City Council - Regular Meeting

2026. We are calling to order the board of supervisors for the county of Monterey. It is 09:00. Let the record show that all supervisors are present. However, supervisor Luis Alejo will be absent today. Are there any additions or corrections to our closed session? No additions or corrections. Alright. That's easy. We have closed session items number one a through c.

Is there any public comment on our closed session items this morning? Alright, seeing no public comment, we'll close public comment and resource recess into closed session. I will be back here to reconvene at 10:30 a. M. Meeting of Tuesday, 04/21/2026.

Let the record show that all supervisors are present. However, with the exception of supervisor Luis Alejo, who will not be present today. Do, we have, Diego with us online for our Spanish interpretation services today. Diego, could you make our announcement? Thank you.

We'll move next to the Pledge of Allegiance. If everyone would rise, please. Are there any additions or corrections to our agenda this morning?

There are and that is number one to remove item number 20 under the consent agenda general government and that was per the department's request. The item will be removed from the agenda. And then lastly, adjourn to adjourn in memory of Raymond and Aurelia Narvaez at the request of supervisor Daniels.

Got it. Great. Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to ceremonial resolutions. We have one ceremonial resolution on our agenda today. We'll take that out to public comment for ceremonial resolutions. Any public comment? Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the board.

Move approval.

Okay. I'll second. We have a motion from Lopez, a second from Askew. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. Right. Passes unanimously. And we'll just say congratulations to, commending sergeant Mark Sievers upon his retirement from twenty four years of public service with the Monterey County Sheriff's Department. Thank you, Mark. We wish you well in your retirement. We actually, let's see here. I'm good.

Okay, next up we have appointments. We have two appointments on our agenda this morning, items three and four. Is there any public comment on our appointments this morning? Seeing no public comment on appointments, I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval, then after a second, I'd love to make just make a couple brief remarks.

Okay. We have a motion. We have a motion from Lopez, a second from Church, and we'll go to comment.

Thank you. I just wanna briefly thank Eustolia. She's a long time San Lucas resident for stepping up to serve in this role. She was a welder. She worked on the Bay Bridge and some incredible architecture up in the Bay Area before moving home to San Lucas to take on this role.

She stepped up at a time when it's hard to find folks willing to volunteer because as we know, we're approaching fifteen years of no drinking water. So I just wanna thank her for being willing to step into that role at this incredibly difficult period. And I just also wanna thank Libby Downey for continuing to serve with us on the board of trustees at Natividad. She is our most recent past chair, and it's an honor to keep her on as we continue to go through all the impacts of HR one at Natividad and having her expertise at the helm as a nurse is a big deal. So I wanna thank them both. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you. And I'll just as I have been on all of our previous special district appointments, wanna make sure that we're providing the clear noticing of those vacancies. My understanding of the San Lucas County Water District is that it is a full board appointment, and so my request is that we just notice them appropriately on our agenda as such. Okay. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Kate, was that a yeah. Yes. Yep. Okay. Perfect. Okay. That was appointments are approved unanimously. We can move on to our consent calendar. We have items number 24 through 28 with the item number 20 was pulled by county staff to come back at a later date.

Okay. So items 14 through 28, we'll open consent up to public comment. Is there anyone for cons for public comment on the consent calendar this morning? I'm not seeing any hands raised, so we will close public comment on consent calendar, bring it back to the board. To Supervisor Church?

Two items I just wanna comment on, 2526.

Yeah, go ahead.

Briefly on '26 is I don't sort of kind of feel like sometimes I'm sort of like the format cop on the agenda. But it's format's out of sync with what we standardly do, and just what asked to have departments, everyone keep an eye on that, just so that they're easy to read in the public. On '25, I really wanted to go a little more lengthier discussion on that one because I think it's really significant. And this is where Department of Emergency Management is seeking a 200,000 grant from the from the state, and it's for the development of the Monterey County's community wildfire prevention plan. The current one we have is is a little long in the tooth, even though it's only back to 2010, it really isn't relevant today with the changing situations.

And as we all know, we're in a very fire prone county. There are there's major fires in District 5 regularly and District 3. And my my district is is highly vulnerable. We've just been able to avoid them from and so this is you know, development of this plan is something I should back up and say that prior to becoming on the board, I was president of the Fire Safe Council for Monterey County, and was aware of this plan, aware that it needed to be updated. So it's really welcome to see that we're making this step and this direction into here onto that.

And I'm hopeful we're gonna have a more thorough discussion here in the future about this because it really does allows for some hazardous fuel reduction. It's really a essential tool on wildfire management, and it as I mentioned earlier, it is out of date. One of the things that I have had discussions with Department of Emergency Management and also brought up repeatedly when I was on the Fire State Council is how we really need to start marrying what we're doing here with what some of the Sierra Counties have done. Particularly, I've been really impressed with the Lake Tahoe Basin forest action plan, which was developed in, I think, 2008. That plan and what and the and how they worked about getting a collaborative multi jurisdictional plan so that there was there was real efforts to go forth and and and have the kind of cooperation and a fire prevention that's necessary.

When the Caldor fire happened in 2021, it started over in Amador County, actually, El Dorado County, and not so far from Placerville or Jackson, and it burned all the way to Lake Tahoe. It stopped there because of the effectiveness of what the Lake Tahoe Forest, Lakes Tahoe Basin Forest Action Plan had put forth. And that's really a model. So I'm really looking forward to further discussions on it and really getting the board involved into this because it is such an important issue. So just one for you.

Thank you. On that matter, there was is this the same presentation that was scheduled for for an item, a scheduled item? Okay. So supervisor Church indicated that, you know, looking forward to this coming back, what is the next step? I realize we are simply authorizing the and approving the director to submit the grant application. But is there a next step regarding the community wildfire protection plan and a role that this board will be playing in that?

Yes. There will be a more thorough item on June 2. June 2. Okay.

Any other comments or question on consent? Anything else over here? Okay. I did have one comment on item I believe it's item 27, although I had it marked as 28. It's the Spartan race at Toro Park over the weekend of May.

Just wanna say we're excited for the county to be hosting this event again, and but did wanna notice that there are some park limited park closures that are occurring. However, the trails, as I understand it, will remain open to the public. So just wanna thank the team that's working on putting this event together and let the community know that there will be notices published about the the limited access during to Toro Park during that race. Alright. Did we have a motion on consent? I know we went into public comment. The motion from, Lopez, a second from Daniels. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Right. Consent is approved unanimously. Back to k. Now we'll open it up to public comment. Anyone who's with us, today for to come comment on items that are within the jurisdiction of this county, but not otherwise, listed on our agenda today, We welcome your public comment, reminding everyone that these chambers do belong to you, and we're here conducting your business. And we really do appreciate you being present and sharing your, your thoughts and perspectives on county business with us. Thank you for being here. We'll start in chambers.

Great. Good morning. My name is Chris Pereira, president of LULAC Council twenty fifty five. I'm here again because what we raised on March 24 has not been addressed. It's gotten worse. On July 1, supervisor 07/01/2025, supervisor Alejandro Lopez requested that Ms. Maldonado be treated like county staff while she was not a county employee, but a contracted vendor providing custodial services. That is a clear breakdown of process. This is preferential treatment and that is wrong. We came here and said it then, no process, disregard for policy and favoritism.

And now we're back because the CAO, Sonya De La Rosa, is attempting to quietly push us through the consent agenda. Let's be honest about what this is. This is an attempt to hide it and this pattern of pulling items off the consent agenda only when you think the public is watching. That's not transparency, that's manipulation. Yes, that's number 20 that was pulled today. According to the weekly, your chief procurement officer Doctor. Wilson was placed on leave in June 2025. The same person responsible for upholding procurement integrity. So the question is, is she on leave because she would not sign off on this? Because now the CAO is willing to override ethical procurement standards, conflict of interest safeguards and fairness to customize an agreement for one vendor.

Yes, one. And let's talk about costs. Doctor. Wilson has been on full salary and benefits since 06/13/2025. That's well over $150,000 of taxpayer money. Yes, that's our money. You are using our money to cover up the fact that CAO acted in retaliation when she walked off Doctor. Wilson. While staff are overwhelmed and the system is being bent for one individual, last week we talked about oversight of the sheriff's office. So I'll ask you now, where is the oversight of the CAO? Because this is not about politics, this is about fairness, accountability, and doing what is right. Stop this, restore the process, and respect the public you serve. What I see is cover up, corruption, and manipulation. Thank you.

Karen Cameron concerns Salinas resident I invite all of you to come to the important California Department Pesticide Regulation meeting for the, Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. They're actually meeting in Salinas this Friday, April 24, four to eight p. M. Right down the street, 200 Lincoln Avenue. I hope to see everyone there.

A few of my concerns arise that we have no real data coming from Salinas, salad bowl of the Obviously, producing more than anywhere. The only air monitoring is coming out of Pajaro to cover both Monterey and Santa Cruz County and that's inadequate, insufficient. We need to request data and know what we' breathing. When I look at the environmental justice element of the monterey county general plan they cite data for disadvantaged communities not Salinas but areas like Buronda 99%, Castroville 95 to 99%. This is pesticide accumulation data coming from cattle and virus cream.

Chulart 88%, Las Lomas 99%, Moss Landing 99%, Pajaro, where we have our air monitor, is listed at 79 to 100%. That's awfully vague. So, I'm going to assume 100%. Pine Canyon, 80%. San Lucas, 82%. So, where are we at with Salinas? There's a lot going on with the state. I urge everyone to make public commenting in regards to spray days. You can find out what toxic restricted pesticides are being applied within one mile of you, or perhaps your child's school or someone else's home. Spray days, cdpr.ca.gov.

You can also get more information on pesticideinfo.org. This is applicable to every one of us, Salinas being 40% of the county population, 50% of the homeless. There' much more that I' sent you in writing, and I urge you to be there and learn more. Everyone in the public the same. Thank you.

So, good morning, Supervisors. Eloise Shim, resident of Salinas. I want to comment about, although it was already brought forward in the consent agenda, I want to comment about the allocation for $100,000 for the soccer complex. I think that reimbursing them when there, it's really an added allocation from the monies that are granted to this soccer complex from both private and public contributions, including the city of Salinas. So, I don't really think that the county should be adding another $100,000 for reimbursement when they already get a lot of money.

Name is Eric Peterson. And just to add, one thing to what I always just said, when the soccer complex was proposed, the proponents made a really big deal about how it was all gonna be donated money. There was gonna be no government money. And, while it's doing a good purpose, and I really like the idea about a BMX track, it would be nice if they got honest. Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors. My name is John Macias, US marine, Vietnam veteran, and one of the directors of the Monterey County Vietnam Veterans Memorial Committee. I am here in person to invite each one of you to attend a memorial day program on Monday, May 25 at 11AM at the Monterey County Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Veterans Way here in Salinas. You may have received an email invitation a few weeks ago. Here, I present a flyer to you as a reminder of the upcoming Memorial Day where we honor and remember specifically all of our Monterey County fallen military heroes as well as all KIAs.

The program runs approximately forty five minutes to an hour. We look forward to seeing you at this event. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We'll move online. We have a number of hands raised online for public comment. Again, this is general public comment. We appreciate you being with us today, and I'll just ask that you watch the the timer. We have two minutes, for each comment. We'll start with Brian and then go to the phone number ending in 705. And, Brian, you'll need to unmute yourself. We give permission. The clerk has given permission for you or asked you to unmute. You'll have to hit unmute in order to speak.

Thank you, chair, vice chair, supervisors. I appreciate your time and your contributions that you do for the public. First, I'd like to say thank you very much for the COVID memorial and event. You all deserve a hearty thanks and pat on the back. So I'm patting on the back.

I was at a hearing recently, and mister Novo was the gentleman running the meeting, the planning meeting. And one of the items on the agenda was very, very straightforward. It was for about 10 miles down the Big Sur Coast. The gentleman had an application in to replace an existing gate and replace some sections of existing wooden wall. I think the the length of the whole improvement might have been 54 feet.

So, again, a like to like, not raising nothing controversial, And the planning, the write up from the planning commissioner excuse me, planning department said it was a a minimal a minimal application, however they wanted to describe it, but very inconsequential. So fine. We are placing a wooden gate with a copper gate, a wooden fence with stone. So, again, very, very straightforward. And here we are, I think it's two years later and a $100,000 and an attorney and an architect.

And so my point is it should be should have been an across the counter approval. The existing fence when the original house was done could have been two feet higher. But, again, they wanted the fence to block the view of the house. So, again, they were asking for nothing extraordinary. And two years later, 100,000, architect, lawyer.

My point is that 100,000, he would have gladly donated to the Big Sur Health, Big Sur Fire, but instead you're leaving him with a bad taste of the mouth. And why would he want to then contribute to the good of the community when he's been dragged through the mud for two years, 100,000 to replace an existing gate and part of his existing fence. So please make these things administrative approval. Thank you.

We'll go next to the phone number ending in 705 and then the phone number ending in 837.

Yes. Good morning, supervisors. Can you hear me?

We can hear you. We've got you. Thank you.

I sent you all a report given on video by the top go to fire scientists in The US, Jack Cohen, on how homeowners can save their homes from wildfires. This information was not included in your eucalyptus removal pilot program and should have been because as Jack Cohen states, eucalyptus trees are not the problem, it's dry leaves and pine needles. Mister Church, I learned that you began this eucalyptus removal project pilot project, and this must stop with you. You must stop giving homeowners false information about these trees because this community needs these trees to combat global warming in our area. Our National Marine Sanctuary is heating up and with each tree removal, regardless of its native or non native status is one of the big tools in our toolbox to combat global greenhouse gases.

So far, 2,000 large eucalyptus trees have been removed along with deadly herbicides to kill their trunks. 2,000 trees represents 2,000 tons of global greenhouse gases these trees no longer absorb a year. We've lost 520,000 pounds of oxygen a year these trees could have created. And the rainfall that they could have created a year through transpiration was 300,000,000 gallons of water a year. Their contribution towards keeping our area cool and thus the bay cool is immeasurable.

The chipping process releases tons of carbon and stored pollutants as well. In Jack Cohen's educational video, the number one cause of house fires is not trees. It's dry leaves. That should be our number one concern. So please stop killing our eucalyptus trees. Your program is endangering us all. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go next to the phone number ending in 837.

Hi, supervisors. This is Brian Rosen. Yes, I love eucalyptus trees, and I think it's a real shame to be taking out such these precious big giant beautiful trees. I think we need a moratorium. I mean, you take out a big tree and you plant some small trees and it takes what a fifty, sixty years before you you're losing a lot of oxygen production.

And so we need to make sure there's no net loss oxygen production from the trees. And we need to plant more trees and we need to take out leaves and grass right next to houses and make sure that things are fire safe. But even the sites that I've gone to say eucalyptus trees just by removing some dead branches and so forth, it can be made much, much safer. Anyway, I just encourage you to protect the trees and plant more trees at all over Monterey County. I wanna change the subject quite to the war machine, which our president is destroying our country right now and may drop who knows?

I hear talk that he wants to drop a nuclear bomb, and he's not being allowed to do to have access to the codes. This guy is crazy. We need to do resolutions. Our whole country is being destroyed. The world economy is being destroyed. And the military industrial complex is running rampant that Eisenhower warned us against. So please have some resolutions against the out of control military industrial complex. Maybe we were the good guys in the civil war in World War two, but our military has been doing some terrible things. And I'm and and Eisenhower was absolutely right. And we need some resolutions for peace to support the civilians that are being killed because they're the real victims.

Anyway, I appreciate all of you, and you're trying to make Monterey County a better place and and think about the trees and how we can make us fire safe without destroying

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay.

We don't have any other hands raised online and no one else in chambers for public comment. We will close public comment, bring it back to the board for our scheduled matters today. Starting with, and, actually, before we do that, I did just wanna say there were a couple comments. The county's environmental, justice element draft is open for a public review period, through Monday, May 11. So So if anyone does have comments or would like to review the draft environmental justice element that is posted online, and you can, submit your comments. And then just wanted to say, for Memorial Day on Monday, May 25, we're proud to support this project and see it.

Yeah. Love to chime in on that last one as well, madam chair. And just thank John Macias for being here. I've had the opportunity to be John's supervisor for many years and know all of his contributions beyond what he cited today. He's been a veteran of the year as well for the county of Monterey. And he recently shared with me some incredible stories of heroics by our soldiers in Vietnam, and I wanna thank him for sharing that information with us and for highlighting this opportunity. I will be joining you on the twenty fifth and look forward to being there and meeting many more veterans. Thank you, John.

Alright. So with that, can now move on to item number seven, adopting our updated general financial policies for reflecting revisions to the county's fiscal management framework, including updates to operating budget requirements, revenue and expenditure policies, fund balances, and reserve policies. We will pass the floor to our CAO. To Deja. To Deja. We'll pass the floor to Deja Yes. For our presentation. Thank you, budget director.

Thanks. Good morning, supervisors, chair, and CAO De La Rosa. I'm here to present the updates to the general financial policies for the fiscal year twenty twenty six twenty twenty seven, which begins 07/01/2026. Also, ACAO Michael Bean is online and will assist in answering any questions that may arise. First, the first up here is the clarification of the budget committee role and responsibility.

On page three, three point four, principal functions of the budget committee, we have edited the text to provide better clarity in the role and responsibility of the budget committee by removing providing direction and oversight, and replacing with providing recommendations. And on page 21, 12.3, financial analysis of funding sources, the board of supervisor supervisors receives the this information of funding sources and availability and already provides final direction with augmentation requests, budget, and matters under fiscal constraints. So what we're doing here is streamlining the process and allowing to that to remain at the board of supervisors level. 5.7 appropriations and transfers. So for on page six, here's these are the highlights instead of reading the full text that was provided in the agenda.

The account county administrator officer designated an administrator responsible for managing appropriation control, including transfers and revisions that do not increase the total appropriations of the budget unit. These are the highlights. We're establishing appropriation control at the major expense category level within each budget unit. After the adoption of the budget, no transfers between major expense categories within the same budget unit unless approved by the c a off CAO office. What we have done here is replaced all appropriation control at unit level to appropriation control at major expense category.

We've also replaced the required board authorization of transfers at appropriation unit with budget unit. With this, the CAO will institute a system based budgetary control at the budget unit level and major expense category level. Transfers of appropriations or movement of general fund contribution between budget units must approved by the board resolution. 7.8, maintaining revenue and expenditure categories. This the addition of this language on page 12 and as an add is correlated with the change on the previous slide in which we are further indemnifying the change to 5.7 appropriations and transfers with the detail of the major expended expenditure category definitions, which are salary and employee benefits, services and supplies, other charges, capital assets, and other financing uses.

Appropriations may not be used across appropriation categories without the express approval of the county administrative op office. Appropriations will be controlled at the major expenditure category. So what this means is we will not be able we're ceasing the ability to move budget from salary, employee, and benefits, between services and supplies, and all of the other categories listed above. 7.9, outside organization contributions.

Excuse me.

Page 13, this would this is strictly just for the contributions to the road fund. Here, we just removed the fiscal years for which it was established, which is over twelve years old, fiscal year 02/1314, and removed the tax that is contribution is that the contribution is a replacement of the previous $2,000,000 that the county provided in previous years. So the text that remains here clearly defines that the TOT contribution was established by the board and is capped at 25% total of TOT revenue. 8.3, committed fund balance strategic reserve fund. The old language was particularly confusing.

So this change is to clarify that the Natividad funds in the strategic reserve do not count toward the county's goal of maintaining a strategic reserve equal to 10% of the general fund. 8.4, assigned fund balance, compensated absences assignment. To page 16, here are some of the additional highlights. On page 16, addition to 8.4, in which we are to maintain this account as a reserve only for the cost of unrealized compensated absences at a 10% of the compensated absence liability as delineated in the annual comprehensive financial report for governmental activities. Compensated absences expenditures shall be first paid from department budget units unless department cannot cover costs in which they must submit a request to the CAO with proof the payment will cause an undue burden to the department operations and or exceed salary and benefit appropriations.

With approval of the CAO office, subsequent and sub subsequent board authority shall be requested to increase appropriations for compensated absences assignment. So this slide you'll see is a breakdown of the activity of our compensated absences assignment reserve balance, the five year to current activity. So as you'll see in 2021 that we had to transfer back to the PARs from which zeroed out the balance. In 2022 through 2025, there was various activity that we where we issued for expenses and and or added through the budget end of year report. So here we are in 2526.

This is up to date and current, and we're sitting at about $8,360,000 As said on the previous adjustment to this fiscal on the previous slide, adjustment to this fiscal policy, we're asking that we keep this at a 10% of the compensated absences liability as represented in the ACFR, which would actually bring this balance down to just roughly in the $5,000,000 range. So this would three free up about $3,400,000. 8.5, order of usage of fund balance for page 17. Just a reminder that under this policy, the use of fund balance should always start with the most restricted category to spend first before moving down to the next fund balance category. So further to to clarify that, we've added additional language that general fund usage shall be the funding of last resort.

14, grant management. Here on page 20, we've only made additions. So that the expectation that any county positions established as a result of a grant or external funding source is expected to be eliminated if that funding ceases, and or if there is funding found that they can that the department can support those positions otherwise. For paragraph five, the addition, grants that require general fund match or potential general funds to fulfill the grant requirements to further clarify grant management. 11, internal service fund 11, internal service funds.

The use of internal service funds. Updated to the risk management general liability and workers' compensation fund balance provision. This is delineating the minimum fund balance levels that minimum fund balance levels shall be maintained at no less than 70% confidence level as determined by an actuarial study. For 11.4 internal service funds reporting, we have removed that. The final slide.

This is just some updates to language for the state and federal reference guidance. So no major updates other than with the ACO. We worked on this at five point nine preparation of financial reports. The ACO annually prepares. We've removed the circular a one thirty three compliance supplement. On 5.9 c, we've replaced federal management with the US office of management and budget. And also, I see we have removed cost principles for state and local governments. And that is it. So we can go to any questions or comments.

Great. Thank you. I'll bring it back to the board.

Thank you, chair. I have a question just regarding the contributions to the road fund, and I think it's just I'm getting caught up in the words. I want to ensure that the change doesn't indicate that there used to be 2,000,000 provided per annum to the road fund from the general fund and the 25%. And now we're reducing the amount? Or maybe that is what we're doing. I'm just trying to understand better.

Sure. So the old policy, what we're doing is we're just further clarifying that it actually was a replacement of that 2,000,000. Got it. So by just consolidating the tax, it's easier language to understand that now this is what it is. We're at 25% of the TOT revenue.

That's helpful. That's what I was seeking to clarify. Okay.

Any other questions on this side? No? Okay. I do have some questions. I'll work my way through them, I guess. And then we'll open it up to the public. So on so we did have some budget meetings last year that went and talked about making you know, cleaning up our making some changes to the financial policies. And I just wanna start basically, the financial policies guide the development of our budgets. This is our opportunity as a board to direct how we want, like, initial allocation allocations to occur, and it's a document that we approve every year and that the board has made changes to over time. So it's not set in stone.

It's a living document, but it's our first chance to say this is how we want the the budget developed. And so I think sometimes it's sort of a procedural approval, and then other times we're doing more in-depth changes. And so the reviews that we did in budget committee last year highlight spoke to and we went into some detail on some of these changes, but then there's a number of changes in this draft in front of us that weren't discussed at budget committee. And the staff report mentioned that. Can you and I think the ones that I'm the questions that I have are on the items that weren't actually discussed in detail in a budget committee.

And so that really is on the change to appropriations at the major expense and budget unit level. It's a pretty significant change to how we've had our department heads managing their budgets previously. And I just wanna understand a little bit better about how what level of engagement our department heads have had in coming making this recommendation. And I think it would be helpful for me to hear from department heads about what, like, what really, this is a this is a massive change for them, and so to to make sure that we as a board are understanding the impact that this would have on departments moving forward.

Let me address the the question and also since we have Michael online, he could provide additional information. We've had several instances where we've discussed changes to the budget and the process over the course of the last three years and now here we are in year four. One of the requests from the board was the transparency to ensure that there's clarity in terms of where the dollars are being expensed, what dollars are being used, what reserves are in place, and just making it a more open process rather than just having the transition of dollars whether we budgeted in salaries and benefits and then they moved to services supplies or capital or another type of use. This will actually allow for more clarity in that. That to actually be able to say that when you allocate dollars to salaries and benefits, it's actually being spent there.

And if it's not, the CAO in working with departments could provide some of that clarity of why it's being moved or the need for it to be moved. There has been, you know, feedback that's come back from departments as we speak. Some departments, when we met with them last week, expressed concern in different items that we had brought to your board on April 7, and we're meeting and working through those different concerns. The conversation started back in December with this board and with our team behind the scenes. We've also had several conversations.

This is all to address the idea of just having more transparency within our budget. But Michael, I think it would be helpful for you to provide additional information. And just to clarify, I know there was a presentation before the budget committee, and I believe you may have transitioned off budget committee. So just to be just to kinda track back on that, I think it was presented to budget committee. Can you confirm?

Thank you, Sonia. This is, Michael Beaton, assistant CIO. Yes. So on the individual items that we're talking about with the, putting the appropriations at the expense category level, we're doing this for a couple different reasons. One of them is really in part due to our Oracle system that we're about to implement for our new, finance management system.

If we don't put this certain measurement in place, while we do the initial implementation, it's gonna be significantly harder to, put it in afterwards. When we look at how our county of Monterey does our appropriations, management, and our oversight of appropriations compared to other jurisdictions, other jurisdictions best practices is set at the expense category level. And with this change in the fiscal policy, we're not identifying that departments can't move money around. We are just putting it in there that they must notify the CAO's office about it and that we can absolutely have the authority to approve it or actually work with them to figure out why they're running over. What we are identified and what we have seen when looking at the historical past about these category expenses is we are having departments of what what we believe what looks like spend it or lose it.

So when we get close to the end of the fiscal year, what we are identifying is the departments are identifying they have appropriations remaining, and they're able to use it in a whether they're moving their salaries and benefits over to services and supplies or vice versa. So that is kind of the implementation that we're trying to do, and I apologize. I'm kind of in the middle of a busy bus right now, so I apologize about the background.

Great. Thank you for that. And I think, you know, the question about the departments so what I heard is the departments, there are some concerns raised. And are there any examples that were shared about what this could like, what the impacts could be on a department level basis to make with this type of change?

Yeah. So the only the real the only real change that we're actually doing is having the an an additional approval level, from the sales office. So there really shouldn't be necessarily an impact to a department if they're monitoring and managing their budgets appropriately. It is simply like, hey. To ensure that you're actually monitoring your budget, your expense categories, it is just one additional step to confirm with the sales office that you're having a a corporation issue. And then from there, we would ultimately approve it if it is a business case scenario.

Okay. Thank you. And I guess, you know, what would help me is to have heard directly from departments that this was something that we're all clear about the implications. The handfuls of conversations that I've had, there could be some fairly significant impacts on departments, to to go from a, even to to chain to make the change. And then I think the the question that's asked is really the notify versus approve piece when we have some of our larger departments where we really have empowered our department heads to be managing their budgets across bureaus, across different sub departments, and giving them the authority to make sure that they're coming in at the end managing the overall budget at the end of the year.

And so I think as we move forward, we're asking them to be clear about salaries and, you know, salaries and benefits versus supplies. We're tamping down on the the vacancies, which I fully support. I think we're making a lot of changes, but it's taking away the flexibility that so many of our department heads have been used to operating with. And I wanna make sure we're doing that in a way where the departments have been a part of the conversation, and I'm not sure that I'm hearing that at this point. So we'll go to the CIO first and then back to staff.

The departments have been in conversations listening to some of these changes and have been asked to reach out to us with any concerns they might have so that we'll be able to work through them. The bigger issue we have is just trying to monitor the amount of general fund and how it's used. There are certain departments that have expressed that they take dollars from salaries and benefits and put them into services and supplies, which again, when you're talking about general fund, that is something that we really should have an awareness of when we provide dollars to potentially fund positions and instead they're being routed to a different funding expenditure. That's something that I think is important for us to track, especially since we're trying to be more vigilant about, the budget and the use of

the general fund. We'll go to Survivor Lopez.

Yeah. I appreciate the conversation. I think for me, having been around as long as I have, we often hear the word transparency used. But at the end to me it's coming down to this question of control. We've had instances with this board in the last few years where we've not been given control over department budgets, over additional money that's flowed in from the federal government, and that's been my concern.

I think this change is hard, given the fact that right now we have a lot of folks that have worked with the county a really long time used to the way that we've budgeted. But we're also entering a really tough fiscal window, and the controls that I've supported over the last few years, the CAO Building, are to help us navigate those tough times by better understanding the levers that we do and don't have control of. And I see this as a question of who controls the lever. And at this point, the closer it gets to the board, unfortunately, given the situation that we're facing, I think, is important. And that's the reason I'm supportive of this method.

I get that it's hard for a lot of departments who historically had the ability to use dollars as they see fit, but it's left the policy realm several times. And that policy realm is ours. And I wanna make sure that we're setting that policy and making those final decisions, and I think the CAO is our tool to do that in terms of the lever we need to be able to maximize control right now, the tight window that we're seeing, not just in the next twelve months, but the next twenty four to thirty six. And so for that reason, I get the concerns. That's the lens that I put on these policy decisions as we made them at budget committees to come forward to us, is really making sure that it's not just even budget committee, in my opinion.

The way these controls that we just modified are set up, there's gonna be more control that comes here to this board. That was important for me, some of the recent decisions that were made, I think, without our full ability to express our needs and opinions for our communities before those decisions were made in a way that I saw as, in a way, tying our hands. So again, I'm I'm seeking to empower the CAO through these policies, And I get that it's tough right now in terms of hearing some of that pushback from certain departments, a couple in particular. But big picture, where we're headed, I think we need we need to know where those levers are and be able to make that decision from here in public So everybody can see that important decision that rests with us and not within the department head as much as we know that they carry a large burden, that burden is ours.

Okay. So that was one of the the questions, comments. I'm just trying to understand, like and make sure that we understand what the change to departments. And I think, ultimately, it's it changes something that we're gonna have to continue, the challenges facing our budget are very real. But the reality is that the way that I see our departments operating, we've given our department or our directors a great deal of responsibility and authority to deliver services to the community, and they've found the ways to do that within the existing systems.

So if we're gonna change those systems, we're gonna have to understand that there will likely be less flexibility for our departments to continue delivering services in the way that they have been delivering services, and it will require the us to be have some flexibility in terms of what we're authorizing for adjustments because of the significance of the change. I just wanna acknowledge this is a significant, but it's not just a couple words, like it's a really significant change to how we operate our finances here in Monterey County. If I could just add

a little comment to that is, you know, like just to reiterate what Michael and Sonya have said, is this also is an opportunity to be opportunity to also be more transparent in planning. So when we where the budget is is a plan. It is telling our public what our plan is for the year. And while while we if we transfer between major expense categories during the year, our public's not aware at all times where we're spending those dollars. So this is an opportunity to be more transparent.

But where I see it as also is an opportunity to be more of a partner with our departments. When that we're not saying no. We're just saying here's an extra process if rather than allowing the freedom of spending salaries and benefits on services implies, there this is a cost control effect during a budget cycle, but also an opportunity to sit down together and say, hey. Look. What are your other fund balances? What are some restricted uses that we have not looked at that can qualify for these expenses and work as a partner to alleviate some of those financial burdens that they're they may have in these upcoming years. Because as you know, we're all in a budget deficit. So it's not as more as is definitely not a no. It's more of an ability to create a partnership and do some cost control measures as we move forward. Great.

Thank you. And another question on the language on seven point nine around the contributions to the road fund. So in terms of how the budget's established, I think the expectation is is that we're putting 25% of TOT into the road fund, not that it's capped at 25%. And and they'll can we just clarify the one?

So that was the language that has always existed in the the financial policy, so that is something I did not edit. So, if that is something that we want to take as a recommendation to make it an official 25%, then that would need a further edit. But that was the language that existed before.

Okay. So it's And I think from a budget development perspective, the board has said on a number of occasions that it's our expectation that 25% of the TOT will be budgeted for roads. If I'm and, again, to to I'm I'm preempting the county council. So, again, this is a budget. This is a document that we approve every year. But if we're approving these guidelines for this year's budget development and this cycle of budget development, think I it would be appropriate to have that language in the financial policies so that we're clear. But we'll go to council.

Yes. Or go

to Let let's soon as you have comments.

I'll share.

Yeah. You you handled it. It's something that has to be approved every It can't be earmarked in perpetuity.

Right.

So you handled it. Thank you.

And from my perspective, as the folks that are drafting the recommended budget, there are instances like current year where the list of of items that the board has expressed wanting to include as part of the budget process are gonna exceed the revenues that are available. Having it listed as currently is, it gives us a flexibility to get us through to recommended budget. And then your board ultimately makes the decision of of where the dollars will go. I I think having that flexibility has allowed us to keep the ball rolling. Removing it then may cause issues with our recommended budget that have been alleviated had we had that little bit of flexibility.

With the understanding that, yes, the board is supportive of that 25%, but at times when we're drafting the budget, we may have to consider the use of it even if the board ultimately adopts something different. That's one thing. The other piece on just to circle back on the last question you had in terms of the appropriation levels. Debbie just reminded me that GFOA, which is the Government Finance Officers Association, actually has it as a best practice that it be at that level.

Thank you. Did I see comment heads up? So I just I think if I think during our budget workshop, we're approving these guidelines for this year, what I heard my colleagues say was 25% into the road fund was our expectation. So it would make sense to me that we include that language in these financial guidelines for this year that we're approving. So it'd be one suggestion that I think we need do need to change.

Would it be possible just to remove the word capped? Does that still provide you the flexibility at CAO? I think if it just said the TOT contribution percentage for the road fund was established by the board and is currently at 25%. Yes.

Yeah. I think that would work perfectly. Mhmm.

And then I had I appreciate the level of detail on the compensated absences assignment. I know the spreadsheet in here isn't part of the policy itself, but the spreadsheet the spreadsheet that review the slide that reviews the last five years. And I just wanna point out that this has been historically one time money that we put into this account. I've said that before. And so if we were going to take reduce the total amount that we keep in that account down to the recommendation of the amount Mhmm.

I think that the the leftover amount would be one time money, and I would hope that we can treat it as such in the development of whatever however we intend to spend that, whether that's putting it right back into our strategic reserve, which is too low, but I would hate to see us use that one time money for ongoing expenses that are going to come back later and require have needs. And then on the, think actually with those. Yep, okay, those are my questions that I had for now. So let's open it up to public comment. Is there any public comment on our financial policies, general financial policies?

Good morning again, Eloise Shim. I want to comment about the financial policies in terms of, I think that any improvement on the process is important, especially with regard to transparency to the board and to the general public in monitoring the appropriation and the issues that have to do with the appropriations because we've heard in California about the alarming rate of fraud in government spending and the exposure of government spending. Example, in San Francisco, the Human Rights Commission in Los Angeles, the healthcare scamming in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So I think it's really important that there is transparency in the policies for both the board and the public. Thank you.

Anyone else in chambers with public comment? K. We'll go online. Is there anyone with public comment online? This is for item number seven, our general financial policies update. Seeing no hands raised, we'll close public comment

and bring it

back to the board or to consider a motion.

I'd be happy to provide the motion. It looks like we're receive sorry. I'm in the wrong one. Staff recommendations, scheduled matters. Let's adopt the updated general financial policies. And I move to do that.

With the clarification on the language?

Yes. With the clarification on the language of the road fund.

I will second that.

K. And I'll just ask a question on that clarification of language to make sure we're all on the same page. So that's expectation. If we take out the word capped, we're giving direction to the CAO to develop this budget with 25% of the TOT dedicated to the road fund. Correct. That's everyone has the same understanding. Yes. Yes. Okay. And CAO, yes, we're all that that's how we want it. Okay. Perfect. Great. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any oppose? None? Alright. Passes unanimously.

And I will just ask again for our departments, recognizing that this is a really significant change from how we've typically managed our budgets that that there's gonna be some patience and back and forth that's gonna be required and that maintaining those opening communications with the CEO team so that we can build up understanding of where the needs are. We don't want services to be I don't want services to be impacted as a result of these changes. So if you need to bring a request forward, please work in partnership with our team to make sure we're maintaining level of service. Okay. With that, I think we are recessing for lunch.

We'll be back here at 01:30 today for the remainder of our agenda. Thank you. Supervisor's meeting today is Tuesday, 04/21/2026. Let the record show that all supervisors with the exception of supervisor Luis Alejo who is absent today are here in the room. We will welcome again our Spanish interpretation services with Diego Selez who is with us remotely.

Diego, are you able to make our announcement about Spanish interpretation services that are available?

Yes. Madam chair.

Thank you. I will move right into our scheduled matters for the afternoon, receiving a status update on ordinance number five four four three regarding the prohibition of oversized vehicles on Railroad Avenue. And we'll pass the floor to Randy Ishi.

Thank you and good afternoon Chair and members of the Board. As introduced, I'm Randall Ishi, Director of Public Works Facilities and Parks. And with me today are various staff members from the department as well as staff members from the county's homeless strategies and initiatives division, and other staff members. The item for you today is to receive our update on the status of Railroad Avenue and Allison Roads in the community of Pajaro since the adoption of the ordinance, ordinance 5,443. In terms of the presentation overview for this afternoon, for our conversation, we'll start off with the background, we'll talk about the sitrep, the progress to date, recommendations, and then end with questions and comments.

By way of brief background, this is a location map showing the subject area with the highlight in yellow representing Railroad Avenue and Allison Roads, the subject of the Board Referral twenty twenty five point one one, and were passed through an ordinance at a previous Board meeting to be a no oversized vehicle parking with TOAY authorization. The next few slides are somewhat wordy, so staff will go over these in brief in the interest of time. By way of background, this started off with a board referral, recognized that there were homeless individuals living in recreational vehicles, I. E. Oversized vehicles along this road without appropriate services.

Subsequent to that, staff came back with a preliminary analysis report on 04/2025 and followed that up with the first reading of the ordinance on 10/2026. Subsequent to that, at the 10/2026 board meeting, the board conducted the second reading and adoption of said ordinance. And the board also gave additional actions such as the reassessment of services, regional coordination, and possible expansion of the ordinance. And altogether, the action was to return with a SIPREP on 07/2026 prior to the ordinance becoming effective with the CEO meeting with the city of Watsonville and Santa Cruz County to explore expanding the prohibition of all roads in Pajaro and to include trailers as well as some particular exemptions and continue with connecting to services and proceeding with a safe parking program as well as other near term alternatives. And for the record, staff have not installed nor begun the enforcement of this no oversized vehicle parking ordinance until this item has been brought forth to your board.

Hence, the item has been held in abeyance since that point in time. With that, staff would like to hand the next two slides over to our County Homeless Services Director, Director Wilson, to go over the latest in terms of the connection and outreach out on Railroad Avenues and Ellison Roads.

Thank you, Director Ishi. Good afternoon, honorable members of the board and members of the public. My name is Roxanne Wilson, as mentioned, and I'm the homeless services director for the county. Please note that there is a typo in our presentation. I do apologize, but the last census was actually taken on the twenty fourth and not the nineteenth.

Staff from the county of Santa Cruz and the community action board of Santa Cruz County conducted weekly outreach efforts. However, the majority of the households were not reachable despite repeated attempts. Outreach workers identified two available spaces at the nearest safe parking program in Watsonville with the program's 24 foot vehicle size limit prevented placement for the households that were actively engaged. When direct contact could not be made, outreach staff left business cards on vehicles to provide information and encourage follow-up. As the presentation mentions on the twenty fourth, there were 10 RVs that remained on railroad.

Please look next slide. Efforts related to the RV issues really do reflect a continued coordination across County lines with us in the County Of Santa Cruz, to support vulnerable households in the Pajaro area. Additionally, County staff are continuing to explore options to establish a safe parking program as directed by your board. We were looking at a potential site on Lewis Court. However, that property has since closed escrow and is no longer available for this purpose.

Staff have identified three other potential sites and have been working close with public works to finalize an initial budget, draft schematics on whether or not these the amount of vehicles could or to identify the amount of vehicles that could fit. We have finalized the initial budgets and we are working on the final stages of drafting timelines that all will come back to your board at the earliest convenience. Next slide. I don't know if CAO Della Rosa wanted to speak on this, but I certainly can.

Go ahead and cover it, Roxanne. Thank you.

Thank you. So as the slide mentions, both of the counties, ours is the CAO county administrative officer, and then in Santa Cruz County is the CEO, met with all of our counterparts. So it was the head of the counties, in assistant CAO or CEO, and then the me for Santa Cruz County, is doctor Robert Ratner. We also had the, City Of Watsonville city manager and assistant city manager attend. We have met with the Monterey County Office of Education, Santa Cruz County Office of Education because we have identified that many of these families that are residing in the Pajaro area have students that are going to school in Watsonville because PVUSD, the Pajaro Valley Unified School District, actually spans across both counties.

Unfortunately, I don't have any data, up to date data on how far the office of educations have gotten on their engagement, but I did see the MCOE reached out to SCOE to get an update. Just we haven't gotten their final numbers yet. So I do apologize for the lack of information in this area. But that concludes my three slides for this presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Director Wilson. Staff also conducted an infield site evaluation and took pictures for the benefit of the Board and the public, which are going to be in the next two slides. And this is proceeding down Railroad Avenue. As noted on the timestamp on these pictures, these were taken on sixteen April twenty six. These two pictures demonstrate the conditions shown at that point in time along this portion of Railroad Avenue showing recreational vehicles, I.

E, oversized vehicles along these portions of road, still out there as of that date. And these next slides show other portions of Railroad Avenue, including a portion of Allison Road where there are also the combination of these oversized vehicles that are out there either on the road shoulder or further out into the road shoulder. And further, staff have conferred with our law enforcement partners to discuss the prohibition and to the possibility of expansion of the prohibition to other roads. As a note, the city of Watsonville and its ordinance became effective and began enforcement on thirteen March twenty six. And since that point in time, staff confirmed with our law enforcement partners to discuss data regarding their findings of either an increase in oversized vehicles or trailers or the combination of the two in the area.

Since 03/13/1962 today, the data is still somewhat limited. There's instances that have been called in through either emergency communications or that the vehicle abatement services have followed up on. All the calls have been generated for Railroad Avenue. Thus, the data indicates that the calls that have come in still remain on the existing subject road, which is Railroad Avenue, where the oversized vehicle calls have come in about. And as a note, when staff did their field evaluation on sixteen April twenty six, as shown in those photos, there was a mobile trailer that was seen on Florence Avenue, which is a different portion of the Camino Pajaro.

However, staff are working with our homeless strategies and initiatives division and with the outreach teams to determine whether or not that trailer was a trailer that someone was living in or if it belonged to a resident who lives in that portion of Pajaro who happens to have a trailer like that. The data is still not known at this time, but we are trying to find out if that trailer was indeed one that someone who's in house is living in or if that happened to belong to a nearby property owner. And as final note, the consensus among law enforcement was expansion of the ordinance to Moroz and Pajaro would be a good idea. And thus, it takes us to the recommendations at this point in time of us to receive a status update on ordinance 5,443 since the adoption of the ordinance at the previous board meeting. And to provide direction to staff, which could include directing staff to begin placement of the signs at the time that is most available for staff and the most feasible to have the signs erect ed on Allison Road and Railroad Avenues and begin enforcement through our law enforcement partners, again, on Railroad Avenue and Allison Roads, or a different course of action inclusive of holding the ordinance in advance and not placing the signs at this time, or other action as determined by the board.

That concludes staff's presentation. We're available for questions and comments, and we thank you very much.

I'll bring it. We go to the public first. We'll open it up to the public for public comments or questions on public comment, I guess, on this item.

Good afternoon for a change. Name is Eric Peterson. And unless suitable alternatives are provided, this is just kicking people who are down around. And it sounds like there's kids involved. Kicking kids around is evil. Thank you.

Seeing no other comments in chambers, we'll move online. We have a couple of hands raised. We'll start with the phone number ending in 705.

Yes, supervisors. It's an absolutely heartless program, and you're putting children in jeopardy. I I want you to put yourselves in the shoes of those you wish to expel from this area. The homeless problem is gonna get worse, not better, because to rent a huddle now in this area costs at least $1,500 a month, and that's for slumlords conditions. When you live in a car, no one wants to hire you.

Jobs are being replaced by AI faster than we ever thought possible. So, you know, this isn't something we're going to have to deal with long term as long as this is going on. So let them stay where they are until you can designate a more permanent place for them. There's plenty of city parking lots that are empty at night and could be utilized for these folks on an open from 6PM until 9AM providing a porta toilet cabin. Police that make the rounds anyway throughout the city could drop by on a nightly basis.

This gives a safe haven for many poor families that have nowhere to go and can't afford housing. At least they have their vehicles. You could provide shower facilities as well and should. You know, you spend a $100,000 on a soccer field program that doesn't even need to be funded according to one earlier speaker. Why not help these homeless people who knows one day you may be there yourself? And so please put this on hold. There's a lot more you need to do and be compassionate. Thank you.

We also have a comment from the phone number ending in 837.

Hi, Supervisors. This is Brian Rosen. This kind of thing has been going on a long time for probably over one thousand years. Look at the gypsies of the old days, they stayed for a while. Somebody was kind, would put them up on their land, and then they were expelled. They had to move to the next town or whatever. This is a big problem. And if they have to leave town, where do they go? You know? There really should be a governor the state should have a program where each county provides its share of places for people to park their vehicles instead of just expelling them to some other place, which is going to expel them back.

And in Santa Barbara, it's they have an ordinance such an ordinance, but it doesn't seem to be enforced down by the freeway. There's a lot of people living in their very long vehicles. There's a wonderful place I know of where you can get showers for four minutes for a dollar down near Ojai Ventura, and we need something like that. We maybe a camp, a special campground where people get to contribute and maybe pay a small fee with showers and running water. But in the meantime, these are people, these are human beings, and they need to be treated humanely and decently.

This kind of thing has been going on for so long, and there's so many people without homes now. And, just have please have some compassion for them until we can figure out a place where they Monterey County should at least be able to provide a certain amount of their fair share of of of the counties in the state towards housing these people who have families. And I would work with the legislature to come up with a program where every county has to do its fair share, you know, of of providing a decent place for people to park, a safe place for people to park with showers, for example, weather close by. So I ask you to postpone this.

Thank you. You.

Okay. I'm not seeing any other other any other comments? No, okay. We'll close public comment and bring it back to the board.

Sure, thanks. So just to kind of look at the whole picture, there's been a homeless issue out there in community of Power Room for some time. And there were quite a number living on the river, on the banks there, which have been direct with some services out of there. But over about a year and a half ago, all that were on the Santa Cruz County side were being prevented from going over there and were on the Monterey County side, which we've put a lot of resources into there, Hope Village, which we've done primarily to lead agency behind all that, between all those involved, the city of Watsonville and Santa Cruz has been one of those steps, well providing a number of other services down there. The other issue we have here is that the city of Watsonville is and I'm curious to know where that program is.

They're banning all oversized vehicles now within the city limit. And is that being fully enforced? Because that this becomes a problem where for the surrounding areas of of Santa Cruz County and as as well over on on the Monterey side. Is that fully enforced right now? Do we have any information on that and what impact that's having?

It is in place. It's been in place, I think, for, I think a little bit before this first came to for discussion to the board. Do you have an exact date, Randy?

The exact date at which the city of Watsonville's made theirs effective and began enforcement was thirteen March twenty six. And the city does have a web page talking about their enforcement, the program, alternatives for people, and so on.

Because as I understand it, most from the previous census we did on the individuals over there, most of them are from Watsonville. I think almost of the ten, nine of the 10 were from Watsonville, as well if I recollect from previous discussions. So, I I and I know we've been in, you know, working with the city of Watsonville and the other agencies over there. As I understand, there you know, so there are some options available out of here. But the problem is when we're going and knocking on the doors to these vehicles, the people aren't responding.

And it's comes really difficult to help people who don't wanna take that step and meet halfway and try to and try to come to to solutions.

Just to touch on that, we did communicate with county of Santa Cruz and the CAO there did meet with the office of education superintendent there as well. And we're coordinating through the children to be able to reach out to the families. So not only did we have staff go on-site, we also have the school interacting with the individuals.

I mean, I've had multiple complaints just including this week from two different people, about the issues that this is having in the neighborhood with the businesses and the nonprofits that work around there. So, you know, what thinking is, you know, because we're trying to reach out to them and not getting a response. So what I'm gonna suggest is that we go and we put the signs up, but maybe we don't enforce for a month, and maybe that will be another step that will get attention that we can go back to them and try reach out to them. So we can go and get them to the proper services because they're not getting the services there that that we're trying to offer. So

for clarity, we're being asked today if we wanna put up the signs. Is that Enforce the Enforce the ordinance. I'm I I don't think that I've moved from the position I was in last time, was this is this is how we continue to engage in this conversation is from a position of seriousness. And we know based on what came in via the last conversation when folks weren't answering the door where these folks came from. And just last week at Coastal, we saw another Santa Cruz County ordinance on large vehicles and a shift.

And it wasn't necessarily a direct. It was a, hey, we're considering more here in the near future. And so I'm just worried we're going to continue to see more impact if we don't take a position and really engage in a meaningful conversation about the resources necessary to address this with Watsonville already having taken their position. And so I'm comfortable putting the signs up instigating this from a real position rather than saying, hey, we're open to continuing to receive these folks and taking this on knowing that, as we've heard, the majority of the kids are in school in Santa Cruz. They came from Santa Cruz.

And so as we're moving through this, I'd rather we be in a position to have the conversation where we're holding the line rather than being squishy on it. I think if we're squishy and we just allow these folks to move into another low income community that's already complaining to their supervisor. We're only we're only allowing this to fall on a community that's already been victimized in another sense with everything that's happened in Pajaro in the recent past. And so I think at this point, I'm comfortable moving forward with, putting up the signs and beginning to enforce the ordinance.

Thank you, chair. I have some questions. We seem to know a lot through the school districts regarding the students, but do we have any further information about the employment of the folks who are residing on Railroad Avenue?

The first time that my staff and I had went out there, we were able to engage with six individuals. They were all strawberry strawberry field workers with the exception of one of them, if I recall correctly, who worked at the one of the local stores.

Okay.

But they all seem to be ag workers. And they also the ones that we spoke to has made some suggestion that once the the season picks up, they will find another location for them to stay at.

And so the season, if I understand correctly, generally runs like April to the harvest season, April through like October?

Correct. And since then, we are now down at 10 RVs. At one point, we were at 12 to 15.

So 10 RVs that potentially these families will have somewhere to live once the season picks up. That generally Sorry. Like

No. It's okay. Monterey County and Santa Cruz County, as everybody knows, is one of the most expensive areas in the nation to live. So it's possible that they can find the location, but I I'm not I would be careful to assume that that is a 100% guaranteed.

Got it. No. I was more wondering if they were seasonal employees that had housing. So no.

No. That was And

then if you could help me understand through the photographs that were provided, the the April 16 photographs on Allison Street and Railroad Avenue. Am I seeing what is the nuisance? Is this it, or is there other images that would more accurately portray what the what the challenge is for the community?

Thank you, supervisor Daniels. I can take that question. Staff were purely doing a field reconnaissance determining the presence of the oversized vehicles on the roadway. What staff would also bring up by way of past recollection is that there were reports that there were refuse around these oversized vehicles. At the time the staff member gathered these pictures, the mission set was to gather the presence of oversized vehicles or if they were not there.

Okay. So we've got about 10 vehicles on both of these roads currently. And when you were on that reconnaissance mission, did you see any refuse? Or was it just you weren't looking for it so you don't know whether or not it was there?

The staff member was not looking for that. He was looking purely for the presence of oversized vehicles or absence thereof.

Okay. So I am uncomfortable by this. I, you know, I think I've expressed that in the last two meetings that that we have. I don't I don't know what problem we are solving other than, you know, there if if if folks are forced if the 10 vehicles are forced to leave Allison and Railroad, they will have to go somewhere else. I mean, there's folks need to be somewhere.

And so it sounds like what I'm hearing is we are trying to engage with Santa Cruz County and the city of Watsonville sort in a tit for tat, right, like a show of force. If we do this, then we won't be run over and they won't maybe continue to create these challenges for Monterey County. And I don't think that's gonna solve anything. So I'm leery of telling supervisor Church how he needs to respond to his constituents. Right?

Clearly, is something that supervisor Church's constituents have engaged him on, and they see a challenge and an issue in their neighborhood. But I wanna be clear. I I I I don't know how this solves a housing crisis. I don't feel comfortable with displacing children and working families. And it sounds like from at least six individuals we know are working families and with children.

And so, you know, supervisor, I will support you. This is your district. I liked what you said. Perhaps we can investigate whether or not we enforce. If we do, decide today to put up the signs, we could pause on enforcement with the hope that we continue to have more runway to to address the unmet needs of of this community. But I don't I don't see this as as as solving a challenge a problem. And I also I I'm I'm looking at the images, and I'm I'm just not clear on the challenge.

I think the in response to the question about the tit for tat with Watsonville and Santa Cruz County, one of the things that we brought up was exactly that, that we didn't just wanna see folks being displaced into into our county or us turning around and displacing into theirs. What we asked for just more collaboration between the office of education in Santa Cruz County and Monterey County. We did determine that the majority of the kids are obviously from Santa Cruz County. I think maybe there was one exception where the kid goes to either middle school or similar in Pajaro. But the idea was to make sure that they were coordinating even among the office of education.

We want to ensure folks are accessible to services. We are exploring other alternatives in terms of where there might be safe parking that's available. In the past one of the concerns was also because of the proximity to the railroad. I think debris was being left. And so we do have engagement from Union Pacific at that site. But we continue to work with them. So I just want to clarify that there is, even as we're trying to connect with the parents, connecting through the school might be the better way so that they don't feel that we're placing them in an awkward situation, the families, instead trying to provide support through the kids.

And the and just to be clear, the issue that we were engaging Union Pacific on, is it it is that the same issue, or is wasn't that a flea market and a parking lot and other issues?

Yeah. I mean, I can that's been a at the same time, this has been going on, and I wanna address this. This isn't a seasonal problem. These you know, there's been and obviously, it's a year. There's been 10 or 15 out there.

They just started to accumulate. But at the same time, there was an illegal flea market going on over on Union Pacific property, which I've had multiple discussions with our HCD director with there. And I mean, the county made three or four different individuals, including the board, sending a letter to UP, and only when we went up to to speaker Rivas' office about two months ago, did it really have contact with UP, and then they're starting now to close this off. The whole area here, there's big plans for this with a train station eventually, and it's just become a a conglomeration of trash dumping, illegal business operations on on UP property, and on the side roads where, you know, we have this they have these these vehicles parked, too. So, it's a big problem in an area where we're trying to really improve and get some positive steps, not just for the community, but broader.

Guess just looking at the whole picture here, it's going go off a little bit of what Supervisor Lopez said, because we have to have some plans going ahead. Otherwise, we're gonna become a bag dead here, which we've already had a problem we had before on the River Levy, where we're taking all of the homeless population in Watsonville in Santa Cruz County down there and coming over to our site. That was already a big issue where all 150 were living on that levy a year ago. And, this is, we're looking for a safe parking program site. We've looked at sites.

Have to get some just about identified. Something goes wrong. We have several we're looking at right now. But that's why I'm really suggesting about, perhaps we put the signs up, We give this another few weeks, maybe a month, let's say thirty days. We don't try to enforce anything. It's just to kind of get these folks engaged with us because they're not engaging, and that's part of the problem.

Is there any potential that the reason we haven't been able to reach them is because it's during working hours? Have we tried it multiple times during the day? Roxanne?

Unfortunately, there are no outreach workers that are able to go after hours. It is very possible that that could be a situation that complicates it. I I will also say that we're under we're in kind of a surreal time with what's happening with people who are undocumented in our community. And, I I can sense that there was, I don't know what's the word I'm looking for. Like, people were a little intimidated when they had two counties knocking on their door, asking them a lot of questions about if they have children in the car.

Are they undocumented? Are they working? I I think that it's just a very strange time. And people in general are very, intimidated in this community. So that's why we're trying to rely more heavily on nonprofit outreach workers rather than the two counties going out. However, the Santa Cruz County is very committed and they have dedicated an outreach worker to go out there weekly. And that's why we have to also work with community action board and access support network to see if we can get some of the nonprofits to go out there more frequently. But as I mentioned, unfortunately, none of the contracts allow for them

to go after 05:00.

Well, I would certainly be more comfortable if we had given if we at least one opportunity by one of the nonprofits or someone to be able to reach the folks so they know I mean, while you while we know where folks are, to be able to share with them what services are available prior to police action would be really important. And if we're only going during the day when we know folks are at work and children are at school.

That's the the role though of connecting them through the school system because the school may be able to provide housing resources that the families just are unaware of.

So

I think having that approach maybe provides a little more comfort. And we can ask for additional follow-up in terms of the connections that have been made but we've shared all the information since we last discussed this with the board with the Santa Cruz County.

Got it. Thank you.

I wanna acknowledge, I think this is a really challenging thing to navigate, and we navigated it in district four years ago. And there's nothing there's nothing straightforward or easy about about meeting people where they're at and providing services in ways that people can access them. I'll just say, you know, it required at that point in time when we were working through that issue, it did require, you know, weekly meetings with all of the affected departments and nonprofit partners to hold everyone accountable to following through on the things that we, you know, needed to do. And I think we've we've been at this conversation now for multiple months and at multiple times. And I guess I'm I'm still not feeling a level of comfort that we've that we're being, I guess, first of all, honest about the limited resources that are available.

And I love the idea that you can have a school that you let the school know that the children are housed in in less than ideal circumstances and somehow the school has resources to provide housing like we know that that's not true. We know that at Salinas Elementary School District, we have over a 100 children living in cars. So there's the need there is great and there are no magical solutions to say, the school knows and so therefore everything is gonna be okay. Like, that's just not the case. That's not even speaking to all of the other districts that we have with homeless children.

So as we talk about, as we use words like we're providing resources or we're working with other partners to provide resources, the reality is those resources are fully insufficient to meet the needs of the individuals that that are human beings who are our neighbors from another county but are our neighbors in need of safe and secure shelter and have found the best option available to them in the form of a vehicle parked on the side of a road that's not a safe or appropriate place. But it's a lot safer than being in a riverbank. It's a lot safer than being in a lot of other places. So I think my ask as we move forward is that we're really honest about what actually are we offering in terms of resources. That we're really clear about the commitment to ensure that we're not just pushing people from one location to another, that we're not assuming that other agencies have resources for housing that we don't have available to us.

Like that's just not true. And from where I sit, the options that I see available is like we have to identify a location for people to be if we're going to tell them you can't be here. That that's a moral ethical obligation that sits with us. And I hear like we there's a concern about having things escalate. I get all of that.

But right now, we have 10 vehicles with assuming multiple people who are working. They're not in the car because they're at work. Working really hard to try to pull things together and do the best that they can, and and if we don't make contact with them for whatever the reasons, we're and we put signs up and we start enforcement like we're literally just pushing people And then we wonder pushing people around and then we wonder why don't they answer the door when we call? Why don't they say because we're further eroding the trust that anyone is sincere in an effort to provide even if it is limited and sufficient resources. So I'm really Until I hear that there's been options provided and meaningful outreach that does connect with people.

I'm just not comfortable displacing people and I think that there are ways to go about it. I think that whether it's if we need to contract for after hours outreach to make sure that people have access to that, I'm fine with that. If we need to identify a county park that's available for overnight safe parking, that's on the table for me. Think there's a lot of things that I'm willing to consider and happy to engage in a conversation about in terms of solutions. But just simply saying you can't exist because you're poor is not something that I'm willing to entertain.

So I hear there was kind of three votes on the table right now to move forward, but I'm not comfortable without more assurances that we're providing an alternative for people. So I'll pass it back to the CAO.

And I appreciate the opportunity to expand further on the outreach that is occurring perhaps through the school system and one of the wonderful things about our communities including the County Of Santa Cruz is the network of nonprofit organizations that have stepped in to assist our homeless population whether it's at the tiny home village or other folks that are within the community. Unfortunately, what we found when we were doing some of the work related to the tiny home village with which we partnered with the County Of Santa Cruz and Watsonville for an encampment resolution grant which was brought forward through Roxanne and the partnerships that she has in that county and through her prior work and the relationships that have been developed. We identified much of the need that was needed by community in order to address the folks that were at the levy. In addition to that, what we did find is that people were being relocated onto the levy because they found that perhaps that's how they were going to be connected to services. So we discovered that not only were they the folks that were previously there, but folks that were brought in from other areas within the County Of Santa Cruz.

So the discussion with the County Of Santa Cruz and Watsonville was really just to confirm that we're not simply relocating people from one area to another which ultimately resulted in these folks parking over at the Railroad Avenue which of course the City Of Watsonville city manager had shared that no they were not displaced due to the ordinance but just by chance it occurred around the same time that that population moved over to our side of the of the jurisdiction line. I think it's important to also understand many of these individuals unfortunately have availed themselves to resources that exist within the community of Watsonville or the County Of Santa Cruz because of familiarity. Some of the outreach team that has gone out there have noticed that individuals are actually in the RVs but choosing not to answer the door. And it does center around the fear of law enforcement, the fear of potential, deportation, but understanding that they do potentially have jobs just unable to find housing in the area. What we wanna make sure is that if they need food, they're getting it.

If they need other resources, they're getting those as well. If the kids need to be supported to go to school, then the best approach is to try to go through the school system because that's an entity that they trust and understand and know. From my perspective, the outreach will continue. I know the outreach folks that we contract with are unfortunately tied up during the day and unable to go, but that doesn't mean other resources are not being accessed. And we could provide a list for the board of supervisors in terms of what we have provided to those in that community. So it's something more tangible that we could review.

So, you know, there has been, and for several years, whole time that I've been on the board, some one or a handful of vehicles there this whole time. And it's unfortunate, it really becomes an issue when they start it starts to congregate beyond two or three. Because when it's it stays low to one, two or three, yes, somebody will grumble and complain. But there isn't the the issue of the trash. There isn't the issue of sometimes that happens with just general disruption within the community, it doesn't affect the people who are living there, their quality of life, which is important too in a neighborhood.

And neighborhoods are important. And I believe, you know, we we have to provide we have to provide people who who live in a place the same rights as well. And they have a right to for some safety and to be on their in their in their to be in their front yard and let their kids go out and not be worried about they don't know who is really across the street. I mean, there's a there's fear there, and there are some problems out of that. So we do need to, you know, we need to have the resources to address that.

Think as as our CAO addressed out of that, what and and being that it seems that some of them are, you know, are there and just not answering the door. But that's why I think we just need to try to go here for thirty days. And what I'm gonna propose is yes, we put the signs up, we don't enforce for thirty days. We go out, we do find some time to go out on weekends. We do find some efforts and put some resources into there, so that we can go and get ahold of whichever ones are not involved.

We'll continue, I'm sure, with the schools and what other processes, and let these folks know. Maybe leave, you know, not just leave a card. I mean, a card can be intimidating when it's coming from the county, but maybe we can put together a little flyer or something to say, you know, what give some indication that we do have some assistance that we can do, what we want, you know, we're trying to help, and and and make that effort to reach out. Because, inevitably, you gotta wanna be helped. I mean and, you know, you you gotta step up. I understand this fear, but you gotta wanna be helped. And so, sorry. I kinda made a little appeal there at the end, but that was what my motion are is. Not emotion, but motion.

Chair?

If I could just ask a question. If we were to proceed with supervisor Church's motion, I think this is a question for both the CAO and for miss Wilson. If information is being sent from the through the students to their families, does that information include alternative locations? And I don't mean convenient locations. We're looking for convenient would be nice, but we're looking ourselves at a safe parking program in the vicinity. But will that information include in Santa Cruz County and Monterey County other locations for safe parking that they could access?

I'll have Roxanne expand on the safe parking side. What I can do is get the list of details that are being shared with those individuals so that you have them internally.

I know

that cabs has been a great resource. They're the operator that we have working at the tiny homes location. But some of the resources available through the schools are, you know, in terms of how homelessness is identified, it's a little different. I could get a copy of that though so that we have it for us and just to understand what is available within their communities. Roxanne, in terms of safe parking, do we know if there's more than the one that we've identified?

We have a safe parking program at the D4 office and then there's a rotating safe parking program on the Monterey Peninsula. There is a safe parking program in the city of Santa Cruz, but it's only for individuals from the city of Santa Cruz. I am not sure what the office of eds the offices of education have provided. I know Monterey County office of education does have in possession the county produces the homeless resource guide and updates it every six ish months. And the MCOE always has that on file and they always share that.

I don't know if that's been passed on to the Pajaro Valley Unified School District. Also RMCOE is a Cal AIM enhanced care management agency. I don't know if SCOE is an enhanced care management agency, but I do know that they are talking to each other. And the Monterey County Office Of Education did say if they need to, they would do the enhanced care management for the individuals even if they are from Santa Cruz County. Help me understand

if I I mean, I'm familiar obviously with the safe parking program on the Monterey Peninsula, and I'm familiar with the safe parking program in District 4. Are you saying that there is no safe parking program in any other district that's closer to this location?

For the Monterey County side, that is correct.

So at minimum, I can't imagine, I mean, I was talking about convenient, this is beyond even possible to recommend, for example, the parking lot in Carmel Valley if someone's gonna be commuting to school in Pajaro and to work. But at minimum, those locations need to be identified. Those locations I mean folks need to know where they can go. So even if it is a church parking lot program at the mouth of Carmel Valley or in supervisor Askew's parking lot at her district office, we need to know folks need to know where they can go. And, hopefully, then on the Santa Cruz County side, there's something a little bit closer to where they are living.

But I I'm I'm really uncomfortable executing the enforcement that in Supervisor Church's motion, unless a flyer is either affixed to the window or the door or put under the door somewhere that it's accessible. So folks know upon implementation, they have somewhere to go. And and I'm just I'm hopeful that you'll be able to identify some locations in in Santa Cruz County that are in closer proximity than District 4 and District 5 in Monterey County.

Supervisor Daniels, I will share with you that we, the folks that we spoke to out of my office, we did disclose to them that there are more options closer to the Monterey Peninsula. The only, issue that was flagged by the individuals we spoke to is the price of gas made those options very difficult for them, especially because their children are going to school in another county. But we did offer it. And I and I will put together the flyer of combined resources from both Monterey and Santa Cruz County to ensure that they are distributed to these individual before enforcement begins.

Thank you.

We could continue discussing and restating our positions. I'm totally clear on where I'm at on this and I I'm like I said, I'm happy to consider like, I just need to know that we've got an alternative before any enforcement occurs. So and we've had time and I don't if it means we need to start scheduling weekly meetings where we're really more engaged and getting copies of the outreach that's occurring, which is literally what we had to do in District 4 was to go, you know, vehicle by vehicle, what's the plan, who's been out there, who do we need to have go out there, what do we know, and get really clear about what the alternatives are. But I'm still not hearing what the alternative for where we're telling people to move their vehicle to. And I'm until I hear that, like that's what I need to feel comfortable moving forward.

So, but we can take a motion if there's a motion or there is a motion to put the signs up with waiting and waiting a month for enforcement. A motion and a second.

The efforts that we've talked about here providing you know what we reaching out after hours during regular hours with resources as much as possible.

In advance of enforcement if you're agreeable we could provide a memorandum to your board that includes all of that information.

Okay. I'm gonna take a vote. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Aye. Oh, sorry.

It didn't pass. So I know. That's what I'm saying. Yeah.

I was hopeful that, it was a memorandum, but I was hopeful that that memorandum could provide us the opportunity to see if there's anything more that could be done prior to the enforcement. So if the memorandum comes out in three weeks, at least I would feel comfortable that we could try to do something more before the enforcement starts. And if it's if that's the case, I'd be able to support your motion or I would support

your motion. I'm very uncomfortable, We will have additional information to the board before then.

I would be an aye. Okay. Alright, motion is approved. Thank you. And I'll just say like I remain available like having been through this once. I'm happy to sit down with whoever we can to review what worked for us last time and be a part of a solution as we move forward identifying alternatives. If need be, I would

be willing to provide some funding from our budget for gasoline if that is necessary so folks have somewhere to go. And that could be from the District 5 budget.

So please reach out to engage in that. Okay, having said that we're moving on to item number nine which is our MOS 300 update with the presentation from Department of Emergency Management.

Good afternoon. My name is Kelsey Skinland. I'm the director of emergency management for Monterey County. Thank you so much for having me here today. I will be providing a brief update regarding US EPA excuse me, United States Environmental Protection Agency, progress on battery and debris removal at the Moss 300 facility in Moss Landing.

Per the US EPA talking points provided to the county, battery removal work continues at a steady pace. More than 30,400 intact battery modules have been de energized for recycling thus far out of a total estimated 35,772 intact battery modules. Nearly 29,000 intact battery modules have been de energized and transported off-site for recycling. No flare ups have occurred during battery removal work thus far. Removal of the intact battery modules for deenergization and recycling is expected to conclude within the next two months.

After that process concludes, Phase II demolition will begin and address sections of the building, plus initiate the removal, treatment, and disposal of any battery material that cannot be recycled. Before any of the battery debris that cannot be recycled is removed off-site, it will be sampled for waste characterization purposes in order to select appropriate facilities for final debris disposal. The waste characterization sampling results will be made publicly available. Battery work associated with phase two demolition is expected to continue at least into the fall or winter based on current projections. In addition to the three fact sheets, U.

EPA released on water collection, truck routes, and keeping the community safe. The US EPA has also recently released three videos on battery transport, battery handling, and personnel and community safety, which can all be found on their website. And so with that, I conclude my update and we'll hand it back to the board for questions.

All right, let's We'll start with Supervisor Church.

Yeah. One thing I've seen here is that quite a few of the batteries are still energized or have to be removed. Do you know offhand what percentage is left to be de energized?

I don't, but I can follow-up with US EPA and provide a response.

I think it's roughly half or at least a significant amount close to that.

Before they're transported, or when they're removed from the building?

That are still sitting in the building. If I recall reading something, or hearing something recently, that they were, you know, 40% of them or or something like that was still were still energized.

Let me follow-up with you and get some clarification because I'm not sure.

I I guess I'm what I'm looking at here is I'm I'm trying to understand why they're still energized here after a year and a half when they're not gonna be used, almost a year and a half.

I believe it's because of structural stability and their ability to access the remaining batteries.

Okay. It just seems like it's still being energized as potential fire hazard.

Yeah. The intention is to remove them from within the structure or the compromised structure and have them de energized in the staging area outside of the ash footprint. And so the phase two demolition that they've been working towards is stabilization of the structure so that they can access those remaining batteries.

Great. Thank you. It's a little bit of a closed operation over there, let me just state. So it's sometimes hard to get those little details determined. Thank you for that.

Alright. Let's take it out to public comment on this item. This is our Moss 300 site cleanup update.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Good afternoon again. Name is Eric Peterson. Fortunately no longer living in my car. And in the interest of whole disclosure, I'm a stockholder in PG and E, which is part of this problem. And I just think it's significant that a letter I sent to the president of PGD was never answered. They don't care. So when as we clean this mess up, just remember that the problem is still there. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm not seeing any other public comments, so we'll close public comment and bring it back to any further board comment. We're receiving, this update, so no action is necessary? Correct. Great. Seeing no other comments or questions from the board, we can deem the report received. Thank you. Thank you. Doctor Scanlon, and we'll move on to item number 10, which is a public hearing to consider accepting the 2025 annual report pursuant to County Of Monterey condition of approval and mitigation monitoring reporting program with some considerations for amendments as well. We'll bring it to Mary Israel, our supervising planner or to Craig Spencer, or to whoever would like the floor.

My name is Craig Spencer with Housing and Community Development, while Miss Israel's getting set up to provide the presentation, I just wanted to give a brief overview of today's item. We have two parts. One is the annual report. Many of you have had this report in past years. It is the report on the status of mitigation measures and their compliance with conditions for environmental documents we've approved in the previous years, as well as some other ongoing subdivision and project reporting requirements.

This is something that comes out of a program that the board adopted several years ago. So the second item is to amend the program. I do want to say that we there was, I believe, a very good reason for having this program in place the time it was put in place. Things were much different with physical files and computer systems. We didn't have a good system for documenting and tracking condition compliance.

That's not true, thanks to the hard work of people like Ms. Israel on the annual reporting, the training of our staff, the systems we have in place. We have the program and its contents that really give us the guidance for how we go about documenting conditional plans. We have a legal and professional obligation to follow through on conditions. What we're asking to do is to remove the annual report.

Essentially, the way I see it, we're complying with conditions. We're documenting them. They're available for inspection online through our online permitting system or through public records requests. We're just getting rid of the annual audit of how we did with all of that. And the reason being that we wanted to keep all of those program policies in place that really do help us do the thing that we're supposed to do, but get rid of the annual report requirement that does cause quite a bit of need for additional work beyond just doing the thing we're supposed to do.

With that, I'll turn it over to Ms. Israel for the presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon Chair Root Askew, members of the DACE, and other supervisors. As introduced by HCD Director Spencer, this is a presentation on the 2025 annual report of the condition of approval mitigation monitoring and reporting program that I'm just going to call the program for the rest of this presentation, and then a proposed program amendment. As Director Spencer covered, there are two actions proposed for today. So I'll go into a little of the background.

The board adopted the framework of the program in 2001 with resolution o one three nine one as a result of the leeper settlement agreement. After a second litigation in 2011 alleging the county was not complying with its obligations under the prior settlement and under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, a second settlement included improvements to the program's CEQA compliance. Amendments to the administrative activities of the program in the years since have resulted in a robust and accountable program that now runs without court related obligations. The program applies to projects with conditions of approval and mitigation measures. However, county administers the condition compliance on CEQA exempt projects in the same way.

For the sake of time, I'll summarize this slide as the CEQA framework for why we are required to track and monitor compliance with mitigation measures. The annual report presents the status in January for all projects approved with mitigation measures in 2025 and older projects that are selected by the CAPS, condition of approval supervisor, that's me, program supervisor, during some older programs, projects that are selected by the CAPS during 2025 for inclusion in this annual report. This information is presented in a brief summary text with a summary table, and then you find a series of responsible departments' annual reports that certify their project's compliance with the program in detail. By program definition, responsible departments are those teams or agencies that prepare, monitor, or report on conditional compliance with mitigation measures. Finally, the report includes staff training attendance lists for the mandatory program trainings since the last annual report.

The county approved eight projects in 2025 that relied on a mitigated negative declaration, or MND. Two related projects were analyzed with the same initial study in MND, so there were seven MND. The recently approved projects are currently working toward condition compliance with their mitigation measures and conditions. And the annual report shows that there were no compliance issues described in the certifications from responsible departments for those projects. PLN six ninety six, Harper Canyon, was also approved in 2025 with a supplemental EIR, but it is in litigation.

So per the program's requirements, it was left out of the responsible department reports. However, at the last minute, staff should have included that in the summary and just listed it as project in litigation that is not required to do its mitigation monitoring reporting in the annual report. So we accidentally left that out of the summary section. Staff requests that action on this item include accepting updates to the annual report to include that project in the summary review and in the summary table. And I can share red line edits if you're interested in seeing those after this presentation.

There's also another minor edit where Parks was one of the responsible departments on one of the older projects, September Ranch, but it was a typo and it got left out of the summary table. So those are two minor changes. The two older projects in this annual report, one identified by the CAPS and County Council due to new ownership, is Bishop Ranch Pasadera Subdivision. And a member of the public requested another older subdivision project be included in the report, and mentioned September Ranch Subdivision is the second one. There were no compliance issues described in the certifications from responsible departments for these projects in the reporting period.

So in 2025, the project specific mitigation monitoring and reporting plans had conditions of approval and mitigation measures added or administered by this set of responsible departments. Because the public is invited to add older subdivisions to the annual report with reason, Monterey Regional Fire District staff were also required to submit an annual report on September. Condition compliance requires many steps, including pre and post hearing dialogue with permit holders, receipt and review of condition compliance documentation, and specific tasks that are done in Acela. Staff requires training to do these things effectively. In 2025, the CAPS and deputy county council Robert Breyer trained all responsible staff on November 20 to do these tasks.

With the hiring of three new planners in the first half of the year, the CAPS trained them on June 26 and then in ongoing one on one sessions. So this concludes the section of the presentation that's on the 2025 annual report. And we'll if you don't mind, we'll hold your action on that for the end. The program currently requires staff to produce responsible department annual reports in January for planning staff to compile a complete annual report for the board to accept it in the April of every year. But there is no law requiring this activity.

HCD recommends removing it from the program, and there's also a letter from deputy chief Scott Anderson of Monarch Monterrey Regional Fire District lending his support to the removal of the annual report. Here we are looking again at the components of the annual report. Anyone can track the projects approved with an EIR or MND by tracking the hearing agendas on Granicus, by utilizing Acela Citizen Access, or through a Public Records Act request. The program training would continue, and if a member of the public wants to track that training, they could do so through a Public Records Act request. The other two components, project summaries and responsible department reports, are clerical work that are time consuming and can be considered unnecessary.

Removing annual report activities from the program would not impact its implementation procedures mandated by County Code 16.7 and the CEQA guidelines. Responsible department staff would continue to administer condition compliance. Records would still be accessible. The CAPS would still be a point person for problem solving on condition compliance and, with county council training staff. Given that we are five years out from the close of the Leaper two settlement with a good track record and mitigation monitoring, it seems like a good time to release the many hours spent doing the annual report to use them on development review and condition compliance administration.

Additionally, staff is proposing amending the program to increase the window of time allowed for newly hired planners before they must attend a program training. The program currently requires such training to be accomplished within sixty days of the planner's hire date. HCD proposes changing this window to six months. This change would increase the efficiency of the program without reducing the quality of conditioned appliance work by staff. Training new planners too early when they're just learning county procedures for development review can overwhelm them.

They often ask me to retrain them on conditioned appliance later when they're ready to absorb it. So this would make it more efficient as a program while still having full training. Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors accept the 2025 annual report with the two edits that were described, one to PLN 696 Harper Canyon being added to the summary statement on page one, stating it was approved in 2025 with a supplemental EIR, but it is in litigation, and adding it to the table is project number 11. And the second edit is to add parks as a responsible department, page six of the report last column of table one, project number nine. Staff also recommends the board of supervisors adopt a resolution to revise the program to remove the requirement to produce an annual report and to extend the deadline for newly hired planners to be trained in the program from sixty days to six months.

Action taking on receiving this report or making administrative changes to the program is not a project under CEQA. This is according to following guidelines section 15378B5. These are administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. This concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions from the board? Alright. Let's open it up to public comment. Is there any public comment on this item? This is the item 10. Our medication monitoring and reporting program. K. Seeing no one in chambers or online, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the board. Supervisor Lopez? No. No. Okay. Supervisor Daniels.

Thank you.

Thank you, miss Israel. If I may, my I'm looking at the annual reports, and I understand that it takes a lot of time. But how much action happens in a year? I'm just I mean, is some of this for certain departments just taking last year's report, making sure that, you know, if if updating it if progress has been made and then resubmitting it. Right? Or, yes, help me understand that it's not that.

Okay. Through the chair. It's not that. Okay. So it's a new set of projects every year. So the administration is a process in Acela where they review all of the conditions that have been applied that they're a responsible department for. They generate a certification report in Acela. Then they have to do a sit down meeting with the lead of the responsible department. And as they initial each condition, that's one of the attachments in the annual report. They initial the certification report and confirm whether or not there's a condition compliance form related to that condition in Acela, if it is moved forward or not.

And that process can be time consuming, particularly for staff like at the fire district who aren't usually using Acela, usually taking hours of my time to help them through retrain, train new staff. And then for older projects, that's when we might see that older report having to be regenerated. Okay.

So it's the new projects and every project that this And so the litigation, I would assume, was because conditions weren't being honored. And so how can you assure someone like me if we stop the annual reporting that we're not gonna lose track of conditions that were part of projects approvals and that they will actually get met even if they're after the fact?

Right. I believe the litigation had many areas, and you're right, a part of it was a lack of monitoring. The process by which we do quality control is I regularly peek into a seller and look at all of the projects that have mitigation measures applied and check if they've got full and complete condition compliance forms that are up to date for that stage of the project, whether it's grading permit or ongoing monitoring. If there's any issue with that, I reach out to the responsible department lead and let them know that there might be an issue that their staff needs to be retrained on how to make their condition compliance forms. And then if there's actually an issue with compliance, then there's a process that's laid out in the program in which the responsible department staff are supposed to elevate it to the CAPS in an email with their condition compliance form that's uploaded to Acela.

Their condition compliance form uploaded to Acela for all public to see would show the compliance issue. And then by bringing it forward to me, I work with county council to meet and confer with the permit holder to talk about deadlines by which they would start meeting that ongoing monitoring or whatever it is that they've fallen back on and let them know that can take place after that. We actually have in the past applied fines until they meet their own deadlines that they agree to in our meet and confer. So we do have a process that's in the program that would continue to happen. As far as bolstering what happens to make sure that there's, you know, whatever pros that came out of this annual report process are not lost.

I have circulated some text to management for review for a paragraph to be added to our website, the HCD website, under conditioned appliance that would specifically outline how a member of the public can access condition compliance forms on Acela and generate their own condition compliance report so they can directly monitor projects themselves.

So if I'm hearing you correctly, and Director Spencer maybe you have something to add, but you don't feel like anything would be lost in terms of our oversight, our monitoring, and our compliance by getting rid of the annual reports. It's more procedural and the time it takes to do this.

Yeah. I mean, the the thing that would be lost is the meeting we're having today. The annual presentation of the board. Were there issues with condition compliance in the past year or not. There's been very few issues. And when there are issues, they're resolved and then they're reported on in the annual report. So I think it's a little bit important and I'll try to make this really quick. It was a necessary program at the time. When we had paper files, it was not clear which conditions were complied with and which weren't, and how and why. And so we couldn't, when someone asked, really tell them or show them.

That's not how it works today under this program. The things that are not being changed in the program, when the board, the planning commission, the zoning administrator, whoever it may be, applies conditions of approval to a project, they're entered individually into our permit database. They all have a timing. The timing says prior to issuance of building or grading permits or prior to occupancy or prior to recording a final map, whatever that may be. We will not issue that subsequent permit or complete that step until they've completed those conditions that have that timing.

We document with the paperwork showing how it was complied with, and we mark that condition as complete. That can all be seen online. That's all part of the program that happens on a regular basis with conditional compliance. The things like training staff are part of program. Those are good things.

Those should remain in place. They're really best management practices. The thing we're not doing would be having the annual report, which does provide some public benefit in terms of disclosing what all of this is and how it was all done. It's not that we couldn't do that. It's just we're suggesting eliminating it as a mandate to come to do this every year.

And Mary's done a good job explaining the added work it takes with the additional requirements for every department and division within the county who applies conditions to go through and review every single one, whether they've been complied with or not, sign and date all of them, compile them all in a report, coordinate on older projects, and things of that sort. So there are still a lot of things in the program that we suggest remain so that the best management practices stay there to make sure that the conditions are complied with and that we can show how and why and when they were complied with, but suggesting not having to do the annual report unless there's a request coming through HCD or the board to bring something forward and report on what what the status

Is. Is. So, I mean, these are it it sounds like that the the work is there is is the everyday projects and all of the projects that are approved in a year that have conditions associated with them. But if I were to just give you some of the bigger examples that I hear about, not least of which would be the trail referral that is that I submitted not long ago. That and I also do hear about things like the affordable housing requirement of a project and when affordable housing that was a condition of a project doesn't get built. Mhmm. So how are we gonna continue to track that?

What do we do?

I'm I I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm thinking of the preserve. I hear about that all the time. You know, we we get people coming in and and and applying for permits to build their own lots, but the affordable housing wasn't built. So was this program tracking those sorts of things?

No. Unless there was a specific request with agreement by Mary as the CAPS Israel, sorry then those older conditions from those older subdivisions are not being reported on. Most of them the final maps have been recorded for many years. A lot of them have been developed. And so there are mechanisms in place with things like inclusionary housing agreements.

Often, we will have them bond, or we will withhold permit issuance for the final ten, twenty lots, however many that is, until those units are built. We have gotten better at writing the conditions, making sure they're more effective in how we can make insurance compliance with them, and trying to get the timing worked out so that we're not waiting this many years and things change as we know with things like affordable housing. So it's been a progression, but those conditions are there. They're applied by our housing division of HCD. There's actually usually an agreement approved by the board with the subdivider on how they're securing the insurance, essentially our insurance that the affordable housing gets built.

They're bonding for subdivision improvements. Things like this, they're all part of our condition compliance review and can be documented through Acela and how conditions are complied with.

So if if we were interested in an update on mitigation monitoring for something like the trails conditions for developments between Jack's Peak and Lorella's Grade, the referral is probably still the best the best path forward.

Yeah. So, I mean, that's a great example of why this program was needed.

Mhmm.

At this point, it's hard for us to unpack exactly what occurred because the documentation wasn't there at the time all of that happened. As far as we know, offers did add a K trails were made. County didn't really act on anything. And so we're having to unravel sort of little bits and pieces of information we have to try and piece together what happened. That will not happen moving forward.

But it would be something that we if there's something like that with an older subdivision, then yes, we would want to have a referral or come in and do a specific exercise to figure out what happened and where to go from here.

Through the chair, I'd also like to address that question because a member of the public could request every older subdivision with a trail condition of approval be in the annual report, but it would just it wouldn't show the complicated issue that you're talking about because all of those conditions were met. It would just say met. Then there's evidence that they did their dedication of the trail to county. So the best way to approach that is through a referral and doing a deeper dive into post condition compliance

work. I'm sorry, Mary, if this confuses me anymore. But in this type of report, you're saying it would show up as met even though a trail doesn't exist currently from Jack's Peak to Lorella's Grade.

Right. Because the actions required in those conditions that were applied at the time just say the prior to final map, the permit holder has to dedicate the trail to county. And so they do a letter of dedication. They offer to dedicate, and it's done. That more to speak to what director Spencer is saying, that as we approach these situations in future, we can write better conditions of approval to make sure that the steps have all of follow through.

Yeah. And on that matter, just the update is where our referral is to understand better the status of those entitlements currently. Thank you. Very helpful.

Alright. So we have the public hearing to accept the report, and then there's a request to remove the ongoing requirement to produce an annual report and to extend the window of time for newly hired planners to receive program training from sixty days to six months. Happy to entertain a motion.

I'll happy to make the motion to approve recommendations.

Can we have a motion from Church? Oh, I'll second. Okay. Okay. We have a motion from Church, a second from Askew. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? None. Okay. Alright. Alright. We will consider that approved, as staff recommendation, unanimously. Moving on to our referral matrix, and new referrals, there are none, and we'll move right on to our county administrative officer comments.

I'm just waiting for the screen share.

Jumped right

in there, didn't I? You're light speed.

Can we stop sharing the screen? Okay, I think it's happening now. Alright, perfect. I just wanted to make sure I didn't confuse any of the potential viewers out there. Playing a little bit of catch up.

The water resources agency accomplishments include for this week and, actually for the year are as follows. In the past year, they've made strong progress across several key priorities. They advanced the digital the design of the Nacimiento And San Antonio Dam safety projects through the successful use of state grant funding during this past winter and classified as wet normal classified as wet normal. The agency provided flood risk reduction to communities while capturing stormwater to support future groundwater recharge. To further protect the public, the agency developed a new flood forecasting modeling tools to improve public information and emergency preparedness.

The agency also expanded the Salinas Valley groundwater monitoring program in collaboration with the Salinas Valley Basin, groundwater sustainability agency in partnership with the a with that agency. Water resources supported feasibility studies for new water supply projects to address groundwater overdraft challenges, including seawater intrusion and declining groundwater levels. These project concepts are now publicly available and staff will continue to presenting the findings in the coming months. The agency successfully resolved the longstanding financial audit dispute with the Monterey ONE Water. The efforts strengthened collaboration through an amendment to the 2015 water recycling agreement and the creation of a leadership group that now meets at least quarterly.

The agency also supported the Castroville seawater intrusion project, which helped avoid nearly 20,000 acre feet of groundwater extraction and protected the one eighty, 400 foot, aquifer from sea water intrusion. Lastly, the agency updated its bylaws to establish a new water agent water resources advisory committee, which has generated strong public interest and participation. These accomplishments reflect the agency's continued commitment to protect our water resources, support public safety, planning for resilient water future. And that is the water resources agency. I also want to add, we are in the process of developing the county administrative officers recommended budget.

The hearings will be held at the May, and we are working with departments now to try to identify what some of the proposals might do in terms of their departments and access to services to the community. And we look forward to presenting that recommended budget by early May. Then for discussion, we will be scheduling workshops in community with each of your districts. So we will be reaching out if we haven't already to see if you'd like an in person, a virtual, or maybe a combination of both. But all that just to say also say thank you to all of our department heads and the finance managers across counties, across the county that are making this recommended budget possible.

So thank you.

Right, we'll go to board comments.

Yeah, thank you Madam Chair. I just opened by thanking everyone who helped make the visit of the California Coastal Commission to Gonzales last week so memorable. We had a wonderful experience in the community where the mayor and three members of the city council joined us, well as the mayor of King City, Mike Labar, to welcome everybody inland. I think the commission had a unique experience and got to really absorb the feeling of the Salinas Valley and its importance as they talked about driving along 01:01 in the morning and the evenings with all those 18 wheelers by their side and all of those trucks of vegetables leaving throughout the night visible and and and you could hear them from their hotel room. So they were just so impressed with the production of this valley and the people who make it so special.

So I wanna thank them for coming, for making Gonzales the place for that particular meeting, and then just to share that over the weekend, it was a busy one. We had the opportunity to sit with the fire chiefs for a little while out in Seaside. It was mayor mayor mayor Byrne, as well as supervisor Daniels and myself, and many other electeds from throughout Monterey County were in the room to really acknowledge the the folks who help keep our communities safe from wildfire and from so many of the different challenges our communities face right now, especially fireworks, which were a hot topic at the Coastal Commission this last week. And then that evening, was able to make it to King City, where we kicked off the Salinas Valley with the official kickoff dinner. Obviously, it doesn't really start for a few weeks, but that was the opportunity.

Well over $100,000 was raised in the live auction that evening for the fair. And so I want to thank all the donors who contributed that evening to make the fair possible and always such a hit for our community. And lastly, I'll share that that same day I had the opportunity to pick up nearly 3,000 pounds of dog and cat food with my trailer out in Carmel Valley or out in Carmel at Pet's Food Express. And we brought that to King City where yesterday we spayed and neutered nearly 200 pets in partnership with SNIP, our neighborhood pet project, Save Cats, as well as the County Of Monterey, the Monterey County Weekly, the Community Foundation, and so many others. I'm sure I missed a couple, but four clinics on-site that ran double days, so eight total clinics in San Lorenzo Park in our County Park yesterday, 200 pets fixed.

And all of that food went out quickly to community who needed it. And so just thankful for all the partnerships in helping to get those pets fixed. We know that each pet that gets fixed lives an average extra thousand days. And so I think a lot of years were added to lives yesterday, which is great enjoyment for the community. So grateful to have been able to bring that opportunity to King City yesterday. Thank you, madam chair.

I wonder if that's appropriate to move that much pet food from one super resort district to another. Might be a referral coming? I did want to mention that on April 11, Audreanna Malgoza did win the Ralph B. Atkinson award from the ACLU for her work with his executive director, Watson Law Center, and guarding the rights of immigrants. Again, that was on April 11.

This Saturday, as the open house at the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, nine to five, they always have some fun activities for ages of for all ages, I should say, and some very interesting exhibits. If you haven't never been there, I recommend it. It's always a lot of really, really interesting stuff. That same day is Day of the Child Family Festival at North Monterey County High School, 12:30 to five. Be with games, cars, performances, food.

So Saturday is a very exciting day on on a lot of things. And I wanted to also raise I'm having my Oak Hills Town Hall a week from Wednesday on the twenty ninth at the conference center at the Castro Library and at 05:30 to seven. And we'll it always gets a good turnout from Oak Hills. And that's it.

Thank you. I am really pleased to report that I drove through the Lorellis grade roundabout this morning and did not stop once. It was fantastic. This temporary signals traffic signals have been turned off, and the roundabout is fully functioning. And I just wanna really take a moment to thank director Ishi and his team.

They did a remarkable job throughout. I don't even wanna know how many months or recount how many months, but it was a fantastic job that was, I think, done very efficiently and very professionally. And we are super grateful for for the public works team and the work they did to get us through this construction period. And in a blink of an eye, they repaved a portion of San Bonanzio Road, and I've just heard from so many constituents, very grateful for that work. So thank you, team Public Works.

This week, I did get to do several really wonderful things, starting with the champion of the arts breakfast. That was fantastic and what a fun event honoring the various champions of the arts. I also got to spend Earth Day at in Karma by the Sea at Divendorf Park, and it was a lovely celebration with Karma by the Sea constituents. That evening also got to attend like a supervisor Lopez, the Monterey County Fire Service Honors Gala and support our our Department of Emergency Management awardees. And also got to catch a glimpse of the new North Monterey County Fire high water vehicle.

Very impressive, terrifying in fact, sort of a frighteningly large vehicle. And, wanna just wrap up my comments by saying I'm going this this weekend, sun Saturday morning to Sonoma County, and I will be participating in a evacuation drill, a fire evacuation drill with some of the neighborhoods that are similar to many neighborhoods that we have in our county and want to just experience what they're doing in preparation for wildfire evacuation. It's something I hear from constituents quite a lot that they wanna run evac drills, and so this is an opportunity to go to another county that is performing an evacuation drill and to see how they do it and see what what what we can bring to Monterey County to put into practice here. So I'm looking forward to that, and I'll report out when I get back.

That is the only high water in the state, by the way, which is courtesy of the work through from from the state and the the $20,000,000 that was provided.

Alright. And I'll briefly make some comments. We have some in district office hours this coming Thursday, the twenty third. I believe it's Thursday. April 23. Is that a Thursday? Anyway, from four to 6PM at the Marina Library, we're welcome to any welcome to public to stop by, say hi, meet my team. That is a Thursday. So April from four to six, we'll be at the Marina Library for to chat with anyone who wants to chat about District 4 issues or anything related to the county. I've really enjoyed this last couple weeks.

I've had a couple opportunities to spend some time with CSUMB students and hearing their policy recommendations and chatting with the student leadership. And the issues that they're grappling with are very much the same as issues we're grappling with. Housing, transit in and off of campus, basic access to need, access to basic needs like food, shelter, the things that they're struggling with are very much real and relevant to the rest of the the the needs of the county. I wanna give a shout out to all of the organizations who are contributing to the celebration of Earth Day events throughout the county. Seaside and Marina held their Earth Day events this last weekend.

Del Riokes and Salinas are holding Earth Day events next weekend, And the the theme of of taking care of our community and really around the infrastructure of care for our land comes down in so many ways to the infrastructure of our human relationships. And so being in relationship and out in community with the folks that are doing the work is really has been joyful. I think those were my highlights for this week. Oh, also wanted to to give some credit to our assemblywoman, Dawn Addis, who hosted for the third year in a row the Central Coast Caucus gathering of all of our Central Coast statewide assembly members and state senators to come together and strategize on issues specific to the Central Coast and think about the policies that they'll be advancing as our coalition of legislators. So really appreciate the work that Assemblywoman Dawn Addis is doing to convene and be intentional about the policies that are being brought forward on behalf of our region.

And while they did that, they also raised some money for some scholarships. So always always nice to be able to spend time with our state leaders. But with that, I think we will wrap up this meeting. We do have an adjournment in memory today. And if we could have that. Oh, let's do our readout from County Council first while we put our slide up for adjournment.

No reportable action from closed session.

Okay, thanks for letting me not miss that. All right, and I will pass the floor over to supervisor Daniels for our adjournment today.

Thank you so much, chair Askew. And today, I'm wanting to adjourn the board of supervisors meeting in memory of Raymond Michael Narvaez senior and Aurelia Torres Narvaez. And if you're not familiar with the Carmel Pinecone's obituary pages, it's it's it's rather impressive to open the pages of the pine cone and learn about some of the tremendous individuals that make this county so special. And when I opened the pine cone last week, I saw that the parents of Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District Ranger Joseph Narvaez were were on the pages of the pine cone. And so I read their story and felt immediately that it was worth sharing with all of you.

And so I'm going to go ahead and read the obituary as it was presented in the Carmel Pine Cone. Raymond M. Narvaez and Aurelia Torres Narvaez passed away peacefully at home per their witches in their hundredth year of life. They passed just a few days apart surrounded by family. Raymond and Aurelia met in 1958 at a Catholic social mixer at the Carmel Mission Basilica beginning a lifelong partnership rooted in faith, family, and shared joy.

They were married in October 1960 at the Carmel Mission where they remained devoted parishioners for decades. In their early years together, they enjoyed gardening, square dancing, and building a life centered on community. Raymond Ray, Michael Narvaez Sr, was born in 1926 to Leon Narvaez and Ana Palais Narvaez in San Francisco, California before they rejoined the family in Carmel. Born Ramon Miguel Narvaez, he was a descendant of one of California's early families with roots in California tracing back to Jose Agustin Narvaez, an early Alcalde of San Jose during the Spanish and Mexican eras. He was also a descendant of the revolutionary war patriot and militia officer Isaac Davis, one of the original Minutemen and Davis's descendant William Dana, the Yankee sea captain who established a successful rancho in Nipomo, California under a Mexican land grant in the eighteen thirties.

That branch of his family arrived in America in 1640. At the age of 17 during the second world war, Ray joined the US merchant marine sailing the world in an able-bodied as an able-bodied seaman. He later served in the US army's second division during the Korean war concluding his military service as a staff sergeant leading a rifle section of 18 men. Aurelia Ray Narvaez was born in 1926 to Jose and Sunovia Torres in Calexico, California. After high school in the Imperial Valley, she moved with her family to Salinas where she was among the first female court reporters and Spanish language translators in Monterey County Superior Court in the nineteen fifties.

She later served in the Monterey County Department of Social Services. Ray was also active in labor organizations including SEIU where she advocated for workers and contributed to meaningful change in the workplace. She received numerous accolades for her years of dedicated service to the union. For many years, Ray volunteered as a polling place supervisor along with her daughter once her daughter was old enough to vote. Together, Ray and Ray built a life defined by faith, service, and devotion to family.

Ray served for many decades as an usher at Carmel Mission Basilica, while Ray, the other Ray, served as a Eucharistic minister and Sacristian and a member of the Altar Society. During Ray's retirement, she brought the liturgy of the Eucharist to the sick and homebound as well as making rounds hospital. Ray was an active member of the Knights of Columbus. Hopefully, you're following along to know which Ray I'm talking about. And Ray was a dedicated, meaning Aurelia, dedicated member of the Catholic Daughters of the Americas, including serving as a state regent.

Together for more than thirty years, they enjoyed coordinating the coffee and donuts social hour after the 11:00 mass. I might have taken one of those donuts at one point in my life. Ray found great joy in gardening, also which which became both a passion and a legacy. As owner of the historic Piccadilly Nursery in Carmel in the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies, now Piccadilly Park, he also cared for gardens throughout the Carmel and Pebble Beach area. He delighted in sharing his horticultural knowledge and took pride in cultivating his own lush garden that complemented Ray's talent for flower arranging.

Ray worked alongside him in their family business. Ray and Ray were both avid San Francisco Giants fans attending many games with their family. They cherished spending time with their grandchildren. Ray spent hours in the garden with them gathering eggs, teaching them about plants, birds, and insects, and introducing them to and instilling an appreciation for the panoply of wildlife that passed through their property and in the adjoining Mission Trail Park. Ray shared her passions for coin collecting, ceramics, leatherwork, and service to others leaving a lasting impression through both her interests and her example.

They were are survived by Ray's sister Denise Narvaez Wilson, their daughter Anna Narvaez Helms, Jeffrey Helms, their sons Raymond Narvaez Junior and Joseph Narvaez, Angela Eclise Narvaez. Their grandchildren Adam Helms, Caitlin Rausch, Max Rausch and Matthew Helms, Jocelyn Helms, their great grandson Rivel Rausch and many beloved nieces, nephews, and cousins. They were preceded in death by Ray's brother, Dennis Narvaez, Ray's siblings, Alice, Julie, Socorro, and Francisco, Frank Torres. A deep appreciation goes to the grandson, Adam Helms, who cared for them in the latter fifteen years of their lives. Gratitude also goes to VA in home aid, AJ, CNA nurse, Chris, nurse Angie and her team, personal care angel Cindy, and Eucharistic minister Patrick.

Their funeral mass will be celebrated at the Carmel Mission Basilica at 10AM, Monday, April 27, and donations can be made in their names to Carmel Mission or to the Big Sur Land Trust if desired. So with that, our our thoughts and well wishes go to our friend in the 5th District, Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District ranger Joseph Narvaez and all your family at this time. Your parents are in very impressive duo that it really just was important to share their passing and to close this meeting in and join in their memory. Thank you very much. Thank you.