Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you.

🎵 🎵

Thank you. Bye. Bye.

Now move on to discussion item 25 on the golden Pacific power link project. I'll turn the floor over to supervisor Desmond, whose item this is.

Thank you, madam chair. Appreciate it. And, um, uh, this year, the golden Pacific power link, a project, uh, was announced. Uh, the line is planned to run through the Imperial Valley, uh, to Orange County, cutting through most of North County and East County to achieve that goal. I've heard from many of my constituents and concerns about the project, and I'm doing this board letter along with Supervisor Anderson, who also has some of this power line in his district. But namely, the Anza Borrego Foundation, the official nonprofit partner of the Anza Borrego Desert State Park, reached out to Supervisor Anderson and myself about the project. The line is proposed to have up to 200-foot towers, which is about a 20-story building, set to run straight through, right down, right through the heart of the Anza-Borrego State Park. The foundation and coalition of other groups have significant concerns about the project. I see also people here from Palomar Mountain area. And they asked if they could come and make a presentation to the Board of Supervisors to share their concerns with us. So we organized the board letter to allow them to present to the board. The coalition consists of groups representing the environments and the communities. that will be most be impacted by the project. I know you've been here all day. It's been a long day. I'd like to ask the chair if we can at least have 10 minutes for their presentation, and then we can go maybe to questions or answers.

That's fine, thank you.

Okay, thank you. So I'd like to call up, well, who's going to be doing the presentation? Is this David? Okay, if you can give us your name, and we've got a PowerPoint as well. Thank you very much. And how many people are going to be presenting? We've got four total, including me. Okay, so four. So we're going to kind of time you to make sure that nobody's hot. We'll go by our regular rules of having a group presentation so nobody can have more than four minutes. And we want to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to talk. Great.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

good afternoon chair lawson reamer supervisors my name is david hogan i' m the executive director of the chaparral lands conservancy. Here to present on some of our I am a resident of Escondido and supervisor district five. And we will do everything in our power to try and stop this really destructive line that we believe is totally unnecessary. So with that, I'd like to introduce to start our presentation, Bill McDonald with the Anza Borrego Foundation.

Thanks, Dave. I'm appearing before you again today. as Board President of Anza Borrego Foundation. It's a pleasure to do so again, and an honor to be an advocate for the park and all it means. The message today is straightforward. Anza Borrego Desert State Park is protected for a reason, and those protections must be upheld when they're challenged. Anza Borrego is California's largest state park and one of the last great wilderness landscapes remaining in Southern California. You can see the list of distinctive designations for the park. Each designation represents a decision made over generations that this landscape has value beyond development. and that its wilderness, biodiversity, cultural history, dark skies, quiet, and ecological integrity should be protected for the public and for future generations. If one of the nation's most protective landscapes can become the path of industrial least resistance, then we have to ask, what does protected actually mean? We have been here before. In 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission rejected Sunrise Power Link routes through Anza Borrego after identifying 52 significant, unmitigable environmental impacts and finding the park routes environmentally unacceptable and infeasible. Today, the park is more vulnerable, not less, and this proposed power link is more destructive. We want to be clear about the Montezuma grade alternative shown on SDG&E's new map. It's not an acceptable solution. It trades impacts to one protected landscape for impacts to another and directs major transmission infrastructure through the Borrego Springs community itself. Borrego Springs health and economy is inseparable from Onza Borrego Desert State Park. Moving the corridor toward the community does not solve the problem, it magnifies it. California state parks are held in trust for the people of California. And the people elected to represent us have a responsibility to defend that trust when the protection placed on those lands is challenged. We ask you to stand with Anza Borrego, oppose all routes through the park and Borrego Springs, and insist that protected public lands remain protected. And following me is Bill Powers from Protect Our Communities Foundation.

Thank you, Supervisors. Bill Powers, board member of the Protect Our Communities Foundation, professional engineer with a background in power systems. The Protect Our Communities Foundation is adamantly opposed to the Golden Pacific Power Lens. Protect Our Communities was purpose-built 20 years ago to fight SDG&E's Sunrise power link. I was an expert witness for the local solar power alternative in that California Public Utilities Commission proceeding. The local power alternative won the day with the administrative law judge. She denied the power link. Politics kicked in. The president of the commission pushed through an approval, and the power link was built. SDG&E is now back with another power link. I'm back with some alternatives. Rooftop and parking lot solar and battery storage, local rooftop parking lot solar, and reconducting existing transmission lines. There is plenty of rooftop solar potential to achieve 100% green power in the county. About 20,000 megawatts of solar power is the need to get to 100%. 2.7 billion square feet of usable rooftop solar potential was estimated by the county's contractor four years ago. That's about 50,000 megawatts of potential with the proper conversion, plenty to meet the need. Hopefully the county's ongoing study of local solar potential will reinforce this. Reconductoring to increase capacity of existing transmission lines is another option. This involves changing out older, heavier conductors with lighter weight composite conductors to greatly increase capacity while using the original transmission towers. This is a map of SDG&E's high voltage transmission system in the county, the red and the green lines. Some mix of reconductoring those red and green high voltage transmission lines leading from Imperial County up to San Onofre would be needed in this alternative. Bottom line, we have good options that do not involve building the Golden Pacific Power Line. I'd like to introduce Leila Hargrove, Fallbrook Chamber of Commerce.

Thank you and thank you supervisors for hearing us today. I'm here on, I am from Fallbrook but I don't know how to use this thing. Technology is not my friend. Thank you. I'm here because I want to protect all communities. It's not just about Fallbrook. And so for me, what I'm urging you is to have a voice, right? We want local control. And so I'm urging you to contact the CPUC on behalf of all of our communities and have some local voices being heard. Some reasons for the review, wildfire and evacuation risks. This is a high risk terrain, narrow roads, canyons, and wind driven fire conditions make safety and emergency access critical, especially when some of these lines are going through already burned fire areas. Towers, access roads, vegetation clearing, and permanent right of ways could fundamentally alter agriculture. San Diego County feeds most of the region. property and agricultural impacts to farms and homes, groves and nurseries and ranches. We need to protect our environment. I know some of you ran on that, protecting the environment. Protect our open space and our wildlife corridors, drainages. The Santa Margarita watershed is actually home to many soon to be extinct and sensitive things. So if not for the people, if we don't care about the people, let's care about the animals. Cultural community resources, tribal, archeological, historic and community planning concerns must be addressed. Residents need accessible information. Transparency has not been key in this. Public participation should be heard. So my request to the county again is to contact the CPUC, ensure that Fallbrook and the surrounding communities safety, rule character, environment most important, and community voices are fully protected before any transmission routes are moved forward.

Thank you.

David Hogan again the Chevrolet lands conservancy so one crucial point is that the power link does nothing for San Diego County it's simply the shortest route between the Imperial Valley substation and a new proposed substation in southern Orange County it's a direct line that would cross the county but provide no benefits for San Diego County. The power link will also impact the county's own North County Multiple Species Conservation Plan. You've heard about how the power link will impact Anzobrego Desert State Park. You should also know that the project is aimed at the very heart of the county's own Multiple Species Plan, a program to balance conservation of endangered species with development by establishing an interconnected system of conserved habitat lands. That's the cover of your plan. And that's the wrong direction. And that's the wrong direction. That is a map of the power link routes where they intersect proposed preserved lands under the MSCP. A few other points. We want to make sure that regulatory convenience should not determine the route of the power link. One question we've heard from a number of people is why is the eastern half of the Golden Pacific Power Link proposed for nearly the same route that was rejected with extreme prejudice by the state for the Sunrise Power Link in 2008? SDG&E has said that other desert corridors across military land have been excluded because they'd require an act of Congress. The real question should be what route causes the least harm to the environment and communities, not which route is easiest to permit. We also wonder, is the power link really even necessary? One elephant in the room is the state's 2023 recommendation for the power link relied on projected energy demands that are overestimated. Before sacrificing a globally important state park, serious consideration should be given to improved energy conservation and alternatives like large-scale rooftop solar and safe battery storage. Clean energy should be produced and stored where it's needed rather than porting on what's effectively a 140-mile-long antiquated extension cord. Do you have some last asks? Could I beg another two minutes?

That's fine with me. Thank you.

It's certainly available from SDG&E, goldenpacificpowerlink.com. Yeah, sorry, I don't have it handy. Here's what we're asking for from the county today. We urge you to pass a resolution opposing routing of the power link across any part of Anzobrego Desert State Park and calling for rigorous analysis of energy alternatives, emphasizing energy conservation and local renewable energy development. please communicate that position to the public utilities commission as soon as possible before the permit application and continue to engage as part of the state's formal intergovernmental consultation process. We'd also ask that you direct county staff to communicate opposition to the power link to the public utilities commission and other agencies not just technical or neutral information. And ultimately, the Golden Pacific Power Link is based on the premise that clean and reliable energy somehow requires a sacrifice of sacred natural places and communities on the altar of private utility profit. This premise is entirely false and devastating to nature and our communities. Please stand with your constituents and act today to oppose the Power Link. Could I see, just quickly, Power Link opponents in the audience? Thank you very much.

Do we have the original proposed map? Not the one, not the sunrise. That's the official map. The green line is the proposed SDG&E map from Imperial Valley down in the right-hand corner. And the blue portion is the Anza Borrego State Park. and it's going right through the middle of the Anzenberg State Park, which is District 5, and then going up alongside Palomar Mountain, through Temecula, back into Fallbrook, and then into Orange County. This is predominantly going to be serving Orange County and the southern Los Angeles area, and not necessarily San Diego, although we're bearing the brunt. So that's the original routing there. And if you could pull that other picture up, You had this is the sunrise power link and if you look at that it's a gray in this in this that's the Anza Borrego State Park in the middle and the sunrise power link actually went around it did not touch. the ends of Borrego State Park. And then the next, if you kind of follow the sneaky line there, the orange are tribal lands. I missed that. And then there's also, I think, state lands, which is the green area. So they did, at least in the sunrise, took a circuitous route around the ends of Borrego State Park, where if you can just back it up, this new proposed one goes. And I think it's for both. If you can go back to the other one, even their alternative, It goes right through the center of the Anza-Brega State Park. So I just wanted to point that out. And we really don't have an actionable item. I didn't make it the board letter that way. But I don't know if Supervisor Anderson, if you had.

No, I just want to thank you for the presentation. I'm glad that you had an opportunity to present.

Okay, we can move to public comment. I do see a lot of folks here ready to comment, so go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Lawson-Riemer. We have 62 requests to speak, 47 in person, and 15 requesting to speak by phone. Also note, for the record, that we received 419 e-comments, four of those in support. 403 in opposition and two neutral. For any individuals that requested to speak on item 25 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 forward the first three individuals, Jim Hammerly, Bob Garcia, and Keith Thigerson. If I've called your name, please come forward.

Okay. Good afternoon, members of the board. My name is Jim Hammerly. I'm a resident and property steward on Palomar Mountain, speaking on behalf of our mountain residents and the tens of thousands of visitors who cherish our region. Palomar Mountain is a fragile landscape defined by steep slopes, dense canopies, and severe wind events that frequently exceed 100 miles per hour. The top of Palomar is the only unburned old-growth forest in Southern California. Introducing an infrastructure through this high risk terrain creates an extreme and unacceptable wildfire risk. Furthermore, the physical presence of these towers will severely restrict serial firefighting efforts, hindering our ability to combat fires regardless of how they ignite. We ask that this body stand with our community. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

My name is Bob Garcia and I am chairman of Save Warner Springs. Save Warner Springs strongly opposes the proposed 500 kilovolt Golden Pacific power link project through our community. We asked the board to consider three critical priorities. First is emergency access. Highway 79 is our only route in and out of Warner Springs. It is narrow, One lane in each direction and a major construction project with 191 foot towers could seriously interfere with evacuation and emergency response, especially during a wildfire. Second, the environment. The project could damage endangered habitat and sensitive lands and transform our rural landscape into an industrial corridor and negatively impact the surrounding Anza-Parejo region. Third, property values. Property owners along the corridor would face significant losses in property value and some could potentially lose their property through eminent domain. We respectfully ask the board to pass a resolution opposing the project. Thank you.

Thank you. Before the next speaker begins, I'll invite three additional speakers. Steven Gall, Jamie Purinton, and Andrew Cascangoye. I've called your name, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Keith Likerson, and I just urge this Board to formally oppose the Golden Pacific Power Link. I think that them planning a new 500 kilovolt transmission line through our most valuable undisturbed lands, permanently trading our local environment to cut a new transmission line through parks, deserts, mountains, forests, and homes to feed the LA basin in the name of the environment does not make any sense. I think that San Diego needs to stand up on record in opposition because the only feasible alternative route to this project would be a no project alternative. So I hope we can come to that conclusion sooner rather than later. I'd also hope that everyone can take a no position on Proposition 45 that's coming up because that would gut CEQA's environmental protections. That is what gives us the ability to fight this at the CPUC. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Hi there. My name is Jamie Parrington. I'm Communications and Marketing Director for Antebrego Foundation. And I have dedicated my life to sharing the story of the park and the desert. And that it's not this wasteland of rocks and stone that so many people think it is. But it's a really environmentally diverse place from sea level up to almost 6,000 feet in the Laguna Mountain area. And it has layers of protection that Bill showed earlier for a reason. And for many years, lots of us have worked hard to get those protections. And we're asking you to uphold those for the land that is held in trust for the people, not big corporations and making money off of our land. Yeah. And that's it. I'd bless in a minute.

Thank you. I'd like to invite for three additional speakers. David Van Cleave, Katarina Shapozova, and Ronald Stockton. If I've called your name, please come forward. And I'll call three additional speakers as well. Zach Kantor Anaya, James Marug, and Rhiannon Harrington.

Should I start?

You may begin if you can pull the microphone down.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. My name is Katerina Shakpazova, and I am a resident of District 3. I'm here today to strongly oppose power line routes, transit Borrego Desert, State Park, Borrego Springs, and other sensitive public land and communities. I'll share my personal experience of regional park and power lines running through it. On New Year's Day 2025, my husband and I decided to hike north Fortuna Mountain Peak in Mission Trails Regional Park. Being my first time for this particular hike, I was pleasantly surprised to discover power lines running along the trail. The view, constant buzzing noise, and energy vibration I found very upsetting and disturbing and haven't gone back. And I invite you to visit the park and see the damage, the ecological and recreational damage that has been done by those power lines.

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is James Murag. I'm the president of the Palomar Mountain Mutual Water Company, and we serve approximately 200 families on the Crestland and Birch Hill areas of Palomar, and we stand in complete opposition to the proposed high-voltage transmission routes. We implore you to help us save our irreplaceable water source. Our mountain groundwater historically tests completely free of industrial chemicals. Building and maintaining 500 kilovolt lines introduces an unacceptable risk of chemical runoff, aquifer damage, and aquifer contamination that could leave our entire community uninhabitable. Furthermore, clear cutting the utility right away strips the mountain's natural filtration system, causing severe soil erosion and permanently damaging our pristine watershed. Finally, placing the infrastructure in a very high fire hazard severity zone significantly increases catastrophic wildfire risk. We've seen that from utility companies in the past. These 200-foot towers will physically block aerial firefighting from executing safe drops and potentially trapping residents in the mountain in highly limited evacuation areas as it is. We're essentially an HOA. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to invite four to three additional speakers, Carl Fonseca, Owen Skelton, and Doug Davidson. I'll invite a few additional speakers, Rachel Katz, Jim Mendenhall, and Miriam Mendoza. If I've called your name, please come forward.

Good afternoon. My name is Doug Davidson and I live on Palomar Mountain, less than one mile from the proposed routes for this 500 kilowatt transmission line. Insurance is not a theoretical concern for us. My annual premium has increased from approximately $5,000 to more than $10,000 in just five years. Obtaining coverage on the mountain is already extremely difficult. from the fair plan being the only option. I'm deeply concerned that placing a major transmission corridor near our homes could cause premiums to rise further or make our properties effectively uninsurable. That could substantially reduce property values even for owners whose land is not crossed by the line. I retired to the mountain after spending 23 years as a real estate broker in North County. I know firsthand how a project like this can negatively impact.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

My name is Rachel Katz and I live on Palomar mountain 10. I'm here to strongly oppose routing SDG&E's proposed 500 kilovolt Golden Pacific power link through our mountain. What looks like a blue line on a map is not empty land. It's our home. I own a photography and retreat business on our property that is built around the privacy, beauty, and untouched natural setting of Palomar Mountain. The forest views and quiet aren't simply the backdrop to my business. They are what I'm selling. My guests and clients describe the mountain as peaceful, magical, and paradise. Please do not destroy it. I ask you, madam, Supervisor Chairwoman, would you want to raise your beautiful baby under these massive proposed power lines, exposing them to harmful EMF? Please don't destroy our home. Has any of you been to Palomar Mountain?

Thank you. Your time is up.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

It is beautiful. I invite you all to come.

Thank you.

As the next speaker is coming forward, I'll invite three additional speakers. Gail Villamonte, Hugh Davies, and Cesar Javier.

Good afternoon Chair and board members. My name is Maria Mendoza and I'm speaking on behalf of more than 2,000 businesses represented by the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber strongly supports the Golden Pacific Power Link and the investment it represents in the future of our region's electric grid. Our members ranging from small to large businesses are making decisions today about where to locate, expand, hire and invest. San Diego competes with regions such as Phoenix, Austin, and Las Vegas for these investments. As industries continue to electrify their operations and demand, employers need confidence that reliable power will be available when and where they need it. The Golden Pacific Power Leak represents an important investment in the infrastructure needed to support that growth and strength of our regional grid. And the California Independent System Operator recognizes the importance of this project. As the Golden Pacific Power Link moves through the state's review process, we respectfully urge the board to recognize the project's importance to San Diego's long-term economic competitiveness and to support investments that strengthen the reliability and capacity of our grid. Thank you.

Thank you. As the next speaker is coming forward, I'll invite three additional speakers. Allegedly, Audra, Adri Estrada, and Michael Randazzo.

Thank you, Gail Viamonte. Let's be clear. The only entity that is, in quotes, needs this project is San Diego Gas and Electric Company. They want it so that they can make their guaranteed 10% profit on building infrastructure. so that they can endlessly control rates. How? By charging everyone, government, civic groups, schools, businesses, residents, to transport electricity from and to people and places that could otherwise create and share electricity more locally. It is a self-perpetuating profit plan. Meanwhile, SDG&E aggressively opposes safer, reliable, planet-friendly energy delivered through smaller distributed grids. It takes every opportunity to squash, defame, and penalize solar, San Diego's biggest natural resource and energy source. This project is about profit, control, self-perpetuating costs, and self-perpetuating environmental destruction. Don't be complicit.

Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is AJ Estrada. I'm the political director for the San Diego Building and Construction Trades Council. We represent 35,000 union construction workers across this county, part of 23 locals. The Golden Pacific Power Link was identified through California's grid planning process as one of the state's highest priorities transmission needs to strengthen grid reliability, and reduce transmission congestion and support California's growing energy demands. Those demands continue to increase as we add new housing, electrify transportation, expand domestic manufacturing, and work towards the state's clean energy goals. Meeting those needs requires investments in infrastructure that ensures our electric system can keep pace. We encourage the board to support continued advancement of the Golden Pacific Power Link through a permitting environmental review process, and thank you so much for your consideration.

As the next speaker is coming forward, I'll invite three additional speakers. Lisa Ross, Clayton Fowler, and Bernadette Buchiewicz.

Do I get 12 extra seconds? Look at that. I'm sorry, you guys, but this is going to go through, unfortunately. That's the way that this government works. And, you know, as you can see that it's not going to benefit San Diego, it's going to benefit somebody else. But there are kickbacks that will come back because SDG&E has been robbing San Diego blind for decades. And yet San Diego is going to be funding this. And it will have no benefit to San Diego. But it's going to go through. Because that's what happens when government is in control and supposed to be good stewards of the people. They allow this type of stuff when you have people from these communities coming and telling you, no, we don't want it. But what's going to happen? It's going to pass anyway. It's just like when Hocumba came and said, we don't want that solar field in our town. And Nathan Fletcher said, let's give them a couple extra million bucks. And it's there or going to be there. So it's just sad to see the things that the government does. But it's great because it's eye-opening for all the people involved.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Lawson-Reamer and members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Clayton Fowler, speaking on behalf of the Downtown San Diego Partnership. We represent nearly 300 businesses, property owners, residents, workers, and stakeholders across our urban core who make downtown's economy, and we are here to voice our support for Golden Pacific PowerLink. Downtown is home to more than 51,000 residents and over 76,000 jobs, accounting for nearly 10% of all jobs citywide and nearly 5% of all jobs countywide. Downtown San Diego's economic prosperity depends on infrastructure that keeps up with the growth. Downtown is where much of our region's density is going, and every new building, every new tenant, and every conversion from gas to electric lands on the same grid. Our members plan on 10 to 20 year horizons. As energy demands grow, they need to know that the power will be there when they build. The Golden Pacific Power Link is how our region gives them from that certainty.

Thank you. I'd like to invite three additional speakers. Matt Fish, Seth VanderMeulen, and Peter Worchester. If I've called your name, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Chair Lawson-Riemer and Supervisors. My name is Bernadette Buckwitz. I'm the Senior Project Affairs Manager at SDG&E for the Golden Pacific Power Link. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. The Golden Pacific Power Link was identified by California's independent system operator in their 22-23 transmission plan to both strengthen the grid reliability, reduce congestion, and help meet California energy goals. The California Public Utilities Commission adopted a clean energy target that would require more than double the existing energy resource capacity by 2035. that Golden Pacific Power Link is designed to strengthen the transmission system for all four counties affected and support a more resilient and flexible grid that can deliver energy where it is needed most. The project will create good paying jobs, support local economies, and improve energy reliability, especially during periods of peak demand and extreme weather events. The questions. Thank you. Please have your support.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Seth Vannermuelen. I live in Valley Center, barely 1,500 feet from SDG&E's proposed alternative route, but I'm not here to keep these lines off my street. I oppose this entire project as a fundamentally bad idea. In 2003, the Paradise Fire, over 200 homes burned in Valley Center and neighbors lost their lives. We cannot afford to increase that risk. Erecting massive 150-foot, 500-kilovolt towers through our backcountry creates new ignition hazards, blocks aerial firefighting drops, and threatens critical evacuation routes when seconds count. Beyond the physical danger, this industrial corridor will crush property values and make already scarce home insurance impossible to keep. And for what? Our communities are taking a risk for bulk pass-through power that doesn't even serve us. I urge the board to oppose this project entirely and demand that SDG&E reconfigure existing utility corridors, explore safer alternative routes, or prioritize localized energy solutions instead of putting our lives and homes on the line. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to invite three additional speakers, James Wine, Jeff Meyer, and Demetrius Sanders.

Chair Lawson-Riemer, Supervisors, good afternoon. My name is Peter Wooster. I reside in the 3rd Supervisorial District. I am testifying today to urge the Board to oppose all routes for the Golden Pacific Power Link that go through Anza-Brega Desert State Park, Regal Springs, and other sensitive public lands and communities. I have visited Anzebrego Desert Park since 1970. I have hiked, car camped, backpacked, and driven jeep roads in the park. I have camped in Tamarisk Grove Campground, driven the jeep road through Grapevine Canyon, visited the Kumeyaay Village in Mindwash, all of which would be severely compromised by the proposed route for the Golden Pacific Power Link. Anza Borrego is a treasure with slot canyons, badlands, wind caves, pictographs, fan palm groves, super blooms, and quiet. In my view, it would easily qualify as a national park. SDG&E managed to find a route for the sunrise power link that avoided... Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon. My name is James Wynn, born in Camp Pendleton, raised in Vista. I'm a journeyman lineman and a business rep for Local 47, IVW. Our members, we represent more than 14,000 line workers and electrical professionals throughout Southern California. Our members are men and women who build, operate, maintain, and repair the electrical infrastructure that Southern California relies on every day. We understand firsthand what it takes to maintain a safe, reliable, and resilient electrical grid. California's demand for electricity continues to grow and our transmission infrastructure needs to grow with it. The Golden Pacific power link represents the kind of major transmission investment needed to prepare our electrical system for the future. The project is about more than poles, wires, transmission capacity. It's also an investment in highly trained electrical utility workforce. Projects like this create opportunities for good family support and union careers for line workers and other electrical utility professionals. They also help create a pipeline for the next generation of skilled IBW workers throughout apprenticeship and training. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to invite forward three additional speakers. Melanie Cohn. Michelle Kenven and Olympia Beltran.

Good afternoon, Chair Lawson-Reimer and fellow board members. My name is Jeff Meyer, and I'm here today representing the Guiding Reliable Infrastructure Development, or GRID, Coalition. We're a growing group of 20 business, labor, civic, and economic development organizations located across the state, all in support of the Golden Pacific Power Link. Collectively, we recognize the need for a reliable energy grid that powers all homes and businesses in our communities. State energy regulators project that peak electricity demand on our grid will more than double in the next 20 years. We fully support a robust environmental analysis for this project so that all its impacts can be identified and state decision makers can determine the appropriate route. But make no mistake, this line needs to be built. It safeguards the future of our state's economic prosperity and quality of life, and the employers, workers, and communities we represent are counting on it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Hi. My name is Michelle Kenven. This is my husband, Richard Kenven. We're proud to live in the Sherman Heights neighborhood in District 1. We're decades-long users of Anza-Borrego State Park. We're here to oppose the PowerLink project. Basically, the presenters gave amazing alternatives, so we fully support everything you guys said. 100%. We use the desert park to hike, camp, backpack, as this gentleman who spoke recently does as well, enjoy the flora, fauna, and so much more. We go to the desert to get away from power lines and to get off the grid and to enjoy nature, to enjoy clear night skies and to get away from the daily grind and stresses of life. And we don't need more power lines or power links to look at in our beautiful state park. We need more beautiful places in nature because having beautiful public spaces means something to a civilized society.

Do you want to add anything, honey?

Richard Kenbin, District 1. Sorry, sir. She cannot yield her time to you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon. I'm Melanie Cohn with BioComm. We are the world's largest trade association for the life sciences, headquartered here in San Diego. We represent over 1,800 members. The industry here employs 156,000 people, representing an economic output of $55.2 billion per year. Our members frequently express their concerns about grid capacity, and we are here to support the PowerLink project. Our members operate research and manufacturing facilities 24 hours a day that rely on this grid. And the Golden Pacific Power Link strengthens the grid and ensures our region can support the growing demands of the life science industry, which is producing treatments and cures for patients here and around the world. Thank you.

Thank you. Before the next speaker begins, I'd like to invite forward three additional speakers. Charles Seaman, Elizabeth Getzoff, and Anthony Ralphs.

If I've called your name, please come forward. I greet you in my traditional Yaqui language. My name is Olympia Andrade Beltran. I'm a member of the Yaquis of Southern California, and my tribe stewards 156 acres of land in the Anza-Burrego Desert. just north of Yaqui Range and on Yaqui Pass Road. SEG&E's parent company, Sempra Energy, has put a natural gas pipeline through my tribe's sacred river in Sonora, Mexico, and now this power link threatens our tribal lands. The lands that we steward are completely undeveloped with purpose. We are continuing to learn from the land according to our cultural protocols. And until we find and innovate ways that are in alignment with our spiritual practices and cultural practices that we've upheld for thousands of years, we will not disturb the land. I urge this board to consider indigenous thinking in your decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Elizabeth Getzoff from District 3, I oppose the Golden Pacific Power Link. I thank the supervisors for purchasing the night flying fire hawk helicopter recently activated at the Ramona Air Base. On July 31st, the Great Fire started in brush at the southeastern base of Palomar Mountain and grew very rapidly to over 600 acres, causing road closures and evacuations. Air drops of water and fire retardant stopped the spread of the fire within hours. The South Mountain route of the Golden Pacific Power Link diagonally crosses the entire Great Fire area. What would have happened if the mobility of the firefighting aircraft had been limited by the 197 foot high towers and high voltage transmission lines of the Golden Pacific Power Link. None of this power comes to San Diego County. My colleagues pointed out that Mount Palomar is illustrated on this panel with the observatory at the top. Thank you.

As the next speaker is coming forward, I'll invite three additional speakers. Serena Pelka, Anthony Dang, and JJ Neese.

Hello, County Board of Supervisors. I want to start by thanking Supervisor Desmond for bringing this information forward, this information item forward, and allowing this robust public discussion to take place in the first place. And I would like to say I am in opposition to this project. Can you please state your name? Yeah, my name is Anthony Rouse. Thank you. And as the vice chair of the Boulevard Planning Group, I would like to state why I'm in opposition to this project. We already have 200 kilovolt lines that run through our mountainside, and they are a monstrosity to look at. When I moved out there 15 years ago, I used to have a gorgeous mountain view in my purview when I'd walk out and look out in my front yard. Now I have two monstrous 300 foot lines that I have to look at. And I understand and completely respect the need for us to have sustainable energy. I completely am for, I mean, I got here on an all electric vehicle, so I'm not opposed to electric energy. I'm not opposed to development of clean green energy. What I'm opposed to is SDG&E being able to run roughshod over communities with very sensitive environments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, just FYI, Serena Polka is not commenting. Good afternoon. My name is Anthony Deng speaking on behalf of Climate Action Campaign, and we want to express major concerns over this project. Large transmission projects like this one are built off the backs of rate payers, meaning another rate hike on all our SDG&E bills, while San Diegans already pays from the highest electricity rates in the country. Every new transmission build-out risks becoming another way for SDG&E to gold plate an unneeded project, guaranteeing shareholder returns while hard-working San Diego families absorb the cost. Before backing the project, the county needs to seriously weigh local community energy solutions such as rooftop solar, batteries, and local microgrids. These can deliver clean power without new transmission corridors through sensitive desert habitat. They keep energy dollars local, create work opportunities for skilled and trained workers, and they can be deployed much faster and cheaper than long-haul transmission lines. We urge the board to demand full rate payer cost transparency and prioritize local community energy solutions. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to invite forward three additional speakers. Cypress Hanson. Leila Mohseni and Jim Whalen.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. My name is JJ Neese and I live in District 5. I'm here with SaveAll.org. I'm asking this board to stand up for the communities you are selected to represent. I support reliable electricity, but I do not believe that means rural communities should be expected to absorb the environmental, agricultural, safety, and quality of life impacts of a project designed to serve a much broader population. Fallbrook and our surrounding communities are not empty spaces on a map. They are homes, they are farms, businesses, and families. They are communities worth protecting. And because this route is still preliminary, you have an opportunity right now to make sure that our voices are heard before decisions become difficult to change. The newly developed South Mountain Alternative Route from SDG&E does not address this in a way that diverts it away from rural communities. I'm asking you to demand a serious evaluation by CPUC of alternates that avoid or substantially reduce the impacts to East and North County communities, agricultural land, and Anza Borrego. Thank you.

Next speaker, please. Hi. Jim Whalen, J. Whalen Associates. I am here off duty. I'm here on behalf of the community of Boulevard. They have two 500 kilovolt power lines right now, Southwest and Sunrise. So SDG&E says three would have more than acceptable reliability effects. So it cannot go through there, which means it has to go somewhere else, which is my point. The project is licensed by the state, means it's likely to be approved. If so, and this is going to happen, SDG&E, is very aware of how this world works. And San Diego needs to be compensated both through design and community benefits that reflect the disproportionate share of the impacts that this power line would impact San Diego County. If we're 9% of the benefit and the cost, that means 91% is somewhere else. I would urge the board consider that moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'd like to invite the remaining speaker in person, Paula Kraft.

Hey, everyone. My name is Cypress Hanson. I'm a science communicator and founder of North Star Naturalist. I live in District 3. I understand a big part of your job is economic risk management. This proposed construction project presents several risks that I hope you are considering. One is wildfire liability. Disturbing land is the number one way to introduce invasive grasses which fuel the deadliest wildfires known to science on the planet. Transmission lines and access roads will push our public lands into a feedback loop of extreme frequent wildfire risk. The power towers also threaten to devalue a massive economic asset to our county, our state parks. When 200-foot tall transmission towers bisect Mount Palomar and Anza Borrego's vistas, degrade their dark skies, introduce invasive species, disrupt animal breeding grounds, and spark wildfires, their parks' values will sink, their communities will become economically vulnerable, and the county's tax base will lose. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, board members. I'm Laleh Mohseni, resident of District 4. I'm also a volunteer for the Anzabrego State Parks Paleontology Society. Anzabrego is truly a gem. I urge you to oppose this plan. This plan is of zero benefit to locals, and it does irreparable harm to the environment, to the sacred cultural sites, to the many endangered species that call it home, and the dark skies for all the astronomers and stargazers alike. This is of zero benefit to the local residents. Not only that, they pretty much depend on tourism income. for their livelihood. It completely wrecks it. This morning, you honored the ABF for their conservation effort. Please honor them by opposing this plan, not only for the ABF, but for the generations to come.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Paula Kraft, and as a full-time resident in District 5, specifically Borrego Springs, I oppose item 25, the proposed SDG&E Golden Pacific power link route through Anza Borrego Desert State Park and affected communities. Anza Borrego is California's largest state park and one of the last great wilderness landscapes remaining in Southern California. I believe the park's wilderness, cultural resources, wildlife habitat, dark skies, quiet communities, and other protected resources should remain protected, protections which were established over generations for a reason. In 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission rejected Sunrise Power Link routes through Anza Borrego after identifying 52 significant unmitigable environmental impacts. Thank you.

Thank you. Before we hear from those that requested to speak by phone, I'd like to call the speakers I previously called again. Andrew Castonguay. If you're here in the chamber, please come forward. Charles Seaman, Ronald Stockton, Zach Cantor Anaya, Lisa Ross, Owen Skelton, Matt Fish, Demetrius Sanders, Carl Fonseca, Stephen Gall, Michael Randazzo, Rhiannon Harrington, David Van Cleave, Hugh Davies, Jim Mendenhall, and Cesar Javier. Not seeing any movement in the chamber from those individuals. We'll now hear from those that requested to speak by phone. When it is your turn to speak, you will be unmuted and you will hear a recording that will tell you to begin your comments. We will start with our first caller.

Bill Bold. The Golden Pacific Paralink project would have a big effect by fragmenting habitats, disturbing sensitive ecosystems, affecting wildlife, disrupting wildlife corridors, and visual impacts. But I'm more concerned about things like the wildfire impact. because several damaging and fatal ones have been sparked by power lines. The Witch Creek Fire, the Camp Fire with 85 dead, the Eastern Fire, 19 dead, and many others. And will it pollute or damage our water supply or increase our utility rates while servicing other counties? Thank you for mentioning these dangers. Hopefully there can be a presentation or fuller discussion of these things, as well as the habitat destruction. After all, we all live in the habit. Thank you.

We'll hear from the next caller.

Go ahead and follow here. And gosh, this is so sad to witness. Year after year, from Hacumba to Spring Valley to Chula Vista, government has gone not with what the people of the communities wanted, but with what the corporations demanded. Again, these politicians do not work for you. And for those of us who have been paying attention to these meetings for years, we already know how they'll vote, as Audra mentioned. You know, at the beginning of every meeting, these politicians with their forked tongues claim how they honor the land and the indigenous people. But just like everything else they do, it's just lip service. The reminder, they work for globalists and their agenda, okay? And please start paying attention to everything these selected officials, yes, I said selected, not elected, officials do, because there's a pattern here. They continue to play the part of being good stewards of our land and money, but they're corrupt, wasteful. We'll hear from the next caller.

My name is Kathleen Lippitt. I'd just like to remind the county supervisors that you will be gone in short order, but the damage to the Borrego Park will be permanent stain on all of those involved. Commercial rooftop and parking lot solar coupled connected to the grid is the most cost-effective energy pathway for San Diego County residents. Distributed energy is clearly superior. SDG&E is guaranteed a rate of income on return in investments by the state for the cost of infrastructure. This rate is in addition to the cost of anything they build. SDG&E recoups these costs on customer bills, and their promise to underground lines was long forgotten as soon as they learned they could make more money on transmission lines. For every dollar the utility spends building infrastructure, they're allowed to charge customers an additional 10 cents in profits for their share.

Thank you.

We'll hear from the next caller.

Good afternoon, Chair Lawson-Remmer and members of the board. My name is Sondra Holloway, District 2. I've been an SDG&E rate payer since 1983. I volunteer at Palomar Mountain State Park and visit Anza Borrego regularly. SDG&E's proposed power link would slice a transmission line through either Palomar Mountain or Anza Borrego State Park, replacing protected wilderness with 180-foot industrial steel towers, widened clearings, and severe visual scars. Industrializing our state parks is unacceptable while non-park routes exist. Protected public lands are not cheap right away for utilities. SDG&E's stakeholder window is open now before their formal CPUC application. I strongly urge this board to adopt a formal resolution opposing any route through Anza-Borrego or Kalamar Mountain and that you demand that CAISO and the CPUC require a complete non-parks reroute. Protect our parks for our future and our children's future. Thank you.

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

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Lorraine Hay, and I'm speaking on behalf of Anza Borrego Desert State Park. Now, I do understand California needs reliable energy infrastructure, and I support responsible solutions, but I ask that we carefully consider what we may permanently lose if we place our major transmission infrastructure through this irreplaceable landscape. In 2008, California Public Utilities Commission evaluated Sunrise Power Link. After extensive environmental review, it was a thumbs down. The Golden Power Link is a different project, but Anza Borrego remains the same extraordinary and protected landscape. I'm not asking you or anyone of the board members to choose Anza Borrego over California's energy future. What I am asking is that you find a way to protect both. Please fully evaluate alternatives that avoid this fragile ecosystem.

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

Hello, my name is Natalie Garcia, San Diego County Board of Supervisors. Save Temecula is here today to express concerns over the Golden Pacific power link. The proposed SDG&E power link cuts through environmentally and culturally sensitive areas, including current and formal tribal lands passing directly through the Temecula Creekbed and densely populated communities. A primary concern is the increased wildfire risk along the preliminary and alternate routes for both San Diego and Temecula. This heavily impacts Temecula, which faces severe evacuation constraints due to having essentially one way in and out via Temecula Parkway. As SBG&E's most expensive proposed capital project, the Golden Pacific Power Link could also substantially increase rates for San Diego rate payers. Dave Temecula stands with all impacted communities, including Onza-Borrego, Warner Springs, Palomar Mountain, and Fallbrook. We advocate for upgrading existing infrastructure and modernizing technology rather than constructing new lines through established urban communities. Thank you for your time today and allowing us a forum.

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

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. My name is Becky Rapp, and I would like to speak today in support of Anza Borrego Foundation and the Chaparral Land Conservancy Group, as well as all the residents who have come and spoken out. I believe it's important that this board listen to the people and organizations who know these communities and environments best, especially when a major infrastructure project could have lasting consequences. And the Borrego Desert State Park is an extraordinary and irreplaceable resource, home to sensitive ecosystems, wildlife, protective species, culture, resources, and communities that depend on this environment. The people who live near the proposed route and the organizations that have spent decades studying and protecting this land understand its characteristics in ways that cannot be explained on a map, or in a planning document. We should listen before decisions are made. The board needs to fully understand the potential impacts, hear the concerns of those directly affected and ensure that all.

We'll hear from the next caller.

It's true. This item is just like the next data center item, money talks. So let's cut to the chase. Other than Jim, this board is not going to be of help. Please do not have false hope or believe their lies if they care. His anti-American, filler-swollen, ego-tripping supervisor, Manny Aguirre, Tara, or Monica, who all received thousands in campaign donations from IBW, the Building and Construction Trade Council, the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, and SUG, Are they going to go against SDG&E's power link that they all will profit off of? Of course not. They're not like the Temecula City Council who vowed to fight back until the bitter end. This is a bot board, just like the SDG&E liars who claimed at a Temecula Council meeting that they've never caused a fire. 50 Genies Power Link Project is a direct threat to military nature and private property, and they know it. It's going to take hundreds of thousands of people to fight this union-backed corruption and greed. Use every legal loophole and lawsuit you can muster, because what they're hoping for is that communities will sell out for a few pennies, just like... We'll hear from the next caller.

Well, I know you really don't give a rat's ass what I have to say about this, but what I do recognize is how much money I can make as soon as you guys go in and do it. So if I were to just invest in separate energy, because it will happen, they're estimating at $1.62 billion. Yeah, no, we're definitely doing it. Whether or not you guys are going to pretend you're not doing it right this second, much like the mileage tax, you know what I'm talking about? Or we could go with NextEra Energy, NEE. They're going to be making some money off of this. We could also go with... N-Y-S-E-P-E-W-R. I mean, why get pissed off? They don't listen to you anyway. You might as well invest in their shit and then move out of California and make as much money as humanly possible. Let them deal with the problems that this causes. I could care less. I'm going to move out with my disability check because it will go a lot further than... We'll hear from the next caller.

For the record, that speaker was Gambler Hermes.

Hi there, my name is Alan, and I'm coming to you as a wildlife biologist and a naturalist and a science communicator. A friendly reminder to everybody that the Earth is not dying, it's being killed, and the killers have names and addresses. And I go for all of our sakes that the morally correct and scientifically supported decision is made in the art force to catalog the extinction of a local gem in real time. And it's not lost on us that more than 99% of the people that are in this meeting don't want this. And for the psychos that are supporting this, if you want to talk about some half-baked strategy to mitigate change on the energy grid, then start showing up to defeat these techno-feudalist AI data centers. Putting a project like this would be a disgusting stain on our legacy as the most biodiverse county in the entire country. And I can assure you the desert is not empty, it's not dead, and it's not ugly. and just because you don't know how it goes how it works or understand or appreciate it doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve to exist there are plenty of us that see it as one of the last refuges to get away from this obnoxious and annoying society that prioritizes money over all else if this project happens every excursion memory and conversation regarding the desert will be denoted with the phrase before the power line and after the power line because we'll hear from the next caller

Hector here. This is a no brainer from across the ocean. No way should vote for this. Now, if by some chance the three sluts vote for this, they should have be forced to turn in their vibrators and just go home. You know, this is not a make work project just because those guys want a job. We're supposed to allow this to happen. Come on, man. This is terrible. We're going to make the Grand Canyon into a hot tub now? This is crazy, man. This is just crazy. Even the last vote, you guys, was an abomination. That was a total abomination. Voting for not having those guys practice their guns? They need practice, man. This project is so bad. You should charge them a million dollars just to hear it. Just bring it forth. They should be charged a million dollars and just say, hell no. If there is no yes, make up your mind.

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

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Matthew Fish, and I am here on behalf of IBW465. We represent the skilled electrical workers who build, operate, and maintain the infrastructure that powers our homes, businesses, schools, and hospitals throughout our region. We are proud members of the GRID Coalition Guiding Reliable Infrastructure Development, a coalition of organizations from across the state that supports the Golden Pacific Power Link. The Golden Pacific Power Link was identified through California's grid planning process as one of the state's highest priority transmission needs to strengthen the grid reliability, reduce transmission congestion, and support California's growing energy demands. Those demands continue to grow as our population increases, more electric vehicles and more buildings, and California continues its transition to the cleaner sources of energy. As electrical workers, we understand that reliable power does not happen by accident.

Thank you. And then I'd like to invite forward Stephanie Baxter. I apologize for missing calling you earlier. Please go ahead. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors. Thank you for placing this on the agenda today. My name is Stephanie Baxter. I represent Save Fallbrook and I am not paid to be here today. We're working alongside the other coalitions in this room in opposition to the power link project. We recognize this is a state level project. but it will impact communities that you represent. We're asking the board to use its voice and authority on behalf of constituents to do a few things. Formally engage with the CPUC. Oppose the power link as is currently proposed. Demand a fresh evaluation of whether this massive new transmission corridor is necessary when safer, less invasive alternatives are available. We've been burned before. Remember the rice fire? The fire SDG&E was found responsible for? One of the alternative routes appears to cut through the rice fire burn scar. We don't want alternative routes. We want alternatives to the project. Represent us. Thank you.

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

Okay. Supervisor Desmond, you had some additional comments?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate it. And thanks to Supervisor Anderson for partnering with me on this and for our presenters and speakers for making the drive here from the north and east county. You know, I do not approve of the current alignment. I believe the line should not be running through the region's premier state park. I mean, previous power line went around the Anza Borrego State Park. This one just blatantly cuts right through the middle of it. And these power structures holding the lines, they're going to be, I've heard, like 190 feet tall. It's a 19- or 20-story building. And these things are going to be, I don't know, a quarter mile apart or however they are. This is just going to be a blight on the deserts and particularly a state park. They figured out how to get around it before. Yes, we do need the energy. I would like to see California, though, instead of just putting grid and power lines everywhere, that we use power locally. As was mentioned by some of the speakers, let's use local power, smaller, modular, atomic energy that's local instead of relying on this grid, which is very vulnerable. throughout our entire country. So I think the worst part of it is 90% of the line is running through San Diego County. We're only getting 9% of the benefit, as one of the speakers pointed out. So 90% of that power is going someplace else, and we're bearing the brunt of it. So I think you mentioned SDG&E folks who are here, that we're getting the brunt of it here in San Diego County and not much of the benefit. So that's the way we're looking at it. So, you know, the CPUC, we need to, I'm going to be sending a letter to the CPUC, and I'd like to invite my colleagues who have similar thoughts on this, that a state park is not where power lines should be running through or through established communities. And one thing on this Imperial Valley substation, it's actually, the Imperial Valley substation is where the Sunrise Power Link and this Golden Pacific Power Link are getting its energy. The biggest bulk of energy that goes into the Imperial Valley substation comes from Arizona. There is some geothermal and some solar, but the biggest chunk comes from Arizona, from their nuclear power plants and their energy producers. California, I think, has to get on a better track of producing our own electricity instead of importing it in. So with that... This agenda item was just to receive the report, to hear the people, and I'll make a motion to receive the report.

Thank you very much. We have a motion to receive the report. I just want to make a couple comments. First of all, I want to thank everyone for taking the time to be here. I know it's far for a lot of folks, and especially coming from specifically where you drove from. So thank you very, very much for coming to participate. And I think you spoke to a lot of issues that are really close to my heart personally. You know, the question about distributed energy is a really important one. It's one of the things I think this whole board should be proud of. When we joined San Diego Community Power about five years ago, there really wasn't a program around distributed energy. And now that is one of our core programs at San Diego Community Power. And the county deserves a lot of the credit because San Diego Community Power would not be the powerhouse it is today. And no pun intended, if our county had not joined. And now we're on track to have 15% rooftop and infill solar by 2035, which is the highest goal around infill and rooftop in the state of California for any project. local community power organization. So thank you to my colleagues for your support on that. There's not that much that we do that's bipartisan, and that has definitely felt like a bipartisan effort. So appreciate that. And I spent a lot of time hiking and spent a lot of time on Palomar Mountain. So it's one of my favorite things to do, actually, with my kids. So just, again, appreciate you being here. And I know today is just a receive and report, but I think this is an important conversation. So thank you. Supervisor Anderson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank my colleagues for being so patient and tolerant and listening to our constituents, and I appreciate your participation. Nobody lives within trolley range. You all drove across the county, so thank you for that. Your voice was certainly heard today.

Supervisor Aguirre.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to echo my gratitude for everybody who made time and spent their entire day waiting to speak. So I appreciate you. I also have visited the area, actually went with Supervisor Anderson, who gave me a tour, very broad tour of Hakumba and other areas over there in his district. I'm familiar with Boulevard, with Palomar Mountain. It's a gorgeous area. And of course, my... Professional training and environmental conservation. I mean, it does beg the question. I am curious, and I don't know if this is a question that we can have answered today, but Supervisor Desmond, you showed the map where the route was rerouted for the original. I'm just curious, like, what... What prompted them to change that? Was it a cost?

Community input and saying, hey, don't go through Anza Borrego State Park, for one. So you can see they did. They were able to. It probably cost them more money, but they were able to satisfy. I actually, it's public. I voted for the Sunrise Power Lake. And it was only after they... They rerouted around very sensitive areas. And they were able to do that with Sunrise. It seems less willing now. I think we had more of a say at that point in time. Right now, we don't have any say. This is all the state.

That's the challenge, right?

That's the challenge, unfortunately. I think if SDG&E and the PUC would reroute it against, you know, not through the heart of a state park. It's like, what are you thinking?

Yeah, and I agree. I mean, I would welcome additional information at a future date so that we can hear more about this. And I know this is just an informational item, but I do appreciate the opportunity to learn about it and you both bringing it forward. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone who would like to second? You were by yourself on this, right, Supervisor Desmond? It was with Supervisor Anderson. Okay. Okay. We did not have that written down. Okay, we've got you now. Okay, so we have a motion by Supervisor Desmond, a second by Supervisor Anderson. Please vote.

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

Okay, thank you so much. We'll now go on to item 26. This is Protecting Communities from Big Tech Data Centers by Backing Statewide Repair and Environmental Safeguards. I'll give everyone a moment to kind of get themselves situated. You all don't want to stay for the entire rest of the board meeting? You're welcome. You're welcome to stay with us. We'll be here until about 9, I think, tonight. Thank you. Okay, so now we have item 26, protecting communities from big tech data centers by backing statewide repair and environmental safeguards. We can go ahead and start with public comments, and then I'll make some comments on the item, you know.

Thank you, Chair Lawson-Riemer. We have 18 requests to speak on this item, eight in person and 10 requesting to speak by phone. Also note for the record that we received seven e-comments, five in support and two in opposition. For any individuals that requested to speak on item 26 by phone, please dial in at 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'd like to invite forward the first three individuals. Mike Borrello, Cesar Javier, and allegedly Audra. And they'll be followed by Demetrius Sanders, Cory Schumacher, and Anthony Ralphs.

of which I don't think any of them are here. Anywho, yes, so these actually go tandem, these last, this item and the one prior, because as we talk about a need for more energy as the data centers come in, we have San Diego Community Power changing policies so that if a data center comes in and the power goes out, the data center will have their power while the people's power goes out. So it's very disturbing to see the things that take place with these data centers that are going to be coming in and you guys should be saying we will absolutely not allow a data center to come in, especially with our drought. It's like we got drought, we have all of these needs for more new and green energy, but it's like everything that you guys are implementing or allowing to come in are drawing out all of the energy that the people need. I mean, people can't even plug in their electric vehicle and use AC at the same time. And so now we have these data centers coming in, taking all of our energy and water. Good job, because it's going to happen no matter what.

I'll go ahead and call the remaining speakers in person. Anthony Dang and Ian Fregosi.

Good afternoon and thank you Chair Lawson-Reamer for bringing this forward. My name is Anthony Daines speaking on behalf of Climate Action Campaign in strong support of this item. Big tech data centers are driving explosive growth in electricity demand across California and right now repairs like you and I are footing the bill for that growth. Without safeguards, the massive infrastructure costs needed to power these facilities get spread across everyone's bill. In your working low-income families, the hardest small data center operators reap the benefit. San Diegans already pays some of the highest electricity rates in the nation, and we cannot afford to let big techs drive rates even higher. SB 886 and 887 would help ensure data centers pay their fair share of the grid costs they create, protecting residential rate payers and building in environmental accountability as this industry expands. We urge the board to support these bills and stand up for San Diego families over corporate data center profits. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now hear from the individuals that requested to speak by phone. Oh, please come forward. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Lawson-Reimer and supervisors. I'm Ian Fregosi, District Director for State Senator Steve Padilla. I'd like to thank the Chair for bringing forward this board letter in support of these two bills that are designed to protect California ratepayers from potential increased costs and environmental damage caused by massive AI data centers. Residents and small businesses are already struggling with affordability, and they should not be forced to pay even more for the energy demands and stranded assets of wealthy tech companies. One data center currently proposed in Imperial would consume double the amount of the electricity in the entire county. Without proper guardrails, these large energy consumers threaten public health, air quality, and the water supply of our most vulnerable communities. We need policies that require hyperscale data center developments to account for their true infrastructure and environmental impacts rather than shifting these costs onto the public. That's what these bills would do. Eric, your support. Thank you so much.

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

Data centers threaten us all by their use of huge amounts of electricity and water. They also affect air quality and make a heck of a lot of noise. Some of these we can pay to replace, but water is hardly replaceable. And the health effects of bad air quality, which the TJ River Valley has had to suffer through, can be permanent. And of course, we rate payers might also end up paying for their costs. We should follow the lead of Imperial County cities where two are considering permanent bans and four are considering clauses on their development. We should just ban them at least until we can come up with a viable solution to preserve our supply of fresh water. Senate bills are nice. but they're a half measure. You need this.

Thank you.

We'll hear from the next caller.

Okay, before I comment on this item, I have to... That was a great performance by all of you, especially you, Tara. Political theater at its finest. anyways okay so all right um this item 26 yeah they don't need water but that's the excuse for them to steal our most precious resource they're taking the seeds out of fruit they're uh you know monopolizing everything and you guys are just going along with it you know what i'm saying it's just kind of uh I don't know. It's a lot. It's a lot to take. And these people think that you guys are their friends. They'll get it. People are waking up. So fun to witness. But yeah. Oh, I have a new name for you, Tara. Queen Nefertiti. I'll hear from the next caller.

It's true. I'm just going to go with political theater if Tara really has a problem with data centers. Then why did she and this board approve millions of dollars to invest in AI, which relies on data centers? Another progressive union scam. This board doesn't even care that EVs are draining the grid, or about the drain reservoirs are busted down, or about the pollution that the lithium-based solar panels, wind turbines, and battery energy fire facilities cause. So don't pretend you care about pollution or water strains or grid strains now. Built by Steve Padilla and Akilah Weber-Pearson, please, these two have sold out the communities time and again. Ask Midway Area about Akilah and her exemptions for the union-driven Midway Rising project. Ask Imperial Beach about how Steve and Manny hijacked IB's idea to have SB10 allow toll revenues to go to wastewater treatment for Mexico sewage. Steve and Akilah both want unions to make big money and to collect big taxes from data centers so the state can have even more money to blow. That's called selling out people's health and life, blood money, for you union grifters. If you're not for 100% then at this point, you're just a fake. And that's exactly what this board is, phony.

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

If you guys invest in all the bad ideas, you can make money. Just move out of state so you don't have to deal with consequences. I want to let everyone know that the degration of our elections was on purpose. Matter of fact, the language services purposely did not approve the language ballots to the point that I think it was the last election that I worked there, 2016. We didn't even have the language ballots ready for the poll sites on first day of voting. But let me go in and let you know this. The second we went to a vote by mail state, then they suddenly got all the everything approved way early. So what they were trying to do was force the cost of full-site elections to be so high that we were going to force the people into the vote-by-mail elections. But COVID happened, and they didn't have to do that. If any of you don't believe me, feel free to look it up.

Look up... You and Chair Lawson-Reimer are not seeing any additional callers in the queue. That will conclude public comment on the sign.

Okay, thank you so much. Let me just take a moment to make a couple comments, and I'll turn it to my colleague, Supervisor Desmond. Today, I'm asking our board to take the next step, building on Supervisor Desmond's work from January that examined the impacts of AI data center development. So now there is legislation pending in Sacramento, and I'm asking our board to support the statewide protection that's been proposed for ratepayers in local communities. Analysts project more than about a trillion dollars in North American data centers that will be built by the end of the decade. And this is happening right here in our own backyard next door in Imperial County. A million square foot data center has been proposed that would actually be the largest in California, which I imagine is why Senator Steve Padilla is so focused on this issue. The question is really who pays for this. Data centers use absolutely enormous amounts of electricity, and serving them can require huge new investments in power generation, transmission lines, and the electrical grid. know kind of theoretical opposition to the use of ai not not whatsoever it can be quite beneficial but the core of it is that working families should not be subsidizing the power needs of these incredibly wealthy corporations so that's really what this is about is about who pays the cost We've already seen warning signs. Bloomberg found that households near major clusters of data centers saw their electricity bills really more than quadrupling over five years. We already pay far too much for electricity here in San Diego County. It's one of the reasons why I think the work that we've been doing at San Diego Community Power to really focus on distributed and rooftop solar and focus on ways of generating electricity that are more community-based and community-centered is so important. These massive data centers use huge amounts of water, increase air pollution, and this statistic I found very striking, which is that these data centers, like a hyperscale one, like the one in Imperial County that's been proposed, can consume as much as five million gallons of water a day. which is critically problematic for communities like ours here in San Diego County. So today I'm asking the board to support two bills authored by Senator Steve Padilla and co-sponsored by Senator Ikea Weber Pearson. SB 886 is about protecting people's electricity bills. The core of this bill, SB 886, says that if a massive data center requires new grid infrastructure, these costs should be paid by the companies building the infrastructure the data center and not be passed on to consumers. So this bill requires these projects support grid reliability and California's clean energy goals instead of allowing these objectives to be jeopardized by the construction of massive new data centers. SB 887 is about protecting communities. It makes sure that mega policies and, excuse me, it makes sure that mega projects cannot just skip environmental review, and it requires that impacts on water, pollution, energy use, labor, and surrounding communities be addressed before projects move forward. But on the flip side, projects that meet stronger standards are allowed to move through the process faster, just with ensuring that they can mitigate harm. So these bills are pretty essential in my view to setting a quite simple standard, which is that big tech needs to pay its own way, protect the communities where it builds, and meet our clean energy standards in the state of California. and our community of San Diego County. So with that, I would like to make a motion to move this forward. Thank you.

Supervisor Desmond. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you bringing this back. As you mentioned, in January I directed staff to review potential impacts from these large-scale data centers. This is a great step. They came back with a report. And I do think, I agree, these bills are a step in the right direction to reduce impacts to the ratepayers and to ensure appropriate public participation in the permitting process required by a CEQA review. So I'm going to be supporting the item. Thanks for bringing it forward. I'll second it.

Hi, thank you. Thank you. San Diegans already pays some of the nation's highest electricity rates. Families and small businesses should not pay even more to subsidize Big Tech's enormous energy demands. Large data centers can consume extraordinary amounts of electricity and water, require costly grid upgrades, and increase pollution in nearby communities. My position is simple. Innovation should benefit our communities, not leave ratepayers with the bill and neighborhoods with the consequences. Large profitable companies must pay their fair share and meet strong standards. These bills are not anti-technology, they are pro-accountability. Protecting ratepayers and our environment while giving responsible developers clear expectations. I want to take a moment to thank Ian for coming and sharing with us. And most importantly, I want to thank Senator Padilla for his leadership and always championing the benefit and well-being of the residents of my district. Thank you. Thank you so much. We have a motion 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. Now we will move on to item 27. This is support for the state's 2026 utility affordability and accountability legislative package. We'll just begin with a public comment. Do you want to start? Okay. Sorry. I'll turn it over to the chair for 10.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. For families across NDO County, the cost of electricity is no longer just a utility issue. It's a household affordability crisis. In District 1, I hear from working families, renters, seniors, and small business owners who are doing everything they can to keep up. When another utility increase arrives, they can't simply make more room in their budgets. They have to cut back somewhere else on groceries, medication, transportation, or rent. I truly hear it all the time from my constituents. Nearly 30% of SDG&E customers now qualify for bill assistance programs. That should tell us something is fundamentally wrong. The county doesn't set utility rates, but we represent the people who pay them, and we have a responsibility to use our voice. That is why Vice Chair Monica Montgomery-Stepp and I are bringing this item forward. We're bringing forward this utility affordability and accountability legislative package. This item directs the county to support 11 state bills that address the different costs built into our utility bills. The package would strengthen oversight of utility spending and profits, increase transparency, examine executive compensation, prevent unnecessary infrastructure costs, and help ensure that major energy users pay their fair share. The goal is simple. Before a utility expense is passed on to customers, someone should have to show that it is necessary, reasonable, and in the public interest. There is no single reason our bills are so high, so there is no single reform that will fix them. This package addresses the problem from several directions while also supporting a cleaner, more reliable electric grid. While three of these bills will not advance this session, we continue to support the policies they represent and are sending a clear message to Sacramento that these reforms remain necessary. Some may point out that today's vote will not lower anyone's bill tomorrow. That is true, but if we want lasting relief, we must change the rules that allow unnecessary costs to build up and then be passed on to families. We can't wait for the next rate increase and respond after the damage is done. This is about putting affordability first and restoring basic accountability to a system that has asked too much of rate payers for far too long.

With that, I'd like to pass it over to Vice Chair.

Okay. Thank you so much, Chair Pro Tem McGeary, for partnering with me on this board letter. I also want to thank the Climate Action Campaign for your steadfast commitment to environmental justice. This morning, the Environmental Health Coalition in Panama also joined us. So thank you so much for your work. Since this board letter was documented, I understand that eight of the original 11 bills are still moving forward. This year's utility affordability and accountability legislative package works to strengthen oversight so utilities are more accountable to every rate payer and encourage smarter investments before unnecessary costs ever reach their utility bill. San Diego now has among the highest electricity rates in California, causing a lot of stress and anxiety on far too many San Diegans. We have a responsibility to pursue and support smart, fair policies that make life more affordable. And we can do that by going after a system that too often rewards the wrong priorities while asking working families to shoulder the cost. Good policy isn't about choosing sides. It's about changing incentives. So doing the right thing becomes the smart thing. These reforms won't solve every affordability challenge facing San Diegans, but they do begin to reshape the energy system so it works better for the people who depend on it every day. So I hope the board will vote in support of this item today. Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you, thank you. We will now move on to public comment.

Thank you, Chair Lawson-Riemer. We have 16 requests to speak on this item, six in person and 10 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. I'd also like to note for the record that we received three e-comments, all of those in support. We'll begin with the in-person speakers. As your name is called, please come forward. You have one minute to address the board. I'd like to invite forward Mike Borrello, Cesar Javier, and allegedly Audra.

First of all, there's technology for free energy, so all of this is a bunch of bullshit. And sitting here saying we're going to strengthen accountability through oversight. We already know the SDG&E overcharges people immensely, pockets the difference, and then we bring in and allow them to come in and put power lines that the people of the community are going to have to pay for but not benefit from. And it's like all of these bills that come forward, it's smoke and mirrors because it's like an anti-trafficking bill actually facilitates more trafficking. So all this is going to do is facilitate more that is going to come out of the pockets of the people. while they're not getting any more but they're going to be told that they can't use their AC or don't charge your car or don't do this or don't do that while we're putting energy into these data centers. So it's like all of these three items go hand in hand and it's just sad to see that you guys want to virtue signal as though these bills are going to save anybody money when the cost is going to continue to increase time and again.

I'd like to invite for the remaining speakers in person, Demetrius Sanders, Cory Schumacher, Anthony Ralphs, and Anthony Deng.

All right, good afternoon again. Anthony Dang from Climate Action Campaign. First, we want to thank Vice Chair Montgomery Stepp and Chair Pro Temegire for bringing this item forward and for continuing to prioritize solutions that will bring relief to San Diego families struggling under the high cost of living. To reduce the burden our communities face from skyrocketing energy bills, we need to tackle this challenge from all angles, and this sort of state legislation does that. mind these bills take their approach, we need for real rate relief benefits to reach San Diego and build off progress of last year's legislative session. SDG&E makes nearly a billion dollars a year in profit with few consequences from regulators as they exceed their rate of return, while a quarter of our neighbors are behind on their energy bills. As California's second largest county, we've seen the impact we can have when we use our power in Sacramento. Thank you for letting San Diego families know your finding for us and continuing the momentum to bring clean, affordable energy to San Diego. Thank you.

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

All aboard. This utility thing sounds good. I think it's pretty safe to say the whole county is fed up with SDGs, overcharges, and charges for things that are not utility issues like planes, power lines, electricity feeding other states, insurance funds, which are bailout and all that. um no today defenders period by the way they use too much electricity will give an excuse for us that you need to raise the rates even more and at least in this county there's no such thing as a responsible data center they're all unsafe you need to tell us in it there's too much risk we need to ban them outright thanks

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

Okay, Consuelo here. How do you spell monopoly? S-D-G-N-E. Okay, so, spoiler alert, energy is free. Anthony, listen up. You are energy. I am energy. We are energy beings. But, yeah, thank you, Monica and Paloma, for this useless item. But at this point of existence, we shouldn't be paying anything on what comes free to all of us. And, yeah, you know, isn't that something that Democrats usually love to hear? Free, free, free, free, free? And to correct what Monica mentioned earlier, San Diego pays the most electricity in the world. Isn't that something? Isn't that crazy? Look it up. And correct me if I'm wrong. But, yeah, good times.

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

It's true. Was that a pro-tem talking or just an SDG&E union puppet reading a staff-written screed script? More hypocrisy for Marionette Manning and Minion Monica. Their political allies at the state level are exactly why utilities are so expensive. They greenlight every rate increase Newsom's hand-picked CPUC proposes. This item isn't really about affordable energy. It's just another scam to serve as a kickback for their campaign funders. Because how come there's no state bills to end illegal monopolies held by SDG&E, PG&E, and Edison? Newsom had an opportunity to force them to pay for the fires they've caused, and he denied even that savings for their customers. Becker's SB913 is another scam to allow governments to get rich off the taxpayers by selling EV credits. Caledon's SD-1159 is particularly nefarious as it would block public records requests whenever government uses AI or receives a request from an individual who uses AI to speed up the request. All these dumb bills would do is create so much bureaucracy and regulations that companies like SDG&E would raise the rates even more. But hey, that's the progressive agenda, right? Going great.

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

Hey, do you guys know how you could reduce your pay for electric? Find someone that doesn't make any money and put the electric bill in their name. You probably don't have to pay that much money. At all. Like, completely. So if you make a lot of money, just find someone that you can put the electric bill in their name, and then the government will go ahead and subsidize the rest of the money. This is what a lot of people do. I'm just letting you guys know they don't have a problem. The board members have absolutely no problem with this because what they're looking for is the dumb people that aren't willing to go ahead and cheat the system. They're counting on you to go ahead and pay the bill for everyone else.

Just letting you guys know that.

So, A, keep playing the game. or B, try to make some money out of it. I mean, they're not listening to you anyway, clearly. They'll rather throw you in jail and try to medicate you. Thank you.

We'll hear from the next caller.

Natalie Raschke here. So, with STG and me, doing all these transit lines, how much do they actually give back to the community of San Diego? They're making billions and billions of dollars, and yet the people of San Diego are having a hard time paying their electric bill. How is it that we let these big entities come in, make these billions of dollars while the community can't even pay their gas or electric bill? I don't think they should be able to do anything until they start giving back to their community of the city of San Diego. Thank you.

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

Hello, good afternoon. My name is Alex Vasquez, representing the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council and our nonprofit affiliate Partnership for a Better San Diego. We are in support of Item 27 for the state's 2026 Utility Affordability and Accountability Legislative Package. Our members understand the incredible burden it is to make in our society with rising costs of everything while wages are stagnant. We urge you to support this package of our bills that aim to help working-class Californians. Thank you.

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

Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, we've had quite an electric day. We've had power lines. We've had AI centers. Now we've got the utility bills. I mean, this is foremost on just about every San Diegans mind, how much they're paying for energy here. I understand these bills, they're moving targets, and details will likely change in some of these bills. But overall, I'm supportive of the efforts to keep our lower and lower our utility rates here for San Diegans. I'll be in support of the item. Thank you.

Okay. Supervisor Geary. Thank you. I just want to thank everybody who shared their comments and happy to move the item.

We have a motion and a second. A motion by the Chair Pro Tem and a second by the Vice Chair. Any other comments? Just thank you all for coming and participating and keeping this on our radar. There's a lot of issues regarding affordability and we got to be on top of it. So thank you so much. With that, we can vote.

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

Okay. Fabulous. Thank you guys so much. Um, okay. We'll move on to, let me just give a little preview of where we are just for my colleagues on the board. Um, and for all of, uh, the folks David has on standby, um, I've been informed by County council that it's really important. We do closed session today. So we are, and we have a lot left to do. So we're going to do one more item. Then we're going to do John agenda, public comment, and then we're going to do closed session. Um, First, we'll do 28, then we'll do non-agenda public comment, then closed session public comment. Then we have adjournments in memory, and then we'll do closed session so that we'll be able to at least get through closed session today. And our goal is to be out of here by about 7.30, and everything else will roll over to tomorrow. And if this all kind of goes the way it did yesterday, we'll be done around 5-ish tomorrow as well. So that's just for everyone's radar. Okay, let's move on to 28. Thank you so much.

Item 28 is, I brought this forward. This is ensuring fair and balanced ADA enforcement, American Disability Act. Throughout California, hundreds, sometimes thousands of ADA lawsuits are filed each year concerning access to public accommodations. A significant portion of these lawsuits are warranted, but too often, they're often frivolous. over a repetitive and filed by a small group of repeat plaintiffs. These predatory lawsuits have had devastating impacts on small businesses who often settle rather than pursue costly legal battles. Recent legislative efforts at the state tried to address this surge in cases to help prevent this type of lawsuit abuse. Senate Bill 84, authored by Senator, State Senator Roger Niello, would have created 120 days right to cure period, providing small businesses with 50 employees or less with up to four months to fix the ADA violations before a lawsuit could proceed. So under this law, money could actually go towards fixing the violation as opposed to having the right up front statutory damages. So everyone should be able to access any business open to the public. That's not up for debate. The aim is to support legislation that would establish a statewide right to cure period that also preserves ADA access. accessibility protections. This was actually passed in the Senate 34 to 2. It's in the assembly now. And we did just receive a letter. I think it went to all offices today from the San Diego Restaurant Association in support. So I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve support for SB 84 and item 28.

Okay. Thank you very much. Supervisor Anderson?

I'd like to second the motion. I'd like to second the motion. is running a bill that's been run many, many times before. And all the small businesses have an issue with it. I had a lot of constituents in my district who had an issue with it because people would pay the fine and not repair it. And I think it's most important that we make our offices more ADA compliant. And I think the repair is the most important aspect of this. Thank you.

Okay. Do we have any public comment on this item?

Thanks. Thank you, Chair Lawson-Riemer. We have 13 requests to speak on this item, five in person and eight requesting to speak by phone. Also note for the record that we received two e-comments, one in support and one in opposition. For any individuals that requested to speak on item 28 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 Pam, Cesar Javier, allegedly Audra, Demetria Sanders, and Anthony Ralphs. If I've called your name, please come forward. You have one minute to address the board. And please state your name for the audio record.

Well, this is interesting. It could go either way. But we know in this environment of fraudulent lawsuits, small businesses can be sabotaged and even put out of business if not given the opportunity to correct issues before paying any fine. Yes, they're state laws. They must already be in process or in position to meet ADA guidelines, but that doesn't always happen. These businesses don't set out to harm customers just as I'm sure the county doesn't set out to harm Americans with their policies and ordinances, right? With poor sidewalks, poor roads, high taxes, ridiculous regulations, and I'm sure The mandated COVID injections weren't intentional to hurt anybody. And deadly hospital protocol. And of course, eliminating the unborn by abortion. You're not meant to harm anybody. I'm sure there's no malice with the county's policies, right? Unfortunately, repeat offenders file lawsuits for financial benefit and small businesses are the ones that pay for it. Just like they did during the COVID.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

you guys weren't nefarious, I think this was gonna do some kind of benefit, but being somebody who was paralyzed for eight years in a wheelchair, yeah, there's significant ADA issues that keep people from going to the bathroom, from being able to access doorways and different things, but I would think that if you have a business and you're giving permits and you know that somebody's gonna bring forward some kind of an entity, that you would ensure that that would be required. But instead, it's like you want to give them a time to cure and correct. And is this only if there is some kind of litigation? I mean, that should be a requirement to make sure that everybody, as you guys talk about equity and equality and things like that, people should be able to access any place, no matter what. And you guys wouldn't know that. You haven't been wheelchair bound or paralyzed. So you wouldn't know what that is like. But it's just sad because it's like this should be something that's implemented, not that you're going to come and enforce like entities to do it because it wasn't implemented in the first place.

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

All of those. The basic thing I see is that SB 84, while effecting lawsuits for construction-related violations, construction-related, the quote right from the law, It doesn't specifically define the term, leading to the question whether it actually applies if someone puts up a temporary wheelchair ramp or something that collapses or some other quick fix that doesn't work out. It could be good, but the actual bill goes too far. Section G reduces damages to $1,000 if the defendant corrects the violation within 60 days, which is definitely not good if the plaintiff fell off a ramp or something and has huge hospital bills. Section G-8 also seems to make this bill... Thank you.

We'll hear from the next caller.

So before I comment on this item, I want to go back to my last item. Okay, we're the second in the world. Hawaii's the first. Anyways. What item are we on? 26, 26? Anyways. Yeah, I guess I'll just take this time out to, I never want to shame anyone for breastfeeding. I swear to you, I'm not trying to do that. But, you gotta get a babysitter check and you gotta pump and you gotta, you know, I'm just saying, but as far as this item, yeah, I don't, I wasn't really prepared, but yeah, Paul and Audra pretty much covered it and Pam. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, Chair Lawson-Riemer and supervisors. My name is Evan Strawn. I'm speaking on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. I'm speaking in support of this item, encouraging the county to support right to cure legislation. Right to cure is common sense legislation that supports our county's small businesses. It allows businesses that unknowingly are in violation of specific and minute codes to make needed changes before being subject to predatory lawsuits. It supports small businesses in doing what they do best, urban communities and being a backbone of our local economy, not dealing with frivolous legal claims. We encourage the county to support right to cure legislation. Thank you.

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

It's true. SB 84 is nonpartisan, right? Such a path with zero issue. But I guess it's only really if the chamber agrees, because then the three extremists can agree. I know Tara loves scams, fraud, and frivolous lawsuits, but I want to give an example of why a cure period is fair. According to a 2015 San Diego Reader article, a man named Scott Chusa has filed over 100 lawsuits for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in state and federal court. In only one year, he allegedly filed 80 cases against local small businesses. In 2013, Scott Schuza and John Krasuski were awarded $12,000 each in statutory damages, along with $83,000 in attorney's fees against the city of San Diego and the Gliderport. Because of porta-potties, they didn't have grab bars and were too small for the wheelchairs. If this board will not get on board with cure period so businesses can avoid being put permanently out of business for simple compliance issues, then I'm going to encourage people to file lawsuits against the county for violating ADA laws so they can enjoy a piece of the fraud that the state allows and benefits from every day. Thank you.

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

Hey, thank you, Truth, for mentioning that dude. Because I remember way back when I worked at the Registrar of Voters, and I looked at our ADA requirements, and I'm like, oh, hell no. This doesn't even ask anything. So I went through there. I changed all our requirements and went with the federal guidelines, only to find out that California state guidelines is completely and totally insane. On a mountain, you need to have the flattest area compared to everywhere else in the state. Matter of fact, I was the one that created the ADA requirements that we use today. Sean Brown tried to remove the cake plate for the wheelchairs because he did not understand that the feet on the wheelchairs get stuck. at the bottom of the door and he thought, well, our people are having a hard time recording this so we don't need to go ahead and keep track of it. Only later to find out that he needed to go back to all of those bolt lights and do it. That is the registrar that.

Thank you. And we have one final caller in the queue. Just one moment. Get the caller lined up. Here we go. Thank you.

Eric Sutton. I encourage the board to support Supervisor Desmond's recommendation to support legislation that will establish a right to cure period for small businesses. As a property manager for owners of older, small rental properties, I've witnessed attorneys who have repeatedly blanketed entire neighborhoods with ADA lawsuits. Because it is more costly to fight these lawsuits than settle them, small landlords typically settle these cases. Some of these lawsuits have actually resulted in the closure of all public spaces on a rental property, which leads to reduced access for the public. So again, I encourage you to support a right to cure, period, for small businesses. Thank you.

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

Okay. Thank you all very, very much. So first I just want to start by saying that I firmly agree that small businesses should have the confidence that if they're in compliance with ADA regulations that they will not be subject to frivolous litigation. That's extremely important. I think the disagreement here is really on the how rather than the what or the methodology and the strategy as opposed to the means and objectives. I do not think a blanket right to cure period in the form SB 84 took is actually the right tool because right to cure protects every business the same way whether they even try to comply or not. A business that never got inspected gets the same shield as one that did everything right and played by the rules. At the same time, a person who could not get up the ramp or use the bathroom just fundamentally still has no remedy and we're telling people to wait. That's really frankly not a balance between disability rights and small business interests. That's picking a side. and calling it a compromise. And the notion that you'd have a civil right that you're told you just have to sit at the door and wait for strikes me as very, very wrong and unfair. So there are some alternative approaches being developed in Sacramento that supports legal protections for businesses that get inspected and fix problems as opposed to just promising to do so eventually. Those ideas have drawn support from both disability rights groups and business groups which SB 84 never did have. So my view is I'd rather the county put our support behind that kind of approach when it's ready rather than lock in a position behind that really only protects one side. So I will be voting no on today's item. Thank you. Vice Chair.

Thank you so much, Chair. Supervisor Desmond, thank you for bringing this forward. I think it is something that we certainly need to talk about. I'll just tell you. It really was for me when I sat in the chair, I did not know how I was going to vote on this item because I understand the challenges and barriers that small businesses have, especially right now. What I don't want is for the pendulum to kind of swing all the way the other way, where we're not acknowledging disability rights and not acknowledging the fact that, you know, there are still many, many challenges and barriers for people who are physically not able to enter some spaces. And that's the reason why the law was created in the first place. So I would like, in myself and my staff's conversations with folks in the disability community, I think there was... most people felt that the right to care was okay, but one thing that came up in conversations was not all violations are created equal, so there are some that just shouldn't require, there's some that should be done Outright. There's some that should require 120 days. But if you're talking about like a lift or something like that, that's going to take more time. You know, so I think we can I think we can get there with other legislation. Also, is this procedurally is this bill stalled in the assembly or is it.

Where is it in the assembly? My understanding it's stalled in the, or it hasn't been heard yet in the Judiciary Committee. Assembly Judiciary. But yeah, it passed 34 to 2 in the Senate.

I think an opportunity for this board to be able to support something that the Disability Coalition and also businesses support is, I think that would be the route that I would want to go. Because I understand why you brought this forward, and I don't think it should be a debt issue. I just think it should be something that has more detail to it. So for that, I won't be supporting it. But I hope that we can look at some of these other bills that are in the legislature right now.

I also want to thank Supervisor Desmond for bringing this forward. I also have concerns around the unintended consequences of this bill and what it could create. I do think that all across the board, small businesses and people who frequent small businesses are struggling right now with affordability. And I think that's a real, real concern. And I would love to see a path where we can find a better alternative to this particular concern, because I think that a person with a disability shouldn't have to wait 100 days for a solution, while a known issue could put their or others' safety at risk. I think that I also have concerns with this putting the the responsibility or the cost of enforcement would be put on the person with a disability. I think that That's a real concern. That's an unintended consequence that could potentially stem out of this bill. The burden of enforcement matters because most people with disabilities can't afford to pay thousands of dollars to enforce their rights, and I think that's a real concern. I also think that the poverty rate for people with disabilities is more than double the rate of individuals without disabilities, so that's another concern. And the elimination of a plaintiff's ability to collect attorney's fees under SB 84 means far fewer lawyers will take these cases, weakening enforcement of ADA protection. So I think that at the end of the day, you know, having some of these cures should Businesses should take a proactive approach and not wait until somebody files a complaint to cure what they need to cure as far as accessibility whether it's a lift or whether it's a ramp or whatever that looks like because at the end of the day this also is an issue of equity. We don't force victims of other forms of discrimination to give a business four months to fix a violation. And four months is a long time for people to have to wait. So for those reasons, I won't be supporting this item today, but I am very interested in figuring out a path forward on how we could bring relief to small businesses, but at the same time not have the unintended consequence of people with disabilities bearing the burden of having to fix something that they need. Thank you.

Sue Rosa Anderson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Do you know off the top of your head who the two members were that didn't vote for it? It's highly unusual. I could pull it up. Now that I left the legislature, that there's more than one person not voting for something.

Cortes and Durazo voted against it.

Yeah, so generally, when you have 90% of the Democrats and 90% of the Republicans, they're in communications working out the details and going forward. The problem with these lawsuits is that they change the ADA rules not annually, but at any time. So we had a big issue of an attorney who was making hay, suing people because the handicapped parking spot was the wrong shade of blue. And they had changed the qualification on how they did it. And so these companies have no idea. These small businesses have no ideas that the rules have changed. They have no intention of not being there. And it wasn't that it was one person who sued like over a thousand times. It's not a whole bunch of people being upset. This is, we've created a, uh, a cottage industry for a small group of attorneys who make hay off of this at the expense of, I believe people with disabilities because now there's no company to even purchase that from. And we've had several cases here in San Diego County, We had, I believe it was in Julian in the 80s where the person got sued and it was a historical site. They couldn't meet it and the lawsuits bankrupted them and they had to close. And I know that my state office, I had to go back and complain because the state hadn't even provided their adequate ADA from my state office. So, you know, The question is, are we moving in the right direction, or are we waiting for perfect, which we'll never achieve, and we only make more damage? I'm happy to support this. I understand it's not perfect. But when I witnessed this bill first being moved, the splits were much deeper, only having two people withholding their voting, were voting against it. is a big nothing burger. That means everyone's working together, and so I'm happy to support it today. I would ask that my colleagues would consider that this is a process, and with that high level of support from both parties, it's not going to get much better, but it'll never be perfect. Thank you. And by the way, even if we think we've accomplished something, everything and there's nothing wrong. There's always a ripple effect. There's always something we didn't see. Thank you, Jim, for bringing this forward.

You're welcome. What happens is the business owner gets hit with a $4,000 statutory damage when he files a lawsuit. Immediately, the business owner has to pay $4,000, and that goes to the plaintiff or the person with the disability, plus attorney's fees. And, you know, I understand that businesses should have this, they should already be accessible. They should already have that. But if the laws change that quickly and people just aren't aware, I'd be fine. I don't know if I've, you know, heard from my colleagues that four months, if you want to lower it to 60 days, we'd support it if it was, you know, had a time to cure within 60 days instead of 120. I'd be open to that, but I think, like Supervisor Anderson said, it's not perfect, but I think there's promise here, and we've got to make sure small businesses aren't put out of business by overzealous attorneys that are, like Supervisor Anderson said, are a cottage industry just making money off of this, as opposed to really fixing the problem or trying to get the problem fixed so people do have the access. Okay. Well, thank you very much.

You did. We do. We have a motion by Supervisor Desmond and a second by Supervisor Anderson. Please vote. Okay. Thank you so much.

Um, okay. Chair Lawson-Reamer, that motion passes with Supervisor Aguirre and Supervisor Montgomery stop voting no. All those supervisors being present and voting no.

Oh, I voted the wrong way.

Okay.

No, I am. I'm sorry. I was, I can make a motion to reconsider because I was on the winning side. I am, I know, I know my rules. So yes, I'd like her to make a motion to reconsider.

Okay. Do we have a second? Thank you. Please vote on the motion for reconsideration. And the motion for reconsideration passes with Supervisor Aguirre and Supervisor Lawson-Reimer voting no. All the supervisors being present and voting no.

No. This is the motion to reconsider.

The motion to reconsider. Yes. This is the motion to reconsider. Thank you. That motion passes unanimously with all supervisors being present and voting aye. Now we'll take another motion on the previous item. I'll assume Supervisor Desmond making the motion. Thank you. Second by Supervisor Anderson. Thank you. Thank you. And that motion fails with Supervisor Anderson and Supervisor Desmond voting aye, all other supervisors being present and voting no.

Okay, thank you very much. But we did good on our procedure. So that's, we've been well-trained by Andrew. Okay. So we are already at 510. We need to finish our non-agenda public comment today. Right, Andrew? Am I correct? Okay. So we'll do that. And then we'll do closed session public comment so we can go into closed session. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Lawson-Riemer. We have 24 remaining requests to speak. A matter is not listed on the agenda. 17 individuals in person and seven 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. As the name is called, please come forward. I'm going to call names quickly as I don't see many people in the chamber. I'll go ahead and call the individuals I see present. Pam and allegedly Audra. All right, let's the others waiting till tomorrow Pam before you begin your comments. Let me go ahead and call some additional names Jim Hammerly James Colley James Canning Ray Carpenter Melissa O'Connor Maximilian Schmidt Joanne Fields Daniel Serrano, Benny Charles, Whinson Chung, Paul Yu, Demetrius Sanders, and Parita Javier. Those are all the individuals I have in person. So if I've called your name, please come forward. Thank you. You'll have two minutes to address the board. Please state your name.

Five minutes. Nobody's here. Okay, Pam. Fauci covered up data showing a high miscarriage rate of over 80% in pregnant women who received the mRNA COVID injection, which makes this effectively an abortion shot, which is murder over there. Are you listening? Fauci and C.D. Zwolinski pushed this mRNA gene therapy injection on pregnant women, and now the CDC data shows babies are dying at an excess rate. Pregnant women were demonized, mandated, coerced, threatened, lied to, scared, incentivized to allow a poison to be injected into their body, passing to the body of their baby without full informed consent. They did not choose abortion. They wanted their baby. This is different than choosing abortion. Babies were killed by the COVID shot and indirectly by individuals who forced this onto pregnant women. This county is complicit. That includes Nathan and Nora and Wilma and Eric McDonald as well, just because they aren't here now. Women on this board, babies loved and wanted by their mothers are now in heaven because of this board's policy supporting the COVID injections. They join the millions of babies murdered by abortion, which you also support. Or may I say encourage. Stop pretending you even care about babies, children, or any human life. In closing, Such arrogance, Paloma, to demand the law enforcement officer address you by the elected title all while you were rude to him. Even though you were elected, selected, or whatever to this position, respect is earned, and that didn't happen today. Also, finally, your July 4th event was evidence of your disdain for America and Americans. That event was an embarrassment. Luckily for you, the location was perfect, and the fireworks were not your doing. Terrible. We're real tired of your attitude towards Americans and America. And we know you hear me.

Next speaker, please. If I've called your name, please come forward.

Did you call my name?

I did. Maximilian Schmidt.

Can you put the timer on, please? The timer's not showing up. Can you put it under my microphone, please? Anyway, never mind. I just wanted to say that I'm pretty sure every politician in SoCal, besides Carl DeMaio, is going to federal prison, including obviously Rob Bonta. This is pathetic. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. We need a liberty pole replacing this building. I have so much evidence that the Hillcrest DMV in San Diego committed malfeasance, gross malfeasance, refusing me a photo ID card. It's insane. And I'll even pull out a piece of paper they gave me at the Hillcrest. And I've been in contact with my Congressman Scott Peters about this. And I'm pretty sure he's going to federal prison because he tried to trick me into thinking that it's illegal to have ID cards. And I said, do you think I'm Carrie Buck from the Buck vs. Bell case? Or you think I'm stupid or something? Anyway, this is a... Where is it? So I carry the Constitution around in my pocket to remind me that, to me, the 14th Amendment is still alive. Because anyway, the receipt I have in my pocket here, sorry, I think someone messed with my stuff when I was sitting down. Anyway, I've got another receipt that they gave me. I've got so much evidence, it's insane. And talk to Congressman Scott Peters about this, because he knows what's going on. He's also going to federal prison. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now hear from the individuals that requested to speak by phone. We'll start with our first caller. Yeah. Joanne, come on up. Thank you.

Thank you. I wanted a little separation of space because that was a lot of complaining. But I'm here to represent the Asian Pacific Islander Initiative. And I want to thank Supervisor Paloma Aguirre for actively participating in our sixth annual Filipino American Friendship Festival that took place just one month ago. It's amazing how time flies. It took place Saturday, July 18th, a very busy day, but you still came following the Pride Parade to join us. On behalf of our F3 Filipino Friendship Festival core committee, Ruth, April, Rachel, and Nueva, of all our community members, volunteers, supporters, vendors, thank you. I also have to thank San Diego County CAO Ebony Shelton for supporting F3 by sponsoring. Also Recorder Clerk Jordan Marks and Taxpayer Advocates Andrew Harvey and Martin Arias. Office of Equity and Racial Justice Director Terrell Simmons and Associate Director Melissa Bartolomeu. Register of Voters Sean Brom and Outreach Staff Juanito Amor. According to the US Census, we are the largest amongst Asian Pacific Islanders throughout the County of San Diego. Nearly half a million APIs reside in the county. 200,000 are of Filipino descent. We host the largest Filipino festival in the County of San Diego, attracting tourism and generate revenues to contribute to TOT tax, and more importantly, to support local small business. So I found it very important to come say thank you personally on behalf of our community. And also thank you for a pleasant surprise, recognizing a proclamation for myself on July 18th and then today for Adi DeCastro, our servant in the community who deserves so much more. Thank you.

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

Ew, I need space. That was a lot of kissing up. It's truth tonic. County corruption in two minutes. I found a Flickr account with Tara's personal campaign photos run by Tara's staffer, Spencer Cass, paid for with our tax dollars. After I did a public records request on that, Spencer removed the download option. Too bad I already archived everything. It also made Tara go viral for being belligerent at a bar and all she could do was lie. Maybe that's an entitled white power stuff type of thing. Tara wants us to believe that she lost her badge at a bar, that she was just hanging at it, reading sober with her daughter. It's not our fault that dim sum is the last thing you remember, Tara. Why did Tara only speak up about the bar incident when I shared it with the media? Why did you wait to report your lost badge until three minutes before a meeting? Is it a coincidence that Tara got pregnant around October when the county's investigative report was left unfinished? How conveniently corrupt. Benny Paloma never hired a sewage czar that she claimed was one of her top five priorities during her campaign a year ago. Monica continues to interfere in the city of San Diego's business so much that I recommend that you just go back there and focus on getting mommy Patricia and daddy Clifford more city contracts with Montgomery Construction Services. And please, keep daddy issues steeping off Facebook. It's embarrassing. Manny spent over $3,500 of our tax dollars on a crowned Dove logo for herself. She even lied about her first name. Even better, she tried to fund the logo through our public special events trust fund with a sole source contract for a progressive friend, Josue Balthazar, that lives only six minutes away from Manny in La Mesa. Coincidence? No. Perhaps Manny was too concerned about getting a worker-funded stupid logo to remember the unpaid workers begging in the county for help on $30 million in wage theft she promised to address. You know, just like the enormed sewage crisis, a recall is coming for you. These torture chambers are the home of a caucusocracy, a government by the least qualified, most unprincipled, worst people. Prove me wrong, you won't. Have a good one.

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

How many of you guys knew that Amara was part of the group that sued the county of San Diego to make sure that we diverted more resources to basically we go out and register non-citizens to vote in multiple different languages? I mean, he was the one that said, hey, look, we need to make sure that these people could vote and we need to do outreach. So we stopped doing outreach to the people and did that. Matter of fact, these were the same groups that could not get the ballots approved in time for the election when we had poolside elections. The second we moved to an all-vote-by-mail election, they are ahead of schedule. This is not coincidental. This is them trying to reshape our elections and fool us in the process. You don't believe me, you could just look at the records. The records say it all. And you know who was on top of all of that whole scheme? Sean Brown. Sean Brown was the one that all of a sudden, when we decided to go ahead and do vote-by-mail elections, He's like, well, now it's time to go ahead and get this stuff done in time. Let's go ahead and get your guys' ballots approved way ahead of time so we have all the tools ready for the election. When they were trying to weed out non-citizens from voting, fuck no. They didn't want to help out with the election process. Matter of fact, they slowed things down. I voiced my opinion about that on a constant basis. You don't believe me? Ask Nicole Alejandri. I called her office crying in 2016 because we did not even have the ballots ready on election day for voting, first day on voting. The language ballots weren't done because they did that on purpose, on purpose.

Thank you. And Chair Lawson-Reamer, that concludes our requests for non-agenda public communication.

Okay. Thank you so much. Fortunately, a lot of people left, but maybe they'll be here tomorrow to share their comments. Do we have anyone here to comment on closed session?

Yes. Thank you, Chair Lawson-Reamer. We have Eight requests to speak on matters on the closed session agenda, which is item 33. The closed session agenda includes nine matters. We have eight requests, three in person, five requesting to speak by phone. Any individuals that requested to speak on the closed session matters by phone, please dial into the conference line using the instructions that were provided to you. We will begin with the in-person speakers. You'll have two minutes to address the board. I'd like to invite forward, allegedly Audra, Demetria Sanders, an Admiral. And again, please identify which item on the closed session agenda you're speaking about.

You ready, Andrew? Okay, D. Are we good with that? Alright, so threat to public services and facilities. This is interesting. I'm sure there's so many things that probably have nothing to do with ICE that you're going to be talking about with this consultation with the Director of Office of Emergency Services. Daryl I'm wondering if things like you know the flock cameras and or surveillance which is now going to be turning into axon because axon has like your eyes body cameras and police ALPR in the cars and they have the 911 dispatch so it'll be good for them to have a monopoly on this surveillance as it is you know corporatizing or corporately cannibalizing flock because they're all coming from the same entity. But being able to follow children. So Tara, somebody could follow you when you go home and know when or when you don't have your daughter and when or when they may not be able to be kidnapped. Things like that. Things like this information going into the Epstein operation. We have a very significant issue with, I mean, Epstein isn't dead. The operation is in full flux. As you can tell, we're more in bed with Israel every day. That's also another concern. All we have to do is look at Israel for their surveillance. I mean, they have AI, you know, machine guns that can shoot a rat. So, I mean, maybe we need to be talking to them about that kind of stuff so that, you know, we can get rid of all the pests. But I would like it if we could just, you know, have AI surveillance on you guys just to make sure that you're safe. because we need to protect you. You guys are good stewards of our money and we need to make sure that you have no issues getting anywhere and that you're just kept safe. So I think that we just need to put those outside of your homes and follow you guys wherever you go. Yes, Pillow, I love your flipping off. It's so fun, good job.

Next speaker, please. Admiral. You'd like to come forward?

Good evening. I'm just going to play a message here from somebody that wants me to play a message. I'm not going to say nothing. I'm just going to play a message.

Hi, this is Andrea Ebbing. I am at Las Colinas Detention Facility. I was remanded and detained, jailed on May 13th, 2026, two days after launching sdrico.com, which exposes the truth about the public corruption taking place stemming from the San Diego District Attorney Summer Steffen's office. All of it is fact and it can't be escaped no matter how long they'd like to jail me for. I'm currently in here with no bond, no bail on a 166 contempt violation for reporting my rehab owner X for the Rico enterprise activity.

Excuse me, can you pause the gentleman's time please? Your time is paused, so this is not taking your time. But I do want to take this opportunity to clarify what constitutes comments on a closed session item. So just to remind everyone that you need to be commenting an item that's listed under closed session. So, for example, today we have item A. This is the D'Amique McCoy. We have existing litigation. You can see sort of all through all the items that are listed here. So please just clarify which specific item that you are speaking on when you do make your comments. Thank you.

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

All aboard. Beej v. Campbell, sexual abuse and foster care, highly believable, better subtle. Beej v. Campbell, another sexual abuse case and foster care, better subtle. McCoy estate versus county plaintiff's son was arrested on a relatively minor charge, then pardoned. Prior to release, he was placed in a cell with convicted murder under COVID protocols and soon murdered, apparently in a fight over a mattress. Protocols putting people in cells with potentially violent people is wrong. You need to fess up and settle. Gadsden v. McGrath. Prisoner Gadsden, quote, cursed off and insulted, unquote, Officer McGrath, who transferred him to another prison rather than just giving him a complaint. This petty case has been around since 2020. Better settle. Boyd v. Candy Boyd, a cop watcher, had his camera slapped down and was arrested for assaulting an officer while filming a domestic violence call. Boyd won $500,000, but the jury can't decide whether the cop violated its First Amendment rights. The cop also had his buddy one camera off. A clear violation. They're settled. The floor versus Tyler West, the premises liability claim. The way the county keeps up its properties, I'm not surprised. The case has been kicking around since 2020, gathering legal fees that are subtle.

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

Oh, I don't have my notes yet. Can you come back to me? We've done it before. Thank you.

How many more callers do we have? Okay, go ahead.

We'll come back to you.

Thanks a lot. It's true. Case A is the estate of Dominic McCoy versus the county, Crystal Reeves, deputies Daniel Chung, Sean Tyson, and Jacob Salen. Allegedly, Dominic was pulled over for a stolen license plate. When searched, deputies found drugs. He was arrested. Instead of serving the full time for the crime, he was hoping to use the Sacramento Swamp's AB 1950 to get out of jail early card. Regardless, the clerk didn't get the corrupt memo, and he remained detained. Where it gets bad is when he was placed with an animal-slash-child abuser who ended up killing him. That placement was due to the county's own Fauci-derived COVID protocol. There's the malfeasance. KC is working Boyd v. County. An anti-cop crazy who likes to be fraud and extort the government via frivolous lawsuits, just like Tara. This is consultation with director of OES, Daryl, about non-existent threats to the building that's already locked down like a prison and practically requires people to do a strip search just to enter. Because I feel that Manny's dog is a threat. Fleas plus a violent owner can't be safe for those entering the building. Case H is Voice of San Diego versus the county. Here's where VOSD wants to look like the heroes, but maybe if more of the articles were actually accurate, we could believe them. Hopefully they win the case against the county on freedom of information regarding their lies on Fauci's 2020 pandemic scam. Case I is more frivolous lawsuits by Tara. How many tax dollars has this board wasted on extorting private businesses into extinction so far? The best case is the one where a judge ordered supervisors to attend the settlement talks with their victims. All of you need to be there to hear the consequences of your own bad policies, because Tara and Manny have whined about conditions at the Fed's Otay detention facility, while they ignored bad conditions at their own detention facilities that have had record preventable deaths. So I'd like to adjourn in memory of Agent Antonio Torres de Paz, a nine-year-old Mexican-American boy of color who was killed by an illegal alien in Escondido and by the policies that Manny supports. Nusting and gross. Thank you. Have a good day.

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

Damian Brown, what is your job? Being Uncle Tom or to stop the county from losing a bunch of money because they do fraudulent activities? I understand you're going to go the Uncle Tom route. I fully understand that because Andrea Ebbing is sitting in jail. You guys are going to borrow some other medication on her. What? that is most likely going to kill her. Why? Because you do not want to be accountable for the rehab fraud, Prop 36. What you're doing, you have a person in there that is completely incompetent. Where I had to go basically explain to her what competency means. What incompetency means. And you deemed her incompetent so that you could give her a felony for going into a Denny's, taking a drink so that she could take a medicine for her mental illness. So instead of getting her help, you want to give her a felony, right? I mean, sure, that is exactly what you're doing. At the same time, you're saying Andrea Ebbing cannot wipe her own ass, and therefore you need to go ahead and... Give her the medication that you see fit, right? So, reality, we don't really have free will anymore. If you want to go in and shut us down and lie about us, you have all the measures of power. I mean, through the fraudulent election system that Sean makes sure that he counts every single illegitimate vote so that we... San Diego citizens both get drowned out, right?

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

Natalie Raschke here, a threat to public service and facilities. I think anybody who's not protecting the people of the city and the county of San Diego is a threat to public service and facilities. I have an emergency housing choice voucher. I was told one thing by law officers that if I didn't comply and I didn't go reach out to get services, then I would be kicketed. So then I do that. I end up with a housing choice voucher, emergency housing choice voucher. And now that's a threat. My housing is a threat to me being taken away. I have four children. They were all once babies, like you carry and hold it, that diet. Those are still my babies. And the fact that we're not protecting the citizens of this city or county completely and fully Everybody should be held accountable. And the voice of San Diego, they chose to tell my story as I lived homeless because of COVID during that time. And all I wanted to do was be left alone so I could save my money and get back on my feet. But I kept getting ticketed and ticketed. The voice of San Diego are angels to me. And I took the bait again and was offered a voucher. And here I am with my four babies about to be homeless again. To me, that is a threat to public service. Thank you.

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

Amen, Natalie. Amen. The voice of San Diego. I give them props for actually, you know, covering my baby cousin's death and her situation, Elizabeth Torres. But yeah, here we are, free will. I heard free will. Well, we still have free will and we still have choice to not go along with what this tyrannical regime and the system continues to perpetuate. People have the choice to not comply, not consent, and I do not consent. There are a lot of people who do not consent. As far as this item, like Paul mentioned, the sexual abuse and foster care, the The constant or the countless, settlements of the county. I mean, we're paying for all these mistakes and it's crazy. It's crazy where we're at in this system, in this, whatever you want to call it, matrix, dystopian nightmare. It is crazy how people want to fix the system, a system that was never meant for the people. It was never meant for our free will. It was never meant for us to be prosperous. And yet, you see meeting after meeting these groups of people the victim the victim train you know i like to call them the the victim whatever they're they're still begging they're begging and you on the diet you guys think you have your your little uh place on the table you're not you're so disposable wake up man it's just it's really not that hard dude we can make san diego so much better it could be so great for everyone But you continue to follow the globalist agenda. You continue to lie and deceive the people and manipulate them.

Thank you. And Chair Lawson-Riemann, that concludes public comment on the closed session matters.

Okay, thank you very much. Do we have an adjournment in memory today? We have, it's really up to you all. It's yours. So Supervisor Anderson, Supervisor Desmond, Supervisor Partamagiri, when would you like to do it? Okay, we'll wait then. I'm good with tomorrow. Your choice. Okay, why don't you do yours, Supervisor Desmond, and then we'll do the other two tomorrow. Mine is the same person. Oh, but you have two. You have one with him and one without him. I mean, one he has without you. So he can do his alone one today. Oh, I see. You're going to do your own. Yeah. Oh, you're going to do both? Okay. Well, you can do your lone one today.

I could have been done with one by now.

Please go ahead with your lone one.

Okay. This is the adjournment in memory of Bill Horn. Bill Horn was my former colleague and friend, and he passed away on August 1, 2026, at the age of 83, surrounded by his family in Escondido. He was first elected to the Board of Supervisors in 1994, representing my current district, North County District 5. Bill served six consecutive terms 24 years until the term limits ended his tenure in 2018. His life was defined by service, compassion, and an unwavering commitment to improving the lives of others. He was a Marine Corps veteran and a Purple Heart recipient. He was a longtime advocate for property rights and fiscal conservatism, helping guide the county through a period of financial instability to achieve a AAA credit rating. Colleagues remembered his quiet generosity and humanitarian spirit, reflected by his work by establishing EMOS schools in Uganda, which now serve more than 1,200 students. Our deepest condolences go out to his wife, Kathleen, his daughters, Julie and Angela, his son, Jeff, his sister, Alice, and their eight grandchildren. Bill Horn, may you rest in peace. Supervisor Anderson, you got to.

Thank you, Supervisor Desmond. Bill Horn's dedication to public service was deeply personal. He decided to run for county supervisor after the county wanted to build a trail through his citrus and avocado ranch in Valley Center. He understood what it was like to feel when your voice was not being heard. And he fought tirelessly to empower others and prevent them from having the same experience of not being heard. Bill was an incredible advocate for North County, deeply committed to protecting its communities and ensuring that its constituents had a voice in the decision and shaping of their future. Bill's commitment to service extended far beyond his work in government. He approached life with the same curiosity, conviction, and generosity that defined his career. When he became a Christian, he wanted to learn Hebrew. So he went to a temple in Orange County and learned how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. That curiosity, determination, and willingness to learn reflected in the same qualities he brought to public service, always seeking to understand the people, the issues before him, and finding ways to make a difference. Bill Horn will be deeply missed by his family, friends, and colleagues that he leaves behind. And his legacy throughout San Diego County and around the world will continue to inspire future generations to follow in his footsteps in selfless service of others. We express our deepest sympathy at the passing of Bill Horn and by adjourning memorializing him for his lifetime of contributions to San Diego County and beyond. And I just want to quickly say, I think that when we pass away, some of the best measurement is what we leave behind. I've never met anybody who ever worked for Bill Horn that wouldn't walk in shards of glass for him. He went above and beyond to take care of his staff, to take care of his constituents, and most of all, his family. God bless you, Bill Horn. Please rest in peace.

Okay, I'd also like to adjourn this meeting in memory of Gary Arant. As we adjourn today's meeting, I ask that we remember Gary Arant, a remarkable public servant and longtime leader of California's water community. For 53 years, Gary dedicated himself to public service, including 36 years as a general manager of the Valley Center Municipal Water District. He guided the district through extraordinary changes with wisdom, prudence, and uncommon good judgment. Gary was respected not only for his expertise, but for his willingness to share it. He mentored generations of water professionals, advocated tirelessly for Valley Center's agricultural community, and contributed to regional water policy through his service on the San Diego County Water Authority and other organizations. He was also a valued member of his community and a founding leader at Community Lutheran Church. Gary Arendt leaves a legacy that reaches far beyond the boundaries of Valley Center. His knowledge, integrity and commitment to public service made California's water community stronger. May we remember his life with gratitude and extend our deepest condolences to his family, friends, and all of those who were fortunate enough to have worked alongside of him. May he rest in peace.

Okay, thank you very much. We are now going to adjourn to closed session. We'll be back here in open session tomorrow at 9 a.m.

The board will now recess into closed session to consider those matters listed under item 33 on today's session agenda. If there are any reportable actions, it will be reported out during the land use session of this meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, August 19th, 2026 at 9 a.m.