Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Ready. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors meeting June 30th. Time is about nine o'clock. The meeting is called to order. Please join me for a moment of silence. Thank you so much. Supervisor Canpa, would you lead the pleasure?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We have three recognitions. Madam Clerk, can you please? Roll call. Oh, sorry. Roll call, please.

Thank you, Chair.

Going too fast.

Supervisor Gardea.

Present.

Supervisor Canepa.

Here.

Supervisor Rickman.

Here.

Chair Dhaliwal.

Here.

And for the record, Supervisor Ding is absent today.

Okay, now we're ready for recognitions.

Yes, sir.

Board members, please join me.

Thank you, Chair. Our first presentation is the proclamation of June 2026 as Gun Violence Awareness Month in San Joaquin County, requested by Supervisor Paul Canepa of the Second Supervisorial District. I would like to invite the representatives of the Stockton Youth Violence Prevention Steering Committee to the podium as I read the proclamation, which states. Whereas the month of June is recognized nationally as Gun Violence Awareness Month, a time dedicated to raising awareness about the impact of gun violence and to reaffirm our collective responsibility to invest in prevention and healing-centered solutions while recognizing the lives lost, impacted families, and survivors. And whereas gun violence continues to have devastating and lasting impacts on victims, survivors, families, and communities, throughout the county, creating significant public health, economic and social consequences. And whereas San Joaquin County is committed to fostering safe, healthy and resilient communities by supporting collaborative efforts that address the root cause of violence through prevention, intervention, education and enforcement. And whereas the county supports this work through partnerships among law enforcement, behavioral health services, the probation department, the district attorney's office, community organizations, schools, and victim service providers to expand access to mental health and substance use treatment, youth prevention and mentoring programs, victim support services, and other resources that help reduce violence and strengthen our community. now therefore be it resolved that the san joaquin county board of supervisors does hereby proclaim the month of june as gun violence awareness month in san joaquin county and encourages all citizens to participate in awareness efforts including wearing orange to honor victims of gun violence and promote safer communities presented this 30th day of june 2026. chair dolly wall and supervisor canapa thank you i'm going to turn it over to supervisor canapa

Thank you. I wore my orange today because, unfortunately, gun violence affects everybody. In my district, kind of a little bit too much. I mean, obviously, Patrick Purdy started many, many moons ago with Cleveland school shootings. So thank you, Cleveland school members and all the folks that do things and help with the gun locks. We just had, unfortunately in my district also, the mass shooting at the birthday party. We've had people killed. One young man was killed over an e-bike, and it just goes on and on and on. I Google searched yesterday about what district, and I think there was three or four just this month. And it doesn't say which district, county district, city district, but I mean it's just absolutely appalling how many people are killed by the violence of guns. So that's why I think it's important we as a county and all of our partners stand together to try to get, number one, them off the streets Obviously, the gun locks are free if the Cleveland School remembers, and we've helped them with some donations. But it's how do we do it, how do we stay together, and how do we stop the violence and the senseless killing of not only young kids, but people that are victims of circumstance and violence. So at this time, thank you all for coming. So OVP, shout out to you all. We were at a couple events over the weekend, Friends Outside event, and then there was a, the football thing at Stag that we did to keep kids out of trouble. And those are the important things that we need to do is give kids resources so that they don't get into gangs and buy guns and kill one another. So you have the floor. Thank you.

I apologize. Board of Supervisors, this is my prescriptions. Our director wasn't able to make it. She's a little ill right now, so I apologize. I don't want to wear shades, but thank you guys. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the Board of Supervisors. Thank you for recognizing June as Gun Violence Awareness Month. The observance serves as an important reminder of the profound impact gun violence has on individuals and families and communities throughout San Joaquin County and across our nation. Today, we honor those whose lives have been lost to gun violence, recognize the resilience of survivors and their families, and acknowledge the many community members, service providers, educators, faith leaders, healthcare professionals, outreach workers, and public safety partners who work every day to prevent violence and promote healing. Gun violence is not only a public safety issue, it is a public health issue that affects the well-being, stability and future of our communities. Addressing it requires a comprehensive approach that includes prevention, intervention, support for victims and survivors, opportunities for youth and families, and strong partnerships across agencies and organizations. Gun Violence Awareness Month provides an opportunity for all of us to recommit ourselves to creating safer communities where young people can thrive, families can feel secure, and residents have access to the resources and support they need to succeed. On behalf of the Office of Violence Prevention, I would like to thank the Board of Supervisors, recognize the important months and continue commitment to supporting efforts and promote safety, healing, and community hope throughout San Joaquin County. And on behalf of our director, which she's on leave right now, I want to say her heart is for the community. She loves the community of Stockton. We love the community of Stockton, and we want to say thank you, Board of Supervisors, for allowing us to be here and represent our city. Thank you, sir.

Supervisor Gaudí.

You know, unfortunately, anybody that's lived, has grown up in this area has been involved, not so much involved, but it's been affected by some type of gun violence. Me personally, as multiple family members, and growing up and living on the east side and going to Franklin High School, there was times where after I graduated, there was a 10-year span of major, major gun violence. And what we're doing is helping, but I really feel like we could do more. And so I just want to thank you guys for what you do, and I just want to say thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor, and thank you all for being here. Thank you for your advocacy. Thank you for your education. Thank you for what you're doing here in our community. If you watched our budget here last board meeting, one of the things that this board has made an effort to is not just stopping the violence, but in a way to do that is supporting our public safety, supporting our public health. Mental health is a big issue. We're building the Be Well Campus is to make sure this doesn't happen to any other families. So again, thank you all for being here very much and God bless you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for being here this morning. And Supervisor Canepa, thank you so much for putting this item on the agenda. Let's continue to create awareness. Please join us for the presentation.

Thank you. We can all come behind.

One, two, three.

Next, please.

Thank you, Chair Dhaliwal. Our next presentation is the recognition of Lathrop Police Chief Stephan Seeley, requested by Chair Dhaliwal, the third supervisorial district. This recognition is part of the chair's 2026 recognition theme honoring individuals whose patriotic stewardship, service and commitment strengthen our communities and exemplify the ideals celebrated during the 250th anniversary of the United States. And the recognition reads, Your distinguished service in our nation and unwavering commitment to public safety. A proud United States Army veteran that has dedicated more than 12 years of active duty military service, rising to the rank of Staff Sergeant while serving in the medical field and leading soldiers during deployments around the world. The values of integrity, discipline, accountability, teamwork, and servant leadership developed during his military career continue to guide his leadership today. Following his military service, Chief Seeley has devoted more than two decades to law enforcement, culminating in his role as chief of police for the city of Lathrop. Under his leadership, the department has prioritized community partnerships, innovation, officer wellness, organizational excellence, and crime prevention. The board proudly recognizes Chief Stephen Seeley for his dedication, integrity, and lasting contributions to both his country and the community he serves. Congratulations and best wishes presented this 30th day of June 2026. Chair Dhaliwal.

Thank you, Rochelle. Chief Seeley, thank you so much for your service to our great nation. And because of you and your team, Lathrop has become one of the safest cities in our county. Thank you so much. God bless you. The floor is yours, sir. Thank you, sir.

Good morning, County Supervisors, Chair Dhaliwal. I want to thank you for this incredible honor. It's truly humbling to be recognized alongside so many men and women who have worn our nation's uniform. I'd like to say I was born in Barbados, raised in New York, and I joined the Army back in 1994. And serving on active duty for more than 12 years was the greatest privilege of my life. The Army gave me opportunities to travel the world, care for others as a medic, and grow as a leader. And more importantly, it taught me that leadership is about service, humility, and taking care of the people beside you. Those lessons have stayed with me throughout my career in law enforcement and continue to guide me today as a chief of the city of Lathrop. And though the mission has changed, the commitment to serving others has not. So it's truly an honor. I want to thank you for this privilege. Thank you, sir.

So, Professor Canepa. Just wanted to say thank you and a shout out for not only being serving the country, but serving Lathrop and keeping Supervisor Dollywall safe. That's important, right? So thank you for what you do.

I just want to thank you for your service. I didn't know that you were a medic before. I'm surprised you decided to be a police officer and not a firefighter. I only say that because Rickman's next to me, but I know you do a phenomenal job in Lathrop and keep up the good work. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

And welcome chief. Hey, when I first saw your name on the agenda, I thought, Oh God, this guy retiring already. So I'm glad you're not retiring because you're doing such a great job. And you know, Lathrop, one of the fastest growing cities, not just in San Joaquin County, but in the state of California. And, um, you guys are just doing a great job so kudos to you and the men and women of the police force and thank you for your service of course um the armed forces and god bless you god bless your family and you know god bless the men and women of laythroat thank you sir

Next, please.

Thank you, Chair. Our next presentation is the commendation of retiring Dr. Gurinder Grewal, MD, requested by Supervisor Robert Rickman of the 5th Supervisorial District. And I would like to invite Dr. Grewal to the podium as I read the commendation, which states. Whereas Dr. Grewal has dedicated more than 43 years to providing exceptional cardiovascular care to the residents of Tracy and San Joaquin County, earning the trust and gratitude of generations of patients through his compassion, integrity, and commitment to excellence. And whereas after completing his medical education in India and advanced training in the United States, Dr. Grewal founded San Joaquin Cardiology Medical Group Incorporated, helping expand access to high quality cardiovascular care through the Central Valley. And whereas Dr. Grewal served in numerous leadership roles including Director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory and Cardiac Research at St. Joseph's Medical Center, Chief of Medical Staff at Sutter Tracy Community Hospital, and Chairman of the Cardiology Section at St. Joseph's Medical Center. strengthening healthcare throughout San Joaquin County. And as a board-certified specialist in internal medicine, cardiovascular disease, and interventional cardiology, Dr. Grewal advanced cardiovascular medicine through clinical research, published medical literature, participated in landmark clinical trials, and was honored as the inaugural recipient of the Physician Champion of Quality Award. And whereas following his retirement in 2025, Dr. Grewal has continued to serve the community through writing and scholarship, including the publication of Two Souls, One Journey, Baba Nanuk, and Bahi Mardana, reflecting his lifelong commitment to education and service. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors recognizes and honors Dr. Gurinder Singh Grewal, MD, for his extraordinary contributions to medicine, distinguished leadership, and enduring service to the people of San Joaquin County. Presented this 30th day of June, 2026. Chair Dollywall and Supervisor Rickman.

Thank you, Richelle. Dr. Gerber, congratulations on your retirement, sir. Thank you. Thank you for your service, not only to the city of Tracy, but to the surrounding cities. You kept my mom alive for a long time before she passed away in 2010. And our family owe you a debt of gratitude for that. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Please, you've got the floor.

Good morning. I am deeply grateful to the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, my colleagues, patients, family, and the community of Tracy and Stockton for this recognition. People often ask me why I became a physician. The answer goes back to the sixth grade. My mother's uncle was a physician who owned a pathology laboratory and his wife was a gynecologist. As a child, I suffered from some respiratory problem. Nobody knew what it was. So one summer I spent with them, did a lot of tests. I used to go to his lab every day. And that summer I made up my mind what I was going to do. And I never deviated from that. After my cardiology training in Boston, I chose California, drawn by its beauty and agriculture. I believe my calling was patient care rather than research. I had a job opportunity in the academic center, but the emphasis was on research. I was more comfortable in patient care, so I came to California. Arriving in Tacey, not knowing anyone, not even one person, I responded to the community's need for a cardiologist. I planned to stay a few years, but Tracy and Stockton became my home for 43 years. Medicine is both a privilege and a great responsibility. No physician who performed procedure will go through an entire career without complication despite their best efforts. I learned that honesty with patients and their families is always the right path. I am grateful that throughout my career, integrity, compassion, and trust guided my relationship with my patients and their families. Serving at Sutter Tracy Hospital and St. Joseph's Medical Center in Stockton allowed me to care for thousands of patients and to serve in many leadership roles. These opportunities were among the greatest honor of my professional life. Retirement has not ended my desire to serve. Throughout my life, I have been an avid reader, especially inspired by the teachings of Guru Nanak who transformed humanity through education, compassion, and the power of example. Together with friends, I helped establish the Sikh Heritage Education and Culture Organization of America. So we're preserving history and education and teaching the younger people. Today, I have begun a new chapter by establishing a Khalsa College America, a virtual college, educational institution that's designed to make quality education accessible to students worldwide we hope to keep costs very low provide scholarship and eventually offer free education to those who cannot afford it i believe education is one of the greatest gifts we can pass on to future generations one of my friend It reminds me that education is the greatest equalizer between the poor and the rich, and I believe strongly. None of what I have accomplished would have been possible without my wife, Garmel, who's here. While I devoted long days and nights to medicine, she devoted herself to our family and to raising our two wonderful sons. One is an attorney with Charles Schwab, and the other one serves as a serve the nation with honor of as a colonel in the U.S. Army. I owe my family more than the words can express. Looking back, I feel incredibly fortunate. I was blessed with a profession. I loved a community that trusted me and opportunities to give me opportunity to serve others. As I look ahead, my mission is to foster curiosity and learnness. preserve important knowledge for future generations, and support students' education in achieving their goals. Thank you very much. May God bless all of you. May God continue to bless America. Let us all move forward together, inspired to serve, uplift, and make our communities and country even stronger. Thank you very much. I have two person I brought here. I'm glad they came. Perry came here? Perry?

Do you have a comment?

You know, some of the work we do can never be done with a good help. And sometimes our patients and other people don't realize we don't work in a vacuum. Patty is our manager instructor in office for Sandvik Cardiology. During COVID, we had the opportunity that we could get a vaccine. But delivering vaccine was something else. So many regulations, so many requirements.

And she said, why do we have to do it?

But she did with a smile. I think cardiology practice is not focused on vaccine, but you know, I told Patty, Patty, we can save lives. I don't know how many thousands of people she helped that we deliver the vaccine, otherwise they may, have no chance or maybe very, very late. So I'm very grateful to Patty for all the things she does. And here's Ava.

Come here.

20-some years ago, this young girl walked into the office looking for a job, and she left her CV like that. And she went back. I looked at that. It looked very impressive. I said, call her back. So she came back. I said, are you sure you do all those things you put on there? Usually people enhance. I think she does 10 times better. I'm going to only say one thing. One day, not recently, one of our patient who was waiting had a cardiac arrest in the office. That's probably the only one that we can remember. He was a sick man. And I was pregnant. She started doing CPR and I was worried about her, she was worried about him. So I joke with her son, I said you were doing CPR when you were not even born. So very dedicated staff, I am very fortunate to have good family, good friends and good staff. Thank you very much.

Supervisor Ackerman.

Thank you, Chairman and Dr. Grell and Ms. Grell and the whole team. Thank you very much for being here. I know you've been very busy. You retired last year, but it was important to me to make sure that you were recognized and for all your outstanding work, not just in, you know, South County, Tracy, where your office is for us, but, um, throughout the entire County, we're very fortunate to have such a great doctor, a world renowned doctor. And, you know, all the lives that you have touched, you know, here in San Francisco County, we heard from our chairman, um, what you did for his family. you know, my family, the same, you know, my parents and my wife's parents. And, you know, even for me, you know, getting a little older, I had to get my, you want to get the heart checked and went to Dr. Grewal. I can tell you, he's no nonsense. And I had to run on that treadmill for like 12 minutes. I haven't ran for 12 minutes and, you know, since the academy. But I remember you telling me, I mean, I have a heart of an 18 year old athlete. So, and that was perfect. but again thank you for all you have done thank you for all you continue to do and god bless you god bless your wife and your family and your your team so we appreciate it thank you

Come on. Thank you.

Thank you board members next we have public comments now is the time for public comments on matter that are on the closed session agenda on the consent calendar or within the jurisdiction of the board of Supervisors but not listed on this agenda please turn in. A public comment form please address your comments to the board, no personal attacks please first speaker is Judy Graham.

Good morning.

Good morning.

As I'm sure you're all aware, in the case Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that election officials may count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day if they were postmarked beforehand. The word I would like to draw your attention to is postmarked. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the postmark is defined as follows. An official postal marking on a piece of mail, specifically a mark showing the post office and the date of mailing. So the Supreme Court ruling specifies acceptance of a mail-in ballot received after election day if that postmark was for election day or before. Now to the problem in all of this. California accepts ballots for seven days past the election if there is any evidence of the mailing date. I have been to the ROV office during the inspection of ballots received after Election Day. Absent a postmark, the signature section of the ballot was checked to see if the voter had listed a date. If there was a handwritten date and it was Election Day or before, the ballot was accepted. In other words, a voter could literally vote by mail for up to a week after Election Day so long as they wrote the Election Day date on the envelope and, like most ballots, was missing a postmark from the post office. This is no longer acceptable per the Supreme Court decision. No postmark means no acceptance of any ballots received after Election Day. Please speak with the ROV office and see what procedures are being put in place to comply with the Supreme Court decision. I realize that all of my election requests put each of you in an awkward situation. You are seated at this elevated position because you won your elections. Why would you now question the legitimacy of San Joaquin County elections? I understand, however, the five of you ultimately in charge of all of candidates' elections. The citizens of our county must believe that our elections are accurate, free, and fair, or our elected officials will lack legitimacy. We certainly wouldn't want to end up with questionable city councils or school boards. Be brave, be courageous, be best. Thank you.

Lauren Cardinal.

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners. Spread the effect of grace, thy flame of love over all humanity, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Well, I'm very excited to welcome everybody to the city of Stockton where I've finished my race against Paul. Congratulations, Paul. I'm hoping to invite you to learn more about my faith. I was born and raised in this community and raised as a Roman Catholic, and I happily raised my children at St. Luke's School with some of Gardea's relatives, so it's a very good place to grow up. I'll be sending you over the festival for St. Gertrude's. St. Gertrude's is a place unlike any other in our county. The people there are very much dedicated to their convictions of heart and the sharing of the Catholic experience. There will be lots of good homemade pozole by the local people who have settled in the region after emigrating here from different parts of the world. There will be live music, and you can learn a little bit about my Savior, Jesus Christ, and a little bit more about why we pray the daily rosary. So at Fatima in 1907, Our Lady said, I am the lady of the rosary. Pray the rosary every day to obtain peace for the world. After each decade, say the following prayer. Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fire of hell, and lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy. St. Francis de Sales said that the greatest method of praying is the rosary. St. Thomas Aquinas preached 40 straight days in Rome in Italy on just the Hail Mary, 40 days on one prayer. The rosary is the scourge of the devil. The rosary is the treasury of graces. And this person is a very holy person in our church. His name's Padre Pio. He had the stigmata, which were the marks of Jesus that he wore. um so padre pio said if i can find it again padre pio said the rosary is the weapon against evil so i would like to humbly invite our whole community to participate in this amazing event saint gertrude's used to be an italian-only church and now it is more spreading out the countries of latin america and they really don't have the funds to get the school open So we're looking for donors. You can be an angel donor at $500, heaven-sent sponsor at $2,500, or what Monica came up with, which was just an archangel donor at $5,000 to help reopen the school. We're not fire-rated now, and the poorest community in our county cannot access schooling for their children. The festival will be August 1st and 2nd, Saturday 1 to 10 and 1 to 9, so please come and dance and celebrate our Catholic faith with our community. Have a good day.

Thank you. Mary Nicholson.

Hi, I'm Mary Nicholson from French Camp. And today I want to talk about the people who are missing in the state of California. California is the number one state in the country with people missing. And French Camp seems to be invaded by truckers. We don't know if there's a monitoring system about the number of people who are attracted through the trucking, those who are truckers, but we do know that prostitution happens with truckers. I shouldn't say that in general, but facts are prostitution is happening through the trucking industry. In addition to that, when you're talking about people who are missing, I don't know what the system is to track how it's happening, but I do want to say this. We have been celebrating the Be Well in French Camp. I remember you all coming in and signing the beams and those lifted, celebrating something really good in French Camp. But right at the corner, three corners in French Camp right now are trucking businesses, and they're invading our community. And I just want you to give it some thought about the trucking industry, what's going on in French Camp if you just drive down the street and look at the number of truckers that are there, not just on that corner, but expanding throughout French Camp. and how, on one hand, we're celebrating progress, and on the other hand, we are setting ourselves up for something that's not so good, and that's what I wanted to make sure I put that on your mind.

David Mendoza.

Good morning, thank you for allowing me to speak. I sent you, I gave each one of you board members three exhibits that you have. And the picture that you see in front of you is a picture of northbound airport way at the city county line near the airport. As you can see, there's a black, there's a pavement color separation, there's a dark black and a lighter like a gray. That's the city county line. And as you can see, there's a section of metal beam guardrail that's been destroyed by an accident. This has been like this since I seen this on, let's say, the middle of December. And in February, I wrote a letter to the Board of Supervisors, the city of Stockton, including the mayor and the city manager, And I wanted them to be aware that there was a problem out here that's not getting repaired. And I just sent it to them, because I know the damaged part is in San Joaquin County, the part that's still standing up is in the city of Stockton. So the second exhibit that I gave you is a letter, or an email I received from the city of Stockton. The city of Stockton says it's the counties. It's not my jurisdiction, so basically it's not our responsibility. The third document you have is something that I got from the San Joaquin County. Basically they're saying it's not mine, it's the city's. So as I stand here today, I drove by today, it's still damaged. So we're going on seven months now that a critical safety feature of our roadway is damaged and it's just mangled up on the side of the road. And I know everyone, you know what the guardrail is there for. It's protecting the traveling public for something that's behind it. Whether it be a ditch, a steel post that once you hit it, it's gonna kill you. But the mangled up guardrail, unmaintained, will also kill you. It'll go right through the center of your car going 50 miles an hour. So the reason I'm here is that I wrote the letter in February and I took the time to do it. Now I'm taking the time out of my work day to come here and tell you something needs to happen. You know, the Public Works Department, you know, they wipe their hands almost like they wipe their hands. It's not mine. Well, they could have got on the phone or on an email to the mayor and resolved this and got this fixed. So now I'm hoping that one of you five can reach out to the mayor and say, hey, Stockton's better than this. The county's better than this and the taxpayers deserve more. By the way, your gas tax going up at the first of the month. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Glenelg Boone. Yes, sir.

Good morning. My name is Glenelg Bowen and I'm representative from New California State. I wanted to read a letter that you all received last week. It says, Dear Supervisors, Registrar, and Sheriff, the purpose of this notice is to ask for an opportunity to address the entire board and or to present a claim contesting the certification of any election results in the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Supervisors. I am also requesting the Board direct the registrar of voters to respond to the request for information below. I invite your attention to California Election Code Section 16100D, which states in part, any elector of a county, city, or of any political subdivision of either um may contest any election held therein for any of the following causes d that illegal votes were cast the factual basis of my request is that it is common knowledge that there has been a flood of illegal aliens into the state of california its counties cities and school districts these non-citizens have apparently been allowed to register with the department of motor vehicles With that registration, these non-citizens have been provided with voter registration and election ballots. It is also common knowledge that investigative reports have discovered that some illegal aliens non-citizens have in fact voted. Providing these non-citizens voter registration and election ballots gives you, the members of the Board of Supervisors, and you, the registrar voters, the legal basis to set aside the election and deny its certification due to the number of illegal voters as set forth in California Election Code 16100, specifically subsection D. These incontrovertible facts give you, Sheriff, not only the right but the obligation to investigate voter fraud. If the Board of Supervisors certify the elections, they will be committing a felony. To the Board and the Registrar, would you please provide me and the person who served this letter on you the process and identify all officers, employees, and volunteers engaged in the collection and counting of ballots, including the disqualification of ballots and voter verification. As a voter in this state, as is the server of this letter named below, we object to our votes being diluted by the voters of these non-legally eligible to vote. We also object to any compounding of a felony by certifying the election results.

I read this to you,

because I'm concerned for you. If you vote to certify this election, you will be committing a felony. I urge you not to. If not for the citizens who you represent, then vote no because of your oath of office to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And if for no other reason, please do not certify the vote to protect yourselves from prosecution. Thank you.

Ed Stockton.

Before I start, I am giving you this. This is the full version of it. My son, who is 100% disabled veteran from PTSD and traumatic brain injury that Congressman Harder got his deal from. So he also is on that list. So instead of three minutes, you can speak. I get six minutes. And County Council, you may be really need to listen to what I'm about ready to tell you. Chairperson, members of the Board of Supervisors, This is what the stakes are. Tomorrow morning, 9 a.m., in the Department 9D, my son, Billy Stockton, a disabled United States Navy veteran, faces a welfare institution code section 36626 hearing. That is a hearing where a judge may permanently terminate his parental rights I'm his father, and I'm standing before you this morning, the day before that hearing, because this board has the authority to do something about the misconduct that brought us here today. I am asking you all to use it. My name is Ed Stockton. I'm a citizen, I'm a father, I'm a grandfather, and I appear under the California Government Code 54954.3 in the First Amendment of the United States of America and the Constitution. I formally invoke this board's oversight authority over the Health and Human Services Agency and Child Protection Services. There are 11 violations that I'm claiming today. San Joaquin County HSA and CPS have committed 11 documented violations and connections, well, more than that, but I'm gonna list 11, with the dependency case JD2024-400. I will state them plainly for you. Violation one, CPS withheld expulsory toxicology reports from the dependency court. That is fraud upon the court. Let me explain really quick. Hopefully none of you have ever had to go into one of those things, but it's not a real court. Nobody rises for the judge. Nobody swears on the Bible. It's just CPS telling the judge something and they believe it. Violation two, officials in this case bear forged and improperly authenticated signatures of felony under California Penal Code Section 670. Violation three, CPS entered my home without a warrant, without consent, and without extingent circumstances, a violation of the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution, Article I, Section 1.3. Violation four, I was retaliated against for filing complaints. That's a First Amendment violation. Now here we go, violation five. Billy, my son, was never charged with a crime. Not once. California Drug Court requires criminal charge as a legal precedent under penal code section 1000. There was no charge. There was no jurisdiction. HSA compelled a disabled Navy veteran to submit to a drug court mandatory appearance compliance monitoring and sanctions without legal authority that is deprivation of liberty without due process and it's even worse than that because he had secret clearance and they put him in a facility that was non-BA, not associated with that and that could be way bigger than what you guys have ever tackled before in your life. You all hear me? Violation six, drug tests results in the proceedings were contaminated and scientifically unreliable. I'm a frigging biochemist. I have taught hundreds of people. I'm the guy who started the environmental section for the West Coast for Florida Power and Light, the private arm. I know what it means. You guys, and it's not just my kids telling me, I've talked to people in the hallway. In your mandated testing protocol that you require, there's a dog running around. You can't even have a dog in a dog lab. Unbelievable. I can't even believe I have to come up here and tell you guys this. Violation seven, HHSA refused to credit Billy's federally administered VA toxicology results that were negative without citing any legal or scientific basis. You do not get to ignore a disabled veteran of federal medical records. VIOLATION 8, THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT THROUGHOUT THE VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND ARE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO MANDATE UNDER THE WELFARE INSTITUTION CODE 16501.1. VIOLATION 9, FULL COURSE OF THE CONDUCT GIVES RISE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983. Okay, now we got another one, another big one. Violation 10. On June 17th, 2006, Division Chief Craig Producci transmits confidential juvenile records for case number JD2024-400, including my grandchildren's full names, court orders, and dependency hearing date to an unauthorized, unknown email, an unknown person who potentially held details of tomorrow's meeting, which is what he's gonna be facing, proceeding for 12 days. I notified Mr. Perducci in writing on the 29th. His office returned out of office and out of reply. I then called Director Chris Woods, my friend. At 4.54 p.m. that same evening, his staff took my name and number, I conveyed the breach verbatim, and of this morning, no one from HSA has responded. This board is the first body to hear the breach of this report. I'm almost done. I'm going to finish.

Otherwise, you're going to have to have your cop pull me off of this. One second, sir. One second. Just one second. Can you add one more minute?

I'm lost.

We are adding one more minute. That way you can finish. Done? I've got one page.

One page. Because I think the people in this audience need to hear this. And I think by withhelding that, that's a violation of my freedom of speech and the fact that you're doing it. VIOLATION 11, AFTER BILLY LEFT THE UNAUTHORIZED DRUG COURT, ONCE HE CONFIRMED CPS HAD NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE HIS POSITION, HE DISCOVERED THAT HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW, THE CPS SELECTED CAREGIVER, TRANSPORTING HIS SON, MATEO, ON THE FLOORBOARD OF AN OVERCROWDED VEHICLE. Billy purchased a car to ensure his children would be transported safely. The mother-in-law claimed cars around. When Billy came to home to retrieve his car so he could drive his children to school, mother-in-law called CPS. Billy was arrested. I went down to the jail. Not for drugs, not for criminal act, not for asking for keys to his car. The arrest had no drug nexus, no apparent probable cause. I believe that it was unlawful and retaliatory, carried out against a father who had proven agency and had no legal authority. I've got a lot of demands. They're already written, and I'll tell you right now, I've already submitted it to the civil grand jury. So good luck, my gentlemen. We'll see you in court. Thank you, sir.

Tammy Dunbar?

Good morning, Chairman Dhaliwal, supervisors. I'm Tammy Dunbar, and I'm here to give you an update from Congressman Adam Gray. Congressman Gray played a central role in moving the bipartisan farm bill through the House, ending a three-year delay in passage of that bill. He supported efforts to secure $10 billion, that's with a B, for growers of specialty crops like almonds, walnuts, cherries, apples, olives, grapes, virtually everything else grown here in our Great Valley. Representative Gray co-leads the bipartisan Combating Fentanyl Poisoning Act, which would establish a grant program for local law enforcement to combat fentanyl through awareness campaigns aimed at children, training programs, and equipment purchases for law enforcement agencies tracking and apprehending fentanyl traffickers. Lastly, Chairman Dolly Wall, Congressman Gray met with Lathrop residents and officials to hear about problems they are having with U.S. mail being delivered to their homes. After hearing numerous complaints and starting many new cases, the Congressman has directed his staff to find out if there are similar complaints occurring across the United States since the reorganization of the Postal Service. We are proceeding per his instructions, and I would invite anyone in the county who is experiencing challenges with their postal service or, of course, any other federal issue to contact our office at 209-226-6880. And on behalf of the U.S. Congress and your representative, Adam Gray, we join with you on America's semi-quincentennial to answer the calling to let freedom ring. Thank you, Tim.

Board members, next we have meeting minutes. They are listed on the agenda. Any questions? Any corrections we need to make? Move to approve. Second. We have a motion and second. Call for a vote, please. Motion passes 4-0. No, I didn't. Is there anybody from public wanted to speak on this? Okay, next we'll move to consent calendar board members any shelf? Are we pulling anything?

Thank you chair at the request of the sheriff's office. We're pulling consent item number 61, the retroactive approval of a PG&E agreement that will come back in the future to correct some errors.

Is that the only one?

As far as I'm aware, yes.

Thank you. Board members, anybody pulling any item? 62. Anybody else? 12 and 21. Please. 12 and 21. Supervisor Rickman, anything? No? Thank you, sir. Supervisor Kanepa, item number 12.

Hello, hello. So this is just exciting for me. So we're finally getting closer to having the VSO move to the health plan of San Joaquin building. Few concerns. When are we possibly going to be done with that? The other one is a lot of the folks were hoping to put a sign on the March Lane saying, hey, we will be moving eventually. So if we could also get that done. So just kind of wondering where we're at and how we're going to be transitioning. I was at the health plan meeting and I tried to go out the one door where we usually go to the bathroom and I couldn't. So that was a good sign because now that area will be taken over by the BSO. So. Pretty proud of that, so where are we at and when are we gonna be moving in with the questions and possibly the sign for the March Lane facility?

Good morning, my name is Sarah Sheehan, property manager for GS General Services San Joaquin County, through the chair. Supervisor Canepa, there is a delay on the lessor side of getting the facility up and running, so we are coming back for an amendment of the commencement date. As of right now, we are looking at a commencement date of, I believe, November, if I'm not mistaken.

Of this year.

Of this year. So there is a four-month delay, and that's why we are coming back for an amendment of the lease.

Good morning. Matt Garber, Assistant Director of Health Care Services. We actually are working on getting in sooner than that. So we're working on a few final details for the servers. We're going to have to move some of the cabling to the second floor to get everybody started in there, but we're looking closer to end of August, hopefully. So we're still finalizing the date, but as soon as we get that, we'll be able to put up those flyers at the E2D, excuse me, employment development location.

We're getting there. Getting there, yes. So not November, hopefully end of August. Yes, yes. Okay, good.

So the date we have right now in the lease agreement, it's for commencement. So it can pull forward. It just can't push out more than what we are presenting to you.

Okay, perfect, because they've been waiting patiently. Thank you for that. Thank you for the progress report. We'll be getting the new digs out there and I'm pretty excited for the ribbon cutting. Thank you, Chair.

Done? 21. 21, yes.

This is just to HR. Is anyone here from HR? Jennifer Goodman retired, so I don't know who's stepping up to lead, but I just wanted to say thank you to correctional officers, and HR for coming to a contract agreement, which is on the list for number 21. So I just wanted to do a shout out to our staff for getting it done. And just wanted to give kudos to the HR staff and the correctional officers who put their lives on the line for San Joaquin County, protecting our residents at the jail and all the other folks that provide services at the jail. So thank you. So just wanted to do a shout out.

Thank you, sir. Supervisor Gadea, item number 62.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Board members. My name is Lieutenant Alex Wasser with the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office. I'm currently in charge of the Hairmark contract at the at the jail.

The reason why I'm pulling this is this is a sixth amendment and I know it's challenging to find contractors for food distribution. But when was the last time this has gone out for RFP? Is this a purchasing question or is this actually the sheriff's actually would put it out for RFP?

The reason for this contract increase is Santa Rita, who's the one who supplies us with the food, they have switched from plastic trays to throwaway trays. So they wanted to extend the contract for a year and that's including the cost of the food service and then the throwaway trays. So once the

we get closer to the end of the year we're going to go to rfp before the contract's up okay um and the reason i bring that up i mean the cost of it in 25 20 and 24 25 was 27 million 25 26 is 31.5 and then 26 27 is is 37 million it's gone up 10 million dollars and i understand that the state uh reimburses roughly half of that but uh you know, it's a hit to the general fund for the other half. So just want to make sure that we have competitive bids out there, that we're just not keep on repeating on these amendments to make sure we're trying to save, you know, money and, you know, with the increase to our contracts and cost of doing business in the county, just want to see, you know, if we have the ability to save money at any case and make sure that it's fair and equitable and we're competitive. That's all I'm asking for.

Yes, sir.

Great. Thank you.

Do we have a motion? Just one second. One second.

I remember just saying that because probation, too. I mean, obviously, I don't know if they're going to do that. I mean, probation would send it out. You guys contract with Aramark also, correct? So at least if we could be mindful if the Sheriff's Department is doing it to see about that, too, because I know they all go up every time they go up and they go up and they go up. So we can do competitive bids all around. That'd be nice. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Do we have a motion? One through 71, except 61. Move to approve. Second. We have a motion and second. Call for vote, please. Motion passes 4-0. Next is conduct a public hearing to amend the Department of Aviation's rates, fees, and charges schedule effective July 1st, 2026. Mr. Sokol. Good morning, sir.

Chair Dhaliwal, Board members, County Council, Kiernan, and CAO Regalo, good morning. I'm Richard Sokol. I'm the Airport Director of the Department of Aviation, and with me today is Kelly Covello, Senior Deputy County Administrator. We are here to present the recommended Stockton Metropolitan Airport fee adjustments for fiscal year 2026-27. After receiving the staff report, it would be appropriate to open the public hearing, receive comments from the public, close the hearing, and then bring the item back to the Board for consideration. So a little history. Our last fee update was effective July 1 of last year. This change replaced the previous fee schedule which was in effect since June of 2020. The next five year anniversary to review fees is anticipated in 2030. Federal Aviation Administration policy suggests that airports complete a comprehensive user fee review every five years. The department is recommending adoption of the common use rental system effective July 1st in 2026, resulting from recent airline negotiations with Allegiant Airlines as part of a licensing agreement and operating permit for commercial activities, which is an operating permit renewal. Common use fees are charges that airports impose when airlines or other stakeholders share facilities, services, or infrastructure. Common use fees allow multiple parties to use the same space, equipment, and or systems instead of each having their own dedicated resources. It's a way for them to be more efficient and for the airport to be more efficient. The introduction of common use fees and an increase to ramp parking fees were included in the countywide fee review public hearing of May 12th, 2026, but based on board feedback at the May 12th public hearing, the increase to the ramp fees is no longer being recommended. Only the addition of common use terminal fees is being recommended. So on this slide you can see the existing airline is currently paying monthly fees for fixed assets or fixed rentals of 2433 based on the previous fee schedule which went into effect in 2020 while negotiations were underway. Had the airline been paying monthly fees based on the fee schedule approved on July the 1st of last year, the airline would be paying $9,690 per month. and they were a little concerned about that increase. Under the recommended common use fees, the average monthly fee would be estimated to be approximately $8,120 per month. The common use fee concept allows airlines to pay rental fees proportionately with their level of activity. Stockton Metropolitan Airport will continue, if these fees are approved, to offer the lowest airline use fees in the state. After this change, the airport's cost per employment, or CPE, will be about $4 per passenger, when most Northern California airports' CPEs are in the $10 to $16 range and even higher. Approved landing and fuel flowage fees remain unchanged and have been added into the CPE calculations that I've shown above. So the recommended common use fees for Stockton Metro Palo Alto Airport are offering a discounted bundle rate for ticketing, hold room, bag claim, bag makeup, and daytime ramp fees and are based on the number of aircraft seats. The three newly recommended common use fees detailed on this slide were determined with reference to fees and rates of other California airports while maintaining the airport's very low fee structure. These new common use fees will apply to Allegiant as well as any new commercial airline that starts service at the airport. And I'd like to emphasize that these fees were the product of a negotiation. And with that, Chairman Dhaliwal, that concludes the staff report and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, sir. Board members, any questions for staff? No, I you do. So, yeah, go ahead.

So this this has been negotiated with Allegiant. I mean, I hate to see our only airline jump ship because, you know, we're cramming down something.

So the history was that we established the rates last year based upon a independent rate study. When we introduced those rates to Allegiant, they were concerned about that schedule, and we entered into negotiations since that point, and this is a product of those negotiations.

Okay.

So they've agreed to it.

Okay, so this is a happy medium?

It's a compromise, yes.

Okay, all right, thank you, thank you, Chair.

Anybody else? Supervisor Rickman?

Question, comment? Thank you, Chairman. I really don't have anything. But I will say, you know, speaking of Allegiant, I know I'm going. I had to get two tickets to somewhere. And, you know, I went to Southwest. I think they wanted like $900 for a round trip. I went to Allegiant. I sat down, you know, I visited with you for a little bit since I was there. But from 900 bucks, Allegiant was, I think I paid $400. So save $500 just going right here in Stockton. So it's a friendly reminder. We have a great airport and we have an airline that goes to multiple places. So if you haven't done it or haven't done so, check it out, save me some money. Thank you, Chair.

Maintaining our reputation for low fees is something that we're focused on, but there's a point where we have to raise fees once in a while.

Thank you, Sir. Public hearing is open. Anybody from public want to speak on the side? Anybody from public? Going to close the public hearing, bring it back to the Board. Any further discussion, questions, comments? Move to approve the rate change.

Second.

We have a motion and second. Call for a vote, please. Motion passes 4-0. Thank you. Thanks. Next is a public hearing to lease real property located at 18330 East Harney Lane, Lodi, California.

Good morning, Chair. Good morning. Supervisors, County Administrator, County Council, and Clerk of the Board, Juan Villanueva, Interim Director of General Services. With me today, I have Daniel Ramirez, Interim Assistant Director, and Sarish Khan, Property Manager, who will provide a brief overview of today's public hearing. As a quick overview, the above property is depicted here near the intersection of Harney Lane and Clements Road, close to the North County landfill. In January of this year, your board approved the resolution of intention to lease the property that was purchased by the county in July of 2025. The resolution was advertised as mandated in government code and the public hearing was held to accept bids to lease the property at a minimum lease amount of 15,000 per month or an annual amount of 180,000. During that hearing, no bid was received. On June 2nd, the board approved another resolution of intention to lease with the purpose of approved agricultural use. The board adopted the resolution of intention to lease the property. The resolution was advertised as mandated by government code, and this public hearing today is to open and accept any bids for lease of the property at a minimum lease amount of $0 for years one through five, 5,000 a month for years six through 10, and 15,000 a month for years 11 through 15. Just the steps that we're going to follow today are outlined here. Staff will provide a brief overview of the property and the clerk of the board will inform your board if any written bids were received. If there are written bids, GSD staff will open them and inform your board. At that time, we will ask the chair to open the public hearing and accept any oral bids. Once the bidding is concluded, the chair may close the public hearing and GSD staff will review recommendations for action by your board. If no bids are received or if the board does not approve a lease, no further action will be required. The property will remain inactive and not farmed unless the board approves additional direction regarding the property's future use. At this time, I would like to turn it over to Sarish Khan, the county's property manager, to provide a general summary and open the written bids.

Good morning, Chair, members of the board. The item before you is public hearing to lease real property.

One second, please. I just had one question.

So that on the agenda for later is the other to possibly generate the to negotiate for that other piece. Is that piece in the little picture, is that connecting to this? Should we should we wait till we possibly get that and offer it all as one piece? Right? I know I'm putting the cart before the horse, but I mean, if we're... Remember we discussed it when I asked the question?

Sorry, through the chair, can you tell me which board letter you're speaking of?

Yeah, we were talking about negotiating for the purchase price of that other piece of property.

The adjacent piece.

The adjacent piece. So I'm just wondering if we're, you know what I mean, if we bundle it all together, are we going to have to come back for another public hearing or should we postpone this until possibly getting that other piece? So is it, my question was, is it the one in the middle?

Through the chair, those owners are only willing to sell if we lease back to them. Oh, okay. So that's a component of that sale.

All right, thank you. Thank you, sir. Continue, please.

Lease real property located at 18330 East Harney Lane, Lodi, California. The property currently consists of 170 acres of Zinfandel and 95 acres of carbonate vineyard. The subject property was acquired by the county for the use of Public Works Solid Waste Division to serve the residents in the region for an additional 10 to 15 years beyond the anticipated life of the existing north county landfill. This was approved by your board in October 21st, 2025 with the board B-25495. The property is planned to be used in future years for additional landfill. Currently, the solid waste division does not have an immediate need for this property and would like to lease it. Government code requires the board of supervisors adopt a resolution of its intention to lease the real property and to advertise its intention to lease the real property in newspaper of general circulation for three weeks and five with a five-day interval. On June 2nd, 2026, pursuant to government code section 25526, your board adopted the resolution of intention to lease, including the required terms and conditions for the proposed lease. Government code also states that the adopted resolution be posted in the three public places prior to today's meeting and public hearing. Staff has conducted appropriate postings as well as advertised the resolution of intention to lease in the newspaper for general circulation. Interested parties were to have the submitted lease sealed bids to the Clerk of the Board prior to today's scheduled meeting and public hearing. Staff will now open any sealed bids that may have been received by Clerk of the Board and read contents for required items and lease terms.

Through the Chair, we did receive one bid on Friday, June 26. Thank you.

Dear Clerk of the Board and Supervisors, Javed Farms hereby submits the sealed proposal in response of Resolution R-26-66 Approving the intent of San Joaquin County to lease the county-owned agriculture property leased at 18330 East Harney Lane, Lodi, California. The principals of Javid Farms have established agriculture experts based in Lodi, California and with extensive experience in sustainable agriculture across Lodi and in Campo areas. Our team brings over 44 years of agriculture experience farming grapes, almonds, and cherries. We have reviewed the minimum terms and conditions of proposed lease and set forth a resolution R-26-66 and respectfully submit a following proposal for the lease of the 278.99 acres of property. Permitted use, farming and permissible agriculture use with the focus of sustaining agriculture consistent with the current land use of the property. Initial lease payment, Chabad Farm accepts the initial lease payment structure as outlined in the resolution R-26-66 including no rent for the first five years, monthly rent of 5,000 during the years of six through 10, and monthly rent of 15,000 during years 11 through 15. Lease term of 15 years from the commencement date. Utilities and maintenance, Chauvet Farm agrees to assume full responsibility for all maintenance and utilities, costs associated with the property throughout the term of the lease, capital improvements, Chauvet Farms will commit a minimum of $2.5 million over the first five years to upgrade the premises. This work will include removing rotting dead vines, clearing diseased wood, mitigating the nuisance on the property. Javed Farms brings an established record of responsible land stewardship and sustainable farming practices to the Lodi Appalachian. We are committed to maintaining and improving the productivity of of this vineyard operating full compliance with all applicable county, state, federal agriculture regulations. We respectfully request consideration for this proposal at the public hearing scheduled for June 30th, 2026. Should the board require any additional information, financial documentation, or formal presentation, we welcome the opportunity to provide it. Thank you.

Supervisor Canepa.

I have one further question. Public Works, I mean, we don't intend on using that ground for 15 years, correct? Is there an out if we need it sooner would be my only question if we're gonna get into a 15-year lease as possibly needing that because of the growth of the landfill.

We did discuss incorporating within the lease after the first 10 years if we need to have the leasee terminate the lease with mutual consent for a price or a a termination, not a reward, but a clause for a certain dollar amount per year vacated earlier than the 15 years.

OK, perfect. So the people that did the bid, obviously that needs to be clarified with them if they're going to invest $2.5 million, which is very exciting that we did get a bid. So thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Sandy.

Thank you, Chair. Supervisor Kanapai had to go back and look. Just to answer your question from before, I think you were speaking of the consent item number 16, which has already been voted on, but that was for a different piece of property for our intention to purchase, and it'll be coming back to the board on August 4th.

Perfect. That's solved the question of they're going to lease it back to people as part of the agreement, so that works. I was just thinking if we were going to have that piece and then make it one contiguous piece, that somebody would want to farm the whole piece, but now we already have folks for both, so exciting.

So at this time, staff has identified the bids of Javid Farms as the qualified bid. Staff is requesting the chair open the public hearing to receive any oral bids that must exceed the highest rental rate as received by at least 5% per government code, which is $0 for years one through five, $5,000 a month from years six through 10, and $15,000 a month years 11 through 15. Staff will record any oral bids received, and the Chair shall close the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff will then identify the highest responsible qualifying bid. At this time, staff is requesting that the Chair open the public hearing.

One second, please. I'll open it after Supervisor. Guardia speaks. Supervisor Guardia.

So a question was asked earlier if the county had the ability to exit the lease early if property was needed. What about the leasee? Do they have the ability to get outside of that lease within that 15 years?

After the first 10 years with a mutual consent, yes. That right in our leases have always been with both parties.

So they get basically rent free for the first five, and then they're on the hook for the next five. That's part of the stipulation?

Yes. And then with a either, and that has to be set between the both the leasing lists or with 180 day notice or whatever we set together, negotiate together with that number of days notice, they would be able to terminate as well.

All right. Thank you. Thanks, sir. Public hearing is open. Anybody from public want to speak on this item? Yes, sir. Please come forward.

I'm Rehan Javid. I'm the one who submitted the bid. I think a couple questions. One of the things that we were asked for in the lease was 40 acres not to be farmed with permanent crops in case you guys need that land after five years. We're also willing to adopt that on top of the other one. Um, and so the other, the rest of the 2.5 million will be on the other 200 and like 20 or 30 acres plus or minus like roads and what have you. So we're, we're totally cognizant that you guys might need the land sooner and we are willing to work on that question.

Oh, so the, this Williamson act property. So the taxes are still remain the same.

I mean, county owned. property, we do not pay taxes.

Okay. So then he'll get the benefit of that. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody else from public want to speak on this item? Ms. Khan, should I close it?

Yes, please.

I'm going to close the public hearing, bring it back. Staff, anything else you want to add?

At this time, staff has identified that Chauvet Farms is the highest bid. Therefore, staff is requesting Board of Supervisors to do the following, accept the highest bid rate from Mr. Javid Farms or reject the bid. If the bid of Javid Farms is accepted, approved as a prospective tenant and authorized Director of General Services to finalize a lease agreement based upon the terms and proposal and resolution of intention and authorize the Director of General Services to sign the lease agreement and execute on behalf of San Joaquin County.

Thank you. Questions? Any questions?

No, I just want to commend the gentleman that just came up and spoke for doing this for us. It's a good use of property, you know, instead of sitting it, letting it sit for 15 years without any use. So this is great job, GSD. And thank you for stepping forward. And it's a great job for you because then you get to use the land. So for 10 to 15 years. So I think it's a win-win.

Ready for the motion? I'll make a motion to accept the bid. Second. We have a motion and second. Call for a vote, please. Motion passes 4-0. Thank you, staff. Appreciate it. Item number three is a public hearing to consider establishing a regulatory fee for the County of San Joaquin Groundwater Sustainability Agency in the Tracy Subbasin. adopt the regulatory fee adoption report as the basis for determining the fee and approve collection on the fiscal year 2026, 2027 secure tax roll. Staff report, please. Nazee.

Is that on now?

There we go. Good morning. Good morning, Chair Dhaliwal and members of the board. Najee Zarif, your Director of Public Works. This is one of two public hearings that we will be holding today to discuss a funding mechanism for us to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and the regulatory activities associated with that law. And so I have with me here Deputy Director of Public Works, Alex Chetley, as well as Seth Worzel of Larson, Worzel & Associates, the consultant that assisted us with developing the fee report. So I'll turn it over to Alex to begin the presentation.

Good morning.

As Director Zareef mentioned, today I'm here to present on the first of two proposed regulatory fees for groundwater compliance activities. They are very similar with a few differences that reflect the unique aspects of each sub-basin. The first presentation is for the Tracy sub-basin. Purpose of today's meeting is to establish a funding mechanism to support state mandated activities. I'd like to point out some key highlights of this presentation before I begin. The first and most important highlight is that these are state mandates. The state requires and enables ongoing local groundwater management through establishment of groundwater sustainability agencies. And the county must fund its proportionate share of the compliance costs. Until today, the county has contributed Zone 2 funds towards those efforts. That's the San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 2. However, Zone 2 is a countywide assessment. And while it is an appropriate use of Zone 2 funds, because it is a countywide assessment, this approach is not the most fair and equitable method. To address this inequity, we have developed the proposed fee to be paid for by those within the county's Groundwater Sustainability Agency, or GSA. This is a common strategy across the state to have those who are regulated by these activities to pay the cost for that obligation. I'd also like to emphasize that the funds generated by the proposed fee are limited to only state mandated regulatory compliance activities. A quick refresher on the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, or SGMA. It was established by the state in 2014 as a regulatory framework for groundwater management. It gave local agencies the authority to create GSAs, or Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, impose fees, and also required the development of groundwater sustainability plans. SGMA allowed local control provided that the locals, that we comply with their state requirements. In short, SGMA requires local agencies to work together to prepare and implement plans, groundwater plans, monitor groundwater conditions, and to participate in regulatory or compliance reporting. The Tracy Subbasin is one of two subbasins in the county. The other is the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. This presentation is about the Tracy Subbasin. It's a medium priority subbasin. In the Tracy Subbasin, compliance with state requirements is performed through a coordination committee that consists of six different groundwater sustainability agencies, which are shown on the diagram. The Board of Supervisors approved the creation of the county as a GSA in 2015, and the county played a key role in developing the groundwater sustainability plan for the Tracy Subbasin. And since that time, the committee has been implementing the plan, and there are costs associated with implementing the plan. Every year, the Tracy Subbasin Coordination Committee develops and approves a budget for state-required regulatory compliance activities. As members and participants in the committee, the county, we are responsible for funding, monitoring, modeling, groundwater modeling, compliance reporting, and administration. The committee has to prepare and submit annual reports on the groundwater sustainability plan progress and perform five-year periodic evaluations, which could in turn result in amended groundwater sustainability plans I mentioned at the beginning that Tracy sub-basin, each sub-basin has some unique features. The first and arguably most important unique feature is that the county GSA in Tracy is broken into two sub-areas, the delta management area and the non-delta management area. So the map on your screen depicts these two areas. The delta management area is about 103,000 acres. the Delta management area generally does not pump or extract groundwater for consumptive use. In other words, they don't pump it for irrigation or potable water purposes. But the state still requires monitoring and reporting to ensure that the groundwater conditions are not changing in this Delta management area. Accordingly, there's a fixed lower regulatory cost associated with its share of compliance activities. The balance of the county area or the non-Delta management area has costs which are determined by population and the net groundwater pumping for that area. So now that I've talked about the regulatory framework and state mandated requirements associated with the Tracy Subbasin and discussed the funding needs, and the fact that there is an annual cost for the county area or county GSA, we took that information and developed a funding strategy to create a long-term and sustainable funding source. Note that the Groundwater Sustainability Plan requires sustainability over a 20-year planning horizon or by 2042. What we are proposing is a regulatory fee that aligns costs with beneficiaries or those who are obligated to pay and are regulated by these compliance activities under Proposition 26. The regulatory fee cannot exceed the cost of providing the services and the proposition allows the Board to approve the fee. This slide illustrates what the fee can be used for. All the activities listed are considered regulatory compliance activities, except the last item. This fee cannot be used for capital or infrastructure projects, including operation and maintenance. If there are fees associated with any infrastructure project, we would not be able to use funds generated by this proposed fee because those aren't considered regulatory compliance. Each year, we take the approved budget and adjust the applied fee based on the methodology, and we'll have to bring that update before your board for approval. This slide shows the total proposed budget for the first year. It is based on the county's share of the overall Tracy Sub-Basin budget and a few other items. Also, where it says dues on the slide, what that's referring to is the county's proportionate share of the shared compliance costs as established by the Tracy Coordination Committee each and every year. We just call them dues because it's simpler to say that than our proportionate share of the overall costs. The proposed fee structure will be adjusted to match the costs associated with both the delta area and the non-delta management areas. In the delta management area, we simply took the direct costs and spread them equally over the entire delta management area. In the non-delta management area, the proposed methodology is based on three components, acreage, pumping, and population. This slide depicts the types of properties subject to the proposed fee. Parcels exempt from the proposed fee include vacant land and residential parcels under five acres. SGMA exempts what they call de minimis users from regulatory compliance, and the state defines that as parcels that pump less than two acre feet per year. THIS SLIDE DEPICTS TYPICAL FEES THAT HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED FOR COMMON USE TYPES TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE FEE FOR BOTH THE DELTA AND NON-DELTA MANAGEMENT County service areas and maintenance districts that pump groundwater are subject to the fee and their costs would be billed to the districts, not individual parcels within the district. We have actual production data from these districts and Public Works manages those districts. There are seven county special districts affected and subject to the fee in the county GSA area. There is also an appeal process whereby landowners subject to the fee can appeal their fee by appealing their land use classification. The report and the proposed fee are based on the land use classification that comes from the assessor's office. Although later in a few slides, actually it's the next slide, I have a slight modification to the appeals process. So we conducted an outreach meeting and we mailed flyers to every affected landowner and we received feedback regarding that fee from the public. And it was brought to our attention that some parcels may have riparian rights to water use and utilize those rights in lieu of groundwater pumping. Also there are some parcels that may receive out of agency water service from adjacent water agencies. So in those cases, they may already be paying for SGMA compliance through water delivery fees, or they're using their riparian rights in lieu of groundwater pumping. There's no registry of riparian water rights. No list exists that we could have utilized for that. So we would be unaware of parcels that receive surface water and we would be unaware of parcels that receive surface water deliveries from other agencies. So based on the feedback and the input we got from the public and in consideration of these factors, We're suggesting a modification of today's resolution to expand the appeal statement as it's shown on the screen. This will provide the needed flexibility to address these unique situations. Chair Dhaliwal, members of the Board of Supervisors, that completes my presentation. Staff, our consultant, and I are available to answer any questions. I'd also like to mention that this item was presented and discussed at the San Joaquin County Advisory Water Commission, and the commission recommended approval of the fee to your Board of Supervisors. After questions from the board, I recommend you open the public hearing to receive testimony regarding the proposed fee. After receiving testimony, we would like you to consider approval of the fee report as basis for determining the fee and adopt the resolution establishing and collecting the proposed fee, considering the modifications that were on the previous slide.

Thank you, sir.

Supervisor Kahn. I just have two questions. So the delta management fee and the non-delta management fee, the delta management fee, just drink it? They don't pump it for farming? Is that what I'm getting? What's the difference there?

In the delta area, they're pumping groundwater to dewater so that they can farm. Otherwise, they'd be underwater. So they are pumping, but it's not for consumptive use. They're not pumping it for irrigation purposes.

So they're just paying per acre? That's correct.

Of the total fee, the fee that applies to the Delta management area, it's a fixed fee. It's a much smaller fee, applies just to that area. And so we've tailored the fee to address that so that they're only paying for those fees that are attributable to their efforts.

Yeah, there's specific activities that they have to perform and so we're only charging them for the activities associated with their area.

And then so I sit on the groundwater board for here, does somebody sit on these boards for the county?

It is not a committee. It's a coordinating committee, but there is no board member that's assigned to that. Who runs this? So the staff members from each of the different GSAs essentially come together and work through the GSP and the groundwater management activities.

Okay, my last question. So Area 2, that money, when did we start collecting that? Is it Area 2 that I'm talking about? Zone 2. Zone 2.

I think it was 2015 that was established.

So are these people paying that money back? You say it's an appropriate use, but then we're charging everybody starting now to get that money so we don't have to pay it. So then how much is that money? Where does that go when that builds up?

So where does the Zone 2 funds go?

Yeah, we've been using it to help these, right? Till we got this billing or this fee structure, right?

Yeah, so zone two was established and there's a strategic plan that was adopted by the board to address countywide water management issues. And so those zone two funds are used on various different activities that we perform related to water supply. This fee would just be, so this will supplant that. Now there would be additional, so we also use Zone 2 to support SGMA activities as well. So what we would likely propose to do here is that we would continue to apply some Zone 2 funds to support the Tracy sub-basin activities, but it would be off the top. right and so it would support all of the all of the gsas and their efforts to to come together to comply with sigma and then what's left the property owners within the county gsa would pay their share using this fee if that makes sense yeah so we have zone we have areas in our area do we have areas down there too or we just are doing our fulfillment of the obligation I'm not sure.

You were saying that the county actually has, that's why we're in the one that I'm on the board, right?

Correct, in Eastern San Joaquin?

Yeah, Eastern San Joaquin, yeah.

Yes, yes. So we have, there's two, we'll talk about Eastern San Joaquin as part of the next public hearing. Okay. But yes, we definitely have, we have, there's county GSAs in both Eastern San Joaquin and in the Tracy Sub Basin. Okay, all right. Yes.

Thank you, thank you, Chairman.

Thanks, sir. So what was the recommendation?

Thank you, Chairman. Good morning. Good to see you guys. How is the sub-basin looking? I mean, compared to the other sub-basins that we use here in San Joaquin County.

Yeah, so this one is a, as Alex mentioned, this is a medium priority basin. So it's actually in really good shape. We don't anticipate any major or significant issues associated with this.

Not overdrawn or? or anything like you were seeing in some different sub-basins.

Correct, correct, yes. The eastern San Joaquin is a critically overdraft sub-basin.

Now, these fees are being imposed in order to comply with state law, correct?

Yes.

When we send out the bills with these new fees, I know the answer to it, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Do we send out like something that's entered into the mail or can we, I mean, that letting folks know why these fees are going up. Because people associate with a lot of these things, the fees that we have to, well, we get from the state and we have to pass down to, you know, just, you know, rolls downhill. So people actually know because when you see these different fees that, you know, not just the county but the city also, that we impose on the residents, they think it's coming from the county or the cities. But in actuality, it's coming from the state of California because of their wisdom. They love to raise taxes and fees whenever they can. So to alert people exactly where this stuff is coming from. Educate folks. I mean, that's pretty much what I would like to see.

Sure, yes, and as part of the outreach activities before this hearing, we did send out a pretty robust flyer that explained exactly sort of the purpose of this and to your point that we are essentially just complying with the state mandated regulatory activities. Going forward and so in future years, there will always be this public hearing that we'll have to have, we'll have to host for the board to approve the fee. and as part of that they'll be noticing and we can continue to educate them on the uh the reason for the fee and the fact that it's it's in in response to the state requirements

Yeah, I'd just like to add to that that there's a web, each sub-basin has its own website. TracySubBasin.org is the website. And it's the fee report, the flyer, the explanation of this is on the website. So anybody can go to that. It was linked in the flyer that we sent everyone.

Yeah, but, you know, and what people, you know, to be honest, people aren't going to go to the website. Most people don't, right? They see a bill, you know, just like the rest of us. You see a bill from the mill, you open it up, you go, what the heck is this? Why am I bill going up? And you want, you know, and so when you're looking at these numbers, I mean, I would like to see, I guess we have, okay, why is this going up? You know, of course, they're cursing out the counties and the city, but in actuality, okay, well, here, it's the state of California that's, you know, causing these fees. Again, people need to be aware where the fees and all this stuff is coming from. It's not all the time. I'm not going to say everybody's 100% innocent, but it's not always local governments that are pushing these things. We're just responding to what the state is doing. So again, it's just education to folks. So thank you both.

Sure. Thank you.

Anybody else? Going to open the public hearing. Anybody from public want to speak on this item? Yes, sir. Please step forward. Yeah, please come in.

Yeah, thank you for the opportunity board. My name is Ed Lucchese. I farm out in the Delta. I'm a landowner there. I also serve as director on the Woodbridge Irrigation District. So we're faced with our own GSA as well. I know exactly what they're going through. It is a state mandate. The whole aspect of us taking care of it locally is because we don't trust the state. So at least we can do the legwork necessary to be able to be the caretakers of that part of the GSA. I understand there's a fee component that has to be developed. Reference was 103,000 acres of Delta. You can find the surface area use based on contacting the North Delta Water Agency, Central Delta Water Agency, and South Delta Water Agency, which is right across the street at Dante Namolini's office. So all the information you need necessary to identify who uses surface water in the Delta is available. It's all repairing and right. Common sense has left the building again for the state. They're only doing what's required. I'm not pointing the finger at what you guys are doing, I get it. We're going through the same thing at the Woodbridge Irrigation District. We're pumping water out, reclamation pumps, because if we don't, seepage comes through those levees, the water will start to rise, the land is unusable. Why are we getting a fee whatsoever for anything? It's just to collect money. It has nothing to do with any benefit that's going to be based on anything that we do. Our benefit probably is when the water comes in through the delta, through our canal system, it's filtering and we're using the reclamation pumps, pumping it back out into the river. It's probably cleaner going back out in the river than when it came in. So I think what we have to do, and I'm representing also the Woodbridge Irrigation District as a trustee, we have to educate the state. Supervisor Rickman, you're spot on about education. And it's not just the taxpayers, we have to educate the state. Those are appointees by the governor, five of them. Department of Water Resources and Water Quality, without the technology necessary or the background to identify what transpires relating to overdraft areas, which is going to be provided by the local jurisdictions that have done the legwork to determine where the water use goes and where the overdraft locations are within any lands within San Joaquin County. Excuse me. So using that engineered information, we have the science behind it versus just creating a map and say, well, we're going to charge this area of that because it's surrounded by Am I off? The river, all I wanna say is that we as the GSAs need to educate the state, so we don't go ahead and give this a green light. We have to look at new boundary lines, something that identifies that at least for the Delta, it makes no sense to charge the landowners there when we're not pumping groundwater. We're pumping out surface water that came in from the river to keep the islands dry enough so that we can continue to farm that ground. That's my biggest point. I also like to invite any of your board members to any of our irrigation district board members. That's another aspect of getting educated so that you guys are prepared to make an educational decision before we move forward on any of these programs. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Yes, please.

Good morning.

Good morning.

This is the flyer that they sent out to everybody. Not so robust, but it's in there. I am Katie Cavanaugh, and my home is on Patterson Pass Road in Midway, outside of Tracy. Have any of you been there? Do you know the area? Windmills, substation, new 38-acre batteries backup storage that I get to here. across the valley. Many years ago the Griffith family sold off 15 acres on the other side of the railroad. Those 15 acres were split into three lots. Our lot then increased in size to six acres when a previous owner purchased the railroad easement along the road. The other two lots remain listed under five acres, although they get to still use that property. We're on a south-facing hill, which is the first to turn yellow in the spring. If you know anything about living in that area, you would know that the only thing that grows out there is biblical, olive trees, pomegranates, figs, desert region plants, and the land is best used for grazing. We rely on the rain to green up our hills and fill our groundwater. No one is growing any crops out there because it's like a convection oven with a high heat and high wind scorching anything we attempt to grow. While I still try to sell a few pomegranates, the value is nothing more than a tank and a half of gas during the holiday season. We have native high heat and wind resistant plants with drip irrigation in our backyard, but no lawn. I am trying to keep it green and safe from fire around our home. We have only a few FFA animals my son is currently raising to sell at the county fair auction. And every drop of water we use comes from our single well. That's all we have for our animals, our plants, us, and to fight fires. There's no outside irrigation, there's no open dishes, there's no flooding. I have not been able to see a fee schedule until today. but it feels like you're targeting farmers and ranchers and anyone trying to get by on their own. Do any of you live on five to 10 acres or even 20 acres? Nobody. If so, what are you growing that makes any profit you can live on? Anything? Your estimate of five acres is too low. The state says they're worried about water, but our county has allowed 4,000 acres of housing, 4,000 acres of housing to be built in Mountain House, and is allowing another 3,948 acres to be built on grazing land in the Tracy Hills, where there haven't been any irrigated crops. I don't even know how many houses that is and how many families, full large houses of families that are gonna be using that water. With the number of new homes and families who each use more water than we do, and the fact the San Joaquin County agriculture brings in $3.2 billion directly with a total impact of $7.8 billion, there has to be a better way to fund your project than by charging people who are responsible with their own water use. Keeping in mind that President Roosevelt declared that property obviously water rights were those of the property owners. many, many years ago. I am a steward of this land and I care deeply for the people who provide for themselves and all of us with nutrition. We live with many predators out there, but it's our government that scares me most. Please find a better way. And just so you know, You can look up the riparian habitat on USGS and acre value. And if you are already monitoring, because there are monitors in the valley, why do you need more money if you're already monitoring? Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else?

Good morning. My name is Kurt Russell. I reside in Escalon, California, but I'm a partial owner of three properties in Tracy. The three properties in Tracy have one well, and they supply water to all three properties. The properties actually are commercial real estate where we rent out buildings for automotive-related industry. So on two of those properties, we have two community bathrooms, which have one toilet each and a sink to wash your hand. On the other property, which is on Cave Road, there's two community bathrooms, two toilets, same thing. So this property is on East 11th Street and Cave Road. So when they had this Zoom meeting on the 23rd, I posed some questions that were, some of them were answered. Some of them I anticipated that I would get the answer. This tax, poor fee, however you want to structure it, It may not even apply to me, but I provided them with my APN parcel fee numbers, and I was hoping that they would get back with me to let me know if it's actually going to apply to me because my property is less than five acres. But again, it's the one will. So I don't know. As a matter of fact, when I had submitted these APN numbers during this Zoom meeting, I had pointed out that I'm currently being taxed through the Tracy... Yeah, the Delta Water Agency, I'm already being taxed on all three properties for that. And then I also have another water zone two that I'm being taxed on as well. And it looks like now we may be adding a third. And again, we're talking about just the... probably the minimal amount of water that would ever be used to flush two toilets or four toilets and wash your hands. But anyhow, I don't know if this needs to be tabled, but certainly I can't see where we're going to, for myself, impose a third fee or tax to this water district that I'm not even in the Delta part of it because, again, I think I... When I was looking at the chart online, it's Banta to begin with. Anyhow, it doesn't matter. But hopefully this can be tabled or at least I could have the answers to what I had posed last week answered. I appreciate your time.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Yes, ma'am.

Chair Dhaliwal, board members, Stephanie Reyna-Highstand, Assistant Director of Utilities for the City of Tracy. I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. And as one of the six governing bodies, or the GSAs, within the Tracy Groundwater Subbasin, I'm just here to provide support for this request by San Joaquin County Department of Public Works on behalf of the City of Tracy, and also as a voting commissioner on the San Joaquin Advisory Water Commission.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else from public want to speak on this item? I'm going to close the public hearing, bring it back to the board. Any further discussion, questions, comments?

Do you have one? Yeah, I have a question. Is there an exemption for hardship or what? I mean, can that be proven? So, I mean, like she's talking at 10 acre residential would be $63 a year for her, the lady that lives in the,

Yeah, so there's no exemption for hardship that's proposed at this time. The board obviously has the discretion to give us direction on what you would want to see in terms of fee exemptions. To her specific situation, it sounds like she has three parcels, two of them are five acres, and one of them has expanded to be above five acres.

I'm sorry, no. I have a six-acre parcel. There are two other people that live next to me that are under five acres.

Okay. Okay, so the cutoff based off of what we, essentially the guidance from SGMA in terms of what we would consider to be a de minimis user is five acres. And so that's where the cutoff is. And so if you're above that, then you would be subject to the fee. We can look at it, but I think that for the six acre parcel, based on the land use, it would probably be somewhere around $46 a year is what the fee would be. But that cutoff, obviously any cutoff, there's gonna be folks that are gonna be just above it that are gonna feel like, hey, I'm not using that much different from what the folks that are at the cutoff is and I'm subject to it, right? Wherever we establish that cutoff.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Do we have a motion?

Motion approved.

Is there a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Call for a vote, please.

Begging your pardon, Chair. There was a suggested modification to the resolution on the second to last slide that we would like you to consider with your motion.

Supervisor Canepa, you made the motion. Okay, Supervisor Gardea.

Alex so that motion I mean that resolute the revision to the resolution essentially just gives us flexibility to take into consideration other factors such as you know being supplied by service water or by another agency to consider that when we when we look to exempt people people um property owners from the fee so it adds it expands

Can you call for a vote, please? Motion passes 3-1. Item number four, conduct a public hearing to consider establishing a regulatory fee for the property of San Joaquin Groundwater Sustainable Agency. Eastern San Joaquin number one in the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Sub-Basin. adopt the regulatory fee adoption report as the basis for determining the fee and approve collection on the fiscal year 2026-2027 secured tax roll of districts. Staff report, please.

Thank you, Chair Dhaliwal. Like you said, this is the second of two proposed fees associated with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. I will turn it over to Deputy Director Chet Lee to go through the presentation for the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin.

Thank you, Najee. This presentation for the county GSA in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is very similar to the one in the Tracy Subbasin. Once again, I wish to restate the purpose of today's meeting is to establish a funding mechanism to support state-mandated activities. So the same highlights apply to the eastern San Joaquin sub-basin as I discussed in the Tracy sub-basin. State law mandates regulatory compliance activities. The county must fund our proportionate share of those costs, or dues, Until now, the county has utilized Zone 2 funds to pay for those costs. But like I mentioned in the earlier presentation, Zone 2 is a countywide assessment. While this is an appropriate use of Zone 2 funds, because it is a countywide assessment, it is not the most equitable method to address this inequity. We've developed a proposed fee to be paid for by those within the county's GSA. And again, this is a common municipal financing strategy to have those who are subject to the regulatory activities pay the cost for those activities. And I would also like to restate that the funds generated by the proposed fee are limited to only state-managed regulatory compliance activities. Once again, SGMA became law in 2014. SGMA requires local agencies to work together to prepare and implement groundwater sustainability plans, monitor groundwater conditions, report on those conditions, model the groundwater, and participate in other regulatory and compliance reporting to the state. The Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is designated as critically overdrafted by the state and is governed by the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority, or GWA, which is a joint powers authority consisting of 16 different groundwater sustainability agencies, including the county. Similar to the Tracy Subbasin, the GWA has developed an approved Groundwater Sustainability Plan, or GSP, Implementation of the approved GSP involves costs associated with state mandated regulatory activities. In 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved the formation of the county's Groundwater Sustainability Agency, or GSA. The county's GSA, also known as County GSA number one, as you see on the title, occupies about 46,000 acres of area that is not covered by other districts or cities. And the map on the screen depicts the area and location of parcels within the county's GSA. As I stated, the county's GSA is just one of 16 different GSAs that comprise the GWA. The GWA's efforts support SGMA compliance, including monitoring, modeling, compliance efforts and compliance reports and administration. The GWA is required to prepare and submit annual reports on the Groundwater Sustainability Plan and perform five-year periodic evaluations, which, again, can turn into amended groundwater plans. That's a pretty substantial effort when it happens. As you would surmise, there are costs associated with these activities, and those costs are all apportioned out to all 16 GSAs. Since inception, the county has paid its proportionate share of these costs through the use of Zone 2 funds, which is a county-wide assessment. In order to address this inequity, we've developed a proposed fee for the county GSA area that will provide a sustainable fund source to pay for state-mandated regulatory activities. Note that the Groundwater Sustainability Plan requires sustainability over a 20-year planning horizon or by 2040. So we're proposing a regulatory fee that aligns costs with regulated properties. And the regulatory fee cannot exceed the cost of providing these services. Creation of this fee is authorized under California Water Code, which was updated SGMA specifically for this purpose. Once again, this slide depicts or illustrates what the fee can be used for. All the activities listed are considered regulatory activities except the last item. It can't be used for capital and infrastructure projects or operation and maintenance of projects. If there are fees associated with an infrastructure project, we would not be able to use fees generated by this regulatory fee. In the eastern San Joaquin sub-basin, there are three main components of the fee, acreage, estimated groundwater pumping, and population. These have been developed and applied in our methodology to be consistent with the same methodology that GWA uses to calculate each GSA's proportionate share of the overall regulatory compliance costs. The budget for the proposed fee for fiscal year 26-27 includes three main elements. The dues are the county's proportionate share of the regulatory costs, cost to develop and administer the fee, this will be substantially less in future years, and repayment of previous Zone 2 contributions. This slide depicts the types of properties subject to the proposed fee. Parcels exempt from the proposed fee include vacant land and residential parcels under five acres. Once again, SGMA exempts what they call de minimis users from regulatory compliance, and the state defines that as parcels that pump less than two acre feet per year. Counties, once again, county service areas and maintenance districts are subject to the fee and their costs would be billed to the district, not individual parcels. We have actual pumping data from these districts and can utilize that to determine the fee. And there are five county special districts affected and subject to the fee in the Eastern San Joaquin Sub-Basin County GSA area. So this slide depicts typical fees that have been estimated for common use types to give you an idea of the magnitude of the fee. There is an appeal process whereby landowners subject to the fee can appeal their fee by appealing their land use classification, but same as what we did on the Tracy sub-basin on the next slide, we wish to expand those appeals considerations. and just to mention just to point out that the land use classification that we use is determination that comes from the assessor's office we did create that on our own we're using county data and just as a reminder we are required to return to your board each year and conduct a public hearing to approve the fee on an annual basis okay so the modification to the resolution is the same as was previously shown on the Tracy sub basin. This will allow us more flexibility to address unique situations. The 2 the 2 examples I gave a riparian rights. He's river water what have you surface water in lieu of groundwater pumping or other circumstances such as a parcel getting out of agency surface water delivery from from one of the local water districts or water agencies. Chair Dhaliwal, members of the Board of Supervisors, once again, that completes my presentation, and staff and I are available to answer questions. Similar to Tracy, this was also presented and discussed at the San Joaquin County Advisory Water Commission, and the AWC recommended approval of the fee to the Board of Supervisors. After questions from the Board, I recommend you open the public hearing to receive testimony regarding the proposed fee. After receiving testimony, we'd like you to consider adopting the fee report as basis for determining the fee and adopting the resolution with the modifications, establishing and collecting the proposed fee with the suggested change on the previous slide. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Supervisor Canepa?

I just have one question. You said on that one slide with that proposed budget that something would be going down. One of them is you're gonna, it's one of five years to repay the district or the area too. What was the other, were you talking about the administrative and program support?

Yep, so I can explain that. Okay, so. three main components, the budget that the GWA develops each and every year, that's the first component, okay? And then whatever that's based on, they apportion those costs to each GSA. The second one is administrative and program support. So the lion's share of that number right there was the cost to come before you today, develop the fee report, to pay our consultant to do that. There's also some administration costs for county staff, but the bulk of that was to prepare the report as basis for this fee. There may be some adjustments next year, but relatively speaking, they should be much lower. Finally, the last component there is a proposed repayment to zone two, which overpaid or covered the cost for five years. And so we're proposing to repay that over a five year period. So after five years, that would not be in effect.

So is that part of the true up then every year? So then as that goes down, then there's going to be less money to assess or you're still going to assess the same for the two to five years? you said it's going to come back every year. So does that take into consideration that if these costs go down, that the assessment will go down?

Correct.

Annually?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir.

So far as Rick.

Thank you, Chair. One of the questions I had, I mean. When you look at exemptions, I mean, well, the eastern Sub-Basin, like you said, it's overdrawn. What's the reason for it being overdrawn? It's not the residential, correct? I mean, there's hardly any, well, there's less residential being built unincorporated on the eastern side, I guess, than the Tracy Sub-Basin. So the reason for the overdraft is pumping water. Who's pumping all that water?

it's generally it's gonna it's much more rural area so there's a lot of ag properties within the eastern san joaquin ground and sub basin that are that are pumping water so my question would be i mean why are if it's rural residential is not causing the issue why are they being charged more so if they are if they are a residential right under under five acres you know i understand that but

I mean, even, you know, like this one lady that was here, I forget her name, so excuse me for that, but six acres, seven acres, and they're not using any more water than somebody with a less than five, then why are they paying the fee?

Yeah so there's we don't have groundwater pumping data for every single property and so we there's an estimate of what the property owner would based on their size of their property would how much they would use and so that's where we came up with the five acres it's under two two acre feet per year is what the threshold is in terms of what the state considers to be they say de minimis user we kind of use I like to term more de minimis extractor right but that's where the cutoff is and so anything above that it may be so there may be like 2.3 acres or 2.1 acre feet per year but essentially that's the cutoff and so yeah it's not that much more but it is anticipated to be a little bit more and over the threshold.

And that's the thing that I'm struggling with, you know, even with the previous item is, you know, you're raising rates on folks that are possibly not using that water or part of the issue, but yet they're getting kind of punished for it for other people's actions. You know, so, I mean, for me personally, I mean, I would like to dig a little deeper. I don't know if, you know, who to do that with. If it's, I guess we can talk offline if it's with you or, you know, with the assessor. I mean, I imagine you can look at folks' water rates, right? I mean, everybody pays a bill and how much, you know, water each household or zone or, you know, an area is using.

through the modeling we can see general overall use. When it comes to the specific parcels, they would have to, there's no reporting if they have their own well. If I'm a property owner, I have my own well, you don't necessarily need to report, you don't report exactly what your water use is. Could we establish a process or a policy where we've had everybody tell us exactly how much water they used and try and build, Could we do that? Yes, but the cost of that would outweigh the effort that we have here.

That was just my concern. Thank you both. Appreciate it.

Anybody else? Hearing anybody from public want to speak on this item? Yes, ma'am.

Good morning, Chair and Supervisors. Jean Zelezzi, Harem Crabtree Suntag. I'm General Counsel for Stockton East Water District. And on behalf of the district, I'm here to express the district's full support for the proposed regulatory fee. The Eastern San Joaquin Basin, as mentioned, is critically overdrafted and has a very heavy lift to meet sustainability as required by SGMA. And the county needs to be part of that heavy lift. We know it has in the past with the Zone 2 funds, as mentioned, that's not the best use of Zone 2 funds. So the regulatory fee is definitely a step in the right direction and we thank staff for that progress. I will emphasize what was stated earlier that these expenditures are being imposed by the state, not by the county and not by any local agency. The requirements and the cost of noncompliance is far greater than what is being proposed here. If we are determined not to be sustainable or our groundwater sustainability plan is determined not to be sufficient, the state will step in and regulate all groundwater wells in the sub basin. And as Supervisor Rickman mentioned earlier, while it may not be equitable, state intervention will charge each of those landowners that are not de minimis much more than is being proposed here. The state intervention costs are quite high and will not take into consideration anything other than are they pumping more than two acre feet per acre. So we think this is definitely a step in the right direction. The county needs to be paying the cost of reaching sustainability. I will let you know that the districts will be looking for more from the county in the future because this regulatory fee is only for compliance, for participation. in the county GSP for doing the five-year updates, for doing monitoring. We also need projects. And the county is one of those areas that is impacting sustainability and impacting overdraft. And so that area is going to need projects to reach sustainability, whether it is through doing the county's own projects in your area or through funding district projects that are already being planned and in place to reach sustainability. Either of those works. But this is just what we see as the first step in reaching sustainability is the regulatory fees. We will also need project fees. So I'm happy to answer any questions. Stockton East Water District and the other districts are very encouraging of this fee. Thank you for bringing it forward and hopefully you will support it.

Thank you. Anybody else? I'm going to close the public hearing, bring it back to the board. Any questions, comments? Do we have a motion?

Chair? Yes, sir. You know, the thing I want to look at, and I'm going to vote no on it, and I'll explain myself, you know, for that. And I understand, I sat on the groundwater authority for a year, so I understand it's better for us to do something than the state of California to come in. But the thing that I'm I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH IS MOSTLY THE EASTERN GRAD WATER. IF THE REASON FOR THE OVERDRAFT IS I GUESS IT WOULD BE FOR BUSINESSES, THE COMMERCIAL SIDE OF IT, LARGE ACREAGE IS THE ONE PUMPING THE MAJORITY OF THE WATER OUT, AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL OR VERY, VERY SMALL PART OF THAT IS NOT THE ONE THAT'S CAUSING THIS ISSUE, SO WHY ARE THEY BEING you know, punished, you could say, oh, I shouldn't say punished, being roped into paying more fees when it wasn't their fault. It wasn't, it's not their, they're not the problem. And so where do you cut off that acreage? You know, and it's less than five acres, as you mentioned, Najee. But I mean, what if, you know, you pushed up to, you know, I don't know, seven, eight, nine acres, six acres, whatever it may be. that's something that i want to look at um you know will it you know encompass everybody no i mean where is a cut off and i i mean for me i think um you know 10 acres i mean that's just something i have no that's just something that's in my mind right now but i want to before i impose a fee on something um me personally i want to make sure that it's the right thing to do, the most efficient way to do, the most equitable. So that's the reason I'm going to be voting no. And that's my reasoning. I think you guys deserve what's going on in my head here and the reasoning for it.

Thank you.

Understood. In the like to point out in the fee report for eastern San Joaquin so base and there's a summary of feet summary by land use expected revenue based on the first year, of course. and You know, the total of ag land uses is about $84,000 of that total fee. Residential land uses is about $3,700. That includes the rural residential. So it is heavily weighted towards agriculture when you compare those two land uses. Commercial... is about 3,300 as well. So commercial and residential by comparison relative to ag is the overall revenue generated by those land uses is much less. Dan?

Yeah, thank you, sir.

So where is Gadeer? I would support my colleague in some type of exemption, especially if there's no no value to agriculture. And if you're if you're in an area that you're unable to grow, I mean, I see an exemption would would play a part. And we have some experts in here and by no means I'm not an expert, but I feel like Tracy Tracy's probably not in the same predicament as maybe East because we rely on rain and snow, I believe for more of the Eastern area versus if we don't have the ability for the Delta. And correct me if I'm wrong, is that some of the reasons why our groundwater is not as healthy on the East portion versus the Western area?

You wanna take a shot?

You wanna take a shot? Please step forward.

Molly, one second. Yes, sir. Open it. I'll open the public hearing pad. Go ahead, Molly.

Our county on the east side, there's no surface water for those farmers to use. So in the Delta, of course, there's water. In Tracy, there's even surface water. On that end of the county, there's none. So they only have one option, is to pump. So the basin up there has less water because the farmers that are there use the water. Am I correct? Is that right? Yeah, that's the answer. So it's geographic issues, not use of water by the people that live there. They have no other options.

Thank you. Close it? public hearing is closed.

So what percentage of the less than five acres, so it's only 3,700 bucks of the 129, so what percentage of those folks are less than five? So I mean, I get the dollar amount, but.

None, none of them are less than five. If you're less than five acres, you're exempt. These are gonna be rural residential parcels that are, there are some that are greater than five acres.

So that 3,700 bucks is the five to 10%, five to 10 acre folks.

Correct.

Okay. So it's minimal. Cause I mean, the greater good of this is protecting the groundwater and these sub basins so that the state doesn't come on and over-regulate us is the moral of the story. Correct.

That's correct. That's part of it. Yes. I get it.

So then, I mean, after a year, I mean, so you could look into this and do the exemptions in a year, like, Supervisor Rickman's asking if the numbers are totally out of whack or these other numbers come down or do you stretch out the repayment to District 2 and then lower it, you know what I mean? Will those be the variables or you're trying to get 20 grand per year for five years to pay back $100,000? There's a 20 or 40 and what was it?

There's about 40,000 per year for the Zone 2 repayment. We will be back in front of the board every year to look at the budget. And I think there is, county council can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there is every year an opportunity for the board to modify sort of the administration of the fee and whether or not we want to change what's exempt or what's not exempt. We can modify the resolution or adopt a new resolution to modify administration of this fee to the board's pleasure. So if there's some reporting that the board would like from us, you know, after one year in terms of how these, you know, the usage or what the fee amount was for each property, we can provide that for changes to be made in the future.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Is there a motion? I'll make a motion as amended. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Call for votes. Yes. Motion passes 3-1. Thank you, staff. Item number five, adopt registrar of voters fee schedule amendments to be effective July 1st, 2026. No.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the Board, Madam County Administrator, and everyone in attendance. My name is Trevor Perry, Management Analyst 2 with the Register of Voters Office, and today I'll be presenting the proposed amendments to the Register of Voters fee schedule for the fiscal year 26-27. These amendments reflect both the results of the Auditor-Controller fee study and the Board's direction provided during the discussion of the countywide fee schedule package on May 12th. I will begin with a brief overview of how we arrived at the proposal before you today. Earlier this fiscal year, our office requested that the auditor controller conduct a comprehensive fee study to evaluate whether the current fee schedule appropriately reflects the cost of the services listed. The study gave us a clear understanding of what it actually costs to the department to provide these services and allowed us to compare those costs with our existing fees. The proposed fee schedule was initially presented to the Board in May as part of a larger countywide fee schedule package that included numerous departments. During that discussion, the Board expressed concerns regarding fee increases impacting members of the public. Although our original proposal included only two modest fee increases, we understood and appreciated the Board's overall direction regarding affordability. In response, we revised our proposal by eliminating those increases entirely while preserving the fee reductions we had already proposed. The proposal before you today focuses on maintaining current fees where appropriate, reducing several fees, improving consistency within the fee schedule, and creating a new lower cost option for limited voter record requests. I'll now briefly walk through each of the proposed changes. The first proposed amendment is for our vote by mail cure data file. The current fee is $45 per file, while the auditor controller calculated the actual cost at approximately $39 per file. We are proposing to reduce the fee to $35 per file and also establish a discounted eight-week subscription of $250 for customers who routinely request these files during an election. This represents a $10 reduction per file and an additional savings of $30 for those purchasing the full subscription. The next item is our USB drive fee. Although the actual cost to the department is approximately $4, we are recommending that the fee remain at the current $2. For debit card transactions, the current fee is $1.75. The actual processing cost is $1.35. We are proposing to reduce this fee accordingly, resulting in a savings of 40 cents per transaction. The amendment to our credit card fee is primarily administrative. The fee is being updated to align with our agreement with the county's payment processing vendor. The fee will remain $1.35 or 2.29% of the transaction, whichever is greater, consistent with the vendor contract. The current fee for the master voter file is $68, regardless of the size of the request. We're proposing two pricing categories based on the number of registered voters included in the file. Requests containing fewer than 5,000 registered voters would decrease to $50, while requests for 5,000 or more registered voters would decrease to $65. This creates a more equitable fee structure while reducing costs for all customers requesting the service. For technical staff time, the auditor controller calculated the actual hourly cost at approximately $206. We are recommending no change to the current fee of $200 per hour. For general register of voters staff time, the current fee is $83 per hour. The actual cost determined by the fee study is about 78 per hour. We are proposing to reduce the fee to $75 per hour. For the paper printout maps, the current fee is $25. Although the calculated cost is approximately $44 per map, we are recommending no increase and we recommend to continue charging the existing fee. This proposal changes how custom digital maps are priced. Rather than charging a single flat fee regardless of the amount of work involved, custom requests would now be billed at $100 per hour. Standard digital map products would remain unchanged. Because many custom requests require less than one hour of staff time, we expect that many customers will actually pay less than they do today while creating a fee structure that more accurately reflects the work that is performed. The amendment to our custom GIS shapefile fee follows the same concept as the custom digital map file fee. Rather than charging a flat fee of $250, custom GIS shapefile requests would transition to an hourly rate of $100. This better aligns the fee with the actual amount of staff time required and in many cases is expected to reduce the overall cost paid by the customer. The last fee is a new proposed fee and is one of the most significant improvements included in today's proposal. Under our current fee schedule, someone requesting only a small amount of voter information must purchase an entire master voter file. This proposal creates a brand new option allowing customers to purchase individual voter records for $1.50 per record up to a maximum of 10 records. This provides a much more affordable option for members of the public who need only a limited amount of information while still allowing the department to recover a portion of its administrative costs. We believe this amendment improves accessibility and better serves the public. In closing, the services represented within the registered voter's fee schedule are not a significant sort of revenue for the department. Historically, these services generate between approximately $8,000 to $12,000 annually, so the proposed amendments are not expected to have a material impact on the department's budget or the net county cost. Instead, this proposal focuses on three primary objectives, maintaining affordability for members of the public, improving consistency within our fee schedule, and providing additional lower cost options for election related records and services. The recommendation before your board today is to adopt the amended registered voters fee schedule effective July 1st, 2026. And that will conclude our presentation. I want to thank you for your time and Olivia and I are available to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, sir. Supervisor Rickman.

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you both for your presentation. And we had a probably more relaxed now that, you know, the elections are over getting ready for November. But I do have a quick question. And it is this is one thing always puzzles me. For example, fee number 10, annual cost of department, $104.95 per hour. So we're charging an employee to do this work, right? But isn't that what we already do as taxpayers? I mean, you use our taxes to hire the individual to pay their salary to fill that position. So why would somebody charge you actually when they're doing their job?

Through the chair, Supervisor Rickman, we are trying to follow the process set forward for the county. And I think these are fees that we had already inherited. And I think our goal is to, after hearing the board on May 12th, is to align it the best we can with board direction and also with county practice. And so from our perspective, that's the goal.

if I may thank you through the chair. Supervisor Rickman, and I understand what you're saying. Yes, our taxpayer dollars are spent for staff to provide services. So these are user fees. So not everybody is going to be coming to their counter in the example that you just gave for fee number 10. It's for the GIS shapefiles. Not everybody uses that. So these are what we call, I believe that's what they're called, user fees. So they would only be specific to that. So that's why they're a little bit, it's in addition to what our taxpayer dollars are paying for the staff to provide services. This is a type of service, but it's only for a select group.

CUSTOM FILE BECAUSE OF TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS WERE ABLE TO, THAT ONE THAT WAS SHOWING AT $250, THE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER HOUR MAKES MORE SENSE BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE SAME PROCESS THAT IT USED TO BE SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AS WELL.

I USUALLY ASK, ONE OF THE THINGS, IT'S JUST LIKE WHEN, SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED SOMETHING FROM ISD AND, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO PAY whatever it may be, the hourly rate for ISD in order, you know, it's just money shifting back and forth. And I'm just picking ISD because you're right in front of me here. But so it's just something to me, it just doesn't make sense. But that's government, I guess. But I appreciate it. Thank you.

Absolutely.

Thank you, sir.

Supervisor Gardea. I just got a quick question. So on fee six and seven, can you give me examples of what like a

special job request for a technical staff or RV staff so sometimes custom jobs are building specialized maps it can be requesting a deep dive into records that like historical records to be honest we don't I in my eight years I have not seen these used very often they're very rare but they exist so when that does come up we have a mechanism to charge appropriately

So can you just give me an example of like if I'm a customer and I'm requesting something, where would that come into play?

So example would be technical staff. We've had requests before where they're asking for a report we don't normally use within the election and if it's something that's being requested for a scholarly purpose, sometimes people want to pay for that additional data and then we'd have to have technical staff go in and build that out for them. So that would be an example that I can think of that we had a university request at one point. That's the one example I have. I know with the GIS special files, that's related to shape files, and sometimes that needs to be built out for specialized software. And it may, one request I've seen in the last year was instead of requesting just the regular city council map that we have available that's just a regular map, they wanted it broken down into city council districts in a certain way, so they wanted a specialized map that only involved a certain portion of the district, and so our staff had to go in and create that. Those are the two examples I have off the top of my head.

All right.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Just on fee number 11. So the master voter one on the chart, how's that saving money? So it says minus on the PowerPoint or on the computer, minus 18 for smaller file, minus three for larger file. What is...

So currently the master voter file is $68. We're proposing the master voter file to be at $65. And when you have 5,000 or less voters, something I always felt was a concern, a lot of our little small fire districts and water districts will ask for a file and they have 300 voters, 800 voters, 1200 voters, and they're paying $68 to receive a file that has far less volume. And so we wanted to create a mechanism to create a discounted price for those that are requesting a small portion of voter data.

So the master voter file is more than 10 records, obviously?

Yes, it would be the entire county record.

Oh, okay. So you're saying you could pull out and then it's $1.50 per record up to 10. So it would be $15 as opposed to $50 or $65.

Correct. And a good example of when that's done is usually when there's a highly contested seat on ballot, you will get campaigns that are requesting the voter roll records just for 10 candidates or eight candidates or six candidates. And so this is a mechanism for them to be able to request that data without paying the full $68 fee. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Public hearing, right? I'm going to open the public hearing. Anybody from public want to speak?

Hello. Okay, so why do we have a fee? Because we have a fee? It's a mandated thing. We have to do elections. Some years we do no elections. Some years we do two elections. So we still have the same staff, they still come to work, they eat their lunch, and they do their job, and then you have to charge us. And who pays for this? There's only two customers, you and probably just about me, because I'm the only other person going down there looking to see that everything's transparent. And you, meaning you people running for election. So why are we charging for most of these fees? If you want to come and get something very special and take somebody's time, I get that. But for the most part, everything that we're asking on this list, the rolls, is a push of a button. You want to pay for the jump drive, all right, I can go there. You want to pay for the paper, I can go there. But the rest of the stuff is silly. It's a mandate. You have to create the documents. The maps, every time we have an election, that department has to create maps to encompass district one district three district five the fire department the school board whatever it is they have to make those maps and then they overlay them it's a push of the button this is crazy the fee shouldn't go up by any means they should go away thank you anybody else i'm going to close the public hearing bring it back

Any further questions, comments? Do we have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Motion and second. Call for a vote. Motion passes 4-0. Thank you. Thank you so much. General government discussion. Item number one, discussion and possible action, including approval of an email retention policy for San Joaquin County County Council.

Yeah, this is something that my department's brought forth. we have if you look in administrative manual policies we have a document retention policy for all the various documents that the county keeps but interestingly even though emails have been around for for decades now i i still i'm old enough to remember when they were new but that was a long time ago We don't have a anything specific to emails in terms of how long we must keep them and my understanding is I'm not aware that we ever deleted emails and given how long the emails been around that that would I'm I'm guessing that means we are storing millions and millions of emails, and there's a cost associated with that. There's both a direct cost in the form of storage fees, like electronic storage fees. I don't know what the amount is, but it's not... insignificant and there's also indirect costs associated with having millions and millions of emails going back many many many years insofar as when there if somebody does a public records act request they can ask for documents i mean emails going back many many years and It takes time, staff time, to comply with those Public Record Act requests, despite the fact that emails from 10 years ago, let's say, are probably pretty irrelevant in 99% of the cases. But you need to comply with that or you need to fight it, and that's a daunting proposition. Similarly, when the county gets sued, If somebody wants to do discovery going back, let's say, 10 years, that is something which, if we have those emails, we need to comply with or fight it. Once again, go to court and say, this is irrelevant. This is overly burdensome. We shouldn't have to produce all these things. Well, that costs money. And that process is time consuming. And so to the extent that staff time is devoted to having to dig up emails from many, many years ago, that is time that they're not able to devote to doing the public's business and we obviously have finite resources. On the other hand though, I understand that there's value in having emails from the past. I myself will on many occasions get something where I go, I think I've answered that question before or I think I've seen something where a similar situation arose and I'll do a search and I'll find an old email and as a consequence of that I'll save time having to re-research something which my old brain has forgotten but that I've researched in the past. So it's a balancing test in my mind. And then there is of course the fact that we are in favor of transparency and if you have emails from a few years ago that might be something relevant to the public and they have a right to ask for it and we have a philosophy of being transparent and we want to provide the public access to those things. So there is this balance. And so what I've tried to do in coming up with this email policy is strike that balance. And there have been proposals I've seen, they've not passed, to require emails be kept for a period of two years. What I've put in the proposed policy is that we keep emails for three years and that they be deleted. Any emails over three years old be deleted every January, which would mean Well, OK, so I want to address another issue, which is that some people might say, well, I've got an email that's four years old, and that's real valuable to me, or five years old, and that's real valuable to me. There is the option in this proposal where employees are able to save emails which are older than three years old. You just have to save it separately. And so what I plan on doing over the next, if the board adopts this over the next six months, until January until January of 2027 is to the extent that I pull up old emails that I've relied upon that I think are useful I'm going to separately save those and I'm going to if the board adopts this policy reach out to the department heads and remind them as I and I this is not this will not come as news to them I've we've discussed this in department head meetings and If the board adopts this, I will remind department heads, hey, the board's adopted this policy, so let your people know. They've got the next six months to make sure to separately save any emails which they think is important to them, which would otherwise be deleted because they're over three years old. A couple other things I should probably mention about the proposed policy is it takes into account that there are some departments, CDD is a good example, where there's a need to hold on to emails that are over three years old. In the case of CDD, my understanding is sometimes they'll have projects and the projects may go for many years. emails that they've received in connection with those projects will be part of the official record and so they have the option and I'm sure they'll take advantage of it to have their own separate email retention policy which is which keeps things for longer than three years And then finally I want to mention that to the extent that an email contains information which is required under state law to be retained for more than three years, well in those circumstances we would also be separately saving those documents because ultimately how long you need to keep a document isn't dependent upon the form it's in. It's not dependent upon whether it's in written form versus electronic form. It depends on the nature of it. And there are certain types of documents that state law requires be kept more than three years. And to the extent that such things are contained within an email or frequently attached to an email, we'll be obviously complying with those state law requirements in retaining those things for more than three years. But as a default, to the extent you've got an email which doesn't fall into one of the categories I've mentioned, that is something which is useful to hang on to for more than three years or which is subject to state law requiring it be kept for more than three years, the default will be every January those things over three years old will be deleted. And so that's the proposal. It's it's trying to strike a balance between Having efficiency for the for the for the county while recognizing that there is value in in having some Emails that you can refer back to that weren't from the distant past So that's the proposal. I've got before you Any questions

No. Anybody from public? Is there a motion? So far as I can tell.

any of the information that we need to restore or that people want to store, they can is the moral of the story. Cause I mean, we get a lot of junk emails. I mean, I can imagine just the amount since I've been here for three and a half years of the ones that are just stored that you read or people, you know, wanting business or wanting contracts. So I mean everything, but whatever needs to be saved will be saved. And then the employees have the ability to save certain ones that they want.

Absolutely. If you have, if you, if, If there's something you rely upon, you can separately save it. If the state law requires it be retained longer than that, we will save it. If a department wants to have a retention period which is longer than the default three years, they have the ability to have their own separate retention policy. So all those things are taken into account. Oh, and obviously I should mention if there is outstanding discovery that pertains to, that emails are potentially responsive to, there's a litigation hold put on it, so we do not delete those emails until that litigation is done. Similarly, if somebody makes a PRA request, a California Public Records Act request, and there are emails that are responsive to it, we don't delete those emails until we've either complied with the request or resolved the matter otherwise.

And then like the hospital, county hospital, I mean, obviously there's some medical records, obviously, that you're not going to, I mean, is there priorities?

Yeah, I obviously am not, if the hospital wants to have a separate email retention policy which keeps things longer, they can do so. And insofar as some of those records may be required to be kept longer than three years, they will be kept for the required period of time.

You have some wisdom? Yeah.

The chair.

So I want to just kind of reiterate what you're saying. Your question was saving some of the files. So you do have the opportunity to save emails on your drives, which is called PST file. And that's at the discretion of the users. However, we are still limited no matter if you save it that way to the size of it. So. eventually, no matter how you save it, we have to delete it. Now, there are other places that you can save information that does not have to be in the email. And what we would like to do is we would like to, as ISD, as a county, we would like to start having people have information stored in systems as opposed to emails. Okay. And so to answer your question, yes, there are several options that you can do that can save emails, but those still have capacity limitations to them. So we want to make sure that we're cognitive about that as well. So even though that you could save on your desktop and your PST file, okay, they still have a limit to it before they become corrupt. So just wanted to add that clarity to the situation.

Side note, I just wanted to give a shout out to the young people that are out here. I don't know what you're here for, but thank you for coming. It's nice to see people actually sit back there. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Through the Chair, if I may. Real quick, there are students with the ROV's office. I think they're interns. Is that correct? She's making a mistake through the whole meeting. I did want to say to your point, something that I'll probably evaluate is whether or not we want a policy for your emails as board members that coincide with your terms so that your four years may be plus one or something. Through Ed's policy, that's something that departments can do.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you all for coming.

Supervisor Ackman?

Thank you, Chairman. I just want to make a good point. or a point is you want to save an email, you're worried about it getting deleted, make a hard copy. You know, that's how it used to be done, right? Make a hard copy, put it in your file. There you go. You don't have to worry about it being deleted. And, you know, have the conversation go, you know, over and over about, you know, that's an easy fix. Thanks, Chairman. Thank you, sir. Supervisor Garcia?

In my office, we really like to delete our emails that are no older than two weeks old and make copies of ones that are important. But especially with the amount of emails that we get on a daily basis, if you're not keeping up on your emails and deleting them, you would never be able to get through them all. So I just wanted to add that.

And through the Chair, to Super Gardea's point, there is not a requirement that you keep an email for three years. And so to the extent, if you look at the policy, it defines certain documents as transitory. These are things which are not required to be kept. Let's say I send an email to somebody and say, you know, Mr. Smith called you. Well, that's... Once I've conveyed that email to somebody and the person has called Mr. Smith back, there's no requirement that that be kept. And so I want to be clear to the extent that you've got people who delete emails in less than three years, they will retain that option to do so, so long as the email doesn't fall into a category where it needs to be retained for a longer period of time under state law. Thank you, sir.

Through the chair, if your permission, I'll make a motion. To approve second you have a motion and a second call for both please. Motion passes 4-0. Item number two accept a presentation by the Registrar of voters regarding a post election update for the June 2nd, 2026 statewide district primary election in San Joaquin County.

Are you going to charge us a fee for this or no? I'm just joking. That was just a joke.

I'm not the only department, so I'll take that collectively for the team. Well, good morning still. Thank you for having me. Olivia Hale, San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters. Just to touch on, if I may, through the chair, we do have our interns here today through the A-plus program. We have six youth that are working in our office. And we have five college students that are working in our office. And at the gracious appreciation to the clerk of the board's office, they had an opportunity to come in board chambers and tour. They actually worked with our four items today through the process with our office. There is an educational component required when you bring the youth in. And so this was an opportunity for them to understand the whole process of how items are presented to the board. So that is why they're here today. Alrighty, now for our business. Today, I'd like to provide a brief overview of the June 2nd, 2026 statewide direct primary election. I'll cover voter participation, voting trends, election operations, security measures, areas where we've already made some improvements, and a few opportunities we are focusing on moving forward. Overall, I am very proud of our staff. This was another successful election that was conducted securely, accurately, and transparently. We certified the election on June 25th, which was the 23rd day following the election, and well ahead of the June 2nd statutory deadline. This was the first possible date to certify the election for this cycle. For this election, we had just over 139,000 ballots cast, resulting in a countywide turnout of approximately 34%. As we've continued to see over the past several election cycles, vote by mail remains the preferred voting method. Approximately 122,000 voters voted using their vote by mail ballot, compared to about 16,700 voters who chose to vote in person through early voting, election day voting, or conditional voter registration slash provisional voting. Of the vote by mail ballots returned, about 61,000 came through the U.S. Postal Service. Nearly 40,000 were returned through our official ballot drop boxes, and almost 25,000 were returned directly at voting locations. These numbers continue to demonstrate that voters value having multiple secure options available to return their ballot. To note, accepted ballots are ballots that were verified and determined to be eligible for tabulation. Returns include all tabulated ballots, but also those that were deemed uncurable or that were not cured by the deadline. This slide illustrates how voter registration has grown over the past several election cycles. San Joaquin County now has just over 410,000 registered voters, the highest registration total we have seen. That continued growth requires for us to plan for additional equipment, staffing, polling locations, and voter outreach with every single election. To note, the 2024 decrease was during a vigorous voter roll maintenance cycle that had to wait until after the 2022 election. So that dip you see there is due to voter roll maintenance. The voter turnout. This slide shows how voting habits continue to evolve Oh, sorry. This chart compares turnout across recent elections. As expected, turnout for presidential general elections is significantly higher than primary elections. This year's turnout is consistent with historical statewide primary participation and is very comparable to previous primary elections, with a slight 6% increase compared to the 2022 primary election. Voting method trends. This slide shows how voting habits continue to evolve. Vote by mail remains the overwhelming choice for voters, while in-person voting remains an important option, particularly for same-day registration, accessible services, and voters who simply prefer voting in person, the majority of voters continue choosing to return their ballots before election day. You will also notice that the ballot drop box usage continues to remain very strong, demonstrating that voters appreciate convenient and secure return options throughout the county. This chart highlights ballot returns by each of our 27 official dropbox locations. Every location was utilized by voters, demonstrating that the network is serving communities throughout San Joaquin County, not just in our larger cities, but also in our rural communities. The geographic distribution of these boxes remains important because California regulations require equitable access throughout the county. Election worker statistics. None of our elections would be possible without our election workers. For this election, we recruited and trained 477 clerks, 183 student election officers, 131 inspectors, 50 field inspectors, and 135 election day-night support staff. I'd like to recognize and thank every one of these individuals for their commitment to serving our voters in San Joaquin County. Election security continues to be one of our highest priorities. Throughout the election, ballots remain under continuous camera surveillance from retrieval through secure retention. The San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office also partnered with us by providing escorts for election night ballot pickups, transportation from our receiving centers, secure transport of our ballots to the downtown office after the election. These procedures provide multiple layers of physical security and chain of custody throughout the election process. All 27 official ballot drop boxes were equipped with live stream security cameras that were available to the public through our website 24 hours a day throughout the election. Maintaining all 27 drop boxes ensures we continue to meet California's requirements for equitable voter access, particularly in rural areas of our county. Operationally, serving all of these drop boxes costs approximately $8,000 per election. However, because voters use the drop boxes instead of returning ballots through the mail, we realize there's about approximately $20,000 in posted savings in this election alone. The board will recall the significant costs associated with this program. It is not the drop boxes themselves, but the camera system. We will return on August 4th with a more detailed discussion regarding the camera program, which currently costs about $241,000 per election. Focus areas. Following every election, we conduct an internal review to identify opportunities for improvement. Some of our focus areas include making process improvements before voter guides go to print. And to address that clearly, we'll be working with all of the party chairman and we will be sending the party endorsement page to each of the six official parties and they will sign off on that page very similarly to what we do with measures and with candidate statements in any given election to ensure there's never an error on that page again. We will continue to evaluate our vendor contracts for potential cost savings. One of the things that were noted for us is that we used another certified vendor instead of our current vendor to deal with our postcard mailing that had to go out, and it was significantly less. And so to Supervisor Gardea's point that he makes, it's important that we're vetting all of our vendors. And just because the elections code allows for the registrar voters to make a decision on who that person is, it's very important that we're competitive and we will continue to look at that. Through the use of our Matterport technology, we have improved polling place assessments and resolved accessibility issues, spacing issues, and signage issues before election day, which was very evident for this election. We didn't get one call about a need for additional signage. This confirms that locations such as DeYoung and UOP are accessible to the voters that are using them. As something that was brought up, I wanted to note DeYoung Chapel is in fact a funeral home with a large accessible foyer. It has been used for the last 14 years and served over 230 voters in this election alone. We have not received complaints from voters in that precinct and we do not intend to move the polling location as we try to keep locations the same whenever possible. We will also provide redesigned ballot instructions and envelopes for confidential voters. Following this first election with the newly implemented changes in state law, with the feedback received, we will adjust to better serve our confidential voters. We are continuing to advocate for legislative cleanup on this law through our state association, CACEO. Following the election night reporting delay, we are enhancing our public communications regarding election result reporting. While our contingency plan ensured accurate reporting through the manual process, it does take longer. We are improving how we communicate reporting expectations should those contingency procedures ever need to be used again. Continuous improvement is something we take very seriously after every election. All right, on to how it went. Overall, this election was very successful. Some of the accomplishments this cycle include successfully implementing the congressional redistricting changes on a short timeline, continuing improvements to our asset inventory and IT support through our new 10X software, implementing automated ballot duplication, utilizing automated signature verification, updating poll worker training materials, simplifying provisional conditional voter registration processing, ensuring voters receive the correct ballot when voting CVR or provisional, certifying the election on June 25th ahead of the legal deadline as promised. I am incredibly proud of our team and grateful for the support we received from the board, county departments, and our community partners throughout this election cycle. Thank you for your continued support of the Registrar of Voters Office. I'd be happy to answer any questions the board may have at this time.

Any questions? You have one?

Go ahead. So before we mailed out all the absentee, I mean the ballots to everybody at home, they used to have to do it by mail-in asking, how much has that changed? So before we did that to mail them to everybody, there used to be a request process, right?

That is correct, through the chair. Great question, Supervisor Canepa. So prior to 2020, it required you to request to be an absentee voter. At that time, we had just under 80% of our voters that were requesting to be vote by mail. And so now with universal vote by mail, all 100% of our voters are receiving one. But prior to that, the numbers show that we were right at about 80% of our voters requesting to have a ballot mailed to them.

So then you would have to actually mail them a request form anyway. So you're paying postage to send that request form to send it back. Or how did that work?

No, they, they would make the request and then it would permanently remain a request. So it wasn't like you had a request for election in California. It was just a one-time request. And then you remained a vote by mail ballot or voter.

So you're saying 20% of our 400,000 want to vote in person.

According to at that time. Yes. I think that what we've seen is trends It's hard to now know because we're universal vote-by-mail and we're seeing more people use that but I will say that I think Voters really just want to have the option to do whatever fits their preference and sometimes you see voters that may vote by mail But if they can vote in person they will and so I think just having all those options available is what we're seeing for voters They want to be able to have those choices

I'm just trying to think of what it costs. I mean, if we could actually save some money by not doing all those folks and in the print and things like that. And then how many folks do we know register the day of the election? this election it was only 600 this time i was one of them because i didn't know that for the whole confidential part so i didn't realize what we were supposed to do and i actually left my envelope at the house and i could have just stuck it in the envelope and voted so there were 600 folks that registered the day of the election that is correct perfect thank you thank you sir do we have a policy ordinance uh for signs they're still out in the public

Through the chair of supervisor guardia. We actually don't as the county department There are we basically put a page in the candidate guide that explains that if you're in the city jurisdiction Whichever code for whichever city applies if you're in the county it applies to the to a specific, but there is Requirements and I think for the county it's 30 days Okay

Can you get back to me on that to get specific? Yeah, I'll email you the page that I'm referring to, absolutely. How many ballots were rejected?

I think altogether with those that were uncurable and those that were curable, it was about 2,700 total. But that was that category. And then, of course, we also had those that were postmarked too late. And we were about, I believe, at 2,900 ballots that were rejected because the postmark was too late.

Now, do you have a report that... Give specifics to that?

Yes.

Can we all get a copy of that?

With each voter or just the numbers? Just the numbers. Yes, absolutely.

And then the other question I have for you is, was there any discrepancies or we have any open investigations of any type of fraud this election?

We do not have any, to my knowledge, of any investigations of fraud, but that might be a question for the sheriff or the DA, but I'm not aware of anything at this time.

Thank you. Sir, anybody from public? I will come back to that. Thank you.

I would like you to request a better accounting of how much the drop box ballots cost. There was a mention of $8,000 operational cost. And in the fee structure, it's my understanding that the time for the staff at the ROV is $83 an hour. However, I think that that $8,000 was based upon $20 an hour that was presented in an EAC presentation. So I think we need to get a better, firmer grip on what the actual cost is when two teams go out every day to collect the boxes. How much does it cost for their transportation, the van, the mileage? not just the security cameras and the amount of actual wages, but the total cost for the ballot drop boxes. And keep in mind the last day, it's two teams going out to pick them up, but there's also separate teams for every single ballot drop box that are standing there just to lock the ballot drop box at 8 o'clock. So I think a better accounting of that to see how much those ballots are costing would be appropriate. Thank you.

Anybody else? Supervisor Campbell?

Yeah, there was some concerns of ballots were mailed to Idaho. So how do you safeguard that? I mean, things that are mailed out of the county or is that does that come into play? I mean, I understand people in the military or whatever request. But how often do you send stuff out of the county for to be right through the chair?

We have approximately twelve hundred or twelve hundred military overseas voters, which includes civilian sides are stateside. So we would mail out about 1200 ballots of roughly each election in that category.

And that's usually the only ones that are outside of the county that would have an address outside of the county. So that's what safeguards that so that we don't send somebody Correct.

However, someone can give a mailing address temporarily. So like college students that are away at college, they can request for their ballot to be mailed to their university. So there are exceptions to that as well. But they would be a registered voter in San Joaquin and we would be sending that over. And then what happens is with voter roll maintenance, if they haven't participated in two elections or if we get notification through the national change of address or if we get a notification through our credit reporting agency, if this person is conducting business at an address that's not in our county, and it's flagged, we will then go through the removal process of that voter. So we do rigorously keep up on different processes. There's a lot of different ways that we maintain the voter rolls and through all of those different avenues, we're constantly looking at those things. And so if you're not legitimately requesting a ballot, you will get removed from the roll.

So there is a check and a balance. Yes, there is. All right, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, sir. No action is required, right, Rochelle? Thank you, Olivia.

Thank you for your time.

And all the students, thank you so much for being here, part of the democracy in action. Thank you so much. The board will recess. At this time, we will be acting as governing board of the San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. We're going to convene the Flood Control and District Conservation meeting. We have item number one, approve a $950,000 increase in the construction funding allocation and approve the first amendment to agreement A-25-271 with Albert for construction management services in the amount of $219,349 for the NA-0017 pipe replacement deferred maintenance program. and authorize the flood control engineer or designee to execute contract change order and supplement task orders within the approval funding allocation. Any questions? Anybody from public? Do we have a motion? Is there a second? Motion and second. Call for vote, please. Motion passes 4-0. We will adjourn the Flood Control and Water Conservation District meeting and convene the Board of Supervisors meeting. County Council, can you please read the items for closed session?

Yes, we're going to close session and there will be discussion with, regarding labor matters under government code section 54957.6. Secondly, there will be an evaluation done of the Director of Child Support Services pursuant to government code section 54957 and 9494954.5. Then next, item number three, there will be an update regarding existing litigation with outside counsel. That is under Government Code 54956.9 , and there were four cases that outside counsel will update us on, all having to do with water rights. Finally, item number four, direction with regard to property. negotiations under 54956.8 pertaining to a property located at 1655 South B Street in Stockton. I'm not anticipating any announcements coming out of closed session.

Thank you, sir. At this time, we will recess to closed session.

You can exist as a person.

Good afternoon, everyone.

board will reconvene after the closed session county council is there any thing to report uh there is bear with me for just a second i misspoke earlier when i indicated there would not be reportable action there is in fact reportable action having to do with the um ongoing litigation In the matter of the Department of Water Resources, for the Delta Conveyance Project. The board approved taking writ on that matter. The motion was made by Supervisor Canepa and seconded by Supervisor Gardea and by a vote of four to zero with Supervisor Ding absent. As I indicated, the board approved taking a writ on that legal case number D20257. That's all the reportable action.

Thank you, sir. 1.30 scheduled afternoon items. Number one is service and retiree award presentations. Nicole.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the Board, County Administrator, and County Council. Nicole DeVincenzi, Assistant Human Resources Director. On behalf of the Human Resources Division, it is my privilege to introduce today's service awards and retiree recognition ceremony. One of the greatest strengths of San Joaquin County has always been its people. Today we will recognize 3,845 total years of service at milestones of 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, and today, 45 years. Wow. Today's recognition is not only a celebration of years of service, but of the lasting impact those years have had on our organization and our community. Employee Benefits and Development Manager Oriana Mahoney will continue with the recognition ceremony.

Good afternoon, Chair Dhaliwal, members of the board, county council, and county administrator. Thank you for taking the time to create this great honor for our county staff who work so hard. We are going to begin by honoring retirees, calling each individual by years of service and in alphabetical order for a photo with our San Joaquin County supervisors. Following the retiree recognition, we will transition into the service awards. Each service award recipient will receive a service pin and a framed photo as lasting symbols of appreciation. We hope these tokens reflect the pride we feel in our contribution and the value you bring to our community every day. Honorees will be called up in groups based on their years of service. Once your name is called, please come forward and wait with your group for a group photo with the board. Kindly hold applause until all names within each group have been read. I know that's really hard, but that's it. 161 employees from 15 different departments were eligible to participate in today's award ceremony 75 employees requested to be honored publicly today, which is a lot more than we typically get so kudos to you all. These service awards cover staff who became eligible from the months of September 2025 to April 2026. Retirees are also recognized as part of the Service Award Program. 132 retirees from 17 departments have retired from September 2025 to April 2026. 14 retirees requested to be honored publicly today. Our employees are the heart of our mission. Their commitment, resilience, and daily contributions shape the communities we serve. Celebrating their service not only honors their impact but also reinforces our shared values of integrity, inclusion, and excellence. We are grateful to the Board of Supervisors for their continued support in making this recognition possible. It sends a strong message that public service matters and that those who devote their careers to it are seen, valued, and appreciated. Greatness grows here because of our staff. Thank you for making public service your career and for helping shape the heart of San Joaquin County. We will now proceed with the retirees, so I will ask the Board to step down here for your photo ops. Well, don't you all just look so snazzy today? All right. I am going to call out retirees individually. You will come up with your certificate that you received, snap a photo with these wonderful gentlemen, and then go have a seat right after so that we could call up the next retiree. We are going to start with Rebecca Whitmore from San Joaquin General Hospital with 17 years of service. Thank you. Next up, We have Janice Pimentel with San Joaquin General Hospital, six years of service. Thank you. Next up, we have Lawrence Newman, San Joaquin General Hospital, 30 years of service. Thank you. Next up, we have Connie Lehman with Human Services Agency, 10 Years of Service. Next up is Tanya Moreno from Tanya Moreno Human Resources 30 Years of Service. I love the flowers, great touch, great touch. Next up, we have Rosa Hernandez Flores, Behavioral Health Services, 11 years of service. All right, thank you. Next up, we have Shirley Hollowell, Behavioral Health Services, 27 years of service. Thank you. Next up, we have Latasha Walden, Probation Department, 18 years of service. Few more to go, but this particular retiree has the most years of service of anybody being recognized today. 41 years of service from Dan McKeever Public Works. Next up, we have Rodney Psyche from the Agricultural Department with 19 years of service. Next, we have Toby Farnsworth with the Sheriff's Office, 24 years of, did I just read that? Just kidding. We'll give him another clap. Toby Farnsworth, Sheriff's Office, 24 years of service. You public works guys are lifers at the game. Next up, I have James E. Hart with 30 years of service. Last but not least, I have Jill Fritchin with Human Services Agency with a whopping 36 years of service. Let's give all of our, before I do that, are there any retirees that I missed? There were some late check-ins. Okay, so let's go ahead and give a round of applause to all of our retirees. Thank you for your dedicated service.

One day, I'm on countdown.

Just kidding. I love it here. Please don't let me go. Okay. I love this job. It's so wonderful. Everybody's great. All right. So next up, we will be doing our service awards. So what I will be doing is calling everybody with 20 years of service. When you hear your name, you're going to come up to the front. Once we have all of the 20 years up here for the picture, then you will snap your photo and then go sit back down while we move on to 25, then 30, et cetera.

Got it?

All right. So... I'm gonna ask that you, I'm gonna ask, I don't know if it's gonna happen, I'm gonna ask that you hold your applause until all of the 20 years are up there. Let's start with Adnan Tariq Khan from SJSARA. I have Alice Tracy Zamora from Human Services Agency. Caleb Lind from the Sheriff's Office. Shay Francis Edmond from Human Services Agency. Christina Moranis from S.J. Serra. Elizabeth Mesa from Public Health Services. George Negrete from Sheriff's Office. James Bolas from the Sheriff's Office. Jamie Jerome from Emergency Medical Services, Office of Emergency Medical Services. Jeanette Blossom from Human Services Agency. Leslie Robinson from the Sheriff's Office. Mendana Modamini from San Joaquin General Hospital. Maria Sassante from Behavioral Health Services. Marlo Butler from the Probation Department. Mercedes Navarro from Probation Department. Maria Her Yang from Behavioral Health Services. Natasha Jessica Aceves-Palesteros from Human Services Agency. Rauta Villalobos from Sheriff's Office. Liliana Liva from Probation. And Sandra Stockton from Correctional Health Services. Am I missing anybody else with 20 years?

Okay.

I'm like, get on in there. You guys probably have to layer up some. Yeah, you guys might have to layer up some. Oh, Sandra Stockton with the district attorney's office. Correction there. Sandra Stockton, you get three shout outs for that. Professional photographer, let's... You guys could keep snapping while everybody else claps for 20 years of service. Thank you, everyone. We will now move on to 25 years of service. We're gonna start with Amanda Wilder from Probation. Canada Nordyke from San Joaquin General Hospital. Carmen Lopez from Public Health Services. Catherine Mogherong from Public Health Services. Chanton Lam Copeland from Behavioral Health Services. Daniel Victoria from the Sheriff's Office. Don Narayan from Human Services Agency. Desiree Roslisano from the Assessor's Office. Eshtu Gabramichael from Public Works. Florentino Guerso from Human Services Agency. Genoviba Flores from the Assessor's Office. Janelle Fredrickson from Behavioral Health Services. Judy Yoshida from Human Services Agency. Lillian Weidemann from Public Works. Linda Chung from Human Services Agency. Maria Hernandez from the Treasurer Tax Collector. Mark Villamayor from the Assessor's Office. Nicole Gunderson from Human Services Agency. Ramil Donaunino from, I'm gonna try that one again, because I'm not gonna butcher names. Ramil Donaunino from Human Services Agency. Neronio, Deronio, Deronio. Ramil Deronio from Human Services Agency. Raul Harugi Haduji from Public Works. Hadugi, Raul Hadugi from Public Works. Just like saying that. Renee Norman from Auditor-Controller. Sandra Costa-Adams from Parks and Rec. Sophini Son from Human Services Agency. And last but not least, Yvette Payton from Probation. All right, while they're all scooching in, we're gonna scooch, we're gonna scooch. We're gonna scooch in, folks. Let's everybody scooch in. We're gonna have to layer you up in there. Yep, all the way in, all the way in, all the way in. Scooch in, scooch in. They don't bite. Scooch in, scooch in. All right, let's give 25 years another great big hand. All right, we are gonna move to 30 years of service. We have two individuals who will be coming up for this. We have two employees who will be recognized for 30 years of dedicated county service. First up, I have Irene Rodriguez from Public Health Services. We also have Christina Rubianis from County Council. Well, there's 41. You guys matched with your floral. Is that a 30-year thing? You guys coordinated. All right. With 35 years of county service, we have our last five individuals that we will be recognizing today. We are gonna start with Diego Chavez from Public Works. Next up, we have Melissa Chavez from Department of Child Support Services. Patricia Pimentel from San Joaquin General Hospital. Samantha Menor from Sheriff's Office. And Sally Gutierrez Flores from Department of Child Support Services. While they're getting situated, let's give them one big giant round of applause for 35 years. All right. Oh, did you want one? I'm like, we could bring them all back for his picture. Let's give a wide round of applause for all of our retirees and service awardees for their dedicated years of public service. You guys can go back. You're excused. To give you guys an opportunity to. say some things. Don't leave yet, folks. Go ahead and have a seat. The supervisors have some nice things to say to you all, so don't vacate just yet.

Supervisor Gaddiya

WELL, I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT EVERYBODY HERE SEEN ME SMILE MORE THAN MY WIFE DID IN THE 30-SOMETHING YEARS I'VE BEEN MARRIED TO HER. great recognition. And I just want to say, you know, I work for the city of Stockton and we never had anything like this. It was this is phenomenal. And just to see the smile of our employees and their families of, you know, getting the recognition, especially to our retirees of spending most of their lives here, work for the county. I want to say thank you. So thank you. And off to another good year. And we'll see you again next year.

Thank you, sir.

Supervisor Kanepa.

Yeah, I do. This has been the most amazing three and a half years of my life. It's because of the people that make the county such a great place to work. call home. I know we often don't get along up here sometimes, but we do a great job of, you know what I mean, supporting our employees most. I mean, we have differences of opinion, but I think it's 35 years, 41 years shows the dedication and service to our community. We can only do two terms. So you're stuck with me for eight years. But I love what I do and I appreciate what you do for the county. So thank you so much.

Thank you, sir. So what was the Richmond?

Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, thank you all for the hard work that you do. And, you know, I'll start off with the retirees. Thank you for spending so much time here in the county and help on the public. And retirement is nice. I'm not going to lie to you, right? And I retired about two and a half years ago from law enforcement. And now's the time, you know, you give everybody else, you know, your time. Now it's time to give your family and do the things that you want to do and go out there and have fun. And to all those with the service awards, thank you. You know, we're policymakers up here. And, you know, we can, you know, make decisions. And, you know, in order for those decisions to become actions, it takes you. And, you know, we go to tons of meetings. We spend a lot of time at, like, California Association of Counties. We get to see, you know, the other 58 counties talk to their supervisors and see how their counties are doing. And I can tell you, honestly, that San Joaquin County, nobody beats a 209. And it's because of you. And so thank you all very much for what you do. Thank you for leaving your family every morning, coming to work and helping out the public. We appreciate it more than you'll ever know. And so thank you and God bless you and God bless your family.

Thank you all. Thank you for everything you do. Congratulations to all the retirees. May God bless you, and may God bless your loved ones. Thank you.

And if those of you that retire, you can always come to the fifth district, because we are the best district. Just to let everybody know, we are accepting applications and stuff. Sandy.

And through the chair, thank you. I just also, I would like to thank all of you employees, the retirees, ones that are receiving your service awards. Thank you for choosing San Joaquin County to grow your career here. I'm so proud of all the work that you do and you truly make a difference in our community. And I'm just proud to be part of it. So thank you for all of your service.

It's time for you all to enjoy cupcakes and cookies now in the lobby. Thanks, everyone.

You're going to go have a break or a two-minute break or what? Yeah, go ahead. A couple of minutes. Yeah, we have gearing and whatever. Where's he going?

Break. Break time.

Ready? Yeah. Sorry.

Jennifer, you guys ready? Our next item is public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve general plan and development title text amendment number PA2600004 regarding warehouse industrial policies. relating to various sections of the general plan and development title, Title IX. Staff report please.

Chair, I'm going to recuse myself for the Levine Act.

Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Jennifer Jolly. I'm the Director of Community Development. I'd like to give a brief context as to how we got here today. We did have a applicant who came into the department who was requesting to change the zoning and general plan of a piece of property that he owned to warehouse industrial warehouse industrial is a designation that we created as a general plan designation about four years ago so today's purpose is to consider some additional policy amendments and to allow potential IW zone properties to go under less than two acres which is the current requirement Um, when this process started, we did have some opposition from a few of the cities. Um, they've submitted some letters. Um, however, I do believe that staff has addressed adequately their concerns through the policy recommendations that we're putting forward today. So I'd like to introduce principal planner, Megan Aguirre, who will do a presentation on this text amendment. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and supervisors. so while the most comprehensive update to the general plan was done in 2016 and we had a subsequent update to the development title in 2022 to align the two documents and one of the updates that was made in 2022 was to establish the new warehouse industrial policies in the general plan to coordinate with our existing warehouse industrial zone which jennifer just mentioned General plan and development title text amendment number PA264 that we're here for today is a text amendment for updates to the warehouse industrial land use designation to allow parcels smaller than two acres in size to be considered for the designation while also proposing additional review criteria for all proposed warehouse industrial projects. Proposed changes to the general plan considered the comments received from meeting with the cities and increased the coordination efforts between the cities and the county. One example is a recommendation to include a requirement for all general plan map amendments and zone reclassifications to have a pre-application, which would ensure early review of potential compatibility issues. This would allow cities and other agencies to comment early on the project and identify potential issues before the applicant has invested a significant amount of time and money in the project. New land use goals for warehouse industrial designation include coordinating the applicant's request with the city's adopted general plan and any related documents. So the level of review for projects located within or half mile of a city's sphere of influence would require discretionary review, which includes the opportunity for cities, again, and other agencies to comment on these projects. There's also a requirement currently that you have to be two acres minimum to be warehouse industrial, and so this text amendment would propose to allow smaller parcels if they're already developed with a legally established commercial or industrial purpose and meet all county standards. Several letters in opposition to the project were received and primary topics were project notification and future coordination. These concerns are either already addressed by standard procedures or in the proposed text amendment language. Existing general plan policies require that county staff consider city plans when reviewing a project and provide project notification. The proposed text amendment further strengthens this language. Other topics of concern include potential impacts to future residential and the level of environmental review for the text amendment. With the new policies as recommended, such as a pre-application for all general plan map amendments and zone reclassifications and coordination with cities when projects are located within or near their sphere of influence, concerns about potential impacts to future residential development will be identified early in the process to ensure that these are consistent projects. In regards to environmental review, staff recommends filing a notice of exemption for this text amendment because any potential future projects would be individually reviewed in depth. In order to process a general plan or development title text amendment, several findings must be made in the affirmative. These findings include that the proposed text amendments are consistent with the general plan, will benefit the public, and have been reviewed in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. General plan text amendments are also required to retain the internal consistency of the general plan and other adopted plans unless a concurrent amendment is proposed for consistency. The changes as proposed are consistent with the general plan goals and policies requiring coordination with the cities, which will benefit the public by ensuring that land use compatibility is considered beyond just county properties and plans, while also providing additional development opportunities for parcels meeting specific criteria. Changes are also proposed to retain consistency within and between the general plan and the development title. As a result, staff recommends that the findings can be made in the affirmative. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approves this text amendment with the recommendations shown on this slide and included in the board letter. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Board members, any questions for staff?

No? I got one, Chair. Go ahead, sir. Thank you. You know, you look at the... the slideshow and it mentioned that we received several letters from the city managers and which we reviewed. The request for a formal framework as outlined in the letters granting cities substantial weight in county decisions over unincorporated lands, in my opinion, is unreasonable and very one-sided. OUR GENERAL PLAN ALREADY REQUIRES NOTIFICATION, INPUT, AND SERIOUS CONSIDERATION OF CITY CONCERNS UNDER OUR GOAL C4, I BELIEVE IT IS. WE FOLLOW THESE POLICIES DILIGENTLY, AS I KNOW I SPOKE TO MRS. JOLLY ON THIS ISSUE HERE WHEN RIPPON BROUGHT THIS FORWARD. NOW, THE CITY'S PROPOSAL WOULD EFFECTIVELY ERODE COUNTY AUTHORITY IN OUR OWN JURISDICTION WITHOUT RECIPROCAL ACCOUNTABILITY. IF WE APPLIED THE SAME LOGIC THE OTHER WAY AROUND, THIS WOULD ENTITLE THE COUNTY TO SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT IN CITY APPROVALS FOR PROJECT IMPACTING COUNTY ROADS AND FACILITIES. I'VE LOOKED AND THERE IS IN MY OPINION OR LIMITED RESEARCH I HAVE DONE, NO CITY OFFERS THAT HERE IN CALIFORNIA. THIS CREATES A CLEAR RULE FOR THE BUT NOT FOR ME DYNAMIC THAT IS DIFFICULT TO TAKE SERIOUSLY. CITIES SEEK TO CONSTRAIN OUR DISCRETION WHILE MAINTAINING FULL AUTONOMY INSIDE THEIR BOUNDARIES. relying on the very coordination tools they now deem insufficient. Real spillover traffic and infrastructure burdens exist on both sides, but they are already addressed through the countywide RTIF, CEQA, and SJCOG processes. The solution lies in strengthening those collaborative mechanisms not in one sided power shifts. You know, we must prioritize fair, effective governance that work for all residents here in San Joaquin County. So that's my statement, Chair.

Thank you, sir. Any question, Commissioner? I'm going to open the public hearing. Anybody from public want to speak on this item? Yes, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Dollywall, supervisors, county administrator, county council, clerk of the board. My name is Daniella Green. I'm the assistant city attorney of the city of Tracy, and I'm here in my capacity today as the assistant city attorney in the city of Tracy, although I am also a resident of the county. At the outset, that the city of Tracy is not opposed to the project at issue. We find it an appropriate use for that particular parcel to be rezoned to allow the use that the applicant is searching for. So we want to be very clear that we are not opposed to the project at issue. All the county, the city of Tracy and the other, our fellow cities are asking for is a little bit more notification and input into the process. For example, in our city, in the city of Tracy, we are getting ready to restart our new general plan update. So we will be bringing a new sphere of influence to LAFCO for them to consider and hopefully within the coming year or so. As part of that, the city is also then looking to increase our sphere of influence. So there may be parcels that are currently outside the city sphere of influence that then would come into the new amended sphere of influence. Again, all we're asking for is a little conversation with the county who has been very gracious with us. And I do want to acknowledge Jennifer and her staff for reaching out to our director at the time, Forrest Ebbs, to have the conversation. But early notification is probably the best planning practice that we can have as two government agencies trying to work together to do the best for our collective residents, whether they're sitting right on the border of Tracy and unincorporated county or Lodi and unincorporated county. All we want to do is have a conversation and make sure that we're coming up with solutions that work for all people that are involved, just kind of a one-size-fits-all solution. Again, we're not opposed to the instant project at issue. We want to be very, very clear on that. We support the instant project just outside of Lodi. But additional planning and notification would be a great opportunity. And obviously, as the city of Tracy is getting ready to undertake our new updated general plan, we invite the county to voice their concerns and help participate in that process because this is uh county staff and supervisors know that will be quite a long ongoing uh experience and again we want to make sure we make smart decisions for all and smart land uses for all particularly when they're sitting right at the edge of our current boundary that may end up being amended in a short amount of time so thank you thank you anybody else we'll close the public hearing bring it back to the board any further questions comments

We have Supervisor Gardea.

I see a little clarification. So is this kind of a two-part vote here? Are we voting on a general plan amendment and this development?

Through the chair, Supervisor Gardea, no. These are two independent projects. The reference that Ms. Green was talking about, we haven't introduced that information onto the record yet. However, it is dependent on this general plan policy passing. So if this were not to pass today, then we would be changing our presentation and the information we provide to you on the next project. Right now, we are just asking for the modifications to the general plan and development title for this specific IW zone and general plan. I do think it's important to put on the record that we already do coordinate with the cities We send notification many times in a situation like this. Pre-applications, as Megan mentioned, are a great tool for things like this when you want to have closely coordinated efforts between another either jurisdiction or agency. Applicants benefit from it. They lose a little bit of time, not a lot. They save a lot of money, and they can find out potential concerns that another jurisdiction or agency may have about their project very early on. That's one of the reasons we are recommending adding the pre-application requirement for any general plan or zone reclassification. So when a project, a general plan or a zone reclassification, in order for that to get approved, it has to go to the Planning Commission and ultimately has to be approved by the Board of Supervisors as well. That's two separate public hearing items where notification is sent out. In addition to that, we send notification on an early referral where the applicant, or excuse me, Other agencies and jurisdictions get an opportunity to review, have 30 days. We take that information. We typically have another meeting with the applicant to go over that information. We make an environmental determination, which then goes out with additional notice again. So there are many, many opportunities to review projects. And we already have in place our process to notify cities when any project right now is within about two miles of their sphere of influence. the cities that keep saying they want a more coordinated effort, we already do a coordinated effort. It has not been an issue. We have worked with the cities when there have been things right on the outskirts and will continue to. And as the City of Tracy so graciously did for us, they pointed out all of our general plan policies that actually say that we need to coordinate with the cities. We are not changing those policies. We're strengthening those policies in fact. So I think that this Text amendment is actually making the situation better for the coordination efforts, and therefore, that's why we are recommending approval on this.

Thank you, Jennifer. Nothing further? Do we have a motion?

I make a motion to approve the recommendation.

Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and second. Call for a vote, please. Motion passes 3-0. Can someone get Supervisor Canepa? Welcome back.

Supervisor Dhaliwal, I apologize for interrupting. I just want to point out to Supervisor Canepa that the item that we are going to hear next is the actual project. The first item was the text amendment, which is countywide, and then just in case, well, just in case that's the reason you were recusing yourself, I wanted to make sure you knew that. So the next item that Megan will be presenting is a specific parcel location Outside of the serum influence or excuse me outside of the current boundaries for the city of Lodi So I'm gonna turn this over to Megan again for this presentation.

Thank you Good afternoon again This project is comprised of two applications a general plan map amendment and zone reclassification to redesignate an approximately one acre parcel from general agriculture to warehouse industrial and an administrative use permit to develop the parcel with the traffic control business and The project site is located on the south side of East Harney Lane, east of the city of Lodi and within the city's sphere of influence. The parcel has a general plan designation and zoning of general agriculture and is 1.01 acres in size. The surrounding area is primarily comprised of agricultural operations with scattered residences. There is an existing nursery facility on the parcel that surrounds the project site to the south, east, and west. So I don't know if I can, I can't show you on there, I guess. Oh, yes. No, it's not working. Okay. Oh, was it? Oh, there we go. Okay, yeah. So the parcel is the one highlighted or outlined. And then all around it, just like the parcels that are surrounding it, the larger parcels there are the nursery operation. There's, sorry. There's also a large cemetery approximately half a mile west of the project site at the corner of East Harney Lane and Beckman Road. and commercial and residential properties in the city of Lodi, just beyond the cemetery and the State Route 99. This is a site plan submitted by the applicant. The existing building in the southwest corner of the property would be converted to an office for the proposed traffic control business, while the proposed new storage building is located along the eastern property line. The existing access driveway would remain in place, but the existing parking area would be reconfigured to allow for a fence and gate to be installed for security purposes. This is a picture of the project site taken from the north side of East Harney Lane looking southeast towards the project site. On the right is the existing developed area and then the proposed equipment storage building would be located to the left of that. Greenhouses from the surrounding nursery facility are visible in the background. And then a little background on this in 1976 a parcel map created the subject parcel to construct an office for the surrounding nursery in 2021 this office was converted to a farm services facility for the testing and propagation of plants, so it remained agricultural. The current project includes a general plan map amendment and zone reclassification from general agriculture to warehouse industrial. This requested change cannot be approved under the current general plan and development title, which require warehouse industrial parcels to be minimum of two acres in size. As such, this project is tied to the general plan and development title text amendment that was just reviewed. The proposed text amendment includes new criteria that must be met for all warehouse industrial projects and additional requirements to allow for the redesignation of parcels less than two acres in size. Because the text amendment was approved, this project meets the minimum criteria to be redesignated to warehouse industrial. The applicant also submitted the underlying project for administrative use permit to establish this traffic control business by converting the existing farm services building and constructing additional building for storage. And then this use would not, be permitted under the current general plan and zoning, but it is permitted if we make this change to warehouse industrial. In order to approve a general plan map amendment, zone reclassification, administrative use permit, several findings must be made in the affirmative. These findings are attached to the board letter and staff recommends that they can be made in the affirmative. And therefore, it's recommended that Board of Supervisors approve the project with the recommendations shown on this slide and identified in the board letter.

Thank you. Board members, any questions for staff? To my left, Supervisor Rickman.

Thank you, Chair. In the previous item, you were talking about considering parcels less than two acres in size in limited instances. So I guess this is one of those limited instances. And why is that?

So through the chair, this property has a commercial agricultural office building on it. So it was used for the nursery and then later for a farm services headquarters. So that would be the kind of circumstance that the text amendment would allow. So because it's already developed, already shows that they can have a use on there and meet their requirements for county standards like septic system, water, that sort of thing.

Okay, so we're not, you know, last item in this item here now, we're not doing a blanket, you know, under two acres and go ahead and do industrial. No, it has to be under certain conditions in order for that to happen. So we're not just allowing industrial all over the county under these two acres going to get what our general plan was in the past.

No, not every site that's less than two acres would qualify because a lot of them would likely not be developed with commercial and wanted to make sure.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, sir. Question. Of course, good. Yeah. Anything. Any questions?

No.

We're going to open the public hearing. Anybody from public want to speak on this item? Hearing none, I'm going to close it, bring it back to the board. If there's no further discussion, questions, do we just . Supervisor Gurdia.

I like in the presentation, it said common sense. And to me, this sounds like common sense. So with that said, I want to make a motion to approve the administrative use with the recommendation conditions of approval.

Do we have a second? I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Call for a vote, please. Motion passes 3-0. Can Supervisor Canepa come back now? John, there's donuts in here. Oh, he found donuts.

There were donors there?

I was listening to the golden muscle task force in the office.

I thought you found donuts.

I had a cupcake. That was good.

Next item is also a public hearing, number four, public hearing to consider the planning commission's recommendation to approve general plan map amendment and zone reclassification to PA 2400417. and Administrative Use Permit Number PA2400361 of Perry L. Hergesel, TR, Dillon N. Murphy, and Joe Murphy, District 4. Staff report, please.

Good afternoon. Corinne King, Deputy Director of Planning, and I have Stephanie Stowers here to provide a presentation.

Good afternoon. This project is comprised of two applications, a general plan map amendment and zonery classification to redesignate an approximately 14 acre parcel from general agriculture to agricultural industry and an administrative use permit to develop the parcel with a truck parking facility. The project site is located on North Cherokee Lane, approximately 600 feet south of East Kalamirna Road. The parcel has an existing general plan designation of general agriculture and open space resource conservation and a zoning designation of general agriculture. The site is surrounded by agricultural properties with scattered residences to the northeast and south with rural residential development located west of State Route 99. This is a site plan for the underlying truck parking project. The area proposed for development is outlined in orange. So it's only a small portion of the 14 acre parcel. And this is a photo taken from the West side of Cherokee lane, looking West at the project site. The 14 acre site is currently developed with a residence and accessory structures, which will remain on site. The project includes the MAP amendment to change the general plan and zoning from general agricultural to agricultural industry, which will allow for the proposed underlying development, a truck parking operation to be established. In order to approve a general plan MAP amendment, zone reclassification, and administrative use permit, several findings must be made in the affirmative. These findings are included in the board packet and staff recommends that they can be made in the affirmative. As a result, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the project with the recommendations shown on this slide and included in the board packet. Thank you. That concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you so much. Any questions for staff? Supervisor Rickman.

Thank you, Chair. How far from 99 is it?

It's like immediately adjacent to 99 between Jayhunt and Calamirna.

Yeah.

And what about the exits from the facility? So you have 25 big rigs, you know, going out, what is that? Two lane roadway right in front of it.

Yeah.

So.

so they could come north or south from one of the freeway interchanges.

AI requires you be within a certain distance of the- Right, I understand that, but I'm talking about pulling out of the facility. You have a two-lane roadway, right? So you're gonna make a left, I guess, to go to 99. So is that gonna be allowed?

Through the chair, we'll probably defer to Public Works for traffic questions.

Okay. Yeah, I'm just looking at the safety side of it. Yeah. I mean, you can imagine, I mean, it's up north and you get the fog, you know, the last thing you want is a car to go underneath one of these things.

Chair Dollarwall, members of the board, I'm Cheyenne Raymond, an engineering services manager with your public works department. They will have to prepare a turning template to demonstrate that they can make safe movements to and from the project.

Okay, that still doesn't answer my question, though. I mean, you can make a turning movement and, you know, be on the roadway and not go on the shoulder and have adequate width to do that, but it doesn't mean it's safe. I mean, I'm just looking at what I have here in the map. You have a two-lane roadway. I guess that runs, what, east and west right there? and it's what, double yellow line. So you have an east roadway, west roadway, one lane each direction, double yellow line right in the middle, I assume. So, and we're gonna allow a big rig just to take a left turn out of there. I mean, what about the, we do a traffic study on that road or anything like that? How many of you?

Yeah, so the ADT for the roadway is low where there's not a high traffic volume on the roadway. If there were traffic concerns, then we would have had a, the project would have demonstrated that it would be able to safely make movements to and from the project. If there were a high roadway volume, then we would consider access controls where there'd be like a right turn in, right turn out only.

All right. You know, and I'm not familiar with this area that well, and you know, that's why I would love to have supervisor Dean here. And since it is his district to him for him to, Shed some more light on that, but there you go. It just concerns. I mean, you see it, those folks who travel on the back roads or on some of these roads, and you have a big rig pulled out right in front of you. Imagine the weather conditions, fog. I mean, it's just a bad accident waiting to happen.

Yeah, and when these projects get routed, they get routed internally to Public Works, and it goes to our Transportation Division. They look at collision history, volume of traffic, et cetera, and based on that, we look to determine what additional mitigation measures may be necessary in areas that are of high concern of potential collisions.

And it's limited to 20, well, it said 25 now, but what about growth? Is there going to be... possibility and we're looking at 25 now next year it'll be 50.

So through the chair if they want to if they establish this use with the 25 trucks and 25 trailers if they want to increase either those numbers they'll have to come back with a new land use permit which will be referred out to the agencies and surrounding neighbors.

All right all right what about surrounding neighbors and they have anything to say?

We had one support letter, one letter in support. We had no opposition. All right.

Well, thank you both very much. Thank you, Chairman, for your patience.

I just have one question. That's not for reefer trucks, right? That'll be running its AG only.

I don't believe they put they wanted refrigeration trucks on their application.

So because sometimes those run, you know, different hours and all hours. And sometimes if you have a neighbor that's in proximity, It can cause quality of life issues.

I agree. We can add a condition of approval that says no refrigeration trucks if you'd like. And then if for some reason they wanted to change that, they would have to come in and revise their conditions. So we can add that as a condition if your board would like.

I mean, if there's nobody in opposition, because I mean, we did that kind of the same acceptance on 8 Mile Road and let the truck parking without with the variance of no refrigeration. reefers running 24 seven, you know.

Yeah. If your board would like, we can definitely you guys can add that as a condition.

Thank you, sir.

So we're going to. Is there a timeline on this project in the sense that it's something that we have to vote on today?

Through the chair not that I know of I think the applicants representative is here Maybe they have some timeline that we don't know but if this were to get continued or to another meeting We would just bring it back.

Yeah, okay.

I have no further until the public Comments, thank you, sir Good open the public hearing anybody from public want to speak on this item. I

Good afternoon. I'm Joe Murphy with Dylan and Murphy representing Perry and Helen Hergesel. Before I get started, it sounds like maybe you'd be more comfortable if Supervisor Ding were here to at least vote on it or give you his impression of the facility. And if that gives you a comfort level, we would take no objection to it. That's up to you folks. If you'd rather go forward now, I'll continue. Or if you'd like to discuss it, I can wait.

Well, we've got to close the hearing or close the public comment, too, first.

GREG BRUDNICKI- True. Garnier-Gunsel? Or we have a special meeting. GREG BRUDNICKI- Jeff, I'm sorry. For the motion to continue, I have to close the public hearing first, right?

That's correct. And I would request clarification. Would it be the next meeting, whether that be August 4th or even if we have a special meeting that date? Or are you looking for August 4th specifically? Or when you make the motion after we close it, just we should clarify that.

I'm going to close the public hearing, bring it back.

Excuse me, Supervisor. Chair Dhaliwal, I just want to point out that when we do general plan and zone reclassifications, we can only take those items to the board four times per year. So I just want to make sure that we're not using one of our four dates because we do have projects scheduled through the year that need to come back. So I missed the reason why for the continuance. So I don't know if it needs to go to a date specific or if we need to do some additional research. I couldn't tell what the reason was for the continuance.

Just for clarification on my end is I don't have enough information on us to make a decision and the board member who's the district that it's in is not currently here today. So I think it would be feasible for us to postpone this to our next available meeting. But I didn't know that we only get four. Is that a policy or do we have the ability to add a meeting?

It's state law. Yeah. I'm going to ask my staff something if that's okay for a minute. How many have we done this year? So this is the first one, and that will be okay for the future meetings? Okay. If you want to continue it to a date specific, we can do that. Thank you.

And Chair, I agree with Supervisor Gurdia. I mean, I imagine if there's something in your district, I mean, you would like to have a say, you know, because you know it better than anybody else, right? But Chair, with your permission, I just want to add one thing. know when we talk about infrastructure and i know i've talked with it uh to you mrs dolly and you um naji is that you know when we have these applications and when you're looking at putting industrial or increased traffic on these roadways which in historically haven't supported this traffic know it's for example more big rigs or just a volume of traffic your two offices need to work together and you know discuss this and you know what can we do what can we do to increase the infrastructure be it cost da agreements or in shared agreements nexuses or whatever it may be because one of the things that i can tell you in my district one of the complaints we get is infrastructure And we're seeing it, for example, with churches out there off in South County, we're getting all the different buildings, but the infrastructure does not change. And it's always somebody else's, you know, well, it's not just this one, you know, you know, it's not just, you know, there has to be a nexus and there's never an answer. When are we going to expand these roadways? So that's something that when we have these things come forward, I'm going to ask. So and just because it's not part of planning or not part of public works, you guys or intertwined when it comes to development, both of your offices need to work together. And if not, and you come up here and you haven't worked together, you know, I'm not going to be happy. give you a shot over the bow or whatever it may be, because if I'm hearing issues and I expect our staff to address those issues and working together, not, hey, it's not my department, it's not my responsibility. I'm not saying that you were doing that. I'm just saying it's a concern of mine and it's something that I'm going to be bulldogging once we see more of these come through. Thank you, Chairman. And with that, I'll second. Did you make a motion? I'll make I'll make them while you want to make a motion.

I'll make the motion motion to continue this hearing to August 4th. And I'll second that.

We have a motion and second call for a vote, please.

Sorry, camp, I still have you marked as absent. Do you want me to do a roll call vote?

Yes, please.

OK. Supervisor Gardea. Yes. Supervisor Canepa. Yes. Supervisor Rickman.

Yes.

And Chair Dhaliwal.

Yes. Motion passes 4-0 to continue this item to August 4th. Is there a time or it will be decided later on? Rochelle?

I presume it'll be noticed. It'll be re-noticed and set for a time.

Thank you. Thank you, CDD staff. Appreciate it. Next is public hearing to consider the Planning Commission recommendation to approve general plan text amendment number PA2600209 to revise the adopted housing element for the 2023 to 2031 housing cycle. Staff report, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Dollywall and supervisors. I'm Megan Aguirre, principal planner with Community Development Department, and we have Cynthia Walsh here from Placeworks that will be giving our presentation. Thank you.

All right. Good afternoon. Cynthia Walsh with Placeworks. A short presentation, and then I'm available if you have any questions. So the housing element is a required element of the general plan. And it is unique in that it does need to be certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. And the six cycle housing element was found in compliance by HCD back in August 22, 2025. There was a regional housing needs allocation transfer that was initiated between the now city of Mountain House and San Joaquin County that was initiated in January of this year. The deadline for the amendment to this San Joaquin County housing element is July 12th, 2026. And that was identified by HCD. So as a part of the housing element amendment, we made a few revisions. We removed all references in the analysis and the programs to the now new city of Mountain House. We also updated the sites inventory, which is where you show how you're going to meet your regional housing needs allocation to remove any of those parcels that are now within those city limits. We also revised the fair housing assessment to ensure continued compliance with all state law. So looking at the RHNA transfer that occurred, you can see the total RHNA along with the different income categories, very low, low, moderate, above moderate. The previous RHNA for the San Joaquin County unincorporated area was 8,808 units. Mountain House then took a transfer of 5,113 units, leaving the revised county's RHNA at 3,695. So as a part of our effort, we recalculated the site's inventory to ensure that we could hit that 3,695 with no longer being able to account for any of the parcels in the City of Mountain House. So that's what this slide shows you here. You can see this is looking at your new RHNA of the 3,695 and how we accommodated those units. So we looked at constructed and approved, we looked at the inventory of the remaining vacant and residential, sorry, pardon me, vacant residential and commercial capacity, the projected ADUs, the projected manufactured housing, employee housing, and the total capacity. So you can see on the far right that we still do have a significant surplus, which is a great place to be. So as a part of this effort, an assessment was completed and it was determined that this housing element was exempt. This is just a policy level document. There are no land use changes being made. So under CEQA, this was the common sense exemption. So as a part of a general plan text amendments, there are certain findings that need to be made. They're summarized here on this slide for you. And this is our recommendation from Planning Commission and staff. as summarized here on this slide. As far as our project schedule, we did go to the Planning Commission on June 18th. We're now here this afternoon with the Board of Supervisors, and our next step will be to submit to HCD no later than that July 12th date. That concludes my presentation.

Thank you. Board members, any questions for staff? No? I'm going to open the public hearing. Anybody from public want to speak on this item? Hearing none, I'll close it, bring it back. Do we have a motion? Move to approve. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and second. Call for a vote, please. Motion passes 4-0. Thank you so much. BOARD MEMBERS, ANY COMMENTS BEFORE WE CLOSE, BEFORE WE RETURN?

NEW SPEAKER I JUST WANTED TO SAY GREAT JOB BY YOU. WE HAD A PACKED SCHEDULE. ONE OF THE BUSIER AGENDA THAT WE'VE HAD IN QUITE A LONG TIME AND, YOU KNOW, YOU MADE GREAT WORK PUSHING THE MEETING ALONG. SO THANK YOU. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

I just want to say happy 4th of July, everybody on this, the 250th year of the United States of America. So be safe, be sane and don't catch anything on fire, please.

Supervisor Gurdia. I just want to repeat that. Happy 4th of July. Stockton is going to have the parade on Saturday or Saturday. Also, too, is, you know, we don't have any board meetings unless we have a special meeting in July. I know our staff has worked really hard on budget, you know, take some time off, you know, spend a little bit of time with your family if you can. And much appreciated. Plus all the staff today that was recognized for their retirements and their years of service. I wanted to say thank you again.

Thank you, sir. Happy 4th of July, everyone. Happy 250th birthday to our great nation. Thank you so much for everything, staff, and God bless you. Meeting is adjourned to.

Happy 4th of July. God bless.

Thank you, sir.

I have to say it, too. You don't be the only one.

Yeah. Thank you, Supervisor Rickman. The meeting is adjourned to August 4th, 2026 at 9 a.m.