Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. I will apologize for that. I will now call the August 19th, 2026 San Diego County Board of Supervisors Land Use Legislative Meeting to order. Ryan, please call the roll for today's session.

So before we begin this meeting, I want to take a moment to address some House rules. Public engagement is the cornerstone of transparent and accountable government. And these Board of Supervisors meetings are one of the primary venues where all San Diegans can make their voices heard. The county is committed to a work environment that is free from unlawful discrimination and harassment, including sexual, racial, religious, age, disability, or any other form of discrimination or harassment. Under the board's rules, speakers are not allowed to use loud, shouting, threatening, impertinent, sland

Thank you very much for that report. We will now proceed with non-agenda public communication. This is an opportunity for the public to address the board on subject matters within the board's jurisdiction, but not on an item that is on today's meeting agenda. The only action that the board may take is a referral to the chief administrative officer. Under the board's rules, speakers can only speak once per meeting for non-agenda public communication, either at yesterday's session or today's land use legislative session, but not both. Speakers may select which session to address the board at the

Just real quick, Madam Chair, if we could get the gentleman that just spoke his address. Thank you.

Sir, if you wouldn't mind giving your address to the clerk. She's right there. Raise your hand. Right there. Look right there. Yeah. Thank you so much. Thank you.

It sounded like my district, if I didn't address it. Thanks.

Okay, thank you very much. We now proceed with the formation of the consent agenda. This today is only items 1 through 2. All items on the consent agenda are routine and will be acted upon with one motion. And we'll have public comment after supervisors pull or make comments on anything they'd like. So, Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp, any comments or items to pull?

No, no need to pull anything. I will move the consent agenda. Okay, thanks so much.

We have a motion by the Vice Chair and a second by the Chair pro tem. Any comments or anything to pull? Okay. From Supervisor Anderson? I don't at this time. Thank you for asking. Okay.

Supervisor Desmond? Nothing to pull and no comments. Thanks.

Thank you so much. We'll now begin with public comment.

A point of order, we always begin with non-agenda public comment in the morning. That's legally required. So that's what we're doing today. Okay.

We are doing consent from today, currently. And then we have a number of time-certain items that we're running through today for Wednesday. And then as soon as we're done with our time-certain, we will do what we can to finish the yesterday's agenda items.

Just a reminder that your remarks need to be pertinent and germane to an item listed on the consent agenda. Your remarks at the moment are not. If you continue in that vein, your time will be forfeited. If you'd like to speak to an item on the consent agenda, please make the item you're speaking to and how your remarks are relevant clear. Thank you.

Okay, great. Thank you so much. We have a motion by Supervisor Montgomery-Sapp, excuse me, the Vice Chair, and a second by the Chair Pro Tem for approval of all the items on consent. Please go ahead and vote.

Thank you. Okay, well, we have a time certain for, okay, first of all, to clarify for everyone who's asking my order of agenda, we are now moving on to discussion items, and these are items three through six for Wednesday. We're going to begin with Wednesday item five, because that one's time certain, and we are joined here by Chief Meacham. Then we will move back to do items three and four. Then we will be moving on to the Tuesday items, because there's actually quite a lot of public interest in those items. So that's items 29 and items 30. And items 31 from Tuesday. And then, I'm sorry, and

Okay, before questions, we will go to public comment, and then we'll have a board conversation and questions.

Okay, thank you very much. I had a couple of questions, but I also want to open it up to my colleagues, anyone else's comments.

Go ahead. Well, and thanks very much for the report. I mean, you've got it down to a science, and we learned a lot of lessons over the last couple of decades and done a great job. One of the pictures you had up there, you know, it showed the fire coming right up to a subdivision or, you know, a group of homes there, and we saw in Paradise that, not Paradise, Palos Verdes. Is that it? Palos Verdes. Palisades, Pacific Palisades, lots of P-boards there. But anyway, Pacific Palisades, you know, the wind just blowing down the hill just goes, drives that fire right into the neighborhoods. You know,

I guess that's more to my point, the fuel reduction.

Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it, and thanks for all the great work, and we've seen huge improvements since the 2003 and 2007 fires, I think, and congratulations, and One of the things I was harping on yesterday is agencies all working together, and it seems to work very well. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Pertumagheri? Thank you. I also want to thank you for all your work and being so prepared and working well as far as interagency coordination. I always appreciate that. I also want to align myself with what Supervisor Desmond said about field reduction. I think we need to enhance as many opportunities as we have to use what used to be non-traditional but are becoming more commonplace, like goats, right? They're low cost and low maintenance. So I would encourage that. My question has to do with defensible spaces. We talked a lot about that when we approved a couple of projects

every year that's very helpful so we do them tri-annually and we're moving towards annually and that depends that's great and i really appreciate the educational portion you you talked a lot about that in our last project that we talked about so thank you i appreciate your work very much

Hi, thank you all. Let me just ask a couple questions. The first is about 911 response time. And so I wanted to better understand what's our county's fire response time for getting first to the scene.

Okay, that's very helpful. And what percentage of our calls are currently meeting those standards?

Great. I mean, first of all, that's amazing. That's great. And also still room to do better. So I think both to celebrate how good a job the team is doing and also to acknowledge that, you know, we can always be improving and would love to get those numbers to 100%. you know, as we kind of continue thinking about what investments we need to make. Are there places in our system today where county fire isn't evaluating additional stations, fire stations, or are there other investments we could or should be looking at that would help us get up to 100% in those response rate standards?

Okay. So just kind of building on that a little bit, that's really about stations. What about fire engines and apparatuses? So yeah, just to, I mean, cause we, I think, didn't we just purchase a new truck for about 1.4 million or a couple of new trucks?

So $67 million to maintain the fleet, and then it's, you know, $1.4 million more or less to add an additional vehicle that would, you know, to help to kind of chip away at improving response times. That is correct. Just back up to the fire stations. Okay. the kind of the big modern fire stations as we're looking in the future, what's the projected approximate costs like for stations like the East Otay Mesa?

Four critical, ten that need replacement, four that are critical, and that's not even building new ones.

Okay. At a kind of a cost, if we look backwards, at about $17 million more or less per facility? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. This is very interesting. And first of all, just saying again how proud I am of... of you and of the team and how great everyone really is doing. And just really want to continue focusing on what do we need to do to continue making those investments and scaling the investments that we need to always be at the top of the game. I think the last question is about staffing. I know we've done a lot to make huge progress in staffing over the last six years. It's been kind

Okay, thank you. So that's only two of our trucks? Correct. So how many additional firefighters would we need to move all these units to four-person staffing instead of three?

This was so helpful. Again, I'm really proud of the investments you've been making. I think they continue to be top priority in terms of what we do to keep our community safe. I think you all are doing just a fantastic job of doing everything you can and coming to us when you need support. I think we've made some really important investments, especially in our night-flying helicopter and A lot of big, important investments. But I think this is really helpful, at least for me, as we look forward to kind of thinking about, you know, potentially the need, you know, if we were really going to be a

Always a team player, Chief. Thank you. Supervisor Anderson.

I just want to thank you and all the people that put the plan together and are executing the plan on behalf of my constituents. Thank you for the great work that you do. We appreciate it each and every day.

Okay, thank you very much. I'm happy to make a motion to receive the presentation. Okay, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Please vote.

Okay, thank you all so much. We're going to give folks a chance to get organized. Our next item is Wednesday, Item 3. This is Socially Equitable Cannabis Program Amendments to the County Zoning Ordinance and Code of Regulatory Ordinance with Certification of Final Program Environmental Impact, Sequel Findings, and Associated Permanent and Licensing Fees. And we will begin. with a presentation from the county team, then we go on to public comment, and then we will have board discussion.

Okay, we'll now go to public comment. Thank you.

Just pausing before the speakers, but someone from my team is here looking for the San Diego Planning Group member, so if she could go back to the woman in the pink. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. I'm going to begin just with a queue of folks who've put up their hand to speak, starting with Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp.

Thank you so much, Chair Lawson-Reamer. Take a minute to breathe. I've been doing good so far. I haven't had any response to any of the things that I've been hearing. But let me just start by thanking you, Davia, and the entire Planning and Development Services team. Vince, Rami, thank you so much. Cooper, thank you very much for being here. Tyrell and also Brandon, thank you for the role that you've played in over the years as we've heard the development of this program. As we are here today and making this extremely important decision, there's been a lot of outreach and we've heard there are

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it and I appreciate all the people also that came out and spoke, particularly people from the unincorporated area. I know you came quite a distance to be here this morning. I have a quick question for staff before I, and then I have some more comments. How many dispensers do we have already that are licensed and permitted in the unincorporated area?

Okay. I thought we had five, but at one point in time.

So we already have four dispensaries operating in the unincorporated areas. So there is access. As far as the discrimination and everything else goes, I don't know that these communities are the ones that have to pay the price for that. And it's bad. We should stop discrimination anywhere and everywhere. The community, this is more of a land use issue for me. The community should have a huge say in what goes into their communities, right? And that is allowed by state law for distribution, cultivation, and retail sales of marijuana. And some communities have embraced it and others have not. And

Chair Partemagiri. Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to say that for decades communities harmed most by cannabis criminalization carried the consequences while others were later positioned to profit from legalization. We can't allow that injustice to continue in San Diego County. This action is needed because legalization without equity can deepen the very disparities it should help repair. A fair cannabis program must create genuine ownership and economic opportunity, not just symbolic participation. This item establishes a regulated cannabis market in the unincorporated county with a three-

We have a motion on the floor and a second. I just want to take a moment to express my gratitude for everyone who came today and for all the letters that were sent. I've been reading many of the letters all morning. So thank you. for those and I think this is really one of those instances where there's really legitimate points of view on all sides and really important considerations on all sides and really grateful for people who are here to express your views and what's important to your community in a respectful manner, in a manner that acknowledges that these issues are complicated and that

Okay, thank you again. It is now 12.40. We will take an hour. We'll be back here at 1.40. Thanks.

Sorry, I'm getting my notes. I had some questions. Give me a second if my colleagues have any questions. Okay, we'll go to public comment.

Thank you so much. So sorry, I was looking for my notes, and I found them, and I had a bunch of questions, most minor. But first, I just want to say thank you for the work. I know you had a bunch of kind of different options to put together, and you've done a really good job. I think the first one was just trying to better understand how we would verify what would be the verification. So for example, option three, enforce. requiring primary residence occupancy commitment, and it's an affidavit. Well, what if that's the affidavit, someone lied on the affidavit, how would we investigate this?

Who would complain? How would they know to complain?

I think this is great. I just feel like there's not a lot of... I don't know how you'd enforce this, right? So...

What would that enforcement action look like?

Sorry, I feel like I don't want to make a big hay of this. I mostly just had some small questions, but I'm getting less and less satisfied as we kind of unfold the onion. I thought this would be simple. I'm just like, who would do that? This does not feel enforceable, I think, from what you're describing to me. I don't know if Davia wants to chime in. So you get a fine? Who would submit? How do they even know who to call to submit the fine? How much would the fine be? It's too late. The person already bought the property. You can't undo the sale. I don't know here. What happens if someone lies

Okay, so it creates some kind of legal claim, cause of action, I guess, but who could bring a lawsuit, and then what would their remedy be? I mean, if you're basically saying, hey, we have no ability to enforce this, but we're going to set up a bunch of rules and people can enforce it against each other, you're saying bring each other, essentially you're saying bring each, you all sue each other, essentially. Like, that's all we got? What would they get? What would be the remedy?

But what's the enforcement mechanism? I don't even know. What happens if someone lies on that?

Okay. Well, I don't want to monopolize, but I think overall, I think this is great. It's like really going in the right direction. I just want to make sure that it's not just a piece of paper, that it's like meaningful. So let me null on that, like mull on that. But again, really good job. I just want to make sure we can enforce what we put out there. Turning the floor to Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp.

Yeah, thank you for the conversation. I... I am thinking through our last conversation, especially around the right of first refusal, which we all felt, if I remember correctly, that that was at least something to explore because part of what the state's intent was, part of the reason why this is not been tested is because the whole concept is new, number one. And then two, the intent behind what the state did was to possibly open up additional home ownership opportunities to people, right? So even now, even with code enforcement, there are some things that we can go in and say, Well, technica

Yes, I will make that a motion because it doesn't really change the discussion. I know you're going to speak your mind and everyone else is too. So I'll make that a motion for adding the options two through four.

I'll second. Thank you. I think it's great. And I too had questions about, okay, how are we going to enforce this? And quite frankly, we probably don't have that many means. However, they are signing a legal document and sooner or later, things like this will come back and bite you maybe. But I mean, we already have that where you say you're going to, I've, you know, you heard from even politicians that say their primary residence has been, you know, shifts around or moves around. I feel like you're saying bad karma is our... Well, I just, it's, yeah, karma is probably the best thing we got. T

I'm good with all this. What doesn't work, we can change. It's not in stone. And so while thinking in terms of where we want to head, I'd like to amend this to include to direct the CAO to report back to the board within 180 days with options to increase the size of ADUs from 1,200 to sizes such as 1,400 or 1,600 or larger. I just want to know what the options are I don't want us to move forward with it. I just want to know what those options are, because if we're talking about moving for this independence and allowing people to purchase, perhaps 1,600 square feet is a better number that would

To the makers of the motion and the seconder.

I am fine with that at a later point to discuss it, but I think...

It's just to discuss because we don't even know what we're up against.

But I think just... I would add a discussion about the deed, have the deed restriction discussion as well at that time.

Well, I'm good voting with what you've suggested. All I'm saying is in addition to it, since we're looking at all this. Just direct staff, specifically. So...

So direct staff, so what we have, the motion on the floor, and then to add to that direct staff to come back to us with options around a larger ADU type and deed restriction.

I am... I'm going to hand my note over. Okay, all right. I'll be able to read it. It's right here, but I have notes in the back.

While Andrew's typing, why don't I, can we all talk to each other? One conversation, please. While Andrew's typing, the chair pretend my comments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And something on the friendly amendment, I would just suggest that we cap it around $1,400, $1,600, because anything bigger kind of defeats the purpose. It'll make the ADU more expensive, and that's what we're trying to foster and foment here is accessibility to homeownership for young families, like you mentioned, or elderly. So I would say we don't go too big. Okay. Are we okay with that?

I think staff's going to come back and say, we can go to here, but then we have to jump through these extra hoops to go bigger than that. And I'm just looking for, well, what is it? I'm not. I'm not thinking it's going to be 2,400 square feet.

Okay. It was very ambiguous, that's why. Okay. Yeah, I just want to say I support the motion with the friendly amendment. I think that this is a very real path to help your elderly parents or your adult kids or to build generational wealth, especially for people in my district. So I will be supporting the item. Thank you.

Just to clarify, though, that the amendment also includes exploration of deed restrictions. So if you want to add how you would like to say that, Vice Chair, on this piece of paper that Andrew's put up on the floor.

Okay, and so I just want... I just want to make sure that we are discussing that additional issue that was in the board letter. I am not, I don't necessarily need it in the motion.

I liked it. I'm supporting the addition of the deed restriction option. I liked it.

What I'm saying is, I think we're going to talk about it regardless, but because we have called this out, I just don't want it to get left behind. Yeah. I guess it's just my point. That's because I wanted to talk about this as well.

So do you want to say at the same time report back with options for deed restricted, deed restricted units? At the same time, report back.

The deed restriction as a condition of permitting in ADU. As a deed restriction as a condition of permitting in ADU. Okay, that's great. Based on the way it reads in the board letter now. And these are just discussion items. We're not saying we're supporting, not supporting. You know, yes. So I am okay with that if the seconder is...

Okay, and let me, I would love to make a friendly moment to the friendly moment. I think I'd like to have a discussion around enforcement, like what are the best options around enforcement for any, whatever we pass. How are we going to enforce this? And looking at all the tools in the toolkit. And just to kind of put some commentary on it. It could be things as simple as like publicizing a phone number or an email to submit a complaint so at least people know where to go to. Or something more complicated like putting this under the purview of of county council. Like, I don't know. I'm not pred

I'm okay with karma. Trust people sometimes, too. So, do we even need this as part of the motion, or can it just be staff direction?

Yes, and I think it's fine either way, but because, but yes, we agree on something, so maybe we just go for it.

Okay. In six months, we want everything. Okay. I'm fine with it.

Okay. Okay, we have a motion on the floor and a second that includes now this amendment. And the motion included options two, three, and four. Okay, it's all written there. Answers ahead of all of us as always. Please vote.

Okay. Great work, everybody. Okay, okay, okay. Now we're going back to Tuesday. This is another item people had opinions about, trying to get through all the things that the public wanted to participate in. I think we're on item 29. This is requesting presentations from County consultants contributing to ad-hocs of Coney research and the development of ballot measures Supervisor Anderson, this is your item if you have any introductory remarks, and then we'll go to public comment.

Yep. Thank you. Ma'am chair We feel that a lot of questions from our constituents in my district and during the most recent board meeting in June I mentioned that I was planning to bring forward an item and requesting public presentations to the board from county consultants involved in the research and development of current and county future ballot measure language. My item asks that the county consultants known as FM3 Research in Ironwood Public Affairs to provide a presentation during the September 1st, 2026 board meeting regarding the recent work that they've done, they've performed for t

Okay, thank you so much. Do we have folks who have called in to comment?

That's not the topic of this item. What it is not. The topic of this item is presentations to the board and information that would be presented to the board regarding legislative research.

Okay, thank you all so much. Put myself in the queue. I want to say I think I support the spirit of this item around transparency and making sure that the public has full access to information and that's why I already put online and posted publicly the results of the legislative research that we conducted on these two items. But I have a couple concerns about the way it's written and would love to be able to get to yes. So let me just kind of go through those and hopefully I'll be able to support this. I think the first is just regarding the first recommendation, which I could have been really

So it's not so we legally could have a presentation but there's risks based on what was said and the timing what's said because it's within 90 days.

Madam Chair, if I may, a recommendation for it was said that no disclosures that would otherwise be prohibited by law. Now, I can't control what everyone else says, but I don't believe if there's a violation, the board's in trouble, the individual's in trouble. For example, if I were to say something that was illegal, like vote trading, and made an offer on this dais, I'd be held. The board wouldn't be held. So I think it's just important that we stay in our lanes and have... them present in their lane and not talk about how this portion is better for the county and that's why you should vote

I mean, I'll be honest, that gives me a lot of pause, like the notion that we could be creating a discussion forum that you could say one wrong word or three wrong words in the middle of a conversation and it could then trigger an FPPC investigation I think that does not create is not an environment that's conducive to like a good exchange of ideas well let me finish let me finish what I'm saying um I think from my point of view um I think there's kind of two approaches either one would be would would address these concerns for me is either one would be to have some kind of report back that is

Are you not confident in your own ability not to violate the law? I am not confident in the ability... Because I'm confident that I'm not going to violate the law with my questions or my constituents' questions.

This is not about whether the law is violated. It's about whether it creates an opportunity for a case to be brought. You know, you could be well within... You could not do anything wrong. Absolutely, but we've created a forum in which we're talking and saying things and someone could then make an FPPC complaint even though ultimately you're found to have not done anything wrong. So I don't I want to be clear right like the law is a long process and you could do nothing wrong but we are creating I think it's a huge risk to create a forum where we're we're essentially saying okay Now there coul

So, both those solutions don't solve the transparency issue that I'm facing. So, as far as the FPPC goes, every day we get tons of public records requests and We slow roll those. We've been sued over it. You can't stop people who want to file something.

If somebody wanted to file... We're not talking about public records. We're talking about FBPC.

No, but the point, though, is we don't change our behavior for fear of lawsuits against us on things that have no merit. And... having done some of the research, does the FPPC have oversight over us? We're over three million. They only do two million. I'd have to... Because that's the reason why we're creating our own ethics committee because we don't fall under the FPPC and when I look to see if we could fall under the FPPC we're prohibited by law because they don't do more than two million people. We're past that considerably. So I get that people still continue to file that stuff, but they

Can you clarify for me, though, Supervisor Anderson? We're talking about a couple different things, right? We're talking about the legislative research my office did that I've already shared and it's already public. And then we're talking, that's one piece of this. And then we're talking about the work the Sustainable Fiscal Planning Subcommittee did. has done and is continuing to do that's not yet complete and is not relevant for this, you know. So what, so what do you, when you're saying folks are hounding your office, is it about the work my office did on my legislative research?

It's on all of it. We're just getting a whole random, it's all random stuff, and I don't want to be in the position of having to

I'd rather do it sooner rather than later. After the fact, I'm still going to get pounded between now and the election.

Well, I did hear someone say something they wanted, you know, just to build on what your point is that you're getting hounded by all sorts of random stuff. One person came here today talking about a different subcommittee, right, which wasn't the Sustainable Fiscal Planning Subcommittee. It was the Social Safety Net Subcommittee.

Well, I love your broadening. I think that's great.

So, I mean, I'm trying to get to like a coherent point here, just to be clear. Like, I think we are on agreement on number one. Maybe we can hold for a second on number three and go back to number two. Number two says direct the sustainable fiscal understanding committee to engage our own public affairs to present to the board on the body of work conducted to develop the regimen, petition revenue budgets, blah, blah. I mean, shouldn't we just direct all the subcommittees at some point to come back as soon as possible with presentations from all of the consultants?

But I just said, yes, I hear you, but you just said that posting doesn't seem to be good enough for you. No, no, no. Because I just suggested we post.

The questions, so when you read the polling, it doesn't answer the questions of the methodology or the thought or any of those things, any of those questions. It just tells you what the outcome is, but it doesn't tell you how it was created. And in ours, you see the whole interaction, so you know exactly how all of it's created. I'm willing to accept your idea of the report back and us submitting questions. prior in getting that going right now.

Sorry, I'm not understanding what you're saying.

Well, what were the two choices you gave us? One after the election and one sooner?

Yeah, I said like look, I think there's two possibilities here. One is we have a big robust discussion after the election so we're not worrying and sitting on pins and needles and worrying that one word is wrong and we can all really talk and not, and we all say sorts of things that maybe you wouldn't say if you're trying to be careful. And I think there's a value to that and vowing to have a robust discussion. I think we're going to have a better conversation if it's post-election. Or, I'm not comfortable with having that kind of robust discussion pre-election. I think there's too many legal

Can we add a Q&A portion to it, so in the report they're answering the questions of the constituents?

And they wouldn't come here to do it publicly, but we could send them the questions ahead of time, send it to Ebony, and then she could get it to... Is part of the report back? I would be fine with that, yeah. Like, we could all send our questions to Ebony ahead of time, and she could share those questions with the consultants. That would be fine for me. I think I'm just trying to prevent us all sitting here and not being able to really talk because we're worried about some frivolous litigation. So that is fine. I don't know, maybe I could give Damon some thoughts, some moments to think about

I think the question being, like what we're talking about is instead of having the consultants come and present to the board, instead we would have them write a report and send it to board offices. And then we would be able to give Ebony questions to ask the consultants that they could then include in the report they send to board offices. Yeah.

If, so if we did have them report here though, and we did submit the questions to you, wouldn't we have the same filter?

No, no. The questions that were not in the gray, you simply ask. We'd still have the discussion, but our questions would. The concern is during the discussion, that's when we're going to get in trouble.

Gotcha. That's what I keep saying is that we might discuss and get in trouble. So that's what I'm trying to. Make sure we don't do. Do you want to try out, Andrew? I'm listening. Okay.

Okay, yes, I see you, Supervisor Desmond, but we're trying to get somewhere. I think, just to be clear for Andrew, and then we'll go to Supervisor Desmond, Andrew's trying to draft something that basically says that instead of coming back to the board with a presentation, is that the clerk would... in consultation with county council, I guess, because that seems to be critical here, send questions and ask for some kind of report back from the work that the consultants have done. And they'll get those questions from the board offices ahead of time so that those can be shared with the consultant

Yeah, this is just awful watching this go back and forth. We should err on the side of transparency and just rip the band-aid off. If there was no wrongdoing, let that be shown. If there was, then let that come out. But by waiting for... An election to happen because it might change things one way or the other, I think, is not a reason for us not to be as transparent as we possibly can. As soon as we can, this just looks like we're obscuring something. I don't know what it is, but that's just what it seems to me watching this whole conversation go on.

Please. If there's no one else in the queue. Oh, Supervisor Anderson is in the queue, but he already spoke. So do you want to go ahead, Supervisor?

Okay. Thank you. My question is, I mean, to address Supervisor Desmond's point. If this comes back... in the format of a report that's emailed to us that has any and all questions from constituents they may have regarding this specific data, that would be made available since it's being made available to us through our offices and we would have the ability to share that with the public, correct? Just like, you know, you've been making available our work through the FTA. So would that address the concern? I mean, it's still going to be public.

What I was going to say, if you've recognized me, is I agree with Jim. However, you can always try to be as pragmatic as possible, and I'm always open to yes, and I don't want to drag this out and make it any worse. I'm good with that. I'm willing to accept those amendments, and if you want to move forward with the vote, I'm good with it. My first choice, though, would have been Jim's. I think that The more transparent we are, the better off we all are.

I know Andrew's still working. Let me turn to the Vice Chair.

Just for clarification, the questions, we're going to set it up to where the questions will be answered and everything will be made available to the public. And that is not just through a PRA. That is actively initiating that availability process. Right? That's right. Yeah, that's not just saying, okay, in some obscure way, now there's a memo that needs to be PRA. That is putting this in reports received or something like that.

That's, I think, the intent. But, Andrew, why don't you put up what you got? I'm looking at it. I think it's not quite there. It's not 100% what Ebony is going to need to be actionable, but we're like halfway there. Ebony, what else would you need? She's writing me notes over here, and I said just say it out loud.

So the two questions Ebony's asking is submit questions by X date to CAO and report back by Y date. So today is August 19th. So when does everyone want to give their questions to Ebony by? Let me pause. Vice Chair, did you have a thought?

I'm just saying, y'all go ahead and choose because just, yeah, just go ahead and choose.

I didn't put my name up. Are these questions and responses gonna be made available to the public or is it just gonna be report back to our offices?

Go ahead, Vice Chair. That was my question. And no, they will be in communications received. So they will be on our agenda. They will not be just where it comes just to us and then we're expecting the public to know and PRA. They will be made public for people to go and review it.

All right. I just prefer doing things in public as opposed to back door. Thanks.

Let me just pause. I want to make sure you know I think that like I think we're all let me just say this. We just all voted in favor of item 14 yesterday which was all about ensuring that we have you know a lot of transparent processes and good guardrails around community surveys and sharing that information for the public. I think we all put a lot of work into developing that. I want to recognized Supervisor Anderson and brought that idea forward initially and we all jumped on board and it was passed unanimously. So I just want to pause and I want to make sure that folks get a chance to to co

Sorry, I'm still not following. So if it's pre-deliberative, would it be disclosed or would it not be disclosed the way this is?

It should not be disclosed. Okay, that's helpful. Okay, so that was my major question. So do you want to just take a moment? Anyone have thoughts on this? By X date, compile report back in Y date, or do you want to take a totally different direction here?

So I was thinking, perhaps when we got the questions in by the 28th, had we had the public hearing, it would have been easier for me just to notify people to show up. So we're going to have to go back and notify the people to send us, resend their questions to us or any additional questions. I'm thinking we can get that done by the 28th. And I want to be fair to those organizations. Do you think two weeks would be appropriate so if they came back by the 11th or the following Monday? To answer them? Because I think that these are not going to be so complicated. They're going to either know abou

I don't know. I think that's an ebony question. Because I don't even know the scope of the contracts. Would you need to have a contract updated to require them to? I don't know. That's an ebony question.

My plan is that when we have 10 questions that are similar, we'll narrow it down to one question that answers all of theirs. Like if they say, hey, did you think of this on a Tuesday? And the next question is, did you think of it on a Wednesday? We'll just simply ask, which day of the week did you think, to the best of your memory? So I'm not, my idea is we may have 100 questions. There may only be nine questions that are uniquely different. So I'm going to, that's why I need a little extra time to make sure we crunch it down. It's not fair to ask these vendors, you know, answer 100 questions

It says no sooner, but can we have an end date so we actually know when we get it this year?

How about September 30th? That gives a two-week window.

So this would be a replacement for three, essentially.

Supervisor Geary, you're very thoughtful. Thoughts? Good. We know where Supervisor Desmond's at. Supervisor, Vice Chair, Montgomery Step, our attorney. Thoughts?

So, Joel, or Supervisor Anderson, so is it... I mean, I'm trying to read and figure out what it is. Basically, what we're asking for is that we get the survey and the polling that any office has done legislative research. So really, we're just going to get the survey and the polling. Is that what you're... No.

Because that's what it reads. Well, we're going to submit questions, so we're going to get the questions answered.

So you're gonna have more questions than what, so I guess I'm really not sure what I'm voting on, I guess. But it says, well, I don't see anything in here. The questions are gonna be submitted and answered. I guess, okay, the second part, receive questions from the board on this, all right. Because the first paragraph, it says surveys and polling. So what is it that you don't want? I get the questions are different, but what is it you're after?

Well, there's some confusion as to whether we've gotten everything and we've seen everything. So I'm being inundated with questions about whether we're being transparent or not, whether the board's being transparent. I just want to put it to bed.

So has the surveys and the polling been released? Is that already out there?

Okay. So you got other questions? All right. Sorry, I'm just...

Okay. We're all trying to be as transparent as possible.

Okay. So we have a motion and a second then. And hopefully nobody changes their mind when we walk out of here and has better ideas than we came up with. But this was a very transparent policymaking process.

Good news is we can always come back and rediscuss it and change it.

Could we just say something really simple that just says, still not recognized of any measurement deemed by county council as pre-deliberative or otherwise prohibited by law? Just keep it simple? That's better.

You're missing a verb, is. Thank you. I'm okay with that if my colleague is, okay. Okay. Are we supposed to wait?

Okay, I'm fine. I don't care. I mean, whatever you recommend, but I just don't want us to, I just want to make sure we're disclosing everything we can and not breaking the law. That's my goal here. May I share? Yep.

If we have no later than September 30th? If we have no later than, do we meet September 15th? If they want to give it to us the next day.

Sounds good. I don't care. Just no later. Yeah. Okay. Great. We have a motion and a second. Please vote.

Okay, thank you, thank you. Gosh, on our theme here, seem to be on a theme. This is my item. This is item 30, restricting post-employment lobbying and barring county officials from insider trading and betting platforms like CalSheet and PolyMarket. I am tired from that discussion, so let's start with public comments, and then we can go to board discussion.

Audra, go ahead. You can continue your public comment. Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you all very much. I'll just make a couple opening remarks. We've had a long couple days, so I'll keep it short. I think we have spent the last many, many months very focused as a board on how do we really make county government work better for the people that we're here to serve and that government is here to serve. And this is one more item in that vein that really tries to ensure that government is accountable to voters and that we as not just elected officials, but also all the senior leadership that works here at the county is oriented towards serving the public and that publi

A little better? Can people still hear me? Okay. This board letter would give broad latitude to staff and to legal counsel to come up with guidelines that make sense to really figure out which employees should be covered. Probably not everybody. We kind of got to think about what's the right level of seniority so that all that work needs to be done. But this just gets the ball rolling and comes back with options. So with that, I'd like to make a motion. And if anyone has any comments. Please, Supervisor Geary.

Thank you. I'm happy to second. I think that, you know, the examples you gave, those are the ones we know. Obviously, it's completely unacceptable. And I agree that we should be proactive rather than reactive. And, you know, implement this policy is good governance. So I support it. And I'm happy to second.

Thank you. Any other comments? before the ordinance goes into effect? We might have to make it retroactive. Okay, we have a motion on the floor and a second. Please vote.

Wow. Item 31. We now move on to discussion item 31, receive an update in the development of the behavioral health wellness campus appropriations and CEQA. I will hand the Florida County team for presentation.

Okay, any questions? First of all, I just want to say amazing. This is great. This is just, I'm over the moon. I think this is really incredible. I can't believe we won the money, $100 million from the state. That's huge. And I think it does reflect the work we've been doing as a board and as a county and you know, all hands on deck for the last six years to really try to move the needle on our behavioral health strategy. And we came up with a vision of what we needed for our community that was compelling enough to rise to the top of the heap in the statewide competition and willing to put our

Okay, thank you. Do any of my colleagues have any comments? Great. We have a motion and a second. Please vote.

Great. We now move on to item 32, San Diego County School District's Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note Program.

Thank you. That is not pertinent to this topic. So this is the tax revenue anticipation note. So this is specifically about, not about expenditures, it's about revenues. So you can talk about revenue, revenue generation, but not about expenditures. Everything you've been talking about so far is about expenditures. So no... So you can go ahead and let her speak again.

She's forfeited her time. The speaker has forfeited her time.

So as I had said earlier regarding this item, this is an item regarding tax and revenue anticipation note for school districts. So your comments, they did begin speaking about schools, but no longer are speaking about neither schools nor revenue. So you can go ahead and speak about tax and revenue anticipation notes.

You can pause, and his forfeit is time. That is not on topic. Do we have another speaker in the queue? We do.

Please pause the speaker's time. I was educated once. Please pause the speaker's time. This is about revenue and not expenditures. Please keep your comments on topic.

Okay. Okay, thank you. We have, do we have a motion or a second? We have a smooth request. Okay, thank you so much, Vice Chair. I'll second. And we have a second from the Chair Pro Tem. Any additional comments? Okay, please vote. Okay, thank you very much.

Sorry to jump in front of you, Andrew. Okay, I want to go backwards. Our colleague, Supervisor Anderson, was dealing with a fire at his house, which is very scary. And so he missed voting on item 30. So he's wondering if there's any way for him to register a vote at this time. motion to reconsider yeah so at least um the the lobbying one it was a four it was four zero so it was unanimous for all present but he wasn't present because he got noticed that there's a fire at his house uh jim was taking bets and how you're going to vote on the item Okay, so I think procedurally the way we would do t

Okay, and I'll now move the item. And I think Supervisor Geary had seconded it the first time. If she wants to do so again or anyone else. Yep, okay. Supervisor Chair Pro Temo Geary, we have a motion on second. Please vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So now we go to item Wednesday, item six, which is traffic advisory committee item. We'll start with public comment. And after this item, the only item remaining is an adjournment. So let's go ahead and get moving on the traffic advisory item. Okay.

That's not something that you can do. So you can go ahead and speak on Traffic Advisory Committee, item six. If you have a concern about how the meeting was run, you can go ahead and do so with the clerk. OK, please continue.

The item before us is 6, Traffic Advisory Committee on the Wednesday docket. Please ensure your comments are relevant to that item. If they are not, you will forfeit your time.

Okay, thank you very much. We have a motion by Supervisor Desmond. Oh, no, we don't. We have a request to comment.

Well, in just a second. Yeah, I'm happy to move to approve. I just want to thank DPUW for all the hard work on this. I know Main Street and Aviation Road up in Fallbrook that people have been wanting an all-way stop for a while, and now they can all stop and be happy, hopefully. So I appreciate all the work, time, and effort on this. Thanks.

Okay, thank you very much. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Please vote.

Okay, fantastic. Now we now move to non-agenda public comment. Then we have an adjournment in memory. And good work to all. Thank you.

Can you pause the speaker's time? I have a question for County Council. Is this topic... within the board's jurisdiction? My understanding is that the comments must be on subject matters within our jurisdiction, but not on item on our agenda today.

Okay, so are these comments within our subject matter jurisdiction as a board?

Okay. I am going to allow you to continue, but please make sure that your comments are on items within our board's jurisdiction, within county jurisdiction.

Thank you so much. I will now turn it to the chairperson for adjournment members. Yes, we'll call it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Today I ask that we adjourn in memory of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo and Joan Sebastian Duran Guerrero. Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was a 52-year-old father and construction worker who had built a life centered around his family and his work. He is remembered by his loved ones as a hardworking father who cared deeply for his three sons and his family. Joan Sebastian Durán Guerrero was a 25-year-old father from Colombia who came to the United States seeking a better future for his young daughter. He worked two jobs and is remembered by those who knew him as kind and a caring membe