City Council - Regular Meeting

Good morning. I'd like to call this meeting to order and thank you all for joining us. We have an announcement this morning. Today is our first meeting with the new remote public participation option. So those wishing to give public comments may call in via our phone. And this morning, it is my honor to introduce Minister and 29 Palms City Council Member MacArthur Wright, who will be leading us in prayer and pledge. Minister Wright spent 20 years in the Marine Corps and later went on to pursue a master's degree in theological studies, as well as organizational leadership and business management. Currently, he is employed by the Marine Corps Community Services Career Resource Office, where he assists service members transitioning from military to civilian life. He also serves as an associate minister at Gospel Fellowship Christian Centered Church and holds the position of president within the Ministerial Association of 29 Palms. Thank you for making the drive down and for joining us today. It's a pleasure and honor to have you here.

First, I want to express a sincere appreciation to Supervisor Don Rao and all of you for this wonderful opportunity to offer the invocation. It is truly a pleasure. So thank you. Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we come before you today with grateful hearts, acknowledging that you are the source of all wisdom, justice, and truth. Your word reminds us in Proverbs chapter 3, verse 5 and 6, to trust you with all our hearts and to acknowledge you in all our ways, knowing that you will direct our path. Today, I ask that you will bless every member of this board with wisdom to make sound decisions, courage to stand for what is right, and the compassion to serve every resident with fairness, integrity, and humility. May every conversation be marked by respect, every decision guided by justice, and every action reflect the sincere commitment to the well-being of this county. God, we also pray for the dedicated public servants, first responders, law enforcement officers, firefighters, healthcare professionals, educators, military members, veterans, and county employees who faithfully serve our communities each day. Protect them, strengthen them, and bless the work of their hands. Lord, remind us that true leadership is measured not by power, but by service. Help each of us to seek unity over division, solution over conflict, and the common good above personal interest. As this meeting begins, may your peace fill this room, your wisdom guide every decision, and your favor rest upon San Bernardino County. We thank you for your continued blessing upon this county, upon the state of California, and upon the United States of America. And God, I ask this in the mighty and matchless name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. Let's face the flag. Ready, begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

We will now move on to our memorial adjournments. Vice Chair Baca.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have the opportunity to adjourn in memory of former Mayor for the City of San Bernardino, Judith Vias, and I had the opportunity to attend her services right here in the City of San Bernardino at Mountain View Cemetery. Judith Vias was a pioneering educator, public servant, and community leader who dedicated her life to expanding educational opportunities and serving the entire Inland Empire. She made history. as the first Hispanic mayor for the city of San Bernardino, and was also the first Latina to serve as the president of the California Community College, leading Golden West College. Throughout her distinguished career, she served as a teacher, college administrator, trustee, civic leader, and leaving a lasting impact on education public service. Judith Baez passed away on June 21st, 2026, at the age of 92, and is remembered for her lifelong commitment to education, leadership, and the city of San Bernardino community. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. Supervisor Cook.

I have nothing today.

Thank you, Supervisor Armendariz? Right, and I would like to adjourn in memory of Diane Smith, who was a former council member in the city of Yucaipa, where she served two terms. She was instrumental in the creation of the Yucaipa Iris Festival, the Youth Advisory Committee, and various community projects. I used to call her Pickleball Diane, so she founded all the pickleball courts there. She was a great lady. She also was involved in the development of the community center, so we extend our heartfelt condolences to her family And also Dick Rydell, 101 years of age at his passing. He was a servant from Yucaipa, former mayor and city council member. And he leaves behind a remarkable legacy that helped shape the community of Yucaipa during the city's formative years. So thank you to him for all of his service. He is remembered with fond memories from all of us up here. And then last, we have Edward Skip Brown, who was a teacher and an athletic trainer in Redlands High School for nearly 30 years. He was also a member of the Civil Grand Jury. I know we have members of the Grand Jury who are usually here with us in audience today. So to those of you who worked with him and to his family, we extend our heartfelt prayers and condolences. Thank you very much. And we have one special presentation this morning. So if you'll all join me up front. could I please ask Christina Ince to join us? They're comparing notes. It is an honor to be here today to recognize Christina who has served 37 years with the county. She began her career in 1989 as a clinical intern at the AgeWise program in the Department of Behavioral Health. She worked her entire career with the department and advanced through numerous clinical and leadership roles. Christina is retiring as a senior program manager with the 24-hour and specialty services division. We thank you for all of your years of service and your dedication to all of our residents and our county family. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair Rowe. I just want to say thank you to the county for the opportunity for many years. It has been my honor and privilege to serve the community of our county.

Thank you.

Do you have family you want to bring up for photos?

Yeah, I have my husband and my son here.

Come on up for a photo. I'm going to trade you. Congratulations and thank you again for all your years of service. We will now move on to reports from County Council.

Laura. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two items to report on. The board met on item number two, which is the matter of AM versus County of San Bernardino. The board approved the filing of a writ of mandate challenging a motion for summary judgment in this childhood sexual abuse case. The board voted unanimously with Supervisor Hagman absent. On item number five, Stephan Barber versus County of San Bernardino, the board ratified the filing of a notice of appeal in this sheriff's use of force case. Again, the vote was 4-0 with Supervisor Hagman absent.

Thank you very much. That brings us to our individual board member comments. Vice Chair Baca.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know we haven't had a meeting in a month, but just quite a bit has happened throughout our county, and just want to highlight some of the great things going on in our community. The first one is the celebration of the Bloomington Sewer Infrastructure Project, which was a $2.25 million sewer project in the community of Bloomington. So what it did is along Marigold, Locust, and Linden, allowing approximately 150 properties to transition from septic to sewer, and this was completed on June 25th. Also, we celebrated the opening of our Kern Street Adult Residential Facility, which was a $2.5 million county investment, which will allow 30 additional beds for those experiencing homelessness, behavioral health, and challenges for those transitioning back to the community coming out of formerly incarcerated individuals. That was done on June 25th. Also, we celebrated at Glen Helen Regional Park, the Nature Island Playground. This was a $2.46 million investment. American Rescue Plan Act money. I want to thank Congressman Aguilar for his investment in the improvements here at Glen Helen. Also, we celebrated the San Bernardino Community Wellness Campus. This was a $35 million project in the city of San Bernardino. The county's contribution was $1.48 million. So this will add for interim housing, healthcare, and supportive services for many of our homeless throughout this community. And also we celebrated as a group the Spark Internship Closing Ceremony. I want to thank staff for putting this together, allowing the 185 students that came through our county to work throughout several departments to get experience being in the county and hopefully become part of our farm system. So thank you to the county staff. Also, we had 20 students that graduated from the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center internship program. I want to thank Andrew Goldbrack and his team for really working to give our students that experience and internship. Also, CFS, this past weekend they had a backpack giveaway. I want to thank the team for CFS for doing a great job making sure all the students in foster care had an opportunity to get a backpack. That was at San Bernardino High School. And then also we celebrated the Rialto International Healing Garden. It was a $2 million investment from the county of San Bernardino, a $6 million program, which will allow special needs students to have outdoor access to classrooms. Also, we had our fifth district advisory council wanna announce it that on August 21st, we'll have applications due. So any of those interested in sending students, juniors and seniors, to participate in our youth advisory council. And then tonight, I know we have many, many national night outs, but one of the ones I want to highlight is at Bloomington. We have our national night out with our San Mario County sheriffs will be there. The other thing we'll be celebrating there is brand new swing sets at Ayala Park, along with some outdoor shelters. I want to thank public works staff for their good work. And then also tomorrow we'll be having our backpack giveaway at Monterey Elementary School, which is one of our schools in our county unincorporated areas. And the last thing to do is we'll highlight some agenda items. Item four, it's a $206,000 investment at Pacuma K-8. Elementary School, the Rosina Ranch Community, which will provide shade structures for the outdoor park. Item 38, we're gonna make significant investments in the Eisenhower High School baseball fields through our discretionary money. Also item 74, we're making continued progress on the Glen Helen Parkway Bridge, which is an $80 million project, which was a bridge that was incomplete. Looking forward to that being done next summer. and the last item just want to thank staff for their 85 for their continued education for re-entry support the partnership with five keys charter school to make sure those that are formerly incarcerated get ged participation high school diploma classes and english language instruction and this is done through the sheriff's department so thank you for your great work thank you madam chair thank you very much super as a cook yes um i i just want to make a comment about the the weather

And where we all live and it's something right now that I think people think they know about the desert and everything. The desert is very, very unforgiving. And if you get out there, whether you wanna take a picture of some one little flower that grew, you better have some water and you better have some people with you. It just seems like every year there's somebody getting lost in the great desert that we have there. And you try to caution people. I spent many years in the Marine Corps. I always remember the one where I had an exercise out in the Mojave Desert. And if you don't recognize the dangers, the beauty, everything like that, it's very unforgiving. So just a word of caution, and I hope everybody has a great summer. I'm going to go back east and see my kids. So I'll be broke for the next three months, and I won't tell you where to They have a way of, anyway, I won't go into that, but it's a good fund to support your children. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Supervisor Armendariz.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Just a couple highlights. On the agenda today, we have investments from the 2nd District of almost to the tunes of $200,000, where we're giving back to the 2nd District, everyone from our Fontana Pop Warner organizations, our Fontana baseball organizations, child advocacy groups, our South Fontana, or South Ridge Little League. And one that I actually really wanna highlight is we're actually collaborating with Parks and Rec and we're gonna be investing $100,000 into programming that will affect the second district. So if you live in the second district, look at some exciting things coming up that we will be hosting, utilizing discretionary funds, partnering with our regional park system. Also a couple things I want to highlight are some upcoming events we have. We have our pop-up office hours coming on August 6th from 11.30 to 2.30 at a mobile corner in the city of Fontana. Come on out if you want to have some discussion with us. We will be hosting our second district open house on August 20th. Put it on your calendar from 5 to 7.30. It'll be in the city of Rancho Cucamonga at our district office. I wanna thank all the county departments that are gonna turn out and help so that we can actually showcase what the county does. This is our opportunity to show the community how we can be of help to them and demonstrate our worth, in my opinion, to show them all the departments that we have and what we can do for the community. Also, we are going to be having, in partnership with our regional parks, our first Family Fun Day. That will be on August 29th from 10 to 2. We're going to have blow-ups. We're going to have all kinds of items, county resources there. So if you're available, come on out and celebrate with us our first annual Family Fun Day, and that will be on August 29th. A couple of things that we've done in the last two weeks, we participated in our backpack giveaway with Simple Solutions and Rise to Grind. We committed discretionary funds prior. We also had our celebration for 10 year anniversary for La Tapatia, a Mexican restaurant in the city of Fontana. We were able to tour the New Valley Communication Center and to see all the technology that has been put into that beautiful building. I attended NACO where I was actually asked to be the co-chair of Behavioral Health Commission for them. So I will be participating at a national level on behalf of the county as the co-chair of Behavioral Health Committee. And also San Bernardino County MAPS campus tour. That was interesting for us to see how and what they're doing to help People adjust. And I wanna take a moment to congratulate our SPARCS program and all that they've done. Thank you guys for continuing to move that forward. That is something that everyone knows is very near and dear to my heart. And to see the next chapter and how it's gonna move forward is exciting for me. Also, we will be participating in about 13 national night outs tonight. I will be going personally to about 13 of them. So I will be busy tonight starting at five. So if you're in the city of Fontana or Rancho Cahuenga or Upland, And Upland has their own little tiny ones. It's actually pretty cool. They actually bring their community together and they'll have little food trucks in each little individual community. So we will be going recognizing every one of those who are participating. be a busy night for us. If you're out there, come and celebrate with us. Thank you, that concludes my comments.

Thank you very much. As I was reviewing today's agenda, I came across a very unique and special item in item number 47 that I really wanted to highlight. In this job, we get to do some pretty fun things, and this one is to accept an anonymous donation of $1.2 million that is a gift to be used to fund the Career Online High School Program, which is an accredited online program that allows county residents to earn their high school diploma and career certification. So I'd like to thank the donor for their generosity in supporting that program. I had the opportunity to travel back to Washington D.C. for a week, and I met with our entire delegation of elected officials at the federal level, And that includes also Senator Schiff and Padilla. They were very gracious in their time in furthering our interests in the Inland Empire. So that was a successful trip. And then lastly, I would like to thank our fire chief and the crews out at Station 96 for their great work with rescuing the eagle. So Jackie was stranded up there. They stood watch all night. They figured out how to get the Ojai Raptor Center to come out, and it was a tremendous effort. So we thank you for that community service, Chief, and to your crews. And with that, Lena, we'll move on to any changes or revisions to today's agenda.

Good morning. I do not have any changes for today.

All right. Now we have board member conflicts of interest. If any board member has anything that they wish to disclose, now would be the time to do so. Seeing none, I will fire up the new speaker system again and move on to our consent calendar. I have one request to speak this morning. Today's consent calendar consists of items number two through 103, and do I have any board members wishing to pull an item for discussion? No, all right, we'll begin with our speaker. Good morning, Carlo. I have you listed to speak on agenda item number two. I'm not sure that that's correct, but that's the retirement that we just recognized.

Very well.

If that's not correct, please feel free to let us know.

Thank you. It's a new system, so I'm still learning it myself. As I push towards retirement, I'm starting to find that I'm starting to get some of those issues too. I'm only 43, but here we go. What I wanted to talk about is, and thank you for calling me up, We've had some issues come up, and I want to go ahead and profess my honor and faith to the Constitution. Yes, we had an FBI raid recently, and I want to go ahead and say this. We parents that deal with CPS do not get our paperwork, but we hope that Hagman gets his paperwork. We are not allowed, and we're told that we're not given privilege to receive our files and look at our files, but I hope he does. I hope he gets the chance to face their accusers, because we didn't. We were told by our attorneys, nothing. And so with that being said, thank you very much. I honor you guys for even having the ad hoc committee, and I want to say also thank you for the consultants that came and spoke to me. I did speak to them about the stuff that's going on with the lawyers and the contracts themselves. And so if we can go ahead and have the ad hoc committee look into the lawyers, that would be great. I appreciate you, and God bless you.

Thank you very much.

Baca Jr. moves the consent calendar.

Thank you for the motion, Vice Chair. And for the second, Supervisor Armendariz. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

Thank you, Madam Chair. With that, the consent calendar passes unanimously with the board members present.

Thank you very much. And our first discussion item today is number 104. And this is an employment contract for our chief medical officer. This item recommends the termination of the existing employment contract with Dr. John Brill as the chief medical officer for Arrowhead Regional Medical Center and the approval of a new contract with Dr. Brill pursuant to government code section 549. in terms of the new employment contract, which must be read into the record. The contract will be effective August 8th of 2026. The salary is initially set up at step 14, range 117C, and the salary table identified for San Bernardino County exempt working group conditions Ordinance with the established annual salary cost of $463,382.33. The benefits are identified in and subject to the terms and conditions of the employment contract and generally aligned with the level of benefits provided to employees in Exempt Group C in the San Bernardino County Exempt Group Working Conditions Ordinance. The cost for the benefits is $73,724.33. Did I get everything? That's it. Okay, Andrew, presentation for us please.

Madam Chair, members of the board, good morning. Andrew Gofrack, ARMC Chief Executive Officer. As presented in front of you is the recommendation to approve or to terminate the existing contract and approve a new contract with Dr. John Brill as our Chief Medical Officer. He has served faithfully with ARMC for three years in the current role, and prior to that, he has served as a consultant with us and has done an absolute wonderful job and fully recommend the continuation with his contract.

Thank you very much. Any questions? No requests to speak? All right.

I'll move. I'll second.

Thank you for the motion, Vice Chair Baca and the second supervisor Armendariz. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Item 104 passes unanimously with the board members present. Thank you, Andrew.

And before we move on to item number 105, we have a couple of lengthy discussion items today anticipated. We will break for lunch at noon today for 30 minutes, and then we'll reconvene at 1230. Item number 105 is a public hearing to consider the annexation number 215 into community facilities district number 9401, City of Hesperia, for fire suppression services being presented by Chief Muncie. And before I open the public hearing, are there any property owners or persons registered to vote in the community facilities district who wish to file written protests? If so, they must be filed with the clerk now. Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing. Good morning, Chief.

Good morning. I want to recognize Battalion Chief Mike Westfall and his mentor, Trevor, in the audience, and also recognize Jared Newcomer. Jared Newcomer is having a birthday today. He's turning 23 years old. Amazon Services has applied to enter into Hesperia 94-01 with the APM number as written. The city conditions that any developer enter into this. This is a single property owner with a single property. The value is $616,822. Any questions? Not from me. Anybody? No?

All right, thank you for the presentation. I do not believe we have any members of the public wishing to speak on this item, so I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion on recommendations number one and two.

Okay, Dr. Junior moves. I'll second.

Thank you, Vice Chair, for the motion, and Supervisor Armendariz for the second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Lena, you're going to tabulate and announce the results.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. The results of the election are in favor, so the board may move forward with a final action.

So our next one is I'm looking for a motion on recommendation number three.

I'll continue on your moves.

I'll second.

Thank you, Vice Chair, for the motion, and Supervisor Armendariz for the second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

Item 105 passes unanimously of those members present. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Item number 106 is an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Maverick Convenience Store and Gas Station project being presented this morning. It says by Miguel, but that's not the case. Gentlemen, good morning. The public hearing for this item was opened May 19th and continued to June 9th, where it was then continued again to this meeting. We will have Lina, our clerk, read the order of proceedings, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an appeal of the Planning Commission action to approve a minor use permit for a gas station and convenience store in Phelan-Pinion Hills. The applicant is William Hale. The applicant, I'm sorry, the appellant is William Hale. The applicant is Maverick Incorporated. The order of proceedings will be as follows. The chair will open the hearing. not the presenter, I'm sorry, will make the staff presentation. The representative from the appellant, William Hill, will have an opportunity to make a 15 minute presentation. The representative for the applicant, Kevin Dice, will then have the opportunity to make his 15 minute presentation. Following the presentations, the board will take public comment. And members of the public will have three minutes to present their testimony. And in the interest of time, speakers are asked to avoid redundant testimony. When public testimony has concluded, the applicant followed by the appellant will each have up to five minutes to present closing remarks. Staff will be available to offer comments and respond to any questions from the board. And at that point, the chair will close the hearing and bring the matter back to the board for discussion and action.

Thank you, we're confusing ourselves up here with the new speaker system. Okay, so now we will move over to the presentation. Very well, thank you. Madam Chair, did we open the hearing yet? No. Okay. I will officially open the hearing. Thank you. Even though it was continued? Oh, well that's true, I apologize, thank you. Okay. All right, gentlemen.

Good morning, Chair Rao, County Supervisors, Paul Gonzales, Planning Chief, and I'm joined by David Meck, Planning Manager, Before you today is the appeal of Mavericks Gas Station and Convenience Store for a minor use permit. The appellant is William Hale, the applicant representative, our core states group, and Kevin Dice from Mavericks. The Maverick gas station and convenience store consists of a request for a minor use permit to allow the construction and operation of a 5,637 square foot retail space, 15 fueling dispensing islands, 35 parking spaces, three underground storage tanks, five acres of landscaping, and a driveway and road improvements to Oasis Road and Buckhorn Road. The appellant filed by William Hale is based on concerns related to safety, traffic, community benefit, and environmental impacts. Specifically, the appellant contends surrounding roads are not designated to Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, also known as STAA Trek routes. Higher Trek traffic volumes will impact students. The traffic analysis contained inconsistencies related to truck volumes and movements. The product creates safety risks for residents, school, and emergency services. The product is incompatible with the Pinion Hills area and general policies. There were staff report discrepancies and the project has relied on incomplete and inaccurate information. Staff reviewed the contentions and does not believe the contentions are accurate given Highway 138 near Phelan Pinion Hills is designated as an STAA correct route. The closest school is .5 miles north of the site across Highway 138 off Oasis Road. The traffic analysis reviewed and approved by Public Works Traffic Division discussed truck volumes and movements as well. There is no clear evidence that the gas station and related traffic would create safety concerns for residents, schools, or emergency services. Caltrans, Public Works, Traffic, Fire, and other responsible departments reviewed and accepted their project plans. The appellant did not specify what discrepancies existed in the prior staff reports and which information was inaccurate outside of the site plan, which we will discuss shortly. The Mavericks Minor Use Permit has been extensive reviewed and considered by the county staff, departments, and responsible hearing bodies prior to this additional hearing. On December 11, 2025, the zoning administrator originally approved the minor use permit and added a condition to limited truck parking. On December 22, 2025, the first appeal was filed by William Hale, stating the appellant had concerns with the project. Concerns related to traffic, safety, lack of community benefit, and environmental impacts. On February 19, 2026, the initial appeal was considered by the Planning Commission, who after a full hearing, including testimony from the appellant, denied the appeal and re-approved the minor use permit request and adopted the associated CEQA document with a 3-0 vote with two members absent. On March 2, 2026, a second appeal was filed by William Hale stating the same concerns. The board appeal was originally scheduled for May 19th, 2026. However, the appellant requested to continue the item to June 9th, 2026. On June 9th, 2026, the applicant requested a continuance to allow additional time to respond to letters received and contentions made. Persuading to that request, the board continued the appeal to today's meeting, of course, August 4th, 2026. The project is situated at the intersection of Oasis Road and Highway 138, and Buckthorn Road is located just to the south. This is within the Phelan-Pinden Hills Community Plan area. The project is located within the commercial land use category as shown on the map before you on the left-hand side in a blue outline. The map on the right slide shows the site as well, with General Commercial of Feeling Hills zoning designation. Both of these classifications allow the establishment of commercial uses, including the requested gas station and service station. Before you in this slide was included in prior staff reports for the zoning administrator and the planning commission. The site plan shows drive aisle widths ranging from 40 to 50 feet, shown with the red arrows pointing to them. Parking spaces on the north portion of the site in blue circles. Underground storage tanks in the northeastern area near the pumps in red circles. Proposed landscape islands in the southeastern section, which include a bulb out section in a green circle. This is the updated site plan before you now, dated November 2025. Attached to the board appeal report and depicts the same project layout with a few minor changes. The parking spaces to the north were removed in the blue circles. The project will still comply, however, with parking requirements. The drive aisles were reduced to 34 feet in width uniformly across the site, shown with red arrows. The widths still comply with the fire regulations which require only a minimum of 26 feet. The landscaping bulb out in the southern section was removed and shown in a green circle for better circulation. The underground storage tanks were removed to a more central location in the site shown in a red circle. Depiction of truck turning movements including STA trucks are depicted as well. The size, location of the pumps, storage and driveway locations were also not altered. None of these changes alter the consistency of the project when measured against applicable development standards. Nor do they result in a change in the project description for the purpose of CEQA compliance, California Environmental Quality Act compliance. These changes are refinements to the site plan that would normally take place at the time of building permit review and would be considered in substantial conformance given the minor changes to the plan. Before your proposed elevations of what the station will look like. The product has been reviewed for its consistency with a countywide policy plan and has been determined to be consistent with policies and compatible with existing compatibility with a natural environment and consistent with land use maps. As well as I feel in penny hills community action plan guide focusing on statements which encourage commercial uses. The project has been evaluated for its conformance with Chapter 82.05 of the Development Code. It is found to be in conformance with the parking standards, proposing 20, excuse me, proposing 35 parking spaces when only 25 are required, landscaping, setbacks, and all other standards of the Development Code. There is a 20% minimum landscape requirement, and the applicant will be providing 57% not landscaping. The setback requirement ranges from 25 to 10 feet, which will be consistent with our development code. Lastly, there was a 35 foot height limit with a maximum of 20 feet being proposed. A mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project. The initial study and mitigative negative iteration identified potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources. All other standard topics of environmental analysis were found less than significant or no impact. Mitigation measures have been incorporated for the potentially significant impacts to reduce the project's impacts to a less than significant manner. In addition, as part of the noticing for the initial study, 21 notices were sent out to interested parties and neighboring property owners on August 15, 2025, for a 30-day review period. During that review period, we received seven public comments. The project had an updated traffic impact analysis dated October 2025, finalized after circulation of the initial study and mitigative negative declarations. The updated traffic report refined the traffic analysis and was more detailed than the previous report included in the California Environmental Quality Act document. The October 2025 traffic impact analysis included pass-by trip credits for the ITE trip generation manual 11th edition of 2021 and a full analysis of rising year impacts as required by San Bernardino County's transportation impact study guidelines. The findings for the Horizon Year Impact required a fair share contribution of a future signal improvement, which is captured in the project conditions of approval. The updated report also included a vehicle miles travel, also known as a VMT analysis, that concluded the project satisfies the project type screening used in the California Environmental Quality Act due to the nature of the project being a local serving gas station. The updates to the traffic impact analysis and site plan do not constitute substantial revisions to the project that would trigger an additional CEQA review pursuant to section 15073.5 of the CEQA guidelines because the changes do not involve or relate to a new avoidable significant effect or mitigation measures or project revisions to reduce the effect to insignificance. The original initial study mitigated negative declaration determined that no mitigation measures were required for transportation traffic. And the project was conditioned based on October 2025 traffic impact analysis at the time it was presented to both the zoning administrator and planning commission. On March 4th, 2025, In relation to the planning application being submitted, 21 notices were mailed to surrounding property owners. No public comments were received at this time. On November 21, 2025, in relation to the zoning administrator hearing, 21 public hearing notices were mailed to surrounding property owners. During that time, 12 public comments were received. On January 26th, 2026, in relation to the first appeal and planning commission hearing, 21 public hearing notices were mailed to surrounding property owners, 13 additional comments were received. These were included as part of the planning commission process. Three were from the school district, two from Snowline School District concerns over adding traffic, one Pinyon Hills Elementary School concerns for added traffic as well. Nine letters were received in opposition, and one letter was received in support. On May 9th, 2026, 34 public hearing notices were mailed to surrounding property owners for the Board of Supervisors' appeal, scheduled for May 19th. Ten comments were received, all in opposition. On May 19th, the Board continued the item to June 9th, 2026. Since then, an additional seven comments were received. All comments received have been supplied in the board packet. Five letters in opposition, two letters in support. On June 9th, the board continued the item to August 4th, today of course, and since then we have received one additional letter which was received. All comments are included in the board packet as well. In summary, the project has been reviewed by multiple responsible departments, including Caltrans, Public Works Traffic, San Bernardino County Fire, and various other departments and agencies. None have expressed concerns with the proposed project or raised concerns to public health and or safety. Persuading to 86.08.050 of the San Bernardino County Development Code, the Board's consideration of the appeal is a de novo hearing, or new hearing, and additional information can be introduced into the record for Board consideration. The Board should consider all evidence on the record and has the following options. The first option being denying the appeal. and approve the minor use permit based on the evidence on the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Number two, approve the appeal and direct staff to return with findings for denial. And the third one, approve the appeal and direct the Planning Commission to reconsider the project. That concludes staff's presentation. Planning staff is available to answer any questions the board may have. The applicant appellant will also have a presentation shortly. Thank you.

Thank you very much. At this time, I would like to ask the appellant to please come up for their presentation. We'll swap out down here at the front desk and you will have 15 minutes once you're seated down there and settled.

I'm not sure how to run the control. Yeah, I'd rather do it myself.

PowerPoint, right? Is this your PowerPoint? No, I'm good. This PowerPoint, it's your PowerPoint, right? It's PowerPoint, yeah. Yeah, okay, so you can just press here. Press here. Oh, okay, that's forward and then backwards, is that one there? Yes.

Take your time, we'll start the clock whenever you're ready.

I don't see my presentation here.

Does it look like?

That's what we're looking for, yeah. Good morning Chair Rowe and members of the board. My name is William Hale, most people call me Chris, and I am the appellant in project 2024-00030, the proposed Maverick gas station at Oasis Road and State Route 138. My wife Ann and I have lived in Pinion Hills for 36 years. where we raised our two children. Ann is retired from the Snowline School District, and I'm retired from the San Bernardino County Transportation Design Public Works as an engineer, technician five. In addition to that, I worked for 10 years with forensic physics, accident investigations, conducting field investigations, and producing court exhibits. I'm proficient in AutoCAD civil 3D engineering software, care model civil engineering software, and geocomp turning analysis software. I am currently owner and operator of exhibit A, designing and drafting land development projects with over 370 projects completed. Since the board continued this item, I've been conducting two independent field surveys, documenting site distance conditions analyzed driveway geometry, reviewed diesel fueling configurations, and confirmed that Caltrans is now asking for an STAA truck turning analysis that has never been prepared or disclosed. Today I'm asking the board to deny this project based on substantial evidence of procedural defects, misclassification of the project as local serving, missing and inaccurate technical studies, unsafe circulation and driveway geometry, noise and lighting impacts, inconsistency with the general plan, and CEQA violations that cannot be corrected through minor revisions. This is not a small fix. This is not a recirculation issue. This is a fundamental project design failure. This is the site plan, this is the only site plan that was approved in the Zoning Administrator Staff Report on December 11th, 2025. Conflicting site plans are a sequel violation. The administrative record contains multiple conflicting site plans, at least seven, each showing different driveway locations, truck circulation paths, diesel pump configurations, parking layouts, and turning radii. Two of these plans were so unsafe that the traffic division issued do not release approval directives. None of these plans were disclosed to the public. At the Planning Commission hearing, staff introduced a new, previously unseen site plan, one that was never circulated, never reviewed, and never analyzed. A project cannot be approved when the public does not know which project is being approved. and when the project geometry and those plans cannot physically function for the trucks that will use it. Since the continuance, I have examined the driveway geometry shown in these plans. The driveway's floor width, turning apron, and curb return radii do not physically accommodate STAA trucks. The applicant's own turning exhibits showed curb strike locations and inadequate maneuvering space. Drivers do occasionally strike curbs, but you cannot knowingly design a project so that it cannot be avoided under normal driving conditions. Traffic analysis is missing and incomplete and unsafe. Caltrans confirms that Oasis Road and Buckthorn Road are not STAA truck routes, and the county confirms that Oasis Road is not a truck route. There was no traffic study for Oasis Road, the only paved road between Highway 138 and Highway 18, and the primary access route for Pineon Hills Elementary School, for the post office, for residential neighborhoods, for STAA truck traffic to the fueling facility, and emergency response vehicles. The ISMND contains no analysis of school drop-off and pickup, post office circulation, Buckthorn Road, no outlet trap, STAA truck turning movements, driveway spacing, site distance, queuing, and combined peak hour conditions. This is not a minor oversight. This is a complete absence of required analysis. The project was processed under a minor use permit, a lower tier permit intended for small local serving uses. The applicant insists that this is a local serving gas station, but the plan shows four diesel pumps and five diesel fueling positions, a configuration used by regional truck serving facilities. This misclassification allows the county to avoid the traffic impact study, avoid a circulation analysis and avoid a driveway geometry review and avoid STAA truck turning analysis. The fact that Caltrans requested an STAA turning analysis confirms that this is a truck serving facility and that the circulation and driveway geometry must be evaluated for STAA trucks. That analysis does not exist. The sight distance analysis does not exist. And the traffic study for Oasis Road does not exist. The noise and lighting analysis are incomplete and incorrect. New site distance evidence from field surveys. On July 12th and July 19th, I conducted two independent field surveys, survey number one and survey number two, using a 42-inch driver eye height consistent with Caltrans and AASHTO standards. These surveys documented on northbound Oasis Road, the vertical curvature limits visibility of Highway 138. On southbound Oasis Road, there is a partial obstruction from the adjacent slope. On eastbound Buckthorn Road, the vegetation and shoulder geometry reduces visibility approaching Oasis Road. None of these conditions were analyzed in the ISMND. None were disclosed to the public. None were included in any traffic study. The site distance assumptions used in the applicant's analysis are incorrect. The Board is being asked to approve a driveway and circulation system without any valid site distance evaluation for the actual approach roads that will serve the project. The noise study is not supported by substantial evidence. The noise study omits required ANSI elements, weather conditions, calibration data, microphone height, ground conditions, sensitive receptor photographs, and receptor coordinates. It claims ANSI compliance, but omits every required element of ANSI documentation. The noise study models two diesel fueling positions when the site shows four pumps and five diesel fueling positions. It assumes minimal nighttime activity even though Maverick is a 24 hour operation. My own field measurements taken after the continuance and are included in the exhibits show higher ambient noise than reported in the study, higher nighttime propagation, greater sensitivity to diesel and truck noise in the rural environment. The applicant's consultant shows field measurements that have lower ambient baseline noise, over-optimistic propagation assumptions, and underestimated diesel and truck source levels. Noise levels 6 to 14 decibels lower than real-world conditions. The noise study is not just incomplete, it is wrong. It underestimates diesel truck noise, misrepresents fueling activity, and fails to document the actual baseline conditions. Lighting impacts were never analyzed. Pinion Hills is a rural dark sky community. There are no street lights on Oasis Road. Nighttime conditions are quiet and dark. DISMND contains no analysis of canopy glare, light LED price sign brightness, light trespass onto adjacent homes, sky glow, rural compatibility, or driver distraction. A 24-hour brightly illuminated commercial canopy and LED signage are incompatible with the rural environment and the dark sky expectations. The county approved a minor use permit without any lighting analysis for a project that was fundamentally changed the conditions along Oasis Road. procedural defects in both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors processes. At the February 19th Planning Commission hearing, two commissioners were not seated at the dais. Commissioner Slowik coached the applicant on how to respond. Only three commissioners voted. The public was denied access to key documents. A new site plan was introduced without prior disclosure. Since the Board of Supervisors' continuance, has the county circulated the approved site plan? Have they circulated a corrected traffic analysis? Have they provided any STAA truck turning analysis as per Caltrans' request? Have they corrected the noise study? Have they provided a site distance evaluation for Oasis Road and Buckthorn Road? The county processed this project under a minor use permit because it was easier, not because it was appropriate. By misclassifying the regional truck serving facility as a local serving gas station, the county avoided the higher tier permit, avoiding a traffic impact study of Oasis Road north of Highway 138, avoided circulation and driveway geometry review, and avoided the findings and public protections of a conditional, that a, that the conditional use permit would require. This is not due process. This is not CEQA compliant. Required findings and permit classification. Even under a minor use permit, the county must make discretionary findings consistent with the development code and CEQA. Those findings cannot be made here. The project is inconsistent with rural community character, noise policies, circulation and safety policies, dark sky and rural compatible expectations. This project creates traffic hazards, school area safety hazards, noise impacts, lighting impacts, emergency access conflicts, The ISMND is incomplete, inaccurate, missing required analysis based on conflicting site plans and not supported by substantial evidence. None of these findings can be made. A project that requires a higher tier permit cannot be approved under a lower tier permit simply because it's easier. The board cannot rely on a minor use permit that was issued only after the project was misclassified to avoid required analysis. Why denial is the only appropriate action? The project is not fixable through minor revisions. It's not fixable through recirculation. It's not fixable through conditions of approval. The fundamental design, a regional truck serving facility without direct access to the state highway placed in a rural residential community is incompatible with the general plan, the community plan, CEQA, public safety, and common sense. The board has the authority and the responsibility to deny a project when the findings cannot be made. The impacts cannot be mitigated. The process was flawed. The project is incompatible with the community. Supervisors, this is not a close call. This is not a technicality. This is a project that was not properly analyzed, was not properly disclosed. was not properly reviewed, was not properly presented. It cannot be approved without violating CEQA and county policy. The new files, the new field evidence collected since the continuance combined with Caltrans' request for STEA truck terrain analysis, confirms that the project is unsafe, incomplete, and incompatible with the rural community. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Board grant the appeal, vacate the Planning Commission's approval, and deny the project. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your presentation. I would now like to ask representatives of the applicant to please come forward, and if you'll trade positions with the appellant, and then you will have 15 minutes for your presentation once you are set up.

Good morning, my name's Kevin Dice. I am with Maverick. I'm the site development manager for this site. Is this, okay.

There we go.

I'm not going to go over a lot of the stuff that's already been presented like the aerial and things of that nature. This is the site plan overall. Staff has been very clear as about what was changed. And what was changed mainly is our location of the tanks. We eliminated some of the parking areas that went to the north side of what we call the forecourt. The geometry in which both driveways off Buckthorn and the turning radius going from Oasis into Buckthorn were changed to be a little bit more amenable to a STAA truck. The overall changes to the site plan are not material enough in order to constitute a sequel violation in any way. And we state that because the site has not changed. The positioning of the building has not changed. The use has not changed. The overall accesses have not changed at all. So therefore, the site itself has remained the same. So we do not agree with the appellant that our overall site plan constitutes a violation of the CEQA. Second off, the amount of... We'll go back. I'm not gonna go into what our normal presentation is about the history of Maverick and everything. The amount of road work that is being required of us to do, it's the improvement of Oasis. Right now, Oasis is two lanes. We are widening it to have a through lane, a left turn lane at the Buckthorn Road and at the Oasis Road intersection and a right turn lane at the intersection. With that said, this will improve the traffic flow and the safety of that area, particularly in turning into the post office, which is across the street and down a little bit. The post office at this time utilizes the Buckthorn Road access in order to go in and circulate around, so this will not change the operation of the post office in that area. Another, I'm gonna bypass this and bypass this because this is just basically some understanding of, okay, some understanding of what Maverick is. I think one of the biggest issues that they're bringing up is that this is primarily a truck stop. This is not a truck stop. Even per the definition under the San Bernardino Code, it says that a truck stop primarily I have to put my glasses on on this one, primarily services the trucking community. Some of the statistics about what our operation are is that about 85 to 88% of the vehicles or customers that come into Maverick are passenger cars or passenger vehicles. And the remainder are what we would call larger vehicles such as RVs, some semi-trucks, box trucks, vehicles that are towing trailers and things of that nature. So we are not primarily servicing the trucking community as the appellant would like to allege. With regard to STAA, the highway is an STAA designated route per Caltrans, and we are ancillary use, meaning that the vehicles will come off into our site, circulate through our site, and go back down to the highway, which is an STAA route. That intersection at Oasis and the highway is a traffic controlled, meaning that there is a traffic light there and it's a full traffic light with left turn phases as well as right turn lanes that will go both onto and left turn lanes that will go onto the highway. as well as a through lane. A big thing that the appellant likes to bring up is that we are going to be impacting the school. The school is located almost a mile. It's about .9 of a mile north of the site. The traffic that we are going to be, that'll be coming into our site will be pulled off of the highway and not past the school. And the traffic leaving our site will not go past the school. So the overall impact to the school will only be for the existing traffic that goes past the school at this time. We will not be creating additional traffic past the school. With regard to the noise and the light, we did do a photometric plan for the lighting. That's part of the record. It shows that we meet all of the county requirements with regard to lighting. With regard to the noise, the CEQA did conduct, we did conduct a noise analysis and we meet all the CEQA requirements to show that less than significant impact at that time. Therefore, I'm not sure really what the applicant is looking for more from us when we meet the requirements of the code and of the SQL guidelines. I think overall that What the applicant is alleging is that we were incomplete with the CEQA. The CEQA guidelines were met, the CEQA guidelines for all the studies were met, and any significant impact that was pointed out, which there were none, we are going to meet any type of mitigation requirements for the less insignificant at this time. So what I would like to do is ask that you deny the appellant's appeal and then approve our minor use permit as well as the CEQA document at this time. I'm available to answer any other questions.

Thank you very much. We will now take members of the public wishing to speak on this item. And we are going to take our remote callers first. I have one, it is Karen Keel. And then we will move back in here to chambers followed by Barbara Fridette and then Anne Hale. And we do have podiums for those in chambers on either side. You'll be given three minutes to speak on this item.

Thank you. This is Karen Hill. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak and especially for the remote opportunity. Um, my name is Karen Hill and I'm a local resident off of Oasis road. I have four children. I'm here today to urge you to uphold the appeal and reject the minor use permit for the proposed Maverick fueling station. Um, I love my rural community, my kids and I go to the park all the time. Um, this is just putting a huge feeling station right in the middle of our small little community. And there are so many other commercial zoning, um, in the areas of highway one 38 and, um, highway 18, where this could go without destroying our community. In addition, I also agree with the appellant by characterizing a massive 24-hour regional travel and traffic hub. I'm familiar with Maverick truck stations. I've seen them in Hesperia. Characterizing them as minor use completely misrepresents the reality of this development. Under Section 85.06.010 of the County Development Code, minor use permits are strictly intended for low-impact minor projects. Squeezing an industrial-scale travel center complete with a high-flow commercial semi-lane into a minor category to bypass the scrutiny is a clear abuse of the zoning code's intent. Additionally, section 85.06.05, commercial projects with large structural footprints are legally disqualified from using a minor use permit. The developer wants you to look at only the convenient store square footage But the board has the duty to look at the cumulative reality and the massive overhead commercial fueling canopies and semi-truck islands are intense structural footprints that obliterate the scope of a minor permit. This project should legally demand a full conditional use permit. Additionally, the board cannot legally make the mandatory findings of fact required under section 19.36.050. To approve this permit, you must prove in writing that it will not be detrimental to the health safety, or general welfare of our neighborhoods. You cannot make that finding here. You are sitting at this site between our community park and our post office, two spaces where our families use every single day. Additionally, the applicant also talked about the fact that it doesn't impact the school. It definitely does. And if you're a resident of this community, you know what traffic looks like on Friday afternoon when you get to 138 and Elisa. The additional traffic. And anytime there are changes in the traffic pattern, Oasis gets bombarded with additional semi-traffic and it is not safe for our children that stand at the bus stops. Again, I just feel that this is our local community. There are much better areas that are far better suited for this scale of development. We chose to live here for the quiet rural character. There are better places for this. I asked supervisors to protect this area of our community. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. We will now bring it back in chambers where I have Barbara Fredette followed by Anne Hale.

Good morning. My name is Barbara Fredette. I live one mile from the Maverick Truck Stop project that has been approved by the County Planning Commission. I'm here to attempt to persuade you to reverse this decision and to reject the construction of the project which Mr. Hale has demonstrated is too deficient in design to function as a facility that can service large trucks and which will present a traffic danger and harm to the residential community of Pinyon Hills. Maverick has presented a site plan to service STAA grade trucks, but the Planning Commission has allowed the Maverick project to be classified in low tier categories for zoning, and permitting. Being deemed a service station and not a truck stop allows the Maverick facility to be built on general commercial land where truck stops are not allowed. The county defines a service station as a site where the primary activity is the retail sale and dispensing of major fuels or oils, the retail sale of lubricants, tires, batteries, and other automobile accessories, and the installation and servicing of the lubricants, tires, batteries, and other automobile accessories. No mention of trucks here. Here's the county's definition of a truck stop. A facility that provides convenient services primarily for the trucking community. These services include but are not limited to food, beverage, gasoline, and retail services. The Maverick station is a truck stop and shouldn't be permitted on general commercial zone land. Being deemed a local service station also allowed Maverick to seek a minimum use permit, thus escaping the traffic and environmental studies that will ensure that this facility meets standards that successfully support safe travel on the roads and entrances and exits that large trucks will be using. In his recommendation to the board that our appeal be denied, The Land Use Services Director stated that Mr. Hale presented general statements regarding the deficiencies of the proposed project. To the contrary, Mr. Hale presents very specific data from studies that he performed, studies that should have been done by Maverick, but were not done or were deficient because the Land Use Department and Planning Commission allowed Maverick to function under the minor land use permit. These include site distance evidence for Oasis Road, which shows insufficient visibility for safe traffic flow, and a truck turning analysis, which shows that the planned roads and station exits and entrances are not sufficient for the turning radii wired by large trucks. I hope that you have truly considered this important data in the appeal packet. The Planning Commission and ultimately you, the Board of Supervisors, are the stewards of our county lands. You have the power and the responsibility to plan the future of our county land. The land uses that you oversee must be safe for the residents that live here. The approval of this project by the Planning Commission has failed this responsibility. Please overturn this project approval and grant our appeal. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The next request that I have to speak is Anne Hale.

Good morning. My name is Anne Hale. I live in Pinion Hills. I'd first like to thank Supervisor Cook for his kind words regarding the photos I submitted to San Bernardino County through your eyes that were chosen for publication in July's county newsletter. What an honor. You seem to be moved by the beauty of Pinion Hills, as are all of the supervisors when viewing photos submitted by residents in their districts. We are truly blessed to live in such a beautiful region. That's why it baffles me as to why, as to the county's eagerness to develop these areas. On the one hand, you extol the beauty of our county. On the other, you pass ordinances and hand out permits that allow corporations to destroy these unique and beautiful places. Our photographs all that will be left. Once these places are gone, they are gone forever. The Maverick Truck Stop Project, and yes, it's a truck stop by the county's own code definition, does not benefit Pinion Hills. We already have two gas stations within four miles of each other, both with good-sized convenience stores and a Dollar General, as well as two cafes. It is planned to cater to drive-through truck traffic and as such should have been labeled a regional serving truck stop requiring a conditional use permit rather than a minor use permit. It will be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week with trucks pulling in and idling at all times. The noise and fumes will be constant. At night the lights will diminish our dark skies. Traffic issues due to the driveway configurations, not to mention the car-truck cross traffic at the post office parking lot, may cause accidents. Oasis Road and Highway 138 already experienced traffic jams during peak hours. Frustrated car drivers illegally pass slow-moving semis in the median or on the right shoulder. Every truck heading east from the facility will be going slowly up the grade. We already have the distinction of being called Blood Alley. it will get much, much worse. Lastly, what will we get in return? The county and Mr. Dace have mentioned large tax revenues. Where will this money be spent? Pinion Hills needs a fire station, road repair, and paving. How about a teen center, an indoor gym, a swimming pool? I mean, I hear all the other supervisors talking about these great things in their districts, and we don't have any of them. Sadly, all the profits- 30 seconds remain. Sadly, all the profits will likely go to an out-of-state corporation, and all the tax revenues will go to the county's general fund. Pinion Hills will not see a dime. We will watch our home values diminish and other people get wealthy from the loss of our quiet, rural, beautiful, natural community. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's the last request to speak that I have. The clerk confirms that I can have discretion on the order of proceedings from here forward. So I'm going to look to Supervisor Cook for your, so we will bring back the both sides. So we will have the Maverick folks give a closing and we will have the appellants give a closing. But would you like to ask questions of county staff prior to that or after that? Okay, so no, that's fine. All right, so now I will ask. The applicant may come back and have closing remarks. You will have five minutes. to address any comments that you've heard in the public today and to be fair, we had a lot of public comments in the last two public hearings. The first one in particular where everybody came down to provide those and they are part of our record.

Thank you, I appreciate the second opportunity to speak with you. Overall, We met all the requirements of both the CEQA guidelines as well as the county code with regard to both the minor use permit and regarding the CEQA. So to ask us to go over and beyond what is required of other developers in the area, I don't think is really genuine. In the end, this is a commercial zone. We're allowed use with a minor use permit. I don't look at us as being a regional type of operation, so that would be the first thing I'd like to say. The main reason is is because we are a gas station and we are not a destination type of gas station. We pull majority of our traffic and majority of our customers off the roadway. And even though that there are other gas stations in the area, the customers have a decision to make whether they want to patronize them or patronize us. Second off, the whole idea that we are a truck stop is not correct. Truck stops such as Love's and Flying J and the larger ones, Travel America, they provide certain services. facilities there, such as showers, they provide internet service, they have trucker lounges and everything. We do not provide any of that. We want our customers to come in, fill up, go in, use the bathrooms, which we do not require them to buy something to use. And once they get something and use the bathroom or anything of that nature, We require them to leave. We don't allow vehicles to idle, particularly trucks. Trucks take a little while to fill up if it's a semi-truck. If it's a box truck, it could take a little while, too, or even an RV. And I would say probably about 25% of the commercial traffic that comes through are RVs. So... We do not want them sitting there and idling because of that. With regard to the lights, at night we do have dimmers on the lights, and that includes the canopies. So the overall impact was assessed properly by the CEQA, by staff, and we feel that we meet all the requirements in order to have a successful development in this area. Are there any questions?

Not at this time. Thank you very much. Mr. Hale, if you would like to come back down and you'll have five minutes once you get settled to provide closing remarks.

First off, I want to mention that Maverick performed a truck circulation study, which seemed to pass. But with closer inspection, you notice that the design vehicle they had used had been modified, and the wheelbase had been shortened by three feet in order to make it make sharper turns. So I don't know that we can use any of their circulation techniques. because it's all been cheated. The length of the truck is three feet shorter than the Caltrans standard STAA vehicle. So I just wanted to mention that. I will focus on correcting the record, addressing several technical and procedural inaccuracies that affected the Planning Commission's decision. Truck circulation and STAA movements were misrepresented. The applicant has stated that STAA trucks can safely enter, circulate, and exit the site. That is not supported by field reality or by his own statements or by this traffic study that they did. At the Planning Commission's hearing, the applicant acknowledged that trucks sometimes run up on curbs. That is not a design feature. That is evidence that the design does not meet county standards for off-tracking containment. The commission relied on a site plan. I had never been shown. Commissioner Slowik led the applicant into agreeing that the curved approach directs trucks. Well, STA templates don't work that way. That's not substantial evidence. The board is the first body to have complete corrected circulation exhibits. Site distance deficiencies were not evaluated. The applicant has suggested that site distance is inadequate. My field measurements taken using Caltrans standard procedures show that corner site distance is not met for multiple movements. These are measured deficiencies, not opinions. Commissioner Slowik asked questions about the left turnpocket for turning eastbound, turning onto eastbound Buckthorn Road and U-turns onto northbound Oasis Road. He only asked about the length and capacity of the turnpocket. He did not ask about sight distance, circulation patterns, or the proximity of the post office driveway. The response to his question from traffic was 50 feet plus or minus, and it holds two to three vehicles. That was it. No questions about sight distance or acute spillback. The things that really matter. Maverick Driveways. The Maverick driveway for automobiles is right in, right out. They won't let them come out and cross the highway. Most drivers want to return to Highway 138 or travel down north on Oasis Road after exiting the Maverick driveway. Those drivers will use the left turn pocket for eastbound Buckthorn Road to make a U-turn. Thousands of vehicles per day will be making U-turns at that intersection. Our corner site distance exhibits verified that the site distance is inadequate for both the post office driveway and the westbound Buckthorn Road left turn movement onto southbound Oasis Road. The board will have the full set of exhibits that were reviewed previously. Mischaracterization of Buckthorn Road. The applicant's circulation assumptions rely on Buckthorn Road functioning as an outlet. It does not. My exhibits clearly show no outlet. And this was acknowledged at the Planning Commission hearing. The commission did not reconcile this contradiction, and the applicant continues to rely on a roadway connection that does not exist. The applicant's Consultant reported ambient noise levels as low as 35.8 decibels.

One minute remaining.

which is far below what is realistic for this corridor. My field measurements show daytime ambient noise between 42 and 50 decibels, which aligns with actual rural highway conditions. When operational noise, diesel fueling, truck idling, air compressors, and nighttime activity is applied to a realistic baseline, the project exceeds county thresholds. The consultant's unusually low baseline is the only reason their operational noises are acceptable. The board is seeing the first corrected data for the first time. I included my noise study in the exhibits. The Planning Commission did not hear a neutral evaluation of evidence. The applicant was coached with leading questions. The commissioner relied on a site plan that I had never been shown.

That's time.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much. We will ask the planning staff to come back down, Land Use Services, for questions from board members, please. Any questions of staff?

I have comments later, but no questions. Any questions?

We're gonna take questions and then comments. Supervisor Armendariz.

Yeah, thank you. We're hearing two different sides on this. My question to you is, with all the information that's being given to us right now, with the claims of inconsistencies, how do you evaluate what you're hearing, and are we in compliance, and why did we go with a lower threshold versus the higher threshold in that? Help me understand that.

That's correct, Supervisor. As projects are submitted and they go through changes, they're evaluated by staff and the applicant won't want to make modifications as they receive comments from staff and say, okay, it makes better sense to relocate parking to this general area. As we have comments on circulation, things change as well. So initially there was a site plan shown with the little bulb out That was shown before the Zone Administrator and Planning Commission, along with additional changes to parking and some minor things. That's the site plan that was approved by Zone Administrator and the Planning Commission. It met all our minimum standards. And then the applicant came back and there was an additional study that was done for traffic impact analysis with the minor changes to include the removal of that little bulb that you might remember for landscaping to make for better circulation and modifications to the site plan as well. With that, today's hearing is the de novo, so new site plans can be provided, and the applicant's requesting to, with the revised site plan, which circulates better, and it's a better design for, the staff believes it's a better design, and the applicant believes as well, before today. We wanted to make sure that we showed both site plans so you had an idea of what the previous one looked like, and you could see the modifications in what was done. to be as clear and transparent as possible. And with the new one, it looks cleaner, looks like there's gonna be additional circulation that'll be provided. And I apologize, the threshold for parking was the question?

Yeah, for the minor use permit, between the minor use permit and the conditional use permit.

So this type of use is, we have it by uses. So this use would be considered a minor use permit application. It's not typically by square footage, so the use is minor use permit application as determined by staff and the Board of Supervisors in the past and is now part of our code.

Perfect, and then this final, local versus regional, with the deciding factor that made it local versus regional.

Sure, so as staff analyzed the project, the big difference between the minor and the conditional use permit versus local versus regional is the fact that the application does not include overnight parking of trucks, does not include shower facilities, and is not intended for long haul trucks to be there for a longer period than fueling. It is designed to service regular drivers up and down Highway 138 just like any other gas station, and that was the threshold used to determine that it's a minor use permit. Gas stations are minor use permits under the code, and truck stops, which I know is an argument over the definition, would have been a conditional use permit. If it had been more like a pilot or a Buc-ee's where the trucks pull in, they park potentially for overnight, they can take showers, there's a larger convenience store, they can buy food and clothing items, that would be a truck stop versus a gas station, which is local serving. So that is the distinction between the regional and the local serving.

And then just my final, so everything you see in this project is it looks to, from what I'm seeing and what was presented, it looks to be almost like a buy right for the zoning. So there's nothing other than the minor use permit that is required. They meet all other requirements legally obligated.

That's correct. So typically a minor use permit, it's a ministerial and it's approved by the zone administrator, unless it's appealed, which it was, and of course appealed to the board today. The conditional use permit is considered more sensitive uses where additional conditions can be put on the project. Thank you.

Supervisor Cook?

No, I think I already...

I guess I will provide some comments that in all of the land decisions that we hear, I am an advocate of not changing the rules on people, whether that's of our residents when we have a change in use come in where it's a general plan amendment type of situation and we have public hearings that are legally allowed, but it's really hard for me to say to rural residents, you guys moved into rural living and we're gonna put a solar field in your backyard as an example. So I don't love that, but The flip side of that is we have businesses that are looking for places where they can legally operate and where it is zoned for that. And correct me that this was commercial. This is not a zone change. Is that correct?

That's correct.

So it's very difficult then for me to have a change of heart where we have a business that then is invested in coming to some place that we have said is appropriate for commercial use. Now, there have been a lot of residents with passion that have come here. I'm not completely convinced that the applicant knows the Pinion Hills community. I would say that your opening cover on your PowerPoint isn't Pinion Hills. So it makes me wonder, have you been out? Have you seen the elementary school? Have you seen the traffic? Those are questions that I then am left with wondering. And is it worth sending this back to the Planning Commission to do a higher level review? Is that an option before us today for the concerns that we've heard from the residents?

That's correct, Chair Rowland. You may direct staff to take it back to the Planning Commission for their reconsideration.

Okay. Supervisor Cook, thoughts?

You know, this is caught between a rock and a hard place, and probably I'm doing a disservice to the applicants because I have... certain ideas that go back, I don't know, 10, 20, 30 years about the desert. And I'm always worried about people wandering off into what they used to call the Delta Corridor. I think they still do. I don't know, Don, you might know. I am worried about safety. I've been involved where, unfortunately, we've had people that have died out there in the desert. The desert is very unforgiving. Now, this might be a long ways, but you'd be surprised when you get an analysis where somebody got lost out there on one of the hard surface roads, and you would think you would be able to find them, but no, they wanted to walk, and these were people in pretty good shape. The desert, as I said over and over again, is very unforgiving. I think it would be great for the area and everything right now. And maybe because of my past history with the desert, I don't feel comfortable with it. And I would be, at this time, a no. Thank you.

I would like the board to consider, if we were to send this back to Planning Commission, we heard from Mr. Hale that there was a road, I believe it was Oasis, that was not necessarily taken into consideration for the traffic study, and he's nodding in the affirmative. And that there were some discrepancies in truck length. So if this were to go back to Planning Commission, could the direction from the board be to study the traffic circulation as it relates to safety so we can address Supervisor Cook's concerns there as well?

Can I take it a step further? I'd like us to see all the issues that he brought forward, if we can make sure we look at those to give our opinion as a county of the accuracy of his analysis and bring that to the Planning Commission so they could have the opportunity to hear it once again with all things being equal and really look at it from that objective standpoint.

I'll make the motion for my colleague's recommendation to go back to the Planning Commission.

Thank you.

So I think that let's make the motion clearer of it's to grant the appeal, return the matter to the Planning Commission to reconsider all items raised by the appellant.

Yes.

I have a second from Supervisor Armendariz and a motion from Vice Chair Baca.

Madam Chair, can we close the hearing, please? I will close the hearing before I call for the vote.

Thank you.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

I want to make sure I understand it. So we are granting the appeal, and then we're going to send it back to planning to review it again, right?

Yes, based on the criteria raised by the appellant. All right. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. With that, the item... to grant the appeal is approved with those members present.

Thank you very much. Item number 107 is an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Mercury Dry Camp also being presented this morning by maybe Paul? Okay. Lena, will you please read the order of proceedings for this one? Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an appeal of a Planning Commission action for a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 12-site dry campground facility in Homestead Valley in Joshua Tree. The appellant is Wendy Wacker. The applicants are David Lee and Joseph Milburn. The order of proceedings will be as follows. The Chair will open the hearing. Paul will present the item. The representatives for the appellant, Wendy Wacker, Donovan Collier, and Frederick Chin, will have the opportunity to make a 15-minute presentation. The representatives for the applicant, David Lee and Joseph Milburn, and Paige Gosney will also have an opportunity for a 15-minute presentation. Following that, the board will take public comment, and members of the public will have three minutes to present their testimony and are asked to avoid redundant testimony. Once that is concluded, the applicant, followed by the appellant, will each have up to five minutes to present their closing remarks. And then staff will be available to offer comments and respond to any questions. And at that point, the chair will bring the matter back to the board.

Thank you very much. Before we start, Paul, I'm going to capture your attention. About how long is your presentation? Ballpark.

Roughly 10 minutes.

Okay. So what we're going to do is, as I announced at the top of the meeting, we'll break at noon. What we'll do in this instance is we will receive your presentation, and then we will break, and then I'll announce the time that we'll come back certain to continue on with the proceedings. Is that okay? Very well. Thank you.

Good morning again, Chair Rao and Supervisors. Paul Gonzales, Planning Chief. And next to me is Paul Toomey, Planning Manager. And before you, of course, is an appeal for a 12-site campground on 7.5 acres in the Joshua Tree community. Do you?

I need to open the public hearing, just in case I didn't. Thank you.

Okay. Paul Gonzales, playing chief, accompanied by Paul Toomey, who I'm going to hand it over to Paul, who will be giving a presentation on the appeal of the 12-site campground on 7.5 acres in the Joshua Tree community.

So you are not mistaken. Paul is going to get the presentation. Just this one. The applicant is David Lee and Joseph Milburn, and the appellant is Wendy Wacker, and they are here in the chambers this afternoon, almost. So the Mercury Dry Camp Project is a request for a conditional use permit for a campground located in the Homestead Valley area. The project was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on April 9th, 2025, I'm sorry, 2026, and is comprised of 12 campsites. The dry camp operational characteristics include no water, no sewer, no power or lighting other than solar-powered pathway for lighting pathways to the portable restroom facilities and to identify each campsite. A trash enclosure will be constructed to screen the refuse containers, the access road and internal driveway. will be graded and compacted to meet the requirements of the fire department. The existing accessory structures will remain to provide storage for maintenance tools and supplies. And the majority of the native vegetation and the Joshua trees are to be remained in place and revegetated as appropriate. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the CUP on April 9th, 2026. For that meeting, a notice of public hearing was published in the newspaper and to the surrounding property, surrounding 11 property owners within the 300 foot radius of the project site, as well as to an additional five interested parties. Nine comment letters opposing the project and five letters in support were received prior to the hearing. Based on concerns regarding onsite security, A condition of approval was added at the hearing requiring on-site security cameras. On April 19th, 2026, the appellant filed an appeal to contest the project's approval based on concerns with noise, safety, trespassing, operational oversight, and environmental impacts. During the public hearing with the Planning Commission, the appellant raised concerns about noise, about the use of firearms, trespassing, operational management, and impacts to the desert landscape. The submitted appeal included contentions that the Commission erred in judgment of the applicant's statements and that the staff's analysis of the report was flawed. Staff believes that the Planning Commission made the proper findings and that the appellant did not submit sufficient supporting documentation to address the findings that were identified as being flawed and based their contentions more on opinion with lack of supporting documentation from law enforcement for the alleged safety concerns regarding the illegal firearm use. So regarding the project itself, the site is located at 62076 Mercury Drive, approximately 660 feet south of Giant Rock Road within the Third Supervisorial District. The campground takes access off of Sunburst Avenue, which is located east along the boundary of the property and extends to Giant Rock Road. The project site is within the rural living land use category and the Homestead Valley Rural Living Zoning District with minimum lot size requirements of two and a half acres. Campgrounds aren't allowed use in the RL zone subject to the CUP approval. So this is the site plan of the seven and a half acre campground, indicating the locations of the 12 sites scattered around the site. And the entrance to the site is off the northeast corner, up to Sunburst. To the right is a typical configuration of the 50 foot by 50 foot campsite space, the tent area, the little 10 by 10 shade structure, and then the parking space for each one of these campsites. The image on the left is a kind of a 3D rendering of that configuration. It shows how the applicant is intending to develop each site, including the plantings that delineate the campsite boundaries around the edges of where the campers are. On the right is the canvas yurt-style tent pictured that shows the typical tent which is offered by the campground for rent. These renderings show the proposed design of the perimeter fencing with native vegetation that is to be planted per the conditions of approval. The cable fencing on the right will be utilized on the east side of the property where the entrance is placed so that visitors can see into the campground as they arrive. So that's a dry camp, so there are no water service, so portable restrooms will be used as sanitary stations. These are the picture of an example of that kind of restroom. The applicant is required to apply for a annual special use permit from the Code Enforcement Division to ensure that regular maintenance of the sanitary facilities occur. The portable toilets are required to be cleaned and pumped once a week. The project is found to be consistent with the policies of the countywide policy plan relating to compatibility with existing uses, the land use map consistency, and economic development as the site is developed, as the site design and development features for the campground complies with the standards of the development code. The implementation of the conditions of approval, including the operational standards, minimizes potential impacts on the surrounding uses. And then based on support letters submitted from the local businesses, the project will provide an economic support for those businesses that rely on tourism generated by nearby Joshua National Park. Regarding the development code, the project is consistent with the county's code standards for the rural living zoning district within the desert region. Notably, the building coverage is a small amount of 1 10th of 1%, which consists of those two accessory structures, which is well below the 20% that's allowed for the maximum lot coverage. and the maximum height of a yurt is about 16 feet, well below the 35-foot height limit. Not listed here is the campsite density, which is about 1.6 campsites per acre. Just as context, an RV park is allowed to be four campsites per acre. Environmentally, the project is subject to California Environmental Quality Act, and the initial study and negative declaration was prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. The 30-day public review period and comment period was conducted from January 23rd to February 22nd, 2025. One agency comment letter was received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. No public comments were received during that period. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program includes mitigation measures that reduces the potential impacts below significance for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and then tribal resources. And lastly, over the course of the project review process, several public notices were provided. 13 initial project notices were mailed on October 24th, 2023 to the surrounding property owners advising them of the application for the proposed project. The county received five letters of support from local businesses supporting the establishment of the campground to help sustain their business. And two letters of opposition came from neighbors complaining of noise and trespass violations. and then also requesting to stay informed with the project's progress and staff has corresponded with those recipients to provide project updates as the project has moved forward. As mentioned, on April 9th, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed project. The notice of hearing was published in the newspaper and mailed to the surrounding 11 property owners within that 300 foot radius. The project site also included then five mailings to interested parties and then we have the referral list of different agencies and interested parties. 22 notices were mailed as well for a total of 38. Nine letters in opposition were received and five comments in support of the project were received prior to the hearing. For today's August 4th hearing, those same 38 notices were mailed to the same recipients and 13 letters in support were received and one letter in opposition from the appellant was received. That does conclude our presentation for this morning. You certainly can answer questions after our lunch break.

Thank you. And I'm going to pause this public hearing. And at the discretion of the chair, I'm going to go out of order, finding that it is in the normal scope of business to take one general public comment that we have for today's meeting out of order because they require translation services. And so I would like to call Natalie Lopez in person requiring. Thank you very much. We'll give Natalie a moment to come up to the podium and then after Natalie's comments, we will recess for a break.

I just want to say that every time I went to a court hearing, they never gave me any paperwork. All the documents that were handed to me were in English. I was not able to understand them. They removed my children, supposedly, because I was using drugs. I've never used any drugs. All the drug tests I've taken have been clean.

Now I have a new baby.

The new social worker assigned to me told me that everything was going well and that she's going to help me to get my other children returned to me.

However, the new social worker assigned to me, I tried to contact her, but she's always busy.

They're always telling me that she's busy and she's busy doing other things. And that's mainly what I wanted to say. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right.

We will continue with the public hearing at 1230. Thank you very much.

We have three, ready?

All right, welcome back. We're gonna continue our public hearing. So to refresh, we've just had our staff presentation, and now we are going to move to the appellant's presentation. So we'll ask Wendy Wacker to come forward. She will have 15 minutes for her presentation, and then that'll be followed by the applicant and their 15 minutes.

Got a whole village coming up here on this one.

These microphones are a little sensitive. You'll need to lean in and get pretty close to them.

Okay, there we go, okay. Hold on one second.

All right, I think we're ready.

Good afternoon, Chair Rao, members of the Board of Supervisors. Thank you for your time this afternoon now. My name is Donovan Collier. I'm an attorney with Fenimore LLP. This is Wendy Wacker, the appellant, as well as Fred Chin. And this is the appeal of the Mercury Dry Campground Project. And the crux of the appeal is fairly straightforward. And this project introduces a transient commercial use that's fundamentally incompatible with the existing rural living zoning designation, which provides for not rural residential development in a range of agricultural uses.

And can I have you just lean in a little bit more?

Thank you. As such, the project development and operation will have unavoidable and unacceptable impacts on neighboring residential uses. The grounds for appeal are basically incompatibility, land use incompatibility. The proposed project is simply incompatible with the rural living district, and due to this incompatibility, the project will result in impacts to neighboring residential uses, such as noise, dust, traffic, as well as diminution of property value in the area, and put an unnecessary strain on public services such as fire and police due to extended response times to the remote project area. Other issues for consideration are really stewardship issues on the applicant's side. The applicant's documented past conduct may suggest that the project is approved, may not be operated in a responsible manner to limit the impacts to neighboring properties. and remote monitoring as currently provided simply doesn't address the real-time disturbances, thereby increasing issues. And to start, the project is simply incompatible with the rural living zone as mentioned before. The district is intended for rural residential use and activities compatible with residential character. not commercial uses. Existing residents that own property in that area don't really have a reasonable expectation to think that a commercial enterprise such as the current project would essentially be developed in their backyard. Also, the project will negatively impact marketability and value of neighboring residential properties. As part of the appeal, we submitted several studies which showed this fact, and I'd like to turn this portion over to Fred for further discussion.

I'm a real estate valuation and advisory professional with more than 45 years of looking at land uses and their impact on real estate valuation. As Donovan indicated, I submitted a written real estate and economic report concerning the approved campground. The starting point is very straightforward. The adjoining RL zone properties derive material value from their setting. Privacy, quiet, dark skies, open views, seclusion, security, and the low density rural character are not incidental amenities. They are fundamental components of the real estate product for which owners paid and for which future owners and buyers will pay. Regardless of the term campground, its operating characteristics are that of a commercial lodging operation, paid, publicly accessible, and transient that demands continuing supervision and enforcement, recurring arrivals and departures, rotating overnight occupants, active marketing, vehicle trips, nighttime activity, and outdoor congregation. The critical land use is concentration. Primitive tent and car camping is already available without charge across abundant and nearby public lands controlled by the BLM where campers can freely choose their own spacing and privacy with activity dispersed over broad acreage. This approval does the opposite, fixing 12 campsites potentially accommodating two dozen or more rotating guests with no comparable choice in spacing on a smart parcel immediately adjoining RL zone property. The concentration of transient users, vehicles, voices, lights, campfires, and nighttime activity at the boundary shared with the adjoining RO zone properties creates an impact materially different than dispersed camping. The site improvements, gathering areas, access configuration, and additional graded roadway the property owners have already constructed and exceeded compared to the site plan that was previously shown, reinforce the potential for the property to function as a commercial encampment or enterprise rather than as an isolated primitive campsite. As such, my reports identify a one directional transfer of value. The operator can market and monetize the same qualities that make the adjoining properties valuable. quiet, dark skies, open desert, privacy, and seclusion. The operator receives the commercial benefit. The owners who paid a premium for that same location and continue to bear the cost of maintaining it now absorb the burden of losing it. The traffic, publicity, loss of control, security concerns, enforcement demands, and association with a publicly advertised campground. The value flows one way. In appraisal terms, this is external obsolescence. The adjoining properties have not physically changed, but their setting has, and no owner can fence out a bad neighbor. It is the equivalent of building a factory next to a home. The house is unchanged, but its value collapses because of now what sits besides it. Fencing, screening, cameras, and security measures are costly and incomplete and may obstruct the very open views buyers and owners seek. The market will not overlook this. A residential RL zone property buyer is discretionary and highly selective, purchasing seclusion by choice, not by necessity. The buyer has no reason to pay full price next to a commercial campground when unimpaired alternatives exist elsewhere. The result was a narrower buyer pool, longer marketing time, greater price resistance, and downward pressure on value. A prudent buyer will also weigh the continuing entitlement, the risk of future operators, and declining management quality, and whether similar approvals may proliferate across other RL zone properties. Our economic report exposes a deeper problem. The project offloads supervisory and public service burdens that should rest with the operator onto neighbors and the county agencies instead. The operation is unstaffed and remotely managed in a high desert location. Cameras, noise sensors, written rules, and an automated gate are not substitutes for an on-site person who can observe conduct, intervene promptly, manage fires, address trespass, and enforce quiet hours before a problem escalates. The academic research cited in my economic report does not assume visitors will behave badly. It identifies a structural risk. Increasing the number of transient strangers in a defined area increases the likelihood of property crime, vandalism, complaints, and emergency service calls. That risk comes from repeatedly converting a residential parcel into transient lodging without ordinary on-site supervision, not from the conduct of any individual camper. That risk is magnified dangerously by remoteness. The sheriff's station is approximately 10 miles away, county of fire approximately 12 miles. Each call to this site consumes far greater response time resources than the same call would in a denser service area And in high desert terrain, minutes matter. Swift winds common to the area can turn a single unintended campfire into a fast-moving wildfire. And without on-site presence to detect and respond immediately, that fire can spread unchecked until emergency vehicles are able to navigate their way to the area. From a real estate appraisal standpoint, my broader concern is precedent and cumulative change across RL zone properties and the owners who live on them. The entitlement runs with the land and may be exercised by future owners or operators regardless of who holds it today. Additional similar approvals can convert an established RL zone residential area over time into a patchwork of transient commercial uses. Each approval normalizes the next. A prudent buyer will not price this approval in isolation, but the full trajectory it sets in motion. Greater traffic, nighttime activity, public access, land use uncertainty, and increased commercialization across the area. My conclusion rests on three points. First, availability defeats necessity. Primitive camping is already abundantly available free of charge on nearby BLM lands where campers can freely choose their own spacing and privacy across broad open acreage. Nothing requires concentrating this activity besides residence. Second, character defeats compability. A paid, transient, publicly marketed, commercial lodging use, remotely managed and unstaffed is fundamentally at odds with the privacy, quiet, security, low density, and residential stability that give surrounding properties their value. Third, the economic burden shifts. It does not disappear. The operator captures the commercial revenue. Adjoining owners and public agencies are saddled with the incremental property supervision, enforcement, and emergency response costs. For these reasons, the approval inflicts incurable external obsolescence on the adjoining properties, narrows their buyer approval, and suppresses their value while shifting real public service costs on the neighbors and county agencies who receive no benefit in return.

Thank you, Fred. In addition, excuse me, in addition to the impacts that Fred discussed, the project will have certain environmental impacts, and the scope of them will be degradation of the desert ecosystem, hydrology impacts, destruction of native vegetation, air quality impacts, and potential dark sky and acoustic impacts. With regard to acoustics, I do wanna mention the noise study. Real quickly, it was prepared for the project, because it was inadequate. Due to the acoustics of the valley, sound travels in a very unique way. Quiet nights are cherished by the residents and due to low ambient noise levels in the area, particularly at nighttime, noise events such as closing a car door, loud talking or music can greatly increase the ambient noise levels and be negatively perceived by the residents. That's why CEQA requires the county or any lead agency to look to see whether the project will result in a generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Now, for this project, the noise analysis didn't even take ambient noise measurements. They relied on measurements that were done nine years ago and taken four miles away from the project site, which could have literally no similarity to the project. Hence, we believe that the noise analysis is defective. And again, going back to stewardship, mentioned earlier the applicant's past conduct calls into question whether the project will be developed and operated in a responsible and legal manner. It made numerous legal misrepresentations on the record, as well as have a demonstrated pattern of noncompliance, which includes unpermitted development, unpermitted uses, noise violations, allegations of firearm discharge, trespassing on neighbor's property, and encroachments on neighbor's property, all before the entitlements are even final. Now looking at this aerial view of the property, you can see that it appears that there may still be some unauthorized development and uses going on on site. These incidents of past conduct cannot be dismissed and need to be considered within the totality of the project in deciding whether it's an appropriate use for this location. And then finally, the lack of onsite supervision. All the potential impacts to neighboring properties are exacerbated by the lack of onsite supervision. The approvals do not require onsite host or manager, and the remote monitoring's insufficient. And considering the projected delays in response time for emergency vehicles, that is a real concern. It's important because these delayed response times can be very difficult. I'd like to move it over and let Wendy take it.

Good afternoon, members of the board. My name is Wendy Wacker, and I own 160 acres of land adjoining the property at 62076 Mercury Drive. I'm not here as an expert or lawyer. I'm here as a neighbor who bought this land because of what it promised, quiet, dark skies, and the privacy to live without a business operating over my fence line. Even before the applicants here have been granted authority to proceed, that promise has already been broken. I have heard gunshots fired toward my property not once but twice. I've watched campers trespass onto my land. My property stakes moved, solar lights placed inside my property. I've seen the creosote bushes on my land burned. I'm now afraid to walk my own land. That is not a complaint I make lightly and is not one I ever imagined I would have to make. This is the rural living zone. It exists so that people like me can build a life around space, silence, and the land itself. A commercial campground open around the clock to anonymous strangers with no host and no supervision is not a rural residential use. It is a business, plain and simple, and it does not belong here. And to speak to Mr. Toomey's comment that my statements about shots fired are opinion, that is not true. I have police call log records that police were called out to the campsite that spoke to campers back to back, I believe back in 2023 in May, And the campers said that they were not aware of California firearm laws when they shot handguns towards my house. And then the very next day, I called the police again because they were on my neighboring property shooting handguns. thinking that because there's no fencing that there's no private land. All that land is privately owned. What troubles me most is not what has already happened, it's what approving this would say about what this board is willing to permit next. If a business owner can take a piece of land in a residential zone and turn it into a commercial operation over the objection of every single bordering neighbor, then the zoning protections all of us rely on mean nothing and I want to be clear this project is not necessary. I know that this board does not take its role in protecting the citizens of this community lightly, and I am hopeful that your efforts in that regard are reflected in your actions today by refusing to make a practice of granting exceptions like this one. Please do not let an unnecessary business come before the people who've lived here, cared for this land, and trusted the rules that were supposed to protect us. Thank you for your time and for, I hope, making the right decision today to protect my neighbors, myself, and this community.

Thank you very much. Next, we'll ask the applicant to come forward and have 15 minutes to present.

to advance the slides?

I'm sorry? Is it this to advance the slides? Chair Rowe and distinguished board members, I just wanna start out out of respect for your time and the effort put into this. We have already provided all of the details in a packet in front of you as well as responses from our legal counsel in responses to Wendy Wacker's appeal contentions. My name is David Lee. I am a co-applicant in this project, and I want to start out by being straightforward about who we are. We are not professional developers. This is a passion project born out of a genuine love for the outdoors and the desert, and the need for safe, regulated options to experience wild open spaces. That passion has shaped every decision in this project, keeping it small, primitive, and low impact so the land stays as it is. Because we're not developers, we've leaned on this process to get it right. I'm sorry. We've spent a great deal of time over the past three years, and we're grateful for the guidance and collaboration of the county staff throughout the project before you today is better for it.

We have great respect for the neighbors and the community who have participated in this process and I look forward to discussing our project with you.

I will now pass it to Joseph to introduce himself and to kick off the presentation.

Chair Rowe, Vice Chair Baca. And the honorable members of Board of Supervisors, thank you for the opportunity to address you today. My name is Joseph Milvern, alongside David. I'm the other owner of the project. And we are here today respectfully requesting that the board uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous approval. First.

Can I have you speak just a little bit closer into the mic, please? Yes. Thank you.

How about that? Better. Oh, I'm tall. First, I'd like to take a quick moment to share why this project is personal to me. My parents had a deep love for camping. It was central to who they were as a couple. When I was a young child, my father passed away. I was raised by a single mother, and she was determined to keep that camping tradition alive within our family. Every summer, she took my brothers and I camping across this beautiful country of ours. We packed up our 92 white Ford Explorer full of camping supplies, and we traveled to various national parks, state parks throughout the country. I can still see, as I sit here right now, clear as day, my mother in the morning, drinking a cup of coffee, studying the paper, Rand McNally Atlas, planning out the route for the day. Those trips had an enormous impact on me, and most importantly, they gave me a love for the outdoors, for nature, our great country, and of camping. Additionally, I personally have experienced firsthand the problem we believe our campground addresses. My very first trip to Joshua Tree, short notice, last minute. I wanted to camp inside the park, but no sites were available. And I looked for a safe, well-managed place to pitch a tent, and I couldn't find it. So I looked on a recreation forum, and I found a place that was said to be camping in the area. And essentially, there were a bunch of RVs, loud sounds, and it wasn't a beautiful place to be. So basically, Also, on those summer trips I mentioned, we ran into the same thing. Campgrounds full, options few. That personal experience is why I'm here today. So let me try to advance the slide. Okay, so I will skip. Yeah, just one quick comment. Dave and I are not a large investment group. We're not a hospitality corporation. We are two regular guys with nine to five jobs. We're both directors at our respective companies. We have poured our nights and weekends into this project as a passion project. And also, I just want to say one quick thing. This project has humbled us. We've had lessons that we've learned. But I want to take a quick moment to thank the land use services team. We've worked collaboratively over three years, lots of meetings, lots of back and forth. And I just want to say Paul Toomey, Luis Rodriguez, Michelle Feliciano, the rest of the folks there, appreciate it. I'm very grateful. Appreciate the time we've spent working together. As you know, it's a 12-site primitive campground. I'm going to try to speed this up. So if I go into our mission, very simple. We want to open the desert to more people without changing what makes it special. There's no hookups, paved roads, permanent buildings, bright lights. Three main principles have driven this for us. Essentially, protect the environment, support the local community, make it easier for families to safely experience the Mojave. And then I would also like to just touch on what we believe there to be a need for this type of project. In our opinion, it's not opinion necessarily, but there's a lot of data and it's fact. Three million visitors in 2025, that's 8,000 people arriving per day, 500 campsites in the park. So the math shows that these people need somewhere to stay. They would like to have somewhere to stay and there's not enough campsites available. If I look at this one, I think this is a known fact, these campsites in the park sell out very quickly. There was a market report, 2025 camping report from the DIRT that said over 50% of folks looking for a campsite couldn't find a campsite. So those folks wanted to have somewhere to stay, but they didn't. So also shift in the market, the amount of households that want to camp, 10 million greater than pre-pandemic numbers. So that shift is that folks are looking for somewhere to camp. They don't have a place to camp. That's what we want to offer them. And then lastly, on this one, is essentially maybe some of you are familiar with your work in the county, but if there are no managed options, well-managed options, folks don't just go home. They go to these different dispersed areas, some right here in Homestead Valley, where there are not toilets, no rules, no quiet hours, no one responsible. Campers themselves describe what those look like. Accumulated trash, ATV traffic, weekend noise. Conversely, 12 reserved, identified, supervised, leave no trace sites are the opposite of that. So we don't think we're creating a problem. We believe we're providing a structured, accountable solution to a problem that already exists. Right before I hand it to David, one other option. If you think about the economics, and I'll go into this in detail later, but okay, so if you're choosing a trip and you can't find a campsite in the park, Someone that was going to spend tourism dollars here might pick a different location, a different county, somewhere else to go for their vacation. And I think that's important as well. So I'll hand it off to David now.

Just to be clear, one of our founding principles from the very beginning of this was to work collaboratively with the county and the community to do this the right way. We are witness to many of the illegal campgrounds that exist in Joshua Tree and other places. And before our pre-application review was filed in February of 2022, which is about a year before our official application was filed, it was a core part of our mission to do this the right way. It's taken us three years plus to get here. And again, to Joseph's point, we've worked very collaboratively with the county to get to this point. There are multiple examples of where we have demonstrated this by site reductions from 15 to 12. By environmental review and supplemental noise analysis that was submitted as a response to the appellants contentions. Road development standards and the adoption of conditions at the initial public hearing to address concerns about ongoing maintenance and oversight. The project is small by design. Again, 12 campsites, less than one-tenth of a percent of the entire property as developed. We have clear rules and regulations that are in the appendix of the packets in front of you. Those are a core part of our operating principles and will be signed by every guest at the time of reservation. It is a quiet area, and a big part of that is keeping it quiet and keeping it remote and wild. The location is remote on purpose. The power lines stop, the pavement stops. It is an experience to be out there in the desert and to enjoy it in that way in a primitive nature. We've developed a deep appreciation for that. We want to share that with others. We are not trying to build 50 plus RV campground. This is a small way for people to get a taste of camping in the desert and in Joshua Tree. We took the legal path to ensure compliance. Again, going back to our work with the county, unpermitted private land camping around Joshua Tree hasn't gone away, it's just gone unregulated, and we deliberately chose to do this in the way that the county has laid out and the processes that have been laid out. Operations only succeed if the standards are followed and enforced. Our campground business, as you will, will not be successful if these standards are not followed and enforced. And so our goals are aligned with the county, our goals are aligned with community. We don't want any bad behavior or bad actors either. We won't have a campground for very long if that's the case. And the county does have the authority to revoke CUP if it becomes a nuisance. The design plans are also built to mitigate environmental impact and built to be removable. And so we've given thought to things like decks and shade structures and parking. We have learned a lot about the desert in our five plus years out here. There's no use in fighting against it, so why not work with it? Part of that changing environment is really to make sure that the impact that we have from visitors and from the minimal amount of development needed to get this ready to go to market, the environmental impact is minimal. Lastly, when we talk about primitive, here are some design examples of what we mean. One parking space, pump toilet, a tent, a deck, and a shade structure, right? And so this is providing a safe, regulated area for people to enjoy the open space, enjoy the desert in a controlled environment. We'll talk about some of those controls later on, and I will pass it over to Joseph.

Okay, I'm going to try to go through this very quickly because I'd also like to give Paige a minute here at the end. So can I have the... So essentially, I'll just highlight here, we agree with the quiet. Quiet is the whole product. People come to High Desert for silence, dark skies, stillness. Protecting those things is not just good neighborliness, it's our entire business model. Also, this campground will be operated under State of California Title 25 permit, a formal operational permit required by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. We are not just meeting county conditions. We are meeting state standards as well. So this is a fully regulated, accountable operation from top to bottom. As far as the quiet goes, our MND analysis was more than adequate, we believe. And we submitted, we paid for, commissioned, and submitted a secondary supplemental noise study that has been provided to the board. We have our expert here today. So if we need to have some comment about that, we can. And I'm going to hand it back to David for time.

Just lastly, on the piece of enforcement, it's a combination of technology and human, right? And so we have somebody that is local, that is on staff. He is in the audience today within the 30-minute condition that was added at the public hearing. He will be on call and ready to respond to any complaints that are received. He will also document any complaints and the resolution of those complaints if the county were to request those. We have from the reservation time of signing the rules and regulations and signing a liability waiver to inputting your license plate to an automated gate entry and exit system that only activates during your reservation and locks out after a reservation to noise monitoring equipment similar to that of a short-term rental. as well as the human element and the local staff that is within a 30-minute time response. And I will close there with 1.30 left so that Paige can say his piece.

Thank you, David. Paige Gosney, land use attorney from Allen Matkins. I've submitted two very detailed, one in particular, very lengthy letter responding to and refuting the allegations in the appeal. I trust that you've read that. I'm not going to repeat and go back over all that stuff because I know that you did and appreciate your time. We wanted to make sure, because this is a de novo review, wanted to make sure the majority of our presentation, and you haven't seen this project, was- One minute remaining. getting to introduce David and Joe and their passion, their commitment to the project, and what's kind of led them to be here, because I think it really demonstrates why this project is gonna be successful. I think this is the exact project that you wanna have in this area of Joshua Tree. It's maintained, it's monitored, it's enforced, it's fenced, there are strict rules, there's all the things that the county is gonna wanna see to make sure that those nuisance impacts that affect unregulated camping are gonna be addressed, and you're not gonna see that here. From a CEQA perspective, the county required us to do an MND for this project. That was above and beyond what CEQA requires. You might recall the AutoCamp project from 2019, much larger project with Gulf Streams, or not Gulf Streams, excuse me, Airstreams. That was a CEQA-exempt project. This technically should have been a CEQA-exempt project, but county staff wanted to make sure that the environmental review was rigorous and comprehensive and went through and covered everything. And we did that, and it does show that this project- Thank you.

Thank you very much. I believe our remote participation may have dropped.

Yeah, we believe the session timed out, so they are working to reconnect right now. Those are the dings that you're hearing right now.

This is a public input test message to verify your connection.

It's reconnected. Thank you. So we are reconnected now.

We are reconnected? Yes. Okay.

I apologize for that.

Thank you very much for your presentation. And we'll do this the same way that we did with the previous public hearing. So now we will move to public comment. We're going to start with our remote first, if it's working. All right. The list of public speakers that I have remotely, I will call you all again, but I'm going to read them off so you can be prepared. Carrie Alley first, Steve Bardwell second, Tina Bluefield, followed by Craig Doty. So Carrie, you're up.

Hi, my name's Carrie Ailey. I'm from Pioneer Town. And I'm speaking on this subject because approval of this document, as is with the conditions of approval and the findings of fact, will create an unacceptable precedence for the entire Morongo Valley. I believe that the applicant and the way this whole project has been presented has been misrepresented. The original CEQA notice and mitigated declaration proposed

A DEVELOPMENT OF CAMPGROUND CONSISTING OF 12 BRI PRIMITIVE KITS AND CAMPING.

ON APRIL 9TH, THE DAY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, A RATA INITIAL MITIGATED DECLARATION WAS SUBMITTED THAT CHANGED THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION SIGNIFICANTLY AND IT ALLOWS EACH CAMP SITE INCLUDES SPACE FOR PARKING and either a tent or contained RV trailer camping. The response saying they did not need to recirculate this mitigator is that it had no new significant impact. I'm sorry, but an RV trailer campground with generators emits huge amounts of noise. Even the applicant mentioned he wanted to move. He didn't want to stay in campgrounds with loud noises, yet here it is. And this is just absolutely outrageous that this project was handled this way. I'm extremely upset that a homeowner has had to hire a lawyer. The documents don't make any sense. I go on for quite a few pages on how this is not done correctly and uh i'm asking you to uphold wendy wacker's appeal speaker was not followed the own county's own procedures were not followed the project description changes at whim with absolutely no public um acknowledgement that it has changed and i just can't believe this thing is had to be appealed. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Steve Bardwell, followed by Tina Bluefield.

Hello, my name is Steve Bardwell. I'm the president of the Morongo Basin Conservation Association. NBCA supports appropriate and responsible development in the Morongo Basin. This development process failed on both points. The project is inappropriate by introducing a commercial campground into a residential land use area. Why does this camp without water or electricity matter? Because it contributes to the cumulative increased intensity of use and development in the basin that has not been sufficiently analyzed or acknowledged. Campers will patronize restaurants, the national park, and stores in the basin where workers and locals are struggling to find affordable housing. More traffic and vehicle miles traveled will increase dust, greenhouse gas emissions, and increase calls for code enforcement and first responder services, among other impacts. The countywide plan and the business and implementation plan, which the county invested substantial taxpayer dollars to draft, are predicated on limited growth in the high desert although these plans were adopted nearly six years ago the county has not met timelines of the implementation plan or brought all planned elements into alignment and consistency including land use maps zoning maps and the development code our rapidly warming climate demands forward-thinking planning that is not represented by this project The development is irresponsible because it does not provide needed onsite supervision to ensure compatibility with the rural residential community goals. Those goals include a clean, quiet, dark sky environment consistent with the community action guides. Looking at the site from a satellite image, one can clearly see the lack of care and the disregard the site has received. It has nearly completely, recently it appears, scraped of native vegetation. creating a source for dust and disturbance to the community. The on-the-ground conditions be lied that developers claim it will preserve the desert and belong to its neighborhood. An unsupervised campground in the open desert? What could possibly go wrong? Ask the National Park Rangers. Look at sheriff's reports. or consult with code enforcement to learn of the many examples of what will go wrong without onsite supervision.

30 seconds remaining.

We urge you supervisors to overturn the planning commission's decision and deny a CUP. Thanks for your consideration.

Thank you, Tina Bluefield, followed by Craig Doty, and then we're going to add Mered Issa.

Oh, my name is Tina Bluefield. I am a year-round resident living close to south to this project. I am concerned about a severe public safety hazard of this proposed dry camp, the danger of the Mojave green rattlesnake combined with the remote location and the open water source. The Mojave Desert is not a vacant lot. It is a complex active ecosystem, Homestead Valley and Joshua Tree area are prime habitat for the Mojave green rattlesnake, which is widely considered the most dangerous snake in North America. Unlike other rattlesnakes whose venom only destroys tissue, the Mojave green has a double venom of hemotoxins and neurotoxins. A Mojave green rattlesnake bite causes progressive respiratory failure and severe systemic neurotoxicity. The bite may show little swelling, bruising, or pain, so that victims underestimate its severity. Any movement to self-rescue will rapidly circulate the fast-acting neurotoxin through the bloodstream, hastening paralysis. In a remote setting, with or without on-site staff, this venom can be a very real potential death sentence, especially for families with children or the elderly. This is not a safe camping site. I am very close by. I had five Mojave green snakes visiting me last year. A standard first aid kit is useless. According to the California Poison Control System and the CDC, the only definitive treatment is hospital-administered antivenom. Minutes matter. Non-vetted urban campers would arrive with zero knowledge of desert safety. They will not know how to spot a snake, how to avoid an encounter, or what to do if they're bitten. Even educated campers are at risk, given the distance to first responders. There is no immediate remedy. Furthermore, the site plan includes a plant irrigation system. In the dry Mojave Desert, wildlife must find water to survive. Government wildlife profiles confirm that rattlesnakes are highly attracted to standing moisture and will actively migrate towards human encampments, puddles around plants, leaky infrastructure, and puddle runoff under water tanks. An irrigation system in a pristine desert habitat creates a predictable oasis for venomous snakes, drawing them directly into the campsites. Environmental analysis completely ignores this threat. Wooden fences will not keep snakes out. And the water supply will draw snakes in. Untrained, unsupervised tourists in a remote area with uncertain cell service is not a recipe, is a recipe for a medical catastrophe. One such incident is far too many. For the safety of future campers, emergency responders, and the local community, I urge the Commission to deny this permit, please.

Thank you. Thank you. Craig Doty, followed by Murad Issa, or Issa.

Hello, my name is Craig Doty, and I'm here to speak in opposition of the proposed 12-site campground near Mercury Drive and Joshua Tree. My house is several parcels over from the site, but close enough to be affected by the proposed campground. I purchased my home in 2015. I wanted to be in the best part of the desert specifically because of its lack of commercial development and neighbors. I enjoyed the quiet and the seclusion the house afforded me. Starting around 2019, our area of the desert has seen a massive influx of investors snatching up properties and turning them into full-time Airbnbs and other short-term rental situations. These people arrived and showed no respect for the desert or their neighbors, only eager to cash in on the fervent demand for short-term rentals due to the COVID pandemic. What has been made clear to me during this time is that the commercial interest in these residential areas will always prioritize their profits over care for the desert ecosystem and for their neighbors' ability to enjoy their homes. Commercial interests like this proposed campsite should have no place in a rural residential area such as ours. There is so much wrong with what is happening at the proposed site that we are here to discuss. It is amateurishly constructed with absolutely no regard for their closest neighbor's privacy. I am sure my neighbors will speak at length about these issues. What I would like to focus my comments on, however, is how the owners of this property have treated the native vegetation and ecosystem of the high desert. From the moment they arrived, they have shown nothing but absolute contempt for the habitat and plant life that had previously occupied their site. The day they bought it, they showed up in their STVs and did donuts across the land, as well as their neighbor's land, damaging plant life and showing their disregard for the fragile desert ecosystems. I was horrified the day I drove past their site and saw that they had burned every last creosote bush on the property, a plant that takes decades to grow and is protected in nearby Yucca Valley. I was in disbelief the night I returned home and saw that they were running a bulldozer in the middle of the night, finishing off the remnants of the creosote and obliterating any life that had existed before, a complete erasure of the desert environment, bare dirt. And why have they done this? Why destroy the very thing they aim to exploit and profit off of? Would you believe it was so that they could then turn around and plant the property with non-native cactuses that have no chance of survival in the Mojave Desert? Large saguaro cactuses from native to Arizona have been trucked in, propped up, and then quickly blown over by the wind, breaking into pieces. Monstrous cactuses native to Peru have been jammed in the barren earth only to shrivel up and die without water. What kind of stupidity is this? What does this say about the judgment of the people who are asking to be stewards of our deserts? What does this kind of disdain for an ecosystem say about their priorities? If they are willing to obliterate the things that make this place special, why do they want to be here at all? If they see the saguaro cactus as more profitable than our cholla or our beaver tail cactus, then why not do this in Arizona? Why do we as neighbors have to suffer from their need to turn profit off their investments? The applicants for this permit have shown time and time again that they will be bad neighbors and will negatively affect our area, its residents, and the native life of the desert. The site is poorly constructed and lacks the proper infrastructure to host anyone, let alone 12 RVs at a time. That's time. I urge the committee to deny the permit.

Thank you very much. Murad Aisev. And then we'll move here into chambers and start with Micah Marcus.

Hello. I... My name is Murad Issa. I own a property in Yucca and also in Joshua Tree. One is just land and one has a home. And I would like to not take either side specifically. I would like to say that I've known the guys for a few years now since the first day they brought the property. And I'd be first to admit they were uneducated about what the processes were, what the land really meant. And there's some things that I would even disagree with that they've been doing. But I would like to suggest that we find a way for them to do this because of the reasons that I'm going to state. One is that I know that there is BLM land for people to camp on. And if anybody who doesn't own 160 acres of land were to travel to the BLM land with a family to try to camp there, it is... very poorly managed, and it is highly dangerous. I've taken my kids there. I've camped on the dry lake. There are RVs there. There's drugs going on. There's firing of guns. It's not a safe place. I would like a safe place for people to visit Joshua Tree that cannot afford homes there, and this seems like a very viable option. That does not discredit any concerns that neighbors or the city may have. I just believe that as long as those concerns are met in an understanding and can be mitigated cooperatively with the owners, I believe that it is a very viable campsite. I believe that people should have an option for a safe place to camp. I believe the acreage is large enough uh, the, the concerns of light and noise, those are valid concerns and should be addressed and found solutions for, and if found in violation should have consequences. But I don't think that just not allowing any campsites for people to access, and it is highly populated. The whole city is Airbnb. So the concept of that there is just local residents and no commercial aspect to Joshua Tree. That's far-fetched. The whole community is a commercial aspect. Coffee shops, yoga shops, vintage stores. It is a commercial. Unfortunately, that's what happens. As you want more isolation, you have to move further and further away. Places get populated. I am in favor of the campsite. I'm in favor of it in a responsible manner. And I believe that the guys have learned a lot during this process and are two respectful members of the committee.

Thank you. We're going to bring it back here into chambers and we're going to start with Micah Marcus, followed by Catherine Winslow, Maggie Moore, and then Ron Dudley.

Thank you, and I'll be brief, and I won't repeat what's already been said. What I think here, though, you've heard facts. We understand this is a residential community that's being asked to bring in a commercial enterprise. That's not contradicted. What I heard is lip service that we're not We're not developers. Unfortunately, I respectfully disagree. They are developers. They're commercial developers that are trying to create a business in a residential community because of all the benefits that that residential community offers. You've heard issues of collegiality, of working with the neighbors. Well, here are all the neighbors. I haven't heard any cooperation or consideration as to the impact it's having on them. You've heard the issues, well, we're gonna have signs that's gonna solve all of our issues. I was at a pool a couple weeks ago and said, don't run by the pool. I'm going to guess, if the commission could guess whether or not all the kids or people were actually abiding by the rules on the sign. There's a suggestion, well, we have an individual who lives within half an hour. I'm sure he's a very nice individual. He is one individual. I imagine he sleeps. I imagine he is not immediately available for every single situation that might arise, especially emergency situations that might arise in the context of this type of operation in the middle of the desert. I think it just comes back to the central point. Is it okay to approve an exception? The word exception, exceptional. Is this exceptional enough? to approve a commercial operation in a residential neighborhood that is going to impair the neighbors. And I don't think that that's ever right, and I certainly don't think it's right in the situation here. We've heard there's over 140 acres of BLM land And the fact that that land's not as nice as the land that's being stewarded by the residents and the individuals, that shouldn't be a price that they have to pay for being good neighbors and being good residents. If these individuals are truly interested in going out, and it's a lovely story, But there are non-residential neighborhoods that they can try and do this exact same operation without impairing the surrounding neighbors. And I would respectfully request that this panel uphold the appeal and deny the project.

Thank you. Catherine Winslow, followed by Maggie Moore, and then Ron Dudley.

Good afternoon. My name is Catherine Winslow. My home is less than half a mile from this proposed campground. For the record, I have never received a notification from the county about it. We only heard about it from neighbors and started to rally around. I drove two hours again here today, as I did for the Planning Commission hearing, so that I could represent several of our neighbors who were not able to be here today in person. I understand that this is a test case and that there are many people watching to see what happens here. I'm pretty well versed in the CUP process, and I do want there to be a permitting process for small two or three site campgrounds, but my biggest issue is the anticipated noise and lack of supervision for such a huge commercial operation in our very small, quiet neighborhood. At a minimum, there needs to be 24-7 on-site supervision. A 12-site campground means there may be 24 people or more, 12 cars or more allowed on a nightly basis on this relatively small piece of land. Many of our parcels are five-acre parcels. This parcel is 7.5 acres. The short-term rental ordinance for laypeople, that's Airbnbs and VRBOs that are in the neighborhood, says that you can have a maximum of 12 people even in a mansion on 500 acres. So I'm confused why 24 people and 12 cars would be considered in our little neighborhood. Again, I'm a fan of campgrounds, but this is a neighborhood with many year-round residents who've been terribly affected by the campground as it is right now with just the unpermitted structures on it. Please strongly consider upholding this appeal. As an aside, it is strange to me that a truck stop previously mentioned on the agenda would be a modified use permit and this campground would be a conditional use permit. I do encourage you to consider allowing future small two to three site campgrounds to be under a modified use permit. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Maggie Moore and then Ron Dudley.

Hi, my name's Maggie Moore. I have a house on five acres about a quarter mile from this proposed campground. I bought my property after my husband's death 13 years ago. Since then, my two sons and I have enjoyed our beloved little piece of Joshua Tree and the peaceful, healing nature of the desert. We deeply love the silence, the desert critters and creosote bushes, and the incredible night skies. This neighborhood is a very rural residential area, with most houses being on five acres or larger parcels. Related to that, I'm concerned about the notices that were sent out. I believe it was Mr. Toomey who said at least three times today that notices were sent to several nearby property owners. Please note, I did not ever receive any notices regarding this project. Again, my house is approximately a quarter mile from the proposed campground location, On Mercury Drive, there's only one five-acre parcel and one dirt road between us. I have received other routine information from San Bernardino County, but to this day I've received zero notices about this project. In the past, I felt that the county has taken very good care of our neighborhood. There were a handful of marijuana farms that popped up a few years ago. The county acted quickly and removed these farms, and they never came back. Also, there have been a few questionable Airbnbs, including one that was literally just a tent. The county shut that down and it never returned. Please continue to take good care of our neighborhood and help us preserve our rural community. In closing, I respectfully request that you please grant Wendy Wacker's appeal and do not allow the Sunday Ranch project to move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Ron Dudley.

Hello, my name is Ron Dudley. I live in the area. I've lived there for over 30 years. There is not very many places to go camping if you're looking for a dry campground, which is, as far as I'm concerned, is real camping. The landscaping, as far as the landscaping goes, everything has been done with drip systems. There's no open irrigation, no open water to attract any snakes. The landscaping is all, for the most part, all native landscaping has been added, including greasewood bushes, the saguaro cactus is, some people may say it's from Arizona, but there's no shortage of saguaro cactus in California, as well as the neighboring properties. They are also a symbol of the desert, which When you're not from the desert, people that come out here, I think it gives them more of an introduction of what that desert looks like or can look like and would attract more people to be interested in the desert. Anyway, I think the project should be approved. It's a very clean site. It's got a wooden fence around it to give the neighbors privacy as well as the campers. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you very much, that is the last request to speak that I have. So now we're gonna bring it back and we will have the applicant come up and have closing remarks for five minutes and then after the applicant, we'll have the appellant come back up for their final five minutes. And this will be an opportunity for anything to address that you've heard in public comment that you would like to refute or additional facts that you'd like to share with the board.

Thank you very much, Chair Rao. We'll try and keep this brief. Just want to hit on a couple of points. First, the rural, the residential character of the neighborhood. This is a CUP, the development code expressly provides that a campground use can be allowed in the zone with the CUP. That's the requirement, that's what we've applied for, and that's what the Planning Commission approved unanimously and what we're asking you to approve. So this is a use that was expressly contemplated. Secondarily, in my prior remarks, I was speaking about the CEQA issue. Again, we completed a detailed comprehensive MND beyond, I think, what CEQA required, but we did it because that's what the county wanted and because analyzing those issues was important and critical to the project. We did that. The noise study, the key issue from a CEQA standpoint that appellants have raised is with respect to noise. The noise analysis in the MND fully complied with CEQA and was more than adequate and demonstrated that there were no noise impacts. But in response to the appeal, which was critical about the noise study and that it didn't have 24-hour ambient noise monitoring, we performed a supplemental noise study that did that 24-hour noise analysis. That's part of the record that was provided to you. as an exhibit to my letter. And that confirmed the findings in the MND, which is that this project will not result in any significant noise impacts. The economics issue, we appreciate Mr. Chin and his expertise in economics and this, that, and the other. That's not a land use issue. That's not a CEQA issue. That much is clear. There's no data. There's no appraisals. There's nothing concrete in the record that shows that this project is somehow going to result in a diminution of property values. There's allegations, there's opinion that it could, that it might, that it may, but that's not evidence, that's not CEQA, that's not land use, and that shouldn't factor into your decision here today. There were comments made about unpermitted activity at the site and sheriff's calls and guns being fired and this, that, and the other. We provided another exhibit, exhibit B to my letter of July 27th, where the call logs, the sheriff call logs to the property from 2023 through June 9th of this year. Nowhere in there were there calls about gunshots being fired or any of these nuisance activities that are claimed to have occurred at the site. The majority of the sites or of the calls were for alarms going off and that kind of a thing. There's no reason to think that you're going to have any different kind of color or increased nuisance activity at the site as a result of this use. Again, the response time question, there was a lot made about how this project is going to somehow delay response times or create additional response times for fire and emergency and medical issues. that's gonna occur with any development that's out here. You put a subdivision of six single-family homes, which the density under the county's code, I think is what we could do out there, potentially, as an alternative project, you're gonna have the same response time issues, and I can almost certainly guarantee you you're gonna have the same complaints from neighbors about six new homes appearing on the property, and the response times that are gonna be resulting from there. the impacts to the green rattlesnake and its venom, and this, that, and the other. So that's going to be associated with any development, not just this project. And again, this is a contemplated conditional use for the site. There was a claim or an allegation about RVs at the site and the project description including RVs. Let's be clear, the conditions of approval are absolutely crystal clear. RVs are not permitted at the site. This is a primitive campground with a pergola structure, a deck, and a tent. One car space, two occupants who sign rules, who acknowledge what the requirements are, no fires, no firearms, no noise after 9 o'clock. I mean, all of these are basic fundamental requirements that any business operationally is going to be required to comply with, and we are more than willing to comply with all of those requirements. More generally, again, this is the theme. One minute remains. This is an incompatible project with the rural area. This was specifically designed, as Joe and David indicated, to be consistent with the rural nature of the area, minimalist infrastructure, removable, all the creosote, everything there. That was our goal. That's our commitment. That's our passion for this project. There's a need. The evidence supports and shows that there is a need for this project. And again, as a test case, as a campground that the county is hopefully going to see more of in that area because there's a need for it, this is, I believe, the ideal project for that, and we hope you fully support it.

And just very quickly, we had, I think it was 13 or 14 positive support letters on the record and zero for the appellant.

They were distributed, thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Now we're gonna ask the appellant to come down and provide their closing five minute remarks.

Thank you. Yeah, on behalf of the appellant, I think the appellant just reiterates the general objection that this proposed project introduces an inappropriate transient commercial use into an established residential neighborhood. It's simply incompatible with the other uses in the area. And our expert testimony concluded that the project would result in potentially increased crime due to the transitory nature of the visitors. increase in emergency service response time, and due to the no supervision on site and potential 30 minute response time, that's really a bad mix of things that the local residents are gonna have to deal with. Considering the remote location as well, it puts the few residents on adjacent properties in a very difficult position. They take the brunt of the impacts, and those impacts are not equally distributed. I just want to emphasize a couple things that Frederick Chin said, because I think they're very poignant here. He noted that the project will impair marketability and value in the neighboring residential properties. And while the project captures the benefit of a commercial entitlement, neighboring residential properties bear incremental costs, including loss of privacy, which is absolutely true, quiet dark skies, marketability, and value. And unfortunately, as mentioned before, there's a correlation with increased criminal activity. And this is published literature, academic literature has established all of this, so we're not kind of guessing at potential impacts. These are things that have been identified as likely to occur. Ultimately, the conclusion we have is just the wrong project in the wrong location, and it will have the wrong impacts on neighboring properties. And as such, the appellant would ask that this board approve the appeal and deny the conditional use permit. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'm going to ask staff to join us back up here for questions and comments. I think some of them might be directed to the other folks, but I'm going to ask them of you. Go ahead.

You know, I listen to the speakers, and the area we're talking about is probably the most desolate part of the whole country. And you're never really going to understand that until you print out there in perhaps July or August. And it's 125 degrees and the wind is kicking up and it's very, very rough. And the desert is very unforgiving. I was the inspector when I was out there. And it just seemed the units from the East Coast all over the country, the Marine Corps units, and we had Army, we had all kinds of different units. If you didn't understand or respect the desert, you were gonna have problems. And I'm talking obviously people passing out, but people dying. I've been around a long time. I still remember the name of Rather. Rather, I looked for that individual for like a month. You know, they had all the indications where he was. Never found him. And you can go on and on and on. There's another Rather, there's another... Because most of the units that come from around the United States or what have you, they don't understand how unforgiving the desert can be, particularly in the summer. Why anyone would want to go out there when it's 120 degrees and the wind is blowing and it's, I don't know, to say it's challenging when I, First got out there, and I had been there for a number of taxes. But until you've been out there for like two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, maybe longer, and somebody, the worst thing in the world is when you do that roll call and you're missing somebody. Where are they? And, of course, everything's in progress. You get the helicopters, planes, check-in. I might be off on it, but it used to be, I want to say, 952 square miles. I'm old now. I might be off. I can't remember my middle name unless I've been drinking. But to understand it truly, you have to be out there in July and August at midday. And if you don't have any water, if you don't have any way to get around, you're going to die. It's real simple. And maybe they'll find the body, but the buzzards, other animals, they're going to have you for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And that is the desert. I'm from New England. I knew about snowstorms, everything like that, but I had never experienced it. I did when I was, you know, the first time out there because the units, but it's the desert. The one thing is very, very unforgiving. And when you, that heat, and if the wind kicks up and everything else, That's how you lose Marines, soldiers, whoever comes there. And everybody loves to go out there and train until they get there, particularly the people who have never been there before. And my last job, I was the inspector there. and all the headaches, and I still kept thinking about Lance Corporal Rather. Why can't I find him? He's out there somewhere. I have a responsibility to find him, but there's 952 square miles. So I, obviously, I'm of the opinion that you gotta be very, very careful. of how you utilize that desert. A lot of people that go out there, they're very well organized, but when those elements, when it's maybe, I don't know, 115, 117, the ground temperature's 128 degrees, it's something that most people never experience. And if you're out there by yourself, you have no water, you have no radio communication, which is usually, uh-oh, here we go again. The battery's burned out or they got lost, and you declare an emergency, and everybody turns to, and I don't know what the percentage of finding people out there, I'd say it's less than 50%. It's gotten better because of technology, everything else, and the units that come out there, what they're supposed to do. But the desert, the sun plays tricks. You wander around, you get hot, you pass out, you die. So, obviously, I'm not going to wander or talk about it. I've done enough wandering around in the desert out there I am very, very cautious of that. And I think I'm not, I still think about this Rother. And the name is Rother. I can't remember his first name. I looked for him for like two months. Never found him. And coyotes probably had him for breakfast or what have you. But it is perhaps one of the most challenging areas in the United States, if not the world, that if you don't respect the desert, you're never going to come out of that place alive.

Thank you, sir. Question for you, rural living has become the bane of my existence. So it is wonderful and horrible all wrapped up into the same. We have many people move from out of the area into the basin and they struggle with understanding what is rural living because it's unfortunate that the name designation indicates that it is what we heard from the residents today. Can you give those of us here just a little snippet? I remember thinking trash transfer stations, catteries. What are some of the things that are legally allowed in rural living?

And that is, I want to say it's a misconception, but it certainly is a broader land use than is presumed. And so certainly the housing part of it is a big part of the rural living. But there are many other uses that are either legal conditionally approved potentially or a smaller permit or approval or just basically allowed. Obviously agricultural uses are permitted without any kind of permit. Animal raising, animal production requires a conditional use permit. There's a certain amount of recreational activities including campgrounds, indoor entertainment facility, a meeting facility that we often use as wedding venues are also permitted into rural designation. Churches, of course, What you described on some of the utility aspects of rural living, transfer stations, solid waste dumps, sewage treatment plants, all those kinds of utility kind of facilities, again, they're all subject to a conditional use permit, which means there's a discretionary approval related to both the Planning Commission and potentially the supervisors. But that's a kind of broad description of the kinds of uses, including museums and libraries and so forth. So there's a wide variety. In fact, schools are allowed in rural designation as well. I think part of that intent by the county years ago was to not have to have so many small designations of different land use zoning spots here and there, and just kind of lump it into one broad category.

Thank you very much. Couple of questions, I have some more comments, but a couple of questions. In an email that was submitted by Carrie Ailey, she talked about generators and generator noise, and I thought it was a great point when I was reading her comments, but then I heard no RVs would be allowed. We haven't explicitly talked about generation. Where are we with this? Are they allowed at all?

So there are no RVs allowed. And I know the statement in the initial study included RVs, that may have been a more broader term, but specifically related to how the county code is established and how the state's definitions are established relative to this kind of campground. The only kind of camping permitted is a tent camp. And the tent is defined as a canvas walled over a structure. It can be any shape. It can be a yurt. It can be a geodesic dome. It can be the conventional tent that we're familiar with. But there is no RV trailer. There's no RV vehicle. nothing that requires a motor that moves it along the road. In order for them to achieve a permit from the state, they have to comply with that regulation as well. So there is no permission for anything other than a tent.

Is it possible to add into the conditions of approval that it is explicitly denied to have generation, like electrical generation there?

It absolutely is.

Okay.

Can I intervene on that? Sure. I wouldn't say electrical generation, but maybe say like noise. Because you can have solar. You can have solar. Diesel powered or gas powered. And you can have those little battery packs that you carry around. Right. You know, people may utilize those. Sure.

But prohibit the gas powered type generator.

Sure. Or noise producing power.

So when we talk about quiet hours, Is there a sound monitoring device? Like we've incentivized them in Airbnbs and vacation rentals to reduce permit fees if they provide that. Is there something that is going to trigger a decibel reading?

And that is part of the condition that includes perimeter sound monitoring? Yes.

Okay, and then the length of vehicles was another thing that was brought up. Even though there is one car per, is there a length, minimum, maximum on it? Can people bring in their truck with their trailer and all their UTVs and then offload them and go driving over Wendy's land that then she loses her mind?

That's not a prohibited type of vehicle from a campground perspective. Whether you want to add that as a restriction for this particular operation, you certainly can. The trailer, and you speak of trailer, you're referring to a flatbed trailer. Correct. As opposed to a travel trailer of people residing in. And so the flatbed trailer certainly is permitted. And so if they were... camping there to then use those ATVs someplace else, and they're just using this as accommodations, that's certainly within the realm of possibility from a typical campground. If this board wants to add that condition to restrict that, it's certainly your discretion.

I don't wanna, I mean, it would seem that, and I've camped in a number of campgrounds where there are lengths that are prohibited, so I would have to unhitch my trailer, park it someplace else, and then take my truck in.

and we've established restrictions on length on RV parks as well, and so that is a viable approach.

Okay, so with those two things, I know Supervisor Armendariz has some questions.

Vice Chair?

I think we got the answer, but why only two per, I mean, I heard some of the comments talking about how this is a family,

I heard a couple comments talk about how this was like, you know, memories from being, you know, from their childhood and if you only have two people allowed per campsite, you know, a family of four could never go there with their children. It's gonna be just, it's basically an adult resort.

I'm not sure there's a limitation of two.

It says two guests per site on page eight of their presentation. Their presentation. It says a hard cap 24 guest maximum on 7.5 acres when fully booked.

then I would defer, if they've made that internal kind of constraint, then that's certainly a part of their operation. The state of California says you can have six. Is that their intent, I guess?

Is that your intent? They'd have to reserve two campsites.

I can repeat, I heard the applicant say that if you were a family of four, so two adults and two children, that they would need to reserve two campsites in order to accommodate the family of four.

I don't think we have that identified in the condition. If that's just part of their operation, then we can include that as part of the condition if that helps.

I have some comments, and then I would like to go back to the conditions. I've heard twice, test case, this is not an exception. We have campgrounds that have been allowed with conditional use permits already. I think that that was a misstatement at the Planning Commission. We do. So I just wanted to clarify that for the record, that they have gone through the conditional use permit to be allowed, and we have them in the Morongo Basin. Correct. Thank you.

if I might offer, we have many more coming.

As I was listening to the comments today about snakes and lack of cell phone and response times, heck, we'd have to get rid of Joshua Tree National Park if that was the concern. So that really, you weigh this with an allowable land use, and for those of you that were here in the last public hearing that we had, we have people that come in and that do their due diligence And our homeowners have to do their due diligence when they buy in rural living. And a lot of our homeowners buy up adjacent lots so that they don't have trash transfer stations or anything like that that might end up next to them. So in this case, we have had people that come in that have enjoyed recreation and want to do it in a thoughtful way, and we're trying to help them get there. So I... I did hear the applicant say that they would be supervised. I think that that's a loose term. I don't know that this is a supervised campground. I think it is unsupervised, and then if there's a problem, that then there's a response in 30 minutes. Is that correct?

And monitored is probably the better terminology to use. It's monitored from afar, if you will, from technology.

So if we have... Can we, from this board, modify the conditions of approval to state length of vehicle so that we're not having trailers in there? And can we also look at stating that there would be no noise generating electrical devices, however we, my friend over here to my left can help me with the verbiage on that. No gas, no gas.

No gas generators or diesel.

generators that require fuel. Right.

Is there a length that we're looking at? I mean, I'm trying to think of trailers that, if we're trying to limit or restrict the kinds of trailers that would haul ATVs versus a, I'm not even sure there's a bike-related trailer, but a trailer that might haul their camping equipment. If they're taking a car out there and they have a small trailer that takes their tent with them and so forth. There might be like a 10-foot long trailer or an 8-foot long trailer. It may not be suitable for or appropriate for maybe ATV-type vehicles.

I would think that if it is one car per camp spot, that excludes any type of trailer, and a trailer would have to be parked adjacent to that.

We'll just prohibit trailers.

Not to say that they couldn't bring them in, but they should detach them and park them elsewhere so as not to incentivize illegal OHV use on and off that property. Okay. I think if you can modify those two things, it would satisfy my concerns. Supervisor Cook.

This is still a Marine Corps base, and the Marine Corps has got to bless, it's not a Marine Corps base anymore?

No. This is private land in the county of San Bernardino.

The whole base is private lands?

No, this doesn't have to do with the Marine Corps base. All right, I'm gonna close the public hearing before I forget. Any other questions or comments? All right. So the motion before us is to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision approving the project with the following modifications that we just discussed. Correct. Okay. Of a motion to deny the appeal. I have a motion from Vice Chair, a second from Supervisor Cook. All those in favor, aye. Any opposed, any abstentions?

Thank you, Madam Chair. With that, item 107 passes by unanimous vote of those members present to deny the appeal with the aforementioned modifications to the conditions.

And if I may, in closing to the applicants, this is a neighborhood in addition to this being an allowable use, so please be respectful of our neighbors as you move forward. That concludes our discussion items for today. We will move on to public comment and that is on items not on today's agenda item. And we're gonna start with our remote speakers. We have Chris Robles followed by Tina Bluefield and then a Karen Keel.

Hi. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Chris Robles. I'm president of Fair Ontario and a resident of Ontario. I'm here regarding the 2026 amended and restated land management plan for the Proposition 70 agricultural preserve that you took up in April. I first want to express our disappointment with this process. Ontario residents repeatedly reached out to our county supervisor's office to find out about information and matters affecting the agricultural preserve, yet no one informed us that this item was coming before the board. The county held no workshops on the matter, nor did they ask residents their opinion about the agricultural preserve and its use. When residents voiced concerns about misuse of the preserve with the City of Ontario, staff said they knew nothing about it, and we've come to learn that that was not the case. There are also several misconceptions that need to be addressed. First, the idea that nobody cares about this land is simply wrong. California voters cared enough to pass Prop 70 and invest millions of public dollars to permanently protect agricultural land. And Ontario residents continue to value working farmland, open space, and local agricultural and want the land to stay as that. Second, this is not wasted land. It's a public resource. Working agricultural land produces food, protects open space, supports healthy soils, and preserves an important part of Ontario's and San Bernardino County's heritage. Its value cannot be measured by only what can be built on it. Third, the agricultural preserve is not an inconvenience standing in the way of development. These lands were acquired specifically for conservation. The public purpose came first. Development pressures came later. Finally, the agriculture preserve is not the same as the Ontario Grand Park. Those are two separate public purposes. Supporting one should not require sacrificing the other without a full and transparent public discussion. This board should also remember that commitments were made when Proposition 70 funds were accepted. In 2006, the Planning and Conservation League, the sponsor of Prop 70, reminded the county that these lands were acquired with the expectation of permanent agricultural protection and that the county has continuing public trust and responsibilities. It is about honoring the commitment made to the California voters. I respectfully ask the board to halt the process of selling off the agricultural preserve, provide meaningful public outreach, engage the organizations that have historically steward these lands, and continue treating the property as what they were intended to be. The Proposition 70 Agricultural Reserve. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Tina Bluefield. And then we'll come back here in chambers and have Jane Hunt Rubel, followed by Maria Luisa Gamboa. Tina Bluefield. Tina Bluefield.

I would like to refute some of what's being said. The dry campsite absolutely is irrigated.

Ma'am, this was for items not on today's agenda.

Oh, I didn't know that I signed up with that. Well, if I'm going to speak about that, I will say that I better not say anything. Thank you.

Bye.

Thank you.

Jane Hunt Rubel, followed by Maria Luisa Gamboa, and then Lisa Fenn.

Well, that woke me up. Thanks. Good afternoon. It's good to see you guys again after a month-long hiatus. Anyway, today I want to talk about something that's near and dear to my heart, our Sheriff Department. concerning the fireworks and everything that's going on out in Muscovy. And a couple weeks ago, I phoned the Sheriff Department about fireworks, and they came out, but... And then the officer, the next day, he came out, the deputy, and spoke to me at length, about 30 minutes. And I learned that I knew a long time ago, they're supposed to be getting drones, hopefully this year, so they can detect the fireworks because I get tired, and so do some other people out in Muscovy, of phoning it in year after year. And you have to either see them do it or find evidence. But these people are so smart now that are doing this. They clean up the evidence immediately. So I got real hopeful about that. And I hope it improves this year because we really need a drone out there for that. The county fire, they have a drone. And he showed it to me, and the fire captain did, and that helped to prevent fires. But we need something to get these people doing fireworks out in our neighborhoods that can cause fire and blow up buildings, in fact, with some of the M80s. So I was real hopeful about that, but I'm just hoping it comes up. Another issue that we spoke at length about with the I was surprised to hear, I heard about it a few years back when we had MAC meetings, that we only have two deputies in the entire area starting in Grand Terrace clear up to the Cajon Pass. that's covered and I was shocked. I thought that had gone away and we'd get more deputies. And that's what I'm here for today. I really wanna stress, we need more deputies for Muscovy especially because it's grown thanks to the state interfering with, you know, like ADUs and stuff like ruining our neighborhoods, which is a whole other issue. They should never get involved. the state in land use.

30 seconds remain.

But anyway, I just urge the county to please, we need more deputies out in Muscovy area, in the unincorporated areas, because this is crazy. They're overstressed, and there's more crime, and more things going on, so I please beg you guys to please find some way, and have a hard time recruiting people, too, because they don't want to get involved. So please, please pay attention to this, because we really need it in our neighborhood. That's time.

Thank you, Jane. Maria Luisa Gamble, followed by Lisa Fane, and then Andrew Wade. Do we have a Lisa Fenn or Fane? Maria Luisa Gamboa?

Lisa? Andrea Wade.

Oh, go ahead.

I would like to thank you all for allowing our group to speak. I came in contact with CPS 17 years ago. I am here today to speak about my journey. I completed all my individual case plans, which was therapy, random drug testing, parenting classes, working a full-time job, doing supervised visitations, and court hearings, and et cetera. This led up to my rights being terminated and led to adoption. At that time, I had no support group. Come to find out my rights were violated with no warrant for removal or permission to speak with my minor child. Also, we were not given proper reunification services. It was a separation service built on bullying, slander, character assassination, kidnap, harassment, and abuse of power, pain and suffering. No evidence provided to prosecute to the punishment given. I participated and was not even considered a second chance. And with that thought process of this journey, I am here to share my story for the record and shed light. They were heavy and needed more validation with no reaction from me, which supports my claim. I'm here as an experienced victim survivor to break barriers for those who are next to come, asking to shed light to a system which is employing evil workers. The foster care system was not built on this dishonesty, which the main goal supposed to be the mental, physical, and emotional well-being of a child. With that being put aside for climbing up the ladder and money, We are here to dismantle the whole project. As you see, they rebuilt. It has new crew members. The web of lies unraveling in different directions. This is their playground and they play. Their way isn't the only way and the spell is broken. Thank you guys.

Thank you very much. Last call for Maria Luisa Gamboa and Lisa Fenn. I'm Lisa Fenn.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Time is the one thing you can never get back. My children were removed, never to be returned, based upon the worst allegations that can be made against a parent. Worse than that, they were placed in a home filled with drug addicts and indoctrinated to hate where there had once been love. Upon the department's assessment, it was proven the allegations to be false. However, not before I was coerced into an outward plea of failure to protect based on counsel's advice. It was at our prison, said he. I am begging for an outside source to audit my case and try to undo the damage the department has done to my family. My sister was able to table feed her hatred of me to my children on a daily basis. The judge ended my visitations and ultimately TPR'd my rights based on her bias. She's gay and I wouldn't call my daughter a boy. They returned one child but kept the rest for me. How am I fit for one but not the other four? They were bounced all over the foster care system for years, even spending multiple nights in the CPS office. Now they can trust no one. When the family that now has them found themselves under investigation with CPS, they moved to Texas. I reported my concerns to DCFS, and as there was no longer a financial incentive in it for them, they wouldn't even have a welfare check done on them, even though I provided them with their current address. Explain to me how a family can be denied adoption through DCF but use an outside agency to expedite an adoption. Something is horribly wrong with this broken system. We are begging collectively, all of us, for you guys to fix this. It is broke. It is unfair. All of our stories, you guys hear these every month. We're begging. Audit the department. We're not, this is painful. This takes courage for us to get up and speak and tell our stories. We're such horrible, monstrous parents that we're being vulnerable, trying to shed light. I don't know how this has gone on for so long, but it needs looked at. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Greg, followed by Leticia Howard.

Gregory Osborne. I brought my flower again. I unfortunately missed last month's meeting. Colonel Cook, I believe I live up in your district. My family, mostly special ed, has been harassed 36 times by departments over three counties. Every single time, nothing to do with it. There's nothing founded, there's no evidence, until I take my child into a hospital and I'm told he has anemia. Severe anemia. So I'm here now because I'm told I'm in reunification, but not only is nothing reunifying, my family members, who have been here from the beginning in it, are not allowed to see the children. They're being kept from them. Kind of strange. We want you to audit the system. It's your watch. What happens in this county that you don't get a little bit of a say over or a chance to audit Anybody want to step up to that one? I'll give my time to somebody else.

Leticia Howard followed by Vaughn Great.

Can he go first? She's on her way out.

Of course. Vaughn Great and then we'll end out with Leticia. Leticia.

I'm here to place on the official record a formal declaration regarding what I believe to be systemic rights violations and constitutional deprivations occurring within this county's administration. This is my sixth appearance before this board to document these procedural failures. You hold a mandatory duty to ensure that county departments operate within the boundaries of federal law, yet Under your oversight, county council and the courts are maintaining a revolving door system that actively suppresses exculpatory evidence, disregards positive progress reports, and ignores verified compliance data. When a citizen complies with all mandates, your infrastructure arbitrarily shifts the requirements. This practice directly implicates Title IV-E federal funding allocations. where county revenue is tied directly to active case maintenance. Weaponizing expired closed allegations and manufacturing unexpected demands without an individualized suspicion functions as an unconstitutional mechanism to sustain federal funding at the expense of family preservation. This targeted conduct constitutes a direct infringement of the 14th Amendment, our 14th Amendment right to due process. Let this statement serve as formal notice that your qualified immunity is being legally challenged. Every word spoken today is permanently logged as foundational evidence for a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S. Code Section 1983. seeking to hold those responsible liable in both their official and individual capacities. I will continue to return to this podium to publicly expose these practices until constitutional compliance is restored. Record this notice in full. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Letitia Howard? She's not?

OK.

All right, that is the last request to speak that I have. We now move on to our reports from our CEO, Luther.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to just take a moment and recognize the fine work by our Department of Behavioral Health in accessing residential treatment services. This has been something we've been focused on and working on for a while, and there's some good movement here. The wait times for men's residential treatment, these are substance use disorder beds specifically for non-IV users, We've seen the wait times reduced from 30 days down to 14 days. And for women in the same category, we've seen the wait times go from 14 days down to five days. Significant work by behavioral health to do this, but obviously we would love to see the wait times continue to be cut further and further down in making these absolutely necessary resources more and more available. As staff continues to expand services through several projects, such as the New Highland Creek campus in Highland on the San Bernardino Highland border, as well as our St. John of God campus in the high desert in Victorville, we do expect to see the numbers drop further and we'll work with our current providers to also continue to access more and more beds and make those beds available for county residents. Just in general, expanding timely low barrier access to behavioral health care remains a county priority. In these improvements, they represent meaningful progress towards the long-term goal of ensuring residents receive the care they need as quickly as possible. Just a more general comment here. Overall, it's important that we continue to celebrate the great work that our county staff do. Every day, I see incredible work. It has been nearly three years now that I've been CEO of this great county. And day in and day out, I see what I call the three H's, hungry, humble, and hustle. I see that evident in our workforce. I see that evident in the work we do. And it's incredible. It's powerful. So I just want to encourage our county staff, keep it up. Let's keep focused on doing the great work that we do and serving our communities. And that completes my comments.

Thank you very much. With that, our meeting is adjourned. Our next regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting will be held here in Chambers Tuesday, August 18th at 10 a.m. Thank you.