Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

We'll be right back.

Thank you. you Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you all very much. We will now reconvene. Before we begin, I just want to thank my colleague Supervisor Anderson for those beautiful flowers. Thank you so much. Okay, so we're moving on to item 10. This is the second consideration and adoption of ordinance modernizing the San Diego County Charter to strengthen transparency, accountability, and independent oversight. We'll begin with public comment.

Thank you, Chair Lawson-Riemer. We have 42 requests to speak on this item, 24 in person, and 18 requesting to speak by phone. Also note that we received 144 e-comments, 82 in support, 56 in opposition, and one neutral. For any individuals that requested to speak on item 10 by phone, please dial into the conference line using the instructions that were provided to you. We'll 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. Because there are 10 or more speakers on this item, you'll have one minute to address the board. I'll ask you to begin by stating your name for the audio record. I will call you in groups of three, so please listen for your name. I'd like to invite forward the first three individuals, Britta Lindstrom, Noah Yiyik, and Karina Pugh. If I've called your name, come forward, please.

Hello, Brita Lindstrom, District 3. This proposal is deceptive and inaccurate when you state it strengthens transparency, accountability, and independent oversight. You know that is not true. You supervisors will control appointments, removals, and administrative processes of the bodies doing the independent oversight. How on earth is this transparent, accountable, or independent? Also, the conclusions are advisory, not obligatory. Also, you were elected by voters for two terms. That was the contract. Now you're extending this for yourselves? The way it will be written, undoubtedly the voters will miss this deceptive point and will not know what they are actually voting for. I find it ironic also that several of you organize rallies opposing politicians that act like kings and here, You three ladies are acting like queens. Stop deceiving your constituents and actually be transparent. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, board. My name is Noah. I'm a researcher with the Center on Policy Initiatives. Our county plays a crucial role in the lives of San Diegans. It helps people stay housed, put food on the table, and access the care and services they need. With a county of over 3 million people and a budget over $9 billion, we must constantly ask ourselves, are we serving San Diegans the best we can? Right now, our government is left to answer that question on its own, which leaves communities without real accountability. These reforms change that and are designed to be implemented without new cost to taxpayers, using what we already have more wisely and making our county work better for San Diegans. An independent program auditor ensures we are measuring real impact, whether people's lives are improving and whether San Diegans have what they need. An independent budget analyst ensures decisions are grounded in clear, honest information so resources are spent equitably and prioritize communities with the greatest need. Every single public dollar should improve the lives of San Diegans. Please vote yes to put these reforms on the ballot. Give San Diegans the power to shape what kind of county we want to live in.

Thank you. Thank you. As the next speaker is coming forward, I'll invite three additional speakers. Dolly Madison, David Levine, and Andrew Lawson.

Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Karina Pugh. My pronouns are she, her, and I'm here today on behalf of the San Diego LGBT Community Center asking you all to vote in support of this item. Transparency and governance is essential to ensuring that our community can properly advocate for themselves. Additionally, adding independent oversight options, including an independent budget analyst, will help our county spend dollars more equitably, effectively, and efficiently. Please support this item and government transparency. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good morning, supervisors. Afternoon now. My name is David Levine. I'm a deputy public defender and I'm a board member of the Public Defenders Association of San Diego County. The PDA supports item 10. Independent fiscal analysis serves workers. It serves taxpayers and it serves the public interest in knowing what the county can actually afford. The PDA is a direct interest in one provision of this measure, the option to appoint the county public defender by ordinance. We will be watching that closely. Public defense depends on independence from the government we are required to check. The county may write the check for the public defense. The public defense must be free to check the county. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

D. Madison, speaking today, I have accepted your one minute time frame. I have entered into a contract and one that you will hold me to. Is it fair if I should take more time just because I want more time? No. Voters voted for a specific term for the San Diego County supervisors. You won eight years. That is what you get. That is what you agreed to. That is what the people you represent agreed to. This is a dishonest attempt to extend your term by amending the charter and pairing with other ideas that sound good and have the look of transparency and accountability. What you are doing is attempting to lock in your majority. Would it be okay if President Trump, to try and change the rules to gain another term after serving eight years, when he has finished his term, should he be able to get four more years? No. Don't be selfish. Let other San Diegans have the opportunity to serve their community. Thank you.

I'd like to invite forward three additional speakers. Oliver Twist, allegedly Audra, and Natalie Raschke.

Hi, good afternoon. So, yes, I adamantly oppose this. Again, for people that do oppose no kings, how are we getting three queens up on the dais? And before I get to you, I do want to start out with an apology, and that's why I meant to. This is for your CAO step. I made the term, I use the term covering up, and I want to be really clear. I was talking about semantically smoke and mirrors covering up. not any indication of wrongdoing. I greatly respect your CAO and her staff, and so I just want to make it really clear I was talking semantically only. And now back to our No Queens programming. When we have bureaucracy that's out of control, the solution is not more government, nor people that appoint their own oversight. I use the term loosely, oversight. So you've got to stop that right now. Wrapping it up in all the feel-good stuff is a dog pill and a marshmallow, or as I like to say in San Diego, a turd and a taco. It stinks. Don't give yourself a more term. No more queens in San Diego. It's just more political theater. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Jordan the Tonka. That's hilarious.

I have significant concerns regarding you guys with transparency and accountability when you can't even run a meeting, you know, making sure that the fundamentals of doing that are followed, which would be having a quorum. Tara, suddenly you have a disability that would allow for you to not show your face on camera when Monica and Puta Paloma were the only ones here, therefore leaving it to be that there was no quorum. And yet you guys continue. I'm not sure why you showed up now. And it's interesting that you brought Ava Kai here because, you know, it's like I'm talking about mothers that you're terminating and then you go ahead and give her a kiss, kind of like a fuck you. I have my child and they don't because it'd be like me going to somebody who's homeless and asking for food while I've got it in my hand and I take a bite and I just walk away. So it is disgraceful that you do stuff like that to virtue signal as though you are, you know, somehow better than the mothers who terminate their parental rights.

Thank you. As the next, I'd like to invite three additional speakers, Doyle Morrison, Alicia Morrison, and Marco Espinosa.

Hello Board of Supervisors, my name is Doyle Morrison for the record and I oppose this charter reform on the basis that three terms is unclear whether or not that's retroactive. So I am opposing this because I believe that the three terms will start once this is approved if it's voted on by the voters. And I totally disagree with that. I think that two terms would be enough for you guys to do the great work that you're working on now. And then you can move on further up the chain and do more better work for our community at a higher level. So I appreciate what you do, and I want you to do more, but I think two terms is enough. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Can we just pause one moment, please? It's been brought to my attention that there was a profanity utilized in this chamber in another language. I'm seeing nods of affirmation. That is not acceptable. That is not appropriate. We do have a board policy against that kind of language in this chamber. We don't need to go backwards. We will go forwards, but this is one warning. If we hear that kind of profanity again directed at anyone, you will be asked to leave the chamber. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Alicia Morrison. I respectfully oppose this item, especially increasing three terms. June 8, 2010, voters passed Prop B to amend the Charter to limit Board of Supervisors to two terms. Let's not forget what happened on January 6, 2021. Because what is next? The 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? It was proposed to amend it. It was introduced on January 23, 2025. to increase the number of times a person can be elected as president. Let me repeat that. It was introduced on January 23rd, 2025 to increase the number of times a person could be elected as president. That is very scary thought. Comments were made earlier about the Trump administration. Imagine a third term for Donald Trump. You had eight years to do work hard for your district. So set up the success for the next person and pass the baton. Thank you.

As the next speaker is coming forward, I'll invite three additional speakers, C.K. Calderon-Vargas, Fernanda Flores, and Jocelyn.

Afternoon, Marcos Pinoza. I apologize for my ignorance on this item. I was expecting a presentation beforehand, before public comment, and I did not educate myself on the agenda much before. I really came today for what happened earlier this morning, and now I'm just here because the view is nice, and I like being here. But I'm learning from the other public speakers. And while the title and everything sounds great, I do like, I did hear that even prior to right now about potentially going to three terms.

I don't think I like that.

I really did give it consideration when I first heard about it a couple days ago or weeks ago. I like two terms. Yeah, that feels right. So that's my opinion on that. And if it did happen, though, I would hope that it doesn't reset to where it gives you a whole new three terms, just one additional term. That would sit better with me than a whole reset. Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chair, Supervisors. My name is Ike Calderon-Vargas. I'm the Director of Latino Services at the San Diego LGBT Community Center. I speak in strong support of Item 10. The families I serve rely on this county for health care, legal defense and safety, especially now as federal cuts threaten those services. In a government this large, transparency is not a luxury. It is how our communities know the system is working for them. An independent ethics commission, an independent budget analyst, an independent auditor, and a budget the public can actually see, these are the checks our residents deserve. Please move this measure forward and let the voters decide in November. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Fernanda Flores. I'm with IATSE Local 122. We represent everything that has to do with live event and production here in Southern California, currently representing 1,500 members. We are here in full support of advancing this forward. You have our continued commitment to getting this not only passed today, but also passed in November at the ballot. You have done an incredible job with the resources that you have. There are government entities that have budgets half the size of the county, and they have these departments in place. You all deserve those things, too, to be a tool to make better decisions and move our county forward. So you have our support. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to invite for three additional speakers. Alexandra Valentin, Malik Thornton, and Matthew Kearney.

Hi, I'm here to refute the content and title of this proposal. The word transparent, accountability, and independent oversight sounds so good. However, this bill does not. does none of these purported actions. How is it independent oversight when the board of supervisor gets to determine who gets hired and who gets dismissed when they don't like the outcome? You people on the left freaked out when President Trump says that he's going to be in office for the third term. And how is this, what you're doing is truly authoritarian and it is... So don't, don't, don't, don't pass this bill. Thanks.

Can you please state your name for the record?

Oh, yeah.

Jocelyn.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Alexandra Valentine. I'm a deputy public defender and a board member from the San Diego Public Defender Association. I support item 10 as it promotes transparency and ethical practices related to San Diego County's budget. At the same time, I would note opposition to item 13 as transparency can be taken too far and limit government operations and restrict functionality. Transparency is the foundation of public trust, especially in relation to the county's budget. San Diego County residents and county employees deserve the opportunity to see how budget decisions are reached, who is involved, and what information is being considered in allocation of funds. The proposed ordinance in item 10 for independent oversight is an important step toward ensuring openness, accountability, and engagement, especially when determining budget allocation and use of public funds. Our county continues to grow, and necessary departments like the Public Defender deserve transparency from the county when budget decisions are being made. Transparency is not just good governance. It is a commitment to the people being served and the employees serving the community. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead and call three additional speakers. Vanessa Melendrez, Crystal Irving, and Michelle Krug. If I've called your name, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Board. My name is Vanessa Melendrez, and I'm with the Filipino Workers Center with offices in Vista and Chula Vista, and we serve Filipino caregivers and domestic workers in all of Southern California. And I am coming up here today to ask you to please vote yes on these reforms, because I didn't expect it to get called up so fast. Please vote yes in support of this item because transparency is good governance and it's essential to ensuring our community can properly advocate for themselves. Additionally, adding independent oversight options and including an independent budget analyst will help the county spend their dollars more effectively. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

I don't know if Crystal is here.

Michelle, come on up. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Michelle Krug, and I strongly support this ordinance, and I will work to get it passed. I think that the transparency, as other people have said before, is a long time coming. It definitely will make a difference. I also think that when people are talking about getting 12 years, you don't just get 12 years. What you get is the opportunity for the people to make a decision. And I trust that. And the bottom line is that when people have that decision, this also puts us on par with the state. And I think we have been in a disadvantaged situation because our county only has eight years. I think keeping it on par with the state will allow us to be able to work more effectively as partners. Thank you.

Thank you. As the next speaker is coming forward, I'll invite the remaining speakers in person. Marco Briones, Guinevere Frank, and Michelle Cuevas.

Crystal Irving, president of SEIU Local 221, speaking in favor of this item. No one knows better than the county employees that SEIU 221 represents the challenges that our county faces in the current national environment. No one knows better than our members the importance of providing quality services that the community depends on now more than ever. I just want to take a moment to appreciate the dozens of stakeholders that provided feedback and input on this proposal. It is a comprehensive proposal that provides for transparency, accountability from both county staff leadership and elected officials alike that will help to support our employees and the communities that we're delivering services to, which include our children, our elderly, our vulnerable and quite frankly, all San Diegans who benefit from it either directly or indirectly. This is the right proposal to bring to the voters in November, and we believe this is the right path forward for our county. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go ahead and recall some of the previous speakers. Andrew Lawson, Natalie Raschke, Malik Thornton, Matthew Kearney, Marco Briones, Guinevere Frank, and Michelle Cuevas.

Awesome. Thank you so much. Thank you, the Board of Supervisors, for allowing me to speak today. My name is Malik Thornton. I am a young professional who has lived in the San Diego County for my entire life. And it's been two of my lifetimes since the charter has been reformed. That means that it has been 48 years that we have not touched this charter. That means that this slows down important policy that young people depend on. That means that the Board of Supervisors has not had real accountability independent accountability for two of my lifetimes and that means that young people have suffered and we are on the precipice of opportunity. We have so much opportunity ahead of us but we will not be able to capitalize on those opportunities if you don't have policies in place that allow you to do your work because we rely on you. And so I encourage you that if you care about your young constituents, if you want to make sure that we have a future that includes us, that we can have a house and not have to worry about being in debt for the rest of our lives, please, please make sure that you guys pass.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll now hear from the individuals that requested. Did I call your name, sir?

Thank you. Come on up. Good afternoon, Supervisors. Marco Briones, Political Director of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council. We're proud to represent over 100 unions and 200,000 working families in our border region. We're here today because we believe modernizing the county charter ensures transparent and accountable leadership, the kind of county government that workers and working families rely on for fair and effective public services. A more accountable county government helps ensure that policies serve the entire community, not just narrow interests. The people get accountability by being at the table, and this measure does that. These are just a few of the reasons we're proud to stand with this coalition of community members and leadership in working towards a better county for all San Diegans. We thank you for your support.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Hey, everyone. My name is Gwen. I'm a researcher at UCSD and a proud member of UAW 4811, who represents over 10,000 workers in San Diego County. And I wanted to voice our strong support for modernizing the charter. We're in a period of time where, as a country, we're seeing blatant corrupt spending and outright swindling of American taxpayers at the highest levels of our government. And I think it's more important than ever, across all levels of government, we establish stringent structures to ensure transparency and accountability in spending so we can hold our elected officials accountable, along with all other critical modernizations proposed to bring to our charter. So us and our workers are in strong support.

Thank you. Well now, next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Dr. Michelle Cuevas. I'm a pediatric neuropsychologist, but I'm here to represent the National Union of Healthcare Workers. I see lots of friendly faces that have been with us for our six and a half year, six and a half month strike. But here, I am here to represent NUHW as supporting this transparency. I want to be clear that the county is one of the largest purchasers and providers of healthcare and that the charter reform helps us create that transparency in ensuring that healthcare dollars are spent to the most appropriately for patient care, helping the most vulnerable in our community. I'm also in large support for transparency, particularly related to the independent budget analysis and independent program auditor with respect to the allocation of funds for supporting our most vulnerable populations. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We'll now hear from those that requested to speak by phone. We'll start with our first caller.

All bold. Most of this is self-serving still and promotes partisan politics, but it doesn't do much for real transparency or independent oversight in county government. Note the charter amendment. No queens or fake transparency in county government. We're better than that. No reason to extend term limits and lengthening your own term in the middle of it is a huge conflict of interest. This proposal would also impose term limits on the sheriff, DA, and other county elected officials who currently have none, which, by the way, is against state law. If they all have the same term limits, it guarantees officers with the same political beliefs. Nice to have a budget analyst and program auditor, but these are political appointees and in no way independent.

We'll hear from the next caller.

Amen to that. Consuelo here. And to the scripted people parroting transparency, transparency. Clearly, again, you're here because you've been asked to be here. Even more clearly is you are all, you're truly not paying attention to this board and their lack of transparency and total opposition of this item. Totally, totally, totally. Term limits especially. For the ones like Tara, who have proven that she's been totally abusive by taking advantage of the ignorant, not only abusive, but entirely entitled and privileged. Honestly, how much time do you need to further destroy our county and further run it to the ground, if that's even possible? I hope the people who put their faith in this corrupt system and board wake up, truly question everything. Wake the freak up, seriously. Slaves, man. Total slaves. I'm done.

We'll hear from the next caller.

good afternoon my name is terry ann skelly i came today to express my opposition to item agenda item number 10. i think a lot of these changes are useful however they seem to cloud what seems to be the real purpose of the charter changes which is to ensure that you three board of supervisors supporting these charter changes will have a third term It seems if you were really serious about these changes, you would bring them after the next election cycle. I support transparency by independent bodies, but I noticed that nearly all of those opposed are arguing in opposition because of a lengthening of the current board members' terms. Why are they both in the same ordinance? Charter changes are serious and important to our county and need to be separated into different proposals and not lumped together.

Thank you for hearing my concerns this afternoon.

Thank you. And we'll hear from our next caller.

My name is Kathleen Lippitt, and good afternoon, Council Board. No one will benefit by ensuring a third term except these three board majority. And they should not be able to vote on an item that will benefit them. Like many of the other items that are put forth, whether it's on the agenda or whether it's by the Board of Supervisors, there seems to be an intention to obscure and to get things past the public. You need to have simple, straightforward language. And this is not straightforward. From the title, it sounds like it's a great idea until you read the details. And the devil is always in the details. So please, I oppose this, and I think you can tell by the people who are there, the only ones who have a conflict of interest are the ones who are supporting it. Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

Peggy Walker, good afternoon. I oppose Buffett hasn't had adequate time to review very important details that deserve scrutiny, including items such as supervisorial control over employees and contracts. Regarding term limits, if two are sufficient for a U.S. president, they're sufficient for supervisors. It raises legitimate questions about whose interests are being served when elected officials write a measure that extends their own tenure. Term limits are at the core of democracy, meant to promote broader participation, reduce undue influences, prevent corruption, and bring diverse experiences and innovative ideas to policymaking. In reality, the most direct beneficiaries here are the supervisors, placing it before the public under a really deceptive guise of charter modernization. No on this item.

Thank you. On to the next caller.

Good afternoon. My name is Becky Rapp, and while I support many of the transparency and accountability measures included in this proposal, I urge you to reject this charter reform package as currently written. The report highlights several important additions, including independent financial analysis, ethics oversight, and improved public access to government information. Unfortunately, those reforms have been bundled together with a proposal to increase term limits for county supervisors. The people of San Diego County have already spoken on this issue. Voters approve the current two-term limit because they believe regular turnover in elected offices promotes accountability and creates opportunities for new voices and perspective. Extending term limits by 50% is a major policy change and should not be packaged alongside popular transparency updates. I'm also disappointed that there was no presentation for this item. The public would benefit from an explanation for each.

From the next caller.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. Excuse me, Ann Riddle here. I called in because I think it's important for you to realize out here in the unincorporated area that it's estimated some 30 to 35 percent of us consider ourselves independent. And this optics does not work well for us. Because it's clear that you have obfuscated the real intent of the charter change to allow yourself a third term. And no matter what else you want to accomplish, it's suspicious that it isn't even included in the title, what you really want to accomplish. If it's a good thing, why isn't it part of the title? And if these are all really good things, why are they bundled? Why wouldn't we have separate charter changes? This would show how really valuable you feel each of the items are. I, too, was looking forward to a staff presentation because the explanations are the real. Thank you. Thank you.

Hey, it's true. This item is the only reason, 20 minute late, commie mommy Tara is here in person today using her baby as a prop. She wants to be crowned publicly. Well, pride comes before a fall. We've seen your backroom deals on everything from the CAO, which resulted in lawsuits, to the Center on Policy Initiative on these extended term limits that 68% of voters already opposed in 2010. Maybe the reason Tara wanted supervisors to live from outside of their district is because she has a house in the city of San Diego and Manuela has a house in La Mesa. Tara and her marionette crybaby, Manuela, are not interested in transparency. They're interested in a power grab to create their personal fiefdom endorsed by UCSD, SEIU, and the Building Construction Trades Council, but funded with our money. Now, Tara for prison 2026 would be real accountability, especially since Tara was found guilty of abusing her authority at the part-time lover bar in North Park. Wannabe Queen Tara isn't bringing accountability when she can't even commit to a meeting start time. All she wants is to ensure her reign of terror is indefinite. No corrupt county queen.

We'll hear from the next caller.

Pam, let's just take a minute. What if three Republican white men wanted extended term limits? Hmm. How would you three women react then? This item has always been a scam, a lie, an insult to American citizens who voted for term limits. It is a power grab by Queen Tara and her ladies-in-waiting. Monica, do you think you'll ever be chairwoman if Tara's on the board indefinitely? The three women on this board are in over their heads, fancying they can manage the multi-billion dollar budget, even with extended terms. The board can be transparent and accountable beginning today without changing the charter. Ongoing community engagement can be improved today by lifting the restrictions on the public speakers as dictated by Queen Tara, especially those speaking in opposition. Tara stands for no kings as transference of her hunger for more power. Would you like that mental health behavior term? Don't be her minion. And we're tired of seeing the same activists begging for what they want almost on their knees. On to the next caller.

Hello, Supervisors. My name is Madison. And although I am in favor of modernizing the county charter and increasing transparency, I would ask you to vote no on this proposal because San Diego County voters already decided that two terms is the appropriate limit for this office. What concerns me most is that the officials who would directly benefit from this change are the ones advancing it. Families are struggling with the high cost of living. Communities are concerned about public safety, homelessness, mental health, infrastructure, and the future of our region. Those are the issues that deserve our attention, not extending term limits for those already in power. Our government is strongest when leadership is continually renewed and opportunities exist for new people to step forward and serve. Fresh perspectives can bring new solutions to longstanding problems. The voters established a two-term limit, and that standard has served our county well. I ask you to reject this proposal and preserve the term limits that San Diego County residents already chose. Thank you.

Thank you. And we'll hear from the next caller.

Good afternoon. My name is Diane Grace and I am coming before you to vote. voice my opposition to item 10, which would advance the charter reform package to the November ballot. It is costly to put such a divisive proposal on the ballot that will probably fail because of the editorials that have already been very negative. Oversight bodies should be truly independent and the language doesn't seem And current supervisors should not benefit from changing their own term limits. Voters should be allowed to consider each reform proposal separately. The agenda item title doesn't tell you it's true intent that they want the present supervisors to have three terms. As mentioned before, why not include this in the title? Thank you.

Thank you. And we'll hear from the final caller.

Good afternoon. My name is Marina Karakashian. I am a deputy public defender and a member of the San Diego Public Defenders Association. And I'm here to express my support for item 10. Transparency is the absolute foundation to public trust, particularly regarding our county's budget. Our residents and hardworking county employees deserve full visibility into how our budget decisions are being reached, who is at the table, and what data is driving the decisions that are being made. For essential departments like the Public Defender's Office, clarity on decisions affecting our funding and affecting our budget are crucial because it directly impacts our indigent community members and our ability as an entire holistic office serving those indigent community members. This proposal strengthens independent ethics oversight, provides nonpartisan fiscal and budget analysis, and creates this independent evaluation of county programs so that the public...

Thank you, Chair Lawson-Riemann. That concludes public comment on this item.

Okay. Thank you all very much. I guess I'll just begin. Happy to make a motion to approve this item. I first just want to thank everyone for this has been a long process. There's been huge amounts of conversation and input. People began putting these ideas forward a number of years ago and it's really been an iterative conversation where some good ideas emerged and some bad ideas emerged and bad ideas got tossed out and good ideas got stronger. The process of having these conversations made the package of reforms better and more powerful and I think that we've really arrived in a great place. This has been a long stakeholder process driven by residents and community groups and business partners and our labor partners and I just want to thank you for your leadership. This final version has made a number of changes and reflects a number of changes made along the way. Most recently, It removed term limit changes for independently elected county offices in response to input from the sheriff and the DA. We also heard concerns about ballot question clarity, and those concerns have been addressed. But the heart of the reforms remain strong. We still do not have an independent ethics commission. This charter reform would establish that. We still do not have an independent budget analyst or an independent program auditor. This measure gives voters the chance to change that. This measure gives the public stronger tools to see how money is spent, whether programs are working, and whether government is meeting the standards that people deserve. And it does all this in a revenue neutral way because no new spending would be permitted. and no reduction in county service would be allowed. So again, I would like to thank the broad coalition supporting and championing this reform package, including firefighters, our deputy sheriffs, environmental advocates, labor unions, civil rights groups, reproductive health advocates, attorneys groups, small business leaders, community organizations, and others across San Diego County. This has been a very broad tent process and I will tell you has been incredibly interesting and difficult because these are groups who not only don't agree on every issue, often agree on no issues. So to have found common ground on a package of reforms to make our government work better for everyone has been I think pretty extraordinary and I am very excited to give the voters the opportunity to make a decision for themselves. Again, as has been said from the very beginning, and as I've said many times, these are not questions that are up to us as members of the County Board of Supervisors. These are questions that are up to the voters. These are questions that can only and should only be decided by voters. The question around the structure of our charter and the rules governing our region are basically the constitutional questions for our community. And these are questions that are left to the voters. So what I think we can do and the best we can do in our positions as supervisors is to put forward an option for voters to consider and decide whether these are reforms that they'd like to see adopted and move forward or not. And I'll be very proud to put that on the ballot. But ultimately, we'll trust that our voters are smart and wise and capable of making good decisions for themselves about the rules to govern our region. So I'm happy to make that motion. I would like to urge my colleagues to support. And with that, I can turn it over to Supervisor Desmond. And we have a second on the floor by Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp.

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate it. I've made my position on the proposed charter amendments quite clear. In our previous board hearings, I'm not going to be supporting it today. And I'd like to ask voters of San Diego County to reject this deceptive charter reform. The voters, I think, are being deceived by using the attractive language such as transparency, accountability, and independent oversight. We should be doing those things already. We should be doing, that's our job. That's what you elected us for, is to be transparent, to be accountable, and have independent oversight. All of those things we can do without a charter amendment. So this isn't about modernizing county government. To me, it's a power grab by extending our own term limits and creating a political patronage system. Section 500.4 of the amended charter would require top-level positions of the county to be approved by the board before they are hired. That's getting our fingers, in my opinion, weighed down deep into the weeds, and these are going to become political appointments as opposed to merit-based appointments. This proposal would make all leadership positions at the top of the county government political, meaning people only get the job if they have the right politics, not the right qualifications. Section 501.9 of the amended charter, the non-interference clause, that's us non-interfering with the staff, historically regulates how supervisors and staff interact with the county staff and bars us from giving county staff directives. But if we have the yay or nay on hiring them, to me that's getting too deep into the staff conversation. Section of the county. There's an additional section that grants the Board of Supervisors and their staff the ability to weigh in on the hiring and firing of more than 600 manager positions at the county. So the board should not, I think, and under any circumstances, interfere with the hiring process of the county management up and down the organization. That's what we hire the CAO for. That's what the CAO works for us, and then everybody else works for the CAO. If the CAO is not doing their job, then we need to rethink that process. But we shouldn't be hiring people into all the different levels of the county. So Section 600 of the amended charter would extend supervisors' term limits from two terms to three four-year terms for a total of 12 years. It has already been pointed out, supervisors, that was passed by 68% of the vote of the two terms in 2010. So San Diego County residents have already spoken. The five of us here, we all ran with the understanding that we get two terms. And now that we're in the office, we want to change the rules for ourselves and give ourselves an extra term. I don't think that's right. If we do this third term, it should only apply to new supervisors. Section 702 creates an independent budget analyst and program auditor. I don't know why this would have to go to a vote of the people. Why can't we just do that? That sounds great, but how truly independent are they? We, the board, would hire and fire them. We'd decide their salaries, and they would report directly to us. They need to be reporting to the people. They need to be independent. Same thing with the Ethics Commission. The Ethics Commission will be appointed by the supervisors and our County Council, who I trust, but he works for the County Board of Supervisors. So I question how independent these offices would be. So I can't support this. To me, it's too self-serving. We're sugarcoating this adding an extra term with the terms of accountability, transparency, and independent oversight. We should already be doing those things. And again, I would encourage San Diegans to reject this deceptive charter reform. Thanks.

Supervisor Anderson.

Madam Chair, I really want to get to yes. And I'm not trying to poke at you all, but I really want to get to yes. There's so many good things in this. I'm going to offer a friendly amendment to the areas where I I have difficulty. This will be the first in the county to have retroactive term limits. It's never been done in the state. All term limits have been moving forward with newly elected. I fear that it's not your intention to have three more terms, but rather one, making it 12 for everybody. And I get that. But it's never been tested in court. And if it were tested, it would give us the potential of being here for 20 years. Not all of us, but for us long-toothed folks, you and I would have 20 years. So my first amendment, or it's a group amendment, but the first portion would be that the term limits would apply for the new terms, not for anybody who's already in office. The second thing is we're changing the language in much of this. Our colleague, Supervisor Desmond Hitt, is saying, We have a moat around purchasing right now where we can't unduly influence them and We have all sorts of protections against sequence Single-source contracts that were working with the public's money. We want to make sure those protections are there I fear that by removing that moat that we are running the risk of having undue influence on the decisions. So I would prefer that that be taken out, that section 701, excuse me, 705.3. So we wouldn't be able to interact with the purchasing department or the contracting staff directly the way we have it currently. The third thing is I'd like to remove the proposed language empowering the board to confirm or remove county staff. I think civil service is important, and I think that the language that we're using could be reinterpreted by future boards to go much deeper. And I don't think, you know, if I filled potholes in my district, maybe I just want to be the best pothole filler there is. And My party registration shouldn't matter. But when you have this kind of oversight, when you have political tensions, all of a sudden we're putting all sorts of pressure on civil service that shouldn't be there. The running of government shouldn't be regulated by the electeds. So I don't believe there's adequate protections that the next board doesn't say, Everybody's an ACAO and this and redefining the positions is arbitrary and that could easily be done with a three vote majority. So I'd like to see that removed. And then of course, uh, requiring the independent auditor be elected and accountable to the public. Uh, I don't want this person to be a political appointee. We, the way it's written, three members of this board could choose that political appointee. And I'm not suggesting that this board's going to be nefarious. But what happens if five Bidens get elected to follow us or five Trumps? And I threw in both so everyone had somebody they may not like. Are you going to be happy with these rules if they have that kind of power? You see, if I was a nefarious person I could weaponize those audits and target political folks because they report directly to three members of the board. They should report to five, but if there's a three board, three member board, I mean, majority, I could, uh, I don't like that the answer county council gives me, so I'll direct them to audit them. Or if I don't like what somebody else says, maybe, Behavioral health isn't giving me the answers I like so I put them through an audit or maybe I go after the sheriff or Anybody else in so I'm worried that we're giving incredible power To the people that follow us in office, and I'm not comfortable with that so I wanted to explain why I felt strongly about these areas and The likelihood of you accepting it is slim. However, I really want to get to yes. There's a lot of other items, the ethics committee. I was appalled when I got elected and found out that we report to no one. And I thought, how crazy is that? Why don't we just go with the FPPC? Well, they have a 2 million population cap. We're at 3.3. We don't qualify. Even if we wanted a contract with the FPPC, We can't get one because we're too big. So this solves that problem, and that's a big problem, but it puts us at risk down the road if the people that replace us aren't as good as where the board is now. So that's why I'm asking for these amendments. If you accept them, I will gladly vote for this and I'll cheer for it. And while I can't campaign in my office for it, I certainly will make it known in my personal circles how much I could support this. But short of those changes, I'm just too worried that we're solving a problem with a bigger problem because while this board may be on the straight and narrow, we don't know who's going to follow us. I'm asking for the amendment. So I've talked a long time. We may have lost what I was saying to start with.

I think you had three. You had one about term limits, one about the appointments and confirmation process, and one about the independent auditor.

Four total. What was the four? Four total in the package. I think that you all know this. When I ask for an amendment, you give it to me, I vote for it. So I wanted to package them together. So if you gave me one, I wouldn't be misleading you into believing I'm going to vote for one. It's a package of four. But I wanted to make sure I was clear on that. You were on the line, you may have heard, but I had asked for an amendment. It fell short. And so I had to, out of clarity, I wanted to announce that I would not be voting for it, not because I was angry, but because I didn't want to mislead anybody. At that point when I announced I wasn't going to vote for it, you may have wanted to reverse and not give a partial because the partial wasn't going to earn my vote. So that's where I am today. I'd love for you to accept those items, and I'd love to vote for this, and I'd love to campaign for, on my own time, not in county office, I would love to campaign for this, because I do think the ethics committee is really important. I think having the independent, truly independent auditor is really important. I think the ideas that you presented were excellent. I just didn't think we're there yet for solving the problem. And I think this would bring it home. So thank you.

Thank you very much. You know, I do want to speak for the seconder of the motion. I know for myself as the maker of the motion, I would not feel comfortable at this sort of late stage taking such a significant amendment after all the feedback from the community and the participatory process. But I do really appreciate the spirit in which it was offered. And I also would note that there's a huge amount of work that's going to need to be done to implement all of this charter reform. And that work is going to be the responsibility of the working group. So I would respectfully ask you So just really consider that, that this provides a path to potentially implement these reforms, but it doesn't mandate how they would be implemented. And so there would still be quite a bit of space to implement suggestions along the lines that you've just outlined in how the charter reform is implemented. over the next two years. So again, we'd love to invite you to join us and take the good with the good and acknowledge that, you know, not necessarily want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I also understand if that's not where you're at. But this has definitely not been an easy journey. There's been a lot of different opinions and nobody, I think, has gotten everything that they've wanted. I think everyone's gotten a little bit of what they've wanted along the way. And that's really been sort of my commitment in trying to put this together. But again, I don't want to speak for my colleagues. If people have a different view, very open.

I just, I know we had an extensive discussion last time. So I hear everything you're saying. I would just like to Say on the record, because I know in the event that anything is challenged, the record also is important, including the vote. So in the event that this passes today and in the event that it passes in November, we don't know if it will. My understanding of the term limits is that no person can serve more than 12 years. That's my understanding. I just want to put that on the record so that if there is any, are there any legal challenges? That's my understanding. It's now on the record.

I think in that vein, it would probably be worth clarifying that that, with County Council, I see Sherry here, just to make sure that that is clear, both in terms of the language is drafted, but also the intent. I don't want there to be any confusion. So, Damon Sherry, if you need a moment, we can wait. But if you have that in front of you, if you could clarify whether there's any real risk that this could be interpreted as somehow resetting the clock and providing anyone three additional terms or whether it's fairly clear from both comments in the dais and the written content of the charter that it would only be one additional term. It would be three max.

Thank you, Chair Lawson-Reimer. The way that the language is written is to reflect that it would be a total of three terms, 12 years, so that if any supervisor is currently in the midst of one or two terms, it would not be an additional three terms on top of that. I can defer to my colleague, Shiri, if she has a specific language or other things that she'd like to read to make that clear, but that is the way that it has been drafted.

Well, the attorneys can take care of one of your four concerns, but go ahead, Sherry.

If you want the additional language, there's a provision in the proposed 401.5 that makes clear that a supervisor's service in office prior to the effective date of the amendment counts toward the three-term limit.

If I may, is there any case law that supports this because it hasn't been tested in court yet?

I think the concern you are raising has to do with retroactivity and our research of the case law is that this provision written in this manner is not considered retroactive because it doesn't change anything that has already happened. It adds an additional term going forward.

I pulled the entire state. We're the first to do this. No one's ever done it. The legal opinions I've received when I was in the state legislature were that it will be struck down in court. That's why nobody's done it. So not to say it can't be done, but it's not been tested in court. And good attorneys get struck down in court all the time. Laws get struck down in court all the time. So if it were to be struck down, what would happen at that point? Would that not lead to three more terms? I mean, a total of three additional terms. if it were struck down in court.

Excuse me, Supervisor Anderson, are you saying if the measure itself is determined?

This element, this element of the measure, because I think there's a solvability clause, right? Yeah.

I think I can try to answer, but the committee can correct me. My understanding is it would revert to what we have currently. It would be two terms, because if it's struck down in court, it would be struck down, and then you'd go back to what's already in existence. It would be struck down, and then you'd end up with 20 terms. It would be struck down and go back to two terms. Because it is separable. Not 20 terms.

20 terms. It would be applicable 12 years moving forward. So if it was sued and they said you can't take credit.

No, because the language itself would be struck down. And so you'd go back to what you. We don't really know. I hear your point. But it's separable. So we would go back to what is currently applicable. the law, you wouldn't create new terms.

We don't know that specifically, though. We think that's what's going to happen, but there is still a chance that they would say three more terms, that you can't be retroactive at all. I get how you wrote it. It's very clever. It's just never been tested. In all the term limits throughout the state, no one's ever done it before because nobody wanted to run this risk. I get it. You know, it's moving forward, but it's not guaranteed.

Did anyone have any additional comments? Thank you for your clarification. Any additional questions or comments from anybody? Okay. We can call the vote.

Chair Lawson-Reamer, that motion passes with Supervisor Anderson and Supervisor Desmond voting no, all other supervisors being present and voting no.

Okay, thank you all so much. Okay, so we will now move on to item 10. I'm sorry, item 11. We already did 10. Certification, the certification of the initiative petition measure to fund San Diego County Health and Safety Services. Do we need to have any kind of presentation or anything? Okay, great, thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Lawson and members of the board. No presentation, but I do have a brief statement to read into the record. The Registrar of Voters has certified the Citizens Initiative petition titled Measure to Fund San Diego County Health and Safety Services. By law, the board must submit the measure to voters without alteration. The measure is a 0.5% sales tax with revenues dedicated as follows. 22.5% of the revenue to the Tijuana River Valley sewage mitigation, 17.5% to public safety and wildfire prevention and 60% to health care child care and nutrition The measure requires a 12-member oversight committee independent audits and prohibits uses such as salaries and lobbyists The measure requires a majority vote to pass There are two options in the recommendations Option one adopt the resolution to place it on the November 3 2026 ballot today option two order an impact report due within 30 days, and schedule a special meeting to adopt the election resolution. Under Elections Code Section 1405, the resolution calling the election must be issued at least 88 days before election day. That deadline is August 7, 2026, which would require a special board meeting sometime between July 25 and August 7, 2026, if option two is chosen. In addition to these two options, the board has the discretion to direct the auditor to review the initiative measure and prepare a fiscal impact statement pursuant to election code section 9160. The auditor must provide this fiscal impact statement to the registrar of voters by no later than August 14, which is printed in the voter information guide and limited to 500 words. I also want to note for the record that under government code section 25207, The board retains the authority to order a report at any time independently of the elections code options before you today. This means that even outside the 30-day impact report process under election code 9111, the board may request an additional analysis it believes is necessary to support its deliberations. Thank you. That concludes my summary of this item.

Okay, we'll go to public comment.

Thank you, Chair Lawson-Riemer. We have 15 requests to speak on this item, four in person, and 11 requesting to speak by phone. Also know for the record that we received one e-comment in opposition. For any individuals that requested to speak on item 11 by phone, please dial into the conference line using the instructions that were provided to you. We'll 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 have one minute to address the board. I'll be calling groups of three, so I'd like to invite for the first three individuals, allegedly Audra, Marco Espinosa, and Crystal Irving. Again, please state your name for the audio record.

I need to call a point of order for what is taking place. You were just talking about transparency and accountability and I would like to put you on notice to change your board policy to follow the law. And Damon, this is something that you should be addressing because it is a violation of not only our First Amendment, but the Brown Act that's under two constitutions, what supersedes your board policy. And under the Supremacy Clause, under the due process, it's the law of the land to have the First Amendment. So if I want to say puta, if I want to say cracker, whatever it is, even if it's criticizing a person, that is legal to do. So you're setting yourself up for litigation because you are violating the law by saying that you are following your board policy by restricting my speech. You've continued to do it. So I would like an answer from Damon regarding this because this is a violation of law and you know it. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

next speaker please.

All right. Crystal Irving president of SEIU local 221 speaking in favor of this item. We were proud to join a coalition that brought this initiative to San Diegans and over 150,000 San Diegans added their signatures to the effort to successfully qualify for the ballot. The citizens-led initiative will address the Tijuana River toxic sewage crisis with the first ever local infrastructure upgrades. It'll protect access to affordable health care in the face of Washington's severe cuts, establish a substantial first ever local investment in child care, and strengthen wildfire response for every community in San Diego County. This measure also includes independent oversight, public disclosure, and strict prohibitions on any funds going to elected official salaries or lobbyist contracts. Now, we recognize that today's vote is merely procedural, but I want to highlight that I think it's appropriate it's being discussed on the same day as budget deliberations when we see the impacts of H.R. 1 and this Trump administration, and we know it's going to get worse. So, again, urging yes for this vote. Thank you.

I'd like to invite for the remaining speakers in person, Michelle Krug and Oliver Twist.

Marco Espinoza. Eileen, yes, on this one. Thank you. I yield back.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon again. I did actually mean to proceed my remarks before by welcoming back Tara Lawson-Rima. Congratulations and welcome back. I'm very glad that we collected enough signatures to get this on the ballot. This money is direly needed. You on the dais know that better than us. This money will really make a difference. There are changes that I'd love to see with county medical services. Obviously, the Tijuana River Basin is a major impact in our community. I'm very glad to see that this is ready to be authorized. Of course, I hope that you will just accept it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Hi, good afternoon, Oliver Twist. I'm adamantly opposed to this, and I don't think we should have any new taxes in San Diego, either in the city or the county. You're fiscally irresponsible. You are growing government too big. 33% growth in five years, and I think it was 12% to 13% in county staff, and it's just too much, and we don't need more taxes because look what happened in Balboa Park when they like socialism you end up running out of other people's money and then you start charging for parking fix the infrastructure and the things that you're supposed to be working on and what I would really appreciate is a lot more fiscal pragmatism people don't understand they hear progress all the ideas sound so good so feel good but what you're really there is to grow government grow your county staff grow your union membership so it can feed in the cycle of political donations so rule pragmatically, focus on the Maslow hierarchy, and fix what needs fixing first. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll hear from the individuals that requested to speak by phone. We'll start with our first caller.

Here comes another tax that catches how many projects and items this is supposed to fund. There's a new committee for pretty much everything for you fans of new bureaucracy. Of course, it has something for everyone, but what tiny percent of your sales tax will go to your favorite cause? So your half percent additional tax on transactions excluding property or fuel is supposed to fund eight main items and many smaller projects. Quite a list. How many will each project get? Two hundred percent or less? The taxes will be put into the Protect San Diego County's Health and Safety Fund. It will be used to solely finance central county services and maintain and improve the quality of lives of county residents. The next caller.

Okay, Consuelo here. All the slaves in favor of bigger government say aye. Come on, slaves. Let's call it what it is. This item is to further keep the people under the rule of thumb of big government to further keep them under the illusion that government is taking care of everything, taking care of them when it's all about more taxes and more control. This item will pass with the majority being the three queen turds and tacos. And yeah, it's just more unbelievable shit comes from this bias. Done.

Thank you. Hear from the next caller. Next caller is Terri Skelly.

I'm hoping to speak on item 13, not 11.

Back to you for that item. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Becky Rapp and I recognize that The voters have demonstrated sufficient support for this measure to bring it forward. And at this stage, the county's responsibility is to ensure transparency and clarity about what the measure does and how it would be implemented. I strongly encourage the board to ensure the fiscal impact statement and related materials And that they clearly explain not only what services may be funded, but what gaps still remain if funding is sufficient. I'm concerned that this health and safety services must include upstream investment in youth prevention, especially youth drug prevention, tied to marijuana use, as well as early intervention for mental health conditions associated with substance use. We're seeing increasing pressure on emergency departments, schools, and child welfare systems, and prevention is consistently. Thank you.

We'll hear from the next caller.

It's true. It's not Espanol, but it's my free expression, and it still matters legally. Here's another item endorsed by unions such as SIU, signed by Crystal Irving on 4030 Louisiana Street, who have funded the benefiters of this tax bill. such as Manuela Paloma, who wants America to pay for Mexico's sewage forever. Grifter. Califiers and agreements because they want to cut further salaries. Selfish. The county claims the petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures, but we know that's not true. We've seen the viral videos of homeless drug addicts being paid in dollar bills, cigarettes, and drugs to sign these and other petitions. Nobody actually wants more taxes. Nobody's voting for this fraud. I just mentioned this petition going around about two months ago. You want people to believe they got millions of signatures in that short time frame when people asked them if they were getting paid to collect signatures, and they admitted, yes, they were. This is 100% phony, which Manny specializes in, and it's 100% fraud, which Tara specializes in. Shame on you, corrupt.

Thank you. We'll hear from the final caller.

Pam, well, here we go with another lie. And I always know it is when the purple shirts turn up to speak begging for it. They're flowery words. We must have a paid speech writer. Anyway, no new tax. This is a scam. It's interesting that on item 10 that was passed, that Tara said that the implementation plan was not ready yet, that it would be left up to the working team. So how do we know this new tax will be implemented according to what is written here? And anything for health and safety services, why aren't the fire lookout towers maintained? There are a few that are closed and not being used because they're in poor condition. Why were they not already maintained? So this is a scam. This is to get money to put into pet peeves, pet projects, not to do anything for the county, but to feed probably unions and activist groups and NGOs, right? You have no idea how you're going to use this. And why does one group get more money and another group doesn't? How does that work?

Thank you. And Chair Lawson-Riemer, that concludes public comment on this item.

Okay, thank you very much. I have a couple comments. Do any of my colleagues have anything to say? If I can just make a motion, happy to do that. Seeing no requests from my colleagues to speak, I'll just make a couple remarks on this. I just first of all want to express my gratitude to the leadership of so the folks who put this together. So thank you for your work. Um, it's a lot of signatures to gather. That's a lot of work. Um, and there's a lot of people who obviously really want to see this measure, uh, considered by the voters in November. Um, you know, that's just a lot of people to have signed, to sign this, uh, ballots, this, uh, this ballot measure. So I hear, I hear that. Um, and I think that to me, this is, um, real evidence that people in San Diego are deeply, deeply concerned about the Tijuana sewage disaster, about the devastating cuts to health care and food assistance that our community is facing, and that people remain very committed to making sure that our 911 emergency response can be the best and can keep us safe in even the worst conditions and even if the worst and most unthinkable happens to our communities. We began this conversation I think over a year and a half ago when in my State of the County I mentioned my deep concerns about what was coming at us and what was coming towards our community. in a new Trump administration. And I think this San Diego County Health and Safety Citizens Initiative rises to meet that moment. It offers voters a powerful tool that people can choose to support to protect our community, to defend our community, to keep our water clean, to keep our hospitals open, and to make sure firefighters and first responders have the tools that they need to keep us safe. Our job today is extremely straightforward. This is a citizens qualified initiative and the voters must decide on this ballot measure that has been proposed to be placed on the ballot by signatures of hundreds of thousands of voters. So our role is not to adopt this measure ourselves. We really only can and must from an administrative standpoint, Joan correct me if I'm wrong, just put this on the ballot. I think my only concern is to ensure that the language is clear and accurate and sufficient. We do want to ensure that voters have a clear information so that they can make an informed decision. I think that's really our only role here is to ensure that the language is clear and that the impact on our community is clear because the information will be placed directly on the ballot. So with that, I would like to make the following motion. And I think Andrew, you have the strike through changes. That is to approve recommendation number one, And then to approve recommendation number two, option number one, with the following clarifying amendment to the ballot question in the attachment D resolution to ensure as much transparency as possible for the voters to have clear and accurate information. So this is a funny one, but I was reading this and a lot of folks were not quite sure exactly what the word mitigate meant. Seemed like a... you know, a hundred dollar word when we could probably have used a 10 cent word. So if we could just replace the word mitigate with cleanup so that people actually know what, is being written here and they're not confused. Similarly, another, maybe this is a thousand dollar word instead of a 10 cent word. I don't need to know that we need to confuse people with the term retail transaction and use tax. Like, I don't know what that is exactly. Just, I think we can call it what it is, which is a sales tax. And then it seems very important to add the annual amount to be raised until ended by voters. My understanding that that was an oversight in the drafting of this ballot question by County Council because it's legally required to include that. And so that, and I know that it's estimated to raise $400,000 to $450,000, $400,000 to $450,000,000. So that needs to be in there for transparency's purposes. And then take no action. on recommendation three. So that's my motion. And yeah, hope to have support from my colleagues. Thank you. Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. I just don't think now's the right time to put a half cent sales tax in front of the people. It's, you know, the cost of everything is already way too high. We're always surprised when you go to the grocery store or you go you know, buy clothes or a car or something. You know, everything's just gone up and up and up. This tax, as my understanding, there's no end to it. It's a forever tax. There's going to be no end to this. I agree with some of, you know, the Tijuana River definitely needs to be dealt with, but I do think we've got to be putting the pressure on Mexico. We can not just throw more and more U.S. money after... that catastrophe that's happening down there and we got to get them to stop and make sure they keep their end of the bargain up and creating the infrastructure that they need on their side. I think we have to put pressure on them as opposed to just putting more money after this. I could support this if we went with item number one and two with option two, not option one. You know, we're talking about impact. I'm sorry. We're talking about, you know, responsibility, transparency. I think if we had an impact report, which is option two, and then come back within 30 days after we see an impact report, because I think that would be helpful to the citizens before they vote on it. I realize today we're just putting it yes or no on the ballot. I'm not going to be supporting this tax, but I would like to have the impact report. So I'd like to see if you'd be open to choosing option two out of recommendation number two, then I could support it.

Did you, in your proposal on option two, Supervisor Desmond, it says this option requires the board to schedule a special meeting sometime between July 25th and August 7th. What day did you want to have that meeting?

I don't know. Late July.

My birthday is July 27th.

You want it before or after?

Well, I can tell you July 27th is a Monday, so I don't think you're going to want to be meeting on a Saturday.

I could do it. I don't care.

Well, think about it. It's obviously tossed out there. I support option one. It doesn't change my support for option one, but just wanted to make sure that if you're supporting option two that it's a full proposal that folks can think about because we'd have to calendar that. Supervisor Geary.

Thank you. I just want to say that regardless where people stand on the substance of this proposal, this is the democratic process. And this has been an initiative that's been put forward by the citizens. Our registrar of voters has certified that the petition qualifies. I think the fact that so many people signed on to this petition knowing full well what it is is a Reflection of the sentiment of our region and I think especially I just want to speak obviously to the Tijuana River I think that all of us whether you live literally in the affected area and and are suffering the harms of this pollution every single day in your daily life through being sick or losing work or losing school and The reality is the fixes aren't happening fast enough. Mexico is not doing enough. Trump is not doing enough. Biden didn't do enough. And that's just the reality. Nobody's done enough, and that's why we're here. And I see it as a way of the people of San Diego County taking the bull by the horns and bringing a real source of revenue that could... truly bring relief. We've made our efforts and I'm thankful to this board for the efforts that we're making, but that's like I said many times, it's not going to solve the issue. Something of this caliber, something of this size can. And that's the most important thing because if we wait for fixes alone to come from Mexico. We're going to be here 20 years, 30 years from now. And there's going to be people who have died from cancer. There's going to be people who have died from pneumonia. There's going to be people who have died from other ailments that all of this contamination has a capacity to cause. So we don't. keep our foot off the pedal. We continue to pressure Mexico. We continue to pressure this administration. We continue to pressure the state as well. There's been a lot of work that's gone on that my team and myself have done advocating for monies to come from the state as well in the last six months, but the reality is it's not enough. The people have spoken. This is a high priority for them, and we should just let the process move forward. Thank you.

Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp.

Yes, just briefly want to thank the ROV for the work that goes into certifying the initiative petition. Thank you for that. And congratulations to the coalition for securing enough signatures to make this ballot measure a reality. The issues that this measure addresses are critically important. for providing a quality of life we all deserve. We've just been discussing that for the entire day. So they are important. That doesn't mean that we know the fate of the measure in November, but I will continue to work with my colleagues and community partners to protect healthcare improve childcare, public safety, address the Tijuana River sewage crisis, no matter what happens. But this is something that we, I think, can look forward to seeing where the county is when it comes to these issues and how the vote will be reflected there. So thank you again, everyone. And I think this is more so a procedural matter for us. So with that, I'll go ahead and second option one.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor and a second. Please vote.

Thank you, Chair Lawson-Raymond. I just want to note for the record that we added in the word annually, as you noted in your remarks, into the ballot question. It's highlighted on the screen.

Okay. And before we do, just clarifying that we really have to put this on the ballot. It's just a question of how, but not whether we do it or not. So I just want to make sure that's clear for the record. Thank you.

And Chair Lawson-Riemer, that motion passes with Supervisor Anderson and Supervisor Desmond voting no, all other supervisors being present and voting aye.

Okay. Thank you very much. So we will now move on to our next item. And this is an item that has been brought forward by District 4. It's item 12, Authorizing Partner Food Distribution Pilots at Strategic County Facilities in High-Need Areas to Mitigate CalFERS Work Requirement Displacements. Vice Chair, would you like to make some introductory remarks?

I will. Okay. Yes. Thank you so much for the opportunity. Thank you to county staff and our community partners for your important work on the food distribution component of the Safety Net Bridge program. Access to good nutritional food is a key determinant of health. Food is medicine. Tragically, an estimated 93,500 members of our community are at risk of losing access to that medicine, which is food. and to a happier, healthier life due to the new CalFresh work reporting requirements imposed by HR1. This federally mandated change is anticipated to increase food insecurity in every county district. The proposed action before the board today is designed to address that anticipated food insecurity by targeting the 16 zip codes where families are expected to be hit the hardest. We would be utilizing existing county facilities and partnering with the San Diego Food Bank and Feeding San Diego for emergency food distribution events to support hunger relief efforts. It also supports on-site benefit enrollment and supplemental resources provided by dedicated county staff as a part of the Safety Net Bridge program. We know these wraparound services are crucial to assisting families looking for long-term food security and stabilization resources during a time of significant change. There is also funding for potential home delivery services and for distribution through other trusted community providers so that the county can stay nimble in addressing any service gaps that may be identified after program rollout. We built in program flexibility so that we can best meet the needs of our residents as those needs evolve. Staff will monitor and review reporting on an ongoing basis, ensuring optimal utilization of county resources. Supporting this proposed action will help prevent families in our communities from having to make tough decisions like food versus housing and food versus healthcare. It's both the moral and just action to support our neighbors in their time of need. So I hope my colleagues will support this item today. And I can make the motion now. That's fine. But I can also wait until after public comment.

Okay. Thank you very much. Would you like to first go to public comment or have board discussion? Because we have people on the board who want to talk, but we can just go to public comment and do board discussion. Yeah. Okay. Well, apologies, Supervisor Anderson. We'll go to public comment and then we'll go to you.

Thank you, Chair Lawson-Ramer. We have 30 requests to speak on this item, 13 in person and 17 requesting to speak by phone. Also note for the record that we received three e-comments, one in support and one neutral. For any individuals that requested to speak on item 12 by phone, please dial into the conference line using the instructions that were provided to you. We'll 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 have one minute to address the board and I'll ask you to begin by stating your name for the audio record. I will call you in groups of three. So please listen for your name. I'd like to invite for the first three individuals, Sam Duke, Noah and Karina. If I've called your name, please come forward.

Good afternoon. My name is Sam Duke. I'm the director of programs at Feeding San Diego Representing Families. who are having to choose between groceries and gas, between rent and food for their families. Rising costs have pushed working families to the breaking point they've never faced before. Last month at our school pantry at Dewey Elementary, serving primary military families, a mother of three told me that the food she's receiving means her family has dinner for that evening. Earlier this month, new snap cuts may force even more San Diego families into food insecurity. Your funding approval today would do more than just feed hungry families, though that alone is transformational. These dollars would allow us to strategically strengthen and expand our distribution network that helps increase food rescue and provide more nutritious food year round. Right now, food assistance is increasing every single day. Last month, we served over half a million San Diego's across the county. The families we serve can't vote on this today. but they are counting on your leadership on behalf of Feeding San Diego and the thousands of families we serve together. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Noah Yiyik, researcher with the Center on Policy Initiatives. Third time's a charm today. We urge you to vote yes on item 12 and advance the food access component of the safety net bridge program. Nutrition security is a human right. Adequate nutrition helps people stay healthy, care for their families, and live with dignity. Right now, thousands of San Diegans are losing access to nutrition assistance or are at risk of losing it because of federal cuts. We cannot allow cruel decisions in Washington to harm San Diegans. The food distribution pilot before you provides a strategic targeted response and includes measures to monitor outcomes and ensure support is meeting our community's needs. The Safety Net Bridge program is how we put our values into action. It says that in San Diego County, no one should go hungry, no one should go without care, and we take care of each other. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to invite four or three additional speakers. Allegedly Audra, Doyle Morrison, and Alicia Morrison.

Good afternoon, supervisors. It's Karina Pugh again. My pronouns are she, her. I'm here today on behalf of the San Diego LGBT Community Center asking you all to vote in support of this item. As we continue to see the painful impacts of HR1 and the significant cuts to programs that keep our communities fed, housed, and otherwise supported in an increasingly difficult economy, we are seeing LGBTQ folks disproportionately experiencing the impacts of these cuts. At our center, our food banks and other programs supporting food assistance are experiencing higher volumes of traffic than we've seen ever before. This item is the county's opportunity to be a bold leader, investing county dollars to mitigate the harms from these cuts. Please vote in support of this item to keep San Diegans fed, and thank you to Vice Chair Montgomery's step for her leadership on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Hello, Doyle Morrison. I'm in favor of this food distribution, but consideration for eligibility based on zip codes is problematic. In the San Diego County, many unincorporated communities rely on zip codes assigned to nearby incorporated cities, meaning their mail says the city name, but they are governed and taxed by the county rather than the city. Notable unincorporated areas with city-affiliated zip codes are Bonita, Casa de Oro, Rancho San Diego, Fairbanks Ranch, La Presa, and Lincoln Acres. These community zip codes are not listed in this agenda item material as high-impact zip code served. The unincorporated communities are governed and taxed by the county rather than the city. Please do not exclude some of the most vulnerable communities from the benefits they are in need of. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Alicia Morrison. I support this, but there's a problem. The problem is disparity to the community of Lincoln Acres. Since the deprecation of the Lincoln Acres Post Office in 2011, Lincoln Acres has to share a zip code, 91950, with the city of National City. Lincoln Acres is not National City. Lincoln Acres has had its own zip code, 91947, that was established in 1925. In your placement of the strategic facilities, I'm requesting Lincoln Acres Community Room in Lincoln Acres be placed on your list of facilities so those in 91950 can benefit. Do not deprive Lincoln Acres from county programs. Acknowledge 91950 for this program. Thank you.

Thank you. As the next speaker is coming forward, I'll invite three additional speakers. Marco Espinosa, Andrea Caldwell, and Edward Nieto.

Hopefully nobody lights a match because the gasoline you've been dousing the people in will go up in flames. It's interesting you talk about clear and accurate information. And then, Monica, you're saying that food is medicine. Does your vending machine reflect that? No, it does not. But it's cool because it's all about making money, right? And it's just interesting the way you like to pull the heartstrings of people and act like, you know, this is Trump's, this is IHR1. You guys were engaged in giving benefits to people who came across the border illegally. You knew what you were doing by aiding and abetting, and now the people are suffering the consequences because it actually made it harder for people that need it to get it because of your choices. So you sit here and you talk about transparency and accountability and giving clear and accurate information. Let's be real with the people. And let's be real that you cannot silence free speech. No matter what you think, no matter what policy you put in place.

Next speaker please. Marco Spinoza, I'm in favor. I do know a little bit about this. I watch KPBS, and they recently had Feeding America on it, mentioning how HR1's new limitations had started effective one this month, the first of this month, and they've already seen an uptick. HR1, we will, as the months go on, we'll see more of the effects. So while the need has grown now, well, I'm sure there's a better way to say that. But anyways, I think this is a great measure to help those who are in need and getting the negative impacts of HR1. So thank you for this measure. Yep.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Andrea Caldwell with Jacobs and Cushman San Diego Food Bank, which is the region's leading hunger relief organization. We serve every community here in San Diego County. Each month we help on average 400,000 San Diegans access nutritious foods. So we're already seeing the impacts of these federal policy changes. In May, 83% of our emergency food assistance partners requested more food than the month before. the food bank has a long-standing commitment to using data to direct resources where they are needed most and we commit to using 100% of these funds if approved. to purchase food. We strongly support this and thank you.

Thank you. As the next speaker is coming forward, I'd like to invite the remaining speakers in person. Alejandro Martinez, Homayra Youssefi, Michelle Krug, and Cynthia Fuller-Cuñones.

Yes, good afternoon. My name is Ed Nieto. I'm appreciative of the county services work proposal in this area, but I do have a question. I wanted to ask, As the others have mentioned here, why wasn't the 9195 zip code included in the significant low-income population that you have there. When I hear the areas that are hit the hardest, not to include national city, it seems to be a little remiss. I' m asking a question. If there' s a methodology on how you determine this, we' d like to hear it. It would bring comfort to the community to see how this was decided. Specifically what data was used to exclude national city from the 16 highest impact zip codes. It's just important for the citizens to know that we're competing. We'd like to know what the explanation is. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please. If I've called your name, please come down to the arrows. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Humaira Yousafi with PANA. The Safety NetBridge program is an essential program to provide access to meals and health care to those who no longer receive these basic services thanks to Trump's attack on the poor working class and on immigrants. At a community level, we have hundreds of people coming to us already telling us that their CalFresh has been stopped or it's going to stop and they don't know how to feed their families. No child should go hungry in San Diego. And, you know, at PANA, we host a food bank every week, and we see hundreds of families coming there, and more programs are really needed. These food distribution events will allow the county to respond to immediate needs and build on an action plan to assist those most in need while simultaneously creating long-term stabilization resources. So we urge you to vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Hi, good afternoon Board of Supervisors. I am fully, my name is Alejandro, I'm with Mid-City CAN. I am fully in support of item 12, food insecurity in vulnerable communities must be mitigated, and item 12 does just that. However, I am deeply disturbed by the hate-filled comments about my district supervisor that apparently has been used several times as stated by the person who used this violent. harmful and misogynist language. Supervisors Jim Desmond and Joe Anderson, as men on this board and as men who have sworn to protect the women that you work with and women in your community, you must be using platforms you have at your disposal to address racist or misogynist remarks towards your colleagues who I know in the same vein would protect your personhood. This isn't about politics. This is about what's right and where our morality lies as professionals and colleagues in this work. We are here to work together and uplift one another, not to collaborate, not to tolerate divisive and violent behavior. That is not what is in our code of ethics, nor what is outlined in the code of civil discourse, which is attached to the county's rules of procedure for these meetings. Anyone can and should access this document. Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Michelle Krug again. I am very much appreciative of this pilot project and the fact that there is the focus on equity. I do have heard a couple of concerns. One of them, I'm surprised that National City zip code would not have been one of the 16. The other thing is that I've been hearing, and I don't know enough about it, that South Bay doesn't have enough of the larger refrigerations that are capable of accepting pallets of food. just might be an issue of somehow being able to make sure that each part of the county has that capability and South Bay in particular, if it doesn't have that, that maybe there's grants or things that we can follow up on. Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. I'm Cynthia Quinones. I'm speaking today as a former County of San Diego South Region Food and Security Work Group co-chair and health activist in the South Region for more than 20 years. In addition to my written comment, I feel compelled to speak on the admission of National City Zip Code as we've heard from other speakers. Perhaps this is an error or perhaps there's a separate plan for National City. However, without confirmation of either, I must speak against the plan as written. There are two key points. One, the County of San Diego cannot afford to exclude 91950 and its planned safety net bridge actions. We're one of the most food insecure areas of the county. And that's supported by the most recent reporting from the South Region Leadership Team meeting. prepared by county staff. Secondly, National City warrants direct investment in its food responders and their long critical need for a shared cold storage that's been missing. Thank you. Thank you.

We'll now hear from the individuals that requested to speak by phone. We'll start with our first caller.

Hi, National City. Remember, this is a pilot program, not an actual program. Anyway, great idea. Budget is a bit less. 500,000 to fund events and pay for food, staff, and facility costs. Excuse me. Hopefully, there will be donations because I disapprove of using the unlocked reserves for a pilot program, which may or may not work out. Reserves should be for what we know will work. Also, in the chart on page 5, the program would serve different purposes. number of zip codes, presumably a different number of people at the same cost, which is highly unlikely. But another idea would be to hold these at a community garden or farm where...

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller. Next caller is Consuelo. Your device might be muted. And Consuelo left the session. We'll go to the next caller.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. Ann Riddle here. I have some concerns about this as a retired social worker. The first paragraph of the board letter indicates that 93,500 individuals may face a sudden reduction. That means there's still plenty of opportunities, and they're individuals, they're not families, so we're not talking about children. We're talking about those who are adults who, for whatever reason, haven't registered or can't register or won't register, but seem to be able to work or to volunteer or to take a class. I'm not really sure why we're beholding to 93,000 people who can't or won't do that. I think we are anticipating something that we don't know has happened and we don't know will happen or even suspect. It's wait.

We'll hear from the next caller.

It's true, Tara. The million-dollar words are eradicate, grift, and fraud, because we've got $1 million in food fraud going on as an excuse to fund Jacob Cushman grifters with three-figure salaries. The county claims 93,500 individuals may face reduction or elimination of CalFresh rations, a.k.a. government-controlled medicine, like CalFresh taxpayer-funded candy bars, which proves how much fraud is going on with state welfare. The county claims 314,000 individuals will have to actually work, which proves that there's plenty of able-bodied adults who are lazy and refuse to get a job and take care of themselves, racist ethics with Manuela included. So I counter that the county needs to invest in an independent auditor now. Has there ever been verification that all of the Medi-Cal recipients are actually alive or cared for because Rolando and Maria Corpuz and Terrence Dissert have confirmed no? Isn't funding by zip code a form of unconstitutional discrimination? If the county's claim of 407,500 fraudsters is true, then it's time for intervention. Don't be a leering sinner, especially when Americans are obese at record rates.

Thank you.

We'll hear from the next caller.

Good afternoon. My name is Erin Brennan Burke on behalf of Family Health Centers of San Diego, speaking in strong support of item number 12. Our teams see every day in our clinics how reliable access to nutritious food is fundamental to health. Schedule changes under H.R. 1 are already making it harder for patients to enroll in and maintain CalFresh benefits, even when they are eligible, increasing food insecurity in already vulnerable communities. We appreciate the board's proactive efforts to respond before these impacts worsen. County collaboration with trusted partners like the Food Bank and Feeding San Diego will help meet the scale of demand and ensure residents in need do not go hungry, especially in highly impacted neighborhoods. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

Pam, how funny. There's the word mitigate again, and Tara thinks the constituency is ignorant. Mitigate does not mean enhance. Just read the whole thing. You don't need an explanation or a change of the wording. I've attended these meetings times five years, and the problems are the same and unchanged. Homelessness due to drugs and mental health issues, hunger, marginalized communities, and over the Biden admin, millions of illegal immigrants who are not new Americans being granted special privileges and never-ending freebies, draining the county's resources, helping to put us in this problem, regardless of what the Trump administration has done. Board policies have failed, billions of dollars wasted, as evidenced by the same activists and NGOs in purple shirts begging for money year after year, almost meeting after meeting. Work hours or volunteer hours must be mandatory for the able-bodied, single, without dependents. This would help lift these individuals and allow them to exit the stranglehold.

I hear from the next caller.

Hi, Natalie Raschke here. I stand with Community Budget Alliance and Leah. I think it's important that we feed people who need to eat. Regardless of how we got here, we still are a community that needs to work together and people need to eat. The stress with the NILS Good Day Center closing and these cuts and HNR1, all of it is getting to the people. And if you can't eat, it literally deteriorates your mind. We have to support each other. in this rough spot no matter how we got here. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

My name is Laura Wilkinson, since I'm community activist and leader of Stop the Sewage.org. First, I want to thank all of the supervisors for your votes on items 10 and especially 11, the initiative that we've been begging for here in the South Bay. Item 12, this pilot safety net is critical for the least amongst us. I know many active duty military families who get their month-end food from food banks. So many will fall through the cracks in the cuts in CalFresh, and your actions here will save lives and the futures of children by providing food and adequate nutrition. I want to thank you for your leadership in approving item 12, assuring that we use our taxpayer funds for the public good. We don't want San Diegans going hungry for whatever reason. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

Good afternoon. My name is Sagan. I live in District 4 and work with the San Diego Refugee Communities Coalition. I'm calling to voice our strong support for agenda item 12. We strongly support the recommendation to partner with trusted community-based work forward. We know that for refugee and immigrant communities these partners are really essential for sharing information primary languages and in culturally responsive ways so that families can really understand and access what they need. So we urge the county to keep community at the center of implementation to ensure resources reach those most impacted. Thank you so much for your leadership and consideration.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

Good afternoon. My name is Reem and I work with the San Diego Refugee Communities Coalition. I'm calling today to voice my support for this item, especially because it really highlights the disproportionate harm these federal policy changes will have on the refugee and immigrant communities that our organizations each work with. Many of our community members will lose access to essential services that will have an overall effect on their health and quality of life. We know that our refugee and immigrant communities will be hit the hardest by these changes, and we wanted to advocate for taking a community-led approach to help community members navigate these new requirements and help make sure that we can mitigate the loss of access to CalFresh benefits. And that can really effectively be done through community partnerships that will allow us to reach community members in their primary languages and meet them where we're at. So that's why we strongly support this item. and especially the recommendation of partnering with trusted community providers to ensure that our communities are supported. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We have the next caller.

Good afternoon. This is Rita De La Fuente calling on behalf of the San Diego Hunger Coalition, who supports item 12, with HR1's CalFresh changes taking effect, quickly moving food and on-site benefits into some of our hard-hit neighborhoods as a step in the right direction. And we thank Vice Chair Montgomery's step for her leadership. As the county builds the living map this action calls for, targeting can be sharpened with more data on the eligible but not enrolled population, including both the number of potential enrollees and the participation rate. That perspective keeps smaller, high-rate communities a priority when they might have been overlooked by population where immigrant mixed status and rural households might be missed by in-person events. As more residents lose eligibility under HR1, ensuring everyone who remains eligible and successfully enrolled is more critical than ever. This is a one-time bridge and we encourage the county.

And we'll now hear from our final caller.

Consuelo here, and thank you for coming back to me, Andrew. Let's see. Give them a fish and they'll eat for the day. Teach them to fish and they'll never go hungry. This is just another typical big government item. A slave mentality item, really. It keeps the people under the illusion that they need government to take care of them, furthering the programming that the people themselves aren't enough, that they're incapable of survival and being independent from big daddy government. More lies, more abuse. You know, how about investing and teaching the needy to fend for themselves, invest in lifting up humanity, not keeping them down and reliant. But, you know, that doesn't keep the system alive, and that's all you guys are about, having the people under submission and control. And pretty unfortunate.

Wake up. Chair Lawson-Rumor, that concludes public comment on this item.

Okay, I'll turn the floor to Supervisor Anderson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank my colleague for bringing this forward. This is a great idea, and I just so appreciate it. I also want to thank the Food Bank and Feeding San Diego for their participation, their hard work, And I believe that they made a commitment to do this without overhead, which is amazing. I do have a consideration I'd like to bring before you, a possible amendment. Can we put up slide one? When looking at areas of highest vulnerability, and I'll just put the numbers in perspective, in D2, the loss of CalFresh benefits IS AT 44%, HIGHER THAN THREE OF THE DISTRICTS PUT TOGETHER. AND THE COMMUNITIES OF 919-06, 919-63, AND 919-80, AS YOU SEE ON THE MAP, ARE THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF VULNERABILITY And when I went through this, we have a lot of distribution in Spring Valley, and Spring Valley is not of the same level of need. In fact, two of the locations are within a mile of each other. What I'd like to be concerned, by the way, if you live in 919-06, the closest location is Spring Valley, and that Spring Valley location is over 31 miles one way. And to put it in perspective, In 919.80, the household income is $21,000 to $49,000, depending on the track you're in. And in 919.63, it's $10,354. That's household income for the year. So these are people that are not going to be driving 30 miles one way. To get these benefits and yet these are the ones that have been hit the hardest already over the last two months All I'm asking is that we request that 12 of the distributions proposed for Spring Valley location Be moved to those three districts of those three zip codes and I would leave it to staff by the way we can pull up slide to get a better idea and But we do have some locations I believe staff said that they found that they could go to. And if we couldn't do that, I know that Amazon is partnering with Feed San Diego, distributing seven breakfasts and seven lunches during the summer. And maybe we could use a program like that. But I was hoping you could take that as a friendly amendment so that these folks, the people who are greatest in need, who are in the poorest of poor would have access. It's not an easy ask because it's a logistics issue, but I know your heart, so I'm feeling pretty good about this.

I just wanna, because I know there were layers of information and data that were used for the final kind of product here. My only ask before we change it is, Um, what is the, what are the food banks doing in the, in, in the air? Well, is that the mountain empire? Is that okay? What, what are the, because there's two things. One is we had, we took into consideration, I believe what, what was already there, um, as far as food banks are concerned and the work that they're doing there. And then we have the additional $500,000 allocation that we would use to fill any of the gaps that these six distribution centers are not filling. That would include delivery services. It would include being more specific to the needs in various communities.

If you would prefer to do that, but I'd like to make it, not open to them. Yeah. Very clear that I want to make sure it's clear that we're going there because, you know, already, you know, 44% of these folks have already been hit and you're the second largest shockingly district one is not that high in terms of cuts. So,

Well, I guess just asking what would that do logistically to change one of the Spring Valley locations? We can either do that or we can specify of the 500,000 that some of that will be used specifically for additional support to the Mountain Empire, which I think may even be a better way to do it because there may be more specific needs in the community that require home delivery or other kind of distribution of the food. That is just where I'm at. But yes, let's try to get there.

Do you want to ask staff what they would prefer? Because as long as it's covered, I'm not going to quibble over how we get there. Right. The Spring Valley locations aren't of the highest need. However, they're next to three of the communities in your district. There are of the highest need. So I get that.

Between D4, also some in D1, I think Spring Valley is covering. And... And also just thinking about the facilities too that the county has, which you did bring that up in Mountain Empire. But what would be the preference for staff? What would be easier?

Thank you for that question through the chair. I think 1B does provide us the most flexibility in meeting the needs of that specific area. So I agree that if we could just use that $500,000 and tailor the food distribution, whether it be home delivered or if we find a site, we'll do something there.

Can you have your office reach out to our office because we have contacts in those communities. Too often, some of these people don't have internet. Some of these people, it's object poverty. Maybe they have internet, but they don't have access because they can't afford access. We have teams that go out there from time to time and knock on doors. I'd really like to find out, you know, what you're thinking, and then we want to make sure that we push that out so that nobody slips through the cracks. Absolutely.

Thank you. Is that good with you, Supervisor?

I'm good with that. Okay. Thank you. Wonderful.

Supervisor Geary. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I want to start off by thanking Vice Chair... Montgomery except for your leadership on this it's incredible work and it's incredibly important and and it's just so unfortunate that here we are and we heard from the major food hubs food distribution hubs in the entire county how significant the increase in need has been and and and how much families are suffering but I did want to So I want to address two of the comments that I heard. The lack of a refrigeration center in South Bay, that's correct. It's on my radar. We're looking at options. It's something more long-term outside of this particular discussion, but complementary to it. And secondly, the possibility of looking at 91950s as some of the common, commentator said.

So, yeah, and I will turn it over to staff. My understanding of 91950 is right now there are about 23 distribution sites in the zip code that the food bank actually does. We would have to check and see if that is accurate. I know they have four schools as well, but I want to check and make sure that's the case. Even if it is the case, if there's again a way through the 1B allocation, if we could call out. supporting that zip code as we do the analysis of what is actually available and making sure that we communicate and consult with District 1 on that zip code when it comes to that additional $500,000 allocation. I think that would probably be the best way. That way, even if we have these distribution sites, if there is if there's gaps in that, right, that we can, or again, home delivery, there's other methods of trying to get the food to people as they need it. So I think that would provide the most flexibility if you're okay with that.

I would welcome that. Thank you. And especially for the, you know, the case of Lincoln Acres being lumped in with National City and maybe we're pulling data from National City potentially that we're not accounting for maybe some of the unincorporated areas. So I appreciate that and your amenability to looking into that. Thank you. Oh, and I don't know if there's a... Well, I'll make a motion. I'll second your motion, Vice Chair.

I have a motion from the Vice Chair and a second from the Chairperson. Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I plan on supporting, but one of the things I think I need to address, this HR1 seems to be the hammer, the tool that seems to get mischaracterized, I think, by a lot of people and some of our speakers as well, that CalFresh is going to go away or people are going to not be eligible. The new requirements for CalFresh only applies to people 18 to 64 years old who are able-bodied, single, and don't have children under the age of 14. The only requirement is they have to volunteer or go to school 20 hours a week, or they have a job, and they have to submit paperwork twice a year now instead of once a year. Those are the new requirements. So everybody that was eligible before is still eligible. CalFresh feature just kicked in a few weeks ago, so we're going to see how it all works out. And the same thing with the Medi-Cal. Again, this is able-bodied people are being asked to work. And like I said, they can go to school or they can volunteer for up to 20 hours a week. It's very simple. It's very easy. And even here in the in the board letter, it says they're at risk. It doesn't say they're going to be losing. So a lot of people, I think, are overblowing this HR1 when it's really just has some work requirements in there or volunteer requirements. And I do have a question, I guess, I'm going to be supportive today. But the zip code thing kind of throws me, and I think one of the speakers had mentioned that too, that zip codes are just because of where your mailing address is doesn't necessarily mean you qualify or not. So if there's a way, and I know maybe the food banks already do this. Don't they have a qualification process or something like that for people that come in? It just seems to be a net with a bunch of holes in it. at this point in time?

Food banks have, in partnership with the Hunger Coalition, do almost real-time data. So they have data. Okay. And it is based on zip code just because that's, you know, unfortunately, well... I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole. We've been there already. But they do have data. Also, the county, we have data. We have, of course, the role of people that are eligible for CalFresh and at risk. That's where the number comes from. So if we're not targeting it based on the need, based on the data that we collect, then it really becomes very arbitrary and that we're trying to base it as much as possible on data.

Well, and I agree with that, but if somebody is not in one of these zip codes and they show up and they have a need, I want to make sure that they also have the opportunity.

Yeah, absolutely. And the hardest part about this is that The need is great regardless of the community that we're talking about. This is just because we're trying to be, as we have discussed all day, fiscally prudent. We're trying to do the best we can for the most amount of people for the most efficient cost. That's really where this comes into play. You leave it up to me. I'd make sure that everybody had food no matter what. Okay.

Back to you, vice chair.

All right. Just a couple of quick things. And I do, and I do appreciate the discussion. Of course, that's why things come to the board because again, we're all elected by our constituency and we know our districts, right? So I do appreciate the additional input. I believe that the South County live well center here is maybe actually in 9-1-9-5-0, but regardless, we'll consult with D1 to make sure that we're clear on all of that. And to the community, thank you for coming out and asking the questions. I just want to say this. It does not give me pleasure to sit in the seat and say that 93,000 people are at risk. It doesn't give me pleasure. I don't need to hit someone with that that doesn't agree with me on everything. This is not fun to say that. But it is a reality that there are more people at risk. And that is just something that having gone through COVID, having gone through the floods, that it really was on my heart to try to be proactive. And the thing is, a big, big, big part of this that I think is important is the data collection. Because if the need is less, then we will spend less money and it'll come back into our general fund. And that will be a victory, right? Like I'm not, this is, this is not where I want to be, but I think it's where we need to be right now. We have to be proactive. I think redetermination and those requirements that HR1 brings in has shown us across the nation that when states do redetermination, people automatically fall off the rolls because oftentimes they don't have the time or the knowledge to bring their paperwork in every six months. So it, it, it, it, it has these practical implications that we're just trying to mitigate for. That's all. And if, if we don't have to spend the money, then that'll be, I think we'll, we'll all be very happy about that. And we can, we can, we can use it elsewhere. The data will tell us that. And it's very important that we keep that data and that we don't just say, you know, go off and spend the money without understanding what the need is. So I appreciate the, the conversation here and I'm, I'm done. So yeah, I'm done. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. We have a motion on the floor in a second. Please vote.

Chair Lawson-Riemann, that motion passes unanimously with all supervisors being present and voting aye.

Okay, great. We'll now move on to item 13. So this is the continued item and Joel, this was your item initially. Sorry, Supervisor Anderson. So would you like to say a couple words?

Yeah, I'd like to present it real fast because hopefully that saves time on public comment that's not in it. So just to bring people to speed, on April 21st, the board nationally approved directing the county staff to provide a board policy requiring board ad hoc subcommittees to undertake several actions to ensure transparency in public access to meetings. The recommended actions included public posting of meeting agendas prior to the subcommittee meetings, allowing the public to view the meetings and making the meeting minutes available to the public. These mirror the standard transparency actions the board takes under our regular board meetings. Although there's continued to be support for adopting a policy to provide the public with information and access to board ad hoc subcommittee meetings, some board members have raised concerns that some information discussed during these meetings may need to be kept confidential. I agree. We need to be able to protect the personal information of juveniles, but there's already protections in state law. The county can't violate state law. The recommendations in item 13 would not change those protections. The recommended action to adopt the new board policy A75 to standardize transparency actions to be taken by the board ad hoc subcommittees allows the board to waive this policy when necessary to do so to protect confidential information. Here's the rub. However, without this policy in place, the public will continue to be completely shut out of numerous decisions being made by the minority of the board. When I say minority, subcommittee can only be two people. That's always the minority of the board. I'm going to give you an example. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but this is a great example. During our Board and HOC subcommittees on juvenile justice meetings, critical information and testimony may be delivered by the Chief Probation Officer, the Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators, the Juvenile Justice Division, law enforcement officials, and youth advocacy groups. There's currently no way for the public or other board members to access that vital information these officials and individuals have provided to these ad hoc subcommittees. Other ad hoc subcommittees are making critical spending decisions, totaling in tens of millions of dollars that are only known by the public and other board members once they have been brought before the board in final form. We're not seeing how this stuff, all the board subcommittees I've done are posted. The testimonies are posted in any member of this board in real time can track it. Uh, although we're not communicating, it's available to the public. So it's available to the board. It doesn't violate the Brown act. Now, uh, By adopting this new board policy, A75, this board can demonstrate that it's serious about providing transparency and public access to information considered by the board members in real time while continuing to protect the information that should be kept confidential. I'd like to offer an amendment to my own board letter And I think you have a copy of it, if you wouldn't mind putting it up. I want to be sensitive to those confidential items, and I want to protect children. But I spent 12 years as the vice chair of public safety in the state legislature. We had plenty of youth who testified before our committees. We were able to meet the law, protect the kids, and still making sure that the public understood. So we would provide summaries of what the youth would provide in testimony, but all of the adults in the room, their testimony was immediately made available for folks to follow. So with this, it says, notwithstanding the foregone, an ad hoc subcommittee may meet confidentially On any topic for which the Ralph M. Brown Act would permit a legislative body to meet in closed session, if not already covered by the Brown Act or state law, state law covers juveniles, so that would already be there. If an Antioch subcommittee decides to meet confidentially, the co-chairs must communicate the need and justify for holding a confidential meeting to the other board members and chief CAO in clerk of the board and county council. So in other words, you would automatically be covered by state law so you could absolutely protect the youth or any item, say it's a personnel item, say it's another sensitive item, absolutely you would have the right to do it because that would be covered by the Brown Act if this was a full board. So that would be the guardrails to make sure that we're not doing it. But if you had law enforcement and they were giving testimony, or you're asking AI experts and you had a subcommittee, a panel of AI experts, everybody would have access to that. They'd be able to see it, they'd be able to understand it. When you have an open process like that too, One of the things I like is we did receive emails from folks with additional questions or with additional thoughts and they were helpful in terms of who we brought in the next round of questioning and that we covered all the topics. Now, much of it, I have to admit, when people submitted it to us, it wasn't relevant. They didn't fully understand the subject matter and they had a good idea, but the idea was against the law. So that was not something that would get any traction. But we're missing out on that input. And frankly, I'm missing out as a board member when these things come before us and I have no way of knowing how that decision was made. When it comes to a board, and staff does it, we have staff do a presentation and we can ask all the expertise of the staff, but now we're going outside of the staff and not seeing what they're saying, not hearing, excuse me, not hearing what they're saying and not seeing what they're suggesting is very, very problematic. So I'm hoping I solved the transparency issue by putting big guardrails in place over things that need protection in the meetings and individuals that need protection in the meetings or subject matter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay.

By the way, it's a motion.

It's a motion. So we have a motion to pass the item as drafted with the addition of item of C. And a second from Supervisor Desmond. We'll now go to public comment.

Thank you, Chair Lawson-Riemer. We have 44 requests to speak on this item, 18 in person and 26 requesting to speak by phone. Also note for the record that we received 90 comments, all of those in support. For any individuals that requested to speak on item 13 by phone, please dial into the conference line using the instructions that were provided to you. We'll 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. Because there are 10 or more speakers on this item, you'll have one minute to address the board. And I'll ask you to please begin by stating your name for the audio record. I'll be calling you groups of three, so please listen for your name. The first three individuals are Ryan Holmes, Bretta Lindstrom, and Dolly Madison. If I've called your name, please come forward.

Good afternoon. My name is Ryan Holmes and thank you for your time. I'm here speaking in support of agenda item 13. The weight of public view into the discussions we're having today is obvious in your behavior and how you speak to one another, right? And the diplomacy that that requires and the thoughtfulness and the care that that requires. And that might also be an argument for this measure. much of what becomes ordinance finds its origin in ad hoc committees. And in the absence of public view, many things can occur and gain legs and momentum that may not be in the public interest, but might serve an individual interest. So there's a fair amount of argument for, though it may seem less than elegant to have that kind of input. there's a tremendous amount of value in having that kind of oversight from your fellow constituents, right? In real time. So I thank you for your time. God bless you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Hello. Brita Lindstrom, District 3. And yes, I support transparency to board-created ad hoc subcommittees. Thank you. This proposal is truly transparent And we must end secret subcommittee meetings. Let the constituents be informed of these crucial conversations. Obviously, the state mandated privacy aspects will be protected. And so I assume that this is going to be passed unanimously, right? Since you all have stated endorsement of transparency, right? So I'm looking forward to the vote. And thank you, Supervisor Anderson.

Thank you. I'd like to invite forward three more speakers. Oliver Twist, allegedly Audra, and Doyle Morrison.

Madison. I strongly support item 13. We need transparency and need to know where the sausage is made. The people spoke when voters voted for a specific term for you supervisors. Today you voted... yourselves longer terms. Unless you're a hypocrite, this means you are all okay when President Trump, if he extends his term, I'd also like to add today, Tecalote Canyon, especially on the Cowley Wayside, is a San Diego wildfires ticking time bomb, and we need people out there to trim back and weed abatement. Preventative measures like that are what help us from having all these people homeless is one avenue that helps from so many people ended up homeless and in the streets or wherever they can be. Today, we discussed millions of dollars for organizations and that were passed for food, housing, wraparound services, and attorneys. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Doyle Morrison, and I am in favor and support of this proposal before us because it' s important to have the transparency so everyone can pay attention to what' s going on. I spoke with a gentleman at lunch at the break and we had this about concern about privacy for some of the children that are happening and I believe Joel Anderson's amendment has taken care of that so that they can be protected and the people can stay informed. I believe that you guys can all agree that this is a win-win if we can have the transparency and we can protect the children. Thank you for the concern.

Thank you. As the next speaker is coming forward, I'll invite three additional speakers. Alicia Morrison, Marco Espinosa, and David Ray.

Hi, yes. Good afternoon. Mary Davis, aka Oliver Twist. And I'm strongly in favor of this. And I do consider myself a seasoned veteran of this chamber. And I have to say that my, what, four or five years of being here, even I am confused about how policy comes forward and gets crafted. It seems too much is done behind closed doors in the darkness. I'm saying bring it all out. And you hold your boards and commissions to that standard. So I don't understand why you would not hold every of your committee, save those that do truly require sensitivity like juveniles and et cetera. I'd also like to bring up this time. This might be the perfect time. I've worked with your financial office and for the county reserve tracker real-time dashboard. So I would like maybe also to think about this in some kind of transparency. Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, I did send it and I had AI create. It's a beautiful dashboard. It links to every vote you would do. So please bring that forward as transparency.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next speaker.

Good afternoon, Alicia Morrison. It is nice to stay informed. The preamble of the Brown Act states, public commissions, boards, councils, and other legislative bodies of local government agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. The people do not yield their sovereignty to bodies that serve them. The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created. For example, right now, San Diego Parks Advisory Committee is missing April and May minutes from the website. So you can't even go and review what business was conducted at those meetings. Let's support this. I see nothing wrong with it. If there is private sensitive material, redact it. If there is a concern... for a private individual information exposed. I lost my thought. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, board. My name is Dave Ray. I live in Spring Valley, District 1. And today, this afternoon, and this morning, we've seen quite a lot of animosity of the citizens against the board members for how you're conducting your work. A while back there was another huge situation with the placement of the mini-cabin shelters in Lemon Grove against the vociferous opposition by the citizens of Lemon Grove and Spring Valley. However, you have an amazing opportunity in front of you right now to redeem yourselves, to repair this situation by showing us that you really, really do care about the citizens. I support Supervisor Anderson's idea, and I urge you to strongly support it as well, because it will give you an opportunity to really show accountability and transparency. Thank you.

Thank you. As the next speaker is coming forward, I'll invite three additional speakers, Alejandro Martinez, Homaira Yousafzai, and Rama Abdi.

Marcos nosa I'm in favor of this item. Thank you to supervisor Anderson for bringing it forward. Him and I sit on different sides of the aisle, but in my time in coming to Board of Supervisors meetings, I found him to be a very kind, reasonable, often funny, but very strong-hearted man. So I thank him for this. And the second from Supervisor Desmond. And just to wrap up for... Item 12, sorry. Hunger, pain and lust are all very strong motivating factors and food insecurity has a both physiological and psychological effect and mitigating that helps the wider community in various ways. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker please.

Hi, thank you. Good afternoon again, Board of Supervisors. My name is Alejandro. Supervisor Joe Anderson, I'm glad you brought up the Juvenile Justice Ad Hoc Subcommittee because it's exactly what I'm going to allude to. While transparency is so important, you know, I work in the juvenile justice landscape and transparency is something that we're always trying to overcome, especially with certain agencies that work in this county. What we have been able to do in the ad hoc as is is is the reason why we had so many young people come in today and present and share their stories. So I would really encourage any form of the changing up to any ad hoc that you advise the young people in that juvenile justice ad hoc subcommittee if this is something they want. So we should be centering these young people as we're making these decisions about meetings that are centering their voices, their stories, right? And so if we disrupt that juvenile, we're going to disrupt a lot of the powerful work that we're doing right now in the county. So I would just recommend that you think twice about what we're trying to do here. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon. My name is Rahma Abdi. I'm with APANA and also resident of District 4. I'm here to oppose on item 13. Our organization work with immigrant and refugee communities. We support transparency and accountability. However, I do not support this proposal. We already have many rules, meetings, and public process. And the final decision always made by the board. Our community are important because they help supervisor discuss the new issue and respond to the community needs quickly. They are created to address specific issues and provide recommendation. And I ask you all to vote no on this item. Thank you.

Thank you. As the next speaker's coming forward, I'll call three additional speakers. Muhammad, Alexandra Valentine, and Michelle Krug. I've called your name, please come forward.

This won't pass, because these three bitches will say no. That's why. And it's interesting because you guys don't want to be transparent what's actually going on with the children. And that's what's so nefarious. But all things done in the dark will come to the light. And it's interesting that we think, or someone here thinks, that Joel and Jim took an oath to protect Paloma's feelings. But if I want to say punta, verga, culo, negra, estupida, I mean, que caza, chacatina, mierda. Whatever I want to say, I can. It's protected under free speech, and that's what you took an oath to uphold. So you can sit here and be offended all you want, but you sat there and you said, I love when you guys go up there and you use your free speech, yet you want to impede it every chance you get. That's a violation of the law and sets you guys up for litigation. So I suggest you stop, and I can say punta, punta, whatever, all I want.

I've called your name, thank you.

Michelle Krug, and I guess I've been spoiled with the city of San Diego because all of the, and I know there's a difference between ad hoc committees and standing committees, but I've always been able to see when a committee is meeting in my government, in my city government. So I really would appreciate knowing that, knowing what the topics are. Even being able to just give that feedback even if it wasn't at the meeting. But I do think it's important that that be calendared so we do know that that's happening and what the topics are. I'm on the Persons with Disabilities Committee and even a baby committee like that, we adhere to the Brown Act. So I would like to see that happen with all of our committees. Thank you.

Ms. Thank you. I'd like to invite forward additional speakers. Lucky Aden, Britta Lindstrom, and DeAndre Brooks.

Okay. Good afternoon, Supervisors. Lucky Aiden, District 4, resident with PANA. PANA opposes this item because we don't believe that adding more periodic hurdles help increase transparency and oversight in the government. We do believe that making meetings public is important, providing meeting notes and so on, but those are already part of the IHARC. ad hoc community procedures are ready. The ad hoc community procedures for those in juvenile justice uncovered real issues and now OC sprays is no longer going to be used on our youth. We urge you to vote no on this item because vulnerable communities should have a safe place to bring up critical and emerging issues. Thank you.

Thank you. And a final call for Humaira Yousafzai Mohamed, Alexander Valentin, Deander Brooks. Not seeing those individuals. We'll now hear from the individuals that requested to speak by phone. We will start with our first caller.

Good afternoon again. This is Kathleen Lippitt and I thank Supervisor Anderson for his thoughtful and well-spoken comments about his item here, item 13, absolutely supported. More transparency is always necessary. The public is already challenged in navigating the county's website, their agendas, staff reports, the bureaucratic language that's used. We do not need any more that is obscured under the cloak of politicization. So thank you. And I hope that you will support this item. And thank you again, Supervisor Anderson.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

All about all the figures that this is the last item on the original agenda. You just don't want to reveal your dirty little secrets. You mentioned privacy, need for secrecy, every little excuse you can find. But you know what? It's all government stuff. All discoverable. That's what the San Diego PRA Public Records Act lawsuit is all about. We're revealing government's dirty little secrets. The new policy looks good. Great job. This will definitely increase the transparency of these meetings and it seems ensure a wider distribution of ideas and opinions when it comes to discussing improving meeting topics. For instance, criminal justice. I'm sure the board wouldn't want us to know what changes it did.

We'll hear from the next caller.

I'm just here paying attention and seeing what the others are saying. And yeah, it's good to see drunken zombie in the chambers. Glad you're back at it paying attention. But let's see. Yeah, that's all I have on this item.

What a joke.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll hear from the next scholar.

Barbara Gordon. I urge you to adopt this board policy, A75, that will clearly identify the actions of any ad hoc subcommittee. This policy is necessary to ensure the public a level of transparency and accountability that continues to be missing from this board. Your constituents need to be informed of the actions taken by all ad hoc subcommittees. committees, particularly when important policies and financial matters are being discussed and acted upon. County residents deserve access to the subcommittee meetings and information. There needs to be rules and guidance for the operation of these committees. There needs to be a schedule of all meetings posted online with agendas and material prior to the meeting. Again, I urge you to vote for this new board policy, A75. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

Good afternoon, board supervisors. My name is Russell James, and I'm speaking in support of item 13. This measure has value I'm asking you all for your support for this measure as well. Previous opposition from some board members were, in my opinion, adequately addressed and options offered to mitigate these issues. Unfortunately, this measure is still not being supported. The public deserves transparency, and I urge you to vote yes on this. The members that refuse to support this measure Please remember that the public comment is overwhelmingly supporting it. We are watching. We will remember. Your actions come. We will remember your actions come at reelection time. Your actions or lack thereof do have consequences. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Hear from the next caller.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. My name is Teri Ann Scali. I came today to support item 13 because those of us living in the unincorporated feel very much cut off from the flow of information behind the decision making that is happening at Board of Supervisors and the background information associated to those decisions that may have come from an ad hoc committee meeting. As you know, item 13 recommends that at a minimum, the public must have access to agendas for ad hoc committees, where names are not necessary, just general topics that are on the agenda. And at a minimum, an opportunity to know the results of the agenda items. Again, no names are necessary. It would also be useful to know what the supporting materials were associated with when making decisions on the agenda that are not confidential. This would be a safe and reasonable way to begin so that this Board of Supervisors wouldn't seem so resistant.

Thank you. Hear from the next caller.

Peggy Walker, I strongly favor this. Chair Lawson-Rienaar said earlier that charter reform had been a, quote, participatory process. That is egregiously invalid. Outside of special interest groups, the public had little opportunity for input or scrutiny of that proposal and was cut off from board meeting comment. Transparency builds trust. That's compelling reason if you really believe in quote, participatory processes for ad hoc committees to operate with clear rules and meaningful public access. That means access to know who's at the table and how decisions are shaped before reaching board meetings. Your yes vote on this issue will be a true measure of your commitment to the participatory process. and transparency, or whether that's just convenient rhetoric. Appropriate exclusions for vulnerable issues have been addressed.

You're from the next caller.

Good afternoon. My name is Becky Rapp and I urge you to support board policy A75 because transparency should apply to all board created subcommittees, especially when they're discussing major policy issues before they come to the full board. A good example is the county's Socially Equitable Cannabis program. This program has been under development for years and could have significant impacts on public health, public safety neighborhoods, youth exposure, and county finances. Yet many residents have found it difficult to track where recommendations were developed and what discussions occurred before they reached the board. The public deserves timely notice of meetings, access to agendas, recordings, meeting materials, consultant information, and clear documentation of recommendations. Transparency should begin when policies are being developed, not just when final decisions are scheduled for a board vote. The policy will help ensure that residents can follow important discussions, understand how recommendations are formed, and participate.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. I appreciate this opportunity to share my support for item 13 regarding Supervisor Anderson's proposal regarding ad hoc committees. I find it confusing that maybe my Board of Supervisor wouldn't have the information he needed because he doesn't get any of it from an ad hoc committee. Imagine how that extends out to those of us who live out here in the incorporated area. We don't have an access to understand. It has been said that transparency is the bedrock of trust, accountability, and authentic relationships. It eliminates hidden agendas, fosters psychological safety, and allows genuine connection to flurry, proving that honesty is the ultimate catalyst for both personal and organizational integrity. I would add to that that these opportunities to understand what's happening in our county and the agendas and decisions and supporting materials. Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

Hey, it's truth round four of hearing this item about transparency that Tara, Manny and Monica continue to resist like cockroaches and the like. The progressives don't want us to know about the backroom deals with the Harm Reintroduction Coalition, the backroom deals with Paul Worley, the backroom deals with J.C. Cooper, the backroom deals with the Center on Policy Initiatives, the backroom deals Manny made with her deadbeat. And they don't want the public to know or have any say in how so many multimillion-dollar sole source contracts came to be or how backcountry residents have been forced to bail out the city of San Diego time and time again. The floods aren't homelessness. Everything is what they want us in the dark on, using children as their shield. Tara's political theater, Manny's meaningless monologues, Monica's TDS, and their secret ad hoc solve nothing. Again, Manuela, Joel, Tara, and Jim, who got $2,200 from AT&T, using our public special events trust fund to funnel money to their private campaigns, says everything anyone ever needs to know about this crud board and the word transparency. They do not relate nor equate. And Monica, I'm awaiting your spinning records too. Don't worry. We the people bring the real light. End of.

We'll hear from the next caller.

Hector here. I'm definitely for this. This is definitely the crux of democracy right here. You have to do it. And also, I've heard rumors that subcommittees have met already on the slut walk, the sluts we're going to have without telling anybody. They weren't going to include the sluts over at the city council meetings on their way to National Avenue to celebrate the parade over there and collect some food stamps for the constituencies. This is like, get the money off Gavin Newsom's wife. She stole all the fire money. And then also, Michelle Obama is a man. Have a good night.

We'll hear from the next caller.

Pam, yes on this with the protection of minors and delicate material. Two things here. Where's Tara? Does that mean she won't vote so this item agenda will not pass? And here's an interesting thing. Why is Panna, who purports to be, oh, we're new Americans, opposed transparency and accountability? Maybe they need to be investigated.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

Hello, my name is Madison and I urge you to support this policy to require transparency and accountability for all Board of Supervisors ad hoc subcommittees. As a resident and mother of three young children, I often follow county decisions that affect public health, safety, housing, behavioral health, and youth substance use prevention. Many of these issues are first discussed in subcommittees before they ever come to the full board. When those discussions happen outside of public view, it becomes difficult for residents to understand how decisions are being shaped or to provide meaningful input before recommendations are finalized. County residents should not have to search for information or learn about important policy discussions after decisions have already been made. Whether the topic is behavioral health, fiscal matters, AI, environmental issues, or any other county concerns, the public deserves an opportunity to stay informed and engaged throughout the process. Greater transparency leads to better decisions, so please support this item. Thank you. Thank you.

Next caller.

Blair Beekman. Hi, this is Blair Beekman. Thanks a lot for this item. I am a big believer in tech accountability. It first came on in 2014 to address the concepts of continual war from 9-11. I think we've kind of developed ourselves into patterns to working more in secrecy because of 9-11, and tech accountability really brought on ways we can open ourselves up. and talk more openly and work towards open democracy and community again. I'm a little gung ho in this stuff. So to me, it's great to hear this item. I really learned important lessons today that it requires sensitivity.

Thank you. Give me a moment to reconnect here and then we'll hear from the final five callers. Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

Good afternoon. My name is Diane Grace. As the board letter indicates, quote, board meetings and advisory bodies operate under procedures intended to provide equitable access for county residents, end of quote. Establishing consistent requirements for board ad hoc committees would accomplish these same goals. Otherwise, those supervisors not attending or allowed to attend or invited to attend ad hoc meetings Do not know what's happening and that is scary. This is the worst kind of secrecy. The next step would be to open up these meetings to citizens who are harmed by and assisted by the happenings and discussion and information flow in this meeting. This would be the height of respect for us residents. And those of us in the backcountry communities could use a little respect and consideration.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

Good afternoon. My name is David Geiger, resident of Harbison Canyon in District 2, and I support item 13. As a veterinarian, I don't have much insight into government, but I serve in my community planning group to learn and participate. Supervisor Anderson for his efforts to increase public access and voice in this board's work. Respect his record of advocating for our communities in a nonpartisan way. And I support his efforts here to apply a default standard of transparency and disclosure among subcommittees. I understand the concerns regarding public disclosure in the context of the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee, whose work I passionately support. I also see no conflict between this proposal and the need for special protections and confidentiality, which should be the exception, not the rule. This proposal allows for those exceptions. Public trust in government is at an all-time low. Government earns public trust by operating the open whenever possible. This board would serve both itself and the public by leaning into every opportunity for transparency. The noblest motive is the public good. Thank you all.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

Maybe I just assumed you kicked me out yesterday, Monica, because you said you did. Now, transparency. We all know that three of them are not going to go ahead and go for transparency, because I already got a promise from Taraluf and Lemur that you were going to go and look into my claims of organized fraud through the same organizations that she wants to create these ad hoc committees. It much reminds me of the election fraud that took place back in 1982, where over 100,000 ballots were stolen basically by these committees using the registration process. I definitely understand that the NGOs are helping out the homeless people. We're throwing an ungodly amount of money to the NGOs for the homeless people. So I am assuming because of 2015, we allowed non-citizens to get driver's license. They are feeling their vote. They are voting for them. They are going to keep these corrupt politicians in play.

I'm glad that... We'll hear from the next caller.

Hi, I'm Deborah Gonzalez. I'm from the backcountry in Boulevard and I'm completely in support of Supervisor Anderson for 13. Honestly, this would help our backcountry have more communication. We lose out on a lot of information and it hurts us significantly. I think trust building is extremely important right now. We have projects going on where we don't particularly trust our local policies to really speak on our behalf. And as stepping forward, I think passing this would help us all gain a lot more trust. So I am completely in support of this. I represent the Backcountry Community Alliance for Responsible Development.

and thank you and whoever those crazy people were that were cursing and saying all those things this is my first time on here and as of one thank you we'll now hear from the final caller hi natalie raschke here um i know that this failed once already in a tie vote two weeks ago it asked ad hoc subcommittees to post agendas and public records. The same transparency regular board meetings already follow. But I want to say something that the word professional gets used to decide who's allowed to be heard. And once I tried speaking on Ms. Evelyn Lopez's behalf and was denied by the same professionals stating that I wasn't professional in postpartum depression. It seems that transparency and the word professional is language that's used to also filter out people that are trusted by said people. So when we use this language, I don't know, transparency and professional, I don't know if this is going to change anything. Thank you.

Thank you. And Chair Lawson-Rehman, that concludes public comment on this item.

Okay, thank you very much. Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Supervisor Anderson. I know that we've been discussing this for some months now. You know from my earlier comments at board meetings on May the 19th and also on June 9th that I cannot support your proposed policy as it is currently drafted. I know that you have an amendment and I'll get to that in a minute. But I just want to go through a couple of things I think that you have said here today and that have come out on some of your communications. At the Juvenile Justice Ad Hoc Subcommittee meetings, it is very important that Supervisor Aguirre and I are able to provide a safe environment for parents to tell us what is happening to their children who are detained and in a vulnerable situation. It is also very important that those with lived experience feel safe to come forward at these meetings and tell us how we can improve our county systems and processes. And I will also say I have spoken to people time after time who refuse to come to the county because they feel bullied when they come in here. Your proposed one size fits all policy will not allow me to provide that kind of safe environment and will not allow me to do the work that I've been elected to do. Your proposed policy will result in unintended consequences and I hope that you can understand that. You spoke today and it came out in one of your alerts that these populations that we are talking about are already protected through government code section 54953.3 as it bars local agencies from disclosing identifying information about minors at public meetings and other state and federal laws. Further protect confidentiality reality records. Um, the actual text of that government code has not been shared. So let me share it now. A member of the public shall not be required as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a legislative body or a local agency to register his or her name, to provide other information, to complete a questionnaire or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance. If an attendance list register questionnaire or other similar document is posted at or near the entrance of the room where the meeting is to be held, or is circulated to the persons present during the meeting, it shall state clearly that the signing, registering, or completion of the document is voluntary and that all persons may attend the meeting regardless of whether a person signs, registers, or completes the document. Got that. Okay. But as you can see, the plain text of the California government section that you referenced states that a member of the public shall not be required to register their name as a condition to attend a meeting of a legislative body of a local agency. But your policy requiring all meetings to be streamed live, recorded and posted online and public comments submitted to the subcommittee during meetings shall be recorded, maintained and made available to the public online will still identify parents and other people who speak up at the meeting. If you or I showed up at the meeting and we didn't sign in, there would be enough people that would know who we are. So in effect, it's not solving for the problem that we have discussed here at this, in these meetings, these three meetings or so. This is precisely why on May 19th, I did vote for option four, which would give the board flexibility to tailor transparency requirements in a case-by-case basis each time an ad hoc subcommittee is created. At that time, you said it does nothing. I do disagree with that, but I understand why this is important, why you are bringing this forward. So I still, the language that you did present, I think that that still presents problems, right, for our parents who, want to come and speak because technically they're not protected by the government code or the Brown Act. It's simply a way for them to feel safe. But if you were to go back to your amendments into the policy 875 to the section B that reads, it is the policy of the Board of Supervisors that its ad hoc subcommittees will comply with the following requirements in order to promote additional transparency and public participation, or alternatively require that the ad hoc subcommittee comply with the Brown Act, I would like to add the following requirements will not apply to ad hoc subcommittees that are established to address sensitive subjects, including those related to juveniles. So that is my proposal before you. I know there's a motion and a second. But I would ask it be friendly before I have to do substitute motion.

Okay. I didn't want to jump in without you.

Well, you had put your name up next, so you already did.

All right. I appreciate that. You did bring up option four. So for the record, option four was take no action and do not establish a policy at this time. Determine transparency requirements on a case-by-case basis each time an ANHR subcommittee is created. That is correct. I get it, but that's do nothing. That was the current. It was no change. So as far as the parents, I get the parents. But the point I brought before was you've had experts come in, and there's no place to see what the experts say. So while we want to protect kids and perhaps we want to protect parents, why would we protect – Any of the organizations that I had stated, now I don't even know if they've come and spoke other than probation because you said in the last meeting probation spoke. What is it that probation is saying that the public can't have access to and why are they shy to say something public when it comes to policy? See, the issue I have is while We have one group. That's an excuse for everyone. It shouldn't be an excuse. Look, you know, I know that we both agree that the only people that like to govern in secrecy are dictators and royalty, but I believe that there has to be a policy that you and I can agree on, and I want your help in it, that isn't carte blanche, that once I say this is juvenile, nobody has to... accommodate anything. That's crazy. Having minutes coming back and saying this is the subject matter and then if there's any expertise given or county staff stuff that should be public. People should have access to it. Um, so I'm trying to figure out how do we get there? Cause I'm my, my job when we had youth and parents come testify before the legislature, they didn't identify themselves and they weren't on camera. And in a couple of instances they actually disguised the voice because they were high profile. So I get that and I'm willing to do all those things. But the notion that that's carte blanche for everything to be in secret, that makes no sense to me.

I just want to say I appreciate that everyone seems very committed to transparency. I think that's really... valuable and I know I have been gone for four weeks and I missed a lot of the debate that you're talking about, Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp. I think part of my concern is that sometimes a one size fits all solution means that it's both over inclusive and under inclusive and doesn't necessarily adequately address the core of any particular challenge. I'd love to hear from Supervisor Aguirre, but I am deeply concerned about the issues the Vice Chair raises. I wonder if there would be a path, just putting it out there, to ask our Vice Chair and Supervisor Anderson to form a subcommittee on a transparency subcommittee and you two can come up with a recommendation. I don't think we want to do that.

Just for, again, I think that this language is helpful. It includes everything you've brought forward these last two times and adds this sentence to it. And so I'm trying to get there with you in your words as well. I'm trying to get there. I think that this is sufficient. Um, and I would, I would hope that you would change your motion to include it. If not, I will do a substitute motion because this is it's, it's what you've brought forward the last three times. but it includes this additional language around sensitive subjects, including those related to juveniles. What you've brought forward previously does not cover the population that I want to try to cover and any other thing that may come up. So...

I... I'm pulling this up, but if I could just speak to it. So the issue I have is the language you proposed, as I'm reading it or hearing it, it allows cover not to say the entire committee can be silent. Nowhere does it provide that when chief of probation comes and speaks or any other expert comes and speaks that their testimony has to be available. It just says, hey, it's carte blanche. So can we narrow it so that it is? Now, I want to point out two quick things. I think there are three or four board items today that were asking for exceptions to the rules. When you propose the committee in the beginning, you can always make the case, this is special, and we want a special rule for the subcommittee at that time. Because I'm going to tell you what I'm going to do. Every committee you bring forward, moving forward, I'm going to insist on the transparency you're denying me today. So instead of fighting each and every time, most committees should be 100% transparent no matter what. This is an exception to the rule, not the rule. But still, even after that last board meeting, do we have minutes? Do we have any kind of for the juvenile justice? Where is all that stuff? Where is it located?

That's what I wanted to get to. Thank you very much. And I failed to mention this last time, but just for the record, every single meeting that juvenile justice ad hoc committee has had has produced minutes that have been distributed to all of your offices. So there is transparency in that regard. Now, I think that I'm also open and wanting to get to, yes, I've heard you mention at least five times, Chief Nelson, And it makes sense, right? If he or she, in this case, she's a county employee. I mean, there's nothing out of the ordinary that she presented. It was very factual. Perhaps we can arrive to yes and make an exception for... or include a written statement for the record if there were a county staff participating in the subcommittee, something like that. If that's helpful, I think that that could be a possibility.

I really appreciate it, and I appreciate the spirit in which you're doing it. My thought is if it has to do with a parent or a child's testimony, absolutely. Everyone else?

And for the record, all the discussions that we've had in these sessions, have been recorded and there's been minutes produced that have been distributed.

Are there any website or any place that public can go?

I don't think so.

That's my point.

Well, because it's not the same as your, my subcommittee. It's not the same as the other committee that, I mean, it's a very unique case. This particular sensitive topics and matters that we're discussing in this particular one is going to be different. We're not just going to, you know, put up video of testimony of, Children under the age of 18 are parents.

Can we pause? I want to keep order. I appreciate the free-flowing conversation to try to reach some kind of agreement, but the Vice Chair has her hand up.

It sounds like you're not amenable to this.

Not in the current form because it gives you carte blanche. I want to hear what the experts have to say. I think the public deserves to know what the experts are saying.

We do that. Sorry, we do that. And there's been so much misinformation. I'm not going to go through everything. Really, I'm not. Because, you know, the people that have spoken, some of the people that speak, it doesn't matter what we do up here. They have preconceived notions about who we are. We've been called sluts. We've been referred to as queens in a way that is really derogatory. It reminds me of back in the 90s when they were trying to say welfare queen and all that. So, you know, that is what it is. I don't really care. It is what it is. I think that because this is the policy and the language you brought forward and it adds one sentence, I would like to do a substitute motion.

Okay, we have a substitute motion.

I'll second that.

Okay, so just to kind of clarify where we're at procedurally, we have a motion on the floor by Supervisor Desmond, I mean Supervisor Anderson, seconded by Supervisor Desmond, but then there's a substitute motion by Supervisor Montgomery-Stepp, seconded by Supervisor Geary. So we have to vote first on the substitute motion. If that passes, then... this item passes in the form proposed by the vice chair. If that substitute motion fails, we go on to consider Supervisor Anderson's initial motion. So again, we'll first take a vote to approve, to just be clear, a vote to approve The item continued from January 9th, adopt a policy to require transparency and accountability for all supportive supervisors and ad hoc subcommittees as amended with the language currently on the screen from Vice Chair Montgomery's step. Any questions? Okay. Please vote.

No, no, no. I have mine up. Jim has his up.

Oh, apologies. I said any question. I didn't see that. Sorry. Go ahead. Supervisor Desmond.

Okay. Yeah. Um, so I guess I'm a little bit hung up on, um, I, I think the step that substitute motion is a step in the right direction. It's maybe not fulfilling is, is, uh, as supervisor Anderson wants, but I'm looking at, I guess I'm a little squishy on sensitive subjects. So without a definition, I don't know, is finance committee is sensitive subjects? Are they personal subjects? I just want...

I'm going to turn the floor to... Those are questions, I think, for the maker of the motion. So I'll turn that to the vice chair to clarify intent. I would say generally for finance, no.

Okay. I think that brings, it just gives us the latitude that we need. Because again, like I said in the last meeting, I really did not, understand the gravity of a fear of retaliation that some of these parents had. I didn't understand it. If I had made rules for an ad hoc subcommittee prior to that, I would not have considered that because I didn't understand it. So all I'm trying to do is leave us a room to move appropriately without holding up a process so we can make decisions in a timely manner. That's it. I'm still asking questions.

Okay.

Would you be amenable to address personal sensitive subjects? That would narrow it a little bit.

I don't. That is even more subjective, I think. And so I wouldn't want to include that. Okay.

Well, to me, that's narrowing it to me, but okay. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Supervisor Anderson.

I'm going to support this because it's a step in the right direction, but I think it's way too broad, and I hope that at every meeting you give us an update on the subcommittee because not hearing what experts say, I get a carve-out for parents and a carve-out for juveniles, But you can't have NGOs, experts, and I don't even know who's gone before the committee. And I should know. The public should know. And this doesn't provide for that. However, this is a baby step in the right direction, and I'm always for the right direction.

Okay, thank you.

But that's not a second.

Don't worry, you already have a second from Chair Pro Tem McGeary. So thank you, Supervisor Anderson. Does anyone else have any comments before we vote on the Vice Chair's Substitute Motion? Okay, please vote.

Chair Lawson-Reamer, that motion passes unanimously with all supervisors being present and voting aye.

Okay, thank you very much. So now we are moving on. We're actually gonna jump to item 15 and then go back to item 14. So item 15, this is an item that I brought forward, which is designated to Waterfront Park as a permanent home for the San Diego Regional Firefighter Memorial and wave board policy A72. If we have any public comment, we will start with that. Go ahead, Andrew.

All right. Thank you, Chair Lawson-Ramer. We have nine requests to speak on this item, two in person and seven requesting to speak by phone. Also note that we received two e-comments, one in support and one neutral. For any individuals that requested to speak on item 15 by phone, please dial into the conference line using the instructions that were provided to you. We'll begin with the in-person speakers. I'd like to invite forward allegedly Audra and Marco Espinoza. They'll have two minutes to address the board.

No, we're doing it. We're coming back. It's left.

How rude. You're cutting into my time. You know what I mean? You guys don't like it, right?

Audra, just to be clear, your time didn't start until you started speaking.

I know, Tara. Thank you. I'm just giving you guys shit because that's the whole point. And Jim and Joel, why do you guys keep giving your balls to these Jezebels? I don't understand. It's like nobody has a backbone to just stand up and say... No. You just cave. And it's interesting that we have two minutes to talk about this. I'm sure I'll have two minutes to talk about the next item. And then when we're talking about $9.1 billion, it's like, we're going to limit that for sure so that you have to talk about six different things and you get 10 seconds each. So nice. So transparent. So accountable. You know, and it's like, I mean, you guys virtue signal with these type of items as though, you know, you just do all these great things. But you guys talking about hiding what's going on with children is extremely egregious. Because you sit here and you're using them. Are you going to film me? Go ahead. And you can put it on your social media. I don't really care because I'm doing the same to you. That's what it is about transparency and accountability. But you're using children. And that's what's so nefarious. Because it should be transparent what happens. The things that you guys do. And when it is, you silence it. And that is what is so disgusting. You will have parents come in here and ask you for help. And you'll tell them that you will, Monica, right? And then you just say, listen to the agency, where the agency then says your children are adoptable. Of course you don't want people to know that. Because it is detrimental to children, the things that you guys engage in. It's a fucking shame. And then you sit up here and you're like, don't hurt my feelings with calling us a slut. God forbid, you guys are up there. That's why you got in that position. If you don't have the backbone to deal with it, then there's the fucking door.

On a call for Marco Espinosa. We'll now hear from the individuals that requested to speak by phone. We'll start with our first caller.

Okay, call the build. Sorry, I was having a laughing fit over the plastic chains. Anyway, it seems to me that since our brave firefighters spend a lot of time putting out the big fires in East Canvey, the memorial should be at a more easterly site. So, you know, so the people who actually suffered the damage can visit it. Maybe even there should be two memorials, like maybe one at Waterfront Park and one in East County. Or arches over the freeway, maybe instead of a tiny green sign naming it for a fallen firefighter that no one sees when passing at 60 miles an hour. Another advantage of a more easterly site is that it would leave more space for kids' play, picnics, or gatherings at the Waterfront Park itself, which is what it's there for. Oh, I probably shouldn't have mentioned kids since they're kind of out of the picture from what I hear about what the board does, you know, tearing apart families and uh adopting them one day shouldn't be in all that crap and i mean you don't treat them right anyway um so uh yeah so um yeah i think waterfront park by itself is not the best place for a memorial thanks

Can you take it off the speaker lever?

Oh, okay. Consuelo here. So, yeah, I too am all for a memorial going up for firefighters. But just based on how much is this going to cost? And I mean, wouldn't it be awesome if it was like in lieu of just a memorial, just honoring their families who are left behind and giving them the money that it's going to take to install this. I mean, I don't, I don't even know where the money's coming from, but I mean, what am I saying? It comes from us. Um, also, yeah, I, I believe that, um, you know, these meetings are becoming just, it's just more and more apparent that your jobs up there are about keeping the people divided and you are doing so awesome at it. And I just, you know, I, I, Not that I like to stay tuned, but I have to be paying attention. That way others know the truth of what's really going on. And you guys just get so upset about your character being slander. I mean, you create, I mean, honestly, if you don't like to be called queens, Monica, then don't behave like one. It's truly that simple. But you guys don't like to be called out. And that's what's so. That is what's so. Rules for thee, not for me. And hold on to that freedom of speech, Audra, because you are amazing, girl. Love you so much. Done.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

Hey, it's true. It's ready to take a break with two minutes. You know, it's almost like a break after speak for 60 seconds over and over and over again. But you guys would know about that, right? You just pull items whenever you feel like it. But then when it comes to the budget, 60 seconds, something actually important. And I think it's a bigger picture, this item. It's a much bigger picture than just a memorial. Because when you have that word sensitive subject, I'm sensitive about this subject. Less sensitive, though, than wannabe Queen Monica is about being stuck in the 90s. 2026, Monica, we demand transparency in these agenda items. It is weird that this item was shoved into consent. It's also corrupt. But I know why this was pulled. It's not to bring transparency. Nope, never transparency. We know it's because Manny hates America, hates law enforcement, hates first responders, and hates anyone that brings good to this world like firefighters do. She's going to come up with any and every excuse in the book not to support this memorial, because as much as she pretends to be someone who's struggled, nope, she's got two homes. that being said it is a little weird to use water as a symbol of firefighters especially downtown where firefighters are not primarily fighting fires like they are in the back country no thanks to the professional arsonist like the one that was just caught in spring valley and like you guys do nothing about and i'm not against the memorial for firefighters But I am against the lack of transparency, community consent. Because, again, where was the transparency on who's designing this? How much money does it cost? What is the design? I didn't get a say in it. I don't remember hearing anything about this until it was put into consent. Plus, no heroes work anywhere near this building. So it should be in the backcountry. For example, everybody saw Manny taking pictures outside with her communist allies earlier, adding that to my future viral posts. And speaking of which, Monica, are you filming speakers? Or was that Tara? You people need mental help. I don't just say that. You prove it every single meeting. Thank you.

You will hear from the next caller.

Pam, at first, this does appear as such a genuine good idea, but I don't think it's that simple. But I'll keep it that simple. There should be the memorial here, and it should complement the law enforcement memorial that's out front. Not really in the back country. I mean, there's monuments all over the country that we don't all see because we don't live near them. And the reason we should have a memorial is the women on this board have pushed the leftist Marxist agenda of darkness and death, resulting in societal chaos, subhuman behavior, and poorly managed environmental conditions, pushing first responders to now face more danger and horrific danger against themselves than ever before. First responders of fire law enforcement must always be respected, recognized and honored for their self-sacrifice and the sacrifice of their families. So I'm okay with this if it maintains the simplicity of how it presents in writing and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg or add to the budget and it should compliment the law enforcement memorial. But you guys, man, you have put our first responders in horrific danger with your policies, your ideology, and your, oh, what used to be evil is now good mentality. Shame on you.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

You know, I want to go ahead and apologize to all of you because I went about this the wrong way. I should have just flat out asked you from the get-go how you go ahead and weed out noncitizens from the voter rolls. I should have reminded you right away that in 2015 we changed the rules and our previous checks no longer worked. So basically, since 2015 until today, we have not weeded out one non-citizen except for self-reporting. That's on record. You guys have it. You guys know that. I've been waiting for you to go ahead and give me a non-response so that you could go ahead and do the check. You're obligated under the NVRA subsection 8. I highly recommend using the FABAC and go ahead and butt up the names. Do it now, before you certify the election, or after, and then we could go ahead and play a guessing game. Was enough non-citizens voting in our last election that changed every single result? And I bet you the answer is yes. I bet you they came from all those brand-new projects that the NGOs helped you guys create. And I bet you if you look down to find out where that fraud came, they're coming from those locations. It's your duty to go in and look. It's not my duty to find it for you. You're not supposed to go ahead and try to stop me from asking questions, and you're supposed to answer this. Throwing me in jail and trying to go ahead and get me arrested because I'm a dick after six years? Yeah, no, that's on you. You should have answered the first time I asked, or the second, first year, second year, third year, fourth year, fifth year, sixth year. How many years are you not going to answer my question? Are you going to go ahead and try to throw me in jail first? Is that your main goal? So, Damien, I understand that you defeated Trump in the NBRA.

We'll hear from the final caller.

Claire Beekman. Hi. Thank you for your work on the previous item, agenda item. Everybody tried to figure stuff out, and you're going to continue as a work in progress. Thank you. It's a learning process for me, too, and I'm really interested how this item will progress. Thank you. Previous item will progress for this item. I wanted to quickly offer, it sounds like a very noble project, what you're doing. Technology accountability would be a part of the future of this park. I just thought I would ask that in the city of San Diego. I feel we're having difficulties in being more clear about what exactly we're placing in the future of our parks. And I feel it has to be a conversation has to be open and regular. To quickly note, the city of Oakland and its county of Alameda have figured out ways to leave block. and look for a new AOPR vendor by inviting a full community process in the next 18 months to decide what can be a future AOPR vendor. That's community in action. That's working good democracy towards the future technology. We have to really be based on that good community practices for our future technology to do the good technology practices with this park. um it'd be in in good form it would be offering our best practices and our decency good luck and how to do that thank you thank you chair lost and reamer that concludes public comment on this item um okay thank you very much i just very happy to bring this forward um you know it is i

An issue that has come before us a couple times in terms of conversations. I think it's a long time in coming. And having an opportunity to honor our first responders and particularly our firefighters for their service and really for their sacrifice. So I think it's very hard to fully acknowledge what so many of them have given for all of us. And I did want to dock at this as quickly as possible because there was an interest in having this underway in time for the 9-11 Memorial that will be happening in September. So again, I would like to make a motion to adopt this item and hope to have the support of my colleagues. Supervisor Geary.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To your point, this has been a long time coming and we don't have a regional memorial location for our firefighters who sacrifice in so many different ways and are first responders. So I think that we need to honor them and I think that you bringing this forward in an urgent manner is something I'm very grateful for. I just wanna offer, I guess it could be a friendly amendment I want us to be intentional about what we're doing here and just what I've heard from them is that they would like to locate it in site six, which is the mirror image of where the deputy's memorial is on the west side of the waterfront park. So I would suggest that we just go ahead and choose that location instead of leaving it up to our CAO. And then I think you have language. And then we also direct the CAO to come back within 90 days if it's amenable to folks to add the capacity of the space for Harbor Drive so that we also don't lose space within 90 days. the location that I'm proposing.

I'll give everyone a second to read this.

Hold on, hold on.

Joel, no one can hear you because your mic's on.

So the question was, what would that look like? Just turn your mic off. So the recommendation three would address any concerns related to, obviously this is going to be a permanent fixture, right? And our waterfront park hosts a lot of different events. So... to a certain degree we'll be losing some square footage that would be made available to potential events. So I just wanna add options so that we can offset that square footage that we would be losing with the memorial and incorporate the option of including portions of Harper Drive and directing staff to work with the relevant jurisdictions and agencies to see if that could be feasible and that way we don't, it's a win-win.

Okay, thank you for this. I have a question.

If I may.

Please, go ahead.

Thank you. I'm old enough on this board now to remember when we had a board chair who wanted to shut down Harbor Drive entirely and take our park straight to the bay. And he also pledged $10,000 for this very event, which I matched him. Coming from my grant, and I challenge all of you to match my 10 grand going towards this memorial from our community. We are so fortunate to have such an incredible firefighters. I think firefighters across the world are incredible, but here in San Diego, they're especially awesome.

I couldn't agree more.

So that's all I have to say.

I did hear a comment earlier that, you know, there are concerns about us, the county, funding this. And I just want to be clear that that wouldn't be the case. It would be the firefighters have an ad hoc and, well, never mind. Thank you. They have a task force, sorry. Uh-oh.

Yeah, opening that can. It's a very public ad hoc.

But they have a task force that is, you know, ready to start fundraising is my understanding. So that will be paid by them. But, yeah, I mean, absolutely, I would love to support their fundraising efforts through our...

But it would be super awesome if the first 50 grand came from all of us, from our community grants.

I'm happy to do that.

So... I'm not going to put you on the spot, but wink at me if you're in.

Thank you. I just actually have a quick question on this to better understand. I'd obviously love to be able to take this amendment, but I want to better understand the implications. So this is for Site 6. So I think my question is just to county staff. It just tells about Site 6. Is there any concerns or potential challenges or anything that needs to be assessed? Tell us about side six, I guess.

Thank you, Chair. To the Chair Pro Tem's comment regarding the multiple events, this particular location, the one I'm looking at, is in one of the locations where some of those larger events that do fund park revenues and fund the operations and maintenance of the park are held. We have large stages and things like that that have limited space to be accommodated. The waterfront park brings in about $2 million a year All of that goes to park operations and maintenance. About half of that comes from some of our large music festivals that do use that space. I think with some of the other opportunities here, we could certainly look at expanding that area and not losing that space. It would be helpful for us to be able to look into that a little bit further to see how we could achieve both of the objectives here of retaining revenue and achieving the board's goals with the Firefighter Memorial.

Okay. I mean, I'm going to ask my assistance from Damon because I feel like I'm not 100% on point on my amendments today. But I would love to basically support what Supervisor Aguirre has put out here, but giving county... the county direction to kind of come up with a solution that moves forward with the recommended site, but doesn't constrain them to only look at the solution that Supervisor Aguirre proposed, which is a good idea, right? Which is evaluating feasibility using, that's great. Yes, and? And other options, like is it also, is there something about the size of the memorial that might be if it's littler or in a different angle that might help. You know, I don't know. I don't want to, like, tie your hands that that's your only option, but would love you guys to come up with some solutions that achieve both objectives. And I love what Supervisor Greer put out. I think this three is great. And what else? What else could we brainstorm that would allow us to continue having these amazing events at Waterfront Park and honoring our, you know, frankly, our heroes who, like, deserve every, you know... everything that we can give them to honor the sacrifices that they've made. So I don't know exactly.

Considering their preference, right?

Yeah. That's what I'm saying. Like leaving in the preference around, like, I think that's very clear. They have a preference for kind of the mirror image location to the law enforcement Memorial. So, you know, prioritizing that preference and saying, okay, that's the preference. We want to be respectful. Um, but how can we be respectful in a way that also, um, allows us to continue utilizing the spaces? I think supervisor gear has been very creative here, um, with this idea of looking for this expansions on, of like, Can we close down Harbor Drive? What else can we do?

Yeah, it would be a simple add-on to direct CAO to coordinate with appropriate jurisdictions to validate the feasibility of utilizing portions of Harbor Drive, including blah, blah, blah, and other options at the end of that sentence. And then... And other feasible options.

And also exploring all other feasible options to continue having... super awesome events as per the words used by Joel Anderson. And other fees to continue having large scale community centered events in Waterfront Park. I don't know if this accomplishes what we need, County Council, but I just want them to make a plan to do both and not either or.

Chair Losgrima, the amendments appear to be clear enough to provide that direction.

Okay. I'm happy to do that. I'm happy to accept that. As long as they have a direction to look at all possibilities to do all things and not just one option. Yeah.

Okay. Happy to accept your friendly amendment. Yeah. Then I'll second.

Yeah.

Okay. Supervisor Desmond?

Well, I wish I had a map. I wish I knew what sites you were talking about. I have no...

Oh, look, I think Andrew has it. Hold on. Andrew is always Andrew, and he has a map.

Well, that would have been nice before this discussion or be in our packets or something. I didn't have anything here.

Well, look, we can all look.

So we're site six. Right there, okay. And the other one, the law enforcement memorial, okay, is over there. Okay. But right now, I guess with the amendments, we open it up to whatever the best that they come back with. Is that right? Instead of specifying six.

Well, we're saying prioritizing six because that's where they want it. But we're also saying, Hey, go try to make it happen at six and come back with all your options to do that without sacrificing events.

Okay.

Um, and of course, if they come back and they say like, we have no feasible options, we might have, we'll have to have another conversation. Is that, Does that, is that, again, County Council, is the way that the amendment's drafted clear enough that that's what we want to, we would like to be, to do both and, not either or?

It's clear, yes.

Does that make, does that make sense to you, Supervisor Desmond?

Well, I can see it, yeah. I mean, I was clueless, but it just matters a little bit. I gotcha.

Can I ask a question? Yeah, okay, please. I'd love to hear from our experts.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to clarify the location and make sure that staff is understanding it correctly. On this map, the Site 6 is a little bit further from where I understood it to be. I understood it to be a direct mirror of the Law Enforcement Memorial, which would be closer to, I believe it was 4 and 5 on that map.

Can you put your map back up, Andrew?

along that walkway between four and five, which would be again, a direct mirror of the law enforcement memorial. We do have some conceptual, we have the opportunity to create some conceptual maps if that would be helpful. we could operate with the direction to have it directly mirror the law enforcement Memorial. And I think we can work with the firefighters to identify precisely where that location.

I think that's, that works because I think the, my, I know they've said to me that that's what's their interest is to be.

And just to clarify, we have a different map that showed that we're number four in the current map displayed is number six. And the one we, we're given. So anyway, we can work with.

So can we strike the cover? We strike the piece that says six and just says mirror image of the law enforcement since we have two maps.

Yeah, that's fine.

Okay.

Let's pull that back up.

It is. Yeah, just get rid of that, yeah. Wait, hold on. You missed something. So it was direct achievement to site at prioritizing, not at a, prioritizing a site. Prioritizing a. Yeah. And then after Waterfront Park, comma. And explore. Great. Okay. We have a motion on the floor, an amendment and a second. Any additional comments? Okay, please vote.

Chair Lawson-Riemer, that motion passes unanimously with all supervisors being present and voting aye.

Okay, thank you very much. So now we'll go on to item 14. This is adopt a resolution to amend the Board of Supervisors July 2026 meeting calendar. and adopt the A72 waiver. This item has been brought forward because we're not expecting any items from staff in this meeting. Any comments from my colleagues at this time? Any comments from the public? Andrew.

Yes, Chair Lawson-Rumor, thank you. We have nine requests to speak on this item, two in person, seven requesting to speak by phone. Also note for the record that we received three e-comments in opposition. For any individuals that requested to speak on item 14 by phone, please dial into the conference line using the instructions that were provided to you. We'll begin with the in-person speakers. Allegedly, Audra has already approached the podium and I'd also like to invite forward Mark Espinosa. Thank you. You all have two minutes to address the board.

I even brought my gavel, just in case you'd like me to take over the meetings in July. Could get some real good business done, make sure the budget is spent wisely, children aren't being trafficked, humans aren't being exploited, that the homeless get into housing, and you guys quit racketeering. But that wouldn't allow you guys to continue your organized crime syndicate. So that's not going to happen. And I find it interesting. It's like people are all worried about feelings. So maybe while you guys are in your little break, you can think about, I mean, what would it be like if you got the shit beaten out of you by an officer? I don't know, you guys would probably play a card. Monica would play her black card. Paloma would play her brown card. And Terry, you'd play your Jew card. So it's like, I don't know, what card do I get to play? Being of the light and just, you know, being the salt and the light and coming in with truth while you guys are just filled with sulfur. It's interesting how, like, people are concerned about feelings. Bet if I was black or brown or Jewish and, you know, got beat up in that hallway, dang, people would be pissed. Can you imagine? But being a Native American, it doesn't matter because I'm also white. And I'm a woman, but we don't know what that is. So it's like, I mean, I guess that's why it doesn't matter. You know what I mean? I don't check enough boxes. So, I mean, you could ask people that you think I would. I mean, people think I'm on the left. Some people think I'm on the right. People are very confused. But it's just sad, sad to see you guys sit there and, oh, poor me about names. All your own constituents have gotten the crap beaten out of them right in front of you. Right in front of you and it didn't matter. But yet we talk about our feelings and we do wanna silence free speech because it's so hurtful to how people say names. Again, imagine if you were still injured from having the shit beaten out of you by a man who is extremely proud of it. Good job.

Now hear from the individuals that requested to speak by phone. We'll start with our first caller.

Paul LeBold, that sounds to me like you want a break from hearing about the messes you create. But seriously, I think that it would be good to keep the date for the meeting open since the last minute items are always cropping up. If you do this, the next regular board meeting would be August 18th. In fact, the rules of procedures suggest that board meetings be held weekly unless otherwise scheduled. So monthly or every two months would really be pushing it, you know, especially one and a half months to mid-August. You need to take care of the people, not make them wait if they actually do need your services. You could cancel later if there's no new business or emergency business or something of that sort, and people would have a firm date to go on for their fix or, you know, whatever. But they have a firm date to go on to put down on their calendar. Another thing, if you can tell us far ahead that there will be no items on July 14th, maybe you are in fact able to agendize items a few weeks earlier as was suggested previously. So, you know, it all goes back to transparency.

And I mean, if you don't have. Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

Just chiming in to urge and encourage the board to start listening to people, great suggestions, like all the bold and all the amazing people who are doing what they can to pay attention and aren't getting paid for it either. I mean, let's not leave that out, but I'm not really paying that close of attention. Cause I, you know, I still got to carry on. I got my priorities. I don't have assistance to help me out with my children. And yeah, but I'm still, I'm still listening, still chiming in. And that's all I have to say. I truly don't even know what item we're on. Thank you.

Thank you. Hear from the next caller.

Hey, it's true. So as I'm eating my wonderful stir fry here, you know, have a life. I'm wondering, is this item, is this an unofficial vacation in July to celebrate terrorist charter destruction going on the ballot? Not how it seems, because I'm sure you guys got some other evil stuff you could pass in July, right? But this is actually my favorite agenda item of all time. I mean that of all time. I always support canceling meetings, of course. I mean, I think while you're there, you should cancel August, September, October, November, December, cancel the 2027 meetings. But I want to give you reasons why, why you should cancel all meetings, including next month. You had a Freudian slip nanny on the ad hoc thing. Wow, it's almost like the guilt just like came up on you like sewage. Wasn't that funny? And you have a whole board of privileged people with multiple homes pretending they can relate to us regular people. And that's specifically, I'm talking about Manny and I'm talking about Monica pretending you can relate. The county can't even get the maps right. You had two different maps going. What map did the public get? Who knows? Who cares, right? That goes back to the no transparency thing. That's on the list. You have a city of Senegal bias against the backcountry. That's another reason to cancel a meeting. You have county council give bad and unlawful legal advice constantly, totally unqualified. Of course, I've covered that. You also have a lot of crazy things that are said. I don't think that alone is a reason to cancel the meeting so we can have some sanity. I want to give just one example. Monica, you're not the example today. You should feel happy.

I am technically the mayor.

Oh, sorry. I was the wrong one. I was trying to play the one where... And he said, we need more inclusivity because it's exclusive to not have inclusivity. It's just so crazy. But at the same time, it kind of changed my mind. Let's have this meeting in July and cancel the one in August. That would work better for me because, you know, this is a torture chamber of selfishness. So I think that makes sense, right?

Thank you. Hear from the next caller.

Hector, oh yeah, the resolution.

Okay, thank you.

We'll hear from the next caller.

Hi, Blair Beekman. Thank you. Interesting item this is. Both the City of San Diego and the City of Oakland, you know, I was originally from the Bay Area and I still attend City of Oakland public meetings. Both of your meetings, both of their meetings, they're ending in mid-July. And it sounds like you guys are following the same practice. It seems to be a group effort here that wants to cancel end of July meetings. I don't know why that is. Could that be given some explanation and understanding? I personally feel July meetings for government bodies, they tend to be more open and free and good thinking, kind of our best thinking actually in July. So I'm kind of surprised this is happening. If some explanations could be given, that would be great, possibly in why it's happening across the state would be helpful. Other than that, just I hope I could be attending a few more county meetings. And it was nice to hear your work and efforts today. And good luck on building equity before austerity. I've learned that importantly in San Diego City. They've done great work in that area. Good luck in those sort of efforts. Thank you.

Thank you. Hear from the next caller.

Go ahead and close up the meetings. Go ahead and figure out what you want to go ahead and do. Because regardless, MVRA requires you to go ahead and make sure you make a reasonable effort to purchase files. If you have it, you're going to have to immediately purchase files. I think I won. And then when you purchase these files, thank you, Damien, you're going to be the one that's going to go ahead and show the world that San Diego is allows more non-citizens to vote than citizens you're going to be the one that's going to go in and show that and then we're going to go ahead and explain to the board members that all their actions that they've been taking they probably should have addressed the elections unless if they are accomplices you know under the nvra subsection uh i'm sorry uh election code 18 500 series Is that the reason why you've never went and looked in it? Because by looking at it, you're going to have to address it. By pretending you don't recognize the fact that you're not doing these purges? The fact that you refuse to listen to anyone telling you these things? Oh, yeah, no, I'm going to rub your nose in it. You're going to go in and provide me that documentation. Then you're going to go ahead and identify the noncitizens voting. Then you're going to have to make a tough decision. Are you going to deport all of them? Are you going to charge all of them a $100,000 fine? Or are you going to put all of them in federal prison for committing that crime that you allowed them to commit, that you protected them to commit? Are you going to go ahead and call out the NGOs that are actually voting for these people?

All these questions you're going to have to answer.

And after you give me that thing, 90 days after that, you'll have to go ahead and, you know, do something about it. Unless if you want to go ahead and go to jail for committing fraud.

Thank you. And Chair Lawson-Rieber, that concludes public comment on this item.

Okay. Turn the floor to Supervisor Anderson.

Yes. I don't have a problem supporting this today, but I had a board letter that we were going to submit that's all ready to go for that meeting. And... we have a bunch of stuff coming up at the election time and i saw that f3 fm3 research in ironwood public affairs uh they had renewed contracts and so my board letter is going to request that they do any election or polling or any of that information present to the entire board but i just want to give you a heads up on that because i want to give them ample time so i I don't think it's going to make any difference, but I was concerned about the timeline getting pushed back too far.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you for making that statement, so now you'll be ready.

Yes.

Okay, great. I'm happy to make a motion. There's a second. Okay, do we have a second from the Vice Chair? Please vote.

Chair Lawson-Riemer, that motion passes unanimously with all supervisors being present and voting aye.

Okay. Thank you very much. I think we now are done with the items on the agenda except for closed sessions. We'll go to non-agenda public comment and then to closed session. Thanks.

Thank you, Chair Lawson-Ramer. We have 18 remaining requests to speak on matters not listed on the agenda, 10 individuals in person, and eight requesting to speak by phone. For those that requested to speak by phone, please dial into the conference line using the instructions that were provided to you. We'll begin with the in-person speakers. Not seeing any individuals in the chamber, I'll just run through the names just in case they happen to be in the hallway or across the hall. Andrew Lawson, Marco Espinoza, Skylar Smith, Carolina Garcia, Zetse Damte, and Asen Chong. And we'll now hear from those that requested to speak by phone. We'll start with our first caller. Again, you'll have two minutes to address the board. Next speaker is Teri Ann Skelly. Your device might be muted. And we can come back to you.

great let's be done with this it's truth american citizen here question for tara what is the lioness rampant trust and how does that relate to your third house on manzanita drive in the city of san diego do you actually live in d3 or not question number two for two homes maddie was that norah's leftover flowers on your head yesterday because it sure looked like it payaso On June 5th, Manuela held the first Friday breakfast at the San Diego Country Club in Chula Vista about connecting local businesses to county resources, only if they paid a $27 entry fee for access to those county resources. Pay to play corruption. Then she wasted her tax dollars on an egotistical logo for a crowned dub where she lied about her first name, lied about being a surfer rather than the bodyboarder she used to be, and lied about ever protecting our natural environment. On December 22nd, Manuela also had a turkey giveaway via our special events trust fund, where she gave out $764 worth of turkeys to 57 SEIU members closed off to the public. November 2025, despite receiving $179,000 from UDW, Manuela Paloma owed $2,600 in property taxes and racked up $44,000 in campaign debt. She had an event at Mujeres Brewhouse where someone could pay $200 to become a friend who retires per campaign debt. To show a pattern in practice, we can never forget her and her deadbeat $33,000 credit card debt at bankruptcy. But let's look to the June 18th Voice of San Diego South County report. Quote, Supervisor Aguirre held a fundraiser at a downtown San Diego wine bar to help pay off at least $67,000 in unpaid bills from her race last year. Records show Aguirre spent close to $629,000. End quote. Moods for Manny. How did you go from $44,000 to $67,000 in debt in only seven months? Why isn't Manny paying her own bills for their $200,000-plus a year supervisor salary? Maybe get a real job. There was even an event at the Fleetwater Valley Civic Association where Manuela left before doing the pledge because, of course, she hates America. As a civically engaged citizen said, you don't have the right to lead. You have the privilege to represent. And you guys are failing miserably. Have a great day.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

Hi, this is Hector. I wish you guys would go to Zoom, like the city of San Diego, to Zoom meetings. And that would make it a lot easier to call in and listen and everything. And even your technology person, have them learn how to do Bluetooth so you wouldn't have to plug in the computer to put it on the screen. if you guys just maybe hire a young guy they could they could even do bluetooth from home and put things on the screen so it'd make it easier for everyone to access the meetings and then uh it's kind of unfortunate you guys are taking july off though it seems like a lot of stuff happening july is the uh it's white history month in july and then every other every other day and like the odd number days are going to be white supremacy days and then like the first one july 1st is going to be examples of white supremacy and it's going to be like to the black community where they're all into rapping and stuff But the best rapper in the whole world is a white guy. Eminem. So maybe white people are superior. Eminem, man. Talk to any black rapper, all of them. P. Diddy and all those guys. Eminem is the man. It's another white supremacy thing. I don't know, man. But on the second day, we'll just go with a regular white hero. And we'll pick out a woman to eulogize. as a white person. Have a good day, man. Have a good day.

We'll hear from the next caller.

Pam. Oh, a couple of things. Did you all miss that July 27th is Tara's birthday? So maybe that's why she wants the month off. Second of all, did Paloma start a merch business with her new logo? And I would love to reiterate the good news from the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in favor of President Trump limiting the number of asylum seekers into America and revoking the temporary status of Syrians and Haitians and others. I suggest you read it so you're educated, so you know exactly what's happening, because this is America first. Sadly, children continue to be under threat in this county because of the agenda of darkness and death pushed by the women on this board. Abortion kills preborn humans surgically or by the abortion pill. I bet the three of you women, even though Tara's not there, is thrilled more abortions have been committed since Roe with 330,000 babies killed by the abortion pill alone. And that's just maybe the numbers that are known. And then, bless their hearts, those babies are expelled and flushed down the toilet. The ideology of transgenderism also threatens children. It's blatantly in their faces during Pride Month and many other special days of the calendar year. This county redefined women to include men, you know, individuals born with a penis, granting them privileged positions to pretend to be women and invade spaces for girls and women. You know, anyone can be a predator, men, women, straight, trans, gay, lesbian. Predatory behavior includes sexualizing and grooming children by strangers or even parents and people that they know. And in some instances or most instances, they harm children to the point that children will not know when they are being raped or how to say no or when to seek help. Rady's hospital is such a predator by committing and performing barbaric.

Thank you.

Hi, Natalie Raschke. I just wanted to say that I'm not looking for anyone to save me. When it comes to EHVs, everybody in the city is on a wait list. So there's about 358 or 85 EHV holders that will become homeless on November 30th. I'm just curious when the city and the county come together and push the federal government on doing these things. I was told I had till 2030. So I planned my life around that. I didn't create COVID. I speak on behalf of a lot of people that don't have the ability to come and speak. Whatever I need to do to put myself in front of the federal government, I've been in contact with Sarah Jacobs' office. They contacted HUD. I still haven't got a response. There's no urgency. On November 30th, there will be over 1,000 people that will become homeless. I'm not sure if the county and the city communicate how that's going to affect the whole of San Diego. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll hear from the next caller.

Thank you. Good afternoon. This is Kathleen Lippitt. I'd like to talk about our two biggest problems in the United States as far as drug use, combining alcohol and pot. The alcohol and marijuana industries have run a decades-long campaign of normalization, and the marijuana industry's effort to give marijuana a better name led to public acceptance of it as a natural, therapeutic, and even harmless drug. Public officials prioritize potential tax revenues incentivized by industry lobbying and the lie that the potential tax revenues would compensate for the harms. They don't. Alcohol is the number one drug in the U.S. for which Americans seek treatment. That, combined with the increasing normalization of marijuana, has led to a plethora of social and physiological harms, including greater and longer-lasting driving impairment than either drug used separately, even in small doses. JAMA research validated that finding in their study of the co-use of cannabis edibles and alcohol. This phenomenon is called the normalization of deviance. And it's a phenomenon that leads to the false assumption that something risky is safe. Public health needs clear and evidence-based messaging of the risks of psychoactive drugs. Failure to provide that messaging has contributed to the false confidence that the risks of both these drugs are acceptable. Thank you very much for letting me speak.

Thank you. We'll now hear from the final caller.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. My name is Teri Ann Skelly, and I work with my county planning group on good public health and safety policies in land use decisions. I read that the City of San Diego approved policies on Monday that would create a registration process for pot deliveries from outside the City of San Diego that are delivering in the city but are not one of the city's permitted pot shops. Their new policy would include those who are permitted to operate in other jurisdictions must register if operating in the city. However, there were speakers who said they were going to receive permits from the county and did not want to register for a permit to deliver into San Diego where they live and plan to deliver pot. That was a scary declaration for two reasons. Number one, it is the county SECP, just another example of those who don't live out here in the unincorporated communities want to come here to harm it by high-profile pot shops. And number two, it made me wonder about all those pot entrepreneurs who continuously tell us that they're providing a necessary service. However, they don't want to abide by the rules and registration in the city of San Diego to deliver pot there, yet intend to deliver there. That makes the public wonder if the real motive behind selling pot is just money, which has always been the motive behind selling any kind of drugs. Thank you for hearing my concerns this afternoon.

Thank you. And Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp, that concludes a request for non-agenda public communication for this session.

Okay. We will now go to closed session. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

The board will now recess into closed session to continue consideration of the matters listed in item 11 and IHSS 1 on yesterday's agenda. If there are any reportable actions, they will be reported after the conclusion of closed session today.