[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6080982,"mediaKeyId","2944513-762f461c1411945633f8f388928684c9","parentId",2944513,"title","Board approves consent calendar, votes to file lawsuit in closed session; several calendar changes made","audioSeconds",280,"startMs",2156000,"endMs",2436000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2944513-762f461c1411945633f8f388928684c9&start=2156&end=2436","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2944513-762f461c1411945633f8f388928684c9/thumbnail_2156000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6080982/San-Bernardino-County/California/Board-approves-consent-calendar-votes-to-file-lawsuit-in-closed-session-several-calendar-changes-made","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6080982-c0660e2aa01f9ea28e10b138b01fa885/orig.mp4?Expires=1770753935&Signature=H2Ilobc~bVd3vXMgk~kJJKk8gIqh8sQ~7IRvMz1tHjamFAFeHu8s5qv6iN4NE6mtzVpKWA2L1phUPicFhWxhMAsetDRiW92Cs03Tz37aGG57XjS4Bkdihu2KnU~T2ZNQ2YoZekG86HfJyKSUSkH0HzL-p-~ULFYDLq3HNzk0xehJEtrLzS8HsWt7AbbYbjaP9799vYtl9Kofl8a2RxpCj2OTHK-8vTU23cjPKava9MwOBGd7NnndU7tc4pRUhMs3ETW0stIjct8mqiYc4WMi1bD1mviKMhjvcJfQE-j2sih6JGclNgeyKeEP9mpQiryzUGuphlOjnA7ko6CFoNL1tQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","San Bernardino County CA","date","2025-04-10T13:20:51.543Z","article","The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors approved the consent calendar, received multiple reports and made several procedural changes to the meeting calendar.

The board approved the consent calendar (items 2 through 70) by voice vote after Vice Chair Baca moved and Supervisor Hagman seconded the motion; the clerk announced, \"With that the consent calendar is approved.\" The consent calendar included routine recognitions, resolutions and proclamations.

County Counsel reported a closed‑session action: \"The Board of Supervisors voted 5 to 0 in closed session to file a lawsuit. Once the lawsuit has been filed, the nature of the lawsuit, the defendants, and the other particulars shall be disclosed to any person upon inquiry unless to do so would jeopardize the county's ability to effectuate service of process on one or more unserved parties,\" the transcript records (County Counsel, identified as Tom).

Clerk of the Board announced agenda revisions: Item 49 and Item 73 were taken off calendar during the meeting. Later the board took a separate motion to formally remove Item 73 from the calendar.

Several supervisors used their board comments to highlight local projects and community activities and to call for better public notification practices. Supervisor Hagman and others urged county staff to improve outreach and courtesy notices to rural communities, especially after extended public comment during the Lovemore Ranch hearing. The chair noted the county will work to improve notice practices.

The board recessed for a lunch break and reconvened; the meeting closed with an announcement that the next Board of Supervisors meeting will be held in chambers at 10 a.m. on April 29.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Meeting 4.8.25","oneSentenceSummary","The board approved the consent calendar, reported a 5‑0 closed‑session vote to file a lawsuit, removed two items from the agenda and noted upcoming meetings; supervisor and staff remarks called for improved community notice practices.","taxTitle","San Bernardino County, California","taxId",3825,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6080987,"County initiates two Donkey Land contracts for burrow rescue, population management",44,1620000,1664000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2944513-762f461c1411945633f8f388928684c9&start=1620&end=1664","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2944513-762f461c1411945633f8f388928684c9/thumbnail_1620000.jpg","/articles/6080987/San-Bernardino-County/California/County-initiates-two-Donkey-Land-contracts-for-burrow-rescue-population-management","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6080987-dac3ff25134d0867f92c5dbbc48d7da7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770753935&Signature=Vpo-X~VVCjWsxwlRs6-IEI5HhGK3T~Cm-xDjH1yGnAswpHNvGmdrmKzT0J9Iv0-oI0jVv1UTPTP0PbSRMw1PmscDh~rTFO8MayIvgwbllTxRdSwG995r-d-TmnDpqYAHh4teUNnM-3FvVsShRL0v5kycm0jUHiSCrIcV-0abqrrm2dTYdD-o6R0p3gjJkYe2QwjvG3ps6mxVudUwYfsetWUbDgKeg3-MtiI2AZbrrzG180LqD2wCiHQym7gRAmdWAEjvdLQjCdYyimfcgSuyoiR6nLZUk5IU6VjhufWBOQxpB-RohzszZ~9muya51zdwT4~rhRhefS20qDjA2kKRyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Bernardino County has initiated two contracts with Donkey Land effective April 1, 2025, the county’s chief executive reported during the Board of Supervisors meeting. The contracts were processed through the county purchasing department, the CEO said.

The first contract is described as a non‑financial agreement to provide rescue and relocation services for injured, sick, orphaned or high‑risk burrows, assuring lifelong care at Donkey Land’s sanctuary for animals that cannot be returned to the wild. The second contract provides funding for the sterilization of 100 male burrows within one year to support humane population management and community safety.

County officials said the partnerships are intended to reflect \"local, compassionate, and community focused solutions for managing the wild burrow population in San Bernardino County,\" and directed residents to the county’s animal care website for more information.","County CEO reported two contracts with Donkey Land effective April 1, 2025: a non‑financial rescue/relocation and a sterilization program for 100 male burrows to support humane population management.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6080992,"Supervisors renew rate‑adjustment method for two franchise areas, approve subcontracting for a third",239,2434000,2673000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2944513-762f461c1411945633f8f388928684c9&start=2434&end=2673","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2944513-762f461c1411945633f8f388928684c9/thumbnail_2434000.jpg","/articles/6080992/San-Bernardino-County/California/Supervisors-renew-rateadjustment-method-for-two-franchise-areas-approve-subcontracting-for-a-third","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6080992-36a9548b1961976141a6b0ab57b5ab5d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770753935&Signature=IGktdIb1MqEc89deyhS~EGFKABHBBnqsObCg9vFi01KzZo3~wKg6OfQIIJb3Ouq49j~e-v7lqjl3uwj33tMPwvCXNqj5yRaKYumA2GwzYQLLvR-GZ5ahI~aIpBFGg-XmVGY4rxaYrEWx5PNvlS8DJI71XxUL93GGjHdnMA~rX9Oh-6WfLDEhV1o~ShfppIUbkE00FKQzZZ-vhHcm69O0oNrLnp0zIF6hEcWhn29qU2GiBpb-QPpDUdnjMzYoj1M-tQy5I84Gs8s6hPDPPUXT-dNzIjaUZ3wB~zZ~dcHXAhv6Bg7kvYSdlnjaVQxfavBPYuo0PeLXql5smSsdzzV4Uw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved amendments to three solid waste handling franchise agreements, renewing the existing cost‑of‑living rate adjustment methodology in Franchise Areas 17 and 21 and authorizing limited subcontracting for Franchise Area 16.

Noel Castillo of the county Department of Public Works told the board the action fulfills Proposition 2 18 notice requirements for renewing the methodology used to calculate annual rate adjustments. The renewal would keep the current cost indices in place for a four‑year period from July 1, 2025, to July 1, 2029. Castillo said notices were mailed to property owners in the affected franchise areas on or before Feb. 21, 2025, and that, \"as of last Friday, we were not aware of any protests being filed.\"

Castillo also explained that collection services in Franchise Area 16 have changed since July 2023 in response to California senate bill 13 83; the franchisee for Area 16 operates three zones, and the amendment for Area 16 would permit the grantee to subcontract collection services for one zone to an adjacent hauler after county consent. He stressed that customers in the affected zone \"will not experience an increase in their bills\" because billing will continue under the franchised hauler’s rates.

The board took a motion from Supervisor Hagman, seconded by Vice Chair Baca, and approved the ordinance and associated amendments 5‑0. Castillo told the board the franchisee must obtain the director of Public Works’ consent and provide a copy of any subcontract agreement before subcontracting begins.","The Board approved Proposition 218 hearings to renew the cost‑of‑living rate adjustment methodology for two county solid‑waste franchise areas and allowed subcontracting in a third area; vote was unanimous.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":92,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6080997,"Supervisors uphold approval of 64‑lot Lovemore Ranch subdivision amid Joshua Tree opposition",11679,14352000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2944513-762f461c1411945633f8f388928684c9&start=2673&end=14352","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2944513-762f461c1411945633f8f388928684c9/thumbnail_2673000.jpg","/articles/6080997/San-Bernardino-County/California/Supervisors-uphold-approval-of-64lot-Lovemore-Ranch-subdivision-amid-Joshua-Tree-opposition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6080997-86b09cd3c993ce0808712fa00cf57dbf/orig.mp4?Expires=1770753935&Signature=ZuAq5X1xIt0-ORRjJxTT3k3q3JgkqDP3fjs8d4bWWQYggs2TZTaHAiKuE~jIp1c6g5Tv377E4Bi7GiXZ~G58Kw6259PMaI-wTRctRfL3w8dQ3Ot19z9KHcLOyeDomcl8WAkE6~K6SSTaOwrto6yNF89iJkbzRnN9YuAdb~HgLWovyV9pZkxQqHGJYlVchzlhKl~1P3rjer80y9h8iGbkFsRI~-fWh~k3vvF0NoPH1m3jGX22gSY4oLfupBvIPcSMArEKkDNipxMDo~qX-v535rGk1iY~SPHW0Jp-hVqlXf7HYMaTJwja7zF~uzFhUkeXaXP6UbGpAHXBttkM-jmXnA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors on a unanimous vote denied an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Lovemore Ranch tentative map, a proposal to subdivide an 18.49‑acre Joshua Tree parcel into 64 single‑family lots. The appeal was filed by the Morongo Basin Conservation Association (MBCA).

The appeal and four‑hour public hearing focused on whether the map and the environmental review complied with county and state rules and whether mitigation measures and project notices had been adequate. County staff, led by Mark Wardlaw, director of Land Use Services, told the board the project had been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that an initial study produced a mitigated negative declaration, and that the proposal was consistent with the county general plan’s low‑density residential designation and applicable development standards.

Wardlaw said the applicant trimmed an earlier, denser proposal to the current 64‑lot design and that required studies addressed biological, cultural, paleontological and hydrologic issues. He explained the county’s role and the sequence of technical reviews: \"An initial study mitigated negative declaration was prepared and circulated to comply with the CEQA mandated 30 day public review and comment period,\" and mitigation measures were included for biological and cultural resources.

Opponents led by Steve Bridal, identified in the record as president of the Morongo Basin Conservation Association, argued public notification was inadequate and that the initial study omitted or deferred key details about the wastewater treatment facility, stormwater detention, and grading. Bridal told the board the record provided to the Planning Commission was incomplete and that an errata posted shortly before the Board hearing materially changed hydrology conclusions. Engineer Nelson Day pressed the board on the wastewater plant’s design, operational costs and distance to nearby homes, asking, \"Where will the 20,000 gallons of treated wastewater disappear to each day?\" Residents including Elizabeth Cloud, Jennifer Goode and dozens of Joshua Tree homeowners warned of increased flood risk, traffic, light and noise, and the potential that the development could be operated as short‑term rentals.

Applicant Axel Kramer and his design team defended the project as lower‑end density within the allowable range, emphasizing 30% of the site would be protected or restored to native landscape, and describing proposed amenities such as a community wellness center and a botanical preserve. Kramer said the project was intended to be \"a benchmark sustainable community\" and added the team had produced more than 20 technical reports over four and a half years.

County legal counsel told the board that under the Housing Accountability Act the county must approve housing projects that comply with objective general plan and development code standards unless the decisionmaker can make written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that specific public‑health or safety impacts could not be mitigated. The board heard that no such unmitigable public‑safety findings were supported in the record.

After public comment and board discussion, Supervisor Hagman moved and Supervisor Armendariz seconded a motion to deny the appeal. The motion passed 5‑0; the board announced: \"With that, the motion to deny the appeal, is approved unanimously.\" The practical effect is that the Planning Commission’s approvals — the tentative tract map, the mitigated negative declaration and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program — stand, and the project can proceed to the subsequent, detailed permit and plan‑check stages.

What happens next: staff and applicants said that if the developer proceeds, the project will need subsequent technical permits and approvals including Environmental Health Services (EHS) review and Regional Water Quality Control Board permits for the wastewater system and additional detailed grading and hydrology design. The record shows the project remains subject to mitigation measures listed in the mitigated negative declaration and to conditions imposed by Land Use Services.

The hearing recorded numerous demands from residents for changes if the project proceeds, including (a) larger lot sizes (appellants asked for half‑acre lots to avoid a package wastewater plant), (b) a full, publicly noticed and reviewed wastewater design prior to tract approval, (c) an independent traffic and stormwater study and (d) stronger, documented notification procedures for affected neighbors.","The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors denied an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval for the 64‑lot Lovemore Ranch tentative map, prompting sustained public comment about wastewater, flooding, notice and neighborhood character.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves consent calendar, votes to file lawsuit in closed session; several calendar changes made

County initiates two Donkey Land contracts for burrow rescue, population management

Supervisors renew rate‑adjustment method for two franchise areas, approve subcontracting for a third

Supervisors uphold approval of 64‑lot Lovemore Ranch subdivision amid Joshua Tree opposition