By Mark Gutglueck
Urijah Hardin Yager served as both First and Second district supervisor in San Bernardino County during the county’s early history and subsequently was one of the longest serving county treasurers, dying while he yet held that office. He was one of the most popular local politicians of his era.
Born  in Washington County near the city of Lexington, Kentucky on April 14, 1818, Urijah Hardin Yager was the first of nine children of Stephen and Catherin Yager. Catherine was born in Kentucky on December 23,1797. Her family’s last name was Thomas. She died in San Bernardino on October 10, 1875.
In 1829, the Yager family migrated to Marion County in Indiana, where they resided for four years. They moved further west to Taswell County, Illinois and two years later, in 1835, to Carthage, Missouri.
When his father died in 1836, looking after his family fell to young Urijah, then just 18.
In the winter he taught school. In the summer he worked at farming and remained in Carthage about twelve years, educating his brothers and sisters.
On August 31, 1845, he married Adeline Downy in Hancock County, Illinois. Miss Downey had come to the United States earlier that year, having been born in Leeds, Ontario, Canada on August 8 1830, the daughter of Calvin C. and Nancy Downey.
Because of difficulties with his health, Urijah, who went by his middle name Hardin, was advised by his physician to move to a drier climate. In 1848, he and his wife, mother, and younger brother Isaac moved to Council Bluffs, Iowa and soon thereafter, with other Mormon families set out for Salt Lake City. All of his horses and cattle were lost during the sojourn to Utah. He and his family remained in Utah for three years, during which time he saved all he could to purchase more animals before continuing to San Bernardino, where the Yager Family arrived in June 1854.
Hardin and Adeline Yager had several children, Mary, born in Council Bluffs about 1848; Augustus, born about 1850 and Jane about 1852; both in Salt Lake City; Franklin, born about 1856; George, about 1858; William about 1860; Sherman, about 1865 and Edwin, about 1870. The last five were born in San Bernardino.
Upon bringing his family to California, Hardin Yager became a successful farmer. He was so highly respected that when many of the Mormons left San Bernardino in 1857 and 1858 to return to Utah to assist in the defense of the threatened Church in the face of President James Buchanan’s threat to go to war against Brigham Young, Yager was elected to the San Bernardino City Council. On August 1, 1859,  Edwin Thomas, who had been chosen to replace the recently departed Daniel Stark as the County’s First District Supervisor, resigned. Hardin was elected to succeed him and took office on August 3, 1859, serving for the balance of the term until October 21, 1861.
Yager ran his farm until 1863, at which point he was prevailed upon to run again for a supervisorial position.  The polling was held in September 1863 and when the votes were canvassed, Yager, J.F. Miller and William Bryant were declared the winners. Robert Carslisle, who was chairman of the board, and Lester F. Carpenter demanded a recount. The recount put Carlisle and Carpenter on top, but on November 3, 1863, Judge A.D. Boren ordered the clerk, A. F. McKinney, to issue certificates of election to Yager, Miller and Bryant. Miller never appeared at any meeting, but Lester Carpenter did. It is not recorded what transpired. Mr. Carpenter apparently became Second District Supervisor by default and attended both the November 16, 1863 and February 15, 1864 meetings. He was replaced in April, 1864 by Hardin Yager. There is no record of what happened to Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Yager continued as Second District supervisor until August 22, 1864, when he was succeeded by Joseph Thorn. Thorn served only a few months , resigning on April 18, 1865. The office of Second District supervisor was officially declared vacant and remained so until James Waters was elected and took office on October 31, 1865. It appears that for some time in the mid-1860s, Second District Supervisor was an untenable position to hold.
Hardin Yager was elected county treasurer in 1865. He thereafter became known as “Honest Old Hardin Yager.” He remained as treasurer for twenty-four years. He was the lone Republican holding office in the county in those days, as, opposite the national trend in the states that had fought with the Union during the Civil War at that time, San Bernardino County was a decidedly Democratic stronghold.
Yager was generally and genuinely well liked and received throughout the county.
In 1889, on February 3, at the age of 70, he died suddenly at his home in San Bernardino.
Reports were that his death cast a gloom over the entire city and county.
He was interred next to his mother in San Bernardino’s Pioneer Cemetery. George Beattie was selected to succeed him as county treasurer

While they are much more prevalent in Arizona, there are a good number of zebra-tailed lizards on the east side of the Colorado River in the Mojave Desert.
Known by their scientific name Callisaurus draconoides, zebra-tailed lizards  are medium-sized as lizards go, up to 4 inches from snout to vent. They are  tan to yellowish, with long, slender limbs and a flattened tail. Two longitudinal rows of small gray-brown spots run down the middle of their backs. The upper surfaces of the body are often marked with numerous cream spots or flecks. The back of each thigh is marked with a distinct, dark, horizontal line. The tail is marked with gray-brown bands that become black on the underside where they sharply contrast with the white background. The groin and lower sides are often tinted yellow. There are two dark bars on each side of the belly that extend up onto the sides just behind the forelimbs. On males the belly bars are surrounded by patches of blue and sometimes yellow and orange. A pink or peach spot often marks the throat. On females bars are faint or lacking. The body scales are small and granular. The external ear openings and forward position of its side bars distinguish this lizard from the similar looking greater earless lizard.
These lizards inhabit desert flatlands but can range up to elevations around 5,000 feet. They are most likely encountered in areas with sandy soil and plenty of open space in which to run as well as washes within foothills and bajadas.
The zebra-tailed lizard hibernates underground during the cold months of winter and late fall. In the summer it will periodically sleep in the open  on warm nights.  When approached by a predator it often curls and wags its tail over the back exposing the black and white “zebra stripes.” This bold action lets the predator know what it is dealing with. Many predators will then give up on seeking to catch it, knowing that zebra-tailed lizards are incredibly speedy creatures, able to dart so quickly that they cannot be visually tracked by many animals.  Because of their highly coordinated bipedal locomotion, the average speed of a fleeing zebra-tailed lizard is 280 inches per second (16.1 miles per hour) with a maximum of 378 inches per second (21.7 mph).
When moving at a high rate of speed, the zebra-tailed lizard runs with its tail curled over its back. If a predator happens to snag the tail, because of the lizard’s explosive speed, it will break off. But this lizard’s tail can be regenerated.
Both males and females are territorial and exhibit head bobbing, push-ups, and lateral compression of the body when outsiders approach.
They rise early and are active in all but the hottest weather.
The zebra-tailed lizard feasts on a variety of insects, including grasshoppers, bees, wasps, caterpillars, beetles, and ants. It also feeds on a variety of spiders, small lizards, and occasionally plant material. They will sit patiently and await prey to come to them.  These lizards have been observed remaining motionless for 9 hours and 51 minutes during a ten hour period, simply waiting for an insect to chance into their field of view.
Zebra-tailed lizards are a thermophilic species, meaning they require high temperatures to develop.  They will alternately bask in the sun or seek shade, having a mean body temperature of 100.8°F, and a median temperature of 102.6°F.
The Zebra-tailed Lizard mates in spring and lays one or more clutches of eggs in summer. Clutch size ranges from 1 to 15 eggs. Hatchlings begin to emerge in July. Half of the females lay more than one clutch a year.

By clicking on the portal below you can access a PDF of the July 25 San Bernardino County Sentinel. Patience is required as it may take up to two minutes to fully download.

Sentinel 07-25-14

By Mark Gutglueck

(July 25)  More than three years after indictments were handed down against Rancho Cucamonga-based developer Jeff Burum and three former San Bernardino County officials he is accused of bribing, San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Michael A. Smith eviscerated the case against the defendants, throwing out conspiracy and a dozen other charges that were considered central to the case.
After hearings on Wednesday and Thursday, Smith had jettisoned all 13 of the counts he had ruled upon up to that time on statute of limitations grounds and had not yet fully weighed the time bar test against the remaining sixteen counts.
Once the challenges to the charges on statute of limitations grounds are completed, Smith will take up four further motions for dismissal that cite other legal considerations.
In May 2011, a grand jury indicted Burum, former San Bernardino County Second District Supervisor Paul Biane, former sheriff’s deputy union president and one-time assistant county assessor Jim Erwin and Mark Kirk, the former chief-of-staff to Second District Supervisor Gary Ovitt. That indictment superseded a February 2010 indictment in which Erwin and former First District Supervisor Bill Postmus had been named.
Both indictments pertained to what prosecutors alleged was a bribery scheme by which Burum induced Postmus and Biane to join with Ovitt in a November 2006 vote to confer a $102 million settlement on the Colonies Partners to settle a lawsuit that company had filed against the county and its flood control district over water drainage issues at that company’s Colonies at San Antonio residential and Colonies Crossroads commercial subdivisions in northeastern Upland. Burum and Dan Richards were the two managing investors in the Colonies Partners, a consortium of 21 entities dedicated to undertaking the Colonies at San Antonio and Colonies Crossroads developments.
Prosecutors alleged that Burum, with the assistance of Erwin, who in 2006 was serving as a consultant to the Colonies Partners, and Patrick O’Reilly, a public relations firm proprietor, threatened to carry out a public information campaign that would expose that Postmus, who was then chairman of the board of supervisors as well as the Republican Central Committee and was vying for county assessor, was a closeted homosexual and drug user and that Biane, who was then sponsoring a measure to increase the county supervisors’ annual salaries from $99,000 to $150,000, was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Ultimately, the mailers containing that derogatory information relating Postmus and Biane were never sent out. After the November 2006 vote conferring the $102 million payment on the Colonies Partners, in which supervisor Josie Gonzales and former supervisor Dennis Hansberger dissented, Burum provided separate $100,000 contributions to political action committees formed by or already set up and controlled by Erwin, Biane, and Kirk, as well as two $50,000 contributions to political action committees controlled by Postmus.
Both Postmus and Erwin pleaded not guilty to the charges in the original February 2010 indictment. In March 2011, however, Postmus entered guilty pleas on all 14 charges against him contained in that indictment. He then served as the star witness before a second grand jury that was impaneled in April 2011 and which the following month returned the 29-count superseding indictment naming Erwin once more and adding Kirk, Biane and Burum, Kirk was alleged to have used his influence over Ovitt to induce him to vote for the $102 million settlement.
That indictment came more than four years and five months after the 3-2 vote by the board of supervisors to settle the litigation between the Colonies Partners and the county for the $102 million payout and just short of four years after the last overt act alleged in the indictment – the last of Burum’s four $100,000 contributions to the others.
Because of the time that had elapsed and a three-year statute of limitations on the crime of bribery, the prosecution team, consisting of lawyers from both the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office and the California Attorney General’s Office did not charge Burum with bribery but rather with conspiracy to facilitate the delivery of a bribe. The crime of conspiracy in California carries a four-year statute of limitations.
Burum, as the provider of the alleged bribes, was considered the central figure in the case and the charges against him as the linchpin of the prosecution’s effort.
Attorneys for the defendants, including Stephen Larson and Mary Andrues, representing Burum, David Goldstein, representing Biane; Raj Maline, representing Erwin; and Paul Grech, representing Kirk, were present during the proceedings.
The prosecution was represented by supervising deputy attorney general Melissa Mandel, deputy district attorney Michael Abney, deputy district attorney Lewis Cope and deputy district attorney Reza Sadeghi.
For the most part, it was Larson who spoke on behalf of the collective defense. At one point Goldstein inveighed in particular against the long series of delays in the case that had precluded his client from clearing his name. Mandel and to a lesser extent Abney carried forth the prosecution’s presentation. Cope and Sadeghi were not significant participants in the dialogue with Smith.
The hearing on the dismissal motions began on Wednesday July 23 and continued through yesterday, July 24. From the outset, the prosecution fared poorly. Early in the proceedings, Smith ruled that the theory prosecutors relied on, specifically that there was a four-year rather than a three-year statute of limitations on the conspiracy charges, was in error. Smith then took up the conspiracy count lodged against all four defendants and dismissed it. The court then went onto a discussion with regard to the prosecution’s assertion that law enforcement made discovery of the criminal acts alleged within the indictment on November 1, 2008, while investigators with the district attorney’s office were interrogating former assistant county assessor Adam Aleman. The full round of discussions on that matter had not concluded at the end of the court day on Wednesday. Court was recessed until Thursday. On July 24, after further discussion, Smith ruled that, given that the last of the overt acts alleged in the indictment had occurred in the summer of 2007, the assertion in the indictment tolling the statute of limitations by alleging the crimes where not discovered until November 1, 2008 was insufficient to invoke the statute of limitations, resulting in 12 more of the offenses, pertaining to Penal Code 424 misappropriation of public funds charges as well as Burum’s having aided and abetted the receipt of bribes being time barred.
Smith deferred until Monday, July 28, a decision on whether to give prosecution leave to amend the indictment to include language that would state clearly that the representatives of the victim, i.e., government employees, had no indication or knowledge of the criminal offenses alleged in the indictment until the interrogation of Aleman.
Some of the most dramatic exchanges during the hearing came as Larson, himself a former federal prosecutor and federal judge, advocated on behalf of his client in answer to Smith’s inquiries with regard to interpretations of law or case law precedents cited in the motions for dismissal. During one of these, an object demonstration of just how nuanced, risk-laden and bold the defense Larson has constructed is. At issue was Larson’s contention that prosecutors had blown the case on statute of limitations grounds by waiting until 2011 to get the indictment, approaching five years after the vote to confer the $102 million payment on the Colonies Partners was made and almost four years after the final overt act alleged in the indictment.
In driving home his point, Larson asserted that all of the information presented to the grand jury in 2011 had essentially been available years before. This amounted to instructional error, Larson insisted, a misleading of the grand jury that induced it to indict his client in what Larson said was a violation of Burum’s due process rights. Citing the case of People v. Lopez which pertains to the requirement that prosecutors inform grand jurors of the timeline on the discovery of criminal activity when a statute of limitation issue impinges on that activity, Larson fairly scoffed at the suggestion that law enforcement – investigators and prosecutors – and county government officials did not believe in 2006 that there was something untoward about the $102 million settlement. Word was circulating around the county that the $102 million payout had been a “gift of public funds” to the Colonies Partners, he said. By inference he referenced a complaint supervisor Josie Gonzales made to the district attorney’s office relating to Burum’s activities in 2006 and he pointed to auditor-controller Larry Walker’s balking at cutting a check to cover the first installment toward the $102 million before checking with counsel about the legality of the payment. Then-county administrative officer Mark Uffer, acting county counsel Dennis Wagner and county counsel Ruth Stringer were all provided information which Larson maintained constituted notice that a crime may have occurred.
This prompted Smith to remark that Larson, in pursuing the Lopez citation, was getting very close to suggesting his client had engaged in wrongdoing.  Smith said there was a three-pronged requirement with regard to the instructional error standard in the Lopez case – first, that there must be reasonable grounds for suspicion that a crime has taken place; second, there must be available to authorities knowledge or information with which to initiate the investigation; and third, it must be established that if the investigation had taken place it would have led to the discovery of the same facts that led to the indictment.
“We believe Mr. Burum is innocent,” Larson responded. “He did not bribe anyone. But there was a lot of suspicion.” Referencing what was available to county officials early on, Larson said, “This is the exact same evidence used to establish criminal intent.”
Smith said that the suspicions that existed as early as 2006 were not necessarily sufficiently backed with knowledge or information to instigate an investigation at that time.  Larson argued it was the standard relating to dismissal on demurrer that should be applied rather than the standard provided for in the Lopez case and that the previous judicial findings in the case of People vs. Gnass relating to jury misinstruction required an automatic dismissal. Smith dismissed all 12 charges, deferring until next week on whether the prosecution could amend the complaint to reestablish many of those charges, which dealt with the misappropriation of public funds and Burum’s delivery of the $100,000 political contributions prosecutors say were tantamount to bribes.
In seeking to preserve the prosecution’s right to amend the indictment, deputy attorney general Melissa Mandel asserted that despite whatever suspicions that may have existed in 2006 and 2007, they were insufficiently grounded in fact to justify the filing of criminal charges against the perpetrators at that time. It was Aleman, the assistant assessor serving under Postmus who told district attorney’s office investigator Hollis Randles in November 2008 that bribes were involved, Mandel said, that “made the light go on.”
Larson said the indictment was fatally flawed. Among its defects, he said, was that it blurred the distinction between bribes and kickbacks, which are subject to different legal restrictions. While the indictment contends Biane, Kirk and Postmus were bribed, the over acts described in the indictment show them receiving money after the vote took place, such that the payments qualified as kickbacks. Larson suggested that all of the elements to establish those payments as kickbacks, including a quid pro quo arrangement ahead of time, had not been established in the indictment or otherwise by the prosecution.
In addition to ruling on whether the prosecution will be permitted to amend the indictment with regard to the 12 counts thrown out on Thursday, Smith on Monday will be faced with the remainder of the first motion seeking dismissals on statute of limitations grounds along with  four other motions to dismiss virtually all of the charges on various grounds, including lack of probable cause, jury misinstruction, prosecutorial misconduct in having raided the defense camp and seizing privileged materials crucial to the defense, along with prosecutorial and investigator misconduct in having made misrepresentations to obtain search warrants and hiding a witness from the grand jury. In addition Smith will be called upon to consider objections to 278 statements made by witnesses and prosecutors on admissibility grounds.

As it now stands, of the original 29 counts in the indictment, 16 felony counts remain and none of the charges against Burum have survived, subject to Smith’s decision on whether to allow prosecutors to amend.
Looking forward to next week, given the pattern and tenor of Smith’s rulings so far, it would appear that all of the charges in the case will have been thrown out by the time the first three dismissal motions are fully heard. At that point, it will likely be up to Smith’s discretion on whether the misconduct motions will be heard. Any court finding of misconduct on the part of an attorney must be reported to the state bar. If the state bar confirms that judicial finding, the lawyer(s) in question can be disciplined up to and including  his/her or their right to practice law in California. Trailing behind the defense motions to dismiss the charges is a prosecution motion to disqualify Larson as Burum’s attorney. That motion is based upon Arent Fox, Larson’s law firm, having hired former assistant U.S. Attorney Jerry Behnke in May. Behnke was formerly a part of a joint federal/state/local task force that targeted public corruption crime, and it is the prosecution’s contention that Behnke’s employment with Arent Fox provides the defense with an unfair advantage. If all of the charges in the indictment have been dismissed at that point, the disqualification motion will have become moot.

(July 24)  San Bernardino County supervisors James Ramos and Robert A. Lovingood have sent a joint letter to the Bureau of Land Management strongly opposing the North Peak Wind Project planned for 16.4 square miles of mountain ridges overlooking much of the Victor Valley.
In the letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, Ramos and Lovingood cited the anticipated harm to property values, viewsheds, Native American cultural resources, interference with radar tracking of aircraft as well as environmental concerns. The anticipated impacts on plants and animals are devastating, including the regular and continuous killing of bald eagles, golden eagles, bats and numerous migratory bird species that use the avian corridor along the ridgelines in question.
The project is planned for mountain ridges overlooking Lucerne Valley, Apple Valley and Hesperia.
“San Bernardino County has already borne the brunt of renewable energy projects,” Lovingood said. “For a wide variety of reasons, this is the wrong location for this project, and I urge the BLM to reject the North Peak Wind Project.”
“Due to the damaging impact the North Peak Wind project would cause for the community, their property values and overall quality of life, I am opposing the development of this project,” Ramos stated. “San Bernardino County has made great strides to become a leader in renewable energy projects. However, this project would have significant, detrimental effects to the environment and cultural resources that exist in this area.  I ask that the BLM take these issues under consideration and reject this project.”
The letter from Lovingood and Ramos notes that while the project is on federal land, San Bernardino County retains authority over local roads, including necessary widening of roads for construction crews to access the project site.

(July 22)  The county board of supervisors this week rejected an appeal by a group of Phelan homeowners who had sought to have the county planning commission’s previous approval of a 5.8 megawatt solar field near their homes overturned.
On April 17, 2014, the county planning commission conducted a public hearing at which it considered a Sun E Crest 1, LLC and Sun E Crest 2, LLC’s application for a conditional use permit to establish a 5.8 megawatt photovoltaic solar power generating facility 50-acre site  located on the west side of White Road, the south side of Nielson Road, and the north side of Muscatel Road in the unincorporated community of Phelan.
The planning commission heard testimony from twelve area residents who raised concerns in opposition to the project, including land use incompatibility; adverse impacts to surrounding residents’ views; gneration of blowing dust; potential drainage problems on the west side of the site where an existing illegal access will be eliminated, and alternative access is unimproved; adverse effects to the access of emergency vehicles using surrounding roads; adverse effects to biological resources on the subject site; adverse effects to residents’ access on the west side of the site; adverse effects on surrounding property values; and lack of notice to some area residents.
The planning commission’s discussion focused on the potential “Lake Effect” causing migratory birds to dive into solar panels; land disturbance and vegetation removal; greenhouse gas analysis; reclamation of the project site after facility decommissioning; visual impacts; and public road access along the west property line.
Representatives of AMEC Environmental, a biological consultant to the applicant, spoke to concerns regarding the “Lake Effect” and stated that the technology used in the proposed project is different and more advanced than facilities for which that issue has been raised elsewhere. A detailed technical memorandum on the “Lake Effect” was also submitted as supplemental information and is attached to  the planning commission staff report. The AMEC representatives also addressed other environmental concerns with references to the initial study and supporting documents.In response to concerns regarding residents’ access and drainage issues on the west property line, the applicant offered to improve and maintain a 26-foot graded dirt access road on the west property line. An additional condition of approval was added at the request of the planning commission to require this access, consisting of a proposed road, an extension of Pueblo Trail.
County mining geologist George Kenline addressed the concerns expressed by the planning commission regarding future land reclamation and stated that a decommissioning plan, similar to a mine reclamation plan, is required by the conditions of approval.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission voted 3-1 (Commissioner Smith opposed, Commissioner Rider absent) to approve the project.
The White Road Property Owners Association filed a timely appeal of the planning commission’s decision and that appeal was heard by the board this week.
The first grounds for appeal, according to the association is that “The county planning commission failed to meet its responsibilities and obligation to protect our communities, in so much, that our quality of life, the intrinsic value of the desert’s natural and scenic views, the economic value of our homes would all be compromised and negatively affected by their decision to grant this permit to SunEdison.”
In response, Tom Hudson the director of the San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department, said, “The Project has been reviewed and analyzed in compliance with all applicable County policies, ordinances and regulations. Specifically, the initial study was prepared in accordance with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A detailed analysis of key issues was performed by technical experts. Mitigation measures were incorporated where determined appropriate, in compliance with all pertinent CEQA requirements and procedures.
In addition to required mitigation measures, Condition No. 46 imposes the requirement for a landscape buffer/translocation plan, in compliance with Section 88.01.060 of the Development Code, which will result in the relocation of suitable Joshua trees and other species from internal areas on-site to the site perimeter. These measures will provide visual screening. In addition, the project has provided setbacks from all property lines which exceed required county setback standards.”
Hudson continued, “Further, no designated ‘scenic views’ exist on-site or in the adjacent areas. The initial study acknowledges that the project will alter the existing character of the site, and thus, alter the views that may exist over the project site, especially from immediately adjacent residences. Such “view alteration” would, however, occur with any type of land development. The project site is designated ‘IN-Institutional Use’, which could allow many uses far more intense and intrusive than the project.”
The second grounds for appeal, according to the White Road Property Owners Association, is that “The county planning commission failed to comply with the law to properly notify residents who would be directly affected. The planning commission report states that 25 hearing notices were sent out on April 3, 2014. The residents did not receive such said notices. This consequently denied residents the right to voice their position regarding the establishment of  this solar power plant.”
Hudson responded: “Public notices for the planning commission hearing of April 17, 2014, were mailed by first class mail on April 3, 2014, to all property owners of record within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject site, in compliance with Section 84.29.040 of the County Development Code. Additional notice was published in two local newspapers (the San Bernardino Sun and The Daily Press), both newspapers of general circulation in the project vicinity, and was posted outside the San Bernardino Government Center and the High Desert Government Center. All project materials have been made available for review on the county website as well. On occasion, it should be noted that some residents may not be owners of record and, thus,
may not have received a mailed notice. Interested area residents may reside beyond the official notice area. In the case of this project, approximately half the owners of record have addresses outside the local Phelan area. Any resident, owner or interested party may, however, be added to the notice mailing list upon written request.
In addition to public hearings, surrounding residents have had opportunities to comment in response to the initial project notice, and in response to the release of the initial study and mitigated negative declaration. The applicant has also held a number of meetings with area residents.”
According to the White Road Property Owners Association, the third grounds for appeal were that “SunEdison has failed to comply with mandated county policies regarding the establishment of renewable energy generation facilities as described in the amended ordinance Chapter 84.29 and Chapter 810.01.”
Hudson’s response was that “The project has been reviewed in accordance with all pertinent county policies, regulations, and procedures and has been found to comply with all requirements of the county development code, including Chapter 84.29, relating to the regulation of commercial solar energy generation facilities. Findings have been made in compliance with Sections 85.45.050 and 84.24.035 of the County Development Code, respectively addressing conditional use ermits and renewable energy projects. These findings are incorporated in the planning commission staff report dated April 17, 2014.”
The fourth grounds for appeal cited by the White Road Property Owners Association was that “SunEdison has failed to comply with Development Code Section 85.06.040 (3): The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse effect on abutting property or the allowed use of the abutting property, which means that the use will not generate excessive noise, traffic, vibration, or other disturbance. In addition, the use will not substantially interfere with the present or future ability to use solar energy systems.”
In responding to this, Hudson referenced his responses to the first and third appeal grounds and added, “To elaborate, CEQA establishes specific ‘thresholds of significance’ which include potential impacts from ‘noise, traffic, vibration, and other disturbance’. No significant adverse environmental impacts, as defined by CEQA, are anticipated with recommended mitigation measures. As such, the project complies with CEQA and Development Code Section 85.06.040 (3). Findings have been recommended in compliance with Sections 85.46.040 and 84.24.035 of the County Development Code, respectively addressing conditional use permits and renewable energy projects. These findings are incorporated in the planning commission staff report dated April 17, 2014. Further, no impairment to the allowed use of adjacent properties is anticipated. In fact, provision of a new graded road along the westerly property line will substantially improve access to abutting parcels, as well as area drainag e patterns.”
The fifth grounds for appeal cited by the White Road Property Owners Association was that “SunEdison has failed to comply with Development Code Section 85.06.040 (6).”
The association contended the project endangered the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community.
In his response, Hudson said that his responses to objections one, three and four addressed that contentions. Hudson declared, “In summary, staff believes that the claims in this appeal are not supported by substantial evidence and that the board should deny the appeal and approve the project.

(July 21)  Well in advance of what is anticipated will be a major push statewide to legalize the purchasing and selling of marijuana for both medicinal and recreational use in 2016, efforts are under way in two of San Bernardino County’s most financially challenged cities to allow marijuana dispensaries to operate.
In both the county seat of San Bernardino and in Yucca Valley the concept of permitting medical marijuana clinics to operate there under a licensed arrangement with the cities themselves that will generate a special tax are being promoted.
In the case of San Bernardino, the sponsorship of the concept originates with no less of a high ranking personage than the city attorney. In Yucca Valley, the impetus is coming from an entrepreneur whose previous efforts in the same venue have been met with effective opposition.
In 1996 Proposition 215, an initiative which called for legalizing the possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes by licensed medical caregivers and patients with valid prescriptions, was passed by California’s voters with 55.6 percent of the vote. Though some jurisdictions in California facilitated the licensing of medical marijuana clinics, San Bernardino and nearly all of its cities have been far less accommodating of purveyors of the drug. Indeed, many municipalities have enacted ordinances practically preventing marijuana distributors conforming with the state law from setting up shop within their borders, have undertaken civil suits against those who succeeded in establishing operations, have cooperated with local law enforcement agencies in shuttering many of those establishments and, on occasion, partnered with federal agencies in the application of federal authority to shut down such operations, and arrest and convict operators. In contrast to California law, federal law maintains a strict prohition against marijuana even if used for medicinal purposes and the FBI and federal Drug Enforcement Agency and even the IRS have utilized various strategies from criminal raids and prosecutions to civil injunctions to seizing property leased for medical cannabis uses to hold the proliferation of medical marijuana clinics.
In 2013, a marijuana dispensary was function in Yucca Valley but in December the Yucca Valley Town Council voted to have it shut down.  In response, a group calling itself Alliance for Safe Access formed with the goal of transforming Yucca Valley into a haven for medical marijuana users.
In February, Jason Elsasser opened the Yucca Valley Medical Marijuana Resource Group in Yucca Valley as part of an effort provide people consultations and recommendations for medical marijuana. Beginning in March, a retired doctor has been working out of the center, located at ????? Highway 62, providing diagnoses, recommendations and prescriptions to individuals suffering from a number of maladies which marijuana advocates believe can be remedied through the use of cannabis.

so andworking at the center has given 500 recommendations. That gave him the evidence he needed to take more action.
Elasser has now made the next move in his game plan. Utilizing data gathered from clients at the Yucca Valley Medical Marijuana Resource Group, on July 14 he and other members of Alliance for Safe Access formally submitted a petition for the creation of a town ordinance providing a licensing protocol for marijuana dispensaries in Yucca Valley. The paperwork on that petition was turned over to city clerk Lesly Copeland.
According to Elasser, the medical marijuana usage rates and patterns in Yucca Valley and its environs would justify the licensing of two medical marijuana clinics in town. The Yucca Valley Medical Marijuana Resource Group’s proposed ordinance envisions two such licensed establishments that would be subject to a ten percent city surcharge on its sales. The entirety of that surcharge would go to the city and be usable as a revenue into the Yucca Valley municipal general fund.
Elasser maintains such a move by the city makes sense all around. It would make what he maintains is a beneficial medical product available to a clientele who needs it and it would also shore up the town’s finances. A conservative estimate is that each clinic would generate $1 million in sales annually, providing the town with $200,000 it currently does not have.
Elasser’s calculation is that the town, which has historically been hostile to marijuana in anyt form, just might embrace the ordidnance. Two years ago, the town proposed Measure C, a sales tax initiative to provide revenue to the strapped governmental operations. That measure failed.
Upon Copeland’s acceptance of the petition, the town now had 15 days to create a summary statement of the proposed ordinance. The summary and petition will be returned to Elsasser and his crew, who will then have six months to gather valid signatures of 15 percent of Yucca Valleys’s voters. If that goal is achieved, the town council must place the initiative on the ballot or, in the alternative, use its own authority to implement an ordinance commensurate with what is contained in the petition.
Elasser cited the financial success Palm Spring has had with a similar system, which permits three dispensaries in its city limits. Those operations generate roughly $4.5 million per year.
The city of San Bernardino has traditionally been inhospitable to those seeking to market medical marijuana under the Proposition 215 rubric.
In the late 1990s and very early 2000s, a few entrepreneurs braved circumstance and tempted fate by opening clinics. In a few cases, those operations were able to sustain themselves or profit, at least for a time. Constantly, however, they were subject to  city action, including police department and code enforcement raids in which arrests were made and the product on hand seized.
In 2007, the city council imposed a temporary moratorium on potshops altogether and followed that up with a more comprehensive moratorium. With then-city attorney James Penman, whose wife was a member of the school board, declaring a crusade against the proliferation of marijuana clinics, the city council passed four progressively more restrictive ordinances that so limited where and how the clinics could operate that they were effectively banned from the city. This was coupled by $1,000 per day fines that were leveled at any marijuana dispensing businesses that ran afoul of any of the regulations in the city code. This full court press, however, was not entirely effective as marijuana distribution businesses went to court, challenging the constitutionality of the city’s action. This stood the city off, and though it gave notice to the alleged offenders of the violations and the assessment of $1,000 per day fines, those penalties were not actually collected as the city feared a showdown over the constitutionality of its action. In 2013, however, the California Supreme Court in a unanimous decision ruled that Riverside had acted within the constitution when it sought to ban marijuana clinics by means of land use restrictions and extended the outzoning prerogative to other governmental entities in their battles to foreclose the operation of such clinics. This emboldened San Bernardino, which embarked on a series of raids against the few marijuana clinics that remained within its city limits.
Penman has since been replaced as city attorney by Gary Saenz. Saenz has so far mimicked his predecessor in the effort to pressure what he characterizes as “illegal medical marijuana dispensaries” to discontinue their operations. This has included raids aimed at crippling the operations themselves by the seizure of their wares and the arrest and citation of operators. He has also sought to dissuade the owners of the properties where the clinics are located – i.e., those who lease the premises to the clinic operators – by imposing on them fines that exceed the rent they receive, or the imposition of other onerous penalties such as liens that can result in loss of ownership of the buildings themselves.
Despite that tough approach, Saenz, who was himself a real estate agent with property listings in the city who as an attorney practiced almost solely in the arena of real estate law, this week gave indication that he is ready to live with a limited number of medical marijuana operations in the city of 211,000 population.
He said he was recommending that the city council form a subcommittee to look at the viability of allowing a select number of regulated marijuana dispensaries in San Bernardino. The council should seriously consider, Saenz said, “a plan which essentially acknowledges the futility and high cost of attempting to completely eradicate marijuana dispensaries with our current system, by which we will continue to spend hundreds of thousands and eventually millions but will never significantly achieve success. Instead, by conceding to California’s policy of allowing marijuana use for medical purposes, and permitting dispensaries that are highly regulated, we can move the distribution of medical marijuana from the black market to the regulated market.”
If the city can’t beat them, Saenz said of persevering clinic operators, it should join them in the spirit of controlling and benefiting from the public’s appetite for pharmaceutical cannabis. The use of injunctions, he said, have succeeded in many cases but have come at too high of a financial cost in a city that declared bankruptcy two years ago. “The injunction process is the most costly for the city to pursue, and therefore, can have little effect on the entire city unless we are willing to commit substantial resources in an extensive city-wide pursuit.” In this way, Saenz said, “We continue to expend valuable and limited police, code enforcement and attorney resources with frustratingly insignificant results.”
While he continued to characterized illegal marijuana clinics as “a public nuisance” and said he remains committed to standing united with the city council and the police department to ”effectively eliminate the operation of illegal medical marijuana dispensaries in this city” he persuaded the city council agreed to have its legislative review committee consider the licensing of regulated marijuana clinics and then deliver a report to the full council at its August 4 meeting.

(July 22)  he California Department of Fish and Wildlife will stock the county’s lakes and rivers with close to 100 tons of fish per year over the next decade as the result of an agreement ratified by the board of supervisors this week.
Under the terms of the agreement, the state agency will match the amount, pound for pound, of live fish the county will deposit into its lakes at the Cucamonga Guasti, Glen Helen,  Lake Gregory, Mojave Narrows, Prado and Yucaipa regional parks. county’s park division
According to Keith Lee, the director of the county’s regional parks division, “the regional parks department agrees to stock its lakes with fish at a total allotment annually that will match or exceed the annual fish allotment stocked by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, for a period that commences upon approval by both parties and ends on January 1, 2024.  This memorandum of understanding specifies that Fish and Wildlife will provide an annual allotment of fish (pounds), at no cost to the regional parks department, based on a requirement that the department at least matches that allotment of fish. During 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Department spent approximately $640,000 per year for trout and catfish combined (approximately 196,250 pounds per year), which exceeded the department’s match requirement of annual fish allotments.”
The regional parks department charges a fishing fee of $8.00 per person plus an $8 dollar weekday and $10 weekend park entrance fee per vehicle. The  total fishing fee and related entrance fee revenue received in 2012-13 for catfish and trout combined was $873,703 and for 2013-14 was $1,028,731. Fishing fee revenues that exceed the cost of purchasing fish help defray other costs, which include road maintenance, parking lot maintenance, gatekeeping,  and safety services.
The memorandum of understanding with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife approved by the board of supervisors this week continues a cooperative fishing program at the department’s parks that offer fishing.  Those parks include Cucamonga-Guasti, Glen Helen, Lake Gregory, Mojave Narrows, Prado and Yucaipa). The memorandum of understanding specifies that Fish and Wildlife will provide an annual allotment of fish expressed in pounds, at no cost to the department, based on a requirement that the department at least match es that allotment of fish, for the period ending on January 1, 2024, unless terminated sooner. According to Lee, “Working in conjunction with Fish and Wildlife provides a combined fish supply to satisfy ishing enthusiasts who patronize the county’s  regional parks that offer lake amenities. This [allows] the department to partner with Fish and Wildlife for the continued operation of the department’s fishing program in a fiscally prudent manner. The department previously had entered into similar cooperative agreements with Fish and Wildlife in 1981 and 1992. Each agreement was for
a term of five years with five-year automatic extension provisions. Although the state allowed the agreements to lapse, they still continued to provide fish for the department’s fishing program and expected the department to uphold its match.
Under this MOU, the department will be responsible to stock fish at specified parks, and at a level that meets or exceeds the number of pounds of fish that is provided annually by Fish and Wildlife.
Each year Fish and Wildlife determines its fish allotment by weight, and the department is required to match or exceed that amount. If the department does not match the weight of fish stocked by Fish and Wildlife, no additional stocking will be made by Fish and Wildlife until the commitment is met. Historically, the Department has stocked more fish than Fish and Wildlife.
During 2012-13 and 2013-14, the department stocked pproximately 196,250 pounds each year of both trout and catfish. The parks that offer fishing were stocked on a weekly basis by the department and supplemented by Fish and Wildlife at least once a month.

(July 24)  BARSTOW—The Barstow City Council this week took a tentative step toward transforming the dormant space at the old Barstow Hosptial into a senior housing complex that will feature medical and commercial offices.
The council okayed a preliminary study of a proposal by Valley Affordable Builders, in which Valley Affordable has agreed to provide the city with an initial deposit of $10,000 to be used to defray the city’s costs of exploring the option. In return, Valley Affordable has been given an exclusive negotiating position with regard to project proposals at the property, located at 555 South Seventh Avenue.
Assistant city manager Oliver Chi said the $10,000 will be used to cover the city’s costs related to the project, such as appraisal fees.
While Valley Affordable has a number of options with regard to transforming the property, the one most favored by the city council is one that has as its main component affordable senior housing.
Under the terms of the agreement, beginning as of July 21 and extending at least until January 31, the city and developer are to negotiate in good faith a disposition and development agreement for the site. If satisfactory terms to both parties are not achieved though the negotiations, the agreement will automatically terminate, with no need for notice. Upon termination, the developer will have no further rights under the agreement regarding the site or the development.
Chi told the Sentinel, “At this point we are exploring whether or not a project is feasible. Monday night the city council approved an exclusive negotaiting agreement with Valley Affordable Builders through January 2015. The developer has agreed to pay all of the city’s costs in trying to find if the deal is fessible. The $10,000 is intended to cover staff time spent on the analysis to see if the project is feasible.”
As to how the project will be financed and whether the city might itself participate in the project or otherwise subsidize the undertaking, Chi said, “We haven’t gotten that far in the analysis. There are a lot of different components relating to how the development might shape out. That is why we entered into this agreement, to see if it is fessible. The city hasn’t committed to any type of development here. One possibility is the concept of a senior housing project. As we continue to negotiate with the developer we will look at the funding available toward senior housing. Depending on what sources are available, we may facilitate the application for that financing. As this point the city has not committed to providing any funding.

Molycorp (NYSE: MCP) to Report Second Quarter 2014 Financial Results on August 6, 2014
Investor Conference Call to follow on August 7, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern

GREENWOOD VILLAGE, Colo.  (July 16, 2014) — Molycorp, Inc. (NYSE: MCP) today announced that it will release financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2014 after the market closes on Wednesday, August 6, 2014.  Release of Molycorp’s financial results will be followed by an investor conference call on Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern, hosted by Geoff Bedford, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Michael Doolan, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.
Investors and news media representatives interested in participating in the live call should use these numbers:
From the US: +1 (800) 884-5695 and reference passcode number 14991030.
Outside the US: +1 (617) 786-2960 and reference the same passcode as above.
There will also be a simultaneous live audio webcast available on the Investor Relations section of the Company’s website at http://www.molycorp.com/investors. The webcast will be archived on the website.
Molycorp operates the Mountain Pass Mine in San Bernardino County, a premier source of rare earth metals.