SBC Ordinance Letter

To: Derek Newland
San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department

October 19, 2026

To: San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors
Re: Opposition to Proposed Amendments to Chapter 88.03 — Surface Mining and Reclamation

Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors,

I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding the proposed amendments to San Bernardino County's Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance, Chapter 88.03.

As a resident of the Wrightwood community and Vice President of the Lone Pine Canyon Protection Alliance (LPCPA), I have witnessed firsthand the challenges our community has faced in seeking transparency, environmental accountability, and meaningful public participation in decisions surrounding the proposed Lone Pine Canyon Quarry.

Our concerns extend beyond one mining project. The proposed ordinance amendments raise important questions about how San Bernardino County intends to regulate mining operations, recognize vested mining rights, protect the environment, and uphold the public's right to participate in decisions that may affect their communities for generations.

I respectfully urge the Board to delay adoption of the proposed ordinance until the following concerns have been fully addressed.

1. Omission of Critical State-Law Language — §88.03.060(a)

Of particular concern is the omission of the phrase “as long as the vested right continues” from California Public Resources Code §2776.

This language is significant because vested mining rights are not necessarily permanent or unconditional. The continued existence and scope of those rights can have important consequences for how mining operations are regulated.

Our legal counsel has identified two serious concerns arising from this omission.

First, the proposed language may conflict with state law or be interpreted to allow certain long-dormant mining operations to avoid obtaining an approved Reclamation Plan when one would otherwise be required.

Second, if the ordinance effectively reduces the number of mining operations subject to Reclamation Plan approval, it could also eliminate opportunities for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Even if the County believes such a change is permissible under state law, the potential environmental consequences of reducing these regulatory requirements should be evaluated before the ordinance is adopted.

We request that the County restore the omitted statutory language, clarify that applicable reclamation requirements remain enforceable, and evaluate the environmental consequences of any proposed reduction in oversight.

2. Mandatory Recognition of Prior Vested-Rights Determinations — §88.03.060(a)

The proposed ordinance requires recognition of previous vested-rights determinations.

LPCPA is currently challenging the County's 2019 Lone Pine Canyon vested-rights determination through litigation. We are deeply concerned that the proposed ordinance could be interpreted or used to strengthen, preserve, or insulate prior determinations that remain subject to legal challenge.

An ordinance intended to regulate mining should not create additional obstacles to judicial review or undermine the public's ability to challenge potentially improper decisions.

We request that the County delete the mandatory recognition provision and ensure that the ordinance does not impair existing legal challenges or applicable review procedures.

3. Lack of Public Notice for Changes Deemed Non-Substantial — §88.03.080

The proposed ordinance allows certain changes classified as “non-substantial” to proceed without public notice.

This is especially concerning because changes that appear minor from an administrative perspective may still have meaningful consequences for nearby residents, public safety, traffic, water resources, air quality, and surrounding ecosystems.

Our experience with the Lone Pine Canyon Quarry has demonstrated how differently the County and affected residents may view the significance of mining-related impacts.

The public should not be excluded from decisions simply because the County has characterized a proposed change as non-substantial.

We request mandatory public notice, written disclosure of the basis for each determination, and permanent, publicly accessible records.

4. Potential Regulatory Gaps Involving Federal Land — §88.03.040(b)

The proposed ordinance raises concerns regarding mining activities on federal land that may proceed without the County's standard permitting or public-notice procedures.

At Lone Pine Canyon, narrow strips of Bureau of Land Management land separate portions of the proposed quarry property. We are concerned that the ordinance's treatment of federal authorization could create opportunities for interconnected mining activities to proceed with insufficient local transpa