The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted the revision of the mining ordinance on October 20. We were not successful in our efforts to get the Board to postpone the vote until the Department of Land Use Services engaged with residents as the Board had directed them.
On the plus side, pressure from the public did result in:
- An unexpected continuance on Aug 18 in the face of multiple comments of concern from desert residents, and instruction from the Board to Land Use Services (LUS) to “conduct additional community outreach, respond to questions from the community and evaluate potential clarifying amendments before the item returns for further consideration.”
- A final amended version that did make some improvements in the language of the ordinance. Compare the changes in this chart prepared by LUS.
That said:
- We still have concerns with the language of the revision. Poorly drafted language could open the gate to projects like the Music Valley Mine. See our final comments here.
- LUS did not engage with the community as directed and subsequently misrepresented their actions to the Board. Refer to “Setting the Record Straight”, below.
- The Board ignored the demands of the community to postpone the vote until LUS did engage.
The Desert Trumpet gives a detailed account of the proceedings and sums up the final changes adopted:
The federal coordination provision was retained, and federal environmental documents are to be accepted only to the extent they comply with County requirements, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The federal-land permit exemption remains but is now clarified to preserve reclamation plans and financial assurances. Public notice, comment period and Board approval requirements were not added; [LUS Director Miguel] Figueroa said County Counsel had advised against writing them into the ordinance, leaving notice to the department’s discretion, which he said would be “a must.”
As well, the Board did respond to concerns raised about the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that is incorporated into the mining ordinance with more directions to LUS. The Desert Trumpet again: “The Board…directed Land Use Services to press the state to update its 1992 agreement with federal land agencies and to bring the ordinance back for review in a year to 18 months, after community meetings in the affected areas.”
So what happens now? The revision goes to the State Mining and Geology Board for certification. The public will have some opportunity to comment at that time. We will be watching for that and will keep you updated.
The October 20 Board hearing was covered by the Hi-Desert Star, the Desert Trumpet, and Z107.7. As well, a transcript of the proceedings may be viewed here.
Thank you to everyone who sent in comments! Per LUS Director Miguel Figueroa, a total of 75 public comments were received by his office, and the good folks of the Morongo Basin certainly sent in their share! Also present at the hearing were members of the Lone Pine Canyon Protection Alliance in Wrightwood, who are suffering the consequences of inadequate mining regulation right now. We will be posting more about their situation in the near future.
One final note before we get into setting the record straight: We were not allowed to sign up to comment when we arrived at the chambers in San Bernardino the morning of Oct 20, being told that the public hearing had been closed on August 18. This seemed inappropriate as the proposed mining ordinance revision had been amended in the interim and the public should rightfully have an opportunity to comment on those changes. Ultimately, after protest from residents, the hearing was re-opened to public comment, but comments were to be restricted to the changes only. This restriction was arbitrarily enforced, with some commenters being cut off mid-sentence. Again, see the Desert Trumpet for examples on this.
Setting the Record Straight
For a complete timeline regarding outreach from the County and Land Use Services on the mining ordinance revision, see here. In this post we will address only Oct 20 and the misleading presentation by LUS.
To begin, let us start with a reminder: At the Aug 18 hearing, the Board of Supervisors directed Land Use Services to “conduct additional community outreach, respond to questions from the community and evaluate potential clarifying amendments before the item returns for further consideration.”
Did Land Use Services fulfill this directive? Let’s look at the record.
During the LUS presentation at the hearing, LUS Director Miguel Figueroa displayed this slide:
Per the transcript of the hearing, Mr. Figueroa stated, “On August 24th and August 26, Land Use Services staff visited Wonder Valley and 29 Palms to meet with community leaders to hear firsthand their comments and concerns about general issues [emphasis by the speaker] occurring in the area. However, we were also informed about continuous concerns related to this mining ordinance.”
In addition, Mr. Figueroa stated, “Land Use Services conducted public outreach by meeting with community organizations including Friends of Wonder Valley, Desert Trumpet and the Mojave Desert Land Trust to discuss concerns regarding the proposed mining ordinance update, and explain the benefits of the revisions.”
To be clear: Wonder Valley is an unincorporated area of the County and has no official representation as a community or designated community leaders.
First, let us address the “meeting” with Friends of Wonder Valley.
Friends of Wonder Valley is a 501(c)(3) non-profit community services organization. From their website, their Purpose is “to support the Wonder Valley Community, and the Wonder Valley Community Center, through fundraising and programming.” Their Mission: “Friends of Wonder Valley seek to enhance the lives of the people in Wonder Valley by providing programs that engage residents and build community, including arts, music, theater, education, food, health, recreation, and others as need arises and our capacity increases.”
The Friends of Wonder Valley meeting was not about the mining ordinance. It was their regular monthly meeting, and on Aug 4, weeks before the instruction from the Supervisors at the Aug 18 hearing, that meeting was promoted thusly:
We are happy to welcome the members of San Bernardino County Land Use Services (LUS) Executive Leadership team:
- Miguel Figueroa, Director of Land Use Services
- Thomas Bustamonte, Assistant Director
- Maged Soliman, Building Official
- Ignacio Nunez, Code Enforcement Chief
- Kevin Marstall, Land Development Chief
- Paul Gonzales, Planning Chief
- Amelia Maldonado, Communications Analyst
They will present, take questions, and provide answers. LUS issues that may be addressed concern dark skies, dump sites, development, and mining.
One other item on the agenda addresses whether or not to have SBC Behavioral Health present to the community in September, and on which topic.
Everyone is welcome to attend and participate.
The LUS team announced at the outset that they had only 45 minutes for the meeting, during which brief time the seven officials each introduced themselves and their departments and, in the minutes remaining, took a few questions. Most of those questions regarded code enforcement, a perennial concern for local residents. There was no presentation on the mining ordinance whatsoever, no discussion of the proposed ordinance or explanation of its benefits, and no realistic time to have any dialogue on that complex subject. The meeting had not been advertised as an opportunity to discuss or learn about the ordinance.
As one Wonder Valley resident commented at the Board of Supervisors meeting after hearing Mr. Figueroa’s claim,
I was frankly shocked a few minutes ago to hear Land Use Services talk about a meeting with friends of Wonder Valley as part of the outreach effort around this ordinance. I am part of that group. I was at that meeting. That meeting was not about this ordinance. We were advised to raise other issues whether it had to do with dumping and other areas of concern. So, I’m not quite sure why you are misinforming the board of supervisors and this entire group on the purpose for that meeting.
Second, regarding the “meeting” with the Desert Trumpet:
The Desert Trumpet is a news organization based in the Morongo Basin. From their website: “The Desert Trumpet is a local news publication which seeks to increase political engagement and encourage a participatory political process by reporting on city government. Our focus is on Twentynine Palms and Yucca Valley as well as Joshua Tree and other unincorporated areas of the Morongo Basin. Our goal is to report on social justice, equity and environmental issues throughout the Morongo Basin, as well as provide a forum for residents to interact on these issues. The Desert Trumpet is published by Morongo Basin Projects, a 501c3 charitable organization.”
In their report on the Oct 20 hearing, the Desert Trumpet stated the following:
As for Figueroa’s reference to the Desert Trumpet, we reviewed our transcript of the conversation. He is referring to our August 26 interview with him in Twentynine Palms, which also included Planning Chief Paul Gonzales, Communications Analyst Amelia Maldonado and City Manager Kevin Cole, and was published September 14 as ‘The New Team At San Bernardino County Land Use Services.’ The mining ordinance came up twice, both times as an example of the difficulty of noticing a countywide item. Its content was not discussed, and no one from the department asked for our views on it. [Emphasis added.]
Third, regarding the meeting with Mojave Desert Land Trust:
Mojave Desert Land Trust is 501(c)(3) organization. From their website, “The Mojave Desert Land Trust has cultivated a multi-faceted conservation strategy that uses land acquisition, restoration, stewardship, plant cultivation, and education to ensure the long-term preservation of the California desert.”
While we respect the work that MDLT does, MDLT is not a spokesperson for, nor does it represent Wonder Valley or the Morongo Basin, when speaking with San Bernardino County representatives, such as Land Use Services.
Additionally, Protect Music Valley reached out to Mr. Figueroa and LUS twice, on Sept 9 and Sept 27, requesting to engage with LUS, as the Board of Supervisors had instructed LUS. NO response was ever received from Mr. Figueroa or Land Use Services other than the amended revision and FAQ document that were released to all interested parties on Sept 29.
Consequently, there was no engagement with concerned and interested community members, and many community members still had unanswered questions about the mining ordinance when it returned to the Board of Supervisors on Oct 20.
Conclusion
The public engagement that the Board of Supervisors instructed Land Use Services staff to conduct did not happen. Concerned community members reached out directly to LUS but were not given the courtesy of a reply – much less actual engagement with the public to answer our many questions. The public was, once again, left out of the process of developing county policy that the public must then live with.