidewalks and
[2:27:44] streets and lights. And because
[2:27:46] that they're hitting
[2:27:48] pedestrians,
[2:27:49] and the pedestrians are in the
[2:27:50] streets because there's no
[2:27:52] sidewalks. And this was
[2:27:53] with a lot
[2:27:55] of humans and animals. They
[2:27:57] can't walk their dog or cat. I
[2:27:58] mean, they have to take care
[2:28:02] of just basically like the
[2:28:04] fireworks. I had so many
[2:28:05] fireworks. I go, I've never
[2:28:06] seen so many fireworks
[2:28:07] in my life, or they should have
[2:28:08] been contained a long time ago
[2:28:10] because it made a war zone
[2:28:11] of your city.
[2:28:12] And in county and city areas. So
[2:28:14] right now, I'm
[2:28:15] in a county area. Before I was
[2:28:17] in a city area,
[2:28:18] but still dealing
[2:28:19] with fireworks, which is really
[2:28:20] crazy. I got a disturb the
[2:28:22] peace, and I had to laugh
[2:28:23] at that because I got a ticket
[2:28:25] for that. But
[2:28:27] to overlook the obvious,
[2:28:29] if we're to let it go
[2:28:31] to businesses and burning it,
[2:28:32] even Homeland Security said
[2:28:34] they only took care
[2:28:35] of federal buildings.
[2:28:36] But aside from that,
[2:28:37] right now. And even hearing a
[2:28:38] comment, you know,
[2:28:40] I'm too far away
[2:28:42] to get there. Well, that's why
[2:28:43] I said adopt a planet, and we
[2:28:44] need clean air and clean water.
[2:28:45] Because you let the,
[2:28:47] you overlook the fireworks,
[2:28:49] and they should,
[2:28:50] they weren't even
[2:28:51] in a contained area where, I
[2:28:52] mean, in the area that they had
[2:28:53] permits for.
[2:28:54] But even the permit area.
[2:28:55] >> 30 seconds.
[2:28:57] >> But anyway, so again,
[2:28:58] transportation and
[2:29:02] for humans and animals, but
[2:29:03] like sidewalks to keep them
[2:29:04] off the streets. Thank you.
[2:29:06] >> Thank you very much.
[2:29:08] >> From drunk drivers and
[2:29:09] people flipping cars.
[2:29:11] >> Leticia Howard, followed
[2:29:13] by Joaquin Castillejos, and then
[2:29:14] Terry Lewis.
[2:29:20] >> For over a year,
[2:29:21] parents and advocates have come
[2:29:22] before this board reporting
[2:29:23] corruption, fraud, perjury,
[2:29:25] abuse of power, violations of,
[2:29:27] of our right to due process,
[2:29:28] and harm to our children
[2:29:30] within Children and Family
[2:29:32] Services. What was the
[2:29:33] response? The board pushed to
[2:29:35] make sure parents received
[2:29:37] their court reports on time.
[2:29:39] Well, let me tell you how that
[2:29:40] correction is working. On July
[2:29:42] 8th, my parental rights were
[2:29:44] terminated. One of the most
[2:29:45] important documents that
[2:29:47] in that proceeding was the 26
[2:29:49] report. I don't have that
[2:29:51] report. I did not have that
[2:29:53] report the day of the hearing.
[2:29:54] I do not have it as of today. I
[2:29:56] made multiple written requests
[2:29:58] for it, and today,
[2:29:59] more than a month after my
[2:30:00] rights were terminated, I still
[2:30:01] don't have that report. report.
[2:30:03] So, when Jeannie Glasgow says
[2:30:04] that the problems have been
[2:30:05] corrected, I ask you,
[2:30:07] does that sound
[2:30:08] like it's been corrected?
[2:30:09] Today I'm no longer speaking
[2:30:10] to the board. I'm speaking
[2:30:11] to parents, advocates,
[2:30:13] attorneys, civil rights
[2:30:14] organizations, lawmakers,
[2:30:15] journalists, taxpayers, and
[2:30:16] everyone believes the
[2:30:18] government must have, the
[2:30:19] government power must have
[2:30:21] limits. We have spent too much
[2:30:23] time asking the very system we
[2:30:25] accuse of corruption, fraud,
[2:30:28] and abuse of power to
[2:30:29] investigate or correct itself.
[2:30:30] When will, when will we
[2:30:32] understand the system is
[2:30:34] working exactly the way it was
[2:30:35] designed to work? It survives
[2:30:36] because families are isolated
[2:30:38] and afraid. It survives because
[2:30:39] people believe they are
[2:30:41] powerless when they walk
[2:30:42] into courtrooms,
[2:30:43] and it survives when the rest
[2:30:45] of us remain silent. I am not
[2:30:46] here today asking the board to
[2:30:48] save us. I am asking the people
[2:30:49] to stand together.
[2:30:51] >> 30 seconds.
[2:30:52] >> Learn the law,
[2:30:53] preserve your records,
[2:30:54] request your documents,
[2:30:55] request answer, ask questions,
[2:30:57] demand evidence, show up
[2:30:58] to these meetings, contact
[2:30:59] lawmakers,
[2:31:00] contact civil rights
[2:31:02] organizations, because history
[2:31:04] has never been changed by
[2:31:05] people quietly accepting
[2:31:06] injustice. Change happens when
[2:31:08] ordinary people decide,
[2:31:09] decide enough is enough. They
[2:31:11] may have the titles, they may
[2:31:13] have attorneys, they may have
[2:31:14] the funding,
[2:31:16] but we have the numbers. And
[2:31:17] when the communities stand
[2:31:18] together, we have the power
[2:31:19] to enforce accountability.
[2:31:20] >> That's time.
[2:31:22] >> Joaquin Castillejos,
[2:31:24] followed by Terry Lewis, and
[2:31:26] then Karen Reich.
[2:31:30] >> Good morning,
[2:31:32] county staff and community. My
[2:31:34] name is Joaquin Castillejos. I
[2:31:36] am an organizer with the
[2:31:38] Center for Community Action and
[2:31:39] Environmental Justice. I'm here
[2:31:41] today to just remind the board
[2:31:43] of its duty to protect Prop 70
[2:31:46] land and to be stewards of this
[2:31:48] preserved agricultural land.
[2:31:50] that was meant to be used
[2:31:52] for generations to come. In
[2:31:55] 19, in 1984, when this was
[2:31:58] passed, it was because voters
[2:32:00] decided that it was important
[2:32:01] to save agricultural land, to
[2:32:04] set it aside and make sure that
[2:32:07] future generations, no matter
[2:32:09] how developed their
[2:32:11] surroundings were,
[2:32:12] they would always have access
[2:32:13] to this Prop 70 land. And San
[2:32:15] Bernardino County started off,
[2:32:17] became part of this process.
[2:32:23] They used, the county used $20
[2:32:24] million in Prop 70 funding
[2:32:26] to buy up agricultural land
[2:32:28] across the county and was meant
[2:32:31] to preserve it and save it and
[2:32:33] make sure that it's preserved
[2:32:35] for future generations,
[2:32:37] that it was used
[2:32:38] for regenerative agriculture,
[2:32:39] green spaces, things that
[2:32:41] benefit the community. And it
[2:32:44] is, it is a duty, and under
[2:32:46] Prop 70, it should continue
[2:32:48] to be the main priority. The
[2:32:51] county should not be using
[2:32:54] these, this land
[2:32:55] for any other reason,
[2:32:56] transferring it
[2:32:57] to any other entity, or, or,
[2:33:00] you know, letting it be used
[2:33:01] to be.
[2:33:02] >> 30 seconds.
[2:33:03] >> To become anything else
[2:33:05] that's not an agricultural
[2:33:07] easement. So, I'm just here
[2:33:08] to urge the county
[2:33:09] to remember its role with Prop
[2:33:11] 70 to take care of that land
[2:33:13] and make sure that it will
[2:33:16] continue to be used
[2:33:17] in what it is supposed
[2:33:19] to be used, which is
[2:33:20] through natural lands, open
[2:33:22] space, and agriculture. Thank
[2:33:24] you.
[2:33:25] >> Thank you very much. Karen
[2:33:27] Reich, followed by Lisa Finn,
[2:33:29] and then Eric Vasquez. Oh, I'm
[2:33:34] sorry. My Thing shows it's
[2:33:36] highlighted. Terry Lewis first,
[2:33:38] and then Karen.
[2:33:48] >> Hi, my name is Terry Lewis.
[2:33:52] I just wanted
[2:33:53] to ask a question. Why is it
[2:33:55] okay for social workers
[2:33:57] to lie, to lie to parents,
[2:33:59] to lie in court? They,
[2:34:03] in my own personal case,
[2:34:05] the social worker lied 24 times
[2:34:07] in her report,
[2:34:09] and we can prove like 3
[2:34:10] of them for sure. And no one's
[2:34:12] heard our story. No one's cared
[2:34:14] to even listen. Our twins had
[2:34:16] been gone,
[2:34:18] and the baby had been gone
[2:34:19] through 2 years now. And it,
[2:34:21] for what reason? There were no
[2:34:22] allegations of anything. The
[2:34:24] kids were
[2:34:25] with their grandmother. They
[2:34:27] weren't even with the mom.
[2:34:28] They went to the mom's home,
[2:34:29] and based on her home,
[2:34:30] they took the kids.
[2:34:31] But the kids had been living
[2:34:33] with the grandmother
[2:34:34] for a month. So, it really
[2:34:35] doesn't make sense. And when we
[2:34:36] go to court, no one hears our
[2:34:38] story because we don't have an
[2:34:39] attorney. And it's
[2:34:41] unacceptable.
[2:34:42] But why is it okay for them
[2:34:44] to lie? Cops can't lie. I used
[2:34:46] to be a correctional officer,
[2:34:47] and we had
[2:34:48] to follow the WIC codes to the
[2:34:49] letter because there was
[2:34:51] oversight. And the county CPS
[2:34:52] has no oversight. I missed that
[2:34:55] June 23rd, I think it was the
[2:34:57] 23rd meeting where Jeannie
[2:34:58] Glasgow and the other man sat
[2:35:00] here and gave their statistics.
[2:35:02] and how they never take
[2:35:04] children from parents unless
[2:35:05] it's dire circumstances,
[2:35:07] and they always do everything
[2:35:09] to keep them with family. And
[2:35:11] that is a blatant lie,
[2:35:13] complete, at least
[2:35:15] in my case. And I believe the
[2:35:16] other parents too. They could
[2:35:18] have left the kids
[2:35:19] at my house that night.
[2:35:21] >> 30 seconds.
[2:35:22] >> They said that someone in my
[2:35:23] home didn't pass the
[2:35:24] background. So I said, well,
[2:35:25] he'll leave. And they, and she
[2:35:27] goes, it doesn't work
[2:35:28] like that, when it absolutely
[2:35:29] does according
[2:35:31] to the WIC codes. And, you
[2:35:32] know, it's unacceptable. There
[2:35:35] needs to be oversight. There
[2:35:36] needs to be, they should wear
[2:35:38] body cameras so that they have
[2:35:39] to, you know, transparency. But
[2:35:42] they don't want transparency
[2:35:43] because they're the ones who's
[2:35:45] lying and they're the ones who
[2:35:46] are harming the kids, not us.
[2:35:47] There was no reason for them
[2:35:49] to take our twins.
[2:35:50] >> That's time.
[2:35:55] >> Karen Reich, followed by
[2:35:56] Lisa Finn.
[2:35:57] >> Hello, my name is Karen
[2:35:58] Reich. I'm the grandmother to
[2:36:01] Jovi, Jace, and Myla Wood. I'm
[2:36:05] here because I'm angry. I'm
[2:36:07] pissed off that we come here
[2:36:10] twice a month. Well, I missed
[2:36:13] the, I've missed a couple of
[2:36:14] them because I've been busy
[2:36:16] trying to get RFA approved
[2:36:17] to get my grandkids.
[2:36:19] But you guys sit up there, and
[2:36:21] you hear these horrific
[2:36:23] situations where people's kids
[2:36:26] have been legally kidnapped and
[2:36:29] you do nothing. That, I, I
[2:36:31] mean, nothing has changed.
[2:36:33] Laws need changed. Reform needs
[2:36:35] to happen. My grandkids were
[2:36:37] removed by a woman named
[2:36:39] Betty Thompson Larkin, and they
[2:36:41] were put with a social worker
[2:36:44] foster mom named Kyra Larkin.
[2:36:47] Are they of relation? Is this a
[2:36:49] coincidence, or is
[2:36:51] trafficking, because that's
[2:36:54] what it would be. It's called
[2:36:55] trafficking. And San
[2:36:57] Bernardino County is
[2:36:59] trafficking our kids and using
[2:37:01] them. They're exploiting them
[2:37:02] for the sole purpose
[2:37:04] of gaining financial money
[2:37:06] for the title for refunding.
[2:37:07] And that
[2:37:08] to me is disgusting. I'm Mama
[2:37:12] Bear. I'm Mama Bear, and I'm
[2:37:14] coming after my grandkids,
[2:37:16] and hell's coming with me.
[2:37:17] Thank you.
[2:37:19] >> Thank you. Lisa Finn
[2:37:21] followed by Eric Vasquez.
[2:37:24] >> Good afternoon. My name is
[2:37:25] Lisa Finn. This is, I don't
[2:37:27] know, my 6th time or so
[2:37:28] speaking. I'm speaking
[2:37:31] to share my experience
[2:37:32] with the Child Protective
[2:37:34] Services and family court
[2:37:35] system because I believe there
[2:37:36] are serious injustices that
[2:37:37] need to be brought to light.
[2:37:39] My children were removed
[2:37:40] from my care,
[2:37:41] and throughout the court
[2:37:42] proceedings, I felt I was not
[2:37:43] given a fair opportunity to
[2:37:44] defend myself. or challenge the
[2:37:46] allegations being made
[2:37:47] against me. Reports were served
[2:37:49] on, to me
[2:37:51] on the same day as court,
[2:37:52] leaving me little or no
[2:37:53] meaningful opportunity to
[2:37:54] review the information or
[2:37:56] prepare a response. I was not
[2:37:58] given the opportunity
[2:37:59] to question my accusers. My
[2:38:01] attorneys did not adequately
[2:38:02] advise me that I could contest
[2:38:03] the allegations,
[2:38:06] and witnesses who were willing
[2:38:07] to testify
[2:38:08] on my behalf were not permitted
[2:38:09] to do so. I believe these
[2:38:10] circumstances denied me a
[2:38:12] meaningful opportunity
[2:38:13] to be heard. Sorry. The
[2:38:23] allegations against me were
[2:38:24] eventually proven
[2:38:26] to be false. However, even
[2:38:27] after those allegations were
[2:38:28] shown to be false,
[2:38:30] my children were not returned
[2:38:32] to me. Approximately 3 months
[2:38:35] after my children were removed,
[2:38:36] the reunification social worker
[2:38:37] brought my children
[2:38:38] to the home.
[2:38:39] During that visit, they were
[2:38:40] told, take everything you love
[2:38:42] as you're never coming back
[2:38:43] here. Those words have stayed
[2:38:44] with me. I could not understand
[2:38:46] how genuine reunification
[2:38:47] efforts could be when the
[2:38:49] person responsible for helping
[2:38:50] with reunification was telling
[2:38:51] us that my children were never
[2:38:53] coming back. As the case
[2:38:55] continued.
[2:38:56] >> 30 seconds.
[2:38:57] >> As the case continued,
[2:38:59] the allegations changed. False
[2:39:01] narratives stacked up court
[2:39:03] proceeding
[2:39:04] after court proceeding.
[2:39:05] Something is terribly wrong
[2:39:07] with this system, and we,
[2:39:09] we're going
[2:39:10] to keep coming asking you guys
[2:39:11] to change it, fix it. Thank you.
[2:39:14] >> Thank you very much. Eric
[2:39:15] Vasquez, followed by Delina
[2:39:17] Murillo, and then Amethyst
[2:39:18] Yates.
[2:39:21] >> Yes, good afternoon, Madam
[2:39:23] Chair, Vice Chair, Board of
[2:39:25] Supervisors, members
[2:39:26] of the staff, and members
[2:39:28] of the community. My name is
[2:39:29] Eric Vasquez, and I'm from
[2:39:30] True Impact, a nonprofit
[2:39:31] organization that exists
[2:39:33] to mentor at-promise youth
[2:39:34] to heal from their trauma and
[2:39:36] to find purpose.
[2:39:37] In that process, we focus
[2:39:39] on restorative practices,
[2:39:40] restorative justice,
[2:39:42] and a big emphasis
[2:39:44] on mentoring. Recently, you
[2:39:46] know, well, over the years,
[2:39:47] I've explored so many different
[2:39:49] things to touch the heart of
[2:39:50] these beautiful young people,
[2:39:52] to help them rehabilitate and
[2:39:56] find real change. And, you
[2:39:58] know, in that process, I came
[2:40:00] across regenerative farming.
[2:40:02] And so, I'm here today due
[2:40:04] to a recent collaboration
[2:40:06] with the Southern California
[2:40:08] Agricultural Land Foundation.
[2:40:10] What we've been doing is taking
[2:40:12] these system-impacted young
[2:40:14] people,
[2:40:15] current or former foster youth,
[2:40:17] at-promise youth,
[2:40:18] and bringing them
[2:40:19] into these green spaces,
[2:40:21] providing them workforce
[2:40:23] development, and seeing healing
[2:40:25] take place as they put their
[2:40:26] hands
[2:40:27] to honest and good work.
[2:40:28] There's something about being
[2:40:30] out in nature, that touches and
[2:40:32] changes the young heart. And
[2:40:34] so, I'm here because I'm
[2:40:36] concerned, as I've learned
[2:40:37] about Prop 70 and how it's not
[2:40:40] necessarily being adhered to,
[2:40:42] or that there is a threat
[2:40:44] to some of these lands being
[2:40:46] developed. I feel
[2:40:48] like finally, after 25 years
[2:40:50] of youth work,
[2:40:51] urban youth work.
[2:40:52] >> 30 seconds.
[2:40:54] >> That I have found gold, you
[2:40:55] know, that I have found
[2:40:57] something that 100%
[2:40:58] of the time works
[2:41:00] in touching the heart
[2:41:01] of these young people. And so,
[2:41:02] I just ask that you all take a
[2:41:04] look into this and that you
[2:41:05] ensure that we are running
[2:41:08] in our lane and adhering to
[2:41:10] Prop 70 as a county. This has
[2:41:12] many impacts,
[2:41:13] particularly impacts to the
[2:41:15] At Promise community. Thank you
[2:41:16] for hearing me today.
[2:41:18] >> Thank you very much, Delina
[2:41:20] Murillo, followed by Amethyst
[2:41:22] Yates and then Alejandra
[2:41:23] Contreras.
[2:41:24] >> Board members, we have come
[2:41:26] here time and time again
[2:41:28] to listen to Jeanne Glasgow
[2:41:29] talk about changes,
[2:41:30] about oversight,
[2:41:32] about reform. I want to know
[2:41:33] what has actually been done.
[2:41:34] You opened up 2 more courtrooms
[2:41:36] this year. The county's own
[2:41:37] record says it's because
[2:41:38] caseloads has outgrown the
[2:41:40] building. I'm asking you
[2:41:42] directly, does that mean more
[2:41:43] children being removed?
[2:41:45] Because nobody up there has
[2:41:46] answered that question,
[2:41:48] and families like mine deserve
[2:41:50] to know. Thank you.
[2:41:51] Meanwhile, my case keeps
[2:41:52] getting the same treatment your
[2:41:54] oversight was supposed
[2:41:55] to fix. My reports are still
[2:41:56] being filed the morning
[2:41:58] of hearings. For instance,
[2:41:59] today's report, the one used
[2:42:01] at my hearing,
[2:42:03] has a last documented entry
[2:42:05] from 13 days ago. 13 days,
[2:42:06] and it still showed up too late
[2:42:09] to properly review. And here's
[2:42:11] what should concern everybody
[2:42:13] in this room. The agency's own
[2:42:15] report states in writing that
[2:42:17] my daughter is too young
[2:42:18] to understand or form an
[2:42:19] opinion about adoption. And
[2:42:21] then in the same report,
[2:42:23] the answers of the same, sorry,
[2:42:26] they use her answer anyways,
[2:42:29] that adoption means she gets
[2:42:31] to stay in the house forever as
[2:42:34] it's informed consent. No one
[2:42:36] has told this 6-year-old what
[2:42:39] adoption actually means, that
[2:42:40] she will never see her mother
[2:42:42] again until she's 18 years old.
[2:42:44] 12 years, that is not staying
[2:42:46] somewhere forever. That is
[2:42:47] losing her mother and no one
[2:42:49] explained to her before asking
[2:42:50] her that question. So, my
[2:42:52] question for this board is not
[2:42:54] something that is taken
[2:42:55] lightly.
[2:42:56] >> 30 seconds.
[2:42:59] >> What oversight exists?
[2:43:00] Who is checking the agency's
[2:43:01] work? Because right now it
[2:43:02] doesn't seem
[2:43:03] like anyone still is. Thank
[2:43:04] you.
[2:43:05] >> Thank you very much.
[2:43:07] Amethyst Yates, followed by
[2:43:08] Alejandra Contreras, and then
[2:43:09] Stephanie.
[2:43:12] >> Good afternoon, Chair and
[2:43:13] members of the board. My name
[2:43:15] is Amethyst Yates, and I'm
[2:43:16] with the Family Reunification
[2:43:17] Equity and Empowerment Project
[2:43:19] at Starting Over. I was able
[2:43:26] to go to a conference. There
[2:43:28] was a bunch
[2:43:29] of foster agencies, social
[2:43:31] workers,
[2:43:34] people that implement the
[2:43:36] policy, remove children,
[2:43:38] and all that stuff. As of July
[2:43:42] 1st, 2027, each child removed
[2:43:46] from the home
[2:43:48] at minimum will receive
[2:43:51] $1,700. My numbers are a little
[2:43:54] off, it's a little bit more
[2:43:56] than that. However, under
[2:43:59] Title VII of the Social
[2:44:01] Security Act, there is money
[2:44:03] there available
[2:44:05] for prevention services
[2:44:07] In-home. The $1,700 is for only
[2:44:10] out-of-home placements. Okay,
[2:44:14] so under Title IV-E,
[2:44:17] they can get reimbursements for
[2:44:20] these prevention services. I'm
[2:44:23] really asking the board
[2:44:25] to stop funding things like
[2:44:27] Victor Outreach because I also
[2:44:28] ran into a parent partner over
[2:44:30] there that was devastated that
[2:44:32] the mother got her children
[2:44:33] back. Okay, this is not okay. I
[2:44:37] was also privy to go
[2:44:39] into CFT meetings with some
[2:44:41] of the people from Victor
[2:44:42] Outreach.
[2:44:43] >> 30 seconds.
[2:44:44] >> And they falsified
[2:44:47] everything. I was like,
[2:44:49] the parent never said that.
[2:44:51] But when the report came back,
[2:44:52] that's what was written, that
[2:44:54] the mother said that when I was
[2:44:56] the one that asked the
[2:44:57] questions. Thank you.
[2:45:01] >> Thank you. Alejandra
[2:45:02] Contreras, followed by
[2:45:03] Stephanie, and then Rita
[2:45:04] Espinoza.
[2:45:07] >> Hello, good afternoon. My
[2:45:08] name is Alejandra. This is the
[2:45:09] 4th time I've been coming. I'm
[2:45:11] here to ask you
[2:45:13] to please investigate the
[2:45:15] Office on Family Services and
[2:45:16] 1094s. I just came
[2:45:19] from court. I had mediation
[2:45:21] with them when the judge
[2:45:22] ordered reunification,
[2:45:24] and give authority
[2:45:27] to give me unsupervised visits,
[2:45:28] but they don't want
[2:45:29] to move forward. They want me
[2:45:31] to keep going trial case,
[2:45:32] spending my money, because I'm
[2:45:33] paying my private attorney
[2:45:35] because I don't trust them.
[2:45:36] They've been lying. And I had
[2:45:40] to say this, I questioned my,
[2:45:42] my social worker today and he
[2:45:44] couldn't answer any
[2:45:45] of my questions. The one he was
[2:45:47] stepping in
[2:45:48] in every question, it was
[2:45:49] Janice. I want you
[2:45:51] to investigate Janice Navas.
[2:45:53] Jos Mac as, because every
[2:45:55] moment kids from the second
[2:45:57] home that they were abused,
[2:45:58] neglected, keeping in a room
[2:46:01] day and night as they were as a
[2:46:04] basement. It was not a
[2:46:06] basement, but the suffer and
[2:46:07] mentally and emotionally it was
[2:46:09] the same as being
[2:46:10] on the basement. They knew all
[2:46:12] this abuse, and they tried
[2:46:13] to not expose it. Now that they
[2:46:18] are in a new caregiver, I'm
[2:46:19] concerning. because they want
[2:46:21] to remove it now. But my
[2:46:23] concern is that the newest
[2:46:25] caregiver told me that before
[2:46:26] they placed them as emergency,
[2:46:28] they knew that he, that her
[2:46:31] husband has sexually abused
[2:46:34] accusations in the past,
[2:46:35] and they placed my kids with
[2:46:37] them when I have relatives.
[2:46:38] >> 30 seconds.
[2:46:39] >> And they tried to avoid
[2:46:40] to go
[2:46:41] with my relative and put it
[2:46:42] with person that has sexually
[2:46:44] abused accusations. And my kids
[2:46:46] right now, they want to remove
[2:46:48] it because those allegations
[2:46:49] How come they doing this? The
[2:46:51] social worker that he couldn't
[2:46:53] reply to me,
[2:46:55] saying that we're here to ask
[2:46:57] about the business, not
[2:46:58] about this.
[2:46:59] But this is concerning
[2:47:00] for me because my kids are
[2:47:01] in danger. Every second,
[2:47:03] they're in danger.
[2:47:05] And I'm here to advocate.
[2:47:07] Please help us. I saw Mr.
[2:47:08] Hagman be
[2:47:09] on the investigation.
[2:47:10] >> That's time.
[2:47:11] >> Thank you, Stephanie,
[2:47:12] followed by Rita Espinoza and
[2:47:13] then Gregory.
[2:47:19] >> Hi, I'm with the Family
[2:47:21] Reunification Equity and
[2:47:23] Empowerment Program. I am a
[2:47:26] former foster kid, so I do know
[2:47:29] what they mean when they say
[2:47:31] their kids are struggling.
[2:47:35] They're deprived of things.
[2:47:37] They can't eat. They're forced
[2:47:39] to eat, and if they don't want
[2:47:40] to eat, they get choked.
[2:47:43] And now you guys are
[2:47:44] offering money to stay there
[2:47:47] till they turn 18? What's,
[2:47:50] what's the point of that?
[2:47:55] What's, what's the point
[2:47:56] of giving money to a
[2:47:57] 15-year-old when she leaves the
[2:47:59] foster home at 18? What is she
[2:48:04] supposed to do with that money?
[2:48:06] Instead of actually helping
[2:48:08] us educate ourselves and
[2:48:10] helping us get resources,
[2:48:12] you guys are, oh, if you guys
[2:48:14] stay, I'll give you guys so
[2:48:15] much money. I was tortured in
[2:48:21] foster care. I got removed
[2:48:23] twice from a home because they
[2:48:27] were SAing. The parent that
[2:48:32] needed to leave or the adult
[2:48:34] that needed to leave the house
[2:48:35] left the house. So why were we
[2:48:37] still not allowed to stay
[2:48:39] at our home?
[2:48:44] Why?
[2:48:50] Because you guys don't care.
[2:48:51] >> Thirty seconds.
[2:48:52] >> Trafficking kids.
[2:48:57] Sadly, but that's true.
[2:48:59] That's what you guys are
[2:49:01] doing, offering money for them
[2:49:02] to stay there for 3 extra years
[2:49:03] for what? So, they can get
[2:49:07] snatched up, go through worse
[2:49:11] things than what they were
[2:49:13] living at home?
[2:49:17] Removing them and putting
[2:49:18] with strangers that you guys
[2:49:21] don't even personally know.
[2:49:22] >> That's time.
[2:49:23] >> Stephanie, followed by
[2:49:25] Rita Espinoza. Stephanie? That
[2:49:34] was Stephanie?
[2:49:35] >> Yes.
[2:49:37] >> Okay, thank you. Rita
[2:49:38] Espinoza, followed by
[2:49:41] Gregory. Rita? All right,
[2:49:54] moving on to Gregory.
[2:49:57] >> Thank you. Oh eternal God
[2:50:00] of vengeance, Oh God who sets
[2:50:02] things right, shine upon us.
[2:50:03] Rise, Oh Judge who presides
[2:50:05] over the earth, and pronounce
[2:50:06] your sentence upon the proud.
[2:50:08] Give them what they deserve.
[2:50:09] How long, oh Eternal One, how
[2:50:11] long will the guilty revel
[2:50:12] in their prosperity? Arrogance
[2:50:13] pours from their mouths. All
[2:50:16] these troublemakers brag
[2:50:17] of their exploits. They have
[2:50:19] broken your people to pieces,
[2:50:20] Oh Eternal One, and brought ruin
[2:50:22] to your future generations.
[2:50:24] They slay a widow, kill a
[2:50:25] newcomer,
[2:50:26] and murder an orphan. Then they
[2:50:28] say, the Eternal One can't see
[2:50:30] what we're up to. The God of
[2:50:32] Jacob's people pays no
[2:50:33] attention to us. Think,
[2:50:35] brainless people,
[2:50:37] stupid people. When will you
[2:50:39] get it? Does the God who set
[2:50:40] the ear
[2:50:41] in its place not hear? Does the
[2:50:43] God who made the eye not see?
[2:50:46] Does the God who teaches the
[2:50:47] nations and guides humanity to
[2:50:49] knowledge not exercise just
[2:50:51] correction? The Eternal knows
[2:50:52] the highest thoughts
[2:50:53] of the wise,
[2:50:54] and they are worthless. How
[2:50:57] fortunate are those you
[2:50:58] discipline, Oh Eternal One,
[2:50:59] those you train
[2:51:00] by your divine law! You relieve
[2:51:03] them in times of distress
[2:51:04] until a grave is dug
[2:51:05] for evildoers. The Eternal will
[2:51:07] not abandon his people. He will
[2:51:09] not turn away
[2:51:10] from those he redeemed.
[2:51:12] Because justice is coming
[2:51:13] for those who do what is right,
[2:51:16] and all the good-hearted will
[2:51:17] pursue it. Who will back me up
[2:51:19] when evildoers come
[2:51:20] against me? Who is willing
[2:51:22] to take my side
[2:51:23] against the wicked? If the
[2:51:24] Eternal had not come
[2:51:25] to my rescue,
[2:51:27] my soul would have descended to
[2:51:28] the land where death silences
[2:51:30] every voice. When I said,
[2:51:32] my foot is slipping!
[2:51:35] >> 30 seconds.
[2:51:36] >> Your unfailing love, Oh
[2:51:38] Eternal One, held me up. When
[2:51:39] anxiety overtakes me and
[2:51:40] worries are many,
[2:51:41] your comfort lightens my soul.
[2:51:43] Can wicked tyrants be your
[2:51:44] allies? Will you align
[2:51:45] with rulers who create havoc,
[2:51:48] just unjust decrees? They have
[2:51:50] joined forces against the life
[2:51:51] of the just living, the right
[2:51:53] seeking,
[2:51:54] and have sentenced the innocent
[2:51:56] to death. But the Eternal has
[2:51:57] been my citadel, my God, a sure
[2:51:59] safe haven. He will fold their
[2:52:01] wickedness back upon it.
[2:52:02] >> That's time.
[2:52:04] >> Thank you. Our last request
[2:52:05] to speak is from Shaniqua.
[2:52:07] >> Oh, she's right here.
[2:52:08] You're up, you're up,
[2:52:09] you're up.
[2:52:15] >> She's coming.
[2:52:25] >> Yeah, unfortunately. Hello
[2:52:26] everybody, my name is
[2:52:27] Shaniqua Shepherd. I'm the
[2:52:28] National Hub affiliate
[2:52:31] for the FREE Project. My
[2:52:33] question is, why does CPS
[2:52:34] prioritize separation over
[2:52:37] for serving our families? Why
[2:52:39] do we allow doctors to take our
[2:52:41] mentally ill children,
[2:52:44] who we as parents have dealt
[2:52:45] with the challenges,
[2:52:46] but you can take them off
[2:52:47] of all their medications? When
[2:52:49] that child goes home and
[2:52:50] attempts to kill his mother,
[2:52:51] we blame mom
[2:52:53] for being the problem.
[2:52:56] But how? If I took my child
[2:52:58] to be assessed,
[2:53:00] and I say his medicine isn't
[2:53:02] working, you all agree.
[2:53:04] But a doctor who had too much
[2:53:05] to drink and came
[2:53:07] to work said otherwise,
[2:53:08] took my child off
[2:53:09] of his medication,
[2:53:10] but I lose my kids. Me. So I
[2:53:16] went from being a victim
[2:53:19] of CPS to surviving CPS
[2:53:22] to advocating
[2:53:23] for other families. My question
[2:53:24] to you is, when do we stop
[2:53:27] using these kids as a paycheck
[2:53:30] and take the money that we're
[2:53:31] giving to these foster parents
[2:53:33] who are sometimes not doing
[2:53:34] what they need
[2:53:35] to do and giving it to the
[2:53:36] family so that we can give them
[2:53:38] beds, give them food, give them
[2:53:39] the help that they need?
[2:53:41] Better yet, can we start
[2:53:42] prioritizing preventative
[2:53:45] measures and services versus
[2:53:46] removing these children? When
[2:53:48] is enough? 25, 22, 19, the ages
[2:53:55] of my children today.
[2:53:56] >> 30 seconds.
[2:53:58] >> 3-year-old grandson. You all
[2:54:00] didn't help my kids. You didn't
[2:54:01] teach them anything. They
[2:54:03] learned more at home
[2:54:04] from mom, the person you said
[2:54:05] that was a threat to them.
[2:54:06] Thank you for your time.
[2:54:08] >> Thank you very much. We're
[2:54:09] going to move on
[2:54:10] to our reports from our CEO,
[2:54:12] Luther.
[2:54:13] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.
[2:54:14] When we wrap up this meeting
[2:54:15] today
[2:54:16] in just a couple minutes,
[2:54:17] we're actually going to shift
[2:54:19] over and recognize some county
[2:54:22] staff who have some incredible
[2:54:23] tenure. 85 different county
[2:54:25] employees hitting over 25 years
[2:54:27] of service, 2
[2:54:29] of our employees hitting 40
[2:54:30] years of service,
[2:54:32] and one an incredible 45 years
[2:54:33] of service
[2:54:34] to this great county. So
[2:54:36] excited to, to go
[2:54:37] over and be able to recognize
[2:54:38] these fine employees. So, thank
[2:54:40] you very much, Madam Chair, and
[2:54:41] appreciate the opportunity.
[2:54:43] >> Thank you very much. This
[2:54:44] meeting stands adjourned. Our
[2:54:45] next regularly scheduled Board
[2:54:47] of Supervisors meeting will be
[2:54:48] here at 10 AM on September 1st.
[2:54:50] Thank you very much.