Interagency Governance Review Committee for Violence Prevention - Regular Meeting

So I called a meeting to order here. Do we have any additions or corrections?

There are none.

Thank you. And I'd like to open up here for public comment on any items excuse me. My voice seems a little weak. Any items that are not on the agenda right now? Is there anybody that would like to take on that? I see nobody coming forward in the room or nobody online.

I do see a couple hands raised

on here.

Couple hands raised? Yes. I see Connie Cavault.

K. It's funny. I don't see any hands raised on here. Yeah.

And Okay.

It's gonna be

I think you're only able to see the the panelists on the screen,

and we

have access to see the the

I I know we're going to a different system here, so it's good for me to be aware of that that I'm not gonna be able to Yes. Okay. So we have two people, you say?

Yes. And we have Connie Kabolt, and then we

have a cell phone number.

Okay. So this should be for items that are not on today's agenda, and I'll give you three minutes onto that. Two, please. Excuse me. Yeah. I'll give you two minutes on that. Sorry. Thank you. Please go right ahead if you wanna call the first one.

Connie Cabault. You are unmuted, Connie. You can go ahead and speak.

Please go ahead, Connie.

Maybe go to the next person come back Cell

phone guest ending in 902.

Yes. Good afternoon. This is Nina Beatty. I have two comments. One on for federal legislators and federal issues.

I request that Monterrey County take all actions with federal legislators to stop the genocide against the Palestinian people, stop funding the government of Israel and stop providing material and logistical support for that government's mass murder, torture and land theft against the Palestinian people and the murder of journalists, health care workers, aid workers, children and families. This is urgent. It's urgent. It's beyond urgent and it should have been done before now by our legislators and I asked Monterey County to step up and take action on this. Secondly, on the state issues, there is a very critical local issue on the Monterey Bay Aquarium and other businesses are using high decibel sonar in the Monterey Bay and up and down the coast in the Pacific Ocean.

They're using decibel levels that are the level of Saturn V rocket. The sound intensity is so high, it's lethal to living beings from plankton to fish to otters, dolphins and whales. 150 can kill you and Mabari and other agencies are allowed by the state to operate at two twenty decibels, which is much, much, much higher than 150 decibels. For animals farther away, it doesn't kill, but it will damage internal organs, including the lungs, rupture membranes, cause embolisms, and cause animals to strand. State agencies are also ignoring resonance effects, such as happened to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

These sonar surveys violate CCR title 14 Yeah. Section six thirty two b 74. It's unlawful to injure and damage, and these need to be halted now. And I ask the county to work with legislators to halt these surveys and conduct a full environmental review. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's go back to the, first, individual. Connie, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Hello, legislative committee and offices of various state officials. I'm here to provide a comment regarding the Moss Landing battery fire.

Which Connie, that will be, this is for items that aren't on the agenda.

Oh, I know. I know. But but it I I I promise this this will this will,

not be I'm sorry. You're gonna have to wait until the item comes up here in a few minutes. It's just the way we go on it. I'm sorry. Thank do you if you have nothing else to comment on items and

Not regarding the legislation itself. It's regarding the fact that the past legislation didn't fix what happened right now. We still are dealing with the cleanup, and no nothing is helping us. So if there's a way to get help, that's what I'm I'm here for. You know? So I'll I'll wait. Thank you,

If you wanna if you wanna speak just about that, that's fine. It's not on the legislation. Go right ahead.

But So

the point I want thank thank you. I appreciate it.

The

point I was trying to make was passing regulation is not enough. There needs to be better enforcement. There's a lack of transparency regarding the remediation of the hazardous material cleanup that's happening right now. We were informed that the county would update the website with the information last month, and they haven't updated anything since that meeting. So we're all left in the dark. There still hasn't been anything done to get the cleanup happening. There's no dates even set. The anxiety is running high. And like I said, I I legislation isn't enough. We need enforcement.

So I I wanna say we urgently need assistance in expediting the cleanup of the mess left behind by the disaster and to please keep, you know, the public safe and protect us from the current disaster and make that a priority. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else?

No other happens. Okay.

With that, we'll close public comment. We'll move on to the minutes for

I'm good.

03:25, if you're good with that. I'm as well. Any public comment on the minutes from March 10? I, do we have any online?

I see no house.

Okay. With that then, we'll, accept the minutes by, consensus. Move on from there. We'll go now to, reports from legislative office, and these were state and federal legislative offices. I'll, go down this list and then take any public comment regarding the offices at the very end of item two. Do we can't see if we have anybody from, Sandra Padilla's office online.

Do I normally just ask for any federal offices first and then state offices.

Well, this so I'm I'm rolling down the names that we have here so they don't have to jump in at one time. I'm asking, do you know if anybody I don't see anybody from senator Padilla's office, then we anybody's senator Schiff's office. It's a little little different here with our setup. And then congressman Panetta? Congresswoman Lofgren?

I am present supervisor. My name is Jordan. I work for the congresswoman. I can present on behalf of our office.

Please do, Jordan.

Great. Not too much from us today. I know it's probably a fire hose of everything that's coming down from the administration, but I'll just bring up, two points from us. The first one is that Republicans passed our initial buzz budget resolution on April 10. As it pertains to the county that we're most concerned about, there are pretty substantial cuts to Medicaid and, SNAP food, benefits.

I know the county generally administers both of those programs. The congresswoman voted against the resolution, and we will continue in opposition to that just for, you know, the various needs of our constituents. The second and just sort of final item I'll note is we are accepting a community project funding request. The deadline we were given is this Thursday, April 17 at 5PM Pacific. It's a very short deadline, but if the county has not already submitted any request, wants to through that program, it is welcome to.

And if they need contact information for our DC people who manage those requests on our office's behalf, please let me know, I'll pass them on. Happy to take questions. Otherwise, that will conclude it for me today.

K. Thank you, Jordan.

Yes.

Go moving on then to senator Laird. Anybody from senator Laird's office?

Yes. Good afternoon. This is Marissa Hernandez.

Yes, Marissa.

Yes. Thank you, supervisor Church and supervisor Alejo for, allowing me the opportunity to present legislative updates on behalf of senator Laird. Senator Laird and our capital team have fine finalized the member's legislative package, and an important bill to highlight would be senate bill two eighty three. This is the battery storage bill that would provide a crucial tool and safeguard to ensure that battery storage facilities are built and maintained with the highest level of safety and oversight by our local fire officials. Also last month, senator Laird had the opportunity to recognize Yadira Mendiola as woman of the year for Senate District 17.

Yadira, who is also known in the community as the queen of the vegetables, is the owner of farming operations here in Monterey North Monterey County. She is a single mother that has built her business while overcoming significant obstacles. She turned organic farming to ensure that local students here in Salinas have access to healthy produce, and she also advocates for small farmers and and also for equitable sustainable food policies. And just to conclude, senator Laird had a great time earlier this month visiting South Monterey County and meeting with organizations such as the Solidad Youth Group, and the Solidad community health care district just to learn about important issues affecting the community. And unless there are any questions, this would be the end of my report.

Thank you. Speaker Rivas, anybody from, speaker Rivas' office online? Do not see anybody. And, assembly member Addis? Dalton, do not see anybody.

Student chair, we have, Alexis Arzola.

Oh, Alexis on?

I just wanna confirm that it that that is Alexis because she should she is added as a panelist. He She's or he is currently in in the attendees. So I'm gonna allow him to speak just to confirm. Yes.

Let

let him on. Yes.

Alexis?

Hi, everybody. Alexis with assembly member Don Addis' office. Very short report this time around. One of the things I do wanna highlight is that the members AB ten seventy six qualified ABLE program, CalABLE accounts funding, bill passed Assembly committee committee on revenue and taxation. And

we lost Okay.

I'm back, I think.

Yep. There you are. There you are.

Okay. The qualified ABLE program, CalABLE accounts funding, expands access access to to CalABLE accounts, making it easier for people with disabilities to save and use funds for essential needs. It also allows individuals who receive Cal Kids funds but do not plan to attend college to transfer that money into CalABLE accounts, ensuring they can use it for other critical expenses. And I do wanna highlight just two visits that the member had this week. One of them was for the Carmel Residence Association.

The member honored the Carmel Residence Association citizen of the year, recognizing Tom Parks for his incredible contributions to our community, his dedication to arts, literature, and local causes. And she was in the district on Friday as well for Seaside's groundbreaking development alongside lieutenant governor Eleni Kunilakis at the groundbreaking of Camptastown. So these are just some notable highlights of the member being in the district, and we are squaring away and trying to get many bills out of committee as possible. So I should have a more extensive report next time around.

Hey. Thank you, Alexis. And do we have anybody, for public comment on this particular item on these reports?

No hands raised.

Thank you. With that, we'll move on to the federal report and go through item a, which is federal government update.

Thank you, sir. Have a hefty agenda today, and I know my report is particularly lengthy, so I will do my best to be brief. Yep. For our congressional overview is we all is on the first week of a two week Easter recess. It is an interesting time for congress to be out of session, given the various announcements recently regarding tariffs, and we'll talk a little bit further about that under executive orders. And also with budget reconciliation heating up end

of.

You're breaking up a little bit here.

You might wanna just show up the video.

Yeah.

Alright. Let me try taking the video if that helps. And if not, I will turn it over to my colleague, Caitlin Cogill.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Alright. How's that, sir?

Yes.

Yep. Go right ahead.

Perfect. Apologies for that. I was just saying that right now, congress is in the first of a two week Easter recess. There is quite a bit of activity going on now in DC, both with the executive branch and some of the more recent executive orders that we'll talk about briefly in just a moment. And then also with budget reconciliation, as you know, the the White House and Republican leaders in congress are committed to reducing the overall spending out of the federal government and have set some specific targets for numbers that need to be hit.

There is some question about how whether or not extending the Trump era tax cuts will impact that baseline. It's about a $4,000,000,000,000 difference depending on how that baseline number is determined. That's very inside the beltway speak for the cuts could be somewhat painful or very, very painful. And it's unclear yet which way that's going to go. Committee activity on budget reconciliation is expected to begin at the April and continue through May.

We'll see how that works, between the house and the senate and where the the two chambers do and don't align and how that impacts the overall package at the end of the day. And one of the things we've talked about internally within the county is the outcome of the the usage, potentially of tax exempt municipal bonds. Those are, right now, one of the primary focuses for an area where congress could look to potentially eliminate that form of bond in order to gain a significant savings towards the overall number that must be met to met to satisfy budget reconciliation. That's particularly concerning for the county because taxes and bonds are a crucial infrastructure financing tool. National League of Cities, states that that taxes and bonds of finance more than three quarters of our nation's infrastructure, and is and they are actively used as we speak by the county.

According to the assistant CAO, the county's outstanding certificates of participation bonds, COPS, are all tax exempt, including those that were recently issued in 2019. The county is currently looking at refund all twenty fifteen COPS, and we're assuming the issuance of tax exempt comps to generate comps, excuse me, to generate those savings. Miss Palinelli informed me that if the tax exemption were to be eliminated, the county would need to borrow at a taxable interest rate, which would significantly increase the borrowing cost. She also shared that the county is looking at issuing tax exempt COPS for the mental health rehabilitation center. And if these tax exempt bonds were eliminated in budget reconciliation, that would drastically change the affordability of this project.

So that's something that we are very closely monitoring and providing updates to county staff in real time, and I will continue to update the legislative committee as there are significant additional developments. And hopefully not, I hope we're all wrong about that, but, either one way or another, we'll make sure that you're well apprised of those developments.

K.

Turning to our next agenda item, I'm gonna have Caitlin Cogle speak on the executive orders. She's one of our in house experts at Ballard on that. So I I think she's certainly the best person to speak to now about it.

Thanks, Maria. I'm gonna try to be brief because the situation is developing as we speak. So at the time of writing, obviously, the reciprocal reciprocal tariffs were about to go into effect. Now there's been a ninety day pause on the reciprocal tariffs and a baseline of 10% tariffs on all trading partners. Most significantly, since we submitted the report, tariffs on China have increased to 125% in addition to the 20% already levied on China in retaliation for the the fentanyl crisis.

So that's a 145% tariff on China, and they've responded in kind with a 125% tariff on United States goods. President Trump and the White House are exempting different goods daily, hourly, with tech products being most notable and also pharmaceutical products. But we're monitoring the tariff situation for what that might mean for Monterey County. Right now, it's just a blanket a 125% tariff from China that that is significant. In regards to the US Department of Education, the White House issued an executive order on March 21 to shut down the department to the extent permissible by law.

We know that's of concern to the county, so we are tracking how that develops. We know that it comes on on the plan of the department to terminate nearly 50% of its workforce.

And then

finally, the US Department of Agriculture has also been cutting, food bank deliveries and its emergency food assistance program, which we're also tracking for what that means for county residents.

Alright. Thank you, Caitlin. I would the only thing I would add about that is, Annette did circulate to county departments a survey that is been requested or not requested, but requested for support, if you will, by CSAC. And if she has received some responses to that, I'll let her speak to that more, or we could certainly come back to you at a later time.

Go go right ahead.

Yeah. I'm sorry, Maria. I didn't plan on reporting on that. Let me find my notes on that. If you could go on, I'll I'll try to

You know what, Annette? I apologize. We if if it's okay with the supervisors, perhaps we could take that as an action item, and I can send a separate summary to the supervisors on that. Would that be better for the group?

That'd be fine for me. Super yes. We're we're both alright with that.

Perfect. Sorry about that, Annette. I didn't mean to put you on the spot inadvertently. Rolling right into the budget update. One thing that is, you know, I think unfortunate but has to be addressed is that with the f y twenty five funding being resolved through a one year stop gap funding measure called continuing resolution, rather than regular funding bills when the CR was passed in March and extended through September 30, it did not include any provisions for federal funding in the form of earmarks.

And what that means is that there will be no earmark funding awarded for f y twenty five, and we were watching very closely the progress of the Poparillo County Sanitation District project that was just shy of a million dollars that miss Lofgren had put forward on the county's behalf. So that will not be materializing, unfortunately. We have spoken to county staff because that project did secure alternate forms of funding and wanted to confirm that the not seeing that your mark move forward would not result in a funding gap. At this time, county staff does not anticipate there will be a funding gap for that project. So we are very fortunate to have been able to secure the alternate form of funding for that one and appreciate the all the work pub that the public works department has done for that project.

On a more positive note, we do now have confirmation as we just heard from some of our federal delegation reps that both house and senate will provide entities including the county the ability to apply for community project funding that is earmarks in the FY '26 cycle. In mid March, Caitlin and I submitted earmark application requests to representative Panetta and then did the same in late March to senators Padilla and Schiff. At the time of writing this report, miss Lofgren had not yet opened up her process to begin receiving application requests. You know, just in the past few days, she has indeed done so. We are thrilled to be invited to submit for her.

Those are due to her office later this week. Caitlin and I are hard at work on those and expect to begin submitting those as early you know, some of those as early as Wednesday and into Thursday in advance of the Friday deadline. And you'll see the return of the earmarks chart in my federal report here, and you'll see there are eight projects that the board of supervisors, as you know, has approved, and we have already moved forward three of the four federal delegation members on that. And as the earmarks process moves forward through committee in both house and senate and then potentially to the floor, you know, if the stars align in ways they did not in f y twenty five and congress is is able to, work together, and and we'll we'll see what happens there and make reasonable choices. You know, we'll continue to update this chart to reflect, the progress of these projects, and and hopefully, we will see some of these move forward, and we will very closely monitor those developments, of course.

We are also continuing to work with our federal delegation to ensure that previously awarded earmark funding is dispersed in a timely manner to the counties. This is something we're very sensitive to, particularly given some of the uncertainty earlier in the year about the future of previously awarded federal funding in any number of respects, but we are pleased that the county is a has been able to make significant progress in satisfying the requirements for funding such as f y '23 funding for the Family Justice Center in King City to be dispersed. As for, federal advocacy, and and I will start to truncate here. I know there is also a significant state report coming. In the world of FEMA updates, there have been two particular developments that I'd like the legislative committee to be aware of.

And one is that there have been some inquiries from FEMA to the county about fees paid to the Gordian Group relative to some of the county's construction contracts. And the county uses job order contracting to perform any of the storm related repairs. These contracts are competitively bid using proprietary solutions provided by the Gordian group, and then the county then pays 5% of any work completed, for that purpose. Speak FEMA is now looking into our procurement method with Gordian. Now there's there's certainly the the way the county procured Gordian was through Sourcewell.

Sourcewell does this day in and day out for various federal contracts. And so we are continuing to work through this in in coordination with our federal delegation just to ensure that FEMA is assured of the process the county is using, that it is within acceptable parameters, and there aren't any, you know, policies that are being violated as we do this. The Department of Emergency Management feels very strongly in in how it's approached this and, you know, just ensuring that FEMA is similarly assured and that we are we are pulling together on that. The others update I wanted to provide is that the county has recently received notice that the federal government has released to the state approximately $3,000,000 in federal funding that is meant to reimburse the county of Monterey for measures taken during the COVID pandemic, and had to do with ensuring that the needs of older residents were met in the world of food delivery and nutrition and that they were able to do so in a safe way during lockdown. So that is a very positive development.

I feel that we continuously come to the legislative committee, and we're discussing all the ways in which FEMA is falling short in its obligations and the hoops we are jumping through. So it is a very pleasant turn of events to be able to come to you today and say that, well, potentially a modest sum in the scheme of all that the county is owed. At least $3,000,000 of what is owed from COVID is ultimately going to be making its way into the county's hands. Although it is at the beginning of the process now, we know it is on its way.

Hey. You're done with the the all the FEMA updates there?

That is it for FEMA.

Okay. What I'm gonna do right here is I'm just see if there's any public comment on on the a, b, and c reports here before we go on legislation on federal. And do we is anybody in line? So you know, we're in the chambers. Instead of going you know, since these legislate these are federal legislation, five bills here, and we're gonna these are all action items. What I wanna do, I think, before you report on those to see if there's anybody at Chambers that wants to give a comment on those so we don't have to go down each one and do a comment. So this should be for these five items. This is, again, for the federal. There's five bills here. And is anybody online? No. That's great. No line. Nobody in in chambers. Nobody online. So go right ahead with the legislation there.

Alright. So I have a number of pieces of federal legislation for you. I would highlight at the outset that these four bills are all bills that the county has supported in previous congresses. There is the wildfire emergency act, which is geared to reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires in the West. And and you'll see the details on this particular piece of legislation in the written report, but it it provides a number of resources to counties and fire prone and and entities in general and fire prone areas, with additional support from the US Forest Service.

And I I do it was introduced by senator Padilla in the senate. We are awaiting a house companion to be introduced. I do recommend that this is one that the board of supervisors supports as it has in years past. The next piece of legislation is the Fair Access to Agricultural Disaster Programs Act. This is a bill to reduce barriers that producers face in accessing agriculture disaster assistance.

It was it aims to ensure that basic safety net progress for producers are readily available to full time farmers to get back on their feet following natural disasters. And it specifically takes a look at the adjusted gross income limitations that disproportionately prohibit producers with high input costs from participating in certain USDA disaster programs in a meaningful way. And and certainly that is true of most growers in the state of California. This bill was also introduced by senator Padilla in the senate, and, we await introduction in the house of a companion bill. I will continue to monitor for that.

As with the prior bill, I do recommend that the county support it. The third legislative item is the Housing Unhoused Disabled Veterans Act, and this would amend the HUD definition of annual income so that disability payments received by a veteran for eligibility purposes for housing built under the HUD VASH program are excluded. This legislation was introduced by representative Sherman in the house. And, again, I do recommend support for this bill. And the last piece of legislation is the due process continuity of care act, and that would allow pretrial detainees to receive Medicaid benefits at the option of the state.

It amends a portion of the Medicaid inmate exclusion policy that denies Medicaid coverage to eligible individuals being retained pretrial. There was a similar piece of legislation signed into law in 2022 that that allowed the same for juvenile detainees, and now we are the the legislation is looking to expand that to adults as well as juveniles. It was introduced by Rev Sylvester in the house, and I do recommend as with the others that the board of supervisors support that legislation. And so those are the the four pieces of federal legislation on today's agenda.

Alright. Thank you. I mean, I'm supportive of all these. I do have one question. That's on the first one, the wildfire emergency, act.

And I I know it's coming from senator Padilla. So by this interest of focusing this in California, and that's where you know, it talks about the large scale forest restoration efforts on up to 20 landscapes of at least a 100,000 acres. Is how how much is that wait a and I don't know. Guess what I'm trying to ask is is the way that bill's written, is it gonna benefit California in some significant ways, or is it really gonna go to something that might be the the discretionary decision of the Department of Interior, which may or may not come come this way? Do we is there any more details you can give on that particular part?

Yeah. So in terms of the in that particular specific provision, I don't have the data at my fingertips for the California focus. I can certainly coordinate with his staff to see what we can glean. I will say there are other provisions in the legislation that are specific to California. You know, there are certain insurance companies that will automatically reduce fire insurance premiums for homeowner homeowners who harden their homes against wildfire, and there is some allowance within the legislation that would expand an energy department weatherization grant program to provide up to $13,000 for a low income households to make wildfire hardening retrofits, including ever resistant roofs and gutters.

So there there are some California specific provisions, but although I I cannot speak to the the one you identified, sir, my apologies.

No. That that's fine. I I know it's bills are are pretty complicated, and I was just hoping you might know a little something more about that. So I'm I'm really I'll get them to with them too at this point. So I think supervisor Lejo and I would be all supportive of all four of these bills, not five if I miss as I miscounted earlier. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Thank thank you.

My final item is the federal track, and

that's I didn't hear from supervisor Alejo. Maybe I just couldn't hear.

Yeah. We all he said he was in favor.

Yes. I just wanna make sure. Sorry.

And then with that, I just again, the last item on the federal report is the issue and bill track for your reference, and I that concludes my report.

K. Thank you very much. With that, we'll move on to the state reports and the legislature and the budget, which I'm sure we'll have plenty to talk about.

Yes. We do. Thank you, supervisors. I am also having some Zoom issues today. So if I turn off my camera, that is why. I'll start out with just letting you know that the legislature is currently on a spring recess. They'll return on April 20 next Monday. They are facing a policy deadline coming up on May 2 for all fiscal bills. And for nonfiscal bills, that deadline is gonna be May 9. So, again, that just means all of the bills that are gonna be moving forward this year will need to pass their first policy committee hearings by those dates.

We've been participating in several legislative committee hearings to either support or oppose bills that we already have positions on, and we will continue to do so with the bills that we're gonna be presenting the LC this afternoon. Regarding the state budget, all of the budget subcommittee meetings have also been holding hearings to discuss the governor's January proposal. Although, I will say that much has changed since January related to the budget, and so we can anticipate that the May revision may look quite different from January. As you know, the January proposal was, introduced by the governor prior to the wildfire disasters and the more recent medical shortfalls that we've been hearing about. So we do anticipate that the legislature and governor are going to have to address a more substantial deficit than originally anticipated in January.

We know, of course, that the legislature has to pass a budget by June 15. However, negotiations, like the last couple years, have been going on all the way up until the June, with an amended version of a budget after negotiations with the governor and the legislature. We'll see what happens this year, but I know there is a lot to discuss and debate with regard to what the priorities are from the governor's office and perspective versus the legislature's perspective. There haven't been any votes cast on the governor's proposal quite yet. That will, of course, start happening as we get closer to the deadline for the budget to be passed.

We have signed on to or written several different budget letters that are priorities for us. The In Home Support Services County Administrative Funding Request, IHSS, of course, that letter reiterates the need to fully fund IHSS and notes the impacts that could happen with regard to scope of services for residents if we do not continue to fully fund that program. Secondarily, we signed on to a onetime CalWORKS administrative funding request in the amount of $245,000,000. That funding would be allocated to address critical and persistent underfunding of several CalWORKS program operations. We signed on to a request that is similar to CSAC's request, RCRC, and others.

So there are multiple, organizations across the state requesting those funds for CalWORKs. And then finally, we did request a state budget letter for ongoing funding for several programs, including bringing families home, home safe, the CalWORKS housing support program, the housing and disability advocacy program, and that was in coordination with the California Welfare Directors Association. I did just wanna note, lastly, that our members, particularly assembly member Addison, senator Laird's office, are aware of the state budget requests that we have as a county. However, we don't anticipate there will be, member requests this year. We're going to have to see how the May revision goes now given the deficit.

Our legislative members and members across the state are, just making local agencies aware that it is not likely that member request will happen this year. However, we did inform, both assembly member Addison, senator Mayer's office that the what our project priorities are, and particularly, for the community of San Lucas, the ongoing discussions and project there, and we'll talk a little bit about that. With that, I can move on to legislation. Yes, Annette? I think

what I'll I'm gonna do here is I think we have some people who wanna do some comments or two, and wanna do first just kinda break this up like I did with the federal and see if could put up the the agenda here again.

Supervisor Church, if I could just make one comment on the report that Ashley just gave. There is that last letter that she talked about that addresses housing and homeless programs. That act that letter actually hasn't been sent. It's in your packet, for the committee's approval for us to send.

Oh, sorry about that, Annette. Okay. Moving too quick.

I'm good with that. Yeah. That will be, be fine with that too as well, so we can, go ahead with that. Is there any on items a and b, is there any public comment on these reports? And nobody in the room.

There are

a couple of hands raised.

Those this would be for items a and b, not the legislation. So I'm gonna go to next. So

We have two hands raised. Dominic Dursa.

Okay. Dominic, go right ahead.

Thank you for that. Just one quick thing to note on the state budget. As Ashley mentioned, yes, the deadline comes up in June. The interesting little caveat, though, is some of the federal decisions that are being pushed down with the continuing resolution they did, if I'm not mistaken, won't come until later. And so there's there's potential for some of, our budget to perhaps have to be revisited later, depending on if cuts come down, during the summertime. So just just a little caveat or twist wanted to throw in there.

Hey. Thank you for that. And the other

Connie Kovoltz.

Connie, this would not be on the the on the legislation quite yet. We're gonna go to that next. So this is just on the reports.

This is Nina Beatty. I have a question on on the deadlines. The deadline for gut and amend bills May 9 as well? Because, often later in the in the year, we see bills pop up that have very content than as they were proposed. So what is the deadline for gut and amend bills? Thank you.

Is there anybody is is that all the the commenters now?

Or Yes. Okay.

Is there anybody can answer, miss Beatty's yes. Please go ahead.

Yeah. I can answer it. I just didn't know if I was allowed to interact. But, yeah, definitely. So first off, there is usually internal deadlines for the legislature to submit gotten amends to legislative council so that they can meet the first deadlines for policy committee hearings.

Those happened in March. However, I'll just note that the legislature can really gotten amend bills at any point with certain rule waivers and discussions. So that is why we will see sometimes at the end of session bills be significantly amended. I will note that there is a seventy two hour law in California, which means that all bills that are introduced have to be in print and introduced at least seventy two hours prior to their first hearing, in the legislature, which means that three days before the end of session, the final day of session would be the absolute cutoff date for any potential gotten amend legislation.

Thank you. With that, could you just scroll down a tad bit to catch the item 13 there? Yeah. Great. We have 13 state bills for other discussion here that'll be coming up, but I noticed some public comment that must be made. So I'm gonna open that up here first. Is there anybody in the chambers that wants to comment on any of these?

Should we hear the presentation first then comment?

We could, but they will wait. They'll make the decisions in all 13 till the end.

Mhmm. Okay.

You go with that?

Yeah.

Alright. We'll go over the presentations, and then we'll come back for the comment.

Okay. And so, did you want me to just go through all of the bill?

I think, it's either that or I gotta call up comment for all 13. And I've so let's go through all 13. We'll take public comment, and then we'll come back and do a discussion on the vote.

Yeah. And, actually, I think it's always helpful to at least hear hear your description of the bill that gives the public, then, opportunity to, weigh in on it, understanding what each bill does.

Yes. I just wanted to ensure I wasn't stopping after each bill. That's more what

I was

Don't don't do that. That's what I'm trying to avoid.

Yeah. Alright. I'm rolling through it. Okay. Here we go.

So we our first bill that we have up, a b 63, was actually placed on the agenda, at the request of supervisor Alejo. It reinstates the law that makes it a misdemeanor to lawyer in a public place with the intention to commit prostitution, but it also requires law enforcement to document attempts to offer services to individuals before they make that they make that arrest. And it prohibits arrests to be made solely on individuals' gender identity, sexual preference, or orientation. This was an existing law that, Sunsetted on 01/01/2023. So it does bring that law back into, current day.

Supervisor Leh, you may have comments at the end, but we're gonna roll to the next bill. And the bill the next bill on our agenda is a b three zero three, which was at the request of bringing this to the legislative committee. We don't have a suggested position on this quite yet, but I believe the legislative committee can take, you know, whatever position you would like. Today, the bill does, and we've talked about this bill a number of times, but it does specify that, energy storage facilities moving forward could not be at limits where they can be located and how close to certain communities, and that was in direct response to local issues that we've had at Moss Landing. Our next bill is a b four seventy.

This bill was requested to be put on the agenda by supervisor Lopez. The bill, in opposition, we have an opposed position, it allows carriers of last resort for telephone service providers to shed obligations by just notifying the California Public Utilities Commission that there are no customers or population in a given area and that alternative voice services exist. And so by just notifying the CPUC that there are other voice services in the existing area, they can remove the requirements that, carriers of last resorts currently have from the p u CPUC to make sure that those services are available to the customers that do not have alternative voice services. They don't have to prove that in any way to the CPUC. So we are asked for the legislative committee to oppose this bill by supervisor Lopez.

And then we will move on to our next bill, which was reviewed by the county's housing department as a support position for a b seven twenty six. This is an issue that we've been involved in over the years, but it allows local agencies to count in their RENA numbers and report the number of de restricted affordable housing units that are over 15 years old that have been significantly rehabilitated. Currently, those units cannot be considered, and this would allow the county to con to utilize and consider, and they're not in your numbers, the rehabilitated units that are over 15 years old. They do have to have a minimum of $60,000 per unit in rehabilitation, but the housing department does believe that this would be a beneficial tool for the county to utilize moving forward. The next bill is AB nine three three.

This bill has we've been asked to oppose by CSAC. CSAC is also opposing this bill. Oh, I'm sorry. I don't know if that's correct, if CSAC opposes. No. I think the library actually brought this forward. That's right. Excuse me. Lots of bills. The county library services provide things like homework centers, for example, summer reading programs, etcetera.

This bill actually defines organized camp differently. It also defines, organized day camp differently. So it amends those definitions, and that would then include and encompass our library services. So the library is concerned that then we would have to comply with provisions when we're actually just providing, a much different types of clubs and programs. Nine thirty three is just overly broad, so we are asking for opposition on this bill so that we don't include cost to then comply with the definition of organized residential camp or organized day camp.

The next bill we have is AB nine four six. AB nine four six was brought to us by the county's probation department. The probation department has asked us to oppose this bill. This bill authorizes the board of supervisors of any county with a population of at least 3,500,000 or more, currently, that is only LA County, to delegate a county department involved in youth development, all of the duties in both the juvenile system as well as the adult probation services that are currently provided by probationary departments and probationary officers. Is there a question?

No. I was copying.

Oh, so the probationary department while while this does not apply to us now, the probation department does have concerns about the precedent that this sets and have has asked us for our opposition to this bill. Our next bill is AB ten fourteen related to traffic safety and speed limits. This bill was placed on the agenda at the request of supervisor Lopez. It allows the Department of Transportation to lower or keep speed limits, in safety corridors. It also allows the reduction, the department to reduce five miles per hour.

Sorry. Excuse me. I have to cough.

Thank you. It allows the, for a safety corridor, you can reduce the speed limit five miles per hour. The Department of Transportation can. And it also allows them to set a 25 or 20 mile per hour speed limitation on non freeway highways. So supervisor Lopez has asked us to support this bill in an effort to continue to, assist local authorities in setting, calm traffic safety conditions within the county.

And then we have SB two eight three, which we have a recommended support position on, of course. We have talked about this bill at other meetings. The senator has requested our support on this bill. While CSAC does not have a support on it, we do think that s b two eight three, you know, is helpful in regard to any new battery storage facilities and an emergency response plan in action. So we are, recommending a support position on his battery storage bill.

We have the next bill, SB three five seven. This was also brought to us by the probation department. SB three fifty seven, it authorizes, again, the board of supervisors of any county. There's no there's no, population limit on this bill like there was on the previous bill to delegate another county department all or some of the duties, and authorities concerning minors that are currently imparted to probation departments and probation officers. So the probation department has asked us for our opposition on SB three fifty seven.

And then I will move on to SB five seventy seven. Senator Laird has asked us for our support and this bill to be placed on the agenda today. The bill provides a five year refiling limitation on cases that were dismissed without prejudice. Mhmm. It allows for an allowance of cost recovery at the demur stage and clarifies that a validation proceeding may be brought by a public agency before tort action judgments are entered against the public agency in the county's county's council has reviewed this and are supportive of this measure.

Next is SB five ninety nine by Senator Papajero. This bill allows, and it actually is in tandem with a budget request for the Department of Water Resources to develop an extended range atmospheric river forecasting. Currently, it's, at subseasonal for two to six weeks, and this would be seasonal one to six month lead times. We did have this, request vetted by the public works department who do think that it would be helpful for the county. So we have a support position on that bill.

And finally oh, no. Not finally. Almost there. SB six zero one, by senator Allen. This bill is quite the bill.

Water resources agency actually brought this forward with a recommend position, but I was planning on doing the same thing. I've been participating in several ACWA meetings related to this bill and also Cal Chamber meetings related to this bill. There is a a massive coalition of support and opposition on this bill. But the bottom line is it requires dischargers to demonstrate enrollment in state or federal discharge permits when applying for local permits. It maintains stringency in drinking water and quality quality standards, but they're different from existing quality standards.

It defines nexus waters and enacts the requirements of the federal clean water act for nexus waters. And it then expands authority for the state water board related to the the enforcement of nexus waters as well. But as you'll see in our letter, there is a host of concerns related to this bill regarding litigation risks, regarding, being able to provide for housing and water needs for the current community, harsh and unfair penalties. There's a host of issues. So, I know that water resources agency is participating in today's meeting if we have additional detailed questions, but we do have an opposed position on this as recommended with along with the entire water industry as a whole and many others.

And then finally, let me just get over here. We have our, s b five seven seven oh, I'm sorry. S b eight thirty nine by senator Laird. Senator Laird wanted us to take a a support position on this bill as well. However, environmental, health had a couple of questions.

So we are setting up another meeting with environmental health to discuss this bill between environmental health and the senator's office. That meeting is scheduled to happen next week. So we will keep you posted on this. We did want to agendize the bill and let you know, that we will be meeting with the senator's office on the bill, but there's no action required on this. And I see Annette's hand is up. Perhaps I forgot something. And, again, Annette.

I just wanted to make a couple of clarifications on this bill list. So for a b three zero three and s b two eighty three, the two battery energy storage facility bills, I wanna point out that both of those items are on the board of supervisors agenda for tomorrow. So what we're requesting from the legislative committee is if you would like to make a recommendation to the board, and if so, we'll report that at the board meeting tomorrow. Also, just as an update, the MST sales tax bill that we had talked about at our last last meeting that was referred to the board as a support position, I just wanted to make the board aware that that or make the committee aware that that will be on tomorrow's consent agenda.

Thank you. Thanks, Annette.

Actually, I do have one question here, and this is on, 08:39. I think one question or two. We'll see. CSAC took a position to just watch on this. Why why is that?

I don't know why Seasac has just a position on watch. They don't have a position on the bill, besides watch. So I'm happy to reach out to to ask Seasac the position. We're not asking for for a position for you all today, but I'm happy to get that information from CSAC.

Yeah. Just just wondering why they they're not taking a position. Senator Laird is not asking for a position on this bill today? I mean, I know we have we're saying, we're we're saying, you know, re you know, it's a report only, but he had come in asking for support. But I know the health department's going to be meeting with him, but he's he's he's not asking for us to take a position on it today?

No. He is the senator I I yeah. The senator is was asking us to take a position on the bill. However, because environmental health have some additional questions, we agendized this to let the legislative committee know that we'll be talking with his office more so that we can come to the legislative committee with a recommendation based on how the department feels it will impact them.

Yeah. I understand that, but I'm just wondering if Sandra Laird because of this discussion he's having next week is is is you know, is is saying, well, I will hold off on this for a month and come back if, or if he is still requesting a decision on this. Know that? I mean Is everybody's office?

Normally, it's it's his office, and we're gonna just gonna delay action for a month just to allow our county staff

to understand, but these are the bills are coming up. I just wanna get the No. It's not

that It's not

that It may not be. If there's anybody on Sanders Lyer's office that's on on on there, we're happy to to hear their opinion on this. That'll be where the bills stay. Okay. I I don't see anybody on there, so we'll just let it go as it stands. Yes. Yeah. Go ahead, Ashley.

Just to just to let you know. So, yeah, the bill is scheduled to be heard in its first policy committee hearing on April 30. You know, the the senator the senator's office didn't ask us or give us a a deadline to, weigh in as soon as we could. Just rather that after he finalized his bill package, his staff requested our consideration of of supporting a handful of bills that we have on our agenda today. So, I don't think it's urgent to take a position today, especially if our department doesn't quite understand how it could fully impact the county and just want to ask some clarifying questions before we take action. I think that's totally reasonable.

No. I'm I'm fine with that, especially when you stated that it's not going before committee till April 30, so we'd be you know, it'll be some time down the line here if it even goes up on that. Do you have any questions on any of these?

Yeah. I I just wanna comment. I'm I'm not gonna comment on the battery energy any energy bills until after public comment. But on a b 63, on the loitering, that came up. The city of Salinas took a position last week, but it it it is a real issue, a big issue for a lot of working class neighborhoods here in Salinas where, it's the the problem is just really out of control.

And, you had mothers, and we're going to city council meeting because day and night, morning, as kids are walking to school, you would see the loitering in some of these neighborhoods, where it was really just it became to an extreme that I don't think the Salinas Police Department had seen here before. Previous law in 2022, tried to decriminalize, this issue. It was framed as, in a different way, but it had unintended consequences that that, caused this problem to proliferate in a community like Salinas. So this is trying to give those tools back to law enforcement so that they could, address it adequately. These are, people who are many times part of organized crime.

They find the loopholes in state law, and, and it it really exacerbated the problem here locally. So so I think this is this would just have the county join in with Salinas, as I think out of all cities in the Monterey Bay were struggling with this this issue the most. So I'm strongly supportive of a b 63. Going to the a b ten fourteen, the traffic safety, I kinda don't agree with that. I can't support it today.

I know it was, requested by my colleague, supervisor Lopez, but, these are these are those problems where there's a I like consistency in our highway speed limits, whether it's 55, 65, or 70, on highways like Highway 5. It's it's always, I think, surprises people with their their they're following the speed limit, but in a certain section of our state or highway, then it drops to five, and that's where then you'll have, enforcement, and then it becomes that, that speed trap. Even though if you were traveling across state everywhere else on that highway, it's the same, speed limit. That's why I just don't don't agree based on local pressure that Caltrans, the local agency within chain speed limits because of of request by by locals where I think the the the consistency highway wide should be the same rather than having it fluctuate and and and vary depending on whatever pressure the local Caltrans agency is under in that respective part of the state. So I'm all for uniformity.

We're able people know the rules on that highway. It should be the same, not just based on on where you're traveling through. So that's what has has takes me back on that one. I can't support that one today. So I think those are the only oh, oh, on eighty four seventy, the carrier of last resort, I think, there's, like, 18 companies.

Most of these are small telephone companies, but the largest ones that are impacted, obviously, it's AT and T and Frontier. But for this is the real big issue for rural parts of our state where they they depend on that copper wire to provide their for one of last resort so that when there's an emergency, they could call 911. They could call first responders. And, and this this this bill tries to phase out taking out that copper wire, primarily. There's there's other, tools they could use as a carrier of last resort, but this is one this is one of those big battles looming in Sacramento.

There was a bill last year by McKinnon. It didn't go any order. This is a a new, reintroduction of that bill, but, not an issue for my residence, Salinas, but certainly for all the rural other parts. I think my other four colleagues that have a lot of rural area in the county, this is one to pay attention to. And, so I I I could support that position being requested on this bill. K.

That will, go up for public comment on these, all 13 items. If there's anybody in chambers that would like to speak, Please come forward. You have to everyone should give you two minutes each.

Thank you, supervisor Church, supervisor Leo. Vince Ferrante, commissioner of Moss Landing Harbor District, vice president, board. Also, I served in California Special Districts Association, Sacramento, 2017, past president, board director currently. On I a

b three zero three,

CSCA has taken a they had us they're taking tracking on that bill, and S B283Laird, is a watch. So I'll just give you some updated information, but our legislative and lobbyists are doing up in Sacramento. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else?

Ron Cheshire speaking on behalf of IBW Local two thirty four Tri County's area. We understand the concerns of the local community around Motts Landing. We also understand the needs of the state of California. These power generation plants that have been developed as hubs throughout the state that connect to the Western grid are, are very strategic. Battery storage facilities, to be located somewhere else, where you have to appropriate the land, build new infrastructure, and such would be costly.

We support a, s b two thirty, two eighty three by Laird, and we oppose a b three zero three by Addis. The giving the community the right to pull out the team effort that will affect the state is just it's hideous. I mean, I don't think I have to sit here and tell you what nimbyism has done to the housing housing in the state of California. If people wanna pull out of something as important as being able to store and power something that we need, something that the state's already behind on, then they're not being team players in the state. So I hope, I hope the needs of the people are met through, s p two eighty three, And, it's a good bill.

It's very detailed in its approach, and I think it'd be very effective. So that's our stance. Thank you. Anybody

else in the room that would like to speak?

Mark Gonzalez, on behalf of the Water Resource Agency, just wanna reaffirm our opposition to s p six zero one, which is the water and waste dis discharge.

Anybody else in here? Do we have yes. Please come forward.

Name is Maria Jose Hamel. I live in the I work in partnership with health care providers, both in Santa Cruz County and Monterey County. And most of the people we work with are farm workers, monolingual Spanish speaking farm workers, and they are affected sometimes by these kinds of, you know, environmental damages or catastrophes. And I would like to strongly support both s d two eighty three as well as a v three zero three that does give back or return greater control to the local communities to make these decisions so that the local community is able to have voice in order to to say or or not say whether we like these kinds of storage facilities in our area, especially around our schools and farming and places where people live. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? And do we have anybody online?

Yes. On Zoom, have cell phone ending 902.

K. 902, this will be on these, any of the, 13 bills that we've just discussed, and you have two minutes.

Thank you. This is Nina Beatty and I thank the board for opposing AB four seventy and supporting Kohler and landlines. Kohler eliminates discrimination in telephone service equity and because Kohler's have to provide telephone service to everyone who requests it and that includes vital copper line landlines which operate through power outages. The CPUC has received thousands of comments that landline services essential infrastructure even in urban areas for power outages in emergencies for disabled communities and in fire prone areas. I urge you to strongly support AB three zero three by Assembly member Don Addis and SB two eighty three by Senator Laird concerning battery storage facilities.

Jurisdiction and authority must be returned to local communities for these facilities, which AB-three zero three does. Currently, communities are being held hostage to tech companies such as Apple, Google and Amazon and their energy intensive equipment, data centers and artificial intelligence or AI. Battery storage isn't about keeping the lights on. This is about Silicon Valley using Monterey County and other communities to fuel their enormous profits and escalating facilities that drain the energy and water resources statewide. The International Energy Agency is the latest report on the huge energy demand of these centers.

The costs for these for profit businesses are borne by taxpayers and the overall public. Monterey County has learned about the explosive flammability of the batteries and that the industry has admitted manufacturing defects can't be detected in these batteries. The needs of communities of our community require jurisdiction to come here, and I request strongly you support AB three zero three. I'm concerned that not included in these recommendations is AB three zero five and ask you to oppose it as well. Three zero five allows new nuclear reactors in California. It eliminates the 1976 nuclear safeguard for its smaller facilities.

It's not even on our list here.

I'm sorry. No. About meeting. But you you have I'm speaking to the

gentleman. Speak to

That's time.

Time's just about up anyway. So we'll go on to the next speaker.

Mary Eliza Smith.

Yes. You have two minutes on these 13 piece of legislation.

Are you are you able to hear me?

Yes. We can hear you very well. Please go right ahead.

Hello?

Yes. Can you hear me? Yes.

Thank you. So my name is Liza Schmidt, and I've been a live aboard in Moss Landing for four going on five years and experienced four going on five fires. Not only has it significantly impacted my family, but it has forced us to relocate. There are some major failures here that are being overlooked that are already required by state law such as prop 65 and other such legislation pertaining to dredging and containment for boat owners. For example, as a boat owner, if you're sanding your boat, you have to provide a skirt around it to contain all of the dust and use vacuum equipment.

If you're dredging on the coast, you need to notify the public that there are contaminants in the silt and the soil, and you're advised to stay out of the water. Yet here we are, you know, trying to plan the future, and we haven't even dealt with the current, which we have a gaping hole of a dilapidated, decrepit, concrete building where asbestos and arsenic are in question along with lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and other types of contaminants that clearly fall under prop 65 as requiring a warning when entering or exiting the area. You can't pump gas in California or buy a Starbucks coffee without a warning saying this area is this is possibly contaminated, may cause cancer. Please evacuate the area as soon as possible. And yet none of that containment or cleanup has been addressed.

We're talking about the future here. Battery energy storage is not sustainable on countless levels. It is toxic from mining to delivery to disposal, and it's not sustainable and subject to failure and fires because energy that is being stored, such as wind and solar, is inconsistent. And, therefore, fossil fuels such as natural gas or oil are required no matter where you put or how many battery energy storage put places you put up in the coast. You're going to be required to have a fossil fuel backup ready systems or they're subject to fires. And this is because

I'm sorry. Your two minutes is up, but we're we're speaking about the legislation here. If you wanna direct specifically to that and not the general issue is what I need you to do. I'll let you go on because I didn't know if you're doing a a preamble to your position on here, but this is what's before. It says 13 pieces of legislation. Speak please speak directly to them. The next one.

We have sheriff Tina Naples.

Yes. Please go right ahead. You have, two minutes on these bills.

I wanna show my support for Assembly Bill 63. It restores a critical tool for law enforcement to combat the growing threat of human trafficking and street level prostitution. The decriminalization of loitering created unintended gaps in law enforcement. We've seen this in Salinas. It's allowed traffickers to exploit vulnerable individuals and putting communities at risk.

AB 63 empowers officers and deputies to intervene more effectively, disrupt criminal networks, and connect victims with the support they need while ensuring fair and compassionate policing practices remain a priority. Also, I wanna show my support for AB ten fourteen. It deserves strong support because it priority alright. Prioritizes safety areas where it's needed most while establishing clear data driven guidelines for adjusting speed limits in high traffic zones with vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, cyclists, and designated safety corridors. This bill prevents serious injuries and fatalities.

Slower, safer speeds save lives, and AB ten fourteen gives local jurisdictions the tools they need to respond proactively to dangerous traffic patterns protects everyone who uses our roads. Thank you.

Thank you, sheriff.

We have the same person with hand up again, Mary Eliza Schmitt.

Yes. You have two minutes, and please speak directly to the bills before us. Thank you. Go ahead. Mary Elijah Smith.

For that. On behalf of a b three zero three, I think it is critical that we give the power back to the communities. I think it's obscene what this man commented earlier about how the we should allow the California Energy Commission to continue to railroad us when they are the number one cause of California fires up and down the coast. It is necessary for government from the grassroots to the very top that communities have to say first. Our legislators and everyone sitting on this board making recommendations is required to consider, the thoughts and the feelings and represent the people.

It is your job to represent the people, and we are not, you know, our stakeholders are our lives. They're our backyard, and they're greater as far as food production for the world. And it is necessary for the health of our agricultural workers, to our local coastal businesses, to our fisheries, to our residents. That a b three zero three is approved, and the power is given back to the community to have a voice and be represented properly through their legislation.

Thank you.

We have Hillary Theider.

Yes. Hillary, you have, two minutes on the specific bills.

Thank you so very much for your post position on a b nine three three, and I urge you to please share this information with all in your communities who provide programs for children. This is gonna impact city recreational departments, nonprofits, churches, and other agencies because of this overbroad definition. I also thank you for the post position on a B 470. We still have many, many, many library patrons we serve entirely over Copperline telephone, and they can order books over a Copperline telephone and have them delivered to their home. And even with presence of other options, that is often all they can afford. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

No other hands raised.

No other hands raised. Okay. With that, we'll close public comment, bring this back here for direction a b 63. I mean, I'm supportive of the position here with you as as you stated. So

Both in agreement. Yeah.

Yeah. Both both in agreement there. I just wanna make sure counsel heard us. We're going to the second item on a b three zero three. I'm only in support of this because we're not asking for a change. It's going back to law in 2022. And county really has limited control over utilities anyway. They're pretty rarely operated overseen by the, by the state.

Yeah. On on this bill, I I cannot support a a b three zero three. First of all, for the public and for the supervisors, we're hoping that we would have an, policy committee analysis, available because that's how you're able to really, understand from the from the policy committee consultants, the experts in Sacramento in this in this area of battery energy storage. You're able to get their their thoughts on what impacts this bill could have. So I looked just a few minutes ago.

It's still not up. Usually, it, they'll become available just a day or two before it's heard in in the first policy committee. We don't have that, information. But in in an analysis, you also get the what organizations are against it, who is supporting it. You also get to hear some of why they're opposing it or why they're in support of it.

The other problem with the bill, it's it's it it it has an urgency clause, which means that as soon as this gets to the governor's desk, if he were to sign it, it goes immediately to the into effect. The problem with that, though, it has a two thirds vote requirement with an urgency clause. That means when it goes to the assembly for a full vote or in the senate, instead of requiring 40 votes plus one to get out of the assembly or 20 votes plus one to get out of the senate, now requires two thirds. So now you need 54 votes. So it's a higher threshold, so it makes it harder, on a bill a controversial bill like this that has a lot of implications to get it, to the governor's desk the way it's written today.

Sometimes people will gut and amend it to take that provision out. We're not gonna amend, but they'll amend it to, take that provision out, to allow the the lower threshold. So, but the the main issue here, though, the current law, allows the permitting and state law preempts local law when it comes to permitting. And that's why the led the governor and the legislature had given that authority to the energy commission. So when, these types of projects are gonna go forward anywhere in the state, it goes to the energy commission.

The if they grant a permit, then that that fulfills the permitting requirements at a local level. This bill will not address Moss Landing at all. Has nothing to do with current existing battery storage systems. This has to do with current ones pending at the energy commission or future ones that may may come down the road. So it has nothing to do with the issue that we're facing here.

This bill would, take that authority. It's kind of a expedited permitting through the state. It takes battery storage systems out of that permitting process. That's one thing it does, if you by reading the bill. The other thing it does is, it says that they these projects would have to be denied if they are within 3,200 feet of what they called sensitive receptors. I don't know what that means. If we had an analysis, they would give a definition or give some examples of what that means. Or it says environmentally sensitive area. That's a very broad definition of fire environmentally sensitive area could be Gabelin Creek. Right?

It could be any waterway or many other things. That is it does there's not a specific definition, But in a large state like California, that could include most of the state that would be, under under, these areas that could would make it hard for any energy system to be a a battery source system to be approved in California. This wasn't a this wasn't a a, I have to be clear. Silicon Valley didn't push for this. The the goals on renewable energy were pushed in Sacramento by the legislators.

They over numerous bills, they set goals for California to use less, fossil fuels. They set goals for reducing carbon emissions. They wanted to see more, renewable energy, wind, and solar. And as I I've previously stated, to reach those goals and to reduce California's reliance on fossil fuels, you need to have some energy storage facilities. Otherwise, you get the roving blackouts that the state has saw saw not too long ago.

It's the reason why they didn't close down the nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo, because that was also needed in case when when it's summer and most of California gets really hot and people got their ACs cranking and there's high energy use all over the state, those are those moments where it really test the reliability of our energy grid. So I think this is early on this bill. I I I I know it's gonna change as it moves through. I think this is addressing a specific project in San Luis Obispo. Those are the pending bill, projects that are pending, energy commission's approval.

There's a different way to go, and I think the different way to go is senator Laird's bill. This is actually, looking at creating more stringent requirements under the permitting process under the energy commission. This also says, this would not allow the indoor, energy type source facilities like you saw in Maslani moving forward because we have we know that smaller compartments outside, reduces the fire risk that if there is a fire on one of those compartments, that's unit's gonna burn, but it's not gonna burn many other thousands of energy storage modules like we saw in an indoor one. It was so many were put under one roof, and when you got a fire in one under one roof, the risk is much greater. This would prohibit that.

So this this would letter to bill would address at least that indoor type of of facility. There was two there's there was one that burned, and there's another smaller, indoor storage facility at the Moss Landing site. So that speaks to that specific type of problem. The other thing that I wasn't clear on, Laird, it seems to also require that any new project has to be designed according to this NFPA eight fifty five, which is, a standard for energy storage systems. I think that's the latest.

So so basically saying whatever the latest technology is for the safest energy, systems and design, any new project has to follow that, that that standard for, so that also addresses using outdated, batteries, types of batteries and outdated technologies. New systems have to use the latest, safest standards there is for this type of battery energy storage facility. So, again, Lyric Bill's actually talking about being more stringent and using the latest technology and requiring it for any, new systems that may come online, in the future. So when I look at both, I I said, what what's really addressing the issue here? Not just not just allowing nimbyism to take place and saying no to this, but we know we need it if we're being logical, if we're trying to address our our our renewable energy goals and re reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

There's there's two paths here, and I I I really see Larry Bill as the one that's really addressing where California really needs to go, in the future if we're we are to make, to meet our state's energy and renewable energy and carbon reduction goals.

Yeah. Well, I would disagree if there's two paths. These bills are not, ups to each other. They're actually complementary. No. They aren't. No. They you pass one doesn't go and infect the other one. You can have them both, and they don't they don't cross over into that. Once that certain stat state standards and the others brings back some local control to the point to where where these these these battery facilities in Moss Landing were approved under the old the old way.

So we're just going back to that step where you're having some input into there. There is plenty of a a foot dragging from the state on other battery energy storage systems over in Kern County. There's a, a compressed air facility with windmills. It's being tied up and permits this to the California Energy Commission over the last few years. The current one you know, bill here, a b 205, which a b 303 is, is is opposed to, about bringing back some more local control.

That a b two seventy allows, excuse me, two zero five allows in two hundred and seventy days a battery facility to be put up. You know, o four pursuing some streamlining here, but it needs to cut across all battery energy systems. And that's not really quite happening, but I would, you know, really disagree strongly that these two are are at odds with each other. I support both these bills because they both address the an issue at hand. But I understand that you're opposed to it. I'm in favor of it. It'll go to the board of supervisors tomorrow to look at the with the layered bill. This one will have split votes, so it won't be have a recommendation.

So you're not supporting layered bill?

Said I'm supporting

Okay. So that one, that's right.

I said I'm supporting both bills. Okay. Yeah. They're not opposed to each other.

But a b two eighty three then has a recommendation of this committee for support.

I support that set two eighty three, so we can go down that one, skip right ahead of that, You know, support of both of these. I've spoke to both legislators, Laird and Addison, and they don't I don't see either one of them saying that they're they're seeing their bill as opposed to the other.

And Well, Laird had some critical comments of a b three zero three and the impact it it has. So he has concerns about

Well, he hasn't stated that to me. He stated the opposite.

He said he said it publicly

to press. I know what he said to me. And so, anyway, I haven't heard him express opposition to three zero three.

I'll send you the article on political. Okay.

That'd be very great. Either way about it, they I do not see these two in opposition, and I'm gonna support both of them. So we'll send them, fourth through tomorrow, and it's gonna be at the, board of supervisors between 02:30 and twelve, at morning on these two for the, the county take a position, and, we'll be recommending 283, and it's a split vote on 303. With that, we go to, to 470, and I'm strongly

yes. Sorry. We have Alexis Garcia with his hands up.

Alexis, please go right ahead if you have

Yeah. Thank you. I I know there was a question that was brought up on what sensitive zones might be or how the setbacks would affect. Basically, the setbacks establish appropriate zoning to protect homes, schools, hospitals, farmland, and sensitive ecosystems like the ones we're seeing in Moss Landing. And the 32 the 3,200 foot setback from sensitive places like homes, schools, and health care facilities is already implemented via the member's a b thirty two thirty three bill, which was the oil drilling bill that you passed last year.

So it just basically mirrors a b thirty two thirty three. That's why we came to the 30 hun 3,200 foot setback from sensitive places. So it's basically mirroring. There's already setbacks from the property line for battery energy storages despite California having championed battery energy storage for two decades. Like I mentioned, this is something that California has been doing when it comes to oil and gas, so this basically is mirroring what we're trying to do with battery energy storage facilities. And it would just have emphasis, it would come from local government, so restoring back local choice.

Yeah. But, Alexis, that's a really broad definition. Under under that definition, most of Monterey County, most California counties would, you we we wouldn't be able to cite any of these anywhere in the county.

Could be. AB thirty two thirty three is already in place, though. So, I I mean, I'm glad to send more information to your office if you'd like me to.

Well, I I'm really waiting for the analysis from the policy committee consultant, so that's that's what would be most helpful for me. Do we

have analysis on all these bills that we're talking about today?

We only have analysis on bills that have been heard in committee already as supervisor, I think Alejo said, but this is correct, that usually the analysis for bills does not come out until right prior to the committee hearing. So as soon as that is available, I am happy to share it

with both of you.

Sure. Well, I mean, we're taking positions. My point is I'm just making here, taking positions on bills that don't have analysis as well. So I don't know if there's a reason to single out one particular on that. But

Because they're more controversial, and they they have more implications beyond just the text of the bill.

Well, I think we've both stated our position of kind of put a vote to this. I'd like to move on to the I'm good. To the other ones if we can. This there's four seventy, AB four seventy, which I which is the telephone corporations carry the last resort. Very much opposed that in agreement with you onto there.

We have a b seven twenty six. The planning and zoning one, I'm willing to support that. You're willing. Okay. A b nine thirty three, the organized presidential camps, state camps post. Agree with that. The AB nine forty six, chief probation officer designee, I really don't think we should carve out for Los Angeles Mhmm. Which is what this is, so I'm happy to oppose that. Mhmm. Okay? Both agree. When terms of a b ten fourteen, the traffic safety speed limits, I believe you said you were opposed to

that one. Yeah. But I'll I'll I'll just stay off. I I have no position on

You're gonna take no position. I'm gonna support this one. So we have

No recommendation on

this. If we have no recommendation, it'll be one m m yeah. No recommendation. And we go to we already did the two eighty three with the Laird's bill. So we have three fifty seven, which is juveniles and delinquency. Opposed to that one, do you have a position on there?

I'm good with the stock recommendation.

The recommendation? Opposed? Okay. We also have civil actions one here from Laird, which I'm happy to go and support it. Yes. Suggest a position of support. You as well? Yes. SB five ninety nine from Caballero, the atmospheric rivers research and forecast improvement program. Support for me?

I'm good.

Good? Okay. S six zero one, water waste discharge, oppose that one. Mhmm. And, we're not taking any, position at this time on the thirteenth. So, that's, brings us through the, the legislation there and give it back to you there, Ashley, kinda go through the rest of the state.

Okay. Great. Thank you so much. We just wanted to report that we did attend the California PUC hearing that was discussing the implementation of s v 38. The county also, attended that hearing, and this has to do with energy storage state safety emergency response requirements.

We were very active in s b 38, and we're happy to see the CPUC, continue to implement this piece of legislation. Finally, there we've listed out the governor's actions and executive orders since we met. Well, since we met and until this report was written, there's been more since then in the last two weeks, but happy to expand upon any of these. Our state bill track is attached that goes over all of our positions, where the positions or where the bills are at in the legislative process, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. And that concludes my state report.

Any questions? No. I don't have any questions. Any comments on these last items from the public or reports?

No, Hams.

So, Hams, okay. With that, we'll move on to item five, which is the received reports, branch reports here. And, Ashley, you have anything there?

Yes. I'll be very brief. Just wanted to inform you that we did work closely with, Maria at the federal level to request several letters of support for our congressionally directed spending request. Those are listed out here from both senator Laird and assembly member Addis. Thank you for the support on these projects.

With the San Lucas drinking water project, there was that community meeting held on March 6. Since then, the county did submit public comment with our review in support of alternative four, which is the wellhead treatment with a new well drilling and consolidation with only managerial consolidation with Cal Water. We did submit that letter of request. We're also, continuing to evaluate proposition four for potential funding opportunities, and we did let our delegation know that we would like any state budget funding or state agency flexible funding to help support the finance of the project. Finally, we participated in the coastal conservancy webinar last month to discuss the climate bond funds.

Those applications are open now. They are encouraging folks to meet with their regional managers for coastal conservancy. I have alerted the county departments who are relevant about this funding opportunity and will identify potential projects. And finally, the grant track is attached. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

I don't have any questions. Any probably comment on these last items. And, not seeing any on there, then we can adjourn and report. Thank you, everybody, for coming today.

Alright. Thanks.