Health, Housing & Human Services Committee - Regular Meeting

There is no one here in the room from the public at this point in time.

And I'm in the District 5 office. And I cannot remember if I am the chair or if Supervisor- I think you're the chair. I thought I was the chair, but I- No, no, I was asking who is the chair.

No, no, I was thinking I was the chair, but I think you are. That is correct, Supervisor.

Supervisor Daniels is the chair of the committee.

Okay, so then we will call this meeting of the Health, Housing, Homelessness, and Human Services Committee to order at 9.05 a.m. August 20th. And are there any additions or corrections to the agenda?

There are none. Great.

It is now time for public comment on non-agenda items. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons to address the committee on matters, any matter not on the agenda, but under the jurisdiction of the committee. Are there any public comments?

There are none in chamber and none online.

Thank you. Okay, we will move to item number one, which is the approval of action minutes. These are the minutes from the 4-H committee meeting held on June 18, 2026. Supervisor Church, any comments on the minutes?

I have no comments, no changes. Be happy to make a motion to approve when appropriate.

Okay. Are there any public comment on the June 18 minutes? None in chamber, none online. Thank you very much. Well, then we will move by consensus. The June 18th, 2026 minutes, since I know how Supervisor Church feels, and I concur. Moving on to the regular agenda, item two, we're going to receive an oral presentation from the County of Monterey Health Department's Environmental Health Bureau regarding work on a policy development work plan to address mandatory solid waste collection and exemptions. And then, as appropriate, we'll provide direction and feedback regarding the policy development work plan for mandatory solid waste collection and exemptions. And presenting today is Rick Encarnacion, Bureau Chief of the Environmental Health Bureau, and Marnie Flagg, Assistant Bureau Chief of the Environmental Health Bureau.

Good morning, Chair Daniels. Good morning, members of the committee. Rick Encarnacion, Bureau Chief, Director of Environmental Health. Marnie Flagg is not available today, so I'll be presenting in full.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you. Yeah. Today I will provide an overview of the Environmental Health Bureau's work plan to review the county's mandatory garbage collection exemption program. The purpose of today's presentation is to provide background on the existing program, explain why we are conducting this review, describe our proposed work plan, and provide your feedback and receive your feedback and direction before we move forward. We are asking the committee to receive this informational presentation and provide any guidance that should be considered as staff develops recommendations for future consideration by the board. Monterey County has required mandatory garbage collection for many years through county code. The ordinance also authorizes annual exemptions under limited circumstances. Following recent board discussion, Environmental Health was asked to review the exemption process together with waste management to ensure the program remains transparent, practical, and consistent with county policy. Current county code provides three primary exemption categories. These include vacant property, situations where all waste is recycled or composted, and properties where collection equipment cannot safely access the site. Exemptions are not permanent. They require annual review and may be revoked if the property no longer qualifies. Our objective is not simply to revise forms. We want to ensure the exemption process is objective, consistent, and easy for both applicants and staff to administer. The review will also ensure the program aligns with California government code section 25827 paragraph B and continue supporting mandatory garbage collection as intended by county ordinance. Our review will be comprehensive. First, we will evaluate how other California counties administer mandatory collection programs. We will then review our own administrative process, including applications, renewals, inspections, appeals, and loss of exemptions. Finally, if necessary, we will determine whether changes to county code or the unified franchise agreement should be recommended. Throughout this effort, our focus remains maintaining mandatory garbage collection as the default policy, while limiting exemptions to objective, safety-based circumstances. Mandatory garbage collection is fundamentally a public health program. Reliable waste collection helps prevent illegal dumping, reduces environmental contamination, protects neighborhoods, and supports the long-term financial stability of the county's solid waste program. By ensuring exemptions are appropriately granted, we can balance flexibility with protection of public health and fairness across all rate payers. In closing, today's presentation introduces the work plan that Environmental Health will use to evaluate the mandatory garbage collection exemption program. We appreciate any comments or recommendations from the committee that should be considered as we move forward. Following completion of the review, staff will return with recommendations if policy or ordinance changes are warranted. And this concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Encarnacion. Supervisor Church, do you have any questions or comments before we go to public comment?

I'll have some comments after public comment if there is any. There may be some, but I have a question. We have, which currently is annual, an annual renewal on the policy, but I know that... We really don't be able to comply with that because it takes pretty time and extensive for staff. Is there a reason that two of those three exemptions were placed on annual? I mean, one being undeveloped land, which doesn't seem like it's something that would change annually unless there's development, and two, the inaccessibility aspect. It seems like When those happen, they should stay until one of those conditions change. Do you know why that was put on that way?

Supervisor Church, I do not know why. And that is partly one of the reasons why we are conducting this evaluation of the entire program. Two out of the two criteria that you did mention, why are they not annually reviewed?

No, why are they annually viewed? It seems like it should be permanent until, I mean, if you have vacant land, It seems like that should be permanent until there's development, which I would hope with somehow HCD and health could communicate some way very simply by computers or notification that way. And then also the accessibility. If there's an accessibility issue, once that has been confirmed, It doesn't seem like that's going to change annually. So, you know, those are the two that's right there that stand out is we don't that just it's almost should be permanent until changed.

I think as we go through this, through this work plan, if you have other suggestions for it, we could look at those three exemptions. And what really makes sense? Does it really make sense to in terms of what are we doing for an annual review? And we could also present clearly what is written in the code or what needs more clarification in the code. If it's a vacant lot, it doesn't make sense that it's vacant. And there are no triggers in the county to say, oh, especially like in environmental health, no one notifies environmental health, for example. And as we move through this work plan and we provide information to the public, you'll see, for the most part, the way that the routes are evaluated is through the routes. As collection is being conducted, feedback is being given back from the haulers. That's when we know. It is like many of the other businesses that we regulate in environmental health. There's no alarm that kicks off when someone sells a business, goes vacant, changes owner. It really is about field situation awareness. So the mandatory garbage collection exemption program that's dependent on real-time information, yes, it does make sense to kind of what are our processes? Does a vacant property, which I've mentioned this government code, is the only criteria for exemption. That's the only one. because it doesn't make sense to mandate mandatory garbage collection on a property that's vacant. And then overall, in terms of exemptions, this whole process is to elevate the default as mandatory collection. That's the default for everyone who has property to support the program. The exemptions are very narrow. And at least in my mind, it's a safety issue. And those safety issues are dependent on the equipment, on the hauler, on, it may be the logistics of the land that may not change over years and years. But again, even that is dependent on real-time information gathered by the folks who are actually hauling the waste. So it doesn't make sense, Supervisor.

I just was curious. I know this has been a place for a while, you know, you know, precedes my, you know, decision making on this, but that's, you know, I was trying to determine if there was some reason that was put in annual like that, but I think you've answered that. We really don't know. So, thank you.

And if I could add to that, Supervisor Church, I think that both of us have had experience with a challenge that we're also hoping this analysis could address, and that is somebody who has mandatory garbage collection and has impossibilities of actually utilizing that collection. So it's, you know, either we've had people come in with a disability, we've had people who have a driveway, which is addressed in this presentation, that it is impossible for the individual, unless they have the truck, they have to haul that trash already down to the garbage cans because the service can only collect at a certain location that's quite a distance from their home. And so we're just looking, I think, when Supervisor Church asks that question about annual for, I'm looking to try to figure out if there's a way that we can make this a little easier for our constituents because it gets to the point then where we have the hearings like we've had this year where folks were just given a trash can and some had really legitimate examples of why they couldn't use that trash can. And then they were, of course, billed for that service that they never used. And so I think that there's got to be some kind of... I'm not sure what the word is that I'm trying to think of, but... Something that just is pragmatic and makes sense. Sorry. Excuse me. Excuse me. Anyway, just facilitating that those very few number of individuals, but who do come in and it's pretty heartbreaking. You're like, oh my gosh, like we gave you a trash can you can't use and now you have to pay for it. With that, let's go to public comment.

There are none.

Oops, sorry, someone coming up. Good morning, Supervisor Church, Supervisor Daniels. Rick, thanks for the presentation. I know we've been working closely on talking about all this. I just wanted to clarify a few things from Waste Management's perspective. And obviously, I'm here, so I care. So we're in this together. right as your partner in the county who provides mandatory collection um clearly this may have an impact on the unified franchise agreement and how that's administered um but i'm glad we're going down this road i think in the conversations we've had County staff and myself and our team is that is the antiquated process throughout the church. You and I have talked about that. That needs updating and I think it's it's good. This is being assessed. I didn't want to clarify for the special assessment hearing this year. We actually validated that all of those folks had been being serviced. And so that was an interesting thing to go down. I do understand the frustrations where cans are dropped and people are told you have to have service. And so I think we take those on a case by case basis and definitely try to help people where we can. I had a gentleman thank me yesterday for doing handicap service. He blew out both of his shoulders and our team's going up to his house and helping him with his service there. I do want to clarify, our drivers on average residential route, they're doing 700 to 900 stops a day. Our staff doesn't have the ability to check for vacancy, check for serviceability, really until either someone tries to open an account or... someone applies for an exemption, then we assess, you know, the serviceability or is this a vacant property or if a complaint comes through. So our team, you know, is really like our route managers would do that work and the boots on the ground folks on a case-by-case basis. So just wanted to add that. Thank you for letting me speak and attend and be part of the process.

Excellent. Is there any other public comment? There are no others in chamber, none online.

Okay, Supervisor Church, any final thoughts or direction that you would like to provide?

Yeah, I actually have quite a few comments here in some sense. I've thought about this a little bit and then you brought up a couple of good points too. So I did have one other question on I realized. The second one was when an ADU is added, does that, Is that considered, I mean, or if there's multiple dwellings on an existing property that are not an ADU, multiple houses, do we have, is that just all one account? How is that kind of handled in this situation? Are there multiple cans laid out?

I can let Liz answer that question, but I can say for one thing, It's not like the county has a trigger that the environmental health staff will say, oh, this is a multi-unit dwelling. You need a nine-yard bin. That's not what we do. Or you're a single-family dwelling and we'll say you need the largest bin. That's not what we do. It really is the property owner that decides what service they need. And then we have processes and systems that hopefully through education of the public, people know not to overfill their bins. People know how to separate their trash. People know not to cross-contaminate. And that's our charge to educate the public. Because there are penalties for that. And there are consequences like in the big scheme, it is about air quality. It's about how the landfills are managed and how they're preserved and operated. I can let Liz mention that if she has information on that.

Sorry, I had I was given my name for the good of the record. So I think the question was how a property with multiple dwelling units is addressed. So to Rick's point, it kind of is up to the property owner. Essentially, the UFA defines a multifamily property as, you know, several units sharing property. Service the containers, a single family dwelling is a single home with their own cans own account. So it's really up to the property owner how they want to set it up. I've seen, you know, most commonly a multifamily property is going to be like a classic condo apartment complex. Right. Essentially, what you would think of as a multi family dwelling think you're thinking, like, in North county, especially there's properties with maybe a couple maybe a couple mobile homes on it. So, really, the property owner could determine I want 1 service account for everybody that's on this property, or each to have their own, because it all now ties back to the special assessment process. If they're renting one of those units to somebody, that person defaults, doesn't pay their bill, then it ultimately goes back on the property owner. So there is flexibility and power in how they set that up, which I think is a good thing, how the UFA looks at that.

Okay. Yeah, I was just wanting to know if it's just one set of cans, but I see what you're basically saying is that there's going to be service at every one, so it's like this one basic set, and then it's for the property owner to decide we need more than one can. And also, your drivers, you'll realize if they're constantly overfilling, then that's going to require it as well. Do I pretty much have it?

Yeah. Okay. We'll call again.

We'll go easy on you today. Okay. All right. Thanks. I just wanted that little clarification. I would, you know, I know we're going to look at some other counties. I think I've part of making the motion that initially led to this. I've kind of looked into it. I want to go down, let me make some suggestions to particularly look into. And some counties, I think, you know, Sonoma, Sacramento, San Benito, and El Dorado have all some interesting perspectives. One is, I'll kind of get into those there, but I do think we need to kind of go to multi-year or something like a three or five or whatever is going to work, one, it's got to be less burdensome on staff. And some of these, in my view, like we brought up about vacant land, I mean, some of this I think can be permanent. And, you know, somehow we can coordinate when there's a development going on there. Or if it's inaccessible, that's just, you know, if you've got a long driveway, you I can't imagine how it's going to become a short driveway without some major changes of something. So I don't know if some of these really have to be renewed until there's really a change in status. I don't know if that's possible to work in there, but they're just trying to find a way to – Speed is long, so it's not taking up staff time. And I also wonder, when we come to renewal, I think the current policy now is we just, you get the full form back again, am I correct, basically, to renew? Yes. Well, you know, and maybe it'd be simpler just to send something along that would say, I certify that the condition supporting exemption X continues to exist. And then we don't have to go through and reenter everything in. If that will work, I'm just throwing suggestions out to see if this will fit. San Benito allows a self-haul exemption. I think it's worthwhile looking into that. Obviously, this can be abused, but... want to have the consideration onto there. Supervisor Daniels, which I fully agree, you know, when people brought up about they're unable to move equipment long distance or disability, I think those are all important things to be viewed in there. I think Sonoma, and I don't know if this is workable or not, but they allow some kind of a shared service. And I think it's more like kind of going back to my original question where there's multiple houses on one unit, but I don't know all the details onto it, but I can see where you have just whether or not that that's feasible at all on, on, on some, um, on some, on some properties. And, um, um, I'm not sure I support this one. I'm just throwing it out. Sacramento has something about a ranch farm exemption. I do not know if that's workable or not. I'm just throwing it out there. El Dorado actually, and I can't remember when we sign these forms, if they're under penalty of perjury or not when somebody's seeking an exemption. But El Dorado does require that. And I think that kind of gives a little extra seriousness to it. I just don't remember what we have on ours. You know, essentially, overall, what I think is the thing to do is to move away from more of a calendar-based review to more risk-based at all possible, because we want to make sure that these we have healthy conditions, as you have raised. And that's, you know, but we have to be, to have something that's workable, and this one that we currently have isn't workable at all. And the final thing I wanted to have us consider is that if somebody violates our illegal dumping code, that they are going to be permanently banned from getting an exemption. So those are some of my thoughts. I know it's quite a bit of detail there, but... It is an issue out in my area, as I think it is in District 5.

Glenn, I wonder if I could just piggyback on that. So I heard, though, there is a correlation between the self-haul exemption and... Hold on one sec. Someone's walked into our office. That there is a correlation between the self-haul exemption and the concern with illegal dumping. And, you know, I mean, I do want to express that I want to make sure we focus on the entities that have real obstacles to actually utilizing the hauling services. And stealth haul is, if you don't have the driveway challenge or the disability or other challenges, I think I'm okay with sort of moving into the 21st century, I know we'll get pushback from our constituents. You know, in 2005, when I moved here, my husband was still self-hauling the trash. Like, I'm very familiar with this, but I want to give the staff some flexibility if they're trying to solve a problem that has so far been extremely challenging. I'd be willing to sort of get the blowback from constituents if staff feels like the correlation between illegal dumping is a risk that we can't take. Even if most of the self-haulers aren't the ones who are responsible for the illegal dumping, if it's happening, we have to stop it. But I'm open. I just wanted to say that to staff out loud, that I'm much more concerned with the impracticality of someone who literally cannot bring their trash, or what you're asking them to do is literally hire someone to get their trash down to their trash cans. And they've been given bins and now have to pay for them. And then, of course, somebody with a disability. I want to make, I mean, I'm absolutely in line with Supervisor Church on the annual. I mean, I have a hard enough time making sure we remember to provide the status of our well each year to the water management district, like an annual re... Certification or get permission annually just seems really tedious because the conditions likely haven't changed. But but I don't know how Supervisor Church feels about that. But I mean, I'm willing to have some wiggle room here about self haulers if that's helpful to county staff.

So I wasn't making a motion to bring this in. I thought what we're doing here is exploring. 100%. So, I mean, I would like to explore that. I am aware of that, and that is a potential problem onto there. At the same time, there are responsible people that do self-hauling that have problems. self-hauling businesses uh you know or you know they do they do clean outs and they're so they're always you know they're they're cleaning out and have clean businesses so they're going to regularly to the landfill and it's not cheap anymore as you well know to um to pay this because a lot of state mandates and then recycling and and just the cost of uh of operating business for um for the franchise involved into here. So I would like to see it. I would like to see it explored. San Benito, as I point out, has that. I don't know. It would be good to know. Are they having problems or is it working? Do they see that as an illegal dumping issue out of that or not?

So county staff, my question to you would be whether you feel like you got the sort of feedback you were looking for.

Yes, Supervisor Daniels, it is always good to get this deep insight because from the staff point of view, we're just looking at the code. Now knowing, thanks to your feedback, what the priorities are, the priorities about what really does require annual review and the issues that individuals may have with actually moving their own cans. And that kind of points us in the direction of where we do need to focus on some research and some particular messaging that I'm getting back just listening to both of you. So thank you very much.

Supervisor Church, anything extra on this item?

No, no, I'm looking forward to it. It's obviously something that needs to be tweaked and appreciate you bringing it forth.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Okay, with that, we'll close this item and we're going to move to the next item, which is... I don't know that I have the number correct, but we're going to receive an oral presentation. Is this item number three? An oral presentation from the County of Monterey's Health Department's Office of Equity regarding the action plan for building safe and thriving communities, update 2026, and provide direction as appropriate regarding the action plan for building safe and thriving communities. And I believe it's Rosemary Soto giving this presentation.

That is correct. Good morning, Madam Chair and Supervisor Church. I'm going to go ahead and get my screen started here for screen sharing. Just one second.

Just one second while I figure out how to.

Okay, here we go.

So my apologies, I have not used this PowerPoint in a long time. Many of us have moved on to using Canvas. So my apologies. So good morning. I am Rosemary Soto and I am a program manager here with the health department serving as the department's health equity officer. And I just want to go ahead and share a little bit about our... Again, I apologize. My... You take your time. We got this. Thank you. I appreciate that. My PowerPoint is not really cooperating with me this morning. So, okay.

All right.

Okay, so I'm here to share an update on the Building Safe and Thriving Communities Initiatives Action Plan. And I want to first acknowledge that the result, the outcome of this update is the outcome of a partnership with Bright Beginnings, specifically Sonia Kohler. Sonia has been an integral part of the initiative's formation dating back to the early days in 2013. She was a part of the consulting firm who was an integral part of that process. Okay, and I apologize that I'm getting notifications that I'm sharing my presenter's views.

It actually, we could see what we needed, though.

So we're okay to move forward that way?

It was fine that way, because I think the screen everywhere, and perhaps we can get some confirmation in the Monterey room, is big enough that we see the whole presentation in big.

Okay.

If you'd like, I can share the screen.

It looks like now it's the full screen, so...

Okay, great. Thank you so much. And thanks to my colleagues who are trying to assist me from where they are. Okay, so I will continue. Another key point of why we engaged in partnership with Bright Beginnings in regards to this process of updating this action plan was because our department really feels strongly that we have a need to further embrace the early childhood perspective in this process as a form of prevention. And so I just want to also share a bit about the background of of this whole initiative. This is the culmination of more than 25 years of collaboration throughout Monterey County. We have been a part of collaborative efforts since the beginning in 2021 with Partners for Peace. and have been also an integral part of the formation of CAST, Community Alliance for Safety and Peace. In 2013, the Board of Supervisors did adopt and launched the Monterey County Gang Violence Prevention throughout the years in an effort to shift that narrative from a deficiency perspective to a strength-based perspective. We now have been referring to that initiative as the Building Safe and Thriving Communities Initiative. the board then did adopt the initial action plan in 2015. And in 2024, a decision was made to then shift the entire initiative from the CAO's office to the health department. Again, continuing to emphasize the importance of a public health approach to addressing violence, specifically youth violence in Monterey County. And then to date in 2025, we partnered with Bright Beginnings and First Five, as mentioned. And throughout this process, we also felt it was imperative that we engage with various community partners, both internally and externally to the county. to ensure that we are leaning into the wisdom and expertise of a diverse group of representatives. And so we formed an advisory group that provided guidance, support, and provided input to this process. And we had representatives from the various sectors such as education, social services, our justice partners, community-based youth serving organizations as well. In that process, we also launched a very brief but yet deep community engagement process where we partnered again with several of our partners who already have that social capital and significant trust from community members, specifically youth. We engaged with the Greenfield Youth Council, Milpa, Monterey County Black Caucus, Seaside Rising, Wonderwood Ranch and the Monterey County Probation Department connecting with youth in serving time in the juvenile hall. We also made sure that we were very intentional about the community engagement process, knowing that we had a short time. We did not have an extensive process, yet we were able to capture the voices of those with lived experience and those who were furthest from opportunity. We also found our findings throughout that process is that there were these very key areas that came to light and were further emphasizing a lot of what we already knew, but also brought some new revelations as well. Some of the key highlights that were coming up was around the common themes were around economic stability, health, welcoming spaces. A sense of belonging was definitely highlighted as a significant need from our community. Voice and power, youth are extremely excited and interested. in engaging civically and taking ownership of a lot of the initiatives and efforts that are being launched or provided in their support for them, just really emphasizing the catchphrase of, you know, nothing for us without us. So youth have clearly expressed that desire to engage civically in a deep and meaningful way. Mentorship being another area that we found came up quite a bit as well as housing. So youth are very much in tune to the social conditions that they and their families are experiencing around economic self-sufficiency at housing and access to care, to healthcare is specifically mental health as well as primary care became an issue that continued to arise in that process. With that, we also in consultation with our advisory group have identified specific indicators that align with the social determinants of health. And I will highlight specifically those areas that also represent a lot of what we heard through our community engagement process. So these are areas that we are making on the recommendation that we continue to dive deeper into, uh, learning more through the research and the data that we have collected through various efforts, um, both in our, um, department, as well as across the state is looking at how are the current conditions of the economic stability of our residents throughout Monterey county, um, education access and quality of education. And so looking at that from K to college, what is that pathway from early childhood to college pathways and higher education? This is an area that we want to deeply connect with as well. Healthcare access and quality is another indicator that we want to continue to dive deeper into, addressing a lot of these underlying conditions that further perpetuate the the status and quality of life of our community members. Neighborhood and built environment, we have already had experience with implementing strategies over the years through our public health bureau that have identified how is it that our built environment, our community design really addresses the way that crime and violent activities And the social and community context, we definitely want to continue to learn more about how community engagement and social cohesion and family connectedness continues to show up. in the ways that our youth and children are growing up in Monterey County communities and what does that represent when it comes to the social context of our communities. So those are some clear indicators. I didn't go through all of them specifically, but just summarizing them. The recommendations that this process has compelled us to move forward and present to you today is that we want to recommend that This initiative continues to build a collective impact structure, reestablishing a backbone system that supports this initiative. That means also including convening partners or collaboratives that are serving communities across the county in a way that continues to support the effort and uplift the strategies that are identified as recommended strategies to move forward with this initiative. Community engagement certainly does need to continue and it needs to continue in a way that is both impactful and meaningful for the systems that are addressing these issues as well as for community members who are stepping up into resident leadership opportunities that are created by both our departments as well as other initiatives across the county. We want to continue to support a youth-led narrative, an investment in how youth are building that narrative that speaks to their current condition as well as the aspirations that they have and uplift the the strengths that they have identified within their community is something that we definitely want to create the space for. And leading the way, we want to make sure that we're also making that investment of just building that cross sector process and connecting with all of our partners within the department, as well as community based organizations and municipal cities. across the county. We definitely see the importance of socializing the initiative, making sure that we are raising awareness and including effective communication strategies to be able to inform our community about this process and all of the good that is happening around these specific topics. We want to make sure that we're prioritizing these targeted strategies. So continuing to, as part of that collective impact process, we want to make sure that these strategies are very intentional and specifically targeting the priorities that come from this process. Evaluation, being able to know and measure how it is that our progress is showing up throughout our indicators and our qualitative data. We want to make sure that we're also measuring that impact. And leveraging supports is key because we all are very much aware that moving this effort forward definitely requires resources. So we want to continue to identify and pursue funding opportunities. And so with that, this concludes my presentation and update to your committee. And I will pause for questions and discussion.

Thank you so much, Ms. Soto. And I will go first to Supervisor Church to find out if he has any questions.

Yeah, I think I have three there, Rosemary. I know the emphasis is primarily to identify and reduce risk of people who will participate in violence. Does the program also identify those who are really at risk of being victims as well that might arise?

Yes, supervisor. The short answer is yes. We definitely are looking at all perspectives when it comes to violence and the impacts of violence. We're looking at many of the organizations that we've partnered with also are providing services and resources to individuals who have been impacted by violence.

Okay, thank you. Do we in the years this program has been in existence, do we have any metrics to show progress? I know we've made progress, but I didn't see anything in the presentation that could show that yes, we have made measurable steps.

Thank you for that question, Supervisor. You are correct that a report out or a status of the impact as a result of the years of the impact was not discussed in this presentation. I can't include that in any further presentations that we bring to you. And I can also follow up with some specific data around the impact and the progress. I can just say off the top of my head, over the last several years, we've seen a decrease in violence in our communities, whereas, for example, in Salinas, There were many studies and research that show that it was one of the highest per capita in terms of its violence. And, you know, there were, as a result of quite a bit of the effort to address it, we did see a reduction in that violence and crime. However, I will also need to state that in most recent year, a couple of years, we have seen a growing trend of an increase in violent crimes as well. So, and I don't have all of those specifics, but I can definitely follow up and share that with you, Supervisor.

All right. Thank you. And my final question is, when you do identify the need for, you know, for assistance for in particular cases or instances and either in individuals or neighborhoods or communities that you, that you, that you, How do you, are we able to translate this? Are you able to go and get resources from other county departments to shift some attention over to those needs?

That is certainly the intent, Supervisor, to ensure that our colleagues across the county are aware of where these needs are and how it is that their department, their respective departments can support by shifting either resources or shifting attention and priority to some of these communities who have the highest risk.

So basically what you'll do is you're identifying these and then you're passing it on to those departments. Is that correct?

That is correct. That is a big part of what we want to see happen through the backbone system. That is something that we intend to reestablish.

We are doing that, right?

At this time, it has been paused. That backbone has not been convening, but that is one of the strategies that we're recommending that we continue.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for that. I do have some questions, but I'm going to open it up to public comment first and see if there's any public comment in the room or online.

No public comment in the room and there's none online. Sorry, we have a hand up from Sonia.

We'll go to Ms. Kohler.

Thank you. I was a little slow on raising my hand there. Good morning. I'm really appreciating the opportunity to be here with Rosemary to share with you the vision for reestablishing the backbone to support these efforts at the county. I just wanted to pipe in my appreciation. And I think just now really hitting on that note of we've done this process to re-envision what it looks like to support our young people and to do that collaborative work, to be able to allocate resources and efforts in a way that can make the most difference is really the exciting part of it. and honored to have that collective impact approach as the Bright Beginnings Initiative to bring that in with the perspective of when you invest young, we have the greatest impact for young people in our community or for the entire community. So just wanted to say thank you again. It's been a delight to work with Rosemary on this and to have this in the hands of the health department. We really know it's a public health issue and bringing it together through the health department is, and in particular with the lens of health equity, will make all the difference in our county.

Thank you. Is that the last public comment or are there any others?

There are no others.

Okay. So I've got just some clarity questions that I want to understand. Just not having been here prior, I'll just start by saying what's presented in this plan is critical and it was really wonderful to read. this action plan and to imagine all the outcomes and how important they are. But what is the exact need right now for this plan? It sounds like it's reestablishing something. It's moving it to the health department. What is it that is needed for this to succeed or for the next steps to occur?

Thank you, Supervisor, for your question. And I would say that definitely the endorsement and support of your committee, any guidance or direction that you might have for us would be very helpful and helpful. You know, definitely. I mean, resources in terms of funding is always going to be the most critical need to support the effort. And it is why we are committed to seeking those funds wherever we can find them. And as you know, that federally, there has been a history of investments from the federal administration in past administrations. And we hope that that does come back at some point where Our Department of Justice does a lot more grant making than it has been in most recent years, as well as our state funding. So we want to continue to seek those funding opportunities, granted that they become available. I will pause and defer to my fearless leader here, Ms. Elsa Jimenez, if you'd like to chime in.

Good morning. Thank you. Thank you, Rosemary, for providing that overview and Sonia for partnering with us. As Rosemary indicated, this was a strong initiative that was previously housed under the county administrative office. Unfortunately, it went dormant for a long time. And so about two years ago, I had a conversation with the CAO's office and Mr. Chulos agreed to allow the initiative to move forward to the health department. Unfortunately, there was no funding that was transferred over. And so we've been very clever in terms of how we resurrected this work and really now are establishing a framework that originally was really focused on gang violence prevention. And as Rosemary indicated at one point, unfortunately, the city of Salinas had the highest per capita injuries to young men, 14 to 24, I believe, which really took a positive turn with other grant funding that the health department was able to secure from the Centers for Disease Control, really focusing on crime prevention through environmental design. And we're in our last year of funding shifted from gang violence prevention, injuries amongst youth to dating violence prevention. But as Rosemary indicated, right now we have worked with the community to kind of resurrect what violence prevention, injury prevention should look like through a public health lens and really looking at investing earlier, more upstream approaches that will hopefully reduce all types of injuries, not just gang violence prevention, injury prevention, et cetera. And so once our plan is finalized and approved by you all, the committee and the board, then our goal will be to see how we can integrate some of this work into some of the existing grant programs that the health department has and our partners have while we continue to seek specialized funding that will help us really address this. And really the whole premise is it's a framework for how we continue to move our community towards ensuring that we're building safe and thriving communities, both from infrastructure investments with our Safe Routes to School programming and partnership with Public Works and and TAMC to what we're doing in nutrition education to youth development efforts. And so that's really kind of a framework now that will help further guide some of the work that we're already doing and also give us an opportunity to be able to seek specific funding to implement strategies related to supporting this framework.

Thank you. And so my comments would be that I imagine now is really the time to make sure all the planning and preparation is done. So when that type of support, whether it's state or federal funding returns, we're ready. I want to just offer the feedback as a supervisor that I can't imagine anything more important. And I also think that, you know, when we're under this constrained environment with these federal and state cuts and lack of funding and reductions in fundings, it's almost the time to really think big and to be really imaginative. And I'll just add that I had the upper, it was just a news program, but I heard about a senator's proposal for something called Medicaid that would ensure that all children from zero to the age 26 have health care, universal health care. And it was the news report that I saw just really exemplified what that early intervention and what that early attention, the kind of beneficial consequences it has for, and there's likely a direct correlation, which you would all know I don't, between youth violence and just the opportunity to have health care, in particular from a young age and into adolescence when People tend to drop off to have that mental health care and all of the above. So I also think that, you know, with this planning effort, you know, we as a county, as impossible as it sounds, this is the time to sort of get super creative and understanding that these federal plans and these state plans likely aren't going to come to fruition anytime soon, as great as they may be, and to really be taking the opportunity at the county level to meet the needs of our constituency. And I just, like I said before, I really enjoyed reading this and understanding the action plan and understand its benefit and want to be as supportive as possible and also be supportive in any way we can as a board to ensure that we are ready when funding comes back for our communities. Anything further, Supervisor Church?

I have nothing further. Thank you.

Okay. Do you as staff feel like you have what you needed from us in this presentation?

Yes.

Okay. So with that, then we're going to move on to item number four. And this is receiving a verbal update on potential safe parking options in Moss Landing. There's going to be a staff recommendation to continue developing the scope and related expenses. We will provide direction and feedback as appropriate. And I will, at this point, turn it over to Roxanne Wilson, our Community Homeless Services Director.

It's so good. County Homeless Services Director, good morning. Hello. How is everybody doing today? Yes, as mentioned, I'm here to provide an update to a direction that the board had given to public works facilities and parks and my office. to establish a safe parking program in response to a growing number of individuals and families living inside of their RVs and oversized vehicles inside of the town of Pajaro. Just to give you a little bit of background, it was on September 5th, 2025 when Supervisor Church submitted Board Referral 2025.11 that requested the Board of Supervisors consider the adoption of an ordinance prohibiting recreational vehicles parking along railroad. During those discussions and preliminary analysis on November 4th, the board added Allison onto that referral and also had directed, again, staff to investigate the potential establishment of a safe parking in the area. I think it is important to note that there has been a tremendous amount of effort between us, Housing and Community Development, Public Works, and Environmental Health Bureau, the Department of Social Services, to try to locate a viable option inside of the town of Pajaro. Unfortunately, Pajaro is pretty tight, and there are no parking lots, whether it's established or potential, that could meet the needs of this population, whether it's because the property is too close to the ag and wouldn't meet the ag buffer zone requirements, or there's no water, there's no electricity. Ultimately, after reviewing several options, we were looking at several millions of dollars to establish essentially a parking lot in which individuals can park. So therefore, we started looking outside of the town of Pajaro. We did identify a location in Moss Landing that is owned by another public agency because we have not yet negotiated the rates in which this agency would be wanting to charge the county to rent it. I want to be careful about not mentioning exactly where it's at. Preliminary, very high level. It does look like it meets all of the requirements that the county would have, whether it be zoning or local codes and ordinances. And it would probably require the least amount of construction compared to all of the other sites that we had reviewed. The issue is that it is fairly rural. As mentioned, it is in the town of Moss Landing. And therefore, it does kind of change the scope of the types of services that I would be recommending to the board for its consideration. For example, the safe parking program that we have at the District 4 office is a 12-hour parking option for individuals living inside of their vehicles. And there's very little services. There's a nominal amount to help individuals with their registrations, licenses, things of that sort. And they do provide some level of case management. But again, looking at this MOS landing option, if we i don't think that a 12-hour parking is appropriate because men what we've found in our investigations and discussing with the people who are living in their cars many of them have two cars one of them being the rv and the other one being a vehicle so i imagine it would be really hard for people who are leaving to work as many of them are working um in the morning drop off their rv somewhere park it somewhere come back to the safe parking lot to pick up their regular vehicle and then leave their RV out there exposed. It is very possible that they would come back and the RV would be towed, right? Because it is left on a public street. So my recommendation would be to have a 24-hour facility. I would want to heavily program it, have time limits, have objectives and goals in which individuals can work towards permanent housing. And when you start talking about increasing outcomes and changing the actual purpose of the parking program, it does increase the annual budget fairly significantly. The project that is operating at the D4 office is about $200,000, $250,000 a year. So we would be looking at easily $600,000 a year in operations for a 24-hour facility in Moss Landing. I think it's also important to note that there are no grants that currently fund this effort. So this would be something that I would have to either go to the Measure AA committee for on an ongoing basis or to the board for for consideration for general fund contingencies. And then, of course, there is the development itself of the site. We would want to add lights, add some gravel, make sure that it is nice and safe for the kids, add some fencing. And I do plan on taking the proposal for the development of the site to the Measure AA committee, assuming that this body supports us moving forward. But again, I do want to be just very transparent of the totality of the project and seek some guidance from this body.

Thank you so much, Roxanne. Supervisor Church, we'll start with you.

Yeah, I've been working with Roxanne for a long time on this. A couple of years, we've looked at site after site. One looks good until we dig a little deeper or something happens. It sells or there's a complication in some way. And, you know, this is the housing need. We all know the unaffordability of it. And, you know, it's obviously what people with some, you know, it's actually becoming unaffordable for those who do have resources, which is perhaps how extreme and how serious the matter really is. So some people are going through with what resources they have, and they're purchasing these homes, motorhomes, and then they're trying to find places to park them. And that's an increasing issue just everywhere throughout the county and throughout the state. So this is something we're probably – probably going to have to address various parts throughout this county. I think this location is a very good location. It has a lot of potential. We'll see what happens. I'm very much in favor of it. Let me put that down.

I'm interested in what you just said because I'm wondering, Roxanne, If that's the case, that we, I mean, one of the things that really struck me about the population that we were trying to support that was parked and living on railroad and Allison, that it was working families with school-aged children. And so I'm wondering if there's anything else that's needed from county to support this effort because because this is something that we might be seeing more and more of. And if you're talking about a 24-hour facility, you know, it's almost like there's some rental space that folks would be, I mean, perhaps there's, I mean, I don't want to put it on folks that are already struggling, but we might be actually setting up a parking program where folks who are using their resource to buy a motorhome could, or RV for their family to live. They're going to work every day. They have children in school that were actually nominally like renting some space for those motorhomes to be there for 24 hours, especially if someone has another car that they're then going to and from work and getting their children to school. I'm just wondering if If we're thinking in the right way about this in terms of what we've done in the past with safe parking programs, I was just really struck by this one in particular. My initial thoughts, you know, Moss Landing seems far away, but I understand the challenges that you've had looking for a space. I'm wondering if we can go half seas with Santa Cruz County since folks live and work in Santa Cruz County or their kids go to school, some in Santa Cruz County. I think that would be something we should investigate if that hasn't been done, if possible. Those are just some of my initial thoughts. And with that, I think we can go to public comment.

There's none in chambers and there's none online. Okay. Okay.

So Roxanne, we'll just go back to you with any thoughts or feedback.

I have not looked at the potential of creating a space in which people can rent. And I absolutely can talk to Housing and Community Development to see if there's any zoning requirements. We could certainly dig deeper into that. We have an ongoing multi-department meeting. to discuss the safe parking, the potential safe parking program. So I could certainly add that to our agenda. And similarly, we have had multiple conversations with Santa Cruz County about safe parking. We did look into whether or not they would be willing to allow us to rent out a church on their side of the county line. We wasn't able to unfortunately get the support that we were seeking. Santa Cruz County does have multiple safe parking programs inside of the city of Watsonville, but one of those issues again is that it's a 12-hour parking program and the RVs are too, there are many RVs that are too large to fit into theirs. So it is worth the discussion. I meet with Santa Cruz County weekly. So I can certainly add that to the agenda with them as well and see if we can explore a potential partnership.

And just to be clear, I mean, the rental could be nominal. I'm not, I'm not suggesting, you know, but I'm just wondering with what supervisor church said that this is You know, different from some of the participants in the safe parking program we have in District 5, we have senior citizens living in their cars that are, you know, participating in all of these services nearby, gathering for women, whatnot. But I'm just, when Supervisor Church said this is actually, you know, the only affordable avenue for working families they are investing in these vehicles this is how they are housing their families maybe we can we can figure out a way and then they have some ownership and some stability in the you know as a as a renter they've got the space it's it's it's where they're leaving their car i mean their actual rv it's just a thought something to look into

Absolutely. We can certainly look into it. I would imagine there would be a series of board actions that would follow. So stay tuned for what we discover in that investigation.

So could I jump in on there? Because you actually, Supervisor Daniels, cracked open a door that I've been thinking about for a long time myself. So I'd like to just kind of kick it wide open at this point, if we can, because I do think... You know, there is something here, what you're talking about, you know, some nominal fee or so would be good, potentially, for those who can afford it. It would help cover some of the basic maintenance costs for these facilities. But I also kind of wonder if we shouldn't just... You know, since we did bring up about HCD here, start to look at the idea is whether or not it could not incentivize some privatization along this way. I mean, one of the most affordable housing opportunities are out there right now are mobile home parks for a lot of them. The mobile homes are cheap. Unfortunately, some of them are very expensive rent. But, you know, I'm just wondering if there isn't something that. I don't know if we have anybody on from HCD if there's even any possibility of doing this. For those who have greater resources, whether or not we can have some more of a permanent setup on something like this, where... Not just we're doing it, but maybe that there are enterprising people out there who have vacant land. Vacant land that now can also have a garbage service, too, for something like this. But it's a good opportunity to explore all opportunities at this point.

I don't see Craig on here, but it's my understanding that mobile home parks are governed by the state, but again, certainly worth looking into.

This would not be, and that's where I'm wondering, and that's what it would take with Craig and some discussion with HCD. There's a mobile home park, but this isn't quite this. I mean, all these are mobile homes in a way. They're Their parking is what we're looking at. And I'm just looking for some kind of in-between here between us being able to do safe parking programs, which are not governed by the state, and mobile home parks that are governed by the state, and whether or not there's some kind of middle ground in there where we can have some control and not have the state, which is unfortunately the – we have really very little control over mobile home parks.

Okay. I'll absolutely look into it. I think this is very – It's an intriguing way to approach this, and we will get back to this body. But I think, I suppose I am still seeking the permission to continue exploring the site itself.

You need a motion from us on this?

I'm not sure.

Well, I don't know. It just says provide direction. I mean...

I think by consensus, we could say, yes, please consider to pursue. Do you agree with that?

Oh, absolutely.

Okay. So hopefully that's what you need. We're very supportive of you continuing to pursue and look into that option.

Fantastic. Thank you so much.

All right. So with that, the next meeting is scheduled for October 15th. both in the Monterey room and I will be remote in the District 5 conference room. I'll just remind the public, if they're here, you're always welcome to also join this meeting here in this conference room. And with that, we will adjourn this meeting at, I won't tell you exactly what time it is, 10.17 a.m. Thank you very much.