Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

I usually don't like to use the gavel, but we're so lively this morning, I figured it might help. Good morning, everyone. I will now call the June 24, 2026 San Diego County Board of Supervisors regular meeting, flood control district meeting, in-home supportive services, public authority meeting, San Diego County Fire Protection District meeting and sanitation meeting to order. We would like to take a moment to acknowledge the land that we call home. There are communities in the San Diego region that face unjust conditions and circumstances related to the environments in which they live. The tribal nations of the San Diego region are an example of one community that has historically faced such injustices. We acknowledge the harm that existed between the land nature and its original peoples who have since endured displacement, persecution and systemic oppression. We pay our respect to the unceded territory and homelands of the 18 tribal nations in our region, the most in any county in the United States, from four cultural groups, the Kumeyaay, the Nginyo, the Lesenyo, the Kupinyo, and the Kuya. We aspire to learn from indigenous traditional knowledge and experiences in undoing the injustices of the past. Ryan, please call the roll for today's session.

Thank you, Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp. Before I call the roll, I would like to note for the record that Supervisor Lawson-Reimer is participating via teleconference under section 54953C of the Brown Act. As such, all votes will be handled by a roll call vote. At this time, Supervisor Lawson-Reimer will disclose whether anyone over the age of 18 is in the room with her, as well as their relationship to the supervisor. And I'll go ahead and turn it over to Supervisor Lawson-Reimer.

Hi, this is Tara Lawson-Reamer. There's only one adult with me, and that is my chief of staff, Megan Elledge-Lavoda, and my baby. This is not an adult. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, I will now call the roll. Supervisor Anderson. Supervisor Desmond. Here. Chair Pro Temigiri.

Here.

Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp.

Here.

And Chair Lawson-Reamer.

Here.

Thank you.

Okay. We will now have Rabbi Michael Rothbaum deliver the invocation, and Lauren de Pleche, Marissa Morales, Czar Fletchman, and Elizabeth Ruiz will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand for the invocation and the pledge.

of San Diego County, and it is my blessing to offer this prayer this morning. Eloheinu velohei avotenu. our God and God of our ancestors. We come before you in gratitude, gratitude for the esteemed members of this board of supervisors, gratitude for the beauty of our county, the love in our communities, the generosity of spirit coursing through San Diego County. You have brought forth to this county people of a thousand lands and all genders, of countless religions and no religion. native speakers and language learners, a dazzling spectrum of sizes and skin colors, the narrowest noses and the kinkiest curls, a human family so beautiful, capable of remarkable feats, builders and knitters and teachers and seers. For all this, in this space, on this morning, we are grateful. But in addition to gratitude, we also come before you in profound anguish, anguish for lives taken, souls forsaken, wages stolen, anguish over foreclosures and evictions and deportations, jobs that don't pay, sick days rescinded, in a county that is really two counties, one for the rich and another for the poor, one stained with racism and another protecting privilege, one for the well-connected and another for the disenfranchised and disrespected. You gave the Jewish people a book teaching that we were born in a land of bigotry led by a Pharaoh who enslaved and hunted the Israelites for no crime save our identity. Teaching that a land as great as Pharaoh's Egypt or the County of San Diego cannot stand if it is built on a foundation of oppression and injustice. And we are guided by the Torah's message that slaves get free and that the flame of liberation shines brighter than money or guns or things. The message that when modern pharaohs snatch away sustenance, torment immigrants, incarcerate rather than educate, and steal our trust, those of us who would dare call ourselves religious must act. That to do otherwise is a betrayal of our neighbors, a betrayal of the legacy of liberation, and a betrayal of your spirit and your promise. The promise that justice triumphs over greed. A promise of holy dignity for everyone in our county, from Bing Crosby Boulevard to Barrio Logan, from Coronado to El Cajon, from the tourist traps in Old Town to our neighbors trapped in Otay Mesa. Give us the courage to stand strong for this promise, even when doing so is not safe or easy or popular. our God and God of our fathers and mothers, God of employers and employees, God of lawmakers and landscapers, God of homeowners and home health workers, God of spirit and song and righteous judgment, Please hear our words, help us heal our land, that we may march forward every day, every moment, into a county of safe homes, settled hearts, secure families, and holy laws of love and justice together. We say amen.

Please place your right hand over your heart. Ready, begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. We will now proceed with the proclamations. The first proclamation will be given by Chair Pro Tempaloma Aguirre honoring National Immigrant Heritage Month. Accepting the proclamation will be Joseph Ruanto Ramirez, Nuria Ismael Sade, Claudia Ignacio. All three of you please come forward.

Plenty of room here, plenty of room. Good morning, buenos dias. it is my honor to present this proclamation recognizing national immigrant heritage month as our nation approaches its 250th anniversary it is important to reflect on the central role immigrants and immigrant heritage have played in shaping our united states california and especially district one The strength of District 1 lies in its incredible multiculturalism, where families from all over the world, from across the Americas, the Pacific and beyond, have chosen to put down roots, build businesses and enrich our shared culture. Immigrants bring their unique cultures, languages, traditions, and perspectives that enrich every aspect of our community. I am honored to stand alongside members of our immigrant and refugee communities who are our neighbors, business owners, educators, healthcare workers, public servants, farm workers, custodians, artists, and community leaders. This week is especially special because it's also Immigrant Small Business Week. As the proud daughter of immigrants who waited tables for a living, this is deeply personal to me. Like many children of immigrants, I often served as a translator for my family, helping navigate forms, appointments, and conversations. I've seen firsthand the incredible hard work our immigrant communities put in every single day, a dedication I witnessed in my own parents while they worked to put their families forward. Through my family and through working with Districts 1 immigrant and refugee communities, I see the hardships, the joy, and the relentless perseverance required to build a better life here. This month also coincides with Refugee Awareness Month, reminding us that people come to America through many different journeys. Some seek opportunity, while others are forced to flee war, violence, persecution, and climate-related crises. Regardless of how they arrived, immigrants and refugees share a common hope, safety, opportunity, and a brighter future for themselves and their families. Their contributions have helped build our economy, strengthen our institutions, and enrich our civic and cultural life. But let me be very clear, their worth is not defined solely by their contributions. Immigrants and refugees are valued members of our community whose lives, experiences, and aspirations deserve recognition, respect, and dignity. Today, we can't ignore the current reality that many immigrant communities are experiencing, fear and uncertainty under this Trump administration. Immigration enforcement actions and detention policies have deeply affected families throughout our region. This is fundamentally about human rights. It is about recognizing the dignity and worth of every person. And these are values that reflect the best of who we are as a community and as a nation for generations to come. To our immigrant and refugee community standing with us today, we honor your journeys, your sacrifices, your accomplishments, and your dreams. You belong in this community, and your lives, voices, and experiences matter. Thank you for helping shape San Diego County and making it stronger, more vibrant, and more compassionate for generations to come. I now have the privilege of reading the last paragraph of the proclamation. Now therefore be it proclaimed by Chair Tara Lawson-Reimer, myself and the rest of the members of the Board of Supervisors on this 24th day of June, 2026, that we commend immigrants for their outstanding service, leadership and commitment to the citizens of San Diego County. And we do hereby declare this day to be National Immigrant Heritage Month throughout San Diego County.

Good morning, my name is Joseph Allen Ron Tramirez. I am a professor at Southwestern College in Asian American and Pacifica Studies. I'm also part of the Commission for Human Relations here in San Diego for the county, and I work with the API, or the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander community. This month is very special to me because this is the month 35 years ago I came to the United States as a national disaster refugee. My mom is right there taking pictures. And so her birthday was last week. And during that week, 35 years ago, a volcano erupted in the Philippines. And we ran across various fields to make sure that we were safe because fires were coming down from the sky. Ashes covered the whole villages. And then at the very end of the month, we ran... into an airplane. My one-year-old sister and I were strapped into cargo nets when my mom semi-stood up from Philippines to Guam, then ended up being on top of boxes, Guam to Hawaii, processed in Washington, before coming to Long Beach and then later on here in San Diego. She didn't want to be recognized, but I wouldn't be here if she didn't have the courage to run across and make sure that those fireballs were not hit myself and my one-year-old sister. And so she came here, nothing. We had a backpack. And now I tell her she wanted me to become a doctor, but I told her I can't be that kind of doctor because I don't like blood. So I decided to take the PhD route. But for anyone who's here as a refugee, those who came from war, natural disaster environment, we have a different relationship to immigration. We were displaced. We were not wanting to come here. This wasn't our first choice. We were here, and we made it our home. And San Diego has welcomed us by allowing us to have our businesses, our families. our home away from home, but knowing our roots through our food, our culture, we are still able to practice who we are. As immigrants, as refugees, as political asylum individuals, we are here to make sure that San Diego remembers that we are the ones who make this place happen. And that whether you came here through generations prior, where we are now, recent immigrants, recent refugees, to those who are indigenous here, this land that we call San Diego, San Diego County, the various cities here are all about our histories. And so I want to thank my mom, whose birthday again was last week, who wasn't able to celebrate it 35 years ago. I dragged her over here. And just the last thing, I am a professor, so this is my first time coming here. But if I am invited for future proclamation events, I usually give books and homeworks to the council members and supervisors. So Monica knows that. So I didn't bring any books today, but I would usually come and test them. And so you need to know the history of our communities here. And the last thing I want to say is Balboa Park and its very violent history, at least. was created by the Panama Exposition. And for many folks, indigenous peoples from all over Asia, South America, and Africa, they were supposed to be part of a human zoo that was supposed to be exhibited there. And it wasn't a couple months prior when laws prohibited human zoos in the United States past that the US and San Diego officially say they were the first World's Fair that didn't have any human exhibitions. So a lot of immigrants here were not also immigrants or refugees. The Igarot community, the Moro community, the Ainu and the Okinawans came here as human exhibits first before anything else. And so what does that mean when we complicate that they were never forced, they were never taken, and never came here, but they were not seen as human and they were equal to animals. So those histories need to be preserved and addressed as part of our local histories. Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you for having me it's an honor to be here today for many years I actually wrote something because I probably will cry a little bit. For many years, fear kept me from telling this story. When I was 14 years old, my mother just rushed us in the middle of the night and said, let's go. She took us from Mexico to the United States in pursuit of the American dream. She was an indigenous woman from Oaxaca, but we lived in Mexico City then. She never had a chance to go to school, but she knew it was very important. And she wanted to make sure that her kids had an education. She also knew that was impossible where we were living. She was a single mother of five of us, well actually in Mexico there was four of us only. But she had a extraordinary courage and an unwavering belief that her children deserve a better future. She left behind everything she knew to give us that opportunity. I arrived to the United States with no culture, no language, everything was very unfamiliar and overwhelming. My mother taught me that through hard work and education, anything was possible. Then at 17, she passed away. She was my everything. In the middle of my grief, I had four younger siblings waiting and depending on me at home. And I promised to fulfill the American dream that she had sacrificed her life for. As the oldest, I helped raise my siblings and my niece because my sister became a mother at 16. My mother had me at 15, and cultural patterns matter, right? However, along the many, many obstacles, I continue to carry my mother's dream for me and for my siblings. I work hard, I pay my way through college, I know I wanted to become a lawyer, but I couldn't afford going to law school and I had young children waiting for me that depended on me. I worked and I worked until my siblings were old enough so that I could focus on my path to law school. Plus, I also had to wait because I was undocumented and there were no opportunities such as DACA back then. In my late 30s, I decided to go to law school. I graduated and I stand here today as a tax attorney, as a founder of CI Tax Law. My story is a testament to the immigrant to an immigrant mother's love and vision. Every accomplishment I have is rooted in the courage of a woman who couldn't speak, who couldn't read and write, yet she understood the power of hope. That's what this month is about. Parents who leave their children, I mean, who leave everything behind so that their children have a chance. I really want to just highlight your story because I can relate to the sacrifices his mother made for him and for his sister. My mother is not here today to see what I have built, but I know she's in heaven watching over us and still guiding us. And I try to leave every day to honor her. And I hope this story teaches you that it doesn't matter where we begin, as long as you're determined to know where you're going. And it's never too late to change your life and change your future. Because behind every immigrant's successful story, there's a family, there's a sacrifice, and a dream worth fighting for. Thank you so much.

Good morning, everyone. Good morning, the chairs, council members, and community. My name is Nuria, and I am very honored to be here. I work as a director of operation with San Diego Refugee Communities Coalition, and my family and I were evacuated to the United States in 2021 by the U.S. government. And the reason for our evacuation was that my sister was a neurosurgeon, the only female who was working in government hospital, and my other sister was a university professor, and I was working with the USAID projects, and that was the... decision that they were making and say that the country is not safe anymore, especially after the Taliban took the control. So anyway, that was like how we were evacuated and everything happened less than 10 days. So our life, as you said and you said, was changed less than 10 days. But anyway, I'm happy that we are here. But something that I want to share, during our evacuation to U.S., we were living in the military camp with the U.S. Army, Air Force, and military. And when I was reading the news during the time, I was feeling that there were some people who didn't like the evacuation and didn't like so many refugees were coming to the U.S., And I was talking to my military friends and say, I think we should stay in Germany and not to go to the United States because of what is happening. And they said, no, why are you saying that? U.S. is a diverse country. There are so many opportunities and so many communities are living in U.S. So you will be happy ending in U.S. But something that you need to remember is that in U.S., you either sink or Or swim. So be aware of that when you are there. Anyway, when we landed in the U.S., I could see so many community members, ECBOs, organizations who were supporting all the newcomers. And I was thinking that, oh, so many trainers and mentors who keep you swim and not to sink. But now, as I work with so many... communities in San Diego, and we support Middle Eastern, Ukrainian, African, Asian community. And with the current situation when I see them, and so many asylum seekers who are in detention center, I'm just thinking that are they going to survive Are they sinking or swimming? And this is really difficult to say with the current situation with the budget cuts and so many benefits. But the hope that we have and we look at the glass half full and be positive is that we have you and we have the community members, we have the foundations, and we have so many volunteers who still donate and keep the organization and ECBOS to run and advocate for the right of the refugee and immigrants with the programs such as housing, immigration, education, employment, and keep them to stand on their feet and make another life start from scratch and be happy and lucky and successful in the United States. I really appreciate every one of you. Thank you so much for the government resources, for the community and volunteers, and our STRCC members that we have. You can raise your hands. So thank you so much.

I'm going to stand right here then.

We're the tall ones. I stay up in here. Oh, I don't want to speak.

You can't see me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Beautiful, thank you so much. As you exit, we have one more proclamation. The final proclamation will be given by Supervisor Jim Desmond honoring the California State University San Marcos Women's Softball Team. Accepting the proclamation will be Murad Shah.

Thank you.

made it all the way down here

Are you going to be speaking then? Okay, great.

All right.

Thank you. All right. Good morning, everyone. Today we celebrate and honor a very special team that had an incredible season and they made Cougar history. In 2026, Cal State University San Marcos softball team, they dominated the competition, finishing the conference play at 28 wins, only four losses. They captured the California collegiate, yes, give them a hand, yes. They captured the California Collegiate Athletic Association Championship and winning the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II West Region and advancing all the way to the National Championship World Series semifinals as one of the best teams in the country. And they didn't stop there. They had a program record of 57 wins. And the Cal State San Marcos Cougars shattered expectations, set new standards of excellence, and earned the first number one national ranking in school history. Their success was fueled by an extraordinary group of student athletes here today. Thank you very much for making the trip down here. Ten Cougars earned all CCAA honors. Four captured the conference's top individual awards. And Jillian Albati made history as the first Cougar. Who's Jillian? she' s not here she' s out accepting her other award. She was the first cougar to earn all-american first team honors from both the national fast pitch coaches association and the division two conference commissioners association The D2CCA, a lot of acronyms here, but what really makes this team special goes beyond just the accomplishments of championships and the accolades. They represented Cal State University San Marcos on a national scale. Their teammates, their coaches, and their community they represented with pride, resilience, and class. And to the players, coaches, and families, and all the fans, thank you very much for an unforgettable season. Congratulations to you for making Cougar history. And therefore, now we've got a proclamation.

Okay, all right.

Well, you're going to be speaking, so you're going to have to hand it off. Okay. So whereas the County of San Diego, we are committed to recognizing and honoring those organizations that are dedicated to the best ideals of public service, and the Cal State University San Marcos softball team is one such worthy organization. So therefore be it proclaimed by myself and all the members of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on this 24th day of June 2026 that we commend Cal State University San Marcos softball team for their outstanding service leadership and commitment to the residents and the students of the Cal State University San Marcos, and to hereby declare this day to be Cal State University San Marcos softball team championship day throughout San Diego County. Go Cougars. All right. All right. So, Morad, did you want to come up and speak?

thank you supervisor desmond and thank you to all the county supervisors for this great great honor you know honoring our amazing student athletes here at cal state san marcos some of our student athletes are here i want to make a quick introduction and then i'll get a coach get on because he's really the the all-star here but we have czar fleischman from our women's softball team elizabeth ruiz marissa morales and lauren deplich obviously we have our sports information director which is the the the the MVPs behind the scenes. So sports information director, Mindy Mills, our athletic trainer, Daniel Malara, and our assistant coach, Alyssa Razo. And without further ado, I want to introduce our amazing head coach, AJ Robinson, to say a few words about the championship experience. Thank you.

All right, cool.

little present for you. The whole team ncaa regulation ball there for you. First of all thank you so much for this proclamation it' s amazing. This season was just a really special season and this caps it off but I really appreciate the county and supervisor of recognizing us uh... so uh... i wanted to talk a little bit about our season uh... you know obviously lots of records and accolades but i think one of the things that i'm most proud of is in addition to winning we did a lot of things that nobody really publicize uh... you know we did a lot of community service work with the san marcos girls rec league the little softball players the future cougars And that was great. We went to the Boys and Girls Club and just had an we had an exceptional time at their day camp when we were in chattanooga we went to a senior living home and that was spectacular it was so fun we played balloon volleyball and maybe got a little too competitive with some of the seniors but just the things that we did in the community I think are outstanding our players in addition to being great softball you know I think that' s what we go for all along is softball is just a tool that helps us with life and growing up and super proud of our team and what we accomplished. when we're in chattanooga it was really cool to just see all the support from the community uh... you know we played a lot of exciting games we went extra innings three straight games it was a little rough on my heart but uh... they they figured out a way to uh... to get the job done but after the games just all the text messages from people in the community just showing support and uh... having watch parties it was it was truly special and uh... sometimes you you don't realize how big of a part of the community that you are and so that was those really special to uh... see that uh... and all the support from uh... You know, the local news organizations, I thought it was great. We were able to kind of scrapbook our season, and they'll be able to hold on to that forever. But one of the things that I wanted to share with you guys today about our team that I think really makes us special is a word... I'm sure most of you have never heard of, but I'm going to tell you what Moody to stands for its finding joy and other people's success and I think that is the heart of our team the foundation of who we are and why we're successful we have 25 players on the team. and only 10 are playing at one time, but all 25 are pulling in the same direction, rooting for each other, and it really made our season special. So remember that word, mudita, and finding joy in other people's success. would really like to thank all of our staff maraud Todd who is our sports supervisor couldn't be with us today Mindy Daniel Sam like this the support from our staff I I truly believe helped push us to where we were going and I want to make sure that you guys feel appreciated It was incredible. When we were sitting back there, I was like, how do I top what just happened in front of me? That was so special with that previous group. What we did was really special. These players are going to be amazing citizens. Super proud of you guys. Thank you very much for the recognition. We hope to see you out at Cal State San Marcos next spring. We play a lot of home softball games, so come see us. But thank you again. Appreciate you.

All right. Thank you. All right. Good job. You guys want to say anything? No?

You guys want to do one thing?

No?

Say thank you. Thank you.

All right. All right. All right. One, two.

Okay, thank you so much and congratulations. This does conclude the proclamation portion of the meeting, so we're going to GOING TO THE BUSINESS PORTION OF THE MEETING, SO THE RULES CHANGE A LITTLE BIT. BEFORE I GO OVER THOSE HOUSE RULES, I JUST WANT TO DO TWO THINGS REALLY QUICKLY. ACKNOWLEDGE OUR YOUTH SUMMER ACADEMY THAT OUR OFFICE HOSTS EVERY YEAR DURING THE SUMMER. WE HAVE RISING SENIORS THERE WATCHING UP You can't see them down here, but they're watching from upstairs. Rising seniors that basically follow us around for a couple of weeks. They have presentations by county staff. They visited our juvenile detention facilities. They are really, really learning a lot and certainly an inspiration to me. So thank you all for taking the time to do this. And I just wanted to acknowledge you. The other thing really quick before we go into non-agenda public comment, I will go over the order in more detail once we get to that point after non-agenda public comment. But I just want to make sure that everyone knows that item number five does have a time certain at 1230. So we'll try to take a lunch before that and we'll do the item number five at 1230. Everything else will be in order. So the meeting will move along, but that does have a time certain. Okay. So... That's inclusionary housing zoning ordinance. 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 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, slanderous, profane, or abusive language to any member of the board, staff, or the general public. Additionally, all remarks and questions must remain on topic during the duration of your speaking time and must be addressed to the board and not to county staff. Any speaker who engages in comments that break these rules will be issued a warning. After one warning, you will be asked to leave the chambers for the rest of the meeting. Finally, speakers threatening violence may be reported to law enforcement and removed from the meeting. This is a space for community engagement, deliberation and progress, not for harassment, violence and hate. So at this time we will 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 an item on the 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 today at our land use session or tomorrow's legislative session, but not both sessions. Speakers may select which session to address the board at their own convenience. To better facilitate the meeting for non-agenda public comment, we will have five speakers in person and five speakers by phone to ensure fairness. The first five in-person speakers for non-agenda public comment will be randomly selected. The rest of non-agenda public communication will be heard at the close of today's session. Additionally, in accordance with board rules, in order to ensure timely completion of today's agenda for any discussion item with 10 or more speakers, individuals will have one minute to share their opinion at the chair's discretion. A reminder that according to rule 4A, members of the public that are non-English speaking and need interpretation assistance will get twice the allotted time for their comments. And a final reminder, according to the board's rules or procedures, audience members shall not whistle, clap, stomp feet, or do anything that disrupts the proceedings. If you disrupt the meeting, you will be given one warning. And after that one warning, if you disrupt the meeting again, you will be directed to leave the chamber for... of the remainder of the meeting. With all of that, Ryan, please call the speakers.

Thank you, Vice Chair Montgomery-Shepp. We do have 22 total requests to speak on matters not listed on the agenda, six individuals in person and 16 requesting to speak by phone. For those that have requested to speak by phone, if you could please dial into the conference line now using the instructions that were provided to you. We will go ahead and begin with our in-person speakers. And as already noted, we will randomly select the first five speakers in person. Then the remaining speaker will be heard at the conclusion of today's session. As your name is called, if you could please come forward and stand on the arrows until it is your turn to speak at the podium, you'll then have two minutes to address the board. Please begin by stating your name for the audio record. And I would like to invite forward the first three randomly selected individuals, which would be Ricky Robinson, Cesar Javier, and Perita Javier. We can come forward in any order.

Okay, Ricky Robinson here, speaking for my family, Robinson Lopez, Malaika and Zyra Robinson that you kidnapped and you think you're gonna try to adopt out. Anyway, I have a speech here, but it's from a machine to the machine.

Malaika and Zyna are trapped in a barbaric foster system against their will when they have family right here. Their mother is here. I am here. Their siblings are here. Siblings they have never even been allowed to meet. And let me say this clearly through the camera's eye. Malaika and Zaya are not adoptable. They are not children without family. They are not clean adoption cases. Anyone who adopts Malaika and Zaya is adopting a crime scene. This is not adoption. This is abduction under color of law. And their family will never stop looking for them, speaking their names, and exposing what was done. You have caused catastrophic harm to Malaika, Zyra, and my entire family. This case is built on lies, retaliation, case fixing, and revenge. I will not stop until there is a criminal investigation. Bring Malaika and Zyda home.

Anyway, June 24th last year, Evelyn Lopez spoke up and complained about a predator, David Miller, was blocking the doors. But I guess, you know, that's just hearsay. The thing about it is, I have proof, and It's getting out to the investigative reporters. I have recordings.

Your time is up, sir. Your time is up. Thank you. We'll hear from our next speaker.

I know you don't care, but free Maliaka and Sire, you don't get to knock them out.

Sir, I don't want to give you a warning. I don't. I don't want to give you a warning.

Okay.

I just read the rules. about the type of language. So I won't give a warning at this time, but next time I will. Mr. and Mrs. Javier, you can come up.

Five years since The proclamation was very touching. And we could see our place in that spectrum, hurt, suffering, fearful of our future. Mama Giri, this is all about air pollution that is victimizing us. My wife now, because of the stress and pain, is... suffering a heightened Alzheimer's dementia. Yesterday, the doctor asked to do something for a special caregiver. Ma'am Monica, thank you for your appearance in the San Diego College District Board of Trustees meeting. We were hopeful that you shall bring the same crusade That was our fourth attendance there because something is wrong even in our school. The owner is a graduate of vocational on ceramics right in Mesa College. The teachers, the professors, the founders have something to do with this. Why was the home business, the hazardous one, located, constructed, and operated in a residential zone district? For five years, we asked this question to the city air pollution controllers, to the county where the air pollution came from Lewis department and became independent. Where is accountability here? You were talking about equity in the board of trustee meeting, ma'am. I hope we are included in that crusade. There seems to be a big wrong in here. We need something solution.

Thank you. Next speaker. And then as the speakers coming up, I'll invite the two last speakers for the morning session, allegedly Audra and Michael Brando.

Okay.

Good morning. Good morning. I am Purita Javier. senior with existing medical condition and victim of ceramics kiln toxicity located, constructed, and operated in the residential zone. Dedicated near the Bureau hold since 1984, for five years since 2021, our voice seeking representation to local authorities and elected officials to abate and for to move the home business facility to safer place. Our efforts have been ignored, neglected. We handle over 77 residents collective petition to chair Nora Vargas in 2024 and also consistently participated in the APCD. governing board meetings, but just the same, ignored and neglected.

Thank you. We'll hear from the final two speakers.

Michael, when I come here, it's like coming to an episode of The Simpsons. The Simpsons, do you remember The Simpsons, the cartoon show? Everything is just so over-the-top exaggerated. I want to reference something that the rabbi said. The flame of liberation shines brighter than money, and he named some other things too. I want to add to that, the flame of liberation shines brighter than lies. because we consistently hear lies here over and over again. I don't know if you remember this, this little image, some of you will look, some of you won't, but this is when we were told that people that did not get the COVID so-called gene therapy injections were going to get very, very sick and likely die. This is the kind of misinformation that this board promoted. Jennifer Campbell, where you used to be, Monica, threatened people in a very combative way, just like you are, very combative, and said that people should be arrested who did not wear face scams, who did not stand six feet apart, and who did not get this. This is evil. And the good news is that all of this is self-imploding. This little baby picture with Tara is not fooling anyone about the kind of character she is. I want to mention this. This will go over some of your heads, a book by Federico Faggini. He's an Italian, Jim Desmond. He actually created the first microprocessor. And he talks about how AI is not going to supplant humanity. Because all of you operate from a materialistic, reductionistic view of life, and that's a lie. And he actually goes into that because he understands computers, he understands spirituality. I actually recommend this. It's called Irreducible, Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature. How good can it get?

So it's interesting to see your behavioral health business in play. Never thought that I would witness it firsthand. And so these billions of dollars are really going, you know, to well full use. Andrea Ebbing, right? She's come in here before she'd go to the city, you know, talking about the district attorney, her children being kidnapped, you know, her being nearly murdered and things like that. Well, she's been in Las Colinas since last month and, you know, they did a competency evaluation. How cool is that? And so, you know, you have some psychologist, you know, come in and make it seem like you're going to be deemed competent. And then the county sends in their, you know, little social worker, whoever, you know, comes in and does an evaluation and starts asking questions that are kind of in the political realm. So interesting. And so then it's like, well, I mean, you have beliefs that are opposite than the county, right? Puta Paloma. Then you're really excluded. And so you can be deemed incompetent. And, you know... If that happens, you know, like they want to do, then you get to go into a mental facility for a couple years and be drugged up. That'll be fun, right? You guys will make some money off of that. And then it really stalls the proceedings, right, Monica? PC 1368. Those do, and the judge can determine either way, you know, especially when they're working with Summer Steffen and you want to silence all this stuff. What a good way to do it. So, I mean, you guys are working well with, you know, changing behaviors and making sure that people conform to your ideologies. And if they don't, they're surely going to be punished. So, I think this is kind of a PSA for other people just in case they want a course correct ahead of time.

Now we will hear from those that have requested to speak by phone. And again, in accordance with the board rules, we'll be hearing from the first five callers. The remaining callers will be heard at the conclusion of today's session. When it is your turn to speak, you will be unmuted. You will hear a recording that will tell you to begin your comments. And we will go ahead and begin with our first caller.

I hope you posted up the thing that I asked you several times to do, but it doesn't matter. Let's go ahead and discuss our elections. You do not weed out non-citizens from the voter rolls. You haven't done that since 2015, because if you want to go ahead and face everything off the driver's license, you change the law on the driver's license. You allow non-citizens to basically get that, which you needed to put in federal limit supply. which means we can't even use our driver's license to vet whether or not we could actually vote at the site. So what are you going to do about that? Serious question. You don't vet the rolls. You need to, according to NVRA subsection 8. You refuse to even look at the rolls because you believe that the driver's license will go ahead and prevent noncitizens from voting. On top of that, everything that Andrea said, having said, regarding Apex, is probably right. And most likely the reason why they get all that money and all those sheriffs. It's amazing how many sheriffs donated $6.95 onto Summer Steffens. I'm pretty sure, like, every single one of them donated this money. That was voluntary, right? Or that was just backroom stuff to move money. Kind of curious on why you guys are so damn corrupt. Why are you trying to throw me in jail just for asking you to basically follow the NBRA subsection 8 reasonable effort? Doing nothing is not a reasonable effort. You could go ahead and certify the election. After that, we can go ahead and find out if you should have certified that election. Then we'll understand why all our benefits are going to illegals. Because they're probably outvoting the citizens. And that's why all our shit is going to them. I don't think that's right. I think when you go ahead and discover the illegal voting, you need to find out.

Thank you. Your time is up. Go ahead and go to our next caller.

Hi, good morning, supervisors. My name is Madison, and I'm speaking to ask you to reject any expansion of marijuana businesses in our county. As policymakers consider land use decisions, it is important to remember that marijuana commercialization is not just a business issue. It is a public health issue. Research continues to show that greater commercialization and increased availability normalize use, increase youth exposure, and contribute to higher rates of marijuana use among adolescents. Today's marijuana products are engineered to contain a dangerously high level of THC, and these high-potency THC products have been linked to increased risks of psychosis, mental health problems, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive impacts on developing brains. Young people are more vulnerable because their brains continue developing into their mid-20s. Expanding cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, sends a message that marijuana is an ordinary consumer product. But unlike ordinary consumer products, marijuana is associated with significant health risks, especially for youth. More businesses would mean more promotion, more visibility, more normalization, and ultimately more exposure for children and teens. The county has an opportunity to prioritize public health over industry growth. We should focus on prevention, education, and protecting young people rather than creating additional pathways for commercialization. Once marijuana businesses are established, it becomes really difficult to reverse their impacts on communities. As a parent, I want my children to grow up in a county that puts their health and future first. I respectfully ask you to oppose expanding marijuana businesses and continue protecting the children in our county. Thank you.

We'll go to our next caller.

Good morning. This is Pat Holland. Pat like a pat on your back and Holland like the country with windmills. Thank you, supervisors, for this opportunity to speak. I'm here for the health of all that you govern as and of you as well as myself and my loved ones. How many of you yourself, supervisors, or have someone in your life or both have suffered from or are suffering from cancer, infertility, Parkinson's disease, learning disabilities, senility, asthma, high blood pressure, or learning disabilities. I didn't mention them before. Did you know that food grown with poison, legal in this country, but illegal in many countries, often the countries they're made in, can cause these serious illnesses? That's why they're banned there. You and your loved ones, work and live in this county. Your shower and tap water are full of these poisons. That's what science says. The urine of you and your loved ones shows evidence that your body has taken these poisons in. I ask that you county supervisors stipulate that any county land be managed without poisons, without agricultural poisons. This is possible. It is done by organic, regenerative farming, gardening, landscaping, land, and property management. Humans working in harmony with nature are healthier than those within.

Thank you. Your time is up. We'll go to our next caller.

Good morning. This is Laurie Palladino calling in again to express concern about the animals living on Artesian Road. These horses continue to need protection from the king. Are any steps being taken to remove these horses and what would they be? Concerns about the condition and level of care of horses on this property have been raised for years. These horses have faced terrible neglect and continue to languish. Some progress has been made, but these animals continue to live in concerning conditions. Why do these conditions continue to exist? Two horses were previously removed from Deborah Barclay's property and were later returned. What factors were considered in that decision? No one who is not taking care of their animals should be above any laws. Why would anyone who is allegedly neglected animals have these same animals returned? Are the horses on the Artesian property going to be removed and when? How is compliance being monitored? These animals are dependent on us. Concerns have been raised by the public for years. What is the county's plan to bring this matter to a resolution? What is being done to ensure the animals are adequately cared for and are protected? There are laws in place regarding care of animals. Those of us who expressed our concerns in the past are asking why these laws remain unenforced and unprosecuted on the Artesian Road property. No one is above the law, and this is a critical time for the animals who are suffering.

Are you still there, Lori? Your phone cut out. There you are. Can't hear you again.

Were any of my comments heard?

Yeah, you have about 12 seconds left. We heard the majority of your comments, but your phone seems to be cutting in and out, but we can hear you now.

Okay. No one is above the law, and this is a critical time for these animals who are suffering. Please take the steps to help them. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go to our next speaker.

Hi, my name is Michelle. Good morning, supervisors. I am a voting constituent of Supervisor Monica Steff, who has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to ensure that animals are protected in San Diego. I am not, and I never will vote for you again, Ms. Steff, because I only vote for politicians who protect animals and those who do not have a voice. I'm here today because the horses on Artesian Road still need help. Supervisor Tara Lawson Reamer is complicit in their suffering, which is the reason why those horses continue to suffer on Artesian Road. And I know if Tara Lawson Reamer is listening to me, she's looking down because she never addresses this issue. She's neglectful of everything we talk about. Concerns about their care have been raised for years, years, and yet these animals remain on the property. There seems to be some kind of corruption going on between supervisors and Deborah Lawson. The public has repeatedly reported issues involving the welfare of these horses, and many of us are struggling to understand why meaningful action has not been taken to bring this matter to resolution. I need an answer. At one point, two horses were removed from the property and later returned to her property. I would like to know what changed and why that decision was made. These animals deserve proper care, protection, and accountability. I respectfully ask the county to explain what is being done to ensure that the welfare of the horses continues. But the horses, why they have not been removed. I suspect there's corruption going on at the county board supervisors. And Deborah Barkley, I suspect, is probably paying you off as well. This is a suspicion because nothing's ever been done. Please, please, please.

Thank you. Your time is up and vice chair Montgomery step that concludes the request for non-agenda public communication for this morning. And again, all the remaining speakers will be heard at the conclusion of today's session.

Thank you so much, Ryan. And thank you to everyone who's spoken called the next item of our agenda is the approval of the minutes statement of proceedings for the concurrent special district meetings of the flood Control District of June 10, 2026, the San Diego County Fire Protection District of May 19, 2026, and the Sanitation District of June 10, 2026. This time I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes.

So moved. Second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, let's go ahead and vote.

And it will be a roll call vote because we have Supervisor Lawson-Riemer remote. Supervisor Anderson. Aye. Supervisor Desmond. Aye.

Yes.

Chair Pro Tem Aguirre. Yes. Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp.

Yes.

And Chair Lusson-Riemer.

Yes.

That motion passes unanimously with all supervisors being present. Voting aye.

Okay, thank you. We will now proceed with the formation of the consent agenda. That is items numbers one through four and flood control district items one and two. All items on the consent agenda are routine and will be acted upon with one motion. Individuals will be able to comment on the consent agenda after the supervisors pull the items they would like to pull for discussion. When any of my colleagues like to pull any items for discussions, go to Chair Lawson-Reimer.

No items to pull and no comments at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Pro Tem McGeary.

No items to pull, but I have comments that I'll reserve until after public comment.

Okay. Supervisor Anderson. Nothing at this time. Okay. Supervisor Desmond.

Nothing to pull, nothing to comment. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Okay. I will go ahead and second that. And we will turn to public comment before we do. Just a reminder, the items on the consent agenda are items one through four and flood control districts item eight. district items one and two. Please, please, please comment on those items only and let us know what items you are commenting on. Turn it over to Ryan.

Thank you, Vice Chair McGrimmage-Stepp. We do have 13 total requests to speak on items on the consent agenda. Four individuals in person and nine requesting to speak by phone. For any individual that requested to speak on the items on the consent agenda by phone, please dial into the conference line now using the instructions that were provided to you. We will go ahead and begin with the in-person speakers. As your name is called, please come forward and stand on the arrows until it is your turn to speak at the podium. You will then have two minutes to address the board. Please begin by stating your name for the record. And also when speaking, please identify which items on the consent agenda you are speaking about. I'd like to invite forward Eddie Culver, Cesar Javier, Ronald Asklin, and allegedly Audra.

Cesar and Purita, we will not stop because this is the right thing to do. We are on our twilight years and this consent agenda touches our lives, our community. You see, street lights for safety, very basic. Traffic advisory safety measures. Food, very basic. When we hear of the word border, it only reminds us of the painful fact that nobody, nobody seems to solve the cleanup or cure care of the victims of pollution. Mamagiri has declared January a repeated call People there are dying and sick. My question is, what have we done since? Since 1993, when Bibian Moreno presented this at Sandag. Sir Anderson was there, and perhaps Madame Monica was there. What have we done? We have proclaimed the miseries and the successes of our immigrants a while ago. Now, what protection could we offer them in parallel with the non-action, ignoring and neglecting the cure, care, even feeding and sheltering of these victims? Ma'am Aguirre. Ma'am Stiff, you were the council member, District 4, City of San Diego. What have you done? What have we done? Thank you. Thank you, God, help us.

Good morning. My name is Eddie Culver. I live at 3260 Fairway Drive, and I'm addressing item number two for the stop sign placement at Lincoln Fairway. I've lived there for 14 years. It is a dangerous road. It has two blind intersections. One of them is Link and Fairway and the other one is Gulf and Fairway. I have been in that neighborhood since 2012. We have tried to get speed information or control implemented and fight after fight, but we just don't get it. They do the speed surveys, we just don't meet the criteria. But we have, it's an unusual road because we have a median in the middle that people and kids play. And then we have constant speeders just recently We had a five-car accident at that said intersection of Lincoln Fairway. But they don't count it because it was a DUI. Still dangerous to the people, to the children, and to the animals. Speed is definitely a factor in that neighborhood. I myself have had my dog killed. I've had my car totaled, parked in front of my house. And my neighbors have had the same except for the animals. And I strongly encourage you to please implement and put in a stop sign so we could have some kind of safety in our neighborhood. Thank you.

Next speaker.

I've got comments on items three and four. good morning super visors I' m doctor ronald asklund conservation chair of the san diego sierra club. San diego sierra club supports staffs recommendations to apply for and accept grant funds from the california department of food and agriculture for the healthy soils program and the both of these actions are consistent with the county' s climate action plan adopted on september 11, 2024. The healthy soils grant would make use of prop form money to expand the sustainable operations and land stewardship program and help it reach its goal to increase carbon climate action plan aims to reduce vehicle miles traveled by expanding mobility options improving connectivity and supporting the development of for the first-mile, last-mile transportation solutions program is currently focused on engagement and planning. The flexible fleet pilot grant program funded by SANDAG could be used to move from planning to implementation and operation of micro transit service. on item number four the san diego sewer club supports staff findings that a review of the local emergency has been conducted and the local emergency will remain in effect there is a need to continue the local emergency because san diego county communities continue to face the environmental and economic impacts from transboundary sewage flows thank you.

As you guys are diligently, you know, destroying civilization, which you're doing a great job, you know, all the pillars across the board. It's a great Marxist ideology that you guys have going on. And I have some suggestions because I feel like you guys could, you know, get things going quicker. I just feel like... Rip the Band-Aid off. I mean, we know where this is headed, and I just feel like sometimes it takes a long time. But that's why you have your behavioral health unit, you know, so that if at a certain point I get tired of it, you can just throw me in a mental health facility. So that might be fun to try the drugs that you guys have. There might be some new ones. Who knows? But for the street lighting and the landscape with these levees, I feel like we should just really start increasing these so much because then you can take these people's homes and And, you know, then you have all the services that you guys like to provide to them. And it'll just keep them in that cycle. You know what I mean? Don't make them feel like you want to keep them in that home and like you're really going to take care of these things because it's, you know, being honest is the best policy. So, for the traffic advisory committee, I feel like that you could go and take a survey and see what speed would people, you know, really just get out of their cars in if you lowered it too. You know, if it's like five miles an hour, if you put a bunch of speed bumps just along the way all the time, or stop signs even, I think that would de-incentivize driving because you're trying to change our behaviors. And the healthy soil program, I think there's more money in the toxic soil that we have going on, and you're really doing a good job with the Roundup spraying in that I think you guys could increase it and I would also say have those workers not wear any kind of protective gear that way you can put them into the health care system you know and really keep them sick and then the local emergency good job good job.

We will now hear from those that requested to speak by phone when it is your turn to speak you'll be unmuted and you will hear a recording that will tell you to begin your comments and we will go ahead and begin with our first caller.

Hey, wonderful people. They can't actually think for themselves. As we stated, our elections are both citizens and non-citizens. Non-citizens are not supposed to vote according to California Constitution and, you know, the Constitution. Yet our supervisors refuse to do the bare minimum. Bare minimum. book to verify whether or not we have non-citizens on the voter file. Now, eventually they're going to go ahead and do this, and we're going to determine that many of these elections should not have been certified at all.

Sir, we pause your time. We're on the consent agenda. I've stated what items they are, items one through four, and for the flood control district, items one and two. Please speak to those items or you will forfeit your time. Okay. Thank you so much.

Absolutely. Absolutely. As we discuss these items and the people making the decisions, I want to let everyone know there's a good chance that they didn't actually win their seats. There's a good chance that a lot of fraud got them in there where they're making these decisions. And the only way that they can continue making these decisions is if we don't look at the voter rolls and remove the non-citizens. That's why all our money is going to the non-citizens. It's because they recognize, they recognize who is voting them in.

It's your first warning. Your first warning. Please speak to the items. Thank you. I am...

You might have muted yourself. I don't see you.

Trying to get this to work. Let's see.

You have about 28 seconds left. I'm gonna try to go to our next speaker and then I'll come back to you to finish your comments to see if our speaker system is working.

I hope the video feed is working correctly. The TJ River Valley pollution crisis is not spreading countywide. This is more than a crisis, more than an emergency. But your response has been mostly to seek external money or resources, which could take months and years. We need local action, which would be quicker. We need it now. It is affecting people's daily lives, daily lives. People are getting sicker worse. You mentioned local efforts in the last paragraph. We need action now, not in the future, not when Congress or the state can actually find the money to act. I've previously mentioned several possible solutions, the main one being handheld pollution monitors to find out exactly which buildings and where exactly the pollution is coming from. Look them up. but I cannot support the continuation of what is now an industry based on promoting the emergency rather than fixing it. Paltry soils grant sounds fun, pretty much what farmers do already. No specifics, but I suspect that the funds would support other things than farming. The NDAG grant is unrelated and should be a different agenda item. If the zero emissions microtransit has anything to do with Waymo, it needs to be rejected. In Atlanta, Waymo taxis are shown on video speeding up and down on Atlanta Street, where children might be playing and also congregating, and whole neighborhood especially dangerous to kids and seniors. And again, the company just broadcasts.

Thank you. Your time is up. We will try to go back to our previous caller to give the 20 seconds left.

I have no idea what happened.

Yeah, no, I'm sorry. If you do not, I'm waiting for you guys to show me one way that you go ahead and weed out on citizens. Until then, you shouldn't be there. You're not doing your job. You're not even protecting our rights. You're giving all our resources to non-citizens. I think that is completely and utterly wrong. As I stated in a 20-minute conversation with Tara, the second I find out who you're taking orders from, apparently the non-citizens, we will address everything.

Your time is up. We will go to our next speaker.

Okay, Gonzalo here. So let's see. Number four, well, it's lucrative. Millions are being thrown at and granted by Newsom using our tax dollars for cleanup only, but with no actual resolution to solve the problem. Let's see, number five. Okay, healthy soil is mentioned. Funds for healthy soil. Well, that's more of our money being wasted, chemtrails, or call it airplane exhaust, call it condensation, call it stratospheric aerosol injections, call it whatever the hell you want. But what is being emitted is aluminum oxide, barium, strontium, copper sulfate, and potassium iodide. So therefore, if that doesn't stop, there will never be healthy soil anywhere. So, yeah, let's go to number six. You know, believe it or not, I do appreciate the speed limit reduction only because we have a new driver in our home. But in actuality, I do get that it's intended to further control the movement of the people and change driving behaviors while simultaneously penalizing them and profiting from speeding tickets. And, you know, I'd also like to add that I do agree with the woman who spoke during non-agenda talks. There are so many ways we can pursue a healthier approach to our agriculture in our county. And if you're still listening, please look into the U.N. agenda for the 21st century. You may discover that many of our officials, if not all of them, are not truly working for us, the taxpayers, but instead are answering to globalists and their interests. So, yeah, do yourself that favor, sister, and look up the U.N. agenda 21. Because we are heading towards fishbowl living, and we are in total surveillance, and the cameras are pointed at the wrong people, unfortunately. I'm done.

Thank you. Your time is up. We'll go to our next caller.

Good morning. My name is Becky Rapp. I'd like to speak to 2, 3, and 6. I support efforts to make our roads safer through evidence-based traffic measures such as lowered speed limits, improved traffic controls, and additional stop signs. These are common sense strategies. However, I asked the board to consider a contradiction in county policy. Today, we're discussing roadway safety and taking steps to slow traffic and prevent crashes. Yet at the same time, the county continues moving forward with policies that would expand access to intoxicating products, including marijuana businesses in the unincorporated areas. We cannot claim to be making our streets safer while simultaneously increasing the availability and normalization of products that impair judgment, reaction time, coordination, and driving ability. Drug impaired driving is a growing concern throughout California, and marijuana is frequently identified in toxicology reports involving impaired drivers. Law enforcement agencies continue to report challenges detecting and preventing drug-impaired driving, especially as more intoxicating products become available. Before considering any expansion of marijuana businesses or other intoxicating products in the unincorporated areas, I urge the Board to carefully evaluate the potential impacts on roadway safety, impaired driving, law enforcement resources, and public health. if safety is truly our priority then our policies should be aligned we should not be trying to reduce traffic injuries with one hand while increasing risk factors for impaired driving with the other thank you thank you we'll go to our next caller

Good morning. This is Peggy Walker. Speaking to item three, I support this excellent program that promotes good practices in theory that reduce carbon and greenhouse emissions and mitigate climate change, all to protect the environment. So it does bring to question, nevertheless, why at the same time you promote this program, you ignore the significant well-documented environmental harms posed by marijuana cultivation indoor and out, which is in direct contradiction to the goals of this item. Those harms include high water and energy consumption, pesticide and fertilizer runoff that contaminates soil and waterways, and damage to local ecosystems and wildlife. and conflict with the intention of the climate action plan. We don't want toxic soil. That's a good reason to support this, but we should demand the high standards promoted by this program for all cultivation and not allow special interest groups like the marijuana industry to bypass the standards that protect our environment and climate action plan. So yes on item three and no on marijuana cultivation. Thank you.

Thank you.

hi my name is rika gokunath and i'm speaking on behalf of beyond pesticides and our members who live and work in san diego i am speaking about item three which is healthy soil um and would like to encourage the county supervisors to definitely pursue that grant and also consider that Your climate action plan is consistent with organic and pesticide-free management, and I think that relates to something I was hoping to speak to on the non-agendized item, which is we'd also ask you to please not pursue a lease with West Coast tomato growers because, frankly, you have lots of information that's been submitted to you on that, but it is one of the most toxic and chemically intensive items um agricultural operations and to have that occur on County lands leased or not uh is very incongruent with your climate action plan and an application and grant money that may come through the healthy soils program so we thank you very much for the opportunity to speak and I will also be submitting these as comments in written form thank you very much thank you we'll go to our next caller

Good morning, Board of Supervisors. Ann Riddle here. I came in to speak about or called in today to speak about 2, 3, and 4. I'd like to begin with 3 because I think we've done a real disservice to the people who want to adjust your items. There are two very distinctly different items encapsulated in 3. One, the one that most of us are speaking about is the application to the California Department of Food and Agriculture regarding their healthy soils program. And then there's an entirely different resolution to the Board of Supervisors regarding a program that is called the Flexible Fleet Pilot Grant Program having to do with some planning regarding a microtransit zone in Spring Valley and Casa de Oro. although they're two distinctly different items two distinctly resolutions and should have been separated and that seems like other than the fact that they might contribute to good outcomes for our climate action plan they don't really have a thing to do with each other they're very different and have pros and cons so that's a really unfortunate use of your time and certainly was a confusing use of my time and would you look look forward perhaps to not combining resolutions so different from each other. My thoughts about item three, however, is it feels like we're in real conflict. As a retired social worker, I still receive a great deal of information regarding education opportunities. And I received one just the other day, it was yesterday, that the program happened, the webinar, and it was called Health Problems from Emissions of Cannabis Cultivation. It's provided by three researchers in the field of marijuana cultivation and the off-gassing of toxins involved in it.

Thank you. Your time is up. We'll go to our next speaker.

Hi, Jennifer. We can hear some background noise, but we can't hear you. Jennifer, you there? Well, Chair Montgomery, Vice Chair Montgomery, I think this caller may have abandoned the call, so we'll have to go forfeit the time.

And with that, there's Vice Chair Montgomery-Sepp, that concludes public comment on the items on the consent agenda.

Thank you. We'll turn to the Chair Pro Tem.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to take a moment just to speak to item four regarding the hydrogen sulfide hotspot at Saturn Boulevard in the Tijuana River Valley. And I wanna thank the caller that suggested that we take action because I wanna point out that, as you may recall, the deterioration of the culvert at Saturn Boulevard has created a vertical drop that causes aerosols to be shot out into the air that include aerosols of chemicals, pathogens, heavy metals. And my constituents have been breathing this for a long time. And I wanna show my gratitude to this board for approving the two and a half million dollars from our reserves to construct a pipe extension designed to reduce the aerosolization of this pollution. I also wanna let you guys know that earlier this month, there was a key permit that was approved by the Coastal Commission. This milestone is especially meaningful because county staff, my office, the Coastal Commission, and the Navy have worked closely to expedite the permitting process. Through this collaboration, we shaved off six to eight months off the timeline of what it would originally have taken. By this time next year, this fix is expected to be installed. And scientists have predicted that the pipe extension will lower severe hydrogen sulfide emissions. While this is a step toward improving pollution at the hotspot, long-term solutions such as building a box culvert bridge at Saturn and diverting the river on the U.S. side are still needed. Recently, both gubernatorial candidates pledged to follow the County of San Diego's lead, as we will be declaring a 24th state of emergency today, and call for the Sacrament of Christ to be addressed. This significantly helps build upon our region's local efforts and it removes barriers that significantly help expedite protocols to achieve long-term solutions. So both gubernatorial candidates have committed to declaring a state of emergency on day one. So our next governor will declare a state of emergency. I wanna thank this board and the county staff for all your help bringing meaningful solutions to the Tijuana River Valley, especially UW, thank you.

Okay, thank you so very much. If there is no further discussion, questions, comments, we do have a motion by Supervisor Desmond, and I have seconded that motion. Ryan, please call the roll.

Thank you. Chair Pro Temigiri?

Yes.

Supervisor Anderson?

Aye.

Chair Lawson-Riemer?

Yes.

Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp?

Yes.

And Supervisor Desmond?

Yes.

And that motion passes unanimously with all supervisors being present. Voting aye.

Okay. We will now proceed with our discussion items. We'll hear all items in order with the exception of item five, as I mentioned earlier, which we will hear after our lunch break at an estimated time of 1230. We'll we're shooting the break for lunch at 1130. So let's go into item number six, noticed public hearing call a special election to levy special tax and permanent road division. Number one, 1,000 zone number 9B Harris Annex in Rancho Santa Fe and related CEQA exemption. Let's go to public comment.

Thank you, Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp. We do have eight total requests to speak, two individuals in person, six requesting to speak by phone. I'd also like to note for the record, we did receive one e-comment on this item, which was neutral. For any individual that did request to speak on this item by phone, if you could please dial into the conference line now using the instructions that were given to you. We'll begin with the in-person speakers. You'll have two minutes to address the board. I'd like to invite forward Cesar Javier and allegedly Audra.

Cesar and Purita, consistent attendees in Sandag. We have reason to believe that this item for discussion is the option of that six point million money for the planning of Sandag, particularly on this street improvement. I believe that this is a continuing development as far as circulation. When we say circulation, those are road nets, transnet, if that's the right word there. And it must be. It must be done because this is part of planning and development as far as urbanization is concerned. However, we participants have not only confusion but been doubting of this kind of effort to ensure transparency. accountability as far as this program. If I am not mistaken, this is 22% of the 0.86 million for the street improvements. Elected officials, Ma'am Monica, Sir Anderson, Sir Desmond, and Ma'am Aguirre, we have to present the real thing and spend the money accordingly. We depend on you guys. Thank you. Thank you. And we expect the right thing to be done. Thank you.

I wanted to say good job not addressing the elections. That way we can, you know, really make sure these taxes go through, right? Because, I mean, if we acknowledged that there was any kind of cheating, that would be stupid, wouldn't it? I mean, then everybody would kind of go like, should you be up there? I mean, we don't want them to question that. You know what I mean? So good for silencing Justin when he's, you know, trying to bring that out into the people as a whistleblower. I mean, again, you guys love your behavioral health stuff, and I'm sure you're anticipating that too with him. I mean, but you know, with him being suicidal, I should probably not do that. But yeah, so I just feel like, you know, with these elections, and a special one at that, I mean, again, good job for not being transparent as far as that goes, that there is cheating. Because you really want people to believe that their vote is going to count when they're voting for this. You know, and I'm sure people, I mean, you should just ask people if they want to just give you stuff. Like, why even, like, call it a tax? I mean, you could, and you could just, you know, come in, take their home. Wait, you already do that. And then you could sell it for, like, $100. Isn't that cool? Like, imagine who gets those. I mean, that's why you have your friends line up for that. You know, because you really want them to get in there and make a big buck off those, like... you know, really expensive homes. I mean, with the cost of homes these days, you can really, really bring in some revenue. And I feel like, I mean, is this in line with the Climate Action Plan? Does this, like, help people get around easier? Because I don't think that that is beneficial to getting us out of our cars. So I think you really need to rethink that and just maybe permanently close it. You know what I mean? And then you can put people in a fire danger. That's also fun and lucrative.

Thank you. We will now hear from those that requested to speak by phone. Again, when it's your turn to speak, you'll be unmuted. You will hear a recording that will tell you to begin your comments. And we will go ahead and begin with our first caller.

How many pounds?

Okay. Okay.

Our caller is Gambler Hermes.

Gambler, we can hear you. Please say you're not yanking blood. No, you're not yanking blood from my body. Okay, we're going to go ahead and we will go to our next caller.

I guess this is what happens in the deficit spending situation. The Harris Annex homeowners get to pay the county for fixing their own roads. I'm glad that people in Rancho Santa Fe probably have more money than most other people, but it looks like they actually do want to pay for it. At least they get to vote on the tax. You boast of a pavement condition index of 70 in the county. Good job. Congrats. Sounds good, but I just ventured into San Diego City downtown, and the roads are crap. Potholes, cracks, it's disgusting. I don't know who you want to attract there. I mean, you know, maybe you want to attract tourists from other countries so they can go back and laugh about how the streets are so horribly kept up. I mean, maybe we should go back to medieval times, horses and carts. They don't destroy roads like that. I mean, I don't know what you guys really want to do, but no, we can't keep going on like this. I mean, you know, we're a modern Saudi here, I think. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for listening. You're welcome. Thank you. We'll go to our next caller.

Hey, Consuelo here. And yeah, amen to Pablo, Paul Bold. I agree. and uh yeah that's about all i have to say and also actually i'd like to say to paloma you're welcome you can say my name girl consuelo c-o-n-s-u-e-l-o c-o-n-s-u-e-l-o consuelo you're welcome yes i was the caller you were referring to it's okay okay to be humble thank you thank you we'll go to our next caller

Hi, my name is Jennifer Royston. I have lived in San Diego County all of my life. As I sit here broken in many pieces, I cannot comprehend why our county is not upset and going after the trafficking of our children. Why the FBI sits back silently as they kidnap our children and prosper off of selling them.

Bombs, bombs, terrorists.

Ma'am, this is item number six. So it sounds like you would like to speak on our agenda. You can do that at the end of the meeting. We're just trying to keep the comments related to the item. This is a special election to levy special tax and permanent road division. in Rancho Santa Fe. So I would just ask you, please speak to that. Thank you so much.

We keep asking for more money to fix our streets, our roads, our this, our that. None of that money is being utilized in the way that it should be utilized. Instead, it's being given to pay off people, these corrupt officials all these judges why are we not looking at our system and demanding we want you to fix it we want you to stop you have filled your pockets enough that we should be able to move on from there we want fair elections and fair elections is not what we're getting. These Democrats have shut down San Diego County to the point that it looks like walking dead at 9 p.m. at night. That is not my city.

Our bars, our restaurants, our hospitals, everything seems to be controlled by one entity.

And I say that that is the corrupt liberal Democratic Party that has shut our city down and i want justice for what they're doing i want my city back i want freedom and that is not what you guys have been doing you have been filling thank you your time is up we'll go to our next speaker

Oh, next speaker disconnected. So not seeing any other speakers in the speaker queue. Vice Chair Montgomery stepped. That concludes public comment on this item.

Okay. Any of my colleagues which wish to speak on this item? It's in District 3. Chair Lassen-Riemer, did you have any additional comments?

Yes. Sorry, I didn't. I should have pushed my button. Okay.

Supervisor Desmond.

I'm new. So these permanent road divisions, which we have throughout the county, they're sometimes can be problematic in the fact that they're a good effort to try to help citizens take care of their roads. These are basically privately owned roads. for them to put into a fund that then the county we are able to because of our size and means be able to go in and fix these roads at a cheaper cost that they might be able to cheaper than what they might be getting out in the public. So we put these road divisions together. And I think there's a lot of good that can come out of these as long as the fees that are paid actually pay for the repairs that are needed. and unfortunately in many cases we get backwards or we get upside down in these things if people aren't paying the necessary amounts for the county to repair and keep their roads in good repair. And so I know this is not the case with this one in particular today that this is actually the road division folks coming and asking for this increase in the amount that they're going to be paying But all too often, sometimes it falls upon the county as being the bad guy because the people haven't been paying enough to make these repairs. and then the roads get behind and things like that. I'm fine with going ahead with this special tax on the ballot. However, if the people within this PRD, the Public Permanent Road Division, choose not to tax themselves to the amount that's necessary to keep up the road improvements, that if after this the vote if it doesn't pass that I think we as a county then should not be left on the hook and we should start the process of dissolving these public road divisions and giving the money back to the people and say okay you can manage it if you'd like but we've got to have the proper amount of money coming in so that we can make those repairs and that's actually I think a benefit to the folks but when they get behind or get upside down we can't keep up with that. So I'll make a motion to go ahead and approve the item six with the caveat if this does not pass the county should be in the process of dissolving the PRD for this particular one.

Thank you. Is that are you, are we moving forward with staff recommendation in that latter part is, uh, the direction more so just in generally speaking or, well, it doesn't pass to go ahead with staff's recommendation, but if it does not pass that we start dissolving then the, uh, um, that permanent road division. I'll turn it over to Ms. Lynch.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Supervisor Desmond, I believe we certainly could do that. I believe we would need to take one additional step of returning to the board following the election to bring the results forward, and then the board would take an action at that point. Can I please confirm with Council?

Yes, that is correct. The board can give that direction today in addition to the staff recommendation, but it would be essentially direction to staff to return to this board with an item with... the actions for board to dissolve.

I think that fits in with the motion to start the process. If the process includes coming back to us, that's fine. Uh, but I think to start the process of dissolving, if we can't, cause then we're left on the hook for these roads that, uh, we, the rest of the taxpayers should not be paying for if these are private roads. So thank you.

Thank you. All clear. Okay. All right. We supervisor Desmond has made a motion. I will go ahead and second that. And then if there's no further discussion, Ryan, you can call the roll.

And then just clarifying is, is that is staff recommendations being adopted? Are we adding, is it just staff recommendations? Are we just adopting staff recommendations? Are we adding, is, is the, does the returning to the board in amendment? IN ADDITION TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. IT IS, OKAY.

YES, MY UNDERSTANDING, AND SUPERVISOR, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT THE MOTION WOULD BE MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND ADD DIRECTION TO STAFF TO RETURN WITH... TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF DISSOLVING THE PRD.

CORRECT.

IF THE MEASURE FITS. WHATEVER THAT IS, YES.

OKAY.

My understanding is that it would come back to the board. So if that's the process, that's fine. I don't know the whole discussion and then make the decision about dissolution at that time. If it does not pass. Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay. Supervisor, Chair Pro Temigiri.

Yes.

Supervisor Anderson.

Aye.

Chair Lawson-Reamer.

Yes.

Vice Chair Montgomery-Step.

Yes.

And Supervisor Desmond. Yes. And that motion passes unanimously with all supervisors being present and voting aye.

Okay. Thank you. Let's go to item number seven. This is noticed public hearing call a special election to levy special tax and permanent road division. Number 1000 zone, number 13, a Palo Mesa zone in a Fallbrook and related CEQA. It's in Fallbrook and related CEQA exemption. Let's go on to public comment. I understand we have some groups here that want to speak.

Thank you, Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp. We do, we have 21 total requests to speak, 15 individuals in person, six requests to speak by phone and one group presentation. Also like to note for the record, we did receive 46 e-comments on this item. None were in favor, 27 were in opposition and 13 were neutral. For any individual that requested to speak on this item by phone, please dial into the conference line now with instructions that were provided to you. We will go ahead and begin with the group presentation. You will have 10 minutes to address the board. All three members of the group must speak during that 10 minutes. Please self-regulate your time with the timer on the podium. And then I would like to invite for the first group presentation that includes the following individuals, Steven Shrewsbury, Martha Hutchins, and Craig Sherman.

Thank you. I am Dr. Stephen Shrewsbury, a PRD 13A resident since 2017 and the founder and president of Citizens for Sustainable PRDs and Roads, established in February 2026. I support a special tax, but only if this vote is postponed until the underlying financial issues are resolved and stronger accountability measures are in place. Taxpayers deserve accurate financial data and transparent management of PRD funds. In 2021, I first learned we were part of a PRD. County only started collecting assessments in 2022. Now County proposes a 1,200% increase in road tax to generate revenue to replace rusted culverts before any more collapse and repair our deteriorating roads. However, county neglect and lacking assessments from 1968 till 2022 got us into this mess. County now expects 2026 owners to pay to get us out. County acknowledged that revenues were insufficient, even in 2021, but did nothing about it. Supervisor Desmond, you promised to fix the roads people actually drive on. Where have you been while PRD13A roads have deteriorated, culverts have collapsed, and we citizens have been forced to file a lawsuit? We have asked county to explain and remedy this situation, provide full transparency, and work with residents on constructive solutions beyond a binary choice, either a $1,786 tax or dissolution. So I urge the Board of Supervisors to reject putting a ballot for PRD 13A on the November election until after the county has settled existing litigation. Thank you.

Good morning board and honorable board members. My name is Craig Sherman, legal counsel for Citizens for Sustainable PRDs. If you think about the name Citizens for Sustainable PRDs, it was formed because there's a major problem with your PRDs. They've been mismanaged for decades. I don't know if you all know the history of PRDs, but they used to be county service areas and they were taken out of LAFCO to go to these PRDs so that you wouldn't have to go back to expand jurisdiction, fix the tax rules every time going back and forth to LAFCO. Well, since the county's had it, they haven't looked at the tax rules, they've expanded the districts, they've increased the amount of usage on the roads. Interestingly enough about the PRDs as well when they were formed is the public made a pronouncement. These private roads are now publicly designated roads. So the county makes the resolution to form these PRDs, And they set, they designate these as public roads. So now you have individual private owners paying to sustain these publicly dedicated roads. So there's a constitutional problem with that. That's a taking. Well, it was set up as an assessment district. You know, this is a constitutional issue where assessments are paid based upon for benefit users. And now you've got publicly owned lands in there. You've got public projects eating up this roads. You've got expanded districts of owners who haven't been put on the tax rolls and they're using them because the county hasn't fixed the PRDs. You don't have to go to LAFCO, but you don't do anything internally to deal with it. It's not ready for a special tax. Number six passed. Well, it's going to go to election. You know, everybody wants more money for their roads. but you're taking it out of the assessment district, the fair accounting ability, you know, accountability and you're putting it in special taxes. So there'll be no accountability. So don't be surprised if they don't pass because your PRD system is a mess. So I've been asked to help sustainable, you know, a community group trying to help you fix the problems. And we've met with staff. You've got more than 10 people here. I know how, you know, the forefront of, Converting these all to special taxes would be great for you guys, but it's not ready to do that. And this is the test case for it, and that's why you have the resources of everybody here for staff on this. So it's not ready. We told you why. Submitted a comment letter that contains those reasons and the fixes that need to be made. So take a look at it. They're not that complicated. The citizens want to work with you. Fix the structure and PRD. All you have is this board policy that is just watered down nothing. No accountability. The public says we have a problem with our road. They tell staff and staff ignored them for five, seven, ten years. No wonder the roads are deteriorated. Where'd the money go? It went for staff. You're using it for operational budgets. So the accounting issues. But The lawsuit we filed was after trying to work through maybe 10 items, practical, pragmatic, so that the tax could be supported, so that these folks could go out to their members and say, we want to raise these funds, and the county can do a great job with it and should be. That's the way it was set up. But it's not ready to do so, and it failed. Not one. pragmatic recommendation and request was heated to after a period of like 70 days or more after we presented them. So we filed the case.

I'm going to pause your time. You have about 28 seconds left to finish your comments and we need to go to your next person.

Thank you. You got it. So I would recommend and that the request of the community is to put this off. It's not ready to go to vote. If you do, it's just creating additional layers of legal problems. And then the threat of dissolution and the way you're doing it, both to now Harris, as Supervisor Desmond brought up, these are just creating additional layers of legal problems for both process and law. So heed to either the process under Prop 218. If the special tax fails, then you need to go back to the assessment and do it right and measure who's using it and what they should pay. That's what our Constitution provides, and that's what we ask you of your diligence and your request today to put this off, fix some of the problems, and put it as special tax. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Martha Hutchings and I live in PRD 13A. I'm asking you to postpone the special election tax vote. I want to focus on two issues. Parcel allocation errors and voter irregularities. Our mapping was done decades ago and it has problems. There are parcels that use the roads and are not included on the map and pay nothing. Other parcels are taxed even though they never use our roads to access their properties. Still others, which have never previously been assessed, they are mapped in the PRD, suddenly appear on your new tax rolls. I can't imagine they're going to be very happy about that. Utility-owned parcels also use our roadways, but contribute nothing. It is not difficult to predict that many of these property owners will vote against the special tax. These issues need to be corrected before the election is held. There is also a serious voting concern. Under the proposed process, any registered voter residing in our PRD can vote. Renters who will pay none of this tax will vote. Absentee property owners who will bear the financial burden apparently have no vote. A property owner I know owns five parcels but lives elsewhere. He faces an increase in his property tax of thousands of dollars and will apparently have no vote. Simple summary, renters, roommates and voting age offspring can vote on this. Absentee property owners can't vote and incorrectly mapped parcel holders will most definitely vote no. Supervisor Desmond, how can the county proceed with an election when these flaws could materially affect the result? Your stewardship is really needed now. I support a special tax, but only if this vote is postponed until pending litigation is resolved and these parcel and voting issues are corrected. It cannot be the sole responsibility of today's property owners to pay for the failures from yesterday. Supervisor Desmond, you mentioned that there can happen that the PRDs don't have sufficient funds to cover the cost of their maintenance.

Thank you. That's your time. Thank you. We will now begin with the in-person speakers. As your name is called, if you could please come forward and stand on the arrows and tell it is your turn to speak. You'll then have one minute to address the board. Please begin by stating your name for the audio record. I will be calling individuals in groups of three. So please listen for your name. I'd like to invite forward the first three individuals, Susie Push, I believe it's Soleil Devel, my apologies, Steve Smit.

My name is Susie push and I live in PRD 13 a 5.6 miles of road 353 355 residents and a major pipeline that provides water to millions of San Diegans and By no measure is this PRD 13A a typical road district. And for context, PRD 13A went 54 years without an updated assessment. The $150 cap referenced in past discussions was created decades before current residents lived here. Residents were blindsided by this crisis and then criticized for not knowing about a system they never created. Here are the facts. Residents did not create decades of underfunding Residents did not create millions of dollars in deferred maintenance Yet today we are being asked to absorb the consequences of those failures.

Thank you. That's your time.

We'll hear from our next speaker Good morning chair and members of the board. My name is Soleil devel. I'm with the PRD in question here. I respectfully ask the board to delay any vote for the previous reasons on this proposed tax increase until there's been a full review and a meaningful input I would like to see an increase in the budget on this project. Key concerns that I have I understand the board has the county has budget issues. People do to personal private people have budget issues to 1300 or 1200% increase is a year and then with a cola increase there' s a lot that can be done with $270,000 to repair our roads and maybe we wouldn' t have to completely rebuild the roads that' s what this number this $5 million number was based on. thank you.

good morning my name is steve smith I live on sage in PRD 13 a. I'd like to encourage you first to consider our other requests where we delay this vote until a time that the county board of Supervisors can present a plan that's a little bit more comprehensive rather than just dropping the hammer. I'm not afraid of the taxes I'm happy to pay my fair share for what happens but I also would like the rest of the county to pay their fair share which would include all the damage to our roadways caused by the maintenance of the aqueduct that serves the county. We need either the utilities to pay that bill or we need the county to pay it because everyone in the county benefited from it. So please delay your vote. Put together a decent plan that we can get behind and that we can sell to our community and approve the taxes.

Thank you. We'll call the next three speakers forward. Tina Andrus, Maggie Rogan, and Sabrata Das.

i'm tina andress i obviously live in p r d thirteen a our roads are in a state of chaotic disarray as a result of the county's failure to collect assessments over the past fifty five years apparently the only p r d of the county's sixty seven to have suffered this negligence The proposed assessment vote is coupled with the extortionary threat that if a two-thirds majority vote is not achieved the PRD will be dissolved leaving 355 disparate property owners completely on our own to administer maintenance of 5.7 miles of essential access roads. To believe that we are qualified and capable of this task is magical thinking. It is unachievable and preposterous. My household supports a special tax, but only if the vote is delayed until financial inaccuracies are corrected, stronger accountability is established, and the complaint by citizens through sustainable PRDs is addressed. Thank you.

My name's Maggie Rogan, and I'm here to urge you to postpone the special tax vote. I'm a licensed real estate broker and have lived and owned a real estate company in Fallbrook for the past, since 2000. For over 20 years, I represented buyers and sellers in this PRD and never once had a seller or anyone disclose that they were responsible for maintaining the roads. I bought my own home in this PRD in 2013. There was no mention of the PRD from the seller, title report, chain of title, escrow documents, or any other disclosures. As DPW knows, it was not until 2021 that homeowners learned for the first time they were responsible for millions of dollars in road repairs. I remain concerned because there's still no formal disclosure mechanism for new homeowners. Buyers receive no notice, title reports, or any other standard disclosures.

Thank you. Your time is up.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors. I am Subrata Das, and I am a homeowner in PRD 13A. Of course, our roads require maintenance, but their current condition is not due solely to the residential use. These roads have also supported major public infrastructure work, including extended heavy equipment access by the San Diego County Water Authority. Because these roads serve regional utility projects, the county and benefiting agencies should share responsibility for their upkeep rather than shifting the full cost to the homeowners. Before asking residents to approve new taxes, a mechanism should be established by which the county and the utility agencies should fairly contribute financially for their maintenance. So I ultimately support the new tax, but it should be postponed at this time before all these things are taken care of.

Thank you. Call the next three speakers, Cesar Javier, Pete McBride, and allegedly Audra.

You're planning to tax us again and again, and we do not understand the technical plan here. Is the direction of the road suitable? Lessons from the city of San Diego. You know it. Let's learn from those lessons. Where is the plan? Show us whether it justifies taxing us. How thick is the road? What are the features that must be in the road? Particularly knowing that we need water. You know, roads are conveyance. They are pipelines into, hopefully, a dream place collection of water. Come on, let's plan. justify it to us. Thank you.

thank you for the opportunity to speak to my name is john mcbride I represent 11 out of the 13 homes located in mesa grove I' m also part of the prd 13a I' ve lived in this area for 11 years but the homes started in 2014 we' ve been maintaining the road on our own spent thousands of dollars over the last few years we' ve had an issue recently there was a change in our exemption 11 of the homes are no longer part of the exemption but two homes on the property on the same road are part of the exemption including the 68 homes and condos across the street. I was a little confused why the 11 homes are now part of the exemption but the other two homes are not. I know there' s a lot of because I knew I had a little bit of time I've sent everyone an email with a list of different arbitration concerns absence protocols and benefits and double taxation on road maintenance so please review that email when you get a chance and thank you for your time.

Thank you and I called you were on the list but I called Pete McBride. That's me. Oh and so we got a Pete McBride and a John McBride. Misunderstanding the same guy. No problem at all thank you so much.

Talk about a racket. So interesting, you know, making private owners pay for public roads, especially ones that the utility company uses and destroys, right? I mean, those people should definitely not sue the utility company, you know? I mean, that would be stupid to have them pay for the roads that they're damaging. I mean, it's cool because you guys are like, there just hasn't been enough money in there. What have you been doing with the money that you've been collecting? just never enough. It's like, it's just not enough. I mean, as the costs increase, just every amount that we collect is just never going to be enough, but we'll pay our staff. It'll be cool. And then we're going to come and ask you guys for more money, you know, but I mean, screw the utility company. I mean, they should not be held responsible. That's ridiculous. You know what I mean? Holding really the people that are culprits to that responsible would be negligent. So hopefully these people don't sue. the utility company to get them to fix the roads they're damaging.

Thank you. And then we will call the final two in-person speakers. I believe it's Mike and Anton Zack and Richard Walker. Mike and Richard. Okay. I don't see any movement in the chamber. We'll go ahead and go to our phone callers. Again, when it is your turn to speak, you'll be unmuted and you will hear a recording that will tell you to begin your comments and we will go ahead and begin with our first caller. Our first caller is Melanie. Melanie, your phone might be muted because we can't hear you.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not here to address public comment for this item. I'm here to answer questions.

Thank you, Melanie. And then we'll go to our next speaker.

Excuse me. Again, I guess this is what happens in the deficit spending situation. The Palo Mesa Zone 13A homeowners get to pay the county for fixing their own roads. And that looks like no one told the owners until 2021. Typical. County has not fixed the roads or infrastructure here for years. And they're just using old maps so that the people don't know that the money and the repairs will even be applied fairly. same day gotham screws the candy by providing old maps um so now the bill for fixing this is huge because it hasn't been done for so long and here the residents aren't so well off as in rsf if the repairs include an aqueduct that serves in thank you your time is up we will go ahead and go to our next caller

It's crazy how much you guys raise my blood pressure, all because I just want the answers. I just want an answer. Answer to my question. Answer to the questions I've been asking since basically 2021. You guys refuse to go out and do it. Hell, you don't even think you need to answer anyone, any question that they have. I'm glad that the horses finally got moved from that one location, but that had nothing to do with you. Why don't you guys do your jobs? The core of responsibility on the elections is to make sure that non-eligible people aren't voting. Yet you do nothing absolutely positively to go ahead and prevent that from happening. By all means, go ahead and extend my question out for another 30 days because you don't have an answer. It's not that hard to go ahead and say, yes, we butted up against this file. The truth is you don't butt it up against any file. You go with they signed under perjury, you know, that they're not going to go into line.

Your time is up. We'll go to our next caller.

Again, to the people speaking on this item, everything being done within our county is to accommodate a globalist agenda. Your concerns is of no concern to them. I promise. They'll act as though they care, but it's only to look good for self-gain and moving up that political ladder. Right, Jim? And courage. No, I urge you to do yourselves and your families and your hard-earned money a favor. Look into the United Nations agenda for the 21st century. No conspiracy theories about it. It's happening right under our noses. Everything happening is being purposely orchestrated. It is all by design. The system is working exactly how it was intended. And guess what? It needs your participation of believing in it for its survival. So luckily there are people waking up and do yourselves that favor. So let's get hip on what's truly happening because they don't work for you.

Thank you. Your time is up. We'll go to our next speaker.

Hi, Jennifer Lutero. I'm just very concerned that nobody is using transparency in any of these legal matters we speak of. As we all know, I am not educated enough, but I do know right from wrong, and I do know what character and integrity is, things that I hold strong to my heart, and I just... I wish I could share those things with you and you take value in those things that the decisions that you make every single day shouldn't just be about what it is benefiting you and your buddies. You should be concerned about mankind, our world, showing kindness is strength, it's not weakness. We live in a world where we are afraid to talk about God because morons laugh, only because they have never been.

Thank you. Your time is up. We will go to our next caller.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is John Adams, and I live at 2983 Mesa Grove Road in Fallbrook, and I really appreciate the board allowing me make public comment this morning remotely. First, I just want to recognize the hard work of the county staff to try to address the underfunding of the road repairs in the county and specifically for PRDs. I also want to thank the supervisor, Desmond, for his representation and advocacy for Fulbrook and District 5. I'm speaking this morning to request that my parcel and others in my community be excluded from the PRD 13A road assessment district and removed from the special tax report. Over the past five years, San Diego County officials have assured us in writing on multiple occasions that our community is excluded from PRD 13A. Since moving in my home in 2020, I have never paid the assessment and it's never been on my tax bill. Now the special tax report includes not just my home, but 13 of my neighbors on a street that doesn't.

Thank you. Your time is up. And Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp, that concludes public comment on this item.

Okay. Thank you to all the public commenters and everyone who called in. I'll turn it over to supervisor Desmond.

Thank you. I really, this is a mess. These PRDs are a mess. And so we've been collecting about $150 per property on average. is there an escalator in these PRDs? No. Well, that would be step one for fixing this later. But, um, is, um, and people have mentioned, and if I want to ask our attorney here, uh, about the pending litigation, is that holding anything up or delay or causing us not to be able to act on this today?

Uh, the supervisor, the answer to that is no. Um, my understanding is the County has not yet been served with litigation. Um, but from the, what the County understands, the County disagrees with most of the claims and nevertheless, so we will proceed with that, but nevertheless, it does not hold up any of the recommended actions in the board letter today.

Okay. And then I got some questions, more questions for staff. So have we spent money on repairs on this road? And well, no, first let me back up. Are these private roads or public roads?

Supervisor through the chair. Uh, these are privately owned roads. Okay. And in the last... And have we been doing repairs on this road as we've gone along? Absolutely, Supervisor. We have just in the last three years expended over half a million dollars in fixing the culverts that have failed and the sinkholes.

Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. Okay. Supervisor, just, I'm going to go over the rules one more time. Go ahead. Okay. We do have these rules that the audience members, please don't whistle, clap, stomp feet, or do anything that disrupts the proceedings. Feel free to put your thumbs down or thumbs up, or if you agree, do this, but we just want to proceed and give everyone due respect. So happy to show your expression, but please just don't make noise with it. Thank you so much for your participation.

So you're saying we have been doing some, but not all apparently, some repairs to the road with the monies that we have taken in? Yes, sir. And then can we raise the fees or does that always have to go to a vote of the residents? Who can raise those fees?

Tom.

In order to oppose the special tax state law requires a two-thirds vote of the registered voters within the special district.

So within the district itself so we can't just amp up the amp up the taxes or the fees we don't have that authority. However, we can see when a road is deteriorating and going beyond what we can really repair. So who's, is it their residence responsibility? Cause it's private roads or it is a County take on that responsibility. How does that work?

Um, under state law streets and highways code nine 41, the County does not have responsibility to maintain a road unless it's in the County maintained road system. In order for a road to get into that system, it has to be accepted either by the director of public works or by your board. In order to have those findings made, the roads need to be to a certain standard. These roads don't meet that standard. So in a situation like this where you have roads that are privately owned but have some public use, the PRD process as set forth in the PRD law provides a mechanism for private property owners to request that the county provide services to maintain those roads. But the PRD law requires that they pay for those services, either through assessments or through special taxes, both of which require votes of the property owners or the registered.

And they have to initiate that. We can't. We don't have the authority to initiate. The county doesn't.

No, your board could. So what state law says is it can be initiated by petition or it could be initiated by the board on its own initiative. But what I'm saying is that at the end of the day, the process requires the property owners to approve the some sort of assessment or special tax to pay for maintenance services by the county.

So in item number six, we had that. Was that a petition that came through there? It came through their HOA president or whatever. I'm not sure if they got people to sign or is that what, how that item six went? Yes. Supervisor. Okay. Okay. You guys got a private road. You own it. It's your road. And I'll tell you something else. One thing that happened, I don't know, a couple of years ago in Fallbrook, is the owners put a gate across the road so they didn't get cut through traffic and wheel out. That's your road. You can do that. But I'm not saying it's suggesting it, but that's happened. Okay. Well, then you're stuck with this tax. So I don't think waiting is the right thing to do because it sounds like everybody wants us to wait until the county gets you up to speed or gets the road up to the repair values that you want. We can't, I mean, we could send this out to a vote and then you can vote up or down if you want to pay what it's going to take to fix the road or not. And so I'm going to make the same motion as last time, essentially, that we go ahead with staff's recommendation to put the increased tax on the ballot. And if it's returned, if it doesn't pass, that we start the dissolving of the PRD.

Okay. Thank you. We do have a motion on the floor. Any other discussion or second to the motion? Okay.

We have a second.

We have a motion by Supervisor Desmond and a second by Supervisor Anderson. If there is no further discussion, Ryan, please call the roll.

Thank you, Vice Chair Montgomery. Chair Pro Temigiri. Yes. Supervisor Anderson. All right. Chair Lawson-Reimer. Chair Lawson-Reimer. Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp.

Yes.

Supervisor Desmond. Yes. And that motion passes unanimously with all supervisors who are present and voting aye.

At this time, if we're ready, here discuss item number eight. I'm sorry, item number five. Excuse me. And that is our inclusionary housing ordinance. And at this time I will turn it over to staff for presentation.

Good afternoon. As part of the houses, as part of the County's housing for all initiative planning and development services advances, a variety of land use and housing strategies focused on producing housing for all recognizing that no one single action can address the region's housing challenges. The County utilizes a range of policy tools and regulatory levers to support housing production, improve affordability and create pathways to home ownership. Today's proposed inclusionary housing ordinance or IHO represents one approach to expanding housing opportunities by requiring deed restricted affordable housing within new residential development projects. At the same time, the county is also working on several other initiatives intended to reduce barriers to housing development, simplify permitting processes and create additional flexibility for housing and mixed use projects. Several of those updates will be presented to the board later this year and early next. For today's item, establishing inclusionary housing up front ensures access to affordable housing stays central to the county's housing for all strategy. We'll now begin our formal presentation.

Good morning, Chair and Board of Supervisors. Today's staff is presenting the draft inclusionary housing ordinance, which is an amendment to the county's zoning ordinance. Staff are requesting that the board provide direction on four key components of the ordinance and consider its adoption. During today's presentation, we'll provide background information on inclusionary housing and review the ordinance components, which consists of set aside requirements, minimum project size applicability, alternative compliance measures and incentives. Then we'll walk through an example project to illustrate how the ordinance can be applied, summarize feedback received during public outreach and conclude with recommendations. For reference throughout this presentation, the bottom of each slide will show the topic being presented. An inclusionary housing ordinance would require certain new market rate housing projects to either include some affordable units within the project or support affordable housing elsewhere. This is a common tool to support affordable housing production and most cities in San Diego County have already adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance in 2021. The board directed staff to develop an inclusionary housing ordinance, which would apply to all housing projects over a certain size, and capture land value increases from general plan amendment projects that are increasing their density. Preparing an ordinance was also included as a housing element implementation program item. State law requires jurisdictions not only to adopt the housing element, but to also implement the programs within it. Adoption of the ordinance today would implement prior board direction and fulfill the housing element commitment. Failure to implement a housing element program could jeopardize the county's compliance with the California Department of Housing and Community Development, or state HCD, potentially affecting funding eligibility, increasing legal risks, and limiting local control over land use decisions. While the county has met its regional housing needs allocation arena for the above moderate, moderate, and low-income households, there remains a significant shortfall and housing affordable to very low income households. An inclusionary housing ordinance would generate about 15 to 60 deed restricted affordable units per year, depending upon the policy options selected by the board, in addition to the affordable units already produced through other county programs. While the ordinance alone will not close the county's very low income housing gap, it is one of several tools available to support housing production. For housing to be considered affordable, a family should spend no more than 30% of their income on housing. Affordable housing is broken into categories for what is considered to be very low, low and moderate income. For a family of four in San Diego County, a very low income household earns less than $87,000 per year and could afford housing costs of about $2,200 a month. a low income household earns less than $140,000 a year, and they could afford housing costs of about 3,500 a month. Lastly, a moderate income household earns less than $157,000 per year and could afford housing costs of about $3,900 per month. The draft inclusionary housing ordinance was last presented to the board for consideration in August of 2024. At that time, the board directed staff to return after receiving information about the development feasibility analysis, which has since been completed and the vehicle miles traveled mitigation program, which was presented earlier this month and consider the following, ensuring overall housing production is not negatively impacted, aligning with state density bonus law to provide incentives while considering program phase in continuing to engage with experts and community members. and reducing the radius for offsite development from 5 miles to 3 miles. To inform development of the ordinance, staff retained AECOM to prepare an economic analysis which was peer-reviewed. The analysis evaluated the feasibility of a range of affordable housing set-aside requirements and identified associated in lieu fee options across different project types. Given the time that has elapsed since the original study was completed, staff retained KMA to conduct an independent review of the AECOM analysis. KMA found that AECOM's methodology for evaluating inclusionary housing requirements was consistent with industry practice. KMA also noted that market conditions have changed since the original analysis was prepared, including increases in construction, labor, and insurance costs, while rents and home prices remained stable.

As a result, KMA recommended that adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance includes set aside requirements that enable projects to absorb regulatory requirements and market shifts. In recognition of the third party review findings and recommendations, staff has organized the ordinance into four components, each representing a policy decision point for the board. First, the board is asked to establish the set aside or percentage of affordable housing units required in a housing development and the affordability levels of those units. The set-aside options are grouped into three tiers based on their estimated impact on housing feasibility, with Tier 1 having the lowest impact and Tier 3 the highest. Second, the Board is asked to select the minimum project size that will be subject to the inclusionary requirements. The Board may choose a lower threshold, which would apply the requirements to more projects, or a higher threshold, which would apply the requirements to fewer projects. third, the board is asked to select one or more alternative compliance options that would allow developers to satisfy all or part of the affordable housing requirement through a method other than providing on-site units. The board may choose to allow a limited number of alternative compliance options or a broader range of options for more flexibility. Last, the board is asked to consider allowing additional incentives to encourage the provision of affordable units on-site. The board may choose to provide no additional incentives, a limited number of incentives or the full suite of all incentives presented. The following slides provide additional detail on each ordinance component. Then staff will conclude the section by walking through an example project that puts all the components together. The first component, the set aside requirement most directly shapes the affordable housing outcomes of the inclusionary housing ordinance. The set aside consists of two parts. First, the percentage of new units within the market rate development that must be provided as affordable housing, typically ranging from five to 20%. And second, the affordability level of those units such as very low, low or moderate income. For example, if the county established a 10% low-income set-aside requirement, then a 10-unit project would be required to provide one unit to a qualified low-income household. Today, the board is asked to establish three separate set-aside requirements, one for for sale projects, one for for rent projects, and one for general plan amendment or GPA projects. The set-asides are evaluated separately because project economics can vary by development type. For for sale projects, housing developers have emphasized the need to focus on low or moderate income units for this project type. As buyers with lower incomes often are more challenged with qualifying for mortgage financing and down payment requirements. By comparison, affordable housing advocates and community members have shared that for rent projects are better positioned to provide housing affordable to extremely low and very low incomes. which would most support the county's RHNA goals and address the shortage of deeper levels of affordable housing. Finally, environmental groups have shared a desire for GPAs to support higher set-aside requirements because they receive additional development potential through upzoning. With that context, the next slide shows the range of set-aside options available for the board's consideration. The available set aside options have been organized into three tiers that represent increasing levels of affordable housing requirements and associated impacts. This table shows the range of set aside options available for each project type. Consistent with prior board direction, all options align with state density bonus law. Tier one set asides are expected to have a relatively lower impact on both market rate housing projects and affordable housing production. Conversely, tier three set asides are expected to result in higher affordable housing production while also having a greater impact on project feasibility. For example, if the board directs a tier one set aside for sale projects, that would require a new housing project to include 10% of its units as affordable to moderate income families. In light of the findings of KMA's third party review and board direction to prepare an ordinance that does not negatively impact housing production, certain tier two and tier three set asides have been grayed out to identify options that may be less likely to remain feasible under current market conditions. However, all set aside options identified in the original AECOM analysis remain available for the board's consideration today. To adopt the inclusionary housing ordinance staff requests that the board choose a set aside between tier one, two or three for each of the three project types. The second component, the minimum project size, determines when the inclusionary housing requirements will apply to new projects. If the county adopts a 10 unit minimum project size, then all projects that are 10 units or more would need to include or support some affordable housing. The lower the minimum project size, the more projects will be required to contribute to affordable housing. Most projects in the county are one or two units and would not be subject to the inclusionary housing requirement. In addition, any accessory dwelling unit or ADUs in a project do not count towards the minimum project size. For projects that meet the minimum project size, they will either build the required affordable housing onsite or choose a form of alternative compliance. to adopt the inclusionary housing ordinance, staff requests that the board choose a minimum project size, selecting either a lower threshold, higher threshold, or another threshold selected by the board.

The third component, alternative compliance, allows the inclusionary requirement to be satisfied without building affordable units on site. State law requires that the county have at least one alternative compliance option. The first two types of alternative compliance are offsite development and land donation. Offsite development would allow affordable units to be built offsite instead of being built with the market rate units at the original project site. Land donation would allow land suitable for affordable housing development to be donated to the county for a future affordable housing project. To address equity concerns related to moving the affordable units away from the rest of the market rate housing, there are specific location criteria that limit where these are allowed. These would be limited to either the same community plan area or within three miles of the project site as previously requested by the board or in a high or highest resource area or within a VMT efficient or infill area. Other forms of alternative compliance include affordable for sale ADUs built on site to satisfy a portion of the affordable housing requirement and in lieu fees, which allow a builder to pay a fee instead of building affordable units on site. And in lieu fee would be paid into a fund that the County uses towards building affordable housing projects across the unincorporated area, such as the law Sabila apartments near the one Creek transit station. The County serves as an important gap financier for affordable housing projects. The board could allow in lieu fees for all projects or limit them to apply only to small projects. The board can also choose whether to allow in lieu fees to fully or partially cover the affordable housing requirement. To adopt the inclusionary housing ordinance, staff request that the board choose at least one alternative compliance option. The board can choose to select the least or most flexible range of options. The fourth and final component, incentives, encourages developers to build the affordable units on site. The incentives the boards can consider today build on existing state and local incentive programs. The first of these is density bonus, which allows additional units to be built. This density bonus can range from five to 50% for mixed income projects. The County could expand this incentive by 5% for all projects or double state density bonus up to a 50% threshold. The second incentive is a regulatory concession, which creates flexibility for a project by relaxing zoning requirements for housing projects. This does not allow changes that would affect health and safety. The last incentive is priority review for projects that provide 50% more low income housing than required. This allows these projects to get processed more quickly than a typical project to adopt the inclusionary housing ordinance staff requests that the board choose whether to allow none, some, or all of the additional incentive options. To see the components together, let's walk through an example of a new for sale 30 unit housing project. If there were a 10% moderate set aside, this example project could meet this requirement in two ways. They could build the affordable units on site or choose a form of alternative compliance. If they build the units onsite, then three of the homes would be sold to qualified moderate income families because the affordable units are built onsite, they qualify for incentives. So this project would receive a 10% density bonus to build three additional market rate units. If however, they choose to use alternative compliance and they'd have a few options. If alternative compliance options are allowed, then they'd be able to choose how to satisfy the requirement. They could pay an in lieu fee, With units averaging 2,500 square feet, the project would pay about $860,000. These funds would be used as gap financing to fund affordable housing development. Alternatively, the project could sell up to 50% of the affordable units as smaller accessory dwelling units, or they could donate land for future affordable housing, or they could build the units away from the rest of the project within specific areas. The inclusionary housing ordinance engaged with the wide range of industry and community members and groups during an extensive public outreach period, including over 80 meetings from 2020 through 2026, summarized here. From affordable housing advocates and community members across the unincorporated county, staff heard a desire to focus on the need for very low income housing where the need is the greatest. Ensure affordable units are not separated from market rate units and ensure in lieu fees are used to support affordable housing development. From builders and developers, staff heard the importance of emphasizing the need to build an ordinance that would not harm overall housing production, including consideration of phasing in the ordinance and the timing of providing affordable units in relation to market rate units. Included in this was a focus on moderate income units for sale choosing a higher minimum project size, providing flexibility for projects by allowing multiple alternative compliance options, and providing additional incentives. They expressed that the more regulatory requirements are placed on market rate housing, the less likely those projects are to pencil out. Finally, two community planning groups, Fallbrook and Valley Center, voted in 2023 recommending that their communities be excluded from the inclusionary housing ordinance. Staff balanced all feedback received and reflected these comments in the tiers of set asides and other component options available to the board. Staff incorporated feedback from industry representatives into the ordinance in the following ways. Included moderate home ownership options. In response to changing market conditions and the findings of the KMA review, staff identified lower impact tier one and tier two options that are more likely to remain feasible under the current market conditions. Increased flexibility by allowing applicants to choose from multiple set aside options within tier two. And with regards to alternative compliance, expanded options to include allowing in lieu fees for all projects, providing greater flexibility for land donation offsite development locations, allowing affordable for sale ADUs, and removing affordable unit size comparability requirements. Finally, staff provided an additional incentive options, including doubling state density bonus up to 50%. Following the release of the board letter, staff received stakeholder comments requesting clarification regarding how county inclusionary housing incentives are requested and how they interact with the state density bonus incentives. Staff agrees that the ordinance language could be clearer and is recommending the clarification to section 6341E to make it clear that applicants must identify requested inclusionary housing incentives in their affordable housing plan and those incentives And those incentives do not count against the concessions and incentives available under state density bonus. In addition, the board may direct staff to allow offsite construction, land donation, and in lieu fee expenditures to occur outside the unincorporated area. In conclusion, staff recommends the board of supervisors find the proposed ordinances, comply with CEQA, adopt the inclusionary housing ordinance and provide direction on each of the four components. adopt the in Luffy ordinance if applicable and incorporate changes to clarify language on the use of density bonus incentives and to allow the use of in Luffy's land donation and offsite construction outside the unincorporated County. This concludes the presentation and staff is available to answer questions.

You certainly appreciate it. Thank you so much. We'll go to public comment and then come back to the board for discussion.

Thank you, Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp. We do have 19 total requests to speak, 10 individuals in person, and nine requesting to speak by phone. And we were notified that there is one group presentation as well. I would also like to note for the record, we did receive five e-comments on this item. One was in favor, two were in opposition, and one was neutral. For any individual that has requested to speak on this item by phone, please dial into the conference line now using the instructions that were provided to you. We will go ahead and begin with the group presentation. You will have 10 minutes to address the board. All three members of the group must speak during that 10 minutes. Please self-regulate your time with the timer on the podium. I'd like to invite forward the group presentation that includes the following individuals, Muhammad Umar, Guadalupe Rojas, and Nicole Lilly.

I don't see them here, so we can... They're coming from the overflow.

Okay. Sounds good. And then just as a reminder, each person in the group may speak for no more than four minutes. As you come forward, if you could please state your name at the podium. Begin your presentation. Just a quick recap, if you could just state your names as you come to the podium. You'll have 10 total minutes, but no one person can speak more than four minutes.

Hello, my name is Nicole Lilly. Hello, Guadalupe Rojas.

Hello, my name is Mohamed Omar. Thank you. And then whoever is going to start may start.

We have a presentation.

No worries. Thank you.

Reset for podium.

No, it's a second one here.

Yeah.

Let's try to give it one more minute, and now we can go ahead and get started with the time, okay?

Thank you.

All right.

Okay, I'm not sure why.

If you want to go ahead and certainly go try it.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. My name is Mahmoud Omar. I'm with the Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans, and I'm here with partners from the CED, Coalition for Equitable Development, to speak in favor of a strong community-focused inclusion and housing ordinance. And I would like my colleagues to introduce themselves.

Hello, my name is Nicole Lilly. I'm the executive director of Our Time to Act. We are a youth-led housing justice organization.

I'm Guadalupe Rojas with Mid-City Community Advocacy Network based in City Heights.

We're here today to advocate on behalf of the 166,000 individuals and families who live in the uncorporated county and don't have adequate access to an affordable home, in part because we have filled our local toolbox with all the tools necessary to support the development of affordable housing. Inclusion in housing is one of those missing tools. By adopting the ordinance, we can capture some of the gain from rising real estate values to produce affordable homes for lower-income households. The county originally committed to passing inclusionary housing ordinance by 2022 with the goal of reducing patterns of economic and racial segregation, reducing sprawl, and promoting population health and quality of life by creating mixed income development in higher resource areas. According to a January report from Bureau of Labor Statistics, San Diegans faces the nation's second highest combined burden of housing and transportation costs, eating up over 55% of average household expenditures. This chart shows how delaying actions on inclusion in housing has harmed very low-income households, many who are the backbone of our economy. San Diegans are harmed when affordable units aren't built because they are forced to pay more of their income for rent and forego necessities such as nutritious food and children and health care. San Diegans experience harm when they are forced to move far from family and community. We ask the steps you take today meet the most critical unmet need homes affordable to individuals and families earning less than 50% IME. I'll turn over to Nicole.

Thank you, Mahmoud. Inclusionary housing is a vital and proven tool for producing affordable housing. More than 700 programs exist nationwide, including over 158 jurisdictions across California alone. These programs are especially supportive in areas where scarce housing supply and limited housing production result in high home prices. Areas like the unincorporated areas of the county. San Diego was ahead of the nation in implementing segregation, but is woefully behind in addressing it. We're already behind on implementing a proven inclusionary housing program here in San Diego. To make up for missed opportunities, we need policy requirements that maximize the number of units affordable to lower income San Diegans. That means the policy should apply to new developments, commercial and residential conversions, and substantial rehabilitations of multifamily developments that meet program requirements. In addition to applying to all housing developments in unincorporated areas that result in a net increase of available units, feasibility studies should be updated every three to five years to account for changing market conditions. This is to ensure that inclusionary requirements do not prevent production or fail to capture land values that will help us meet our arena goals. The county should also review and adjust set asides every other year to ensure that policy remains targeted to respond to unmet community needs. The thresholds and set-asides proposed today are based on the 2023 ACOM analysis and KMA's third-party review from earlier this year, specifically aimed at simplifying initial program implementation. Based on that analysis and current RHNA progress, we ask that you prioritize options that provide the greatest number of low-income and for-sale units and very low-income rental units. We also urge the board to make the policy flexible enough to be responsive to the needs of different sub markets, leverage the village framework, and incentivize development in opportunity rich areas. For example, sub markets with higher permitted densities are better positioned to support affordable units by utilizing density bonus incentives. Therefore, the policy should be designed to incentivize density in higher opportunity VMT efficient areas where it is already designated. Like for example, setting a five unit threshold in area zone for 15 plus units per acre and a 10 unit threshold in areas for under 15 units per acre. The maps of Fallbrook and Ramona Village show residential urban zones in dark pink, residential variable zones in sky blue, commercial and office zones, some of which allow residential in light pink, and village center zones in white. These maps demonstrate how many of these areas allow increased residential density and how this policy could be used to maximize affordable housing production in unincorporated areas of the county. Spring Valley and Lakeside pictured here provide two more examples. To further tailor the program to the county's existing zoning, tiered set-asides could also be established to account for the differences in sub-markets. While some stakeholders expressed concern that higher set-asides would not be feasible in current market conditions, a tiered set-aside would allow for higher set-asides and greater ability to maximize density bonuses in areas that are zoned for increased density and lower set-asides in areas intended for more gentle density. We strongly request that today's decision allow the flexibility and responsiveness to analyze and potentially incorporate tiered thresholds and set-asides during future implementation reviews and updates. Thank you. I pass the floor to my colleague Lupe for the remaining slides.

Thank you. We understand that higher set-asides and deeper affordability require more flexible alternative compliance, and we also want to encourage that development happens where it makes sense, especially for the people who will be calling these communities their homes, whether that's on high-opportunity or VMT-efficient areas. While on-site development is essential for the creation of mixed-income communities, and allowing equal amenities. We don't want to put low income home buyers at risk of rising HOA fees. So we're open to allowing projects to pay in lieu fees to satisfy their affordable housing obligations. to maximize value capture rental units, limiting fees to projects less than 10 units, and set the fees 5% to 7% higher to incentivize on-site construction, and update the fees annually to reflect the costs that the developer would otherwise incur to provide affordable units on-site.

Okay.

Then, off-site development and land donation should be limited to, sorry, should be limited so that the inclusionary program does not undermine the goal of creating mixed income communities. Specifically, both should only be allowed, as you can see in the map, in areas that are VMT-efficient or infill areas of high or highest resource in the community planning area closest to the market rate development to ensure units protect quality of life and hopefully prevent urban sprawl, which could have negative consequences like higher car dependency, social isolation, and less employment and educational opportunities. off-site units may be allowed only if their location is identified and is owned or site control is demonstrated by the applicant at the time of the first approval. Finally, we don't want to depress or reduce development, so we're also in support of density bonuses as well as priority reviews for on-site development. Thank you all for listening to our priorities.

Thank you. We will now begin with the in-person speakers. As your name is called, if you could please come forward and stand on the arrows until it is your turn to speak at the podium. You will then have one minute to address the board. Please begin by stating your name for the audio record. I will be calling individuals in groups of three, so please listen for your name. I'd like to invite for the first three individuals, Cesar Javier, allegedly Audra, and Susan Baldwin.

We have reasons to believe that we are on the wrong direction. We must build shelter, shelter for the homeless, not for those who are physically able to work and have money to rent at least. Ma'am Monica, this is basic. Ma'am Aguirre, how do we shelter the victims of this Tijuana River pollution while clearing the mess? I think morally we are obliged to, to build a house, a transition house for the sick. Until they become healthy and land for a job, at least worth getting to pay for rent and own, hopefully, the American dream. Very basic, mom. What are we doing? God help.

Next two speakers would be allegedly Audra or Susan Baldwin. Okay, not seeing either one of those speakers in the chamber.

Ms. Baldwin, you can come forward.

Yes, you can come forward. Thank you.

When your name is called, please come forward, sit in the front chairs and you can go up whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, my name is Susan Baldwin and I'm here today to represent the San Diego chapter of the Sierra Club to support the adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance. The Sierra Club submitted a letter with our comments in 2023 and resubmitted the same letter signed by myself and Peter Anderson for today's hearing. Today I'm going to just focus on one issue, and that is relating to general plan amendments. The CR Club urges the County Board of Supervisors to require 20% affordable units at 65% AMI with no in lieu fee option. This is like the City of San Diego's North City inclusionary housing requirement, which has been successfully implemented over the past 25 years. It is important that the low income affordability requirement be set at 65% or lower AMI, not at 80% AMI. Thank you.

Thank you. Call the next three speakers, Stephanie Evanuto, Kevin Vino, and Amy Fawcett.

Good afternoon. Sorry about that. My name is Stephanie Benvenuto. I'm here on behalf of the San Diego Building Industry Association. I want to start by thanking staff. They have diligently and over a very long period of time taken our feedback and our analysis on this policy. So we're excited to see it here today and we appreciate all the time that you've spent with us. You'll hear from our CEO today, so I'll leave. My comments on the importance of flexibility, but you've also heard some really compelling reasons why we need to truly expedite delivering the additional homes in the unincorporated area. To that end, building in District 4 is not the same typology financing or planning as it is in District 2. The diversity of our county should be foundational to the design of this policy because we firmly believe that the unincorporated area of San Diego is the best path to creating truly attainable housing. in other words we need to maximize those options because alternative compliance options for one area don't always work in another. To do so we ask for an inclusionary policy that provides ample flexibility incentives and phase-in so as not to upend planned projects that are already in the pipeline benefiting future San Diegans. Thank you.

Thank you next speaker.

Sorry I wasn't sure if I was second or third in line. good afternoon chair and members of the board my name is amy fawcett president and ceo of the building industry association of san diego county the bia represents the home building industry and the tens of thousands of local workers who plan design and build housing throughout our region. So thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Today, we asked the board to adopt the most practical pro-housing approach possible. When this discussion began, the board provided clear direction to staff to not impede the production of market rate housing. We encourage you to remain guided by that principle. I'm here on behalf of the local businesses responsible for delivering the housing our region desperately needs. The unincorporated county represents one of the last significant opportunities to develop new housing at a scale that can create naturally attainable homes for working families. The reality is that inclusionary housing requirements do add cost to residential development. The question is not whether costs increase but how much. Thank you for your time.

I call the final two in-person speakers, Sean Kilkenny and Thelma Navarro.

thank you Mr. Chair. good afternoon honorable chair and members of the board my name is sean kilkenny partner of nolan communities I want to thank staff for their tireless efforts and putting up with me. My job is to figure out how to develop housing including deed restricted affordable missing middle and workforce housing I' m an expert at it. This board has prioritized transparency you have budget workshops and public engagement in fact on this item you directed staff to engage with and while some necessary changes have been made and I think staff for that there are several important issues that remain within the ordinance their concerns that we have continuously raise ad nauseum if your intent on adopting an inclusionary ordinance for today please respect these legitimate issues that we have raised by supporting a motion to provide maximum flexibility including a minimum of at least a three-year phase in. enhanced incentives for on-site affordable housing, and direct staff to work with industry to ensure that the ordinance improves overall housing production. I'm available to answer questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And Thelma, and then yes, recalling the two speakers, allegedly Audra and Kevin Eno. You may come forward if you're in the chamber now.

Good afternoon, my name is Thelma Navarro and I'm with the Center on Policy Initiatives. I'm here to support the adoption of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, but I am also here to urge the board to address the disparity in producing low and very low income housing meet our regional goals an area where despite great strides the county continues to fall behind on to amend this the board should pursue tiered thresholds based on density to maximize low and very low income units in addition loopholes that further increase poverty clustering should not be allowed under this ordinance for both off-site development and land donations we are opposed to separating affordable housing units 30 miles from the other housing or within the same community planning area given how diverse and resources are unincorporated areas are well it is important to increase housing development allowing developers to give low-income working-class people different living conditions tell san diegans that the county is okay with Some of us having less access to services as basic as grocery stores and public transit. I largely support the ordinance, but encourage you to look at how to properly service San Diegans often left behind. Thank you.

Thank you.

wanted to say staff good job this is a great pamphlet leaflet you know a lot of information good paper stock quality a lot of good graphs to gaslight the people and make them think that you're going to provide housing it's good also the words of access to housing right as long as there's access to it doesn't matter if the people get into it that's not the point that's not what keeps you guys in compliance You know, you just got to say that you're getting permitting, you know, you're doing these in lieu fees, land value capture, you know, all of the good stuff that really is good for business. The VMT shenanigans, perfect to make people, you know, get out of their cars. And just your fulfillment to stay in compliance to get more funding. Great job, you guys. Because the point isn't really to make sure people get into housing. There's plenty of it. We just need to make sure that we provide more so it seems like that people can get into it. And, you know, as long as we have barriers to them getting into it, they never will. Good job.

Thank you. We will now hear from those that have requested to speak by phone. When it's your turn to speak, you'll be unmuted and you will hear a recording that will tell you to begin your comments. And we will go ahead and begin with our first caller.

In 1982, the largest case of organized voter fraud was discovered. It was discovered by groups like this, groups taking advantage of our system in order to go ahead and get sweet-ass contracts that don't actually fix anything. Now, the funny thing is, the second that the registrar decides to go ahead and vet our voter rolls on non-citizens, we will discover these organizations have still continuously done it all the way up to this point.

I'm giving you one warning previously. This item is the inclusionary housing ordinance. Please, in your 30 seconds that you have left, please speak to the agenda item or unfortunately I will have to have you forfeit your time.

Okay. I am speaking on that item. I'm afraid that the same shenanigans that took place in 1982 are happening today. And that is why you're pushing these deals like in 1982 you are doing today. The only difference between 1982 and today is that you are, every freaking person up there, the registrar, all of them are working to go ahead and silence anyone pointing out that we don't do any citizenship checks when it comes to voting. We don't do it ahead of time, and we don't do it after time. Thank you.

Your time is up. We'll go to our next speaker.

Paul Bold. This is a step in the right direction that could lead to good things like a truly integrated society, but devil's in the details, and this ordinance won't do it. first to get it straight rent and housing costs are not stable and then unaffordable is not stable this ordinance will only be truly inclusionary at the smallest possible project size section six three four one b option one is the way to go But the subsection exempting units at 80% AMI has got to go. This basically excludes most low-income and homeless people. Note that in lieu of fees, you need affordable housing not to let rich developers pay their way out of it by contributing to another fund, which might be rated like the unlocked reserves.

Thank you. Your time is up. We'll go to our next caller.

Consuelo here. So amen, Paul. You said it and the devil is in the details. And on point to brother Cesar Javier. But unfortunately for the American dream to exist, people have to be willing to remain slaves. Slavery never ended. It's also unfortunate that there are cities within our county, like Chula Vista, that are more inclined to build sports facility complexes instead of caring to prioritize the needs of those who've been victimized by the same establishment that claims to want to help. But proof is in the pudding, and the lack of an action for those that need it most is always the case in our county. Those beyond being in desperate need are always neglected, And at the mercy of this governmental racket or whatever it is, it's all growth. Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll go to our next caller. Luisana Gonzalez. Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. My name is Ana Gonzalez and I'm speaking on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. I want to start by thanking county staff for their work on this item. We recognize that this draft inclusionary housing ordinance represents an effort to produce affordable housing options in the county, which is essential to supporting our region workforce. We also recognize that it represents an inherent trade-off, including housing costs across the board. Having an overly restrictive inclusionary housing ordinance not only deters affordable housing construction, it deters any kind of housing from being built. For this reason, we propose that any such ordinance include provisions that help lower the cost of compliance and instead incentivize it. The Chamber has submitted a letter with detailed solutions such as a phase-in approach to set aside percentages and minimum project sizes, adoption of all the alternative compliance and incentive options, and a waiving of impact fees for all units produced under the ordinance. We believe these solutions can boost housing production with fewer economic impacts and respectfully request that any adopted ordinance follow this framework.

Thank you. Your time is up. We will go to our next caller.

Age truth, inclusionary housing is exclusionary on affordability. Government goons believe they can force housing to come down in price by demanding developers take profit losses, a.k.a. communism, or pay a mitigation tax to pretend to build affordable box units. Then they force the middle class to become poor by paying the rent for others who can't or won't, a.k.a. communism. This corrupt board claims they're helping when they're actually harming by increasing both housing prices and the cost of living. The site focuses on ensuring housing production is not negatively impacted, not that prices aren't negatively impacted. The state's re-housing quotas are but an excuse to implement this inflationary ordinance because no matter how many box units are permitted, the numbers will never add up to what pervert queen Scott Weiner demands. This $871,000 ordinance is a hammer in the toolbox that will congest the roads, block the light, increase fire and law enforcement needs, and remove local control. And the county even used ACOM, who screwed up results with FANDAX. The branch of allies PENA attacking the American dream of a single-family home comes as no surprise because inclusion is an anti-American scam. No.

Your time is up. We'll go to our next caller.

Excuse me. Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. Anne Riddle here speaking to Item 5 regarding inclusionary housing. For those of us who may have experience living in subsidized or affordable housing, I'd like to share these observations. When my little family returned back from college and college graduation to San Diego County, we lived in a complex that was totally affordable for everyone that met the lower income levels. Highly recommend that rather than a carve out of 10% low income and then the other 90% just gets marked up and no one's out or made any sacrifices and you really haven't provided the amount of housing you needed. However, there were a problem that there were no schools nearby. And there was nothing to do, no policies in place regarding smoking. So when my little group of two children would go out to play, the smoking was horrific, not good for little families, and that was primarily what was in affordable housing. So I would write into it.

Thank you. Your time is up, and we'll go to our next speaker.

hi jennifer royston um i would just like to echo what the previous caller just said i have noticed that these housings that are from the city and supposedly affordable housing these are where they are housing the criminals that they use to gang-stalk you, harass you, and to enforce your silence upon you. The families in there are very minute to the straight-up dirtbags that they seem to give all kinds of these great incentives, which is housing. But when I was on the streets, um they didn't care about my family but i tell you who they did care about they cared about every drug dealer around me they made sure those were housed so shame on you guys for um and our government is coming for the fraudulent use of all this housing the theft of our children you guys are thank you your time is up and vice chair montgomery step that concludes public comment on this item okay thank you so much ryan and thank you to members of the public who

have come out and also called in. Appreciate the stakeholders for engaging in these conversations with us as supervisors and also with our County staff members. Thank you for the presentation, all the work. Things continue to evolve and change and shift. And one of the good things, I'm not proud that we don't have an inclusionary housing ordinance yet, We can learn from what is out there. So that is sort of the silver lining. I also know that inclusionary housing alone won't won't solve the entire housing crisis, but it's certainly a tool to reduce housing discrimination socially and economically. And so I will just start this conversation. If y'all would indulge me with putting something, putting a motion on the floor for what I believe can be a discussion point. And then we can kind of go from there. I, here's what I'm thinking that we should under policy decision number one, establish the set aside requirements as proposed in tier two. Under policy decision number two, set the minimum project size to 10 or more units. Under policy decision number three, I would like to direct staff in coordination with housing community development services to develop implementation guidelines requiring applicants to demonstrate that compliance with higher priority alternatives is not feasible before deciding to go for a lower priority alternative compliance option. And I would like for them to be considered in this order. One land donation with covenants for very low or low income to moderate units on site with moderate, or excuse me, market rate units and allow for land donations in incorporated cities with a change that would remove the line within the three miles of the market rate project site. And instead include the, the community planning area or VMT efficient or infill area, higher highest resource area or village areas as categorized in the general plan. I think we have some language on the screen. I'm gonna continue to go through it, but we do have language on the screen. Secondly would be affordable ADUs on site. Third, allow projects to pay a fee to satisfy 50% of the affordable housing obligation. And then the last one of these choices would be off-site development. I don't particularly like off-site development, but having all of these still be a part of alternative compliance is something I'm generally okay with. But I would like for applicants to explore the other options before the off-site development option becomes available. I would also like to include, take away the three-mile radius there and include the village areas as categorized under the general plan there as well. Under policy decision number 4, Projects building all of the affordable housing obligation on-site are entitled to one additional concession beyond state density bonus law. Also, further adopt that projects building all of the affordable housing obligation on-site are entitled to double the density bonus otherwise allowed under the state density bonus law and local ordinance up to a maximum total 50% density bonus. That's a lot, but yeah, you can turn your mic on supervisor. You want to turn your mic on real quick. So everybody can hear you.

Okay. Just for clarity. Um, and I'm sorry for interrupting you, but I want to follow along. So are you saying under the density bonus concessions, you want one and two or just two?

I would say one and one and two. Let me make sure I have my sheet in front of me. Both.

Okay. Both. I thought so, but I wanted to confirm that.

Go ahead. You can talk to Michael too.

I asked my, I asked my staff about that one or two. That was an either as opposed to both.

Chair, if I may just clarify, the first option would be setting the density bonus at an additional 5%. The second option would be to override that with an, a density bonus of doubling the state requirement up to 50%. So they are different.

Okay. So number two, then number two, that's the one that we have the number two. Okay. Uh, so, There's a couple of additional things I would like to add to policy decision number four. Under priority reviews, I am okay with that, but I would like to I would like to kind of add more specificity about that priority review and put in within 30 days for discretionary permits so that it's more, more specific. It's supposed to just kind of like it's faster that we're putting a time limit, actual time limit on it.

GO AHEAD, CHANCELLOR. CHAIR, MAY WE ASK A QUESTION? IS THAT FOR ALL PROJECTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE INCLUSION AREA, OR FOR PROJECTS THAT PROVIDE AT LEAST THE 50% LOW-INCOME AFFORDABLE UNITS?

PROJECTS FOR AT LEAST 50%.

THANK YOU.

ALLOW PROJECTS THAT PROVIDE AT LEAST 50% MORE LOW-INCOME AFFORDABLE UNITS THAN REQUIRED TO RECEIVE PRIORITY REVIEW WITHIN 30 DAYS FOR DISCRETIONARY PERMITS. And then I think I'm almost done for additional incentives. I would like to, instead of incentive number one, let me see. So I would like the incentives to read if the developer of a residential development providing all required affordable housing units upon the same site as the market rate units, developers option and may, if the developer of a residential development providing all required affordable units upon the same site as the market rate units, That developer will have an option. Let me come back to that one. Let me come back to that one. The last thing I would like to add is on the applicability. I would like for projects that have already submitted to the county after the date of this ordinance, Perhaps perhaps you're thinking, well, this is not, this is not necessarily a phase. And this is if there are applicants that have already submitted to the County at this point, that they would be applicable to the law and under which they submitted, right? They wouldn't, it wouldn't apply to them. They've already submitted grandfather, right? Because they've already submitted. So they submitted with the expectation of whatever that law was at the time. So I would like to keep that so that this applies to any new applicants based on the ordinance being passed. Okay. And again, Ryan has this on the screen. And so.

And I'm getting some direction just to show the underline. So I'm trying to grab that language and put it in here just so everyone is clear and on the same page, but you're just going to have to give me a second.

Okay. No problem. As you're doing that, these are the things I want to explore and not necessarily include in the ordinance now, but exploring maybe when we come back and have the full discussion around land use updates. I want to look at expanding the use of checklists for inclusionary housing. And we do have a consistency checklist in our climate action plan that maybe could be included. There are other CEQA checklists as well, per that this creates a more streamlined process. So I would like to look at that. I would also like to look at the consolidation of accounts for developers. we've heard in other cities, there's a more consolidated approach for when developers have to pay fees in here where, uh, it's a separated approach. Don't know how you don't know if that's true or not, but it would just like to look at that for the future. Um, and also just looking at the feasibility of defer deferrals for a developer impact fees, um, under the proposed inclusionary housing program. I believe that we already have, A deferral program. I just want to look at that. I certainly don't. I believe in development impact fees. But any type of deferral for this type of housing in particular would be something that I would want to look at. Of course, we have to do more. We have to align our zoning policies to produce more housing, especially housing Um, we're, you know, haven't had the discussion yet, but, uh, the impact on a minimum lot sizes, um, there's a lack of consistency across the board there. And I know my colleagues that govern over unincorporated areas will be able to speak to that more, but I'm hearing that's also somewhat of a hindrance when we're looking at planning and truly building in an efficient way. Um, and so, um, I am looking forward to having continued to have this discussion, but, uh, The motion is gonna be on the screen and it includes a lot. So I know you all have a lot to add to the discussion. We'll go over to Chair Pro Tem McGarry.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some remarks and also would like to propose a friendly amendment to your motion. We know that, I mean, it's been stated endlessly, San Diego is unaffordable to live in, and especially for the people who make this region work, nearly six in 10 renters are already overburdened, meaning that more than 50% of their income goes to housing. The median home price is close to a million dollars now. And nearly two thirds of surveyed San Diegans have considered leaving the region with housing costs as a top reason. That is especially true in my district where families have to double up, sometimes triple up under one single roof to afford rent. Seniors worry about displacement workers being pushed away farther and farther. from the communities they live and serve, and the next generation feeling homeownership is unattainable. The county, we've taken meaningful action to meet the need, We've committed more than $22 million in additional funding through the innovative housing trust fund and used public land to help projects move forward. We're also working to make it easier to build near jobs, transit and existing infrastructure. But public investment can't be our only tool for creating affordable housing. That is why we need this inclusionary housing ordinance. And this policy says that when new communities are built and new values created, working families should have an opportunity to share in that future. Those making millions of off the growth of our region should also help ensure that teachers, caregivers, service workers, seniors, and young families can continue to live here. And at its core, this is about fairness because where people live shapes the opportunities available to them. For youth, the mixed income developments created through inclusionary ordinances elsewhere have shown greater educational achievement and lifetime earnings. So our housing policy can't only focus on how many homes are built, but also ask for whom they're being built. In fact, we've surpassed, as you saw in the presentation, our allocation goals in all categories except for our most vulnerable residents in the very low-income category. Our policies should ensure that growth doesn't continue to leave these groups behind. That brings us to today's action, which has been in the works since 2022. With clear paths for VMT mitigation and forthcoming zoning updates, the time to act is now. Projections show that this action could result in a significant amount of new affordable units in this housing element with even more potential through our housing unlock program, which we know is forthcoming. San Diegans can't wait any longer with similar ordinances proving successful in other jurisdictions without hindering growth. As we heard today, while proceeding, we need to do so with caution. This administration's tariffs have added costs and much uncertainty to an already challenging building environment. We've talked a lot about this, how costly it is to build in San Diego. And based on our third party review economic analysis, we're being urged to show caution. especially around the most aggressive tier three set aside options so that we don't unintentionally slow down housing production. I take that concern seriously since no development also means zero affordable homes. But caution should also come with urgency. The third party reviewer calls for a timely re-evaluation of the data as market conditions change. I want to see the same. So in the short term, we need to get an inclusionary housing ordinance passed, but my ultimate goal is to get us to tier three with the most amount of affordable housing set asides. That's where the need in our region is taking us and nowhere is that most urgent than in my district and district one. The pathway to tier three should be quick, informed, and based on the most current data available. So whatever we adopt today should be a starting point with a clear commitment to return to the stronger set asides as soon as they can be supported. So my amendment that I like to offer is to have staff come back during fiscal year 2027, 2028 with a brand new fresh study that's based on recent data. And I would also like to include adopting tier three as a set aside for the general plan amendment projects. We, the requirement should be 20% for low income units. So I'm hoping vice chair that you will accept my friendly amendment.

Yes. Yes, I will.

Thank you.

And with that, I'll second your motion. Supervisor Anderson.

Um, I LIKE A LOT OF WHAT YOU'VE PROPOSED. I HAD ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD FOR STAFF, I THINK THAT YOU ADDRESSED WITH YOUR AMENDMENT, AND THAT WAS THE PRIORITY REVIEW, IT WASN'T WELL-DEFINED. AND IF YOU LOOK AT SB 330, THEY HAVE A 30-DAY REVIEW. AND MY SB 35 HAD 30 DAYS FOR, I THINK IT WAS 150 UNITS ABOVE 150 UNITS, IT WAS 90 DAYS. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT DEFINITION, MA'AM CHAIR. I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE, BUT I HAD SO MANY PEOPLE REQUEST THIS OF ME. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU PUBLICLY, DAVIA, AND THAT IS WHY WOULDN'T WE BRING THIS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE FORWARD AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE'RE BRINGING THE HOUSING UNLOCKED ITEM THIS FALL FORWARD? THEY SEEM TO BE INTERLOCKED. AND YOU GAVE ME A GREAT ANSWER IN MY OFFICE. but you answering it publicly will save me a lot of phone calls.

Thank you, Supervisor Anderson. Through the chair, I have to give credit to our director, Vincent Eccoletti, for I think his very good answer on this, which I fully concur with. I do understand that sort of the opportunity to bring forward things like housing unlocked, which reduce barriers for development concurrently with some of these things like inclusionary housing, which do have some implications and costs for market rate housing. The idea of bringing those together, I understand that. We, on an ongoing basis, have a variety of different efforts that we're bringing forward, levers, as my colleague called them, that will reduce barriers to housing. At the board's direction, things like housing unlocked, things like other incentives and directives that the board has provided to really push housing forward. At the same time, there may be other things that come forward, like inclusionary, that could have impacts on market rate housing. So it's an ongoing balance, and we continue to move these efforts forward. I don't know that there will be any point in time when that just stops. If we were to bring housing unlocked and this forward, it's not a static situation at that point. We will continue to have this flux. So our perspective, especially with these in very close proximity and a number of other items coming forward, is that we continue to push at the board's direction and our own incentives or our own... initiative to remove barriers to housing and also seek equity through mechanisms like inclusionary housing.

Thank you. I think that we all can agree 100% of zero is still zero. And as we're moving forward with these policies, YOU KNOW, I HEARD THE SPEAKERS, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, THAT THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS HOUSING IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR IN THE SAME REGION. I WOULD SUBMIT THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN TO MY DISTRICT, BECAUSE THEN THEY WOULD REALIZE THERE'S NO TRANSPORTATION. SO WHEN YOU BUILD IN A LOCATION THAT THERE'S NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, YOU'RE DOOMING THOSE FAMILIES, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEIR KIDS, to being redlined out of opportunity. So I would like for the chairwoman to consider that if we are going to do a land donation, that we do allow it out. And let me give you an example. If you were to go to Lakeside or, say, Ramona, you may not have any job opportunities within any range that doesn't require a car. If you don't own a car, because you're truly on the lowest end, is we're trying to help. If they have a car, they don't qualify. They're doomed. They can't pay their rent. They can't pay anything. More importantly, their kids never get beyond walking range from their home. NOW, I'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF MTS'S PROGRAM TO GIVE BUS PASSES TO YOUTH. THEY DON'T HAVE THAT ACCESS. THEY DON'T GET THAT. SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT INNER CITY KIDS HAVE TO HAVE MOBILITY SO THEY CAN GET TO JOBS, THEY CAN GET TO OPPORTUNITIES, THEY CAN GET TO RECREATION. BUT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THESE FAMILIES AND WE'RE GOING TO DOOM THEM IN AREAS THAT HAVE NO TRANSPORTATION. AND I GET IT'S A CHICKEN AND THE EGG. But when my district voted for Transnet, we were promised a trolley to Ramona. There's been no projects in East County in the unincorporated with Sandek. I TAKE THAT BACK. THEY DID DO, THEY BROUGHT INTERNET TO SOME OF THE BACK COUNTRY BECAUSE WE DID $10 MILLION TO THEM TO DO THAT. THANK YOU TO CAROL LAZARIMA FOR JOINING AUTHORING THAT BOARD LETTER WITH ME. SO THAT'S ONE THING I THINK THIS PLAN REALLY NEEDS TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION. THE OTHER PART IS, LET'S LOOK AT HOW WE DEFINE POOR. If you were to go to my community of Portrero, where 911 people live, the average household income is $27,000. We're trying to keep people in the neighborhood. And at the same time, we're trying to give them opportunities to go to better schools. I'm sorry, this is redlining just from the other side. So I think that when we go through this, that's another argument. I think that we need to take in consideration with that.

Supervisor, just real quick. You want me to let you finish? I think we're aligned on that, but I just... I can let you finish and then address it.

I'll stop beating it like a dead horse. And I said that because Paloma's not good. No, no, I'm sorry. I'm teasing you. No, the, so that, that's my concern. The other thing is I'd really like to see a phase in. I think that I'm not aware of too many projects that are in the pipeline, but there might be some, if we had a phase in, because then people have a sense of urgency. I want to see things built. I don't want to feel good about talking about what percent. I want to see things actually done. So I'd like to offer you an amendment looking at a possible phase in over a three-year period, which isn't too long, but we finish out. We wouldn't have... the phasing would start in in 2027 with 30 units, then 20 units in 28, and then finally 10 units in 29. That way, if there's anybody that wants to get into the system, there's a ticking time clock forcing them into the system. Davia, do we have a lot of projects that are in the pipeline right now that would be impacted by this? Because the only projects I'm aware of started before I got elected the first time.

Supervisor, through the chair, I do know we have quite a number of projects that are in the pipeline. I'm going to turn to Mark Slovic at PDS or Vince Nicoletti to speak to that. And I assume you're talking about if we utilize the 10-unit project threshold as the applicability. Okay. Vince or Mark, if you could kindly respond.

Through the chair, Supervisor, the way the ordinance is structured and the way the draft motion is written, no in-process projects would be subject to this ordinance. It would only be new projects that are submitted after 30 days after the effective date of the ordinance, which would be 30 days from now, if approved.

Well, this would give, if we phased it in, it would give them a small window that if they were thinking about it, that they'd move on it. I really want to see some of the stuff being built and we need that housing at every level. And so those are two of my big recommendations is that we use a phase in to incentivize us further. And then the other part is if we're doing the land donation that we go to the place that makes the most sense. So, and let me just finish with this example. Uh, uh, uh, I'm saying it wrong. Uh, the Metro high rising, the project over by sports arena midway. Thank you. Uh, that if we added additional units there, there's tremendous, uh, uh, uh, public transportation, there's job opportunities, there's youth opportunities. So if we were to transfer some of the costs of a low income there, and they were, AMENABLE TO IT, WHETHER THEY ADD ANOTHER STORY OR BROADEN IT, THAT'S AN EASY FIX, HIGH UTILITY, AND YET WE'RE SERVING THE COMMUNITY. BUT TO MOVE PEOPLE TO AREAS THEY HAVE IS GOING TO DOOM THEM MAKES NO SENSE TO ME. AND IN SOME OF THOSE AREAS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE CITY OF ALCOHOL, THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS $58,000. THESE AREAS EXPANDING THE LOW INCOME HOUSING INTO ALREADY POOR AREAS, I THINK LAKE SIDE AT THE HIGHEST IS AT 68. SO PUTTING THOSE HOMES THERE, I'M NOT SURE IT GIVES ANYBODY OPPORTUNITY. WHILE THE LAND IS INEXPENSIVE, THE COST TO YOUTH IS VERY HIGH. SO THOSE ARE MY TWO AMENDMENTS THAT I'D LOVE TO SEE, AND I'M HOPING THAT YOU'LL ACCEPT THEM AS FRIENDLY.

Excuse me. Thank you so much for that. Just for the first issue around the land donation. I took the within three miles of the project out. I think that's what you're referring to. I remove that because of the same concerns that you have also including like the land donation can be within an incorporated area as well. Excuse me. And, um, and also wanted to include the village areas, you know, as a part of, that was the purpose behind the general plan to have those concentrated areas of more housing, more commercial, more retail, um, more transportation to kind of try to start to incentivize and build those up. So I don't know if there's, I'll look at the language to see, but the problem with village is that doesn't get you out of lakeside.

THAT DOESN'T GET YOU OUT OF RAMONA. AND IN THOSE COMMUNITIES, THEY DON'T HAVE THE TRANSPORTATION. THEY DON'T HAVE THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. AND, YOU KNOW, I LOVE THE VILLAGE IDEA BECAUSE IF YOU GET TO ECONOMIES OF SCALE, THEN YOUR COMMUNITY HAS EVERYTHING. BUT THESE AREAS DON'T HAVE EVERYTHING, AND THEY'RE REALLY CAPPED AT WHERE THEY CAN GROW AND HOW THEY CAN GROW. SO, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WHEN WE PUT A LOT OF SENIOR LIVING OUT THERE. They're not highly mobile. They're not heading to the beach every weekend or they're not attempting to.

So, uh, so is the donation to any area?

Well, how about VMT efficient in infill areas?

So it's in there. So it's, it's community planning area or VMT efficient or infill area or higher highest resource area, which includes a, um, transportation or village area.

I misunderstood what you're doing. I'm fine if it's or. You said it could be incorporated or unincorporated. That takes care of that. What about the second part of a potential phase in over three years?

Just real quick for the The only thing about land donation is about the entire ordinance and everything to do with the housing. Of course, from my vantage point is that we want mixed income communities. We don't want concentrations of poverty. I think this tries to mitigate for all of that. For the phase-in, can you say it one more time?

I think, I think I would be, I would submit to you based on what you've said that we should allow Rancho Santa Fe style homes and lakeside to balance that community out. And, and especially in Potrero, having said that I was thinking in terms of a three year phase. And so we give them a little bonus. We don't have it kick in until the end of the year. So they have six months, UNDER CURRENT STANDARDS. SO IF THEY WERE CLOSED, LET'S GET IT IN. AND THEN NEXT YEAR, WE WOULD LOOK AT, I'M LOOKING FOR MY LITTLE NOTE HERE. IT WOULD BE FOR 30 UNITS, AND THEN IN 28, 20 UNITS, AND THEN FINALLY, 10 UNITS IN 29. SO THEY HAVE THIS TICKING TIME BOUND TO GET OFF THEIR POSTERIOR AND START MOVING WITH THESE PROJECTS. AND, YOU KNOW, what I'm worried about is we're crafting something that's perfect. And as a result, we get a hundred percent of zero. And, uh, you know, one of the challenges I've had from day one on this board is I've been pushing, uh, I think Davia and her and all her team will say, I've wanted housing in my district, uh, in the worst way. And I want all this. And if we had more mass transit, you've heard me at sand egg. That's my, you know, I'm, I'm the town crier when it comes to that. Uh, I just want to make sure. So that's what I was thinking in terms of, I want to be reasonable. I'm not asking for five years, but I'm just thinking let's kickstart it. And then if nobody responds, then we can always tweak and figure out where we're going.

Can we do, I'm okay with the phasing, but can we do instead of the six months at the time of when the ordinance actually passes, because we are also allowing for those who have already submitted to not, this to not be applicable to them.

How about, how about 120 days after this passes? The reason why is I'm sitting in a table and I'm trying to pencil it out and I'm thinking, I don't know, this is coming. I may not have time to do everything I need to do to prep, to submit something. Uh, how about if we did something really crazy and they submitted over the, over this timeframe, uh, an intent, a letter of intent to move forward so that they get a little time to put it together. Cause you know, everyone waits, they wait until the last second and then they're all scrambling and then they find out, you know, um, we have homes that weren't built after a Cedar fire because their homes were well over a hundred years old. and they use meets and bounds. And now GPS says, that's your neighbor's land. There's all sorts of funky things in the unincorporated that we don't discover until we get there because they're not cities.

Okay. Um, you know, based on the fact that you, um, govern over the most unincorporated areas, population has the most land mass and you have the population. Um, I'm okay with 120 days. I'm still a little concerned about it, but I'm okay with it. I don't know. The seconder has to be okay with it, though.

I'm going to have to think about it.

Okay. Let's go to Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your motion. I agree with most of it and even the phasing in that Supervisor Anderson mentioned, but he does have a point where you know, if we're going to put affordable housing in unincorporated areas, deep in the unincorporated areas, even if it's in the same village, transportation and other opportunities aren't always available. But you seem to have grappled with that. So I got a couple of questions and clarifications, but one of the things I'm hearing as I talk to our PDS friends is application submitted and application completed. As far as, so, and I hear the word submitted up here, and I'm gonna hear the words submitted and or completed at a certain point in time. Which ones are grandfathered?

through the chair supervisors. So the way our zoning ordinance works right now, when new requirements go into effect in our zoning ordinance, if someone has submitted a complete application. A complete application. Yes, a complete application before the effective date. Now a complete application basically means we've reviewed the project and there's enough information for us to say, we can process this project, start the review, et cetera. It doesn't mean that the project is completed and all of the application processing is complete. So there's a review that we do with County Council when projects come in to essentially say, is there enough information to say that this is a complete application versus, I'm going to use a very illustrative example, someone filling out a fraction of the information needed for us to evaluate a project just to say that they made a complete application and would be grandfathered in. So that's an existing practice that we have to date and would be applied to this change as well going forward.

And do you, you stamp something completed so they have it and they know it's been completed? Yes. Okay. I didn't, I didn't never, never submitted, but okay. And then I question, uh, I guess first for the chair and then, and then for chair pro tem or vice chair, um, on their politics policy decision, number three, um, you had listed sort of a ranking of, of those decisions. So I'm just trying to figure out in my head if somebody wants to do the in lieu fee and that's the last in the ranking, do they have to like prove they can't do the other ones? Or I was concerned about the ranking in there. If somebody just. the only way they can do it as an in lieu fee. What's the process?

Yeah. And in the, in the motion just asked to set up guidelines for it, but it is a priority list, right? So for me, as I stated, the offsite is the least desirable just from a policy perspective and a values perspective for me. So that's the last on the list. So I would like for, um, staff to set up something to show that before offsite development is approved in these other, these other priorities have been exhausted. Um, you know, the, the in lieu is, um, is the third one affordable 80 uses. The second priority land donation is the first from what I'm hearing land donation may not be, be very feasible in the, in the development community, but it is, it is just showing that, you know, we could have to have a little bit more ownership over very low and low income housing development.

Okay. So they, so they have to show that those other things are not practical or possible for that particular, and then they can go down to the next level. And then in the, in lieu, I had checked off box number one and box number two. I don't know if you're, there's three boxes there and it says choose one. But I had one and two, that I was agreeable to. I don't know if that's your same line of thinking or you're thinking.

What I had, what I had was to allow projects to pay a fee to satisfy 50% of the affordable housing obligation.

So they wouldn't be able to do more than 50% with an in lieu fee.

Correct. Cause number one would be to satisfy the full affordable housing obligation. And then two would be 50% of the affordable housing obligations. So they'd have to have some affordable on site. But then I guess the question is how would the alternatives come into play there as well? You can do any of those alternatives.

Well, you can do one, two, or three. Is that what you're saying? Because in some, like the locations that Supervisor Anderson brought up, you know, you're saying you still have to build 50% of the affordable housing on site.

Yes. Uh, and, and in this, within the policy decision, number three, really it is in all of the above that we're doing, but within the end loop fee, it is number two that I, that is currently in the motion.

So they could only, I guess I would like to see that they be able to satisfy up to a hundred percent of the obligation. BECAUSE A LOT OF THAT MONEY COULD GO TO HOUSING, TO OUR HOUSING GENERAL SERVICES, TO BUILD MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. ELSEWHERE, IF IT DOESN'T REALLY FIT IN SOME OF THE COMMUNITIES IN DISTRICT 2 NEVER HEARD OF. SO YOU'RE REQUIRING A 50% BUILD ON SITE. I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBLE. NOT THAT I WANT TO CONCENTRATE HOUSING IN ONE POSITION, BUT EVEN WITH OUR HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GROUP, THEY CAN TAKE THAT MONEY AND PUT IT IN THE INCORPORATED AREAS. I've seen them do it in Vista, I've seen them in Oceanside, San Marcos. So I'm just, I would like to see one and two that allows them to up to 100% or pay the fee satisfied 50%. To me, I guess number one is the, I think what I'm trying to do is the more housing we get built, the more you know, either market rate housing that gets built, the more affordable it gets built. If we start limiting the amount or the housing that can be built, that limits then the amount of affordable housing. This is kind of a two-way street because if we make this too onerous, people just aren't going to build these projects. So... it's sort of, this isn't the chicken or this is, this is the chicken, I guess you gotta have that's laying the eggs. Cause if you don't have the more housing we can build the, the more affordable housing we get out of it. So that's my push for that. And then. So I don't know if you'd want to allow or amend or whatever to allow a number one and two.

I'm open to hear from colleagues. I'm still at the 50%, but you know, I'm, I'm open to more conversation about that.

I'm yeah. Part of the reason I'm pushing this, we had the affordable housing or I'm sorry, a affordable housing or inclusionary housing when I was mayor of San Marcos and it worked great. Davia was there at our, development stages. But I have seen it work before. And it can still get built, affordable housing. And it's not like we're trying to shove it anywhere else. But if we say you have to have the 50% of the affordable housing on site might negate some project. Maybe we can do this.

Maybe we can. I know in the box it says choose one. but I would prefer that if we're prioritizing alternative compliance, then we can make that a number. So we can make number three, still allow projects to pay the 50%, make number four, allow all projects to pay a fee to satisfy the full affordable housing option. So if you show you can't do 50, then you can do the entire thing. And then go to five, five, which would be offsite development. I don't, I'm just throwing it out there. Cause again, I think that due diligence should be shown. I mean, the purpose of inclusionary housing ordinance is to have inclusionary housing.

Go ahead. Thank you, chair. Um, It may help just to also clarify if an applicant wanted to do the 50% fee, they could still satisfy the requirement through other alternatives, such as the combination of ADUs and the in lieu fee. So it's not solely in lieu fee 50%. They could use other components of alternative compliance to satisfy it. And that's the type of thing we could work through with that criteria. if the motion were also to include up to 100% for the in lieu fee, that could be worked in as well if it were so directed.

So you're okay with that?

Yeah. Well, I think what he's saying is the way that the priority is laid out now at the 50% is that an applicant can use the other alternative compliance options, right? So, I mean, you know, so we wouldn't necessarily need to include the, pay the entire fee to satisfy. We could have applicants use another alternative compliance method.

Well, I had one more question and I guess, I don't know if this is for Supervisor Geary. I didn't quite understand including tier three, because I don't know, you, SAFET in their presentation, it's, Great out tier three. I don't know. I don't know what that was, but it was most of tier three, the for sale and the for rent. And then part of tier two is also great out as that wasn't feasible or, or I'm trying to figure out what is it that you wanted to accomplish by adding tier three.

Through the chair that any general plan amendment project include or require 20% of load. Because right now, Tier 2 is 10% very low or 15% low or 20% moderate. Would I like to substitute that recommendation from Tier 2 and have it be the Tier 3, which is 20% low?

Okay, so you'd be taking out of Tier 2 the option for general plan amendments of 10% very low or the other tier.

AND INCREASING IT TO 20% LOW.

LEAVING IT 20% LOW. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IMPACT IS. SO IS THAT, HOW BIG OF AN IMPACT IS THAT ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT?

SO THROUGH THE CHAIR, OUR MARKET ANALYSIS INDICATED THAT IT WOULD BE A VIABLE OPTION. I BELIEVE WHAT WAS PROPOSED IS And Ryan, if it's okay, if we can have back this, if we can go to, I think it's slide 13, it might help for this discussion. In the options that we had on the slide, you'll see there's for sale projects for rent projects and then general plan amendments. Okay. No, no, no, no. I'm so sorry. Under the general plan amendments, what the chair pro tem recommended was the tier three selection of 20% low be applicable for general plan amendments. So I believe the motion is tier two for, for sale tier two for, for rent. And then under general plan amendments, it would be the tier three option. Oh, thank you, Madison. It would be that tier three option of 20% low. So you can see it's the kind of two middle squares for tier two for, for sale and for rent and then GPAs, it goes down and they're doing tier three for 20%.

And is that, and I don't know, what's the impact of not having the option of 15% low or 20% moderate? Are we going to have fewer projects or is that going to hinder or you don't know? I'm just trying to figure out what the impact of that would be.

I think what I heard the building industry say today is any additional regulatory requirement is an additional cost onto a project. And any higher requirement from tier one to tier three is an additional requirement that can make projects more challenging. That said, what our economic analysis showed is tier three is a viable proposal to include in. The other thing I would note is under a general plan amendment, Applicants have a large degree of discretion in terms of what they want to propose for the projects in order to make the pro forma work. So if the county is selecting that 20% under Tier 3, it allows the individual project to propose a project that would be viable for providing the 20% low, yet still making the rest of the market rate housing move forward. But under Tier 2, it would only be 10% low. Correct. If it were selected for Tier 2, it would be 10% very low or 15% low or 20% moderate.

Okay, I'm not going to die on this one, but it just seems that if we leave it at 10% very low, 15% low, or 20% moderate, it gives more opportunities for more projects to be built.

That's a perspective, yes. So I think it's a good balance, right? We're, we're, you know, I'm supporting, I'm supporting tier two for sale for rent because, you know, I am, like I said, in my remarks, I am cognizant of the fact that, you know, we want to make sure that nothing that we decide today slows the market. But at the same time we have, A VERY REAL NEED, ESPECIALLY, AS I SAID, FOR PEOPLE IN MY DISTRICT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, THAT'S STARTING FROM SCRATCH. IT'S COMPLETELY DISCRETIONARY TO US. WE'RE GOING TO BE CHANGING LAND USE FOR PROJECTS, SO WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE AT LEAST MAXIMIZE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS WELL. LOOK, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE CHICKEN AND EGG DISCUSSION AGAIN.

WELL, WHAT I WOULD THINK IN YOUR DISTRICT, THOUGH, YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS. In the unincorporated areas, we'd have a lot more potential for general plan amendments. I'm just trying not to restrict them. Like I said, the more projects we get built, the more affordable housing gets built. To me, that's restricting it in the unincorporated area, the Tier 3 option for general plan.

If I may follow up, I thought that the Tier 3 was part of the STUDY THAT YOU, WITH THE NEW DATA, I WASN'T THINKING THAT WOULD GO IN EFFECT RIGHT NOW, BUT WE WOULD LOOK AT THE NEW DATA AND INCLUDE THAT.

NO, MY AMENDMENT WAS TO INCORPORATE THAT RIGHT NOW AND ABSOLUTELY COME BACK IN 2027-28 WITH UPDATED DATA GIVEN THAT THIS WAS BASED ON DATA THAT'S ALREADY THREE YEARS OLD.

DO STAFF HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON what's in the potential pipeline where that would impact it.

Supervisor through the chair. Are you talking in, in general in terms of current GPS across the unincorporated area, I can turn to staff on that. And again, I do want to highlight, it depends how this ordinance is applied. If it does phase in, if it applies to projects that have already been submitted or not. So in this case, we'll speak to what has been submitted because that's all we know and the board's policy decision can determine whether this would apply or not.

Through the chair, supervisors, we have a variety of GPAs in process in a variety of supervisorial districts throughout the county. And then we do have applicants talking about doing new GPAs in the conceptual phase. I WOULD ALSO JUST SHARE KIND OF FOR THE DATA POINT, YOU KNOW, OUR AVERAGE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION IS ABOUT 45 UNITS. SO, I MEAN, THESE ARE, WE ARE GENERALLY SEEING THE PROJECTS, WE ARE NOT SEEING A LOT OF 7, 10, 14 UNIT PROJECTS. WITH THE LAND LEFT IN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY, IT HAS A LOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS, AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND REQUIREMENTS THAT DEVELOP THE LAND USUALLY RESULTS IN SOME HIGHER LEVELS, SUBDIVISION-SIZED PROPOSALS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE DON'T HAVE SB-9s AND LOT SPLITS AND SMALLER MINISTERIAL EFFORTS THAT GO UNDERWAY, BUT THOSE THAT GO FORWARD AND PROCESS SUBDIVISION MAPS THAT ARE GOING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR, They are typically larger in the 20s, 30s, 40s, and higher for the size of the projects. But in terms of the general plan amendments, again, they range all over the place. We even have discussions of affordable housing GPAs that are being had.

Vince, if I could ask to highlight the supervisor's question. We have a number of different projects, but just to give sort of the top, the largest, we do have, I know, at least one or two very large projects. If you could speak to kind of what the maximum number is, and I know we do have some chair pro tem in your district as well, We have at least one currently that's up to how many units?

There is one GPA that was recently submitted that's roughly 2,000 units. And so we have a variety of sizes for projects that come through.

Can we ask the BIA person to come and talk about this 20% low, I guess, into three?

Either Stephanie or Mr. Kilkenny or...

Madam Chair, if we're going to do that, we could also ask the advocates their impacts to people who are unable to attain affordable housing because there's none available.

Well, there will be if we buy more projects.

We can ask the group that presented earlier to come in and share as well so that it's balanced.

I think most of us are set on how we, you know, this is going into a values conversation, but happy to hear from Sean.

Yeah, so this is, we're just talking about Tier 3 versus Tier 2 for GPA projects, right? Yes. Okay. General plan, the way that land development deals are structured currently, and I know this is going to be kind of a wonky answer, but we make certain assumptions because we want to try to win a bid on land. And so we pay a certain price for land, and we lock up land under a long-term option, and we start processing these very long, complicated projects that often take five, years to get through because they' re complicated. It' s not as though these general plan projects have the same land lift that they once had before. There' s a lot more information available. There' s a lot more competition in the market. There' s a lot more underwriting that we do that minimizes that lift. It' s not to say that you' re not getting an increase in value by doing a general plan amendment and taking that risk. It' s commensurate with the amount of risk you are taking. That being said, I think that Vince made this point, excuse me, Director Nicoletti made this point. When you propose a general plan amendment, you do have requirements to have typically overriding considerations and public benefits because you're typically going to be required to do an environmental impact report and you're going to end up having significant unavoidable effects. One of those can be the provision of affordable housing at a higher rate, but there are other public benefits as well that you can produce through a general plan amendment type project. In my experience, I don't know that going from a 15% low to a 20% low is going to have a is not going to necessarily kill a general plan amendment project but it does put additional constraints on a project it does cause the underwriting considerations that went into effect to be reevaluated it does potentially reduce the feasibility of that project because many of these are larger projects and therefore they have a higher requirement at a higher set aside amount so it' s not a straight forward answer I' m sorry it' s probably not a satisfying answer they're all dependent upon the underlying economic situations of each individual project. That's why applying this so broadly is so difficult to do and it's hard to give a direct answer. Every project is different.

Okay.

Madam Chair, before you leave, if I could do just a quick question.

Just really quick and then I'm just going to ask Ms. Baldwin if she has any response.

Just really quick. I want to understand what you said. So when you do your environmental study, sometimes adding affordable housing is a mitigation.

Is that no, no.

So how does that range? So let me ask you this. Here's where I'm going. If, if, um, if we didn't make it 20%, but we said, if given the opportunity to make it 20% to earn credits with another organization, does it hurt you that it's required by us? Or is it a benefit that you get to 20, but you opt in, Is there any benefit on that side?

Not in a CEQA perspective. The units are going to be the units from a CEQA perspective. And so if it's a 1,000-unit project, whether we're providing 200 or 150 affordable units, as long as the maximum number is 1,000 units from an environmental standpoint, generally speaking, there's not a huge benefit. the one key point there is that from a vmt perspective affordable housing units have been shown to have a reduced vmt compared to market rate units so there is a little bit of a benefit from your vmt calculations in your greenhouse gas emissions your air quality emissions in your noise emissions. But it's the menace.

Yeah, thank you. The point that I had made earlier was that if you do pick the 20% for GPA amendments for low income, it should not be set at 80% AMI. It should be set at 65% AMI because 80% AMI, because we have such a high area-wide median income, is close to... affordability is close to market rate. I think 65% and that is the program I was referencing at the city of san diego the future urbanizing area north city uses 65%. Thank you.

thank you. We do have a motion and a second. All right. Sorry, Madam chair.

Yes. The friendly amendment from supervisor Anderson. Oh, I don't think that's been addressed.

Why don't I share it again?

So then we get for the 120 day.

Yeah.

I mean, I, I, I am okay. I'm okay with Madison.

If you can stop sharing and then I'll share just to make sure everyone's on the same page.

It's a three phase.

Cause I don't, I don't have that language.

Madam chair, if you could kindly also clarify in terms of the motion, if the intent was for anything that has been submitted or that has been deemed complete, would not, this would not apply to, that would be helpful to staff.

Thank you. For my intent. And this is what my intent was submitted, submitted to the county at this point.

I have a procedural question for council. If the seconder of the friendly amendment doesn't accept it, what happens then? So the friendly amendment fails.

No, the addition to the friendly amendment, it's just a friendly amendment, but the seconder has to accept it to be a part of the actual motion.

If the, if the seconder doesn't accept it, it's not in the motion.

So I'm okay with the one 20 days phase and that's it.

Okay, 120 day phase. Nothing else. Any additional language or is that okay?

Projects that are submitted post adoption of this ordinance.

Is that correct? That was my understanding, but Supervisor Anderson's addition.

What I had suggested was starting, it would be 30 or more units starting in 120 days from it being passed, then in 2028 it would go to 20, and then finally 10 in 2029. So it would be a three-year phase-in.

From what I hear the chair pro tem is, is, is okay with the 120 day post adoption phase. It would be a phase. And at that point it would be a, just a period of time. I'm forgetting the word like grace period, but that's what I'm hearing that the comfort level is at.

Well, just clarification. So that doesn't include the 30, 2010. Pardon me.

For all projects.

Oh, so you're just talking about the phase in, but not the phasing of the number of units.

It's a 120 day delay. That's all.

It sounds like a grace period. Okay.

Should we change it to grace period or 120 days?

Uh, in, in fairness, uh, I'm going to be voting no. So I'm not going to ask for the amendment and not vote for an amendment because I'm not getting the amendment asked. So I'll be a no vote. So I don't want you to move forward with 120 days thinking I'm going to vote for it. I want to be fair with you moving forward. So you understand where I am.

I'm still okay with including it.

Seconders, okay. So I can kind of summarize the motion as I understand it, just so we're all on the same page. And then please Davia, if you have anything, feel free to jump in. So it looks like we have to approve staff recommendations, of course, and then we have some policy decisions. So for policy decision one, we're establishing and setting aside the requirements as proposed in tier two. So that was included within the presentation slide. And it looks like it's on attachment and in the action sheet. And then policy decision two is to set the minimum project size to 10 or more units. Then we have a couple policy decisions for three for the land donation. So the developer may donate land for future affordable housing, but we're striking in the unincorporated area in the same community planning area striking or within three miles of the market rate project site or a VMT efficient or info area or a high or highest resource area or village area as categorized in the general plan. and we have another policy decision for off-site development so the developer may donate land for future affordable housing striking the in the unincorporated area in the same community planning area striking or within three miles of the market rate project site or a vmt efficient or infill area or a high or highest resource area and then or village area as categorized in the general plan. And then we have a policy decision for identify available incentives, which is to allow projects that provide at least 50% more low income affordable units than required to receive and then striking the priority permit processing and review. And then we're adding the priority review within 30 days for discretionary permits. I'm not sure where these two ones went, but they're also included in the motion. So we're striking if the applicant requests a density bonus, the other incentives listed below may be provided only if each is individually requested as regulatory. regulatory, sorry, incentive. And we're adding the applicant must identify any requested county inclusionary housing incentives in the affordable housing plan. Such incentives shall not count against the number of concessions or incentives again, available under section 6365. Then another addition to 6341. Point B applicability. So one applicability looks like that we're just striking the approved portion of this and then adding submitted to the county for that section. And then the friendly amendment from Chair Pro Temigiri to direct staff to come back to the board during the fiscal year 2728 with a new study based on recent data and including adopting tier three as set aside for the general plan amendment project with a requirement to be 20% for low income units. And then also adding 120 day grace period for projects submitted post adoption of this ordinance.

That sounds like what we have discussed.

Can I be a little picky on the first three?

Sure. Go ahead.

Well, you're, you're, you're on, you got your mic. I'm sorry. Policy decision two is this project, a minimum project size, to 10 or more units. Is it 10? Or do you want the word it or more in there? Or do you want it just at 10? Just a little bit.

Okay.

10 units.

Yeah. Okay. 10 units is fine because it's a minimum. It works. Okay, if there's no further discussion, we can go ahead and take a vote.

Okay, thank you. And again, we'll have to do a roll call vote. So we have a motion by Supervisor Montgomery.

Vice Chair, can we clarify? Sorry, yes, please. We want to make sure in the motion there was reference earlier to allowance under the alternative compliance for the 100% in lieu fees that was discussed earlier. We wanted to understand if that was intended for the motion and to make sure that the establishment of the guidelines for how to do the rank evaluation of the alternative compliance is in there. I heard it discussed earlier. Didn't see it in these wording and just wanted to make sure that was the intent so that as we implement this, we are following your intent.

Yes. So I think we landed and this is, I'll turn to supervisor Desmond here. I think we landed in being okay with these, the other instead of doing a fifth ranking. I don't see where you're getting a fifth ranking. I only see one, two, three. There's a, there's a number four. Oh, I see. As far as that. Okay.

I was, yeah, I was still in the policy decision three with those three.

Yeah. Policy decision three has four rankings.

Okay. I get it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to, because of your, the way you wanted to, you wanted number two and I, it sounded like you were amenable to number one also only if number two couldn't be satisfied like the rest.

Yes. Is that clear as mud? So, um, so the, I'm trying to think of the practical implication of that. That's all. I mean, I threw it out here. Um,

Vice chair so it provides an additional option for alternative compliance they would first go through the ranking and prioritization that you identified providing why they can't do the most desired priority going down the list so they will first go to the 50% why they can't do that there is the opportunity to combine the 50% in lieu fees with some of the other alternative compliance measures. The director cited combining it with ADUs. It can be combined with land donation. So they'll go through those motions, show that that can't be done, and then they'll go to the next one if you do choose to include 100%. And then I think that will be an option available. They'll have to go through that process if that is not something they can do and then fall on the last priority, which would be off-site development.

Chair Pro Tem.

And just to clarify, that would be all the options listed as one or the other or the other with the exclusion of three miles off site?

Yes, the three miles is off the table. Okay, just want to make clear. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I think it's, I don't know if it's written properly there.

We can change and update this as often as we want.

Yeah, yeah. We'll just go with it as is. We'll go with it as is. And then the only thing that we need to make sure that there's direction to implement those guidelines requiring the applicants to demonstrate the higher priority alternatives. That's it. And that is in the record. Okay. It's in the record.

Okay. Okay. In here, but in the record. All right.

Okay. So let's go ahead and vote.

Okay. Thank you. So we have a motion by Supervisor, Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp, seconded by Chair Pro Temigiri. We'll do roll call vote. Chair Pro Temigiri.

Yes.

Supervisor Anderson. No. Chair Lawson-Reamer.

Yes.

Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp.

Yes.

And Supervisor Desmond.

Yes.

And that motion passes with Supervisor Anderson voting no. All those supervisors being present and voting aye.

All right, thank you so much. Let us go to item number eight. And this is, it's item number eight and then flood control district item number three and fire protection item number one. Concurrently, this is the notice public hearing and call for a special election to levy special tax and permanent road division number 1,000 zone. Let me see. This is a different one. Apologies for that is a notice public hearing Public hearing to confirm fiscal year 2627 levies for permanent road division zones, county service areas and zones, San Diego County Fire Protection District zones, and stormwater maintenance zones and related CEQA findings. Let's go ahead and go to public hearing. comment.

Thank you. And as noted, this is for item eight flood control district, item three and fire protection district item one. We do have, let's see, nine total requests to speak to individuals in person, seven requesting to speak by phone. I'd also like to note for the record, we received one e-comment that was in opposition. Again, for any individual that requested to speak on this item by phone, please dial into the conference line now using those instructions that were provided to you. We'll go ahead and begin with the in-person speakers. I'd like to invite forward allegedly Audra and Cesar Javier.

Only as these Caesars know it.

Talk about suspense. I mean, it's like, oh my gosh, if we could bet money on this, but it's like you're already taking our money. So there's no need to spend more on that. And I'm wondering if my social credit score is bad here. I was trying to get some chips from the vending machine and my card wasn't working. It just kept saying it was canceled. So I don't know if I could levy like $2 from you guys to get some chips. No? Well, that's weird. It's totally not equitable. Anyway, the way the levies work is so interesting, because it's like we pay taxes all around that's supposed to go to different things. storm infrastructure and fire you know things and it's interesting when you guys are doing projects for building that you build densely oh number one you know in high extremely high fire zones that's totally interesting and make it so that people really don't have a way to evacuate So it's like, I mean, will there really be fire protection for people if we're intentionally putting them in these zones? I mean, I guess that's part of it is, you know, to make them think that you want to protect them, which you guys do a great job. I mean, there's a lot of people are making money from this last. item right all the suits so good to see them excited to stay for that yes vote so that we can you know make some money off of people thinking that you're going to provide affordable housing but i'm just wondering when we can start levying taxes on the government because technically it should be that you guys i mean you're the ones that are making the decisions and you claim to represent people which was clear today when people from fallbrook came in and you guys totally I don't know if you can see what we are doing here. The people who voted in favor didn't vote in favor of them. At least they can see what we are doing here which is not what is good for the people but it is good for your pocket. You are going to get more money from the people and they will have to basically take care of it on their own. Good job.

thank you. We will go to our phone callers. When it is your turn to speak

It's crazy a wake-up call that these Board of Supervisors are going to have once they recognize the fact that they don't follow the NVRA regulations regarding reasonable effort. The second they go ahead and do that, we're going to all see why all our funds are being rerouted to areas that don't help out San Diego citizens. How we go ahead and fund... migrants, legal cases. We go ahead and give them houses. We go ahead and support them with everything that they need. Hell, we even vote for them. I mean, the organization's giving them all that stuff, even vote for them. I mean, we've seen this back in 82. The only thing that we did was we created the NBRA regulations preventing people from ever discovering NGOs doing this.

Sorry. This is a notice public hearing to confirm fiscal year 2627 levies for permanent road division zones, county service areas and zones, San Diego County fire protection district zones and stormwater maintenance zones and related CEQA finding. If you're not able to stay on topic, I will have to have you forfeit your time. So you have about a minute or so left. Please stay on the topic of the agenda item. Thank you.

Yes, I'm expressing to you and everyone up there why I do not believe that you should be in office and making these decisions. We have elections for a purpose.

They're supposed to be held.

Thank you. We will go to our next speaker.

All aboard. One of these rates is totally ridiculous. PRD zone 106 gets a 20% increase, averaging 200 bucks. This needs to be reduced. The other rates look a bit better, but still, you know, I was Really, really shocked on the last item, number seven. I was shocked to hear about no road or facility repairs for years. The faulty communication, the old maps, and charging the wrong people for the fixes. You need to do better. And the major aqueduct not repaired? No wonder the water tastes like crap. You need to communicate better with the homeowners, tell them their obligations before they buy, and tell SandEgg to provide current maps or update your own. Maybe Damon can help fix this instead of all the other BS items you push, like a phony independent auditor who obviously is political appointee and extending your own terms. Also, you know, expecting a half. Half a cent sales tax to pay for multiple items. I mean, you know, it's so ridiculous. Anyway, that government would probably do better. You know, the real citizens committee were working on this in conjunction with whatever machinations you do.

thanks thank you we'll go to our next caller wait which one is damon oh the black guy okay oh the county council over anyways amen to everything paul the bold just said and What else, man? Shit. It's crazy. It's nuts. It's crazy how people aren't paying attention to how frigging clumsy you guys all are with so much money and so much responsibility. Hello? Am I still there? Am I coming in clear?

You are.

Okay, great. Yeah, so again, amen to the previous speakers and just especially Paul DeWold. I just can't, yeah, it's unbelievable. But yeah, it's going to get worse. So buckle up, buttercups. I'm done.

Thank you. We'll go to our next speaker.

Good afternoon. Board of Supervisors Ann Riddle here. I came because where I live in the unincorporated area, a lot of us are surrounded by a lot of shrubs and burning, possible burning materials. And so fire safety means a great deal to us. And I understand that often the county fire protection districts folks will come out and give presentations to your planning groups. Well, we've never had such a thing. And as best as I can tell, not many planning groups have, if any. And I wonder if it wouldn't be wise for the county to make make that opportunity more available. In other words, maybe they could set up a rotation basis and get around because we are most concerned out here. And I'll tell you, when you walk around on the trails, one of the things that scares us the most is how many cigarette butts we find out here on our trails. It's unnerving to think what that might mean for fire safety in the unincorporated area and so i'd like to suggest we take a look at smoke-free bait-free public place policies many of our cities have this and so it'd be wonderful if the county would do so as well thank you thank you we'll go to our next speaker

Jennifer Royston, I would just like to say that none of what you guys are doing is truly for the people. I pray for you guys every day that you'll get it, that it's not money that should be turning your world. It should be how much you can put in this world to make it a better place. You guys are systematically putting us in corners Where if a tragedy were to happen, there is no way out. We will die. But I guess that's what you guys are looking for, thinking that you will survive. I'm asking that you guys use more integrity and character when you're making your decisions. Pretend like it's your family. Why? Because that makes you a super being. That you can look outside and care about your fellow man and family. That's what makes you superior. Not that you make this amount of money and you drive this car. That is irrelevant. I have zero in the bank, but I am richer than you.

Ma'am, I want to give you your additional 45 seconds. Please, I hear what you're saying, but please stick to the agenda item. Thank you so much.

Make your decisions with integrity and character, honesty and truth. That's all we're asking. And that shouldn't be hard. If somebody had a backbone, if somebody was strong up there, if you cannot do that, you are weak and a coward. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And Let's connect this caller. Thank you. And vice chair Montgomery step, not seeing any other calls called in that will conclude public comment on this item. And then just noting for the record as well, that supervisor Lawson rumor has left the meeting and will no longer be participating in the remainder of today's session. So we can go back to voting through vote cast.

Okay. Thank you so much. I will, if there's no further discussion on this item, I will entertain a motion at this time, unless there is discussion, of course. Okay. So we have a motion by Supervisor Desmond, second by Chair Pro Tem McGarrig. We can go ahead and vote.

Yes. Yeah. Yes. Sorry. And that motion passes unanimously with all supervisors who are present voting aye.

Okay, great. Let's go to item number nine. And that is another notice. Item number nine and fire protection item number two concurrently. This is a notice to public hearing to confirm fiscal year 26-27 levies for community facility districts and related CEQA exemption. Let's go to public comment.

Thank you, Vice Chairman Gummershop. We have nine total requests to speak to individuals in person, seven requesting to speak by phone again. I'd also like to note for the record that we did receive one e-comment on this item, which was in opposition. Again, for any individual that requests to speak on this item, please dial into the conference right now using the instructions that were provided to you. I'd like to invite forward allegedly Audra and again Cesar Javier for in-person speaker, and you'll have two minutes.

Yes. So nice of Tara to stay to give you guys that vote that you needed. That's so nice. The way that the government, where she didn't even have to show her face. She didn't even need to be really here. It's like you could just text her and be like, it's time to say yes. Go ahead. And then it's like, all right, I'm out of here. I don't need you guys anymore. We don't need you. Whatever. And I guess like having a baby makes you disabled. That's interesting. I don't know. You know. But poor Tara being disabled, that's unfortunate. Yeah, so less is more. I feel like you guys have enough money. And again, you're not spending it on the facilities anyway. So I don't think that you need more. What I think we need to do is bring in an ordinance or some kind of resolution, because those are really good, solid mechanisms to enforce stuff, right? Or some kind of policy, you know what I mean? Breaking the law but following the policy. Where you guys just, you know, get what you have, have what you got, and do more with it. I mean, I feel like you could. Why don't we bring some people with lived experience that actually are lower than you guys on this dais? You know, the people, the peasants, the ones outside. I mean, especially the ones, you know, that sleep out there. They would definitely know how to stretch a dollar. So I feel like if we could bring in some kind of citizen board that would show you guys how to get more for your dollar, then we could really provide quite a lot of things, I feel like. Because it seems like the more money you guys have, the less we have. So I just really feel like we need to invert it back. I know that's going to take money out of your guys' pockets. And Joel, what's the score on the hockey game? Or is it some real estate in Texas? Which one is it? Is it a new house? You might want to change some policies there to make it easier for you to purchase. You know what I mean? That's why it's good for you guys to be in the government. You guys decide all the things. It's good. How fun.

Just real quick before we go. Allegedly, Audra, you're riding that line, but I would just ask you, to stick to the agenda item for the next public comment. It is. I'm asking you to.

Thank you. We'll go now hear from those that have requested to speak by phone. When it's your turn to speak, you'll be unmuted and hear a recording that will tell you to begin your comments. And we will go ahead and begin with our first caller.

How nice for auditors who didn't have to stick to the agenda item for the last item. Anyway, these levies on item 9 look okay except for Harmony Grove. The other rates look good. It's like you're picking on guys who don't like the development. You're trying to shove on them. And again, I was shocked to hear the faulty communication old maps and charging the wrong people for the fixes. You need to do better. And the major aqueducts not repaired. I think there are aqueducts here, too. um these are candy issues no wonder the water tastes like crap but i mean that affects the whole candidate that's something you should be paying for you need to communicate better with the homeowners tell them their obligations before they buy and tell sandag to provide current maps or update your own and of course maybe damon can help you fix all this mess instead of Thanks.

Thank you. We'll go to our next caller.

Hey, Consuelo here, and amen to Paul the Bold and Audra. And, yeah, I mean, we're kind of more on topic than the people there on the dais who are scrolling through nonsense, not listening. But, yep. As Paul DeBold mentioned earlier, that's government. And, you know, there's a lot of people who are being affected and who are being royally screwed as we speak by the decisions that you all are making there. And it's so unfortunate. And I will repeat this over and over and over again, just as much as the person scrolling onto nonsense is going to scroll. I will repeat it, that it is bad.

Consuelo please stick to the agenda item, please. Thank you so much. You're not.

So if people sound off topic, it's because they're frustrated. They're paying attention. They see right through the bullshit. And that's all this is, is BS. It's so sad that you guys are just being patted on the back. You got the media on your side. You got the ones who are.

This is your first warning. Please stick to the agenda item. Thank you.

calling you out that continue to be penalized. And that is what fell momentarily. What else do I have to say on topic? How long more do I have?

27 seconds.

How many seconds?

You have 20 seconds left.

20 seconds left. Let's see. On this topic, I'd also like to say that, you know, there's still time for you all, including you, Tara.

Thank you. Your time is up. We'll go to our next caller.

I'm sorry, what are we talking about right now? Can you pause my time?

This is item nine.

Hello?

Can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

This is item nine, which is a notice public hearing to confirm fiscal year 2627 levies.

Okay, well, you can go ahead and start my time. I'm still going to go back to the same thing about the decision making and what we're doing, what's right and what's wrong, who benefits and who does not, which is the people.

I can't hear you. It was read to you, and you need to stay on topic or else I'll have to give you a warning.

Honestly, I don't know what that means. I'm here strictly because you guys stole my children and are trying to profit from it. So I'm not... politically smart or any of that crap. I'm here to fight for my children, for the things that you are allowing the County of San Diego to do. And that is still children profit off of it.

We will come back to your non-agenda public comment that is appropriate for that time, but it is not appropriate for this item. I'm sorry. I'm going to have to give you a warning and try to give you one last chance to stick to the item.

Please use integrity and character when making your decisions. That's all I have to say is that character, integrity, the truth, all that good stuff matters.

It is what is going to keep us alive when we die. If you don't have those things, you will die. And there's nothing that can stop that. I'm done.

Thank you. And Vice Chair Montgomery-Sepp, that concludes public comment on this item.

Okay. I will go ahead and move this agenda item and ask for a second.