Alternative Energy and Environment Committee - Regular Meeting

call this meeting to order. I was just looking to see if I have the complete binder with minutes from the last meeting. And that's not something I'm seeing, but that's okay. We're going to, I've got it all on my iPad, which I'll pull out right now. Okay. So with that, then at 2 0 2 PM. On Monday, June 15th, 2026, I will call the Alternative Energy and the Environment Committee to order. And I'm seeing that both Supervisor Askew and myself are present. Let's see. Are there any additions or corrections to this meeting agenda? There are none. Okay, then we will move to the public comment period this portion of the meeting is reserved for persons to address the committee on any matter, not on this agenda, but under the jurisdiction of the committee, is there any public comment in the room or online. None for both. Thank you so much. Okay, so we'll move to the regular agenda and the first item on the agenda is item number one. We're going to receive a presentation on the activities of the Monterey Bay Area Regional Climate Project Working Group and consider recommending the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution affirming the Board of Supervisors intent to commit to funding the county's contribution for the RCPWG for two additional years for an annual contribution of $30,000 and a total contribution of $60,000 and recommend that the county administrator officer or designee be authorized to enter into the MOU as a voting member of the Regional Climate Project Working Group and provide direction to staff as needed.

Okay, thank you, Chair. I'll go ahead and share my screen and we can get started. All right, looks like you can hear and see me okay?

Yes.

Fantastic. So as Chair Daniels mentioned, today we are discussing the Regional Climate Project Working Group. the entering for the county or to recommend that the county enter into an MOU for the governance of the Regional Climate Project Working Group, and also to reaffirm the intents for our annual contributions of the County of Monterey of $30,000 a year as a dues paying and voting member of the Regional Climate Project Working Group. So with that, the Regional Climate Project Working Group is something that this committee has seen in many of my staff reports, but is an entity that collaborates within public agency members and regional partners in the Tri-County Monterey Bay Area to advance regionally beneficial climate mitigation and adaptation projects. So really what this means is that we realized that looking at the tri-county area of Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties, that by jurisdictions being able to work together and to pull our efforts, we were much more competitive for grant solicitations and funding opportunities. So the Regional Climate Project Working Group, or the RCPWG, collaborates with member partners and agencies to secure funding for regional grants, to effectively and equitably allocate funding for climate action and resilience projects, and to establish more effective collaboration mechanisms between all of our different agencies in the region. and to have working groups that are activated to support deep coordination among all of our members and our non-member agencies, foundations, and nonprofits in the area so that we can advance specific project priorities that are in alignment with all of the climate action work that we are doing in our individual jurisdictions, such as our climate action plan that is now available for public comment. So since 2022, the Regional Climate Project Working Group has demonstrated tremendous success. Over $33 million in grants have been awarded to the Regional Climate Project Working Group as a collaborative effort. And some of those big wins that we see on the screen are the $15.7 million award that is actually going to the board tomorrow for the County of Monterey as the lead applicant. There is a $14.3 million federal U.S. Department of Transportation award for EV charging and six microgrid solar battery systems. And then there were some smaller awards from the Department of Energy, the California Governors of Land Use and Innovation, for resiliency and adaptation planning, and then we are also participants in the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration's application to help fund the Monterey Bay Area Climate Adaptation and Resilience Implementation and Funding Roadmap. We also received initial funding as part of the regional climate project working group through Central Coast Community Energy and received a smaller grant from the Urban Sustainability Directors Network so that we could flesh out some of the governance and strategy options available for the working group. So these are our current members. So I am the Vice Chair serving for the County of Monterey. And we also have representation from the City of Santa Cruz. And then we also have the County of San Benito, the City of Marina, and the City of Monterey have also recently adopted resolutions to join the Regional Climate Project Working Group. And we also have the City of Watsonville, Santa Cruz, and Salinas in the RCPWG. So here's a little bit of our timeline for the Regional Client Project Working Group. So this really started out as an informal network looking at the upcoming funding opportunity through the Inflation Reduction Act and other grants programs that were being developed at the time. And we realized that we needed to have stronger coordination and collaboration structures in order to be successful and competing with major metropolitan organizations to draw down that grant funding. So with that, the Regional Client Project Working Group was born and we've been working on our governance ever since. And we've gotten to a point where it's good enough to move forward and enter into an MOU. And we've had some short wins that are able to really launch the RCPWG into a more effective organizing body to secure funding for the climate action goals of the region and especially the county of Monterey. So just some highlights from the memorandum of understanding that we are asking for the county to consider entering into is that the county would be a dues-paying member and then the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments would act as the fiscal sponsor. So they would be receiving the funds and invoicing the county for our yearly dues. and also would be in charge of keeping the regional current project working group running. They would be bringing on consultants to help manage these efforts and also to assist the RCPWG in writing grant applications yearly to further our climate action goals. The county would also be responsible for annual dues in the amount of $30,000. So again, since 2022, we've paid $150,000 in dues. Some quick snapshots as a way to think about that. is from a direct benefit ratio from the funds we've actually been able to receive, that would be around a 66 to one benefit ratio from our CARB award. And then from the total regional awards that we've been granted and the $33 million amount, that is a 220 to one benefit ratio for the county's investments into the RCPWG. And there is no financial impact or at least budgetary impact to this item because the RCPWGs were included in the FY26-27 budgets. So, With that, again, our title is to receive this presentation and consider recommending the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution for our yearly dues of $30,000 for a not-to-exceed amount of $60,000. This is something that would be readdressed every two years as part of this agreement. And then to recommend that the county enter into the memorandum of understanding as a voting member of the Regional Climate Project Working Group. With that, I will pass it back to our chair and the public for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Cora. Why don't I start by opening it up to public comment? Is there any public comment on this item?

There are none.

Okay. So, Supervisor Askew, any comments or questions? Oops, I think you're on mute. I am.

All the buttons. I just want to say congratulations, Cora, on your leadership in this space. It's great to see the county represented as a co-chair, vice chair of the working group members. And I think there's a lot of opportunity represented by this. this CARB grant and the partnerships. So thank you for the update. And I'm supportive of continuing to contribute our membership dues to keep the momentum moving. Thank you. Yes, I can just move.

I'll just move the staff recommendation. OK, I've got one question in before that, but then I will I will second that and we can move it. One question is, is there a potential further step for the working group to get some statewide recognition for And I mean, I think there's plenty of ways this region that we're talking about has statewide significance to then ultimately receive some direct state budget allocations in addition to the work that's being done currently. I'm thinking like Prop 4, etc., Is that something you've ever thought about, Cora?

That is definitely something that we have thought about. So one of the things that we're looking into for our regional resiliency grant program, so we are building a adaptation framework for the region. And one of the things that we are considering is durable funding mechanisms for That does include working directly with the state so that we could either get ourselves in the running as part of the working group for a state earmark for the budgets. We're also working with a number of different organizations, including the local government climate policy alliance, so that we can be able to advocate for these kinds of projects and those forums.

Is there anything further the Board of Supervisors can be doing to help you in that effort?

Not at this stage, but if there is, we'll definitely come back either through this committee or the Ledge Committee.

Okay, thank you. That's great. So with that, I support the Supervisor's motion, and I believe by consensus, we have provided an A through D in the staff recommendation. Thank you, Chair. Great. Okay, we'll move on then to the next item on the agenda, which is the Fort Ord Habitat Resource Management Plan. And we are going to receive a status update on the Habitat Resource Management Plan related to former Fort Ord properties owned by the County of Monterey and Monterey Peninsula College and provide direction to staff. It looks like it's Ms. Beretti.

Thank you, Chair Daniels, and Supervisor Askew. Yeah, I'm Melanie Beretti. Hold on, can you bear with me one second while I share my screen? And while I'm doing that, I'm here with County Housing Community Development, also joined by colleagues Lindsay Lurable and Ryan Bell from the Public Works Facilities and Parks Department. But I'll be presenting this item today. And share screen. Okay, can you see my presentation?

Yes, we can.

Wonderful. All right, so I'm here to present a status update and get some direction from the Committee on the Fort Ward Habitat Resource Management Plan. We'll briefly review the status and content of the RMP, talk about a couple of policy considerations, as well as discuss the finances of the plan as it stands and potential long-term implementation, and discuss next steps with the committee today. So the county owns a total of approximately 2,636 acres of land on the former Fort Ord, of which approximately 2,143 are subject to the Fort Ord Habitat Management Plan. The Fort Ord Habitat Management Plan is a 1997 plan that was developed in response to the biological opinion that came for the Army as a result of dissolution of the base and ultimate disposition of the properties on the former Fort Ord to various agencies and entities. So the Fort Ord Habitat Resource Management Plan, which is I'll refer to as the RMP, is the areas that are outlined here in red on today's presentation. So all these areas, the blue properties are those owned by the county and then also in partnership and with fair share funding from Monterey Peninsula College, these green areas that are owned by Monterey Peninsula College are also being included in our resource management plan. So, So housing community development, we are overseeing the development of the RMP, but in cooperation with public works facilities and parks, because ultimately kind of ownership and long-term management of these county properties would happen most through the public works facilities parks department. And so we're coordinating closely with them to prepare for implementation of this plan. So of those properties that are subject to the habitat management plan and therefore require a site-specific resource management plan, so they include, and I'm just going to walk through. I know there's a lot of colors and stripes, so I'm just going to walk through it. So on this map, there are properties with certain land use designations. We have habitat management areas. And then separately, we have borderlands. So 1,540 acres are designated as habitat management areas for which the county is responsible to protect in perpetuity. They really have a focus of habitat conservation, their habitat reserves, habitat corridors. A few of those properties do allow some limited developments that may be restricted. So you'll see here, it's really the... So the green habitat reserve parcels, along with the habitat corridor, which is exclusively protected for habitat. And then the gray hashed, which are portions of the habitat corridor, what we refer to as travel camp, as well as the development reserve with some restrictions. These are the Laguna Seca parcels of Lookout Ridge and Wolf Hill. Those have some development that's allowable. But overall, all of these colored parcels are intended to be maintained in perpetuity to enhance and protect species and habitats. But they may be used for open space, compatible open space recreation. The borderlands, which are all of these gray parcels outlined here, these borderlands, about 603 acres, they are developable, but they have restrictions on them. So the intent from the Habitat Management Plan is that these overall acreages would be protected so that there's not significant species decline on them until such time as they develop. And then at that time, the development would be subject to restrictions in which adjacent, there would have to be provisions in place to ensure that the adjacent habitat management parcels are protected from any activities or any actions associated with any future development on these respective parcels. So you can develop these gray parcels, However, you need to make sure that that development is compatible and that the adjoining habitat management areas are protected from any negative impacts of those. So county does have an administrative draft resource management plan that has been developed. We've been working quite a while as staff with our consultant team. And we are now working with our agency partners those agency partners include the United States Fish and Wildlife Service who have regulatory authority over the plan. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, who also have authority over the plan. as well as the US Bureau of Land Management, who have a role in review and coordinated resource management with the other jurisdictions and agencies that hold habitat lands. So those are the agencies that are reviewing. The RMP includes, basically it includes an overview of the properties. So for each of those specific parcels, it lays out categories of management activities, which are listed here, the whole suite to, again, this is to ensure species and habitat protection. It includes a section for avoidance and minimization measures. So again, some of these activities like fire planning and prevention or even certain restoration activities could result in incidental take of the species that we're trying to protect while we implement. So there are provisions for avoiding and minimizing any impacts, potential impacts to species of these beneficial activities. It includes monitoring activities and reporting. So there is regular ongoing monitoring and reporting of species status and success of the program. Includes provisions for adaptive management. And then it also discusses needed agency permits and environmental compliance. So again, even though this is a habitat protection plan, there could be related impacts to species. So we will be considering California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, potential permits or permissions for those impacts from the relative agencies. Typically for development, that would be like an incidental tape permit. Because this is a habitat management plan, it might look different. There are different vehicles that that could look like. And then it also includes an amendment process, which I will talk a little bit about. It's not very specific, it just acknowledges that this plan may need to change over time. And then it includes funding, some general discussion of funding mechanisms, and we do have preliminary cost estimates for implementation of the plan. So touching briefly on the finances, So there are a few challenges. We currently, so just for a little bit of background, when the Fort Ord Reuse Authority dissolved in 2020, the FORA that I'll refer to as, FORA had been collecting their community facilities fees, and a portion of those fees were set aside and reserved for habitat management. At that time, Fort FORA was intending to adopt a habitat conservation plan to cover all of the properties on the former Fort Ord, both for their base habitat management as well as future development mitigation. That project did not, that plan did not get adopted. And when FORA dissolved, they distributed the funds to the jurisdictions that had habitat lands held in their held by those jurisdictions. So the county got approximately $13.5 million through that process. The county also at that same time amended the East Garrison Development Agreement to incorporate payment of the community facilities district fees, basically a replacement fee before going away. We still do collect habitat management fees on the development at East Garrison. And so that habitat fund is now up to approximately $15 million. And this is the fund that we utilize for staff time and consultant work on the RMP development. So annually, we generate currently about half a million dollars in interest payments on that $15 million development. There is a remaining one-time build-out fees remaining to be collected for East Garrison. Staff estimates it's approximately up to $2.5 million, but that would be coming over time as they complete build-out. The expenditures based on the current draft and cost estimates that have been preliminary provided look at a one-time cost on county lands of approximately $870,000. to get the RMP monitoring program, et cetera, up and running with consultant services and then ongoing consultant services of about over 600,000 a year for the county's lands. There are, so this is what we know as of today about the cost. You can see that certainly the ongoing costs without escalation exceed the interest that is accruing on that develop those habitat funding. There are other mechanisms that can be utilized, potential for grants. There's the potential for some of the county lands that may be developable could be set aside as mitigation banks and receive fees as receiver sites that could help fund some of the habitat management activities. There could be some consideration of alternative investment strategies. This is not something the county has done, but staff has looked at some other models in other areas where you have habitat HCPs or the habitat conservation plans that are managed by other parties like a joint powers authority. In those cases, there are some alternative examples of alternative investment strategies to increase the interest earnings. on accounts, but that's not typical of how the county holds its funds in our investment. We do earn interest, but it's at a very modest interest rate. And then there are some other potential considerations for maybe if certain lands aren't going to be designated or aren't going to actually develop, and I will talk about one specific instance, then possibly trying to offset some of the requirements as well. I did want to note that these are costs, the expenditures are based on the consultant fees, it does not include county staff costs. Those costs would also be dependent on what model of you know how we implement the plan and also some of the consultant costs potentially could be done through county team like fire fuel management those types of things so. So just as a refresher of development that was envisioned. So again, when the former Fort Ord was to was when the army left and those lands distributed out to the jurisdictions, there was a redevelopment plan for the entirety of the former Fort Ord. And it had an assumption that certain parcels were going to develop and that those Parcels, when they develop, would generate some property tax. They would generate fees that would help augment and fund habitat management. Much of that development, especially on the county lands, has not resulted to date. So nearly, I think, are we at 30 years later? And we really haven't seen substantial outside of the East Garrison development. So we do have East Garrison development. Yeah, there are a number of limits, just very changed circumstances. One particular case that I did want to point out is here, these large blue parcels on the plan area. So from the prior, so these are referred to as the East Garrison 2 sites. So originally the East Garrison development was a larger footprint that included the current development plus these additional East Garrison 2 areas. In the end, this no development is proposed here. And in fact, the county in 2016 accepted ownership of these parcels, which are designated as habitat borderland parcels. So they do have some habitat requirements. The county accepted these from the successor agency to the redevelopment agency for the county of Monterey, but as restricted for governmental purposes intended for open space and recreation. So while these are designated in the Habitat Management Plan as borderland parcels that could be developed because of the way dissolution of former redevelopment happened, these effectively are not intended to be developed because that was how the county was able to retain those properties through their limited development potential. So these properties in particular, we have flagged to the agencies as they're going through their administrative draft review to discuss the potential for what does it look like to redesignate these parcels, which really truly don't have the intended or envisioned development potential because of that dissolution process. So we flagged that issue. We will be discussing that with the agencies as they go through and consider the RMP. to look at what staff is proposing is that, you know, should, you know, how do we formally designate these so they're no longer identified as developable borderland parcels? They may have some reserve for development that would be compatible with open space, some minimal acreage. And could we get a comparable reduction in some of our habitat requirements? Certainly to not have to do active management on the entire parcels and potential for reducing some active management and hopefully then costs for others. So we're just beginning these discussions. I did want to just for some history, the board did direct in 2022 when the staff did come before the board to discuss all of the developable properties in the former four-doored At that time, staff presented a number of options, including, you know, did the board want to redesignate all of them as potential habitat? Did you want us to move forward with negotiating just for these garrison two parcels, et cetera? And at that time, the board directed staff to proceed with the option to try to negotiate the term to formally change that designation from developable to open space conservation. as we're going through with the development of the RMP. So that is what staff's implementing at this time. But again, I did want to note as well that there are other parcels that came to the county through the former Fort Ord, all of these red parcels, these red parcels here, and then down here, the small parcel. Those are all parcels that are identified as development parcels that are owned by the county as well on the former Fort Ord. So with that, so as I indicated, we do have this summer, we're expecting the agency's review. We're hoping to get their review by the end of August. U.S. Fish and Wildlife has indicated they will likely need some additional time. All of the agencies have all new staff, so they also just really need to dig into the history and understand the background of these documents to be able to really review and advise how do we go forward with a very changing picture of these properties and redevelopment from 30 years ago. We are anticipating in the fall of this year that we would have a public draft available, at which time staff is planning to come both to stakeholder and community meetings, as well as conduct a workshop with the Board of Supervisors at that time. And then based on that direction and input from the community and board, we would move forward with CEQA as well as final RMP and adoption targeting the winter or first half of 2027. So with that, staff is available to answer questions. And I'm just trying to figure out how to, there it is, stop sharing. And I'm happy to pull up any figures or maps if that's helpful for your discussion. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Melanie. I'll just ask if there's any public comment that's in the room or online first.

We have Suzanne Worchester online with her hand raised.

All right, Suzanne, you are free to comment.

There we go. Hi. I used to live on the former Fort Ord right adjacent East Campus housing off of Inner Garrison. And I also was very involved. I was a leader of the Kate Ford Wild trying to get rid of the racetrack. So I'm very familiar with these areas. I've mountain biked here for years, even though I live in Monterey now. So I switched from Wendy's to Kate's district. But I see these little red parcels. like way up, I think in strange places, like for instance, the ones you were mentioning kind of to the south, the East Garrison 2, south of East Garrison 2, that red parcel you want to convert to a borderland parcel. Is that what you said? No, because you're going to have a developable parcel in the middle of where you're going to have to cut through other lands. Anyway, I also was wondering about a little tiny one on East here off of... um general jim moore i think that's way to the south close to um eucalyptus um that's a really lovely area it's beautiful i don't know if you know it's got this wonderful oak woodland that um people hiked in with their dogs it's really special i take students there and they're always so amazed from cal state monterey bay how what beautiful land it is so i'm like oh my gosh that little tiny parcel that's on the far left south west i'm like that's a really cool parcel i'm I guess if we only develop for expensive houses and that doesn't help Seaside anyway in some ways. But anyway, just curious, I'm just asking because I've seen this all and I know these lands and I'm sorry, maybe I'm out of order, but it's sort of my question of relevance.

Suzanne, we'll get your question answered through our comments. Is there any other public comment? I see none. Okay. Supervisor, I ask you, if you don't mind, if I could just ask Melanie, because of the public comment, to just distinguish between the map you showed us with the blue and the green and the swatching, and then the one I believe you said, the one with the red, was what we received And what was identified when we received the land as developable parcels, not what you're proposing today. But if you could just clarify that for our public commenter. You might be on mute, Melanie.

All right. Hopefully you can hear me. Are you all able to see the map or are you seeing my desktop? We see the map. Perfect. Okay. So what I did want to clarify, these are all of the parcels that the county owns on this map in the former Fort Ord. All of the parcels in red are parcels that can have development and are not subject to the Habitat Management Plan. What I did want to distinguish is, for example, all of these lines and strips of property, just to note, those are road right-of-ways parcels. So those aren't really a part of the discussion today, but this is just the map that I had. So those are not intended for housing or other, they're road wide right of way development parcels. The various, these red parcels, including the small parcel in here, and I believe this is the small parcel that was being referred to by the public commenter. Those are properties that are owned by the county. They did transfer to the county and are designated as developable parcels. It does not, staff is not proposing any development in any way. These are simply how they are designated by the, how they're treated or not subject to the habitat requirements, as well as how they're designated in how they were transferred and how they're designated in the Fort Ord master plan, the county general, the county's general plan. And then the other red parcel here at the bottom is a parcel that is owned by Parks. It's associated with Laguna Seca. Um, that has development potential, but I, um, and that one I'm not as familiar with because it did not come through the same process of cleanup. Um, so this one is not, um, I apologize, I'm not able to speak more specifically to that parcel down there. But I know it is managed by the parks as part of Laguna Seca, and there is absolutely no plans for that. It is owned by the county and integrated as a part of the Laguna Seca parcels.

And Melanie, can you juxtapose that to the land use designations on the map that's green, blue, and blind? Yeah.

Yeah, so these parcels, so you'll see most of the red parcels, many of the red parcels won't show up, but all of these red parcels that are immediately adjacent to the blues and the teals are what are considered the borderland parcels in the habitat management plan. So they are developable, designated as potential for development, but they do have some restrictions to ensure that we're not degrading species on these green and teal colored parcels that are intended exclusively for habitat protection, species protection with compatible open space and recreation use. Did that get all the clarification?

Yeah, and then lastly, the direction that you're looking for today would have to do with the borderland parcels and just, or is it all of it?

Yeah. So staff, and I do apologize. It wasn't totally clear. Staff included provide direction to staff as appropriate and as desired by the committee. We, because it has been a long time since we last came before the board of supervisors and we got the direction to move forward. to in the negotiations for the Habitat RMP, just focus on those East Garrison two parcels for because those cannot be developed and not change any of the other development designations. So given that, but also now that we have some financial cost estimates and we have a little bit better of an understanding how costs are likely to exceed what we're able with our current model to generate for revenue. And we're not seeing the development being realized to allow you guys to give us some direction and start that conversation before we bring kind of the full RMP when it's ready and draft to the full board. So we didn't have a specific direction that we were requesting. We wanted to provide that openness to you all in light of this information and Basically, as we're in conversations with the agencies, you really get a feel to make sure we're still pursuing the conversations that we want to have with the agencies and preparing for when we have that next iteration of a draft to come for the community to look at and for the full board to review.

So pretend you don't get any feedback from us today. The comments Suzanne had, the questions I've asked, would those all be things that would be open to public comment in the draft? What are we calling it? RMP? Is that right? RMP when it comes out?

Yeah. So some of these questions, yes, what I anticipate is that once we get the agency's review, we'll know whether or not they accept the management activities, proposals, et cetera, that are in there. We'll know then, are these cost estimates reasonable? We'll also know, how do we handle these properties that cannot be developed because of how they came to the county and we accepted them for governmental purposes? What steps do we need to take? Do we need to do anything to formally protect them? Do we need to amend the habitat management plan or to remove the obligation of kind of that borderland management. We'll have some answers from the agencies for that. And we've also requested in our meetings with the agencies, we will have some targeted meetings to better understand some of the different programs that are available to the county to serve as receiving mitigation properties, what that could look like. And how to take that into consideration from a potential revenue source. And then the one other thing that we will is also we do just acknowledge a general process for future updates and amendments to the plan should things change. Should parcels in the future not be redesignated or deemed not developable, then how do we amend those? So that's what staff anticipates to get back. And then, of course, updated cost estimates based on that feedback to be able to then have a broader conversation with the board preparing for what the obligations are in this plan and how we might be able to ensure those can be funded in perpetuity as required.

Okay. Thank you. Supervisor Askew.

Yeah, thank you. And thank you, Suzanne, for being here with us for public comment today. Melanie, you've been working on this for some time. And I just want to thank you and your team for the diligence that's gone into getting us as far as we've made it here. You know, I think if you were to ask anyone in our community, they would they would be very surprised to hear that any of these parcels were zoned or slated for development. And I know that we had a previous board that gave direction to maintain the status quo of, of, of, of treating these borderland parcels for future development and doing the larger resource management, habitat management planning so that they could remain and develop as developable parcels. However, it's really clear to me that this community has litigated those questions on multiple occasions in what turned out to be very public and ugly and divisive battles that played out for years in this community that served ultimately no one and continue to leave scars that we recover from over time. I think that given, you know, we have a different board composition now than we did when these questions were originally asked. And I would hope that we can give clearer direction about how to move forward now than we did previously. So we also have a lot more information now about some of the realities of water constraints on this particular area. We know more about the habitat needs and truly we've seen through COVID how absolutely critical these properties have been for community economic development spaces, as well as outdoor recreation. I believe it was estimated that 1.2 million people were visiting and utilizing these lands for outdoor recreation during COVID. So it would be it would be I will just say, I think it would be disastrous for a proposal of development to come forward at any time in the foreseeable future for these properties. And so it's clear to me that the direction that we need to be moving in is how to reduce our costs, reduce our habitat management liability, since we won't need... we won't be, the likelihood of developing these parcels is low and will become lower over time. So the need to have the habitat management liability could be reduced significantly and we could take away this risk of community harm, which is what it would be. So anyway, long ways to say, I have a few questions, but I just want to be really clear about where I stand on this point. Um, and, uh, and I expect that the community will weigh in, um, once they realize what these maps look like, um, because they haven't been public in some time. Um, and as we've been in conversations with folks out, you know, in the cycling community out at, uh, throughout the community, um, they're shocked when I talk about this, the reality of this. So if we were to, um, reduce, uh, these borderland parcels, let's say if we were to eliminate all of them from future development sites or as future development sites, formally re-designating them as open space recreation, even under that limited, you know, very limited development option, how much would that reduce our habitat management responsibility?

Yeah. So I'm actually not able to answer that because that's a part of what the agencies really need to kind of get into and understand. So conceptually, they understand and concur that if all of these parcels aren't developing, then there is opportunity for some of that active management to reduce. I think what it actually means will be species dependent. There may be parcels that certain species that are on habitat management and borderland parcels that simply by protecting the borderland parcel, we're already achieving a lot more protection of those species versus there may be some that are only exclusively on those habitat parcels that we can't change what we have to do to protect them because that's the only place we find them. So those are some of the considerations that they would take into account. Um, and also another question for them is, is, so that's would be kind of a biological question. We do have all of the borderland parcels were analyzed as a part of the RMP, um, because we did need to include interim habitat management until such time as was envisioned that they could have developed. Um, so I, at this time, um, I, staff is hopeful that we would not have to do a lot more, um, field work in order to provide the biological information for what sort of some exchange could be. I think some of it comes down to also, how do we do that? What's the right way to designate them to protect them in a way? So there's nuances in terms of whether or not the habitat management lands themselves are considered mitigation for, reuse, the redevelopment of those properties, or from the base reuse, not the development, the base reuse, or if it's not a regulatory. So there's just some legal nuances that I don't fully understand from the agencies. So what I can't do is say exactly what that can be. What I can say is that conceptually, the agencies understand the question, they understand where the jurisdiction's coming from. And they have that lens as they're looking at as they're looking at our RMP. What I would also say is at this time, we specifically flagged for them the East Garrison two parcels because those effectively are not developable because of that redevelopment. We didn't flag any of the other parcels. So I think one thing I would say is if, and this was a part of if this committee wished to give some direction to potentially bring the question of which parcels are developable sooner now while we're in agency review, as opposed to waiting until we get to the public draft review. That's something that staff absolutely could facilitate if that is a conversation that you'd like to engage with the full board and would also give the community opportunity to say, because then we can have it beyond just those known parcels and expand the conversation It would be helpful to have that while the agencies are under review, if that's something that this committee desires.

Yeah, thank you for that, Melanie. And I think I think those are questions that would be really helpful for us to understand as we even on a personal by personal basis as we move forward. You know, there's there's some parallel paths of things that are all happening here, you know, effectively, this is a tremendous county park asset. Ultimately, that's what we're looking at. I know we're getting ready and underway with the Parks Master Plan. Being able to even factor in what would ongoing management of these lands look like if we were to designate as County Parks Open Space and in partnership with BLM and with Florida National Monument, really formalize that reality. We could do some real trail work and coordination there. We also have the community, what was it, the Fort Ord, it had been the Fort Ord Reuse Authority general master plan, but now it's called, I think, the CP, the community plan for this area. And we're needing to develop that, to create that community plan that clarifies what some of these areas are zoned for. I think the community would benefit from having clarity and, you know, know what's going to happen moving forward. So as I'm looking at these parcels specifically, you know, there's the East Garrison portion, which we know can't be developed. There's the portion over by the Veterans Cemetery, which... The community litigated loudly and clearly. I can't imagine any scenario in which development is possible on that site. And the other site over by the Jerry Smith corridor if I'm looking at the right map. Is that the diamond right in between the two greens? No, the diamond is the East Garrison section that is not developable.

Yeah, but it's red on this map. That's why I'm asking.

So just to clarify, this red is the ammo supply point. That still has development designation Um, these blue parcels are the East Garrison two that came to the County through former redevelopment for government purposes, open space. This is where out of the ammo supply point is where, um, the sheriff and I believe district attorney, some other departments are utilizing those for certain activities. I think our public works team could speak better to what's current. So there is some at this location or some activity there, uh, County purposes, um, And then I believe what I heard.

The little triangle or whatever that little shoehorn. I know going up closer. Yeah. I mean, that's where the horse park had been proposed. Like that became a non-starter for the community. And then the other little box right above that, that's near where the Whispering Oaks parcel had been proposed. Are you talking about this one, this larger one here? Yeah. Yeah. And the community actually referended that parcel, that project. So then go back down to the lower one. Yeah, right there. And that's right at the bottom of Eucalyptus Road, if I'm looking at that right? Yes. Yeah, so that's at the bottom of eucalyptus. I mean, that's, you know, depending on what happens with Seaside East, that's really truly the only parcel that I think would even have, you know, the community hasn't really weighed in on Seaside East, but that would be, I think, adjacent to Seaside East development. I just, I can't see any of the other parcels having any opportunity for real development in the next 30 years. Um, and I think that we need to be realistic about that. And if there's ways to, um, to have the board give that direction, I would welcome the chance to have that conversation with the board so that we can be stewards of the land, we can be clear with the public, we can set reasonable and clear expectations with developers who might want to come into the community, you know, letting folks know like, hey, this parcel actually isn't available, whereas these are the ones that are. I think all of that transparency would be really important. would be really beneficial for the community. So I'll bounce it back to you, Supervisor Daniels. I know you weren't here for some of those previous conversations, but you were aware of the community.

Your history lesson was gold. I got it. I got it now. My apologies. I did not understand the map to the public commenter. My apologies. I did not understand the map. We were looking at it. I thought that was just the original designations. And so that's helpful. Melanie, what further do you need from us as supervisors to bring that question to the agencies now rather than waiting?

Yeah, I mean, I think that the question I have for you is would you, so we will bring, we as staff can bring that to the agencies now. We can certainly share that we got indication from our subcommittee that they'd like to also bring in into the discussion, the likelihood that these other development parcels wouldn't develop. So we can have that very active conversation now with them. I think because staff got prior direction from the board and the board direction is to just pursue it on those East Garrison 2 parcels. I think from staff's perspective, if the recommendation is that we actually return to the board to revisit kind of that prior direction to see if, and in that we can include some of the discussion around, you know, what's changed, that history. Now that we have some of those long-term management costs as well, it can be in the framework of that. And staff, if this committee is requesting and directives, we can bring forward that conversation, kind of revisiting that discussion that we had in 2022 with the current board and currently what we know to see if there's a desire to give formal direction before we kind of close that agency consultation. We'll continue to have the conversations and it won't be an opportunity lost if we have those with a public draft as well. So I think the timing would be at kind of the direction and desire of this committee for when you'd like us to return. And if you'd like us to bring that specific conversation regarding the development the properties that are still designated for development back to the board for reconsideration.

So if I understand correctly in May, 2022, the board gave the direction to proceed with option two, but what might be the direction at this time that we could consider is option number three chair and supervisor ask you, is that what you're suggesting? Yeah, sorry, I'm not looking at the same report that you're looking at. Consider formally designating the borderland parcels for open space conservation now and negotiate the term that interim habitat management is not required in the RMP. Yeah, that would be, I think, an option that we should seriously look at and consider.

Okay.

And then again, my only confusion left is that we're just talking about the borderland parcels. And I wanted to go back to what our public commenter asked us and ensure that there's still an opportunity in the RMP to make public comment about all the parcels that were identified as developable. Is that possible? Is that something that the RMP covers?

So the RMP itself does not cover that. It has formal designations, either a habitat parcel or your borderland parcel. There are other county owned parcels that through our Fort Ord master plan are designated as developable. Staff can certainly, if this committee desires, staff can bring forward the borderland parcels for consideration, as well as a conversation about other parcels that have development that are designated for future development, but are not subject to that habitat management require if It makes sense to have all of that in one conversation, essentially, if that's what the committee would desire. We would just distinguish which parcels. So the RMP would address designating.

I'm going to defer to Supervisor Askew, who's been engaged in this longer than I have. Would it be more effective to focus on these areas of the borderlands that have been litigated in the way that you described in this first pass?

Yeah, I mean, I... I think that we should bring it all like bring everything that's on the map that was on page. I'm not sure what page, but all of our, all of our borderland parcels that are within Bordeaux. And at least to have, I mean, because we're still going to go through the RMP process. There'll still be some discussion, but at least what we're doing is we're, we're, we're providing, we're providing a, sort of a reality check, if we were to pursue what you had listed there as option three, Kate, what would that look like? Would we be able to bring our RMP annual costs down to a level that we can actually afford to maintain? And what would that trade off look like? Maybe at the end of the day, when we do the final RMP and we do the community plan, maybe there is, you know, a port, you know, that lower section at eucalyptus where we keep that on the table. Um, I'm not suggesting that we do that, but I'm, but I'm, I'm, I'm leaving it out, but I think there's some information that we need to get. We can't get that information if we don't, um, bring it back to the board to get some new direction to Melanie. And so by getting that new direction, it will inform us better as we then move forward. Um, Is that clear? That's very clear to me. Okay. Yeah. Melanie, is that clear?

Yeah. So if I'm understanding, the direction is for staff to bring forward to the Board of Supervisors before closing the agency review and prior to a public draft to go to the Board of Supervisors, specifically with the discussion of the borderland parcels and considerations of redesignating them, reconsidering that staff direction from 2020 or that board direction from 2022. And then I also interpret it as staff would also bring in the information about all of the parcels that are designated for potential development, including their land use designations with just as a part of that informative information. but we'll focus the discussion on the borderland parcels and that are subject to the RNP.

Thank you. And I just, I did have one other question, Melanie, like is for the East Garrison to those, the parcels that we've already discussed and received direction on, is there any reason that the County couldn't formally recognize those parcels as permanent open space now?

No. So the only hesitation that I have as staff is that your ability to get grant funding and your ability for parcels to be receiving sites for mitigation for development in other locations, depending on how you do that designation, could change. So I would like staff to get more information on If that's not a consideration that is a concern, then those can be redesignated at any point in time. But that is, staff does want to understand a little better how mitigation potential works just from a potential revenue generating perspective. So that the way that you designate them, the board might designate them, allows to be mitigation receiving sites, but still removes, it doesn't keep the development potential on them. That is a specific conversation that we are trying to get scheduled with the agencies. My hope is actually that we can have a preliminary conversation with the agencies before we come to the board. I think we already have that scheduled to have a little bit better understanding of, can you just redesignate these now? And could they still then be used for potential mitigation sites in the future?

Okay, thank you for that. I did have one other question. I think, you know, because as I mentioned, there's sort of all these parallel discussions and paths happening. And I do think it would be valuable as well for the Parks Commission to, at some point in this process, receive a sort of this similar, just an update about what's happening here and what some of the considerations that the board will have to play out. Because I think that a recommendation from the Parks Commission, you know, our commissions are here to advise us. And I think that they might have an opinion about some of this as well, or some specific parcels for us to consider more significantly than others. So as they think about master planning for the entire area. But, yeah, I support the direction that we've discussed here to get this back in front of the Board of Supervisors so that we can add some nuance to the RMP.

And I'll interpret that as including the direction to come before the Parks Commission, if possible, and if it wouldn't delay prior to the board, if not. Yeah, without delaying. But if there's scheduling challenges, we'll still come to the board and then later take it to the Parks Commission for discussion. Just to keep them up to date and posted. Sure. And I can work with our public works teams for that.

So with that, I believe you have direction. We do have one hand up, but I believe it's the public. We've already gone out to public comment, which I'm not been chair for very long. So I desperately want to say you can comment again, but I know we don't do that. I'm sorry. But Suzanne, we can chat with you afterward. Please call my office. I'm here and I'm happy to pick up. And I know Wendy feels the same way. 647-7755. And with that, we're going to close this item unless staff needs anything else from us.

No, thank you.

Okay. So with that, then we're going to adjourn the meeting. Our next meeting is scheduled for September 21st, 2026. And this meeting is now adjourned. Thanks, Kate. That was a really fast meeting. Thank you. You're very welcome. Thank you all. And Suzanne, do please call my office. I'm here. Happy to chat.