City Council - Regular Meeting

Good morning, I'd like to call this meeting to order, and thank you all for joining us. I'd also like to announce at the top of the meeting that since we have such a large amount of speakers for item number 76, that the limited time minute per speaker, both remote and in-person, will be two minutes, and that will be true for any agenda item where we have speakers more than 10 signed up. This morning, our invocation and pledge will be led by the fourth district.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning. I'd like to introduce Father David Tedros, who has served as priest at St. Minacopec's Egyptian Orthodox Church in Colton for the past six months. He served for the last five years as an enterprise programmer analysis for the San Bernardino County Innovation and Technology Department. You may remember him as Sammy Tardos. His name was changed to Father David Tardos after the ordination. In February 2026, he was called by the St. Menacopic Egyptian Orthodox Church in Colton to the priesthood. a calling that he has received with gratitude, humility, and a deep sense of responsibility before God and the church. The ministry has allowed Father Tarros to provide pastoral care for approximately 2,500 church members. He serves alongside 137 priests through 50 Copic Orthodox churches across the diocese. He is married to Mary Elias, who works as an engineer for San Bernardino County Public Works, and has two children, Joey and Joshua. His family is an essential part to both his life and ministry. In addition to the ministry, Father Tedos' personal interests include serving the community, traveling, cooking, and programming. And we had a great time with him working on my office software. Thank you for being here. Please lead us in prayer and pledge.

Good morning. I would like to thank Supervisor Kurt Hagman and the County of San Bernardino for the privilege of leading today's invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. Before my ordination to the priesthood, I had the honor to serve the community as an employee of San Bernardino. It's an honor to be here with you today. On your behalf, I offer this invocation. As we begin, we invite the presence of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to be with us. As our Lord said in Matthew 18, verse 20, For where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them. And Psalm 33, verse 12, declares, blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people he has chosen as his own inheritance. We are reminded of words inscribed in this chamber, in God we trust. May the trust guide the port, grant each supervisor wisdom, and help all who serve our county to lead with integrity, justice, and compassion. I invite you to bow your heads and let us pray in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God, amen. O Master Lord God, the Almighty, the Father of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, we thank you for everything, concerning everything and in everything, for you have covered us, helped us, guarded us, accepted us to yourself, spared us, supported us to yourself, and brought us to this hour. We thank you for the opportunity and the sacred responsibility to serve our brothers and sisters and our beloved country. we recognize and acknowledge that the existing authorities are appointed by you. Prepare every heart, align every mind, and let your Holy Spirit guide them into clarity and understanding. We lift up the Board of Supervisors and all who serve San Bernardino County and every leader in this place. Empower them with wisdom, discernment, and integrity. Let justice be their standard, truth be their foundation, and service be their motive, so their decisions are rooted in justice and their words filled with kindness. Grant them, Lord. the humility to listen deeply, and the strength to act boldly. Today, Lord, we ask you to replace tension with peace, division with unity, and the uncertainty with clear purpose and wise direction. Let San Bernardino County flourish spiritually, economically, and socially so that every family, every business, and every community may know well-being and opportunity. May the decisions made here today uplift the people, strengthen our communities, bless everyone who works for San Bernardino County, and everyone who works each day to keep our community safe, healthy, and strong. O Master, we specially pray for our families, our children, our elderly, and everyone who is going through a difficult time. Protect them, provide for them, and help us to always be willing to help those in need. As Jesus taught us in Matthew chapter 6, to pray saying, Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For thine is the power, the glory, forever. Amen. Now, if you would please face the flag, and let us pledge allegiance together. I pledge allegiance. and United States of America and the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice. Thank you. Thank you very much.

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

Supervisor Cook.

Supervisor Armendariz.

I do have one I would like to speak of. It is with great sorrow for me that on August 5th, Terry Kalinske.

Supervisor, I need to ask you to pause for a moment. I'd like to announce that attention members in the Board of the Public, we are experiencing a disruption in remote participation services. Proceedings will pause for a few minutes until we can see if they can be restored.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And as a reminder to those here in chambers, this is under the new state law that requires us to do this.

We will have to

Just start the wave. No?

No? Too much? Okay.

Okay.

Where's the lock? It's up there.

Madam Chair, just as a quick update, we're still working on it, so I just wanted to give an update on that.

And for those of you new to this law, it will be up to one hour that we have to continue trying to reestablish the connection.

Yes, thank you. Madam Chair, I'm gonna perform a mic test just to make sure that we have audio. So this is part of the reestablishing communications, so we're testing that right now. So this is a test to see if there is audio. Test, test. Testing to see if there is audio. And for clarification, it's on the phone connection. We have the stream to the public, the video stream is working. This is on the phone connection.

Mm-hmm.

Testing one, two. This is testing the call for public input. One, two. Testing, this is testing public input. One, two, three, four. This is testing. One, two, three, four.

I apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you for your patience.

Oh.

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

This is a test, test, test to see if we can hear, okay.

Madam Chair, it appears that we have restored the audio connection.

All right, remote participation services are restored. I will now reconvene the meeting. Supervisor Armendariz, memorial adjournments.

Thank you. Let's see if it shuts off one more time. What I was speaking to earlier was the passing away of Terry Kalinsky, who on August 5th left to be with our Lord. Terry was a great man. Those who know me and know my story know that he was... the person who gave me my first chance in life to be successful, starting as a pressure washer to a journeyman diesel mechanic, cable equipment operator. I owe all of that to Terry Kalinske, who saw a 16-year-old kid and gave him a chance. He didn't have a story far off from mine. He started his own company at 16 years old by borrowing $500 to buy his first truck, and then in 1977 bought Dalton Trucking in the city of Fontana, where it started with four trucks, and grew that business to one of the largest heavy haul companies of trucking in Southern California. He was also a huge advocate for truck preservation and helped establish the Southern California chapter for American Truck History Society in 1982 and later was the national president. Terry held a really deep part of my heart because he was that guy who gave me a chance, and I'm sorry to see him go in his later years. His legacy will continue with his sons, Matt and Josh, who are deeply involved in the trucking community also, and just wanted to adjourn in memory of Terry Kalinske.

That'll be all. Thank you. Supervisor Hagman? This morning I would like to adjourn in memory. Adjourn in memory.

Oh.

Just add to, Terry also served for many years on our workforce development for San Bernardino County. That's all.

Thank you. This morning I would like to adjourn in memory of Jackie, one of the famous Big Bear bald eagles. Jackie and her mate Shadow became local icons and touched the heart of millions of people around the world through the eagle cam. The Big Bear Valley will not be the same without her. We sadly have lost several county employees. I am very disheartened to hear that three county employees have passed away in July, so I would like to adjourn in their memories this morning. Casey Maldonado served as a social worker with the Department of Children and Family Services for over two years. She was a passionate advocate and made a lasting impact on children, families, and the communities that she served. Our hearts go out to her family. Additionally, Angel Romero spent 20 years with the county. He worked across various departments, including the Sheriff's Department, Facilities Management, Arrowhead Regional Medical Center. Angel is remembered for his strong work ethic and his dedication to his role. We extend our condolences to his family, friends, and coworkers. And Deputy Adam Suragi, who served at the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department for six years. He began his career in Barstow and later transferred to the Fontana Station. Adam was actively preparing to become a detective specializing in crimes against children. He is remembered for his kindness, compassion, and dedication to service. We keep his family and thoughts in our prayers at this time. And we do not have any special presentations this morning, so we will move on to our reports from County Council. Laura.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have three items to report on. The board considered, or met in closed session for item number one, and considered item two under that agenda, which is the matter of Jason Fagee versus Mohit Kumar Sadeev, and voted five-zero to authorize the filing of a cross-complaint against Insomniac Holdings LLC, for indemnity under an encroachment permit. The board also considered item number six, the matter of Martha Bulna versus County of San Bernardino, and voted 5-0 to ratify the filing of a cross-complaint against SEA Financial LLC and Bellasea Corporation for indemnity under a lease and service contract terms. The board also considered item number seven and voted 5-0 to file an action against defendants that will be disclosed upon request after the action is filed. That is all of my report.

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

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. First event I want to highlight was our National Night Out we had at Bloomington. I want to thank our Sheriff's Department for participating and the Probation Department and all our county departments that supported and want to thank the community for coming out. And one of the things we had the opportunity to celebrate was our $936,000 investment in Ayala Park, adding new swings and eight shaded covers. The community was very, very appreciative, so I want to thank you all for joining us. Also, we had our Monterey Elementary back-to-school celebration, which is in our unincorporated area of Little 3rd. At that time, we provided 400 backpacks for many, many community students at the school. I want to thank the departments that helped us. One, I want to thank the San Bernardino City Unified School District, Bank of America, ARMC, Children's Fund, Molina Healthcare, Child Care Resource Center, and Public Health, and all the county departments that came out there. It was just a great event, and it's great to see those students receive backpacks, spirit shirts, socks, and school supplies. Also recently, last week, we just had our Little Third Street ribbon cutting, which was an improvement in the Little Third community, which is an unincorporated area across the street from the Sheriff's Department. There was road improvements, ADA ramps, also fencing put up near the flood channel. It really revitalized that community. It was a $4 million investment, and Congressman Aguilar was present. He invested $2.5 million, so I want to thank him for his support, and I want to thank our public works staff for being able to execute this one. I know this one was a a long time and a lot of work, and it took just a little over four and a half years to get done. So I want to thank Public Works for executing this project. Also at our preschool services, the Mill Street Development Center, we added STEM and playground improvements What this will do is have new science features, interactive stations designed to encourage curiosity and learning. Also the playground upgrades that have a painted bike path, enhanced privacy fencing turf, port and play safety servicing. I want to thank the preschool department for those investments in the early education of all of our students in the entire county. Also this weekend we have the dump day at Arrowhead Farms Community. at the Our Lady of Assumption in the unincorporated area of Arrowhead Farms. Encourage those that live in that community to come out and take advantage of the services. Also on one of the committees I serve on is the Inland Valley Development Agency. We approved a project on Tippecanoe 3rd in Alabama for some median landscaping to try to enhance the area near the airport to make it more attractive for those that are interested in travel throughout the San Miguel International Airport. And the last thing I just want to highlight some items that are on the agenda. Item six is modernized nutrition services for older adults to increase meals in the San Bernardino community. Item 21 is the $11 million commitment from the county of San Bernardino for a commitment of a homeless outreach prevention and education campus. Here in the city of San Bernardino, and the hopes is that we can mirror what they did on the West End with the West End navigation and try to encourage other city partners to participate in this. Also item 29 want to thank the preschool services department in combination with our community action partnership to provide. diapers for many, many kids that are underserved families. And item 34, we're looking at continued profits at the animal shelter, adding a phase two, which phase one is under construction, which will be done this spring, but also looking at a phase two that will allow us the opportunity to have some of our cities become partners with us at the county. And the last one just want to highlight is item 62, continued progress on fire station 227, which is located here in the city of San Bernardino. This is a great investment. It's under construction now, but this is to continue to keep it moving. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. Supervisor Cook? Supervisor Armendariz?

Thank you. Couple things I wanna highlight. August 20th, which is this Thursday, we will be having our next open house at our district office. We will have a bunch of county departments there. We're gonna have some of our We'll have face painting. We'll have some hot dogs for people to eat. It'll be an opportunity for people to see what the county does. So feel free to come out. It'll be August 20th from 5 to 7.30 p.m. at my district office on the corner of Arrow and Haven and Rancho Cucamonga. Also, we will be having our first annual Family Fun Day on August 29th in cooperation with our regional parks where we'll be hosting an event from 10 to 2 p.m. We're going to have... bunch of games and just bring people out to just fellowship together and have fun. Also, just give a couple of things that we highlighted that we've done recently. We actually went out to Brightline in Florida and took a tour of the actual high-speed train and what they're doing and seeing how the components of everything in there work. Also, was able to sit down with some of the administrators there and go over what the financing of that train looks like and how far we are from getting it. But it looks like it's definitely within opportunity for us to obtain to have that high speed rail come to us. The bad part is if we can't make it happen here, we're probably another 20 years away from actually making it ever happen. So we gotta do everything we can to make sure that that actually moves forward. We also did our scoops with the supervisor at the Jesse Turner Center in the city of Fontana. We also participated in a bunch of national nights out and we attended the incredible edibles event. I want to highlight just one item. I believe it's item 26. And the Friends of the Library, we're accepting the gift of $125,000 from them. Just want to say thank you to the Friends of the Library. That's it.

Thank you, Supervisor Hagman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of general items. Item number 53 is approving the Prado Regional Park Master Plan. And I just want to congratulate Beata and the whole team for all the work they did in the last couple of years. They finished the Prado new entry, the playground, which is fantastic, has a splash pad as well. RV and tent restrooms have been refurbished, the snack bar. and boat docks are complete, and the big thing is the grass is staying green, so thank you for all the hard work by the Parks Department and Real Estate Services, everybody working on that. Prado Sports Courts is with the Army Corps of Engineers for review, and item number 63 allows military service members transition to civilian life to apprentice and intern with the county fire to gain valuable job skills. From SCAG, SCAG has this last mile freight program rebate in accepting applications. This program supports conversion of last mile freight vehicles to battery electric models. And lastly, to also honor Jackie, the Ontario Tower Buzzards, we partner with Friends of Big Bear Valley for Fly High Jackie Night. On Sunday, August 23rd at the Ontario Field, the evening will honor the life and legacy of Jackie and the beloved Big Bear Bald Eagle with 50% of the proceeds going toward Friends of Big Bear Valley. So tickets are available online. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This morning I would like to highlight item number 58 on our consent calendar. It is an item that will award construction contract in the amount of three million to make improvements to the Sunburst Park, which is our community park in Joshua Tree. The project is fully funded by the Clean California Local Grant Program and will include improvements like new playgrounds, accessible walkways, enhanced lighting, landscaping, and outdoor fitness zones. And I would also like to mention that we have a job and resource fair coming to Big Bear Lake on Thursday, August 27th, from 10 in the morning until one in the afternoon. And that will take place at Holford Hall, located at 39707 Big Bear Boulevard. We're hosting this free event in partnership with the County Workforce Development Department to bring together employers from a variety of industries, In addition to employment opportunities, representatives from the Public Defender's Office, the Assessor Recorder Clerk's Office, and the Department of Veterans Affairs will also be available to assist residents. You can register at this event on eventbrite.com. And Linda, do we have any revisions to today's agenda?

Good morning, Madam Chair. No, no revisions today. Thank you.

Very good. If we have any board members wishing to disclose a conflict of interest on any items on today's agenda, now would be the time to do so. All right, seeing none, we'll move on to our consent calendar, which today consists of items number two through 74. Do I have any members wishing to pull an item?

Yes, Chair, I'd like to pull item number five.

All right, thank you. And I have one request to speak. We'll take that before I do board member comments on any items. I have a remote participation by Michelle Tracy.

Good morning, supervisors. My name is Michelle Tracy, and I'm speaking today as a concerned member of our High Desert community. I'm asking that you guys take a serious look at traffic safety and speeding in the Victor Valley, particularly along Ridgehurst Road and Apple Valley Road with the Oklahoma Road corridor. On August 14, 2026, our community lost two teenage best friends, 17-year-old Madeline Daly and 16-year-old Isabel Deling. At Ridgecrest Road and Elmwood Drive, authorities report that two vehicles were traveling at high speed and rate on Ridgecrest before that collision. These girls had just started their senior year, and they should have been talking and thinking about graduation, college careers, and everything that was supposed to come next. This is especially concerning that this is not the first fatal accident on Ridgecrest and Elmwood. A six-year-old woman was killed at the same intersection on November 2025. Ma'am, I need to interrupt you.

But I have you signed up to speak on agenda item number two, and your topic sounds more like on items not on today's agenda.

There's no spot for anyone to speak about, just speak out publicly?

There is, and you are signed up to do that later in our meeting. Okay.

Okay, so that's going to be later?

If you would like to continue on, and then I can remove you from that list later.

Okay, please. Thank you. Please continue. This was not the first fatal accident at Ridgecrest and Elmwood. A 67-year-old woman was killed at the same intersection on November 2025. The residents were already publicly raising concerns about speeding and asking for additional traffic controls. The other intersection that concerns me is the one on Apple Valley Road and Yakaloma Road. On July 29th, 2026, 39-year-old mother Theodora Wilson and her children, seven-year-old Rose Venezuela and six-year-old Felix Venezuela, were killed. Their father and their 16-year-old sister suffered major injuries, and that was not the first fatality at the intersection this year. On February 7th, 2026, Six-year-old Marvin White was killed at Apple Valley Road and Oklahoma Road. What I'm asking you guys to do is take a look at the Victor Valley at these intersections and see what we can do about them. How many families have to lose somebody before we decide that something needs to change? Our children are learning to drive on these roads every year. Another group of teenagers gets their permits and driver's licenses. They are sharing the roads where excessive speeds can turn one mistake into a fatal collision. I'm asking that the county representatives work with Victorville, Apple Valley, CHP, and the appropriate agencies to conduct urgent safety reviews of these corridors. We understand that the government cannot prevent every accident, but when the same roads on even these same intersections repeatedly appear in fatal and serious collisions, we have a responsibility to ask whether we could do more. I'm asking that you guys can tell me what we do to have these places considered and not just passed off to the next person. Whether it's just speed bumps or anything to help these areas to prevent more fatalities.

Thank you very much for your comment. Thank you. We will now move on to any board member comments on consent. All right, I'd like to speak on number 21. As we consider this item today, I don't want to pull it, I just have a comment to make. I'd like to express several concerns that I currently have about moving forward with this project. While the proposed $11 million investment would help advance the SB Hope Campus, I believe that we must proceed with caution on that. My priority, whether this project or any other, is to ensure that any investment is made both sustainable and effective. I would like to urge the county staff and our city partners to move carefully and diligently in recognizing that the success of this project depends on a strong commitment ongoing coordination, not only with the city of San Bernardino, but also with our other cities who may be involved. It is critical that everybody remains closely aligned throughout this process to maximize the impact of our investment and to avoid unintended consequences. With this level of investment, I expect our partnership to deliver a robust coordination, long-term sustainability, and measurable outcomes. Our team must work together to ensure that the campus site is safe, well-managed, and focused on meaningful results from the outset. Ultimately, I believe this project can only succeed if everybody involved is committed to careful planning, transparency, and collaboration. By prioritizing these values, we can help build a facility that not only addresses immediate needs, but also supports lasting progress for individuals in the broader community. I want to stress that the county support of this project is contingent on seeing a clear path forward towards sustainability and effectiveness, and knowing that the city and other partners are equally invested in these goals. Thank you. I will entertain a motion. I move. I have a motion by Vice Chair, second by Supervisor Hagman. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

Thank you, Madam Chair. With that, the consent calendar passes unanimously with number five being deferred.

Thank you very much. We now move on to our deferred item. Item number five is this morning by our Department of Adult and Aging Services. Would you like a presentation, Supervisor?

No, actually, here would be my first ask. I'd ask if we could table the item to the next agendized meeting so I could actually sit with staff and work out the issue that I have with it, or we can just go on record with my issues.

If you want to do that, you'd need to make a motion.

I'd like to make a motion that we table the item to the next meeting so I have time to work on the issues that I have with staff directly.

I'll second that.

Yes.

Any public comment on this item? No, ma'am. All right. Seeing none, I have a motion to second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

Thank you, Madam Chair. With that, number five is continued to September 1st.

Thank you very much. And with that, we will move on to our discussion calendar today. Our first item is item number 75, which is a public hearing and bond issuance approval of the California Municipal Finance Authority and tax exempt financing being presented by Robert Saldana. We'll open the public hearing and welcome your presentation.

Thank you and good morning Chair Rao and members of the board. Robert Saldana, Deputy Executive Officer, County Finance. The purpose of this hearing is to grant the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed issuance of tax-exempt financing in a maximum principal amount not to exceed $31,440,000. The proceeds of these bonds issued through the California Municipal Finance Authority will be loaned to Augusta Communities, a nonprofit organization, and used to finance the acquisition and improvement of three mobile home parks located within San Bernardino County, specifically in the cities of Victorville, Rialto, and Yucaipa. This hearing is required pursuant to the requirements of Section 147F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended and the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, commonly referred to as TEFRA. Under TEFRA law, a public hearing is to be conducted by a governmental entity that has jurisdiction over the area where the projects are located. In this case, as the projects span multiple cities, Augusta Communities approached the county to host a hearing covering all three projects. Please note there is no county financial obligation or liability arising from any bond issuance associated with this action. Additionally, as this action and all underlying details are the responsibility of Augusta Communities and CFMA, representatives are here to discuss should there be any questions. This concludes my presentation, Chair.

Thank you very much. I do have one request to speak on this by Denise June Shearer.

Madam Chair, the caller is not connected. Do we have connection? Yes, we do.

Okay, she has dropped.

She signed up but didn't call in?

Correct. Okay, very well. All right, are there any other requests to speak that I don't see?

No, ma'am.

Seeing none, I will entertain any questions from board members. I'm going to close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Thank you. Supervisor Hagman for the motion and Vice Chair for the second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

Thank you, Madam Chair. With that, item 75 passes unanimously.

Very well. Item number 76 is our surface mining and reclamation ordinance being presented this morning by Paul Gonzalez. And as a reminder, as I announced at the top of the meeting, because we have so many speakers signed up on this item, public comment will be limited to two minutes for each speaker, both remote and in person. I will open the public hearing. Good morning, gentlemen.

Good morning, Chair Rao and County Supervisors. I'm Paul Gonzalez, Planning Chief. Before you this morning is a proposed update to the county's mining regulation ordinance. The mining ordinance was last updated in 2007. The update ordinance provides greater clarity and accountability for both mine operators and the county of San Bernardino. While bringing the local ordinance up to the current Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, also known as SMARA. The ordinance strengthens requirements for financial assurance and reclamation cost estimates, establishes clear responsibilities and procedures, and expands on enforcement tools for the County of San Bernardino. With that said, I'd like to introduce Chief Geologist Dan Walsh, who will provide you a presentation.

Morning, Chair Rao, Supervisors. As Paul mentioned, I'm Dan Walsh. I'm the Chief Engineering Geologist. I lead the Mining and Geology Division under Land Use Services. and this morning I'll be presenting a proposal to amend Title VIII of the Development Code related to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance. The amendment would repeal and reenact Chapter 88.03 of the Development Code to ensure our local regulations remain in compliance with the changes made to state law, specifically the statutes and regulations defined in the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, or SMARA. Changes include content updates to align with SMARA through removal of outdated sections, addition of new sections, and revisions of existing sections. SMARA is a statewide law enacted in 1975 to regulate surface mining and ensure that mined lands are properly reclaimed to a safe, stable, and usable condition while minimizing environmental impacts. It also requires lead agencies to adopt and implement compliant local ordinances governing mining permits, reclamation plans, and financial assurances. SMARA has been revised multiple times since 1975 with substantive revisions in 2017. The State Mining and Geology Board oversees and certifies the local ordinances. The county surface mining ordinance was adopted in 1999. and certified by the State Mining Geology Board on November 10th, 1999. The surface mining ordinance has not been significantly revised since the ordinance was originally adopted and is not up to date. As lead agency for permitting and regulation of surface mining and reclamation operations within the unincorporated county, the county regulates these operations in accordance with SMARA. This development code amendment would bring the county code back into alignment with current statutes and regulations provided in SMARA. There are over 85 surface mines currently in operation in the county. This ordinance update represents a comprehensive modernization of Chapter 88.03. It expands procedures, strengthens enforcement, and aligns the county's regulations with current state requirements. Overall, it updates the framework by adding new sections and replacing outdated provisions. To clarify, this ordinance update does not place new limits on the county's lead agency authority under SMARA, nor does it relax current required standards under state law. Furthermore, this amendment does not reduce the county's ability to enforce violations or maintain adequate financial assurances for reclamation, but rather it codifies the more structured processes currently being used by county staff. Several core sections have been significantly revised to provide clear procedures and stronger oversight. The vested rights section now includes a detailed determination process, which includes application requirements, evidentiary standards, and formal hearing and board decision processes. Application review has also been expanded to include specific submittal requirements, defined timelines, and formal coordination with the State Division of Mine Reclamation. In addition, financial assurance Insurance requirements now include more rigorous cost estimate methodologies, contingency calculations, and provisions for release or forfeiture. Finally, enforcement has been transformed into a comprehensive framework that includes notices of violation, orders to comply, administrative penalties, appeals, and remedies for public health and safety concerns. The purpose of the ordinance has been broadened to reflect current statewide priorities, including supporting infrastructure needs and reducing transportation-related emissions from aggregate hauling. The ordinance also strengthens mineral resource protection by expanding policies related to mineral resource zones and incorporating updated mapping requirements. These policies are more directly integrated with the county's general plan to ensure long term resource availability is considered in land use decisions. Overall, this shifts the ordinance from primarily regulatory to more policy driven and forward looking. A key update is the automatic incorporation of future amendments to SMARA, which ensures that the county's ordinance remains current without needing frequent local updates. The ordinance also strengthens coordination with state agencies, including the Division of Mine Reclamation and the State Mining and Geology Board, particularly during application review and annual reporting. Reclamation standards have been updated to reflect current state regulations, including clear requirements for phase reclamation and reclamation success criteria. These changes ensure consistent implementation of state law at the local level. This update provides important clarifications to improve day-to-day administration of the ordinance. Applicability has been expanded to address federal lands and situations involving multiple agencies, reducing jurisdictional ambiguity. For example, Section 88.03.040, subsection B, was added to codify the collaboration between the county and federal agencies to provide joint environmental review over proposed mine operations on federal lands. This section references the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding between the state and federal agencies that confirms existing permitting and reclamation authority while affording both NEPA and CEQA environmental review for the entire proposed mining operation. While the federal agency has always had permit approval authority, the county will continue to provide CEQA review for the entire project and has approval authority over the reclamation plan. The permitting, reclamation plan, and vested rights approval framework has been expanded to better explain how these components interact. The application procedures now include more detailed submittal requirements, timelines, written responses to state comments, and recordation requirements. In addition, interim management plan requirements for item lines have been further detailed, including renewal timelines and standards for determining abandonment. Some outdated sections have been reorganized or replaced to reflect the new structure, for example, the prior application and violations sections have been replaced with more comprehensive updated frameworks. These changes reduce redundancy improve overall organization and make the ordinance more user friendly for both staff and applicants. The amendment has been found to be consistent with the countywide policy plan as it meets various goals and policies designed to ensure the continued availability of important mineral resources while regulating surface mining operations as required by SMARA. The proposed amendment was determined by the county to be exempt under CEQA pursuant to section 15061, subsection B3 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because the ordinance is limited to an administrative update of an existing surface mining and land reclamation ordinance and will not directly or indirectly authorize activity that may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with county code, notices of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings were published in the San Bernardino Sun newspaper, which reaches a countywide audience. Publication dates were June 29th and August 7th, 2026, respectively. As a courtesy, the draft ordinance was made available to the public online from the Land Use Services website. Ninety-eight written comments were received prior to the Planning Commission hearing, and another eight comments were received prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting. Thirty-three people spoke in opposition to the ordinance update at the Planning Commission hearing. The public comments expressed concern regarding review required for projects on federal lands, what projects would be considered non-substantial deviations which would not require public notification, why the ordinance update was exempt from CEQA, and expressed concerns related to pending mining projects which are not associated with this ordinance update. That concludes my presentation, and I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. We're gonna move to our remote speakers first, and then speakers in chambers, and then we'll go to board member comments and questions. Our first request to speak remotely that we have is Erin Gatlin, followed by Bonnie Hawthorne, and then Jared Nymark.

Good morning. My name is Erin Gatlin. I'm a resident of Yucca Valley. I'm here to express my opposition to agenda item 76, project number EMISIC20260029, the proposed rewrite of the chapter. as described most recently by the county staff is significantly different than I think most of us read the proposed changes. And we have a lot of concerns about them because they were written with industry, without public input. And when public input was asked for, They were dismissed as saying we just didn't understand what was going on. The issue is we do understand. We understand the implications of the changes the county has been trying to downplay is simply coming into compliance with state standards. If the modifications are approved, it means that just as federal agencies are making unprecedented changes to the National Environmental Policy Act review process to review, to narrow the review and shut out public comment, The county is proposing to walk away from their local permitting responsibilities. And then you have the proposed Music Valley Mine, which is actually related to the matter before you because it's an example of a case study of potentially the county walking away from its responsibilities. I urge the county to vote no. on the proposed chapter revisions, and at the very least, remove text from lines 19 to 21 and lines 24 through 26. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Bonnie Hawthorne, and then Jared Nymark and Liz Stevens.

Good morning. My name is Bonnie Hawthorne. I'm a resident of Joshua Tree, and I'm calling in to oppose Project listed in item number 76, I urge you to vote no and to encourage your fellow board members to do the same. This proposed rewrite of chapter 88.03 would surrender a critical piece of San Bernardino County's local oversight of surface mining on federal land. Under the new section 8803.040B, a mining operation with federal authorization could proceed without a county permit. This is a bigger deal than is being acknowledged. A county permit provides an opportunity for local review, public scrutiny, and environmental protections that our community should not have to surrender simply because a federal agency has approved a project. The county should not be handing over its responsibility to protect the people and landscape of San Bernardino County. An open pit mining operation is fundamentally inconsistent with our status as a National Park Gateway community, a designation whose beauty and significance I know you, Don Rowe, personally appreciate. I'm assuming you've been to the sad little town of Boron in Kern County. The mine there with its giant Star Wars trucks and constant sounds of excavation make a one-striding town nearly impossible.

What's that? I didn't hear what you said. 30 seconds left.

Okay. All I have to say is the only time you don't have an open pit mine is before you approve one. Thank you.

Thank you. Jared and I mark followed by Liz Stevens and then Lisa Blankey.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Board. My name is Jared Namark. I'm the Western Mining Senior Manager at Earthworks, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the adverse impacts of mining, including here in the county. I'm commenting today to respectfully request that you deny the proposed mining ordinance update until reasonable revisions are made to clarify the language. As we wrote in our comment letter, we continue to have serious concerns that the section regarding applicability on federal lands is problematic and will lead to confusion for applicants, agencies, and the public. In response to our comments, staff suggest that the ordinance distinguishes between a permit for land use entitlement and reclamation plan approval, but this is not at all clear from plain understanding of the text. Because permit can mean any approval by a lead agency, this could be interpreted by applicants to mean federal approval is all that they need to move forward. It would be extremely easy takes this language for clarity for all stakeholders. This section is also problematic because it relies on an outdated MOU between California and the federal government. That suggests that this simply allows the county flexibility to avoid duplicating work on environmental review. But because NEPA and CEQA are so different due to recent changes made to NEPA, it means that federal documents are highly unlikely to fulfill CEQA requirements and the public will have no way to understand the basis on which the county made that decision. So again, we urge for more clarity for all stakeholders. I would also like to add for the record that this section on applicability is neither included in the State Mining and Geology Board's model language for its mining ordinance update, nor in the language adopted by the two counties that have already updated their ordinance. It's not necessary and it's not part of the standard updates that other counties have adopted. Without revision, this draft risks allowing bad actors to avoid sensible environmental regulations that responsible operators comply with.

Thank you. Liz Stevens, followed by Lisa Belenke, and then R. Eichhorn.

Hi. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for working out the technical difficulties to have us. It's inspiring to hear about the county and be reminded how large it is, but I think we're all here to show you some close-up views of 29. My comments are a lot less technical than the others, but Bonnie's point about boron is very well taken. Even without conservation value around this space, this in 29, we're in a kind of an economic renaissance of businesses and home values, and the surface mine would be the view from the east entrance to the park. And I don't think we're aiming for boron. We have a lot of stakeholders that are business owners, real estate agents, and hundreds of people showing up to local meetings to speak to the very inspiring direction that 29 is already headed rather than doubling down on industry. So not a conservation issue only, which is vitally important, but really about 29 and about Wonder Valley as spaces and towns and communities inappropriate places to introduce the mines, as it also affects our water and watershed, which we haven't really touched on. And that's all I'd like to contribute. Thank you so much for voting no on the language change.

Thank you very much. Lisa Bilenki, followed by R. Eichorn, and then Nicholas Graber.

Good morning. This is Lisa Bilenki with the Center for Biological Diversity. I'm going to focus my comments on one aspect of the August 16th letter, um, that we, um, Oh, August 6th letter that we submitted to the board of supervisors. And that is the implementation of the exemption under California public resources code 27, 14 D by the county. For many years, we have raised this issue with the county that the county has been not focusing on the actual language of the public resources code, but appears to be focusing on language that may be in the MOU from 1992 and is not really complying with the substance of this exemption. In one example for a project called the Gold Discovery Group, which disturbed over 10 acres of land within the county and 15 acres overall, there was no SMARA compliance by the county for this project. And the statement that was made by the project itself is that they were told by the county they didn't need to comply because each separate piece of their project was less than one acre. That is the wrong interpretation of the statute, clearly. It is not the interpretation that the courts have upheld, and it is not the plain language of the statutes. We're very concerned that this update regulations is not addressing this issue. The county should amend the proposed ordinance to clarify this exemption that it will only be applied where the total disturbed acres are less than one acre and that the county will rely on the public resources code and not the MOU for this kind of complaint. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you very much. Our icon, followed by Nicholas Garver, and then we're going to bring it back here in chambers, and we're going to start with Jay Gamill.

Hi, this is Rachel. I'm a resident of 29 Palms, and I actually have an art studio, I guess, where this mine is going to be going, which is great for me. I'm coming at less of a technical. I do want you to vote no. More from a just sort of a technical experience of working in construction. I'm an architectural lighting designer. I work on large projects, large commercial projects. And whenever I hear language where we're going to remove permits or remove reviews, I always get a pit in my stomach because I know things are about to go south. Those permits and those purposes, those processes were set up for a reason. And I just constantly, my job every day, I have to deal with contractors not doing it correctly, not going to code for reasons usually to save money or they just didn't want to deal with it. And those things are there to protect us. So that's why I would like you to vote no. Any time where they're removing permit processes, any controls that we have as a local community, it's just, I live this every day. It's just dumb. Don't do it. Vote no. Thank you.

very much nicholas garver followed by jay gammill and then kimberly sizix uh hi uh this is nicholas graver i'm speaking uh to wholeheartedly oppose the adoption of this ordinance county and planning commission staff acknowledged at the planning meeting that this was our that was our first opportunity to comment after years of them supposedly working on this regulation uh i guess in secret The county staff scoffed at the idea of further public comment because in their view, the community has nothing of value to contribute because of our lack of expertise. They consulted with the mining industry professionals because they, quote unquote, understand mining regulations, but refuse to consult with the public since apparently we do not. Allow me to present myself as an alternative. I'm a professional biologist with 10 years of experience living and working in San Bernardino County. I've worked on NEPA and CEQA projects, and I've worked and consulted with on state and federal species protections. I worked on mine reclamation, particularly for the species in our county that matter most to us, like the desert tortoise and the joshua tree. The staff characterized this as a joint environmental review conducted under NEPA and CEQA covered by the county. That's not a fair characterization of what's written in the regulations. I've read them. I don't know why they would characterize that in that way. I just wanted to call attention to the idea that when you institute a blanket regulation that a certain type of activity does not require a permit from the county, you're ceding all control to the offenders themselves to decide whether their activity applies or doesn't apply to the way that regulation is written. So they get to decide, not the county. We don't get to decide whether we can require a permit or not for those kinds of things. And more fundamentally, there is no such thing as a mining project that takes place only on federal land in our county. No such thing. This is because those mine materials must be loaded onto trucks that pass through our residential communities because the dust and emissions from those mines will be breathed by our children because I live close enough to the proposed Music Valley mine that I know I will hear the sounds of mining from my house. We are a community that needs, all of our communities across San Bernardino County need the ability to have input on these regulations.

Thank you very much. Jay Gamble, followed by Kimberly Zizix, followed by Margaret Oistendorp.

Good morning. My name is Jay Gamble. I'm from Wrightwood in the first district. I'm asking you to continue item seventy six. The ordinance does strengthen enforcement and inspections, but three areas still need work. Bested rights decisions would be final within the county with no administrative appeal or sequel review. The reclamation plan process has two disclosure gaps. The director could approve some plan changes without public notice, as people have mentioned, and staff reports wouldn't have to include the Division of Mine Reclamation's written comments. The ordinance also lacks a transition rule for pending applications. The proposed Lone Pine Canyon quarry near my home is pending, but the ordinance doesn't say what chapter would govern it. And for that, the staff report says the DMR reviewed and accepted that plan, then describes a December 2025 letter finding the submission incomplete without attaching their actual letter. DMR confirmed to me last week that their incomplete notice is the only written comment for that project. Commissioners and the public should see DMR's comments alongside the county's response before the county acts on a reclamation plan for any project. This is a chance to fix that. My written comments do go into more detail on these issues, but please consider this item, consider them. Continue item 76, so residents and community groups have more time to review the ordinance and suggest changes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Kimberly Zizek followed by Margaret Oistendorp and then Beth Sheffield. Kimberly Zizek? All right, we'll move on to Margaret Oistendorp, followed by Beth Sheffield, and then Mark Houston.

Thank you very much to the Board of Supervisors for hearing us. Those of us who have traveled round trip 200 miles from Wonder Valley to speak to you in person today, that's the depth of our feeling about this change of authority in permitting from the county to the federal government speaking in opposition to this change. I'm not speaking as an expert in geology or anything else. I'm speaking as a human being who lives in Wanda Valley, who moved to this community because of health issues, because of issues with my lungs. The 2.5 particulate pollutants that has been proven to be part of what happens in a mining project will greatly impact people like me. Our community has had a long history, going back to Dr. Luckey and the work that he did with veterans from World War I coming to the area for our health. We know that the county has put on record about its obligation to the health and well-being of your constituents like myself. To pass and approve this ordinance will basically give over and go against what you have put in writing as what you're concerned about with the health and well-being of the community. I also want to say that it's been very difficult for those of us coming this distance to be here. We would like to request that White Feather Road be again open for us to be able to comment in person. And we would like you very much to consider that. And we urge you to vote no on this and to show us that you care about us as you did helping us under the hat.

Thank you. Beth Sheffield, followed by Mark Houston, and then Chris Carraher.

Before the clock begins, Kimberly Zietek is here. She was in the restroom. Can she speak?

Hello, Board of Supervisors, thank you for the time and for the restroom exception. I wanted to speak here today to note that the Bureau of Land Management has already designated the land, which the case study that we're all referring to, as an area of critical environmental concern. As I hope everyone here knows, this is critical habitat for endangered desert tortoises, critical. Tortoises are a keystone species, which as a reminder, those are the organisms that help hold the entire system together. So before we consider changing language that has been cited by people with more expertise than I, as unclear and not providing for enough review, I would urge you to consider some of the past projects of Dateline, like the Coliseum Mine, which closed in 1993, but still, years later, there are sulfate levels above normal, so we have both case studies of this specific company and an example of how this could be abused in ways that are incredibly detrimental to the economics of our region. I live in 29 Palms and for the past 22 years I've been an educator. My programs have always been offered at free or low cost and we value things like teaching the youth to learn about themselves, learn about their history, and become stewards of those things and the environments that sustain us. So if I am to continue working in education and helping raise youth that value these things, how can I do so while watching us give up the control that we have of local matters with great impact to everyone? Especially in times of such division, I would urge you to consider your role as government stewards in repairing the relationship between constituents, repairing that trust with those who are tasked with making the most good happen. So as you heard in the invocation today, the hope is that your decisions can do the most good possible for the entire community. And I urge you to vote no and to get more specific and more help from the constituents who wish to.

Thank you very much. Mark Houston, followed by Chris Karaher, and then Catherine Powell.

Good morning. I'm Beth Sheffield, and I'm here today to speak in opposition to the proposed ordinance to repeal and reenact chapter 88.03 of the County Development Code. Specifically, I oppose the addition of section 88.03.040B, as in bad. Two parts of this section are concerning. To quote, the county may accept documents and environmental studies prepared by federal agencies as functionally equivalent to meet the county's requirements. And a permit shall not be required for those portions of surface mining operations that require and obtain a federally approved plan of operation or other federal authorization. As I understand this, any proposed mining projects will be able to bypass California CEQA review, as well as any currently required county permitting. If this added section is passed, the county will give up local stewardship of these public lands and allow some unknown dust jockey in Washington, D.C. to make decisions that affect the residents of San Bernardino County. In addition, the public will be completely left out of the process as there is no opportunity for public input. You, as our county board of supervisors, are entrusted to protect our community, our assets, our lands, and to protect the way of life of the residents who have chosen to live in these beautiful and peaceful rural areas. Under this new ordinance, the county will also have no upfront input on reassurances such as a reclamation plan. 30 seconds. Is the county prepared to foot the costs of cleanup once the mining companies have extracted what they want from our public lands? Do you trust the folks in Washington to negotiate with the mining companies in your best interest as the county managers? Using Music Valley as an example, will the taxpayers be left with the bill to clean up their mess, including the unsightly piles of toxic tailings that will greet tourists who visit 29 Palms and use the Joshua Tree East entrance? Please, protect our lands and our peaceful way of life.

That's time. Thank you. Mark Houston, followed by Chris Carraher, and then Catherine Powell.

Good morning. I am a 40-year resident of Wonder Valley and a retired National Park Service science tech. On the topic of the county's plans to discontinue planning and permitting of mines on federal lands, it is my belief that San Bernardino County is abdicating its responsibilities to the residents and taxpayers to do so. the Morongo Basin Conservation Association, and the National Park Association have both or will soon submit written comments addressing this issue, and they speak for me as well. I encourage this August body to do better. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Chris Carraher, followed by Catherine Powell, and then Adrienne.

Good morning. I'll try to hurdle through this because of the cut time. My name is Chris Karaher, and I have been a resident of Wonder Valley east of 29 Palms for more than 30 years. Folks who live in Wonder Valley are almost all within potential walking distance of mining claims, and most of us depend on wells, as there is no piped water in Wonder Valley. Ground disturbance and mine tailings leaching chemicals can potentially make our properties uninhabitable. Clearly, the proper permitting and oversight of mining and operations is of vital importance to us, and local desert communities need to be fully informed and able to participate in that process. That did not happen in this case. I will cut out why exactly. But we have, as we've learned of this, tried to understand a few basic questions and been having a hard time getting a straight answer. Therefore, I ask that before you vote on this item, you provide straightforward answers, straightforward so that the good people of Wonder Valley can understand them, to the following questions. One, if this ordinance passes, will any mining operation or portion of any operation that currently goes through county permitting, CEQA review, public notice, public hearings, or county imposed conditions no longer go through those processes because of the new federal land provision? Yes or no? Number two, specifically, is there any county or public oversight that exists under the current ordinance that would no longer exist or would be diminished under the proposed ordinance, yes or no? Number three, if the answer to question number two is no, please explain to our residents why the new permit shall not be required language is being added. The current ordinance does not specifically state that a county permit shall not be required for federally authorized binding. If the county truly has never had permitting authority in these circumstances, why is this new exemption necessary? I urge you to deny the adoption of the measure before you.

Thank you. Adrian, oh, I'm sorry, Catherine Powell, followed by Adrian, and then Martin Oistendorp.

Thank you. My name is Catherine Powell. I am a San Bernardino County resident, and I vote. I am here to strongly urge the board to vote no on the proposed changes to the county mining ordinances, the repeal and reenactment of chapter 88.03, in particular the subsection 040B. This section will make it possible to remove county processes that provide critical local oversight and input by allowing the county to accept federal environmental documents as functionally equivalent to its own, and that a county permit shall, quote, not be required for mining that already holds a federal plan of operation or other federal authorization. It does not matter that this language is quote unquote permissive and still allows the county to conduct studies. It removes the requirement that they do so. As someone who lives in an unincorporated rural area of the county facing a potentially devastating mine at Music Valley near Joshua Tree National Park, I want to be sure my community has a say in what happens where we live. Most critical is that the county should not accept federal agencies' environmental studies in place of its own review, given federal views have been profoundly weakened and no longer have the same protections as California's. The premise that NEPA, the federal, and the state CEQA environmental reviews are equivalent is outdated. Of note is that in 2026, federal rule changes have stripped NEPA of public notice and comment steps. Two other provisions that are highly problematic in the ordinance are the vested rights determination is not a project within the meaning of CEQA and would not have review, and that non-substantial deviations from approved mining plans can be approved with no public input through a staff review process. Lastly, I want to call out the way that these ordinance changes have been handled by the county, that it was drafted in collaboration with mining associations and no input from the public, environmental groups, or tribal governments, that the announcement for this meeting was in one paper for the largest county.

That's time. Adrienne, followed by Martin Oistendorp, followed by then Lori Portillo.

Hi board members, thank you for hearing my opposition to this proposal. I'm a resident of Wonder Valley, yeah, that Wonder Valley. I guess, you know, in Wonder Valley we learn to read the wind, and the wind that this proposal is bringing is not a good one for us. The key problem with this proposal starts right at the beginning three years ago when the county first started conversations with mining companies and associated companies and did not include residents. did not include the stakeholders as they called the people that they were talking to stakeholders but they did not include the public they did not include the residents and the your constituents so that's the basic problem here and everything else springs from that uh the short shortness of notice of meetings two minutes to talk on a very complicated issue actually So I ask you to vote no on this proposal. Bring it back to the table, have people talk about it, but this is too short to agree with this proposal. So please vote no on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Martin Oistendorp, followed by Lori Portillo, and then Pauline Pisano.

Supervisors, good morning. My name is Maarten Oosternerp. I'm also a resident of Wanda Valley. Supervisors, we all know that currently for mining projects over a certain magnitude, even on federal lands, that San Bernardino County's land use services by state law and by precedent is the permitting agency That is the law in the ordinance as it stands. The proposed changes in the ordinance include language that says a permit shall not be required. That's very clear language. There's no ambiguity there. If you accept the proposed language to the ordinance, You are not only relinquishing your authority, you are also silencing the voices of those who are directly impacted. The proposed change will lead to harming the economy and the health of the residents in and near rural and environmentally protected areas. It's a change that your constituents oppose. Supervisors, the proposed change, if you accept it, will taint your legacy.

30 seconds.

It will taint your legacy forever, and I urge you to reject it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Laurie Portillo, followed by Pauline Pisano, and then Vandim Alschuler.

Hello, my name is Lori Portillo. I've lived in Joshua Tree for 45 years. And I can't believe that you guys are even thinking about stopping this when this company that wants to tear up 20,000 acres in Joshua Tree is being stopped from doing something that they're doing in Mojave. Mojave Preserve right now. They're tearing it up, and we're taking them to court, and are we going to be taking them to court 20 years from now when they've torn up this 20,000 acres, or are we going to look closely at what's going on? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Pauline Pisano, followed by Vandim Ashtuler.

Hi, everyone. My name is Pauline Pisano. I'm a resident of Flamingo Heights. I want to reshare my remarks from the Planning Commission meeting in July when this item was also on the agenda. I invite board members to read the comments and oppositions from the community. The room was packed that day. I'm a social worker, artist, auntie, and daughter. I'm sharing all of this because my occupations led me to visit Flint, Michigan during their water crisis. The residents there were the true heroes of that crisis. They made sure that their neighbors knew the dangers and saved people when governance had failed. The folks I spoke to in Flint, Michigan never framed the crisis as a water crisis. They said it was a crisis of democracy. I think everyone in this room should heed the people of Flint to repeal and rewrite Chapter 88.03 to give up the county's permitting authority feels undemocratic because it is. It feels unjust because it is unjust to every single human being in this room. Our big corporations, the new unelected emergency managers of our day. You know, I mentioned this earlier, I'm also an auntie, and it is our responsibility to be good stewards of the earth and our communities for future generations. Mining projects are exploitative. They've exploited our time so far. They disintegrate surrounding communities, mine, the earth, the water, and the air. Everyone knows this, which is why they are very unpopular. This is how the crisis of Flint is with us here in this room right now. We have this amazing opportunity in front of us to do what is right. The time is always right to do what is right. Say no. Say no to the rollback of our voices mattering.

Thank you. Fandim Alstuler followed by Mason Osgood.

Hello, my name is Vadim Altshuler. I'm from 29 Pounds. I'm a resident taxpayer and a voter, and I'm here to oppose item 676. Do not adopt this ordinance today. Continue it. Put the full public record before the board and remove the federal land loophole. This is being sold as an administrative update, but it is not. This is a countrywide rewrite of the mining rules, brought for public hearing and first reading with real momentum toward adoption before the public has had a fair process. This is not modernization. This is a surrender. And surrender to whom? The record says the ordinance was developed with CalCIMA, the Mining Industry Association. At the same time, more than 100 public comments from the July hearing are not even on the board packet today. So the mining lobby is in the room, but people voices are missing from the record. This is anti-resident governance. We're not talking about empty land. We're talking about Wondervale, 29 Palms, Joshua Tree, homes, wells, wildlife, children, and the gateway economy of the national park. Music Valley is not imaginary. Dataline resource reports more than 21,000 acres of claims in this rare earth project area. EPA says that rare earth processing can involve uranium and thorium and can produce radioactive to norm waste. EPA also says particular pollution can aggravate asthma, reduce lung function, and harm children who are among the most vulnerable. A child gasping through asthma doesn't care whether the dust came through a county permit or federal authorization. A family with poison well doesn't care which agency signed the paperwork. Do not bring the lessons of the past here and say you had no idea.

30 seconds.

I'm from Russia, and I know what it looks like when laws are twisted to accommodate oligarchs, extraction and administrative convenience, while ordinary people are told it is procedure. But this is America. Here you swear an oath to protect the public and defend constitutional governments. The oath is not ceremonial language. It means you do not help private extractive powers strip residents of local voice, local review, and local protection. And do not confuse desert quiet with consent. Vote no.

Thank you. Mason Osgood followed by Christian Lahage. I'm sorry about the mispronunciation if I did.

Good morning. My name is Mason Osgood. I'm the California Desert Program Manager for the National Parks Conservation Association. I'm commenting today to respectfully request that you deny the proposed mining ordinance update until reasonable revisions are made to clarify the language. As we wrote in our comment letter submitted with the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club and Earthworks, we continue to have serious concerns that this ordinance's language regarding applicability on federal lands is problematic and will lead to confusion for applicants, agencies and the public. Changes must be made to the ordinance to clarify that mining projects on federal lands are subject to CEQA and the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, or SMARA, policies that provide reasonable protections and public participation requirements. Furthermore, the county needs to update its Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, to align with modern environmental review procedures. Currently, the outdated MOU allows for a path for mining projects to bypass CEQA and SMARA regulations. Recent changes to NEPA mean it is highly unlikely that federal documents will satisfy the current requirements of CEQA, and we urge clarity in the text to avoid improper reliance on this MOU. Without revision, this current draft risks allowing bad actors to avoid reasonable environmental regulations that responsible applicants would otherwise comply with. This creates a possibility of harm to the county's vast environmental resources and will create unnecessary delays and potential for litigation over mining permits. I urge you to deny the resolution before you today and take the time to make the simple changes as outlined in our written comments to avoid ambiguity in the regulation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Christian LaHage, followed by Chance Wilcox.

Good morning, Supervisors. My name is Christian LaHage. I'm the Public Policy Officer for the Mojave Desert Land Trust, and I'm a resident of Joshua Tree, California. Before my comments, I wanted to acknowledge two things. And the first is that we recognize that the county has the right and need to update these ordinances. And I also want to recognize that we recently met with Dan Walsh and had some of this clarified for us as well. So I want to acknowledge that and thank him for hearing our concerns, we've shared our comment letter with both the board and with the Land Use Services Department. I think our comments revolve around the same general areas here, and I heard Dan say it again today, that projects at the federal level that are not subjected to uh to review that is as strong as sequa would have sequa what we're looking for here is just to update the language to to confirm that we are not opposed to the county having mining ordinance not opposed to mining in general we just want to make sure that it's done responsibly and sustainably and we feel that it would be stronger both in terms of understanding for the community to have that strong language guaranteeing the CEQA review. And I think because of how long this ordinance has been out there, there's conflicting language online in terms of the permitting and things like that, which I've heard would be addressed as well. So I wanted to say thank you for that. Strongly encourage some refinement to make it a little bit more clear here. And thank you to the county for their time and listening to our comments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Chance Wilcox.

Good morning, supervisors. I'm commenting both as a resident of the Morongo Basin and as the California Desert Director for the National Parks Conservation Association. I'm asking that you deny this ordinance and continue the item simply to create more time for language review and public input. There are many language and potential legal issues with the ordinance that create ambiguity and that are not aligned with the State Mining and Geology Board provided language. I am not opposed to an ordinance in general and not opposed to all mining in San Bernardino County, but want to ensure that the language of this ordinance ensures proper oversight on the part of the county and that the language used is legally sound and does not create loopholes for mining corporations. My organization submitted written comment along the Center for Biological Diversity, MDLT, and Earthworks, so I will not go into the details, but it outlines the language changes that would tighten up this ordinance and make the language more sound. The State Mining and Geology Board also has ordinance templates readily available to make this process streamlined and legally sound, but it does not seem as though this already approved language was used for this ordinance. In addition, the process to build out this ordinance did not include the public in all the three years of its construction. Mining corporations and mining contractors such as CalSEMA were consulted, but there was little awareness sent out to the public. The only notice of a public meeting was placed in the San Bernardino Sun, a newspaper with a paywall that many residents of the far reaches of our vast county do not turn to. During the Land Use Planning Commission meeting, the public was brushed off as not understanding mining, but I think we can all disagree based on the broad representation of community members here who have thoughtfully reviewed the language presented before you, and have commented with very real, very knowledgeable, and very valid concerns. I ask that you consider delaying the approval of this ordinance for further language review and public input. It's obvious that San Bernardino County residents are concerned and care about ensuring the county is engaged in mining project permitting and thoughtful in protecting residents. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That is the last request to speak that I have. Gentlemen that aren't looking at me, thank you. We have a lot of passionate residents. I know that you and I have worked through this. I had many questions that were brought on by public comment over the last several days, including late into the night last night and then here today. So we have, if nothing else, a disconnect between what the public perceives and what we are doing at a minimum. And I very much appreciate Christian Lahaj's perspective and comments. And I know that you did meet with several organizations to make clarifications. And then we've heard some additional suggestions brought by them. So perhaps I can start with having you help me understand the disconnect on how the public and I know I've seen media articles that have run with misinformation. I know Morongo Basin Conservation Association had misinformation that was put out and then the narrative becomes what's out there and how do we correct that? And that is going to be incumbent upon you today. So I'm gonna start with a question. that you have heard significant concern that the county is giving up its jurisdiction over mining on federal lands. Can you explain exactly what authority the county has today and what authority we'll have after adoption of this ordinance and whether we're relinquishing any authority that we currently possess?

Yeah, thanks for the question. It might help if I go through just a brief history of federal regulation as far as mining goes on federal land. So it starts in the 18... Can you speak into the mic?

Sorry. Thank you.

So it starts... The first date is 1872. Before that date, mining was illegal on federal property. Just illegal. After 1872, the General Mining Act went into effect. It was an act by Congress. And... At that point, it was pretty much a free-for-all. And we're seeing the vestiges of those disturbances still in our county, all over the county, in the Mojave Reserve and out in the desert, pretty much everywhere in the mountains. And that was for a little over 100 years. And then in 1976, Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which actually was the beginning of requiring permits and reclamation standards for federal lands. That was right around the same time that SMARA came out and just after CEQA. So we have all these new regulations coming into effect and NEPA. And agencies were kind of butting heads and not really knowing what was going on. There's a lot of duplicity in the and the reviews and the industry, the public are going, hey, let's act together here, guys. So in 1992, California got together with the federal agencies, and it was the 1992 MOU that is referenced in that section that everybody's talking about now, federal land section. It's referenced in that. And The MOU was signed by, on the California, on the state side, it was signed by the State Mining Geology Board and the Department of Conservation. On the federal side, it was signed by the Department of Interior, namely the Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service. So we have a state agreement with those agencies on the federal side. So as far as the county authorities is concerned, we are given our authority to regulate surface mines by SMARA, that's a state law. So the state gives us that authority. So the MOU has clarified the jurisdictional responsibilities to help us work through this so we are working together and not just separating. So that allows us to take the project as a whole when say if BLM gets an application for a plan of operation, which is their permit? they contact or they have the applicant contact the county and say, we want to start a mine on federal property. We say, great, you're going to have to bring in an application for a reclamation plan. And then we contact, we have great relationships with each field office for BLM. We contact them and we start that conversation. Sometimes we even make an MOU for that specific project if it's big enough, if there's enough moving parts, just so there's more clarification on authority. And there is actually another MOU that affords that as well. So once the plan of operation application's in and the rec plan application's in, we work with BLM We can take, the ordinance says we may take studies and documents that are submitted for the plan of operation. If you read the MOU, the actual language is we may take those if they meet or exceed the standard of CEQA. We didn't reproduce everything in the ordinance. We're trying to make it sort of dry, but we reference all the sections so that they are, you know, you can go and look at the actual language. We're trying not to duplicate every mining regulation in the state and in the federal government into our document. We're trying to make it so that it is a referral to those documents. So...

But clearly that has led... to some either misunderstanding or vagaries that in county government our residents don't appreciate. So I understand what you're trying to do from a staff perspective. The residents don't appreciate that from their standpoint.

I understand that.

So at a minimum, can we add in clarifying language like we had heard as a suggestion? And were there any other suggestions when you met with Mojave Desert Land Trust and the other entities that they provided that could be added to strengthen that so that we could absolve the concerns that the residents brought forward today?

There were other suggestions. The issue we would have there would be that it is approaching the level of trying to rewrite the Memorandum of Understanding. And since the county didn't write it or wouldn't sign it, that would be trying to kind of circumvent state law and an agreement between the state and the feds, right? Trying to rewrite that from our ordinance standpoint. And that's not appropriate. And that's not going to pass through the state.

Let's answer this question. If I could have the audience remain quiet, please. Why are we here today? Why are we even redoing this?

Oh, because our ordinance is grossly out of date. It is missing sections, it has sections that are obsolete, and it doesn't have the current language that's written in state law. The statutes and regulations that form SMARA have been changed and even 2017 they were changed significantly. So we need to update our ordinance to put in our code for reference and for enforcement priorities so that our code matches what is written in the state law.

And what happens if we don't do that?

If we don't have a certified ordinance, if we don't have a a verified ordinance from the State Mining and Geology Board, they would have jurisdiction to take over as lead agency.

But we've been out of compliance for a number of years now. Correct.

And we were told many, I'd say mostly lead agencies in the state were told in 2023, hey, get your ordinances update. And they're hounding them. They're, you know... They're encouraging them constantly, get those ordinances in. We need to get everybody updated. And San Bernardino County is a very important agency because we have the most mines. We're the biggest county.

So at a minimum, can you add in clarifying language into the MOU or our ordinance that doesn't negate the MOU that clarifies that these have to go through CEQA?

We could probably add something like I said before, as long as the documents meet or exceed CEQA standards, we could probably add something like that without having to do a whole new revision, like new review from the state.

I'm about to look at county council here because if you can probably do it, then I might probably vote on it. If you can't probably do it, then I would ask you to continue the hearing to have staff work on it.

If you wanted to add language similar to what's being suggested, we could do that at the meeting. We would need a motion that specifies what subsection you're amending and exactly how you're amending it.

Would you like to make that suggestion based on the public comments that we've heard today, how you would like to amend it without dramatically changing the intent of the MOU?

Yeah, as long as it's written exactly how it is in the MOU and we're not trying to rewrite any part of that, then I would be in favor of that.

Okay. Would you like to recess for, say, 10 minutes to work on that, and then come back and present the suggested changes based on what we've heard today?

Yeah, that sounds great.

Okay. All right. We will recess this for 10 minutes, and we will continue the public hearing at... How about 12 o'clock? Noon on the dot. 13 minutes.

I have a question. The way you presented this...

I don't have any idea what the vote will be on this.

I just don't want to get ahead of themselves because I'll be very candid. I'm going to vote no on this for a variety of reasons. I've probably got more time in that damn hole than anybody in this building here. And I'll explain that later. But I'm just wondering, are we getting ahead of ourselves in having this language when we don't have at least

Let's take other board member comments before recess All right, let's take other board member comments before we recess to then see if there are additional items to be worked on. Okay supervisor cook Any of the additional comments?

No, I I think I made my comments Very clear and that based upon my history. I have spent a lot of time and a lot of nights there, and I just have some reservations. I am gonna vote no. I'll be very candid with you. And before we get ahead of ourselves, maybe we need a vote whether there's a majority to go forward with this instead of making changes that won't be necessary if it's voted down.

I see the issue as whether you're willing to entertain a motion to consider the ordinance as proposed. Is that the motion that you're making, Supervisor Cook?

I'm not making a motion right now. I thought that was the one that was before as proposed right now.

There is no motion currently pending.

I am not going to support the ordinance. However, the lawyers want to propose it, I am against it.

It sounds like the chair is going to be making a motion to adopt the ordinance as amended. And if that motion is made, you can vote no on that. That's what I was planning on. OK. So I think we're proceeding properly. OK.

Other board member comments?

There's a, I think you said a lot, Madam Chair, as far as the clarification, and obviously when you have this many people come out against it for different angles, there's definitely some clarity that needs to be put in there. But I'll go back to what you were saying in the previous comments. If we do nothing, kind of go through what happens.

If we don't update our ordinance? Okay, so if we don't update our ordinance, SMGB will continue to put pressure on us. If we just refuse and they will have the opportunity, they'll have the authority to take the mining regulation over... They'll be able to take our lead agency authority away from us and become the lead orders.

Just like in several of us that serve at different levels of government, generally the higher level government doesn't necessarily need a lower level government to do something. So the federal government on their lands will want to give a permit for mining and we refuse, they can bypass us. Is that a clarified way to say that?

Yeah, that's part of the supremacy clause.

Okay, same thing in the state level. The state supersedes the county, and it's a higher level of policy. So what the state of California does, it has made an agreement with the federal government on their lands, this is gonna be the process of what we're gonna do, which combines generally NEPA and CEQA in those applications. But they're giving it to us to be that lead agency. So if we do not have a, a up-to-date ordinance, then we lose that participation potentially at all at a local level to even look at these.

Yes, that's correct.

So I think that's the bigger question for me is, how do we get to the point where we're still at least at the table? We may not like all the things at the table, but at least we're participating in that. And with our county being so rich in land and materials and all the sense, we're always being looked at for everything, especially in our desert. So going back to the concerns of our residents about the clarity of the CEQA and NEPA, and I think that's where the chair was kind of leading us to, is there was, when I heard the public speak, there was a lot of uncertainty of what language was in our ordinance, because you referred to that MOU between the state and the federal government, because that has already been worked out. And so we referred to government's code section, blah, blah, blah, and blah, blah, blah for that. And it's gonna be difficult from a referral document to educate all the residents who have say into this, who have concerns about all that, just by having them do the research that they would need to do to understand that entire ordinance. But I wanna go back to the point, whereas if we do nothing, maybe it's not necessary today, But if we do nothing and keep kicking this can down the road, then eventually the state or the federal government say, okay, we're just not going to let you be the lead agency. The state of California will be, or the U.S. government will be. And we just have to, oh, by the way, we got a new mine here. We don't have any say in it whatsoever. Can you portray by the document, the ordinance we have right now, that California and especially California has probably the strictest CEQA laws out there for these type of things. Is that level compared to other states' MOUs with the federal government a different level? Is that a higher level? Because most of our developments go through a very strenuous CEQA.

There's only a few states in the union that allow for local lead agency regulation of mines.

So the other states are, the federal government says we're giving you this permission, you go do it. And they don't have much say in it at all.

Correct.

Okay, so California's one of the stricter states for these mining ordinance residents. And it does give our residents, when a new project come, even though another lead agency may have done that environmental work, it does come to the county to proceed and it does allow us to notify our residents and allow those comments to come in before that. So we don't advocate that ability to do that process to another agency in this ordinance. No, we don't. So we still hold that local authority. versus us giving that authority up to a state or a federal agency.

Correct.

So I'm not gonna say I'm an expert on mining ordinances. I know that there's a lot out here. I think, you know, for me, I just want the assurances that that process, if we stay as a lead agency, still has that visibility for our residents, that they come out through the planning commission, through the board meetings, to address whatever the environmental work was done by that applicant, whether that is NEPA or CEQA and all the rest of it, those standards are still there in that maybe, we clarify that in the ordinance so that gives a sense of security that these are the things that we do that is no different. So in updating this ordinance, do we lose any control that we had in the old ordinance to the new ordinance?

No, it's based on the same 1992 agreement between the state and the federal government on federal lands. What is updated are better processes for enforcement, more information needed for applications for recommendation plans. In 2017, the state surrendered its right to be lead agency for vested rights determinations. Turn that back to just the local lead agencies. So that's one area that we've had to develop because the state has bowed out of it.

And do you feel these updates that were wanna propose to this ordinance, is it make it, I don't want to say easier or harder. I know some of the things align. We do updates on state laws all the time for county ordinances. I think we do that once a year. Every time the state passes a new law, we have to update our local ordinances. So that's more of an administrative thing. Some of those things are major changes. Some are not, more in language. On this update, do you see that things are any kind of easier for an applicant, a mining company? Or is it harder? How would you take it?

It's more organized. And remember, just because we're changing the language of our ordinance doesn't mean that we're going to be doing things differently. We're already doing this. This is our day-to-day operations. We're just kind of putting it on paper and making it code. We still have a responsibility to follow the most current iteration of SMARA on a database.

The 1992? No, which is... The 2017 one.

which is, it's updated periodically, just minor tweaks. The last major revision was in 2017. They revamped all sorts of things, reclamation requirements, successful criteria, what's required in the reclamation plan. So we're beholden to those regulations as they evolve year for year, we're beholden to that. That's why we tried to make this kind of an outline referencing the sections instead of spelling it all out, just making it another duplication of SMARA. We're spelling it out so we don't have to revise whenever they revise. We just reference the section.

So it just references the master document, so to speak. So as that gets updated through the legislature or very infrequently the MOU change between the federal and state government, it automatically updates our ordinance so we don't have to go through this every few years is what you're saying. Correct. So I get the technical side, I get the purpose, I understand what you're doing. It goes back to is there a better way for us to be putting this out there? There's many groups that are representative. Do you feel that you had enough face time with those groups or let me rephrase that, if we were to put this off for another month and you sat down and kind of pointed those things out, do you think that would give our agency, our department, our staff the ability to communicate this in a better way where it doesn't look like it's a change where they're very fearful of?

I think that the county could definitely do better in their outreach in general for mining projects. However, for the SMARA update, This is state law.

Yeah, I'm not asking you to change the ordinance necessarily. Obviously there's a lot of questions about the ordinance and they were asking for clarifying information in the ordinance. And if we were able to have a workshop, I don't know. I don't know what we have done enough to get up here. I know it's been in the works for a long time. but to show where these critical safeguards in their minds, the NEPA and CEQA, the ability for local residents to chime in on a project, and when those stages, even though that's what we practice today, and that you're amending this ordinance that those practices will stay there, is there a better way to, I guess, transmit that, to communicate that than what we have done?

If I may, County Supervisors and Chair, I just want to give a little more background to what Dan had actually said as well. So we do have, this is our local ordinance, correct? So this is what we do for the county. A lot of what we do already is what the state requires, what the feds require, and as Dan said, now we're just putting it in writing. We have to do it anyways, and now here it is in the document. So what we're doing, what we're enforcing our local ordinance is by adding additional things we could do for enforcement and those types of things to better monitor the mines. So that's what we're trying to do. We want to get that information as well in this document. There are other agencies that are also involved. They have to get permits through DMR, through Air Quality Management District. There's a bunch of different agencies that they have to also get compliance with, not just the county, not just with the state or federal level. This will also, currently when you have a project, a mine, if you have a reclamation plant, you still have to come through the county of San Bernardino to get your permit, get your condition use permit, and none of that is changing. There is an environmental review that's for that specific project as well that will have to be done, and it will have to be reviewed for the environmental rec plans or a new mine in the county. So all that will still remain the same. That is not changing. We do have, current mines in the county that are going through this process. We've had a lot of communication with the public. When you have a specific mine or location, there is notification that's done for that project. There is environmental review. There is scoping meetings for environmental impact reports if that's required as well. So there is still that same process that will be in place as well. I wanted to make that clear because I'm not sure if there was, some of there was miscommunication with, we're taking all environmental review out of at least the county process, but that still will be reviewed through the county.

I think I can help explain. So Music Valley Mine is a proposed mine out in the 29 Palms, Wonder Valley area that abuts the National Park. There has been a lot of concern about what that may or may not be, and that's not before the county at this time. But that is where I think you feel the heartfelt concern from the community. And with this, is this related to that or not? You say it's not, not everybody believes that. And so there is substantial community concern. I have a question for you that I believe, does this strengthen our inspection, reclamation, financial assurances, and enforcement authority, or do the proposed changes weaken it? I mean, I heard Kurt ask that, but can you clarify that this strengthens it, doesn't weaken it?

Yeah, what this does is, like I said, it organizes it better, and it gives it more teeth. I think I explained it at Planning Commission this way. The operators that want to be good stewards of the land, that want to work with the county and be in compliance, because that's what makes their business plan work, they wanna know what they're getting into. They wanna know exactly what happens if they do this or don't do this. That's how they set a business plan, that's how they make a profit. The good operators want to stay in compliance, because being out of compliance doesn't pay. this ordinance will hold their feet to the fire, will hold them accountable to any kind of indiscretions they have on their site. And it makes it easier for my staff, my inspectors, to identify the violations, to give them notices of violation, orders to comply, and go on up to the ladder until there's administrative fees, penalties, and potential for losing their approval for their reclamation plan.

Well, here's a more simplistic question, I think, from the community. If we don't adopt this today, does Music Valley Mine, if it were to move forward, have less control at the county level or more control at the county level?

It has the same. It has the same as we've had all along. What the new ordinance does is kind of what the old orders didn't do. It didn't bring in that language from the 1992 MOU, that agreement that spelled out what the different authority was on federal land. So Music Valley, when it comes into the county, yes, we will do how we do on every project on federal land. We work with BLM or US Forest Service, to coordinate a collaborative review of both NEPA and CEQA. And if we get documents and studies that don't meet the requirements of CEQA, then we will keep giving review comments over and over until that does rise to that standard. And only then is when we can approve the reclamation plan. Now remember, there's three parts. There's three parts of a mining operation approval. There's the permit, there's the reclamation plan, and there's the financial assurances. So we have control of reclamation plan and financial assurances, but we have authority to review the whole project in its entirety. We're not putting blinders on reclamation. On federal land, we review the whole, that means off-site, haul roads, means going through town, whatever the truck traffic is, emissions and all that. That's all part of CEQA. And these studies have to answer all those questions that CEQA asks. Otherwise, they don't get a reclamation plan, which means their permit is worthless.

But if we don't adopt this at some point today or otherwise, then we're relinquishing our authority to have that. We're giving it to the state and the federal government, and then we have no say.

Correct.

That's correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Well, we would still be CEQA lead agency, but we would not be SMAR lead agency. Okay. So we couldn't regulate mines.

For... I feel like this is something, you know, no one's going to be completely happy from the look in the room that I'm seeing and want to change. We have to do this change is my understanding of this. But what I have to say is this has been terribly communicated to the public in understanding what we have to do, what we don't have to do, and getting them to understand what we're trying to accomplish here. I think we totally dropped the ball on that. I think you're a super smart guy. I just think that how this was presented didn't give anyone any confidence here to understand what we're trying to accomplish here. I get what you're saying. And I don't know how to fix that. I don't know how to change perception from the public to say here's what we're doing and here's what we're trying to accomplish. And I think no matter how we vote today, we're gonna have people not happy because we really failed in the outreach. And I think it's too far to fix now. I think we're gonna have to just deal with it and do what we're doing. But I just think in future, or even after this, whether it's a yes or a no, we need to go back to the public and explain to them. And if it has to come back again and refine, to refine it so that there's some comfort, then let's really be on top of this. Let's get to where we need to go. But we need to really have real, true dialogue with the stakeholders that are out here who obviously have a concern and see how we can... tweak it in a way that gives them, maybe they're not going to be 100% happy no matter what. I can't change that. But give them some sort of comfort to find that happy medium that we could all swallow the pill and deal with what we need to deal with. You know, the people who have the signs up who are like, this is not here. Let's find a way to make that question here. Let's put that very clear for them so that they understand that we are addressing their concerns. And those are all my comments.

Very quick.

Yeah. I don't think you're gonna understand the problem on this board here until we pack up our gear and we go out there in the middle of the day at 12 noon. Unless you have been out there, you will never understand it. The desert is very unforgiving. Now, I don't know who's been out there. I've been out there more times than I want to remember. It's brutal, particularly in the summer. And any type of changes that you have there that doesn't take into consideration safety, you cannot have people wandering around there or they're going to die. And there's a long history of the number of people that have died, maybe not in that slice of the desert, but anywhere else. Very, very unforgiving. So I'm very sensitive to this. I thought it's part of the best training area. I probably swore more than I ever did when I was out there because it's so damn hot and very unforgiving. Now, I'm sympathetic, but I also, I don't know, want to make sure that we don't change what they have there as a training area, a live fire training area. And I'll be honest with you, because it's live fire, accidents happen. And I don't have a list today of the number of people that have been killed out there. And not just because you're operating in an environment where when it's 120 in the shade or so, you're going to make mistakes. And you've got to always be vigilant. All I'm worried about is when we handle this problem here, I think we gotta be very, very aware that this is not an ordinary piece of land. And so I'm very protective of it because I want it to be maintained as one of the few training areas. that the Armed Forces of the United States has live fire training area. You can't do that anywhere else because you don't have that much. It is a huge, huge area. And so I don't know. Right now, I'm not prepared to vote for this. And I think we need more conversations. And I'll If you guys got the guts, let's go out on a high day, high note, and bring your beer or what have you, and we'll go out there and we'll see what the real desert is like. I'm done.

Question for you all. There's a lady sitting behind you. She was very well-spoken and kind in a yellow shirt, and she had three questions for us. I don't necessarily think that I got them answered today. I thought her approach was very reasonable. We heard lots of public comment. I don't know that we have addressed some of the things that you probably view as misinformation, and there are still questions pending that I would like answered. What I would suggest that we do is I'm going to close the public hearing, which will close the public comment, ask you to return to us at a date certain that you determine that you can make the additional comments that we heard from the entity, and I wrote his name down, Christian Lahage. Thank you. The additional language, you can fit into the ordinance that will not mess up the MOU and to address the questions that we've heard here today that I thought were very reasonable and put them together and come back to a board meeting. It is a long drive down from Wonder Valley. I know that they can tune in on YouTube to get those answers and we can do a much better job of reviewing all the questions that we've heard here today. to get answers if there is misinformation to correct it and that is the minimum that we need to do for our residents that have taken the time to provide thoughtful input. And then also for you to make the changes that are possible to make based on the public input today. So that would be my recommendation to close the public hearing. have staff return at a date you contemplate it now. I know that some of our meetings are a little bit more densely packed in the near future. If you gentlemen want to look at the calendar on when you think you can bring the public hearing back so that the public knows when to tune in, I can continue it if I have board approval to that date certain.

Yeah, I would second your motion. But we really need to have that outreach. I want to emphasize we need to make sure that we have that outreach to the community so that, I'll be honest, I don't think all your needs are going to be met because there are legal obligations that we have to have. But anything we can fit in there, we should be trying to fit in there to give people the comfort that they need. and understanding this is just merely a policy issue. This isn't having to go towards any development in particular. So make sure we have that outreach.

And we have all, I mean, I get them to my email. Every public comment that came in came to my email. So if your department doesn't have the bandwidth and you can produce a document, I will send it back to everybody to answer their questions. And we can put it into a format of frequently asked questions so that we can either dispel misinformation, clarify misinformation, or at least answer some of the questions that we've heard here today because I don't think that any of us are satisfied with the level. And then if you could bring back those changes within Samara or our MOU that you believe that we can do without substantially rewriting it that comply with state law at the continued public hearing. Luther.

I would recommend that we continue it to October 20th. That would give us sufficient time to engage with the public. And also, if the changes are recommended, that would... If the changes had not been previously considered by planning, we may need to return the matter to planning, and that would give us sufficient time to do that and then have planning respond.

Very well.

Is that, Gerald, make the motion to continue October 20th?

Second.

To October 20th. So close the public comment, continue the hearing until October 20th. I have a motion from Vice Chair Baca. Thank you, Supervisor Hagman, for the second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

I had another motion that I wanted. I don't know the problem with the procedure, how I can get that in there.

Well, we have a majority vote at this point.

Explain it without.

You're more than welcome to, sure.

What I was going to suggest, if you guys are gutsy enough, is that we go out in the Mojave Desert at 12 noon and actually see what it's like out there. When you're there, physically there, it really makes a big difference. You don't have to stay there that long. And after the manager passes out, then we'll stop someplace and have a beer. But this way you can actually see the physical environment that we're talking about. The desert is a very, very unforgiving place. And when you make decisions on what you're gonna do out there, you better make sure you do it right. That's all I'm saying.

I appreciate that. In terms of continuing this item, in addition to your, and I'm all for it, that's the backyard. I think it'd be fun. It would be. But in terms of this, I-

No, it's too cold.

Paul, are you in favor of continuing this item to October 20th so staff can do further outreach, provide clarification, and then bring it back to us?

Well, it's starting to get cold out there. I want to go out there when it's hotter the better to understand the issue.

Nothing's stopping that from happening. Nothing will stop that from happening.

Why? We're not a bunch of candy asses. We can go out there and see what it's like.

I need a yes, no, or an abstention.

A yes, no. To continue.

To continue this item.

Yeah, he's telling me I can continue it.

I'm going to take that as an affirmative yes.

Thank you.

So, Madam Chair, if I can please confirm the motion that we are continuing the closed public hearing. So we are continuing the closed public hearing to October 20th to allow staff to revise it.

And then depending upon what changes you recommend, then it goes back to either planning or it moves forward to the board.

Is that correct, Laura? Depending on how substantial the changes, it may need to return to planning.

It also may need to return to the State Mining and Geology Board.

I'm sorry?

It also may need to return to the State Mining and Geology Board. We'd rather get their concurrence before we approve it. Otherwise, it's just going to be monging back and forth.

Madam Chair, I have one just thing. You had mentioned, Dan, that there was risk of us losing our authority. within this window, do you see that as a risk over the next two months? This is not an eminent risk. No, I don't see that risk.

All right. And for those in the audience, and I haven't, final vote?

I don't, I was just going to ask. I don't believe we have a final vote. Yes.

Okay. So to reiterate, all those in favor of continuing the public hearing to October 20th, aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah.

If, If you are here today and you provided comment or questions in writing, we have them all. If you verbally provided them, I have a staff member in the audience who is raising her hand in the back on your left. If you have written comments, confide to her. She can give you a card. Email us those so we can make sure that your questions get answered. All right. And with that, we will move on to our public comment on items not on today's agenda. And as a reminder, as I stated at the top of the meeting, we have a number of speakers, both on teleconference and in person. Our public comment on items not on the agenda will be limited to two minutes. And our first request to speak is Bonnie Hawthorne, followed by Denise June Shear and then Keith.

I think that was some kind of mistake because I've already spoken. I spoke in regard to 76. So maybe I filled out the form wrong.

I'm not sure. We did receive your comments earlier. So if you have anything additional that you would like to add on items not on today's agenda, you are welcome to do so.

No, I was only commenting on item 76. And thank you for continuing it. to October, I agree with you. There's been a lot of confusion.

So I really do hope you straighten it out for us. Thank you. Thank you very much. Denise June Shearer, followed by Keith. All right, we'll move on to Keith.

All right.

Hi, yes. Supervisors, thank you for taking the time today, listening to the public. I believe it was the responsible thing to push this agenda item off for further study. I'd like to see a pattern in this county and its governance that we don't play the state as a boogeyman card so much. Let's be sensible. Let's not rush things. Let's get community input.

Excuse me.

I think especially considering what we're seeing in Big Bend National Park and how the federal government is rushing to bulldoze and draw a line through our public lands, it's critically important that at least at the county and state level that we hold a line and we adhere to the laws in our state. Surface mining on federal lands doesn't happen in a vacuum. The scars from any potential mine will be visible from space long after all of us have have passed and gone, the immediate effects on the transit lines, the air, the water, the night sky, the noise, like there's so many factors that take into place. And I don't think anyone that lives in 29 Palms or in the high desert region wants to see the property values plummet if a gigantic open pit mine like the one we see in Boron is allowed to go forward in this county. So I think it's important that we take a stance not for the short-term gain, for a foreign transnational mining corporation to extract our resources and take them out of the country, that profit out of this county. I think it's important that we focus on getting this right so there's no loophole. So I appreciate you tabling the matter. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And as a reminder, this is for items not on today's agenda. Next up is Nicholas Garver, followed by Anna Gonzalez. And Ana Gonzalez, neither of them are still on the line. Okay. We're going to bring it back here to in-person comments. Our first request to speak is Daniel Demeyer, followed by Joanne Jenis.

Good afternoon, board. My name is Dan Demeyer. I'm a resident of 29 Palms. I've been working Approaching this problem, I have little wrong and I think I'm gonna do it a little different. So with that I'm gonna say I'm sorry to bother your sheriffs about the vandalism and the trespassing calls that I've been making the last six months. I'm sorry that your sheriffs, seven of them, came out to my house and held guns to my head on a swatted call. What's swat? A swat is when somebody calls your law enforcement agency and lies and tells them BS so they could come to your house and hold guns to your head. I'm sorry that I'm helping the neighbors with my tractor work after a massive flash flood. I'm sorry I'm maintaining the road for my neighbors as my one neighbor destroys it. I have a neighbor that blocks the road and nobody does anything so no one can get through. I'm sorry that my neighbor is digging up the underground utility poles and moving them. I find that very dangerous. I'm sorry that my neighbor dumps his trash along with human race around the desert and in people's trash cans. He calls the cops and when he calls the cops and they respond, they go to his house and he doesn't answer the door. We fix the damage that he creates and he calls the police and tells them we did the damage. That's false reporting.

Thirty seconds?

Yes. The main one is he chased my roommate down the road two and a half miles. I have a restraining order, so does my roommate. The police did nothing. So with that, I'm going to say seven months of investigation, three violations of restraining order, and the cops will not return my call, the sheriff. They are either corrupt or they're incompetent because they do not uphold the law to serve and protect. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Joanne Jenis, then Jane Hunt-Rubel.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Joanne Jenis and I live in the City of Chino Hills. Let's talk about homelessness and matters related to it. Did you hear about the City of Riverside's new drop-off ordinance? I'm aware Riverside is in another county, but I believe looking at this ordinance could potentially benefit our own communities in our own county, especially with the 2028 Olympics coming into LA. The ordinance requires law enforcement, medical facilities, behavior health providers, cities and county agencies, and other organizations to provide 24 hour advance notice before dropping off an individual experienced homelessness in their city. The goal is to give the city and service providers an opportunity to coordinate behavioral health services, shelter housing, and other support instead of simply leaving them somewhere without the resources they need. I believe a similar policy should be considered in the county and statewide levels with the possibility of eventually becoming state law. Here's why I'm so passionate about this homeless ordinance. Some of you probably remember my story. My son was accepted into the AOT Law Program Medicals. He was evaluated, the court ordered, the judge ordered for an evaluation. He went through the evaluation. He went to Arrowhead Regional. 72 hours later, even though diagnosed severe mental illness and gravely disabled, they released him. No support, 31 miles, gave him a bus pass. No support, no cell phone, no money. Somehow he made it home. Seven days later, he was killed crossing at a crosswalk while being out of his head. And he was killed by a hit and run felony EMT. So let's try and see, improve what's happening with these mental health patients and homelessness out on the streets. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. Jane Hunt Rubel, then Randy McKendam, and then Carmen Gallegos.

Excuse me, good afternoon. I got hungry, so I brought a candy bar with me. Anyway, I'm here to talk about, well, I love those people from Wonder Valley, and I wish my community was like that a long time ago when we were fighting other things in Lionel Cohen Wash. But anyway, I'm here to talk about, I came across this yesterday, it's about the unincorporated truck routes, because that's one thing I'm concerned about. Because earlier this year, thank you, Baca, for finally coming out to our community about the truck routes. But it's gotten worse over the past few months. I hate going down Macy Street anymore, but I have to on Thursday, because I work for a friend of mine over in Rialto. And it's getting big rigs coming down there. and also the vendors. I don't even like going to the library there anymore because it's just overwhelmed with, on both sides of Darby Street, the vendors. And they're there apparently every day. And I just want something done about it because it even bothers the people that work in the library. And I was shocked to learn that. But we have a lot of people that live out in Muscovy. I guess they moved here to Muscovy that are truck drivers, and they have big rigs. And the one thing I wanted to talk about is that I caught somebody on the corner of June and 2nd that they have signs up saying no parking at all. They've been up there for years. But I caught somebody doing it again, and I want something done about it. So I please beg you to do something about it, because they're blocking the view of traffic, and they're blatant about it. So I'd really like, appreciate it. Also, are the cameras up? Because people are still speaking. That's time. On 2nd Avenue, thanks.

Thank you. Randy? Beckendam followed by Carmen Gallegos.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. I'm Randy Beckendam, Executive Director of the Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation, and I'm also a local farmer. Our nonprofit has managed, we did manage the Prop 70 lands for the first 15 years of their existence. About 20 years ago, the county dismissed the executive director and took management of the properties in-house, which generated this letter that I have here from the Planning and Conservation League. And they were the ones who initiated Prop 70. The contents of this letter are why we kept the nonprofit alive and active to this point. This letter threatens citizen action unless the county complies with the contents of this letter. The county has been out of compliance with Prop 70 from the beginning, so 38 years in violation of the public trust. The citizens of California own the Prop 70 land. The county is a steward of the land. You have a fiduciary responsibility to, comply with the mandate of Prop 70, which is to preserve the land for agriculture. And so the letter of this, the contents of this letter, very self-explanatory. Who can I leave this letter with? I have as many copies as you need.

Madam Chair, he, sorry. We can take it, the clerk of the board down here can take it from you, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Carmen Gallegos, followed by Leticia Howard, and then Joaquin Costalejos. Is this on?

Okay. Yeah, I had brought this up before. Where I'm located, I notice that sometimes I do go to places that have way too much things going on at one time. It also affects the city and also the people around it. A lot of times right now I'm dealing with this, right now I want to bring in sidewalks and streets and lights. And because they're hitting pedestrians. And the pedestrians are in the streets because there's no sidewalks. And this was with a lot of humans and animals. They can't walk their dog or cat. I mean, they have to take care of, just basically like the fireworks. I had so many fireworks. I'd never seen so many fireworks in my life where they should have been contained a long time ago because it made a war zone of your city. and in county and city areas. So right now, I'm in a county area before I was a city area, but still dealing with fireworks, which is really crazy. I got a Disturbed at Peace, and I had to laugh at that because I got a ticket for that. But to overlook the obvious, and for it to let it go to businesses and burning it, even Homeland Security said they only took care of federal buildings. But aside from that, right now, And even hearing a comment, you know, I'm too far away to get there. Well, as I said, adopt a planet and we need clean air and clean water. Because you let the, you overlook the fireworks and they should, they weren't even in a contained area where, I mean, the area that they had permits for. But even the permit areas were all destroyed. But anyway, so again, transportation and for humans and animals, but like I said, sidewalks to keep them off the streets. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Latisha Howard followed by Joaquin Casalejos and then Terry Lewis.

For over a year, parents and advocates have come before this board reporting corruption, fraud, perjury, abuse of power, violations of our right to due process, and harm to our children within Children and Family Services. What was the response? The board pushed to make sure parents receive their court reports on time. Well, let me tell you how that correction is working. On July 8th, my parental rights were terminated. One of the most important documents in that proceeding was the 2-6 report. I don't have that report. I did not have that report the day of the hearing. I do not have it as of today. I made multiple written requests for it, and today, more than a month after my rights were terminated, I still don't have that report. So when Jeannie Glasgow says that the problems have been corrected, I ask you, does that sound like it's been corrected? Today, I'm no longer speaking to the board. I'm speaking to parents, advocates, attorneys, civil rights organizations, lawmakers, journalists, taxpayers, and everyone believes the government power must have limits. We have spent too much time asking the very system we accuse of corruption, fraud, and abuse of power to investigate or correct itself. When will we understand? The system is working exactly the way it was designed to work. It survives because families are isolated and afraid. It survives because people believe they are powerless when they walk into courtrooms. And it survives when the rest of us remain silent. I am not here today asking the board to save us. I am asking the people to stand together, learn the law, preserve your records, request your documents, ask questions, demand evidence, show up to these meetings, contact lawmakers, contact civil rights organizations, because history has never been changed by people quietly accepting injustice. Change happens when ordinary people decide enough is enough. They may have the titles, they may have attorneys, they may have the funding, but we have the numbers. And when the communities stand together WE HAVE THE POWER TO ENFORCE ACCOUNTABILITY.

THAT IS TIME.

Good morning, county staff and community. My name is Joaquin Castillejos. I am an organizer with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. I'm here today to just remind the board of its duty to protect Prop 70 land and to be stewards of this preserved agricultural land that was meant to be used for generations to come. In 19... In 1984, when this was passed, it was because voters decided that it was important to save agricultural land, to set it aside and make sure that future generations, no matter how developed their surroundings were, they would always have access to this Prop 70 land. And San Bernardino County started off became part of this process. The county used 20 million in Prop 70 funding to buy up agricultural land across the county and was meant to preserve it and save it and make sure that it's preserved for future generations, that it was used for regenerative agriculture, green spaces, things that benefit the community. And It is a duty and under Prop 70 it should continue to be the main priority. The county should not be using this land for any other reason, transferring it to any other entity or letting it be used to become anything else that's not an agricultural easement. So I'm just here to urge the county to remember its role with Prop 70 to take care of that land and make sure that it will continue to be used in what it's supposed to be used, which is through natural lands, open space, and agriculture. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Karen Reich, followed by Lisa Fenn, and then Eric Vasquez. Oh, I'm sorry, my thing shows it's highlighted.

Terry Lewis first, and then Karen.

Hi, my name is Terry Lewis. I just wanted to ask a question. Why is it okay for social workers to lie? To lie to parents, to lie in court? In my own personal case, the social worker lied 24 times in her report. And we can prove like three of them for sure. And no one's heard our story. No one's cared to even listen. Our twins had been gone and the baby had been gone two years now. And for what reason? There were no allegations of anything. The kids were with their grandmother. They weren't even with the mom. They went to the mom's home. And based on her home, they took the kids. But the kids had been living with the grandmother for a month. So it really doesn't make sense. And when we go to court, no one hears our story because we don't have an attorney. And it's unacceptable. But why is it OK for them to lie? Cops can't lie. I used to be a correctional officer. And we had to follow the WIC codes to the letter because there was oversight. And the county, CPS has no oversight. I missed that June 23rd, I think it was the 23rd meeting where Jeannie Glasgow and the other man sat here and gave their statistics and how they never take children from parents unless it's dire circumstances and they always do everything to keep them with family and that is a blatant lie, complete, at least in my case and I believe the other parents too. They could have left the kids at my house that night. They said that someone in my home didn't pass the background, so I said, well, he'll leave. And she goes, it doesn't work like that, when it absolutely does according to the WIC codes. And... You know, it's unacceptable. There needs to be oversight. There needs to be, they should wear body cameras so that they have to, you know, transparency. But they don't want transparency because they're the ones who's lying and they're the ones who are harming the kids, not us. There was no reason for them to take our twins. That's time.

Karen Reich followed by Lisa Fenn.

Hello, my name is Karen Reich. I'm the grandmother to Jovi, Jace, and Myla Wood. I'm here because I'm angry. I'm pissed off that we come here twice a month. Well, I've missed a couple of them because I've been busy trying to get RFA approved to get my grandkids. But you guys sit up there and you hear these horrific situations where people's kids have been legally kidnapped and you do nothing. I mean, nothing has changed. Laws need change, reform needs to happen. My grandkids were removed by a woman named Betty Thompson Larkin, and they were put with a social worker foster mom named Kyra Larkin. Are they of relation? Is this a coincidence? Or is it trafficking? Because that's what it would be. It's called trafficking. And San Bernardino County is trafficking our kids and using them, they're exploiting them for the sole purpose of gaining financial money for the Title IV-E funding. And that to me is disgusting. I'm mama bear, I'm mama bear and I'm coming after my grandkids and hell's coming with me. Thank you.

Thank you, Lisa Fenn followed by Eric Vasquez.

Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Finn. This is, I don't know, my sixth time or so speaking. I'm speaking to share my experience with the Child Protective Services and Family Court system because I believe there are serious injustices that need to be brought to light. My children were removed from my care and throughout the court proceedings, I felt I was not given a fair opportunity to defend myself or challenge the allegations being made against me. Reports were served to me on the same day as court, leaving me little or no meaningful opportunity to review the information or prepare a response. I was not given the opportunity to question my accusers. My attorneys did not adequately advise me that I could contest the allegations, and witnesses who were willing to testify on my behalf were not permitted to do so. I believe these circumstances denied me a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Sorry. The allegations against me were eventually proven to be false. However, even after those allegations were shown to be false, my children were not returned to me. Approximately three months after my children were removed, the reunification social worker brought my children to the home. During that visit, they were told, take everything you love as you're never coming back here. Those words have stayed with me. I could not understand how genuine reunification efforts could be when the person responsible for helping with reunification was telling us that my children were never coming back. As the case continued- 30 seconds. As the case continued, the allegations changed. false narratives stacked up, court proceeding after court proceeding. Something is terribly wrong with this system, and we're going to keep coming, asking you guys to change it, fix it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Eric Vasquez, followed by Delina Murillo, and then Amethyst Yates.

Yes, good afternoon, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, Board of Supervisors, members of the staff, and members of the community. My name is Eric Vasquez, and I'm from True Impact, a nonprofit organization that exists to mentor at-promise youth to heal from their trauma and to find purpose. In that process, we focus on restorative practices, restorative justice, and a big emphasis on mentoring. Recently, you know, well, over the years, I've explored so many different things to touch the heart of these beautiful young people to help them rehabilitate and find real change. And, you know, in that process, I came across regenerative farming. And so I'm here today due to a recent collaboration with the Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation. What we've been doing is taking the system impacted young people, current or former foster youth at Promise Youth and bringing them into these green spaces, providing them workforce development and seeing healing take place as they put their hands to honest and good work. There's something about being out in nature. that touches and changes the young heart. And so I'm here because I'm concerned as I've learned about Prop 70 and how it's not necessarily being adhered to or that there is a threat to some of these lands being developed. I feel like finally after 25 years of youth work, urban youth work, that I have found gold. That I found something that 100% of the time works in touching the heart of these young people. And so I just ask that you all take a look into this and that you ensure that we are running in our lane and adhering to Prop 70 as a county. This has many impacts, particularly impacts to the Out Promise community. Thank you for hearing me today.

Thank you very much. Delina Murillo followed by Amethyst Yates and then Alejandra Contreras.

Board members, we have come here time and time again to listen to Jeannie Glasgow talk about changes, about oversight, about reform. I want to know what has actually been done. You opened up two more courtrooms this year. The county's own record says it's because caseloads has outgrown the building. I'm asking you directly, does that mean more children being removed? because nobody up there has answered that question, and families like mine deserve to know. Meanwhile, my case keeps getting the same treatment your oversight was supposed to fix. My reports are still being filed the morning of hearings. For instance, today's report, the one used at my hearing, has a last documented entry from 13 days ago, 13 days, and it still showed up too late to properly review. And here's what should concern everybody in this room. The agency's own report states in writing that my daughter is too young to understand or form an opinion about adoption. And then in the same report, the answers, sorry, they use her answer anyways, that adoption means she gets to stay in the house forever. as it's an informed consent. No one has told this six-year-old what adoption actually means, that she will never see her mother again until she's 18 years old. 12 years, that is not staying somewhere forever. That is losing her mother and no one explained to her before asking her that question. So my question for this board is not something that is taken lightly. 30 seconds. Taken lightly. What oversight exists? Who is checking the agency's work? Because right now it doesn't seem like anyone still is. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Amethyst Yates, followed by Alejandra Contreras, and then Stephanie.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the board. My name is Amethyst Yates, and I'm with the Family Reunification Equity and Empowerment Project at Starting Over. I was able to go to a conference. There was a bunch of foster agencies, social workers, people that implement the policy, remove children and all that stuff. As of July 1st, 2027, each child removed from the home at minimum will receive $1,700. My numbers are a little off, it's a little bit more than that. However, under Title VII of the Social Security Act, there is money there available for prevention services in-home. The $1,700 is for only out-of-home placements. Okay, so under Title IV-E, they can get reimbursements for these prevention services. I'm really asking the board to stop funding things like Victor Outreach, because I also ran into a parent partner over there that was devastated that the mother got her children back. Okay, this is not okay. I was also privy to go into CFT meetings with some of the people from Victor Outreach. 30 seconds. And they falsified everything. I was like, the parent never said that. But when the report came back, that's what was written that the mother said that when I was the one that asked the questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Alejandra Contreras, followed by Stephanie, and then Rita Espinosa.

Hello, good afternoon. My name is Alejandra. This is the fourth time I've been coming. I'm here to ask you to please investigate the Office on Family Service and 1094-IS. I just came from court. I had mediation with them when the judge ordered reunification. and give authority to give me unsupervised basis but they don't want to move forward. They want me to keep going trial case spending my money because I'm paying my private attorney because I don't trust them. They've been lying and I had to say this, I questioned my social worker today, and he couldn't answer any of my questions. The one who was stepping in in every question, it was Jonas. I want you to investigate Jonas Navas, Jose Macias, because every moment kids from the second home that they were, abused, neglected, keeping in a room, day to night, as they were as a basement, it was not a basement, but the suffering and mentally and emotionally, it was the same as being on the basement. They knew all this abuse and they tried to not expose it. Now that they're on a new caregiver, I'm concerning because they want to remove it now But my concern is that the news caregiver told me that before they were placed them as emergency, they knew that her husband has sexually abused accusations in the past. And they placed my kids with them when they have relatives. 30 seconds. And they tried to avoid to go with my relative and put it with person that has sexually abused accusations. and my kids right now they want to remove it because those allegations? How come they doing this? I asked the social worker that, he couldn't reply to me, saying that we're here to ask about the business, not about this. But this is concerning for me because my kids are in dangers. Every second they're in danger, and I'm here to advocate. Please help us. I saw Mr. Hackman be on the investigation.

Thank you, Stephanie, followed by Rita Espinosa, and then Gregory.

Hi, I'm with the Family Reunification Equity and Empowerment Program. I am a former foster kid, so I do know what they mean when they say their kids are struggling, they're deprived of things, they can't eat, they're forced to eat, and if they don't want to eat, they get choked. And now you guys are offering money to stay there till they turn 18? What's the point of that? What's the point of giving money to a 15-year-old when she leaves the foster home at 18? What's she supposed to do with that money? Instead of actually helping us educate ourselves and helping us get resources, you guys are, oh, if you guys stay, I'll give you guys so much money. I was tortured in foster care. I got removed twice from a home because they were S.A.ing. The parent that needed to leave or the adult that needed to leave the house left the house. So why were we still not allowed to stay at our home? Why?

Because they don't care.

Because you guys don't care. 30 seconds. Trafficking kids. That's what you guys are doing, offering money for them to stay there for three extra years for what? So they can get snatched up? Go through worse things than what they were living at home? Removing them and putting them with strangers that you guys don't even personally know.

Stephanie, followed by Rita Espinosa. Stephanie? That was Stephanie? Okay, thank you. Rita Espinosa, followed by Gregory. Rita? All right, moving on to Gregory.

O eternal God of vengeance, O God who sets things right, shine upon us. Rise, O judge who presides over the earth, and pronounce your sentence upon the proud. Give them what they deserve. How long, O eternal one, how long will the guilty revel in their prosperity? Arrogance pours from their mouths. All these troublemakers brag of their exploits. They have broken your people to pieces, O eternal one, and brought ruin to your future generations. They slay a widow, kill a newcomer, and murder an orphan. Then they say, the eternal one can't see what we're up to. The God of Jacob's people pays no attention to us. Think, brainless people, stupid people. When will you get it? Does the God who set the ear in its place not hear? Does the God who made the eye not see? Does the God who teaches the nations and guides humanity to knowledge not exercise just correction? The eternal knows the highest thoughts of the wise, and they are worthless. How fortunate are those you discipline, O Eternal One, those you train by your divine law. You relieve them in times of distress until a grave is dug for evildoers. The Eternal will not abandon his people. He will not turn away from those he redeemed because justice is coming for those. who do what is right, and all the good-hearted will pursue it. Who will back me up when evildoers come against me? Who is willing to take my side against the wicked? If the eternal had not come to my rescue, my soul would have descended to the land where death silences every voice. When I said, my foot is slipping! 30 seconds. Your unfailing love, O eternal one, held me up. When anxiety overtakes me and worries are many, your comfort lightens my soul. Can wicked tyrants be your allies? Will you align with rulers who create havoc, just unjust decrees? They have joined forces against the life of the just living, the right seeking, and have sentenced the innocent to death. But the eternal has been my citadel. My God, a sure safe haven.

He will fall their wickedness back upon it. Thank you. Our last request to speak is from Shaniqua.

Hello, everybody. My name is Shaniqua Shepherd. I'm the National Hub affiliate for the Free Project. My question is, why does CPS prioritize separation over for serving our families? Why do we allow doctors to take our mentally ill children who we as parents have dealt with the challenges, but you can take them off of all their medications, when that child goes home and attempts to kill his mother, we blame mom for being the problem. But how? If I took my child to be assessed, and I say his medicine isn't working, y'all agree, but a doctor who had too much to drink and came to work said otherwise, took my child off of his medication, but I lose my kids. Me. So I went from being a victim of CPS to surviving CPS to advocating for other families. My question to you is, when do we stop using these kids as a paycheck and take the money that we're giving to these foster parents who are sometimes not doing what they need to do and giving it to the family so that we can give them beds, give them food, give them the help that they need? Better yet, can we start prioritizing preventative measures and services versus removing these children? When is enough enough? 25, 22, 19. The ages of my children today.

30 seconds?

Three-year-old grandson. Y'all didn't help my kids. You didn't teach them anything. They learned more at home from mom, the person you said that was a threat to them. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. We're going to move on to our reports from our CEO, Luther.

Thank you, Madam Chair. When we wrap up this meeting today in just a couple minutes, we're actually going to shift over and recognize some county staff who have some incredible tenure. 85 different county employees hitting over 25 years of service, two of our employees hitting 40 years of service, and one an incredible 45 years of service to this great county. So congratulations. excited to to go over and be able to recognize these fine employees so thank you very much madam chair and appreciate the opportunity thank you very much this meeting stands adjourned our next regularly scheduled board of supervisors meeting will be here at 10 a.m on september 1st thank you very much