Conservation groups press San Diego County to halt proposed lease to West Coast Tomato Growers

Vice Chair McGomery Stepp heard repeated public appeals on June 10 from environmental groups and residents urging San Diego County officials to pause the proposed lease of county-owned farmland to West Coast Tomato Growers and to consider non-toxic alternatives.

The hearing's public-comment period featured testimony from Dr. Peter Anderson, vice chair of the Sierra Club Conservation Committee, Dr. Ronald Asclan, conservation chair of the San Diego Sierra Club, and multiple callers who said they or neighbors have been harmed by pesticide exposure. "They have been cited many times for excessive pesticide use...we urge you to reconsider that contract," Dr. Peter Anderson told the board. Dr. Asclan added that the tenant "failed to disclose settled labor litigation in his proposal" and asked the board to require a public hearing before executing the lease.

Why it matters: speakers said county land should meet the county's environmental stewardship and procurement standards. Multiple commenters said an organic, regenerative farmer has expressed interest in leasing the property and argued the county should prioritize public health and transparency over awarding the incumbent tenant.

What advocates told the board: callers alleged three pesticide inspection failures at the operator's fields, concerns about stormwater contamination of the nearby St. Louis Ray River, and a reported $1 million labor settlement in 2018. "How does giving West Coast Tomato Growers a land lease support the county's climate action plan and sustainability goals?" asked caller John Bodorf (cleanearthforkid.org).

Board response and next steps: supervisors did not take immediate action on any lease item during the June 10 meeting; public comments were received for the record and staff noted the request to have weights-and-measures or agricultural oversight review prior reports on pesticide enforcement and inspections. No formal motion to rescind or delay a lease was made that day.

Context and limitations: speakers requested an audit of the RFP and lease selection process and a public hearing. The public record presented at the meeting includes allegations and citations referenced by commenters; the board and staff did not adjudicate those claims in the session. The county's staff response at the meeting indicated they would pursue further investigation through the appropriate oversight divisions but did not announce a timetable.

What to watch: advocates asked the board to schedule a public hearing and to provide staff findings from any inspections, labor-review checks, or administrative determinations tied to the RFP prior to any lease execution.

Sources: Public comment to the Board of Supervisors, June 10, 2026 (Dr. Peter Anderson; Dr. Ronald Asclan; John Bodorf; Susan, California director for Non-Toxic Neighborhoods).