I'm going to have a good day. Good morning, everyone. And welcome. I'm not going to put you one more time. Here you go. You should be on now. You are currently speaking. Can everyone hear me? I couldn't tell if I was on. We need to crank it up. the board of supervisors meeting for Tuesday, September 10th, 2024. And I have a few announcements to me before we begin the meeting. Hearing devices are available on the left side of the dius. These board chambers are teacoyle compatible for hearing devices. And there are speaker slips available at the back of the chambers in the little wooden box and also to the right side of the dias. So if anyone intends to speak on any of the items, grab a speaker slip and with that, I'm gonna ask you to join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay, thank you and we're going to ask the clerk to please read the changes to the agenda. Addendum to item number 35, a request to receive an update on the state legislative activities by Paul Yoder of Shaw Yoder Antwing Smelzer and Lang to include attachment one, which is the 2024 state legislative report. Addendum to item number 11, submittal of a resolution recognizing the 20-year anniversary for the Los Padres, Forest Watch and San Luis Obispo County. Staff is withdrawing this item to review. Requirements of the Brown Act have been satisfied as this notice is posted prior to the 72-hour notice and requirement. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We're now moving on to the consent agenda and today consent agenda items are items number one through 33 So we'll open this to public comment for the consent agenda only so if you want to speak on items one through 33 Just grab a speaker slip and we'll get started We'll start with Kate we'll start with Kate Valentine and to be followed by Lisa how? Good morning, Chairperson Arnold and members of the board. I'm here to make a change to consent item number one to allow a word of the contract as follows. So from the subject and recommended action, we are removing from the subject and recommendation issuance of the Union Pacific Railroad Road Maintenance Agreement. And then we are adding under under other agency involvement, the following sentences. The district has been coordinating with Union Pacific Railroad for access to their property via a road maintenance agreement, maintenance consent agreement. UPRR has indicated that several contractor submittals would be necessary prior to formal issuance of their agreement. However, current indications are that an agreement is feasible. Today's action would allow the district to award the contract and work with the contractor to develop the necessary UPRR submittals. In the event, UPRR does not authorize work within the right away. The district would be obligated to pay, excuse me, obligated to pay the contractor for development of this submitters and only proceed with the contract scope of work that is outside the UPRR right away. I have a clean version and a red light version for the clerk and I'm available for any questions if you have them. Thank you. And Lisa how and Lisa will be followed by Mike Brown. Good morning chairperson Arnold members of the board. I'm here to request an amendment to item number five which is the submittal of a resolution accepting the exchange of property tax revenue and annual tax increment for the transfer of fire protection services from the Oshiano community service district to the county. Staff is emitting the resolution to clarify that the Oceano CSD shall retain 3.85% of a current-based property tax revenue and any future property tax increment associated with that percentage after the transfer to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund. I'm and I'm and I'm available for questions. Great. Thank you. Our next speaker, Mike Brown and Michael be followed by Greg Greg. Great. Good morning, Madam Chair, board members, Mike Brown representing Colab, speaking to item five, which is a property tax exchange with the Oceano Community Service District to allow fire services to keep going. And I don't think you have a lot of choice on this. However, I think you ought to regard it as another canary in the coal mine, just like the Caioca's version. And you've got some other fragile entities out there in this way. And what's going to happen over time as the salaries and pensions and everything keep escalating, the weaker, smaller jurisdictions are going to want to end their services and have them fall to the county as the jurisdiction of last resort. And then eventually the weaker cities are gonna start falling too. And what you really need is a long range revenue plan, five, 10, 20 years plus that says given this trend, given our own internal trends of salaries, pensions, unfunded capital facilities like roads, just what kind of revenues would we really need and what would it take to do that and the choices or taxes or some type of economic development or whatever that you really need that perspective. As to this item itself, it was expressed in percentages and it appears that the, whatever 95% of the property tax of the little district that you will be getting isn't sufficient to cover the cost of the fire services that will then be provided by five cities with this revenue and that you will have to put in but hard dollar number in the right up and of course this will be a base and it will escalate each year. I think in your budget principles you have one that you're not going to take necessarily over the problems of jurisdictions that want to dissolve services so I don't know how that policy would but I think given the The fact that it's raw public safety for the citizens. You don't have a lot of choice But you again take a look down the road this is this is coming faster and faster thank you very much and I'm available if you have any questions thank you great great wall our next speaker followed by Eric Greening thank you board chair and the rest of the board good morning my name is Greg Graywell I'm fromrescent. I would like to have item number six pulled for further discussion. I'm not against extending someone's contract. I do find it amazing. The County Council makes more than the president of the United States. Over the last few years I've gotten over 35% increase in salary and benefits. But I also have a document and I would show you this document, but we're not allowed to use the equipment. So this came from CSAC, which one of the supervisors is in charge of. And it's the new supervisors institute, County Council's role in responsibilities. There's numerous things on here that County Council is supposed to do. And I'll just say a couple of them about personal contact, about personal employment and other conflicts within the roles here with everybody. Board conflicts with interest and form 700s of financial gains for certain things and working with certain people. So there's tons of information on here on what county council should be doing and not working for one individual supervisor to protect or do what they wanna do. They're supposed to work for the board as a whole. So I have a problem with that. As far as this number 24 on the Nasi pipeline, now we got another repair. I think you should just let it leak because it's recharging the basin. And since you can't find a contractor that can fix it from the original contractor, I don't know who made that deal with those guys. The Dero, it just seems like every week when you turn the water back on and off for every month or every year, there's a new leak in a different location and all the other original leaks were only temporary repairs. So right now every repair that's been done is a temporary repair. We don't know what date those repairs are ever going to be final and why we have to keep paying for it when the county people that live out there they get no benefit you're using our tax dollars to fix it. Then you have the live stream agreement which is part of this whole system too and all this water was shut on and shut off at the pretty close to the same dates and they were not supposed to be impounding more water in the San Luis Reservoir and they must be doing it because they're not operating right. And the reason I could say that is because I have friends that live along there, and there's dead fish everywhere, because there's not enough water flowing. I would show you those pictures, but we can't use the equipment. So instead I'll put it on some kind of social media thing. So other people can see all the dead fish because somebody doesn't know how to run the livestream agreement. Thank you. Thank you. Eric Greening. Thank you. Oh, and followed by? Oh, okay. I was wondering if you're going to see a followed by, but you didn't, so I guess I'll start. Okay. I'm Eric Greening. Good morning, people and doggies. And my question is, why is item 11 being withdrawn? It doesn't spend any money. It doesn't change any county policies. It's simply recognition of an organization. Maybe one of you disagrees with some position that organization takes, but you recognize organizations all the time, where that's the case. In any event, I'm going to read what I wrote when I thought it was going to be on the agenda and then ask a couple of questions. So, thanking you for recognizing two decades of the important contributions of Luis Padres' Forest Watch, I urge you to pay attention to the content of the written messages they put out and to visit their YouTube channel with special attention to the videos of Bryant Baker. Some of these are simply informative, introducing the trees of the region and describing their ecological role. Others add an increment of advocacy as they critique current fads in so-called management practices that in the name of improving resiliency to wildfires actually have results counter to stated goals with type conversion to flammable invasives and hotter drier microclamates. A massive, de-vegetation plan that is gone by several names affecting most of the Los Padres forest is in the works with an environmental assessment likely to be out for comment soon. And we can count on – and we can count on an aspire to join the Los Padres Forest Watch in making the case for a full environmental impact statement with robust alternative analysis leading to selections of a wider alternative, a wiser alternative. Again, thank you for recognizing this important organization. But of course this morning you are not recognizing this important organization. Perhaps there is not a desire for reasoned and informed debate over the best land practices affecting this forest. I've noticed a tendency in recent years for respect for science as a path of inquiry ceded by debate, brought forward by debate and discussion, being replaced by something called the science that is supposed to be an idol, an icon, a fixed, something convenient to whatever powers that be want to impose it on us. I would like to see Los Padres' forest watch recognized as a participant in the ongoing debate that recovers real science and be part of that discussion. So please bring back the proclamation and the recognition at a future agenda. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have any other requests to speak. I thought I saw another one coming forward. Does anyone else wish to speak on consent agenda items number one through 33. Seeing no one come forward? Another request? Okay, then we're going to close public comment and ask board, any board members, if they have questions or comments. Before we do that, I don't know why item number 11 was with John and supervisor Gibson. I see you brought that. I just clicked it up. Maybe you would know why it was. I'm happy, it was re-thrawn at my request. Forest Watch is a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the county that I think lacks complete merit. And I didn't feel it appropriate to be honoring them for legitimately good work they've done over the years in light of them being in litigation with the county. Perfect, so that answers that question. Thank you. Anyway, Supervisor Gibson, did you have anything that you wanted to? Yes, I have a quick question of staff on item 18. Okay. Okay. Okay. Supervisor Ortiz, did you have any to pull for? I just have a comment on item 15. Supervisor Paishan? I have a just a comment on item 15. Supervisor Paishan. I have a just a comment on item 21. Supervisor Paul Dean. I have comments on items 5, 6, and 21. Okay, and I will comment on 6 as well. Okay, let's start with 5. Supervisor Paul Dean. Thank you, Chair. This is the Oceano Tax Sharing Agreement. Okay, let's start with five supervisors are paulding. Thank you chair. This is the Oceano Tax Sharing Agreement. I just wanted to again extend my appreciation to all those parties involved in the multi-juris five cities fire authority, the Oceano community services district county. And again, thank you to our administrative staff who kind of led the effort. I think there was a lot of compromise. We worked through it and we really put the interest of the community first and public safety for that community. So thanks so much. Sure. And how about six when I just going with my comments on six we've received a number of emails related to read and kneel our county council and her compensation I wanted to clarify a couple things One is that this item does not include a salary increase contrary to what Many people are thinking and two our county council is compensated below I think it's 6% below market of our comparative county. So important for people to understand. And then finally I just want to again extend my appreciation to Rita for her great work and of course your department, all the good work that you do for the county. Thank you so much. Yeah. And I wanted to jump in on six as well just to pretty much make the same comments. And for those interested, it's page three of three on the agenda item that approval of this reappointment does not result in an increase in salary or benefits in this case but I'm happy to be supporting the continuation of the contract. So, if I might, Madam Chair, I'm like. Supervisor Gibson. Yes, I'm extremely grateful for the fine work council does on behalf of this board and that her staff does on behalf of the entire county organization. We look forward to approving this unanimously. Supervisor. Yep, supervisor Tislay. Thank you so much. You know, I just wish that I could have read all of myself for council. But it doesn't work like that. We're fortunate to have an incredible staff led by Read and Eel. Not only do we have respect and good council guidance, but we have 24-hour access for all of our departments that need assistance and that alone is quite taxing. So yeah, so there be it, thank you. Okay, then supervisor T's leg, you wanted to comment on item 15. Yeah, item 15, this is just a comment. This is regarding the health agency director to that's receiving some Office of Traffic and Safety grants for pedestrian bike safety programs and I just wanted to acknowledge that I'm I'm kind of getting really this is one of my items that I've been talking a lot about is speed and visibility and I just wanted to hope that I see that we're doing helmets, but I think that fluorescent jackets and ways that we can see people on their pedestrian, whether they're bikes, walking, et cetera, that we have to be very, everybody's got to be aware. We're having too many fatalities, too many injuries of people speeding and et cetera. And with that, I just want to say that on October 2nd, we have the slow safe street forum that's happening at Ludwig Community Center at 530 at night. And again, it's going back over the fact that we've really got to be mindful about our safety when we're either behind the wheel or on a bicycle or something like that or walking our dogs. So thank you. Great. All right, and supervisor Gibson, you had comments on 18? Yeah, if I could ask our health agency director to come forward item 18. In at the bottom line is a termination of a contract or a wrapping up of a contract with an entity that has been running our crisis stabilization unit. And we have had some conversation via email about next steps. But I'd like Mr. Drew's if you would outline what's going to happen going forward. The crisis stabilization unit, an asset, a resource for our behavioral health system is going to be closing as of October 11th. What happens next? Nick Drew's Health Agency Director. Yeah, thank you for the opportunity. That is correct. Our crisis stabilization unit will be closing on October 11th while we renegotiate with a potential vendor for a new facility. Those of you who may be following along over the past several years, we received, for instance, a grand jury report as well as a capstone analysis that we did around gaps in our continuity of care. Both of them emphasized the need for a crisis stabilization unit, but also pointed out that the current one was underutilized. In addition to that, there's been some changes since we opened in 2018 that essentially direct what a crisis stabilization unit ought to be. We're looking to take this time and build into our future contract, some of those elements. We are hopeful to be rapid in our contract negotiation, but we also want to emphasize that our true priority is to do this correctly. We want to learn from any mistakes that occurred in the past, but we also want to build in some of the new best practices that the federal government has outlined for what a CSU ought to be. And I think if we take our time and do that right, we'll end up with a resource that is much better for the community. Thank you. Thank you for that. I guess my comment would be as advice, as you all go forward in negotiating a new contract is two things. One, your reference, the Grand Jury Report and negotiating a new contract, there's two things. One, you reference the grand jury report and the gaps analysis, but we do have a newly adopted behavioral health strategic plan that has a lot of information in it and a lot of to-dos on its list. And I would certainly hope that the crafting of the successor to the CSU follows that and references that as a means. And also as to timing, I would ask that this board either have a contract or a report by the end of the year, why we don't have a contract because as we are all well aware of the behavioral health crisis is significant throughout our society and time is of the essence So I appreciate your and your staffs Dr. Graber's work on this, but It's it's a little hard for me to see it close, but I'm hopeful that We will see something better come in its place. Absolutely. Thank you, sir. Thank you Thank you, and then Supervisor Pashong, you had comments on 21? Yeah, so item 21 is a library item for 6.6 million dollars in oil and a grand day. And I think it's a great project. It's kind of obviously appreciate library services working with the veterans folks to bring that to I just wanted to point out that the library and shandon's been closed due to I appreciate library services working with the veterans folks to bring that to. I just wanted to point out that the library and shandon's been closed due to your condition. You mean broken and so if I could just put my two cents in I get talked about all the time if we could get that air conditioning fix I'd really appreciate. Thank you. And supervisor Paul Dean 21. Thank you. Yeah. On the work-grande library renovation and remodel, I wanted to thank staff for the hard work, our library's department for what you've done to move that project forward. And then our veteran services office for working with my office and the administrative office to ensure that we have space there for that office to serve our veterans in South County. I think that's a great partnership. And really look forward to that project getting done and coming to fruition. Thanks. Okay. I didn't have any other request from any of the supervisors. And I don't think I heard anyone want to pull anything for a separate boat in my right on that. So I'll need a motion for the consent agenda. As amended, we. So moved. So that perfect. So moved. So moved. So that perfect. Thank you. That's as amended on items one and five. So we'll call vote please. Supervisor Gibson. Yes. Supervisor Teesley. Yes. Supervisor Pashon. Yes. Supervisor Paul D. Yes. And Chairperson Arnold. Yes. So okay. We are getting ready for our formal presentations and everyone's been looking forward to item number 32. This is the resolution proclaiming the month of September 2024 is National Service Dog Month. And we're always happy to have these special guests in house. We're going to ask a supervisor or T's leg. We'll give it just a minute for the room to settle. And then supervisor or T's leg will be reading the resolution today. OK. It's a great honor to be able to read the resolution for claiming the month of September 2024 as National Service Dog Month in the County of San Luis Obispo, whereas we believe in the joyful and transformative power of the human canine bond and inclusivity of all citizens, and whereas in the United States, 64 million adults and children have a disability and only 16,000 service dogs from accredited training programs exist nationwide and the need is growing. And whereas Canine Companions is a nonprofit organization that enhances the lives of people with disabilities by providing expertly trained service dogs and ongoing support to ensure quality partnerships. And whereas Canine Companions and their service dogs empower people with disabilities to lead life with greater independence by providing best in class training ongoing follow-up services and deeply committed community support. And whereas the National Service Dog Month aims to educate our community about the benefits of service dogs and the laws protecting them. And whereas the County of San Luis Obispo continues to work toward becoming an inclusive community in which all citizens and their service dogs are embraced. Now therefore, be it resolved in order that the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, does hereby proclaim the month of September 2024 as National Service Dog Month in recognition and support of service dogs and the adults and children with disabilities in our community. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So let's see. We have Vera Higgler coming up. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to be in the group. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Everybody ready? Yeah. Don't get it wrong. three two one. Perfect. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Vera Higgler and I would like to thank the County Board of Supervisors for the opportunity to represent Canine Companions during National Service Dog Month. We also have representatives from guide dogs of the desert here with us this morning. The need for service dogs is great and increasing every day. Last year we were here and we explained the history of Canine Companions. Today I want to share with the dogs that attended last year's meeting are doing. Our money was turned in for professional training in November of 2023, and graduated in May of 2024 as a facility dog for the County District Attorney's Office in Monterrey. In Salinas, he is one of three C9 Companions facility dogs in thatinas. He is one of three Canine Companions facility dogs in that office. My husband Rich and I are now raising Montel the second. He is eight weeks old and will be with us until November of 2025. Montel is joined by his brother Murphy the 10th who is being raised by Laura, a new puppy razor for Canine Companions. Lara previously raised a puppy for guide dogs of America. Bobby, a standard poodle, is a puppy raised for guide dogs of the desert and is currently in professional training in Palm Springs. His puppy razor, Juline, is now raising her new puppy, Baby, for the same organization. Pharnam was with us last year and turned into professional training in February of 2024 and graduated as a service dog now living in Utah in August of 2024. His puppy razor Trish is now finishing Edith, her dog, a dog her UCLA college student daughter and she have co-raised. Edith will turn into professional training in November 2024. Edith is Trish's fifth dog that she has co-raised for Canine Companions. Fergie, pharnum sister, was also with us last year. She also turned into professional training in February of 2024, and is continuing her training, hopefully to match and graduate in November of this year. Mary, her puppy raiser, is now raising Gurdie, a six-month-old lab golden retriever cross. Gurdie is Mary's sixth puppy for Canine Companion. Kenya was the new kid on the block at last year's meeting. She had recently arrived in Sanlos as an eight-week-old puppy. Kenya is a full-labor door retriever and will be turned in for professional training in November of 2024. Kenya is also a potential candidate for Kenan Companions breeding program. She is the first puppy to be raised by Connor and Julie. Selena was with us last year and was turned in for professional training in November 2023. She was released from the Professional Training Program and was adopted by her puppy raisers, Sandy and Patricia as their forever dog. She joined their other career change dog, Hazee, and they now represent Canine Companions as therapy dogs, serving various organizations in San Luis County. Sandian Patricia successfully raised three service dogs for Canine Companions prior to dedicating their energy to therapy dog work. Taj was with us as a young pup last year and is now in professional training as of May 2024. He was the third dog raised by Karen and Russ James. He continues to do well in training and we will see what his destiny will be. As puppy raisers we are a small part of organizations that dedicate themselves to enriching the lives of the clients that they serve. We also like to say that it is up to the dogs to fulfill their destiny. Some is service dogs, some is facility dogs, some is therapy dogs, and some is family pets. Those of us here representing Canine Companions, an organization founded in 1975 in Santa Rosa, California are proud that we are part of an organization that provides professionally trained dogs free of charge to their recipient. We've had a steady stream of service dogs come through our county. I'm sure many more dogs affiliated with various other accredited organizations are being raised in our county as well. We appreciate the board recognizing the value that service dogs provide by proclaiming September as National Service Dog Month. Thank you for your time this morning. Our film presentation will be showing, will be available through the county website, which shows some of the past and current dogs in our local group, which is led by Stephanie Ruzeroni, as well as some photos taken during professional training at CCI Southwest Campus campus in Oceanside, California. Thank you very much. Thank you. Applause. Righty, any board comments to the supervisor Pauline? Thank you, Vera and canine companions for being here. We have an amazing community and it's people like you who show that and demonstrate that and the work that you do giving back to produce these wonderful dogs to be such a good, you know, provide that function and service that we need here in our society. So thank you for what you do and for being so awesome. And to the doggies. Surprise, Artie, slight? Yeah. K9.org is your website that people can go to and they can see all sorts of ways to celebrate National Service Dog Month and also help you as you help others. And thank you so much for all that you do. I mean, we were just talking about mental health and the crisis and also the disability issues and we're just, you know, there's just no better demonstration of people working with dogs, helping people. It's just amazing. So it's really, we really enjoy you coming and reminding us of this great service and your service to the community. Thank you. So, vice-er, Gibson. Thank you, Madam Chair. You can't go wrong bringing service dogs into a board chamber. I mean, you know, smile for the camera, of course. I will say my hats off to all who train these dogs, being a semi-successful trainer of two Australian shepherds with emphasis on the semi. The work that the humans do is remarkable in the bond between these dogs. And the, yeah, I'm sorry to, to slight you, you're a fine beast, but the bond between these dogs and those that they serve is truly remarkable. So thanks for brightening our day to day. Thank you. Yeah, and I just, I too want to thank you for coming in today and bringing the dogs. It really is fun for us to have them here. And I just wanted to ask a quick question. I noticed it was one breed. I couldn't recognize, like, and see the labs and the retriever crosses. But the black and white dog was that... That's a poodle. Peer rep poodle. Pretty... Wow, that's interesting. Yeah, it's just... Maybe that represents guide dogs of the desert. Okay, beautiful dogs. So thanks again for being here. We really appreciate it. I have a question. So are more poodles being put into service? Or do we know? Because most of the time we don't see, we see labs and goldens. For canine companions, they use the lab, gold and retriever cross or the pure bread of each. Uh-huh. I don't know if guide dogs at the desert only use the stones. Okay. All right. Thank you. You're welcome to come up to the podium. If you want to explain that. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Visually impaired. So for those listening online, she's just explaining that their organization uses lapses and puddles and crosses or peer breads, not crosses, just peer breads, and for visually impaired clients. Thank you for that. Any other questions or? Okay. Well, we appreciate you being here and thank you so much. Give us just a minute and then we're going to move on to item number 33 on our agenda. All righty, Super supervisor for Sean will be reading the resolution proclaiming September 10th, 2024 as Al Food Pantry Day. And I think we should ask the folks from Al to come forward. To the podium. Come on up. You could bring Come on up. You could bring them on up. I will, ever he'd like to do that. Yeah. And just for those folks that don't know, Alf stood for a taskadero loaves and fishes. And it's Alf now. I think you guys are officially because the resolution reads, resolution for claiming September 10th, 2024, as Alf food pantry Day in the County of San Luis Obispo. Whereas Al Food Pantry, located in a taskadero, was founded in 1984 and has provided hunger relief for 40 years. And whereas Al Food Pantry served food insecure people in a taskadero, Templeton, Santa Margarita, Creston and California Valley. And whereas in 2023, Al Food Pantry distributed over 578,000 pounds of wholesome, nutritious food. And whereas Al Food Pantry Outstanding Service was recognized when the Tascadero Chamber of Commerce named it the Community Organization of 2024, a testament to its impact and the community's support. And whereas, our food pantry is open five days a week and provides food to over 40 households daily, including individuals, families, veterans, and seniors. One-third of those served our children. And whereas, our food pantry is the largest all-volunteer organization in San Luis Obispo County, there are 100 plus volunteered and no paid employees. Whereas Alfood Pantry derives funding from primarily from individual gifts, as well as private and public grants and donations. Now therefore be it resolved in order that the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo State of California does hereby proclaim September 10th as Al Food Pantry Day in San Luis Obispo County. Congratulations. come on up picture we're gonna do a picture you guys really should thank you for you thanks for being here thanks for all of you thank you for having me appreciate I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. OK. All right. Thanks. One, two, three, two, three, two, three, two. Thank you. Thank you. Would you like to say a few words? Yeah. A few words. Please. I'd like to say a few words. Yeah, a few words. Please. Yep. I want to thank the board for this tremendous honor. And I stand before you as an individual. But we are 100 and we are not just volunteers. We have an amazingly diverse group of people that manage to guide this organization that runs as a small business efficiently and effectively every day. Happen to have three members with with me today and all three of them they're based mostly in the morning they're coming in and they're setting up the pantry for the day they're stocking shelves they're building grocery boxes they're organizing things so for our afternoon distribution then our afternoon distribution team comes in and then the next morning it all starts over again because our space is so limited. We're continuing our five-year search for a new facility and NOAA lease option is not something that's feasible for us but we have built up tremendous investment reserves and we have completely paid for our building that we are in and operating in now along with the solar on top. So I looking forward to a resolution of that perhaps very soon. There's some things have kind of come and gone and I'm hoping we can succeed because without that success for us to sustain the exponential growth, particularly spiked during the pandemic, it kind of moderated a bit, the second year of the pandemic, and now it's picked up again. We have had a day, one day this year, where we serve 71 clients in one day. And those 71 clients represent between 1 and 8. So multiply that times at least 3 or 4. That's the number of individuals that we served, food that is lasting, and their groceries exceeding over 100 pounds of groceries that they're carrying out to their cars will likely last them for the week at least. We're doing doing very well with maintaining that menu, but we do that only by now, expending about $12,000 every month to purchase food. Not all of our food is through fresh rescue, and not all of our food is donated through it and kind. And we're making do with that, but go back three, four years where we could kind of roll over a little extra surplus into our investments, and now we're about balanced. We're getting by, but we need one, we need more space. We certainly can always use volunteers. And we are also examining different funding sources. We have an exceptional grant writer that our grants generate about one third of what our operating expenses. I'm very, very proud of this organization. I have expended more than a decade, working with the organization initially as the grant writer and now as the board president. But again, it's not about me, it's about we and what this organization accomplishes and it's discipline to do it the right way every day. And it's all for the clients in a multiple communities in the North County. So thank you again for the honor, and I share it with many. Thank you so much. APPLAUSE All right. I didn't know if there was anyone else who wished to speak on this item. Anyone else? Okay. Then we're gonna bring this back to the board for any comments. They may have Supervisor Pashant. I just wanna thank you for all you do. I have donated food to the pantry before and it's just wonderful people. It's a great organization, volunteer organization and thank you on behalf of North County thank you for all you do. And I want to give you my thanks as well whenever I've been down there everyone's so hardworking and so kind and compassionate it's just you really have put together an amazing organization that just does so much for the folks in well in North County and all over the county but I'm going to say mostly mostly the folks in North County so thank you so much. Supervisor T. Slay? Yeah you're really on the front lines of seeing what's going on in the community and helping you know children, seniors, families in general and seeing the kinds of struggles that they have and I'm just so grateful for your work as we've all noted. And also just working with, I was seeing your, some of your information is that some of your spiritual centers, et cetera, are gathering food and then bringing it in. And so people can participate in many different ways. And I think that we all need to do our share and this great challenge we have in affordability and nutrition. And so thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair, I'll echo my colleagues' thanks and tell you that it was a really inspiring morning I spent touring your facility a couple of years back and the commitment of your staff everybody involved in your organization to serving this fundamental human need is truly cause for great joy and optimism and to you many more years of pursuit of serving this mission. Thanks. Thank you. Thank all of you for your wonderful comments. I do want to make a closing remark that seemed to be kind of an epiphany of our city business leaders. We hosted the Chamber Mixer in May and the remark. And I know some that are with me to back me up here today agree many of the business leaders came in and their remark was, I had no idea. They really, really had no idea how we do what we do and what we do. So along with that event coming up, the Al Food Van, our flagship and members of our organization will be in the Connie Days Parade, the Conflora to the Hour. So thank you again. All right. But that we're going to move on on our agenda of public comment. And this will be open public comment. Anything that's not on the agenda and we have a few requests to speak here So we'll start open public comment Eric Greening, a vigilant supporter of the Brown Act and the transparent accountable government for which it is an essential guarantor. This leads me to question the nature of a gathering at which I was not present. In the interest of learning whether the Brown Act was followed or violated and of cautioning elected officials at all local levels of the need to observe it. I saw a notice of a Labor Day gathering in a task-adural lake park at which a quorum of your board, three of you were listed as speakers. The presence of three of you at a picnic is not in itself problematic. There is a clear exemption for social events, so long as they are just that, with no discussion among you of public business that could come before this board in the future. But seeing three of your names listed on the speakers roster of an event that could be characterized as political alerted me to the likelihood that positions on issues of county public policy might be uttered by each of the three in turn within ear shot of the other two to such an extent that substantial concurrence might have been revealed or attained on matters yet to come before this board. That would be a violation given that no formal public notice of this occasion as a board meeting was issued and no agenda available to the public was prepared. Not having been there, I can come to no conclusions about what may have transpired. But given how hard it would have been at such an event to avoid brown act violations, I feel moved to raise this concern for the record. Thank you. Thank you. Jean Burns Slater and Jane will be followed by Gary Kirkland. Thank you very much. Good morning Chairperson Arnold and members of the County Board of Supervisors. I'm Jean Burns Slater. I'm co-chair of the Civil Discourse Committee for the Legal Women Voters. The local, state, national, and climate of engaging in public discourse begs for lessons on how to constructively and effectively communicate ideas and be heard at public meetings. How can someone message across without resorting to disruptive, rude, or provocative behavior in this current climate? Feeling passionate about a topic or issue is good. And there are techniques to deliver a passionate message and be heard. Analysts at a meaningful response. The League of Women voters of San Luis Bispo County has reestablished the Civil Discourse Committee which is offering techniques to do just that, ways to constructively and effectively convey ideas and be heard at public meetings. A forum on this topic will be held in the San Luis Obispo County Library community room on Wednesday, September 18th at 6.30 p.m. This meeting is open to the public and you can pre-register at the league websites, www.slo.org or just attend. The goal of this is to help people engage in public discourse and effectively be heard. Future forms on this topic are planned for Moral Bay in the coast and in Tascadero and Pasarobos area. This form was already presented in the South County area in November, I'm sorry, in Nopomo in May. And I wanted to thank you all for promoting civility in public discourse. Thank you very much. Thank you. Gary Kirkland and Gary will be followed by Cordelia Perry. Thank you. Gary Kirkland from a taskad arrow. I want to comment on what happened in the North County on the Paserolle was basin and compare it to what's happening to the Cailloucas fire district and the Nupomo fire district. When the people in the North County voted not to form a water district over the basin, one of the supervisors up here railed the fact that it's not fair that all the county taxpayers now are going to have to pay to take care of the basin and it's not and the people who live over the basin should have to pay for it. I checked with the county assessor and I found out that because this county is taking over the Cairo-Cusfire District and the Nupomo Fire District that my taxes are going to pay for it because it's going to be paid for partially by the general fund. So my taxes now are going to have to pay for the Nupomo Fire District and the Cairo-Cusfire District. Yet this supervisor thinks it's unfair that the whole county has to pay for the basin, the Peserolv's basin. If this is not hypocrisy, what is? If he thinks that it's right, for me to have to pay taxes to support the Cairo-Cris and the Pomo-Fire district, why isn't it fair that my taxes go for the Pucas in the Pomel Fire District. Why isn't it fair that my taxes go for the past Robles Basin? Thank you very much. Thank you. Cordelia Perry. And she'll be followed by Ray Ann Mahassen. I hope I see. Hi, I'm Cordelia Perry. Good to see you. Hi, I'm Kuduya Perry. Good to see you all. I'm here actually more on our North County home residency. On Mission Street, many years ago, they built a mission market. And in the process of upgrading our little town, they put in, it's got to be at least 20 foot wide sidewalk. And the whole scheme of the idea was to make it a bus stop going northbound. The bus service out of San Miguel, California is very limited. This bus stop actually has created a safety hazard and disrupts the local businesses. The bus actually has to stop in the lane of traffic. And this is that 14th and mission. And if you're going northbound on mission, you will either stop or you will have to go around the bus and to land in oncoming traffic. It was a foolish idea when it went in many years ago. I don't know why the owner didn't fight it. We were told that once it was a Cal Poly project, another time it was the county made him decide parking out back or parking out front. This business actually has apartments. It was one of the first to be business downstairs and living upstairs. And a lot of the new businesses in San Miguel went in that way. So they've lost parking on the north side. And then we're forced to park in the back, which is a residential parking. And then you have to run the gauntlet of massive potholes in a dirt makeshift road that takes you out behind another property. What I'm asking is that this be evaluated and hopefully changed. There's no need of that sidewalk extending that far out from the building. They could have indented it like they did on the southbound in front of the CHC building. But nope, they made it as massive sidewalk, like we're in New York. And as you know, Sam McGell, I think we're up to 1800 people right now. But the town is growing and we are now limited for parking. So if you would please consider, I will also reach out to public works and see what we can do. But that sidewalk needs to be demolished. A proper bus stop put in or proper parking put in so that we can actually trade at the local businesses. It's nice to have our little stores and not have to run into Paso or Tascadero every single time we need a gallon of milk. So we'd like to keep our businesses going. We'd like to have the parking corrected. It never should have been a past when the building was built. And I appreciate you looking into it and hopefully fixing this for us. Thank you. Thank you. Rayan followed by Mike Brown. Hello. My name is Ryan. I'm the owner of the Mission Market, Lecarrie and Delhi, that Gordy was talking about. So the parking is a big issue for me. I recently purchased the property, and then I don't have any parking space. Either every other business on Mission Street has their own parking front of their businesses except of me. And then it's creating a big issue, a lot of traffic. I myself have witnessed three accidents in the same area for the, like, in the past six months. And then right now, the apartment's upstairs are not rented out yet. Once they're occupied, that will make a bigger problem for me. I literally have no parking. I really appreciate it if you guys will look into that and make any adjustments. Thank you. Thank you. Mike Brown in our last request to speak, Greg Graywall. If anyone else wishes to speak open public comment, bring up a slip please. Good morning again, Madam Chair, Mike Brown representing CoLab. As another speaker mentioned, we are disturbed by the new rule banning the use of the overhead projector, it's particularly effective with charts and tables and saves actually a lot of public comment time. And I know you all or some of you said that well, you can submit it to the board. Well, it's not the same as sharing it in the whole room and perhaps with the media and everything. So then a bigger item of concern is that the coastal commission is meeting on Thursday to again deal with federal consistency for this time a space plane that's launched in Florida and then May from time to time land here. And the commission staff and looking at that said, well, it'll be in frequent, so it'll be okay and recommended at the board or the commission approved for federal consistency. But the item was suddenly yanked from the agenda. And as you recall last month, the Coastal Commission made a huge deal out of extending the amount of launches from Vandenberg for the Space Force and for other commercial space launchers based on the number and intensity of sonic booms. And during that there was a comment by the space force that they were not going to agree to certain late hits that the staff and commission put in a federal the state's latest and the state's latest and the state's latest and the state's latest and the state's latest and the state's latest and the state's latest and the state's latest and the state's latest and the state's latest and the state's latest and the state's latest and the state's latest and the state's latest latest and the state and I think that's what's going on with the space plane here. And I don't know, you know, how the board interacts with our representative on the coastal commission who I think is a Santa Barbara City Council person. But this involves our whole economic development issue here and maybe this thing needs to be agendas, maybe she should be invited and reach and everybody getting the same room so the public could ascertain the status of all of this and where we're going. Sorry you didn't get your weekly update on this subject this week, but we have a technical problem from our central release. So call me if you need it. Thank you very much. I'm available. Thank you. And great, great wall. And then I don't have any other request to speak. So if you'd like to speak on this, fill out a slip. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning again, Board. Great, great wall. I feel out of slip. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning again, Board. Greg Graywell. First, I'd like to start out with now I understand I learned something here every time I come here. Why the 800 landowners over the first and fifth district that are in the quiet hall action have never received a resolution because we're in a lawsuit over 11 years, but we've won every one of the parts. Then I'd like to talk about, how come the county, maybe Kenyaz County Council, lost a lawsuit against Darsha Stebbins for not having paid her her $640 yet? What is the problem with that? Got plenty of money to get people raises and stuff. Next, I wanna talk about the code of civility. On the back of this yellow slip, you have five things listed. Listen first, respect, different opinions, be courteous, disagree constructively, debate the policy not the person. Last time I was here, and the discussion over whether you should take somebody's land away from for a hiking trail or a biking trail. I was very disappointed that it all turned into Debbie Arnold to provider is a bad person because she doesn't know how to vote because if you don't vote the right way on this there must be something wrong with you. These things are listed here for you guys, and you want the people in the audience to act civil. You just had another speaker speak about it, and you go out of your way to be rude if you don't get your way. I'm so amazed after coming down here for almost 14 years, You go out of your way to be rude if you don't get your way. I'm so amazed after coming down here for almost 14 years, I could look back at all the different videos and tell you exactly when something's going to happen and who's going to do it, and how they act because they're going to take their ball and go home because they didn't get their way. And there must be something very wrong. What I got out of that was one of the other supervisors called Supervisor Arnold Stupid. And I don't appreciate that. Thank you. Okay, I don't have any other requests to speak. So we are going to close public comment. We're going to move on to item, a board item number 35. And I'll go ahead and introduce it and that because I'm excited to have our friends here. This is a request to receive an update on state legislative activities by Paul Yoder and Karen Lang of Shaw Yoder and, Antwith, Shmizer, and Lang. And we're happy you make this trek at least once a year, and most of the time more often. Just to update us on all the activities going on up there that affect us all in Sacramento. So thank you for being here and welcome. Good morning Madam Chair and members. Karen Lane was Shaw, Yoder, Antwhee, Shmels, and Lang. I appreciate being here. We got here yesterday and got to spend some time with almost everyone. And then we got to see a few of your departments and had some really good conversations. So thank you. It's a very special form of torture for me to be in a room full of Labrador puppies that I can't touch. I don't know, that's a mess with my brain a little this morning. So sort of a point in time for where we are in the legislative cycle. The legislature has adjourned the two year regular session. As of Monday morning when I was adding up the number of bills, my brain enjoyed the number of 5,555 separate pieces of legislation were introduced. That number could actually go up a bit because we do have a special session which I'll touch on in a minute. the number of 5,555 separate pieces of legislation were introduced. That number could actually go up a bit because we do have a special session which I'll touch on in a minute. I'm about 900 regular pieces of legislation are awaiting the governor's action. He took a little bit of action last week, but we anticipate obviously the pace will pick up. He has until the end of September to act on all of those 900 vills, which I'll cover. The end of session this year, I would say, if you were going to give it like a pepper rating, it was ghost pepper spicy. The last day of session was pretty wild. It was on a Saturday because they have to adjourn by constitutional law at midnight on the last day of August. And so we were there till the bitter end. There were a lot of intra-house tensions that ultimately resulted in several pieces of legislation dying for a lack of them being able to get to the bills in time for the midnight deadline. You, I don't see that very often. I think the last time a bill died because it was on call in the Navinavotes, must have been maybe in the early like 2010s. So it's been a while since something like that has happened. It's a function of a lot of big ticket items coming up sort of at the last minute. The two houses not necessarily being on the same page as far as priorities and the governor also surprising them with a special session announcement sort of during their work days and the last couple of days of session. And for the public's benefit, the both houses have to vote on the same version of the bill before it can go to the governor. And at the end of session, the Senate is in possession of a lot of assembly bills, the assemblies in the possession of a lot of Senate bills. So you've got your other houses priorities in your possession, and at about 11 o'clock at night, literally physically, the Senate finally let go of about 50 assembly bills and how do they have to physically carry them to the other house's chamber in order for them to take them up. And so all the Senate bills that were waiting action on the assembly floor got set aside so they could take up their own bills. And that's how we ended up with a few bills dying on call waiting for a vote on the assembly floor. Some of the tensions were around an energy package that the Senate wanted to put together. They did not ultimately get a lot of those bills passed. The assembly surprised the Senate with a warehousing bill that was very last minute. It will affect you as a local agency because you will have to reopen your circulation elements to plan for truck routes anywhere where there would be warehousing authorized to be built. So that bill is on the governor's desk. That's AB 98. And so we'll see what happens there. The Chamber of Commerce made that agreement, that legislative agreement with some environmental justice advocates, but of note in the hearing itself when the bill is presented, the authors were asked to identify the local government representatives that were in the room negotiating the deal and there were none and they could not be identified. So when you start to try to operationalize that bill, if the governor signs it, you can remember Senator Sayarto's questions and the fact that there weren't any local governments in there to talk about what this could mean for the workload. So that was one of the really, really big ones. The assembly has convened the special session on gas prices. The Senate initially didn't seem like they were going to do that. Seems like that might have been there might have been a little softening in the last few days and they may convene the session but I think there's a little bit of frustration and the legislature as far as what we call getting jammed. You hey we want you to do this at the last minute and I think the Senate was trying to just get the work done that was on their plate that day. And so I think there was a little bit of frustration. They'll probably end up convening it. They have to do that and act before Sinney die occurs on the last day of November where that legislature no longer exists. The new one will be convened the first week of December. So this legislature, many of which will be, many legislatures will be termed out. They have to come back convene and act before November 30th, if they're going to do anything on the oil pack. The energy package that the governor wants them to do. I think the biggest piece of it is he wants the refineries in California to have a bigger stockpile of California fuel blend so that if there's a refinery that goes offline, we don't have the spikes in gas prices at the pump because they could call on those additional reserves that would have been required by law to have on site so that Californians can continue to get their gas out the disruptions. There's a lot of pushback from the industry about the cost of doing that kind of work. And so I'm not sure what will happen there, but they may come back and vote on some things related to that. As far as legislation that the county cared about, a couple of key pieces of legislation I wanted to touch on SB 977 by Senator Laird, very specific to this county would set up an independent redistricting commission for your next redistricting after the next census that is on the governor's desk. And also AB 2537 by assembly member Addis, that measure has to do with really supporting the item that comes behind us on offshore wind trying to make sure that local communities are funded to participate in what's going to potentially happen here. Certainly we've been raising that concern all along that any kind of activity on offshore wind necessitates local government resources being dedicated to it because you're the community that would be impacted by it. So I still remember Addis and her staff were wonderful to work with on that measure. It's on the governor's desk. A couple of when I was here in February, I brought a lot of bad news on the budget. Before your time, Matt, but the it actually seems to have gotten a tad better. We did have, you know, two sort of budget packages in April and June where there were certainly reductions and expenditures that affect you directly because you do so much on behalf of the state. The revenue picture is getting a little bit better, more stable. It's not like we've had any kind of big ticket lottery winning kind of revenue picture, but it is seemingly ticking back up a little bit on the 10th of every month. So tomorrow, we will see the cash receipts report for the month of August, you know, hopefully a good trend continues there because that's the, these are the numbers that will inform the January 10 budget that the governor will put together There are a couple other notable items as I'm sorry I'm flipping through the package that we sent down and there is one measure still sitting on the governor's desk maybe 2561 which Would require a few new mandates on counties related to any kind of vacancies in your departments And that's a concern to a lot of counties knowing that it's a challenge sometimes to do recruitment or retention. That's AB 2561 and we're waiting for the governor to act. And then one other thing I wanted to note before I handed over to Paul, the county was advocating to make sure that there was consistent funding for victims services because of the budget for shortfall that I had mentioned, one of the items that was going to be cut potentially was Voka, the victims of Crime Act funding. And in the final budget package, that funding was restored. And that was really important to a lot of counties, including San Luis. And you did send a letter on that. So I wanted to flag that for you. And then we do have a bond on the ballot in November, and Paul will talk about it too. But there is funding in that proposed bond in November to do some ground water work. There's dam safety money, which I know matters to this county. And there's funding for it to support, again, offshore wind. So there is that proposition for on the ballot in November, and it's got about $10 billion in total for resources related activities and some very specifically of interest to the county. So I will stop talking and hand it over to Paul. Thanks, Karen. Actually, the dogs freaked me out because I thought it must be Karen's birthday and I missed it. So that was cool. I'm gonna be brief. I like to do the look ahead and Karen was very gracious. Again, Teddy, let me do that. So let's go sequentially. October 1st, Karen mentioned the special session. The assembly will meet on the floor. October 1st. And if they have the votes, the Senate will come back. And if they don't, they won't. Or they may come in very, very briefly just to check the box, if you will, because under the Constitution, just want to make sure the public knows this as well as the board, under the Constitution, the legislature just has to convene when the governor calls the special session. They don't necessarily have to do anything when they can be. And so we'll see what happens leading up to October 1st in that assembly floor session that day. And then November 5th, obviously Tuesday, November, you might be aware of it. Election day, Karen mentioned prop, mentioned the resources bond. That's obviously of interest to counties, especially this county as she mentioned. We listed propositions 35 and 36. And our report, Proposition 35 has to do with the so-called Managed Care Organization Tax. And for counties, the thing to know there is that in this budget, not just for one year, over the next several years, the government legislature are assuming over $20 billion of revenue to the general fund that can go to any purpose that they designate. The California Medical Association has decided they've had enough and so they qualified signatures and when I say they've had enough, they've had enough of the money going to purposes other than medicine, okay, to the budget itself, to the more general spending in the budget. And so they qualified a Proposition 35, that very specifically, it would still leave some money that can be moved around in the state budget, but it would very specifically increase reimbursement rates for certain doctors in California and money that can go to distressed hospitals and other purposes. And but again, for the counties that think to really know about Proposition 35 is how much money this government and this legislature have built into this budget and want to build into future budgets again just to help out with the overall fiscal situation. There are other ballot initiatives that obviously the public is going to be interested in, but the counties will as well. Karen and I are happy to take questions about those if that's the will of the board. The next day I want everyone to think of on the calendars December 2nd, the first Monday and December. We're going to start a new two-year legislative session. Brand new, 30 plus members. We have all the termed out members. And then it's an interesting twist this year. There's at least half a dozen, close to 10 members who just decided they're not going to run for office anymore. They could, they have another two years and other four years, but they're going to run for another office or they're just going to get out of elected service. That's in addition to all the members who are termed out. And so you may recall from previous reports we talked about in influx of members into this current legislature, we're going to have this other influx on top of that. And over half the legislature will have turned over in four years over the course of two elections. And so that's just a lot of members that we have to educate about counties and about what counties do. So that will happen. That we members that we have to educate about counties and about what counties do. So that will happen. That we know will happen on November 5th. But beyond that, you know, we'll see. So that December 2nd date is also important because it is the one organizational day for the legislature. Not only can they come in and just sort of get situated, get sworn in, they can also introduce bills. Karen mentioned 5,555 bills. It's actually 5,557 bills. Now that you count the two special session bills, so beginning the first Monday in December, we will begin the process of over 5,000 new ideas. Important ideas. Important ideas. Well, we, some more important than us. Correct. Thank you, Sue Reiser. We effects when we refer to the state capital as the idea factory. And so the ideas, new ideas, will be forthcoming in the thousands, if you can believe it. And then on January 10th, obviously, the governor's proposed 2526 state budget. We're already up to 2026. Karen touched a little bit on the overall fiscal situation. The stock indices are doing pretty well. I think in the Fed, we'll see what the Fed does next week in terms of lowering or I think lowering interest rates. We'll see what the indices does next week in terms of lowering or I think lowering interest rates. We'll see what the indices continue to do through the year, but I do believe that the state will see some unanticipated revenue by virtue of capital gains. Maybe a couple billion dollars. And I do want to remind the public and the board that the state actually still has $22 billion in its reserves. So with a little luck and a little holiday spending, everybody do your part. The next budget may not be as bad as we would have thought certainly four months ago. And we would love for that to be the case for San Luis Spisbo County and counties in the individuals they serve. So having said that, I'll conclude and we're happy to take any questions aboard May F. Thank you, Paul. Any questions of the board? Supervisor Pichon? Yeah, I just our current legislative platform, we don't take a position on Prop 35 or 36 as of right now, correct? So I guess it's a question for County Council. If I wanted to make a motion to put those, to support those two propositions that are coming up on the ballot, can I do that at this time or when we get to discussion? Yes, Read and Eale County Council, when we get to discussion, if you'd like to add those today, you could do that. Thank you. Any other questions for Paul or Karen? All right. We're going to open public comment. I do have one request to speak and it's Eric Greening and I'd like to thank our Sacramento friends for their comprehensive written report as well as the oral briefing. Comprehensive as it was, it left out SB 3216 probably because it would be thought more interest to school boards than county government. I do believe however that notice should be taken as it introduces a huge discrepancy between the world of public schools where the harms of cell phones are increasingly recognized as something from which children need at least temporary protection and the world outside of schools where those of us who choose to avoid this addictive neuro-toxic technology find ourselves shut out of more and more of commerce and society. I would like to see our county add to its legislative platform advocacy for legal protection of those of us who refuse this technology. In my own case, as a person with epilepsy, I stand on the Americans with Disabilities Act since cell phones afflict me more immediately and dramatically, and also with everyone on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution since they are surveillance tools. We need legal protection against QR codes being required for access to places otherwise open to the public or to access public information. We need legal protection against any situation in which fees or comments, commerce require payment with one's phone. Good old cash is, quote, legal tender for all debts public and private, unquote. And against any requirement to validate one's identity through a phone, real ID card with the bear on it should be all that's needed. The coming of the Olympics to California particularly raises this concern, because this last summer many Parisians were shut out of their own homes and neighborhoods if they lacked cell phones coded for their entry. Dystopia anyone? Visit the website of the cellular phone task force overseen by Arthur Firstenberg, the author of the Invisible Rainbow, to begin your journey in understanding the immense harms to human environmental health we need to counter. Imagine if back in the days when doctors recommended cigarette brands on TV, the actual smoking of one had been required in all the situations that call for cell phones now. We are in an analogous situation today. Information about cell phones damage to health and society is emerging. Schools are the first frontier in adapting to these insights. Please help the rest of society benefit from these same signs, insights, rather than allowing us all to be forced into ill health and social decay. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have any other requests to speak. So you know I'll come forward. We're going to bring this. We're going to close public comment. Bring this back to the board for comments and deliberations. Supervisor Gibson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me add my thanks to Paul Karen, as always. But I'd also like to just offer my colleagues in the public a little commentary on what else went on in Sacramento and what didn't go on. Or at least things that happened that are behind the scenes. The California State Association of County is the voice of all 58 of California counties and they threw an exceptional staff that works harder than one could even imagine. A lot of things didn't happen, a particular and I just want the public to know, I joke a little bit about over 5,500 bills coming forth. A lot of them are absolutely not in the interest of counties. And the CSAC staff spends innumerable hours in the trenches, in the committees, in front of legislators, staffs, in front of the governor's staff in putting forth the interests of counties. And I'll just give you one, we've got three, four examples. Let me start with the one that I think is working well. SB 1238, as you know, the governor was very strongly in favor of reforming conservatorship, where folks who are free will has taken for a matter of grave disability. SB 1238 allows that if that disability is due to substance use disorder, a psychiatric health facility such as our Puff can be used to execute the conservatorship. That was not the case before. And so, while SB 43 promoted conservatorship reform in an effort to have the most gravely disabled folks taken care of, there was yet work to be done in order to make it go forward. That's a win for counties. In terms of bills that were antithetical to the county's interest, one died in the, the ledge did not make it out of the appropriations committee, if I remember correctly. And that was AB 2557, which would have imposed upon counties a huge burden if we chose to contract with outside identities to get services accomplished. And as those of you who follow our agendas from fairly regularly, you'll know we spend a fair amount of our budget in contracting services like homeless services and mental health services and other health and human services in particular. So it was through in a remarkable advocacy effort that that died, too made it through. I think Karen mentioned AB 2561, which imposes a lot of process on the county should our vacancy rate climb. That may or may not be a big deal for San Luis Obispo County, but it certainly would not help us any. But in some counties, the matter of the vacancy rate trigger would be one position if you think of counties like Alpine with a total of 1,200 residents. You can imagine some very small departments that could be seriously affected. We're hoping for a veto by the governor on AB 2561. And similarly on AB 1168, which would drastically reframe the way in which we contract for ambulance services. And you know, I can see out there folks are going, God, this is down in the weeds. Yeah, well, that's where county government lives a lot. And the services that get provided to the residents and visitors of this county depend a lot on a lot of gritty detail. I just wanted to bring folks attention to the fact that it is a constant battle on defense to keep the relationship between the state and the county's working in a way that's constructive. AB 1168 will allow particular city to opt out of the overall emergency medical system plan, disrupting the ambulance service for the unincorporated parts of the county. We're hopeful for Governor's veto there. So you know the reference was made on. Was it AB 98 about warehousing, no local jurisdictions in the room? That's the kind of thing that, on the one hand, drives this crazy, but also recommits CSAC to making sure that we are in front of legislative leadership and the governor to promote the interests of local governments. It's been my honor to serve CSAC for virtually the entire time. I've been in office, but I wanted the public and my colleagues to know that staff and the elected leadership of CSAC continue to do great work. So thank you, Madam Chair, for that opportunity. Yeah. Supervisor Pashant? Yeah, I appreciate the report, great report. And thank you for all your hard work in Sacramento for us. I mean, somebody's got to be in Sacramento and just glad it's not me. So thank you for doing that. But I did want to bring up today, see if we could get the votes to be able to go to our legislative platform and put in the support for Prop 35. Prop 35 would, it's about measure that will permanently use dedicated funding to expand access to healthcare and support medical providers including physicians, dentists, hospitals, women's health centers, community clinics, healthcare workers and emergency and Emergency Responders, and Prop 36. Prop 36 will fix some of the problems with Proposition 47. Since 2014, when that came into effect, we've had a 50% increase in homelessness in California. And so this would be something that would help that. And a lot of the money from that will go to treatment with a fentanyl crisis. I think it would be a very big help to be able to deal with the fentanyl crisis. So I would, I guess, just make a motion to see if we can get the votes to support Proposition 35 as subordinate supervisors and Proposition 36. And I'd be happy to second that. And under discussion, I'll just say that Karen mentioned when she first came up there and Prop 35 is, I think you were talking about it, Karen. My mind's going away here now listening to John but for me when you both were speaking about it I kept going back to my whole adult life I think in a county of our size reimbursement rates have been a problem and we hear doctors leaving all the time saying they love living here They love serving the population here, but the reimbursement rates never It's they're just always been so low. And I know that that's also a constant problem up in the northern part of the state. So there are many distressed hospitals throughout the state. This county ended up closing theirs because they just couldn't make a go of it. But some counties don't even have that option because they don't have corporate companies coming in and building hospitals. So I think this has been a huge problem throughout California for 20 or 30 years that this proposition 35 is trying to remedy. And just the fact that they're addressing reimbursement rates I think is huge for county like ours. And then Proposition 36 is a reaction I think is supervisor Pshong said to Prop 47, but particularly talks about cracking down on retail theft, which we know here and even in San Luis, but in all of our retail areas of our cities, we've seen stores close down because they can't afford the theft that they just watch happen in their own businesses. The smash and grabs the, and also then the drugs, the fentanyl dealers and so forth. It would also mandate treatments for serious drug addiction. And we've had problems with that where people that don't want to get help There's or hands are usually tied on that. So both of these propositions I think are going to be important and an opportunity for you guys talked about the legislature Paul and Karen and how Crazy it went this year and 5,000 bills. I can't even imagine trying to deal with that and it used to be a good deal. It's a little bit of a little bit of a good deal. It's a little bit of a good deal. It's a little bit of a good deal. It's a little bit of a good deal. It's a little bit of a good deal. It's a little bit of a good deal. It's a little bit of a good deal. It's a little bit of a good deal. I'm happy to second your motion, Supervisor Pashon. Supervisor Artis Leight. Thank you, Madam Chair. We really like having you come, and we know that you sacrifice a lot of your mental, physical health, these last months or so, and it's a tough, it's a tough road. And, you know, I'm not a big supporter of legislation by ballot of propositions. I think it's really created a lot of problems for us as a state. I do support Prop 36 and we can talk about that in a minute, but I just want to say that we're really grateful to have supervisor Gibson also there at the state providing, I guess I would call it the middle of the road, small county, but big thinker kind of approach because we do see things, we're closer to things than many of our colleagues in the metropolitan areas. And that I think we bring a practicality that's necessary and sometimes missing in state legislatures, particularly ours. So I want to say thank you to him. And I was happy for him to give us an overview of where we were and the things that really do impact us in regards to some of these bills that we are all opposing in regards to, whether it's the warehouse or this idea that we have to, with today's human resources issues to mandate us to do something or to penalize us when we have a human resource department that's working very hard to fill positions. And, you know, I don't care what business you're in, you can talk to anybody. The demographics of the state have changed or the nation. The country has changed. We are not in the place we were when us baby boomers were in the middle of the workforce. And so I think that there's just a lot of bad pieces here, but I'm happy to see that the The Volca funding is coming to our county that really impacts Our luminoliance folks our Casa folks people that are working with domestic violence people are working with abused children And so that's that's some good news. And then, you know, I'm probably one of the few, but as much as I know a lot of my colleagues don't see the value of this, but I'm hoping that someone brings back the small nuclear reactor bill to allow for some vision on that. We're gonna need all the energy we can get and AB 65, which was killed early in regards to finding a path for small modular reactors. I think is a very important piece of legislation for us as a state. And maybe we'll just keep trying on that one. But I'd be interested in hearing more on the MCO. I know at the, our Latino caucus of California supervisors, we didn't take a position on the MCO one. We took a position on all the ones that we are opposing and the ones we're supporting. We did support 36, but we did not. We weren't really sure about about 35. And so if anybody else has some input on that, I think the logic is there to support it. I can see that you know you're taking money from the medical industry. Should go back to the medical industry. We know we have a industry in crisis, completely in crisis particularly in rural counties like ours. So you know I'm probably very supportive of that but just wanted to hear a little bit more but I'm certainly supportive of Prop 36 even though we know that that's going to make the governor mad in that support. But I think what's more important at this point is keeping our public safety people with the tools and the sticks that they need in regards to legislation that, you know, or excuse me, a proposition that is trying to fix another proposition that needed to be done, probably went a little bit too far on Prop 47, so let's hope we can just do some readjusting in this and not go back, but just come back to a little bit more again, common sense approaches to justice involved individuals. Thank you. Supervisor Pauling. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Yeah, I wanna echo those comments in general. Of course, thank you, Paul, and Karen for being here and for your advocacy in California in Sacramento for us. I did actually have a question on Prop 35 because I haven't heard a recommendation either way from you as to what you're thinking given our status as a county. What is your recommendation? Well, I hope you all know. Am I good? I hope you all noticed that I steadfastly avoided. I tried to avoid making a recommendation, I think. It absolutely, I think Sue Reser or T's leg put it pretty accurately. It takes money from the medical industry and it would return money to the medical industry. I just think that's indisputable. If the proposition fails, then I think you have the government and the legislature moving forward with, I'll say, their plan, which is to help utilize those revenues to get the state out of its fiscal situation. So I just think, I think any intelligent person, if I have you certainly qualify, you have to weigh both sides. And, you know, I don't know that I could make a recommendation to you. Thank you. We had talked a little bit about just the reimbursement rate challenge and being treated as a rural county. And I know we've lobbied at the federal level for as much, you know, change there in terms of medical reimbursement rates. I think Congresswoman Lois Caps was successful in some legislation that, you know, years ago on that. We talked about a couple different things. Is there anything else we should be doing on this issue? Because we're working on a master plan on aging process right now and one of the number one concerns coming up for our seniors and our communities access to health care. Anything we can do, is I think a top priority of this board and if you have any additional insight, appreciate that. So the system needs more money, especially the behavioral health system in California, needs more money, especially after the Care Act, reform of conservatorship law, which the riser gives and touched touch on the system needs more money, especially behavioral health needs more money. And if I could to come back to Proposition 35, one of the things it would do is increase reimbursement rates for psychiatry in California. And I think if you ask yourself, would that help generally, with behavioral health, would that help with the care act, what it helped with conservatorship reform? I think the answer is yes. So what else, the biggest thing that could happen in America to help behavioral health is to do, if Congress could do away with the IMD exclusion. IMD for the public is institutions for mental disease, the federal government reimburses counties when they have facilities of 16 beds or fewer. So if you wanna build a 17 bed facility, it is still true in the United States of America that you basically have to kiss federal reimbursement goodbye. And there were reasons, right? Why the federal law is the way it is. But I hope in my lifetime that goes away because it would just be enormous, exponentially important for the behavioral health system nationally and in California if that could change so to very specifically answer your question. That's the thing. Thank you Paul, I appreciate that. Because the motion's on the floor, I got a couple other comments and then I'll hand it back over. Supervisor Pelt, can I just share something with you before we leave? I'd like to finish my comment. Well, I just wanted to tell you, when you were asking, I wanted you to know, I guess, in your question, asking that RCRC had unanimously, so every county belongs to the RCRC, rural counties is supporting, 35 for all the reasons they're losing, they can't afford their hospitals to stay open and all those things. We aren't in that situation, but the reimbursement thing for us. Thank you for that insight. Yeah I wanted to include my comments on 36 because we had already started that discussion before we maybe talk a little bit more about 35. On Prop 36 I do think that it's needed. I think with Prop 47 there was really good intent by the voters. It did lead to less incarceration, which was one of the primary objectives. But we have seen an uptick in retail-related theft crimes. And I like that how this particular legislative is drafted and that it's targeted. And I think it represents a balanced approach. Taking on the idea of how much fentanyl somebody can have on their person, whether they have a firearm and fentanyl, classifying fentanyl along with the other hard drugs. The reality is, we're through this initiative, we're not going to address all of the issues associated with drug trafficking, but I think this is a way to empower local law enforcement and the district attorney's office to move the needle especially to go after those those big drug traffickers. I also think this will It represents a fair approach in tackling this mash and grab issue that we've been seeing here in California It's about holding repeat offenders accountable, which I think is critical. There's also a treatment pathway for a number of these individuals which will address underlying addiction issues. And then, I guess, finally, I just want to highlight the nexus to homelessness. I would say the fact that homelessness is in the language of this initiative isn't as transparent as I think it could have been because we have I think adopted the compassion with order approach here in Slow County where we want to see outreach done to the homeless in our community. We want to ensure that they have housing opportunities that they receive the services they need, and that we also want order in our community, and we want to clean up the encampments and kind of take back our public spaces. And we shouldn't identify all the homeless in our community with that kind of stereotype that they're all drug addicted or that they're all dealing with mental health issues, notwithstanding that a large number number of individuals who are in the encampments are dealing with substance abuse and mental health issues. So it's critical that we continue to lift up the good work that we're doing with our behavioral health initiatives, trying to close the gaps in our continuum of care, to have services like the crisis stabilization unit and Unit and the Psychiatric Health Facility, the sobering center, we're really kind of building out that continuum and we're strengthening our outreach to the homeless in our community who are dealing with substance abuse disorder and mental illness through our community action teams, our mobile crisis units, we're doing a lot of that really important work. So I think the two kind of go hand in hand. Some of the criminal justice reform that Prop 36 seeks to increase accountability for our community and strengthen that order side as well as dovetail with what we're doing on the compassion side. So I will be supporting the motion to take a position in favor of Prop 36 today. On Prop 35, I look forward to further discussion by the board because it's a little bit more nuanced. Thank you Thank you, madam chair. Let's be clear that the motion before us is to bring these back for consideration and seeing where the votes are on that particular action. No It's just work them. Are we agindized at this point? I ask County Council. Read the Niel County Council. You are agindized today to speak about the legislative platform and those items that are relevant and Sacramento today. So if you wanted to basically add to your platform support of these two propositions, I believe that's acceptable. Or I don't know that we need to add them to the platform since they're transient things. We can simply make the motion to, well, we have to take them out of the platform. So I'm just thinking if you want to pose a support for these, this would be. I'm doing it under, I believe that I'm doing it under the rules that are available to me at this time with Platform so we have an open discussion on a platform today, and I that's all right We'll deal with the platform next year So that being that being the cases. This is the action here. I won't be supporting the motion for a couple of reasons first of all on prop 35 the intent of that is Is excellent and seems right on. The consequences and I echo Supervisor Ortiz Legs' suspicions about legislation at the ballot box. The intent of that is much more complicated. First, within the proposition itself, the benefits to San Luis Obispo County are not as clear as you might think they are and to really in my mind to make an informed decision about what's best for San Luis Obispo County would require an extensive analysis by your staff. CISAC board just a couple of weeks ago voted noticeably not to take a position. And the reason there was that the impact on counties is highly variable, but more importantly, the impact on the budget that just got passed is substantial. And if I remember correctly, should proposition 35 pass, it looks like there's about $12 billion of impact in budgets over the next three years. And I'd ask if I need to be corrected on that, my thought is that there might be, I don't need to be corrected. God, it's a good day. That in the current budget, I think it might be close to $5 billion worth of budget solutions will be undone by the passage of Prop 35. Not necessarily a bad idea to pass Prop 35, but one of the great successes of our work on the budget this year was to protect fundamental health and human services and should prop 35 pass then many of those might be undone. So there may be as many negative consequences to our efforts to serve people as there are positive. And again, without a detailed analysis for Sandless of Bispok County, I don't think it, first of all, I don't think it makes a huge difference what the position of our board is in the overall scheme of Prop 35. Sorry to be a little bit cynical about that, but again, the actual impact on our counties is not clear. Prop 36, that's one where reasonable people can disagree on the advisability of that. And we had a very, I think, constructive conversation at CSAC about the benefits and the costs of Prop 36, a little bit less so conversation regarding the package of bills that were put forward by the legislature as an alternative to Prop 36. I think it's going to cost 36. My own feeling on this is that Prop 36 seems likely to pass at this point. I think there are some significant unintended consequences. I think it goes too far in some areas. It's going to certainly cost the state more money and it's going to cost the county more money. And again, it's a little hard to predict exactly how much more money prop 36 is going to cost the county because it revolves around how many incarceration and how many go to the state and how much less money comes to the county. But again, I think that that discussion is not fully fleshed out. So overall, I think the other observation I have is I look at the structure of Prop 36. My own opinion is that it's not going to accomplish what it thinks it's going to accomplish. I think it's an easy idea for some individuals to put forward. We heard a back and forth at the CSAC board meeting as we chosen the end to support it. But there's no simple fix to the nature of the crimes that are being considered here. And so my personal, my personal feeling is I think the legislature's package of bills is superior to Prop 36 on the whole. Again, I think the fact that reasonable people can disagree on it is just an aspect of our life at this Well, I think I think it is an entry it is a particularly interesting proposal Because thoughtful people can come to conclusions on one side or another it I happen to come to the Conclusion that it's not in the best interest of the county or the state and I assume we're not going to separate the two. And so we'll just take the vote as it is. Oh, supervisor T. Slank. Yeah. That's. I don't want to. So I think that on the prop 35. That was my concern is that not allowing flexibility. That's what's a problem with these propositions that voters put in is that not allowing flexibility. That's what's problem with these propositions that voters put in, is that there, then we have no flexibility. That's why we have to do prop 36, because there's no flexibility on prop 47 that we voted, I voted for. And, you know, I think it was brought to us like, do you think people should go to jail if they get caught with a marijuana cigarette? You know, no. Do you think people should go to jail if they get caught with a marijuana cigarette? No. But did we know that there was going to be the consequences of, but you could go ahead and steal up to $1,000 worth of goods and not even get your hands laughed? That's that we didn't know we were voting for. So this is kind of what happens with some of these things. And I think on the MCO tax, I, that it's problematic because of the explanation here in regards to the flexibility necessary to meet the budget constraints that we have, and particularly for our social services, as much as I know that we really need to go back to spending the money back in our healthcare system. So I'm a little conflicted on that one still. But for 36, for sure I want to vote yes on that. And I agreed, we don't know what the cost is going to be. But we know what the cost is right now to our communities, to our residents, to our rural folks, to our electrical subcontractors who are having stuff stolen at all times. We know what the cost is there. And I think that for us right now is a county that has diversion courts, which is a good reason why we can go forward on this, because we do have a path for people to find a settlement in their crimes if they have behavioral health issues, if they are veterans with PTSD, et cetera. We have a number of diversion court possibilities and I think that that that gives me Confidence that for our county that this this is something that we need to work towards at least so I I would ask the Motion-maker if we can separate out the propositions Let me Supervisor Pishon. Okay. I wanted to just point out a couple facts about Proposition 35. So California over the last 15 years has redirected more than $30 billion in healthcare funding to other projects, $30 billion. So think about that if we were able to take that $30 billion and keep it in the counties to be able to do things for people. Proposition 35 will prevent the state from redirecting these funds for non-health care purposes. Guarantee that these billions of dollars and health care dollars are spent on patient care, health care workforce development training as intended. This is what the law is supposed to do and they've been moving this money around in the legislature. So this is important and I want you to understand that in rural counties which there are 40 of them that are in a rural county representatives of California which is an organization that we are represented at, they 40% of those folks are on Medi-Cal in these counties and they get they use Medi-Cal and so what you're talking about is being able to keep that money and it goes to mental health services. It goes to all the different services in each of the county. That's what this does. Now I understand that there's some people on this dius that don't don't agree with that but I believe that the way to deal with our health care funding, and we are having a crisis. We've talked a lot about fentanyl right now, and fentanyl is in our communities. We have a record number of overdose deaths in this county and other counties, and we've never seen anything like it, and to get that funding to bring it back here, and keep it here, so we can continue to offer these services and help people, I think is just, it's the reason why I'm supporting Prop 35. On Prop 36, once again, it's accountability. Since Prop 47 came into effect in 2014, we've had a 50% increase in California in homelessness. We lead the country in the number of homeless people in the country. And to me, it's not necessarily the extended jail sentences if you're stealing things. It has to do with the treatment. We need more treatment for addiction. You heard supervisor Pauline talk about the number of people that are homeless and are they addicts or mentally ill? I would say, up where in my community, 80% of the people that are homeless right now that are not in the shelter system, that are not working their way, 80% are either addicted or mentally ill and I can't tell you because I'm not a doctor whether which came first but it is it is the responsibility of this board I believe to come out in force on these two initiatives to be able to help the community that we're dealing with we have a crisis to deal with a crisis these are the things that we need to deal with it and this is compassionate this is we have empathy for our friends and our neighbors that are in addiction are dealing with mental health But we should support these initiatives And I I'll just say and then we can go on round two and talk about what I want to say that I'm wholeheartedly I already did on this prop on this motion But what I want to say about prop 35 I think it's really telling in California that the two Organizations the two prominent organizations that represent county interests, one, the RC, RC Sac, county association, state county association represents all the counties. And that includes the rural and the urban counties, the big urban areas, and then the rural counties of the RCRC that was mentioned is an association that is just kind of the more rural counties getting together understanding. I mean, I wasn't there when it was started up, but I have participated in understanding that they have some different needs. The fact that over time, our medical reimbursements for medical and other programs in our counties, a lot of that money's gone to what you can almost describe as a general fund. It's being taken out of the money's being used for other things and not for reimbursements, not for adding back to the medical care needs of the counties. Well, of course, we can see how over time, the small rural counties are suffering the most. They don't have, they're not in large urban areas and they don't have access to any healthcare in some instances. When their hospitals fail, they have to go to other counties or maybe travel to the San Francisco Bay Area, the Los Angeles, Greater Los Angeles area. So I think this Prop 35 is very important to the rural counties. And I know that we've heard for years from our medical professionals to the point that we know we've lost doctors over this. They can't, the reimbursement rates are just not high enough and they don't practice, they don't continue to practicing counties like ours. So for that reason, I think it's Prop 35 is important to us. And I can see why CSAC may stay neutral. They've got not as important when it was discussed on the Stias. Hey, but that money that's being taken away from the health treatments is going to other things that the state uses. Well, yeah, but I don't, I think finally, it's time for the rural counties to say, whoa, they're not, that you're taking out of our county and you're not reimbursing our medical professionals and dealing with our health care needs. And it's just going into the state, the giant, I always say, money grabbing beast that is Sacramento, sorry Paul and Karen, but that's what I think of it as. And then on Prop 36, it's so interesting to me that we were trying to create statewide again. So we're talking rural and urban areas. We were trying to create a cost savings by having fewer incarceration. And as the experiment goes on, I think what that led to is we have fewer incarceration, all right, and it is a huge cost saving to the state, but it puts the criminals right back out on the streets for businesses and citizens to have to deal with. So that's, I know that it was discussed, and I could agree in some cases with supervisor T. Slaig saying, propositions aren't always the answer. Prop 47 is a perfect example to me. It was presented, I think, the headlines on that one was Safe Schools and Neighborhoods or something, if I remember right. And everyone, wow, we love that. Check. And what we ended up with was, were other problems. So, propositions aren't always the answer, but I think when a problem gets so great that the citizens feel like they need to organize a proposition, get it on the ballot to try to make some remedies, or have some remedy to what they're dealing with. And in these two cases, I think that's just what we're seeing. So I'm fully supportive of your motion and Supervisor Pauline has some comments. Thank you, Chair. In light of the discussion, I'll be supporting taking a pro position on both of these today. However, as a courtesy, I would just ask the motion maker if we can take those one at a time. That way, for example, if supervisor Ortiz Lake was going to vote on no on 35 and wanted to support 36, the record would reflect actual support as opposed to voting down a motion. Okay, so I will make a motion that we approve Proposition 35. I'll second. Under discussion, Madam Chair, first of all, let me just observe that the support of Prop. 35. I'll second. Under discussion, Madam Chair, first of all, let me just observe that the supported Prop 35 is not an urban county versus rural county issue. In fact, one of the strongest and most articulate supporters of Prop 35, in an effort to get CSEC to support it in the whole, was our second vice president from Santa Clara County. And at the same time, upon further reflection, various rural counties understand that Prop 35 has pluses and minuses for them. My opposition to this motion is first that I think no position is appropriate, taking a neutral position by this county's appropriate because we don't know exactly what the passage of Prop 35 would do for our county. Okay, let's call the question. Okay, this is the motion on Prop 35. Can we have a roll call vote, please? In that, that we're going to, the motion specifically says we're going to support this proposition as part of our legislative platform. Yes. Yeah. Supervisor Pashong? Yes. Supervisor Paul D. Yes. Supervisor Gibson? No. Supervisor Teesleg? Yes. And Chairperson Arnold? Yes. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve support of Proposition 36 in our legislative platform. Second. And again, under discussion, I'll oppose this motion. My personal feeling is that there are better alternatives, both existing and in the proposed legislation, the past legislation of the legislature, already signed by the governor. But once again, it's not at all clear to me that the passage of Prop 36 has a uniformly beneficial effect on San Luis Obispo County. And again, I would probably argue for no position on this one. Okay, we'll call for the question, please. Supervisor Pashong? Yes. Supervisor Paul Dean? Yes. Super supervisor Gibson. No supervisor T's like yes Person Arnold. Yes, so with that we're gonna thank Paul and Karen for being here. No if it travels Yeah, thank you Sure we being asked for a five minute break. So we'll be back at one 15 11 7 for five minutes? Five minutes break. So we'll be back at 115, 117. 117. We're going to move on with the next slide. Okay. Everybody, we're ready to go. We're going to go. We're going to move on with the next slide. We're going to go. We're going to go. We're going to go. We're going to go. We're going to go. We're going to go. We're going to go. We're going to go. We're going to go. We're going to go, we're going to move on with, we're going to move on with item number 36. Yep, okay. Okay. All right everybody we're going to move on with item number 36 and we're going to ask the clerk to introduce item please. Item number 36, the request to approve the sole source special services consulting contract with MacDonald Group Incorporated in the amount not to exceed 684,750 the city of Moorabay. The city of Moorabay. The city of Moorabay. The city of Moorabay. The city of Moorabay. The city of Moorabay. The city of Moorabay. The city of Moorabay. The city of Moorabay. The city of Moorabay. The city of Moorabay. The city of Moorabay. between $315,250 with Port San Luis, Cal Poly and the City of Morrobe. All right, so we have our presenter for this, will be our own administration. And thank you, Chair, Chair Arnold and members of the Board. Good morning, Rebecca Campbell, Assistant County Administrative Officer, and this is Susan Strachan, Division Manager from Planning and Building Department. I'm gonna turn it over to Susan, who's going to kick it off. Good morning. Thank you. So today we're here to seek approval for a Social Source contract with, there we go, with Matt McDonnell, and then also authorize the County Administrative Officer Designy to sign a subrecipient funding agreements. For purposes of background, in 2022 state budget, the county was awarded a million dollar earmark. The funds were specifically allocated for a deep water port feasibility study for offshore wind procurement. In previous studies that we have been done, it identified areas of the Longness San Luis Bistubo County coast as potential sites for offshore wind, operation and maintenance facilities, and specific public locations identified, included Port San Luis, the Cal Poly Pier and Marl Bay. So staff is proposing that the funds be used for preparation of an offshore wind operations in maintenance infrastructure study for Port San Luis, the Cal Poly Peer and Mar-O-Bay. The remaining funds from the million dollars would be used to provide Port San Luis Harbor District, Cal Poly and Mar-O-B with sub-recipient agreements. Those funds would be used for staffing resources for their work on the study and also for communications and community engagement associated with the study. The study would be prepared by Montmack Donald under a sole source contract. Montmick Donald under a sub of sole source contract. Montmick Donald is a global engineering management and development firm. They've got expertise and offshore wind and it's necessary infrastructure and they've also been involved in the preparation of two recent offshore wind studies, which included a valuation of Port San Luis, the Cal Polypier and Mar-O-Bay. The first study was the 2022 Reach Central Coast Emerging Industries Waterfront Sighting and Infrastructure study. In this study, Montmigdonald was selected through a competitive bid process in which the county participated and the city was developed with Reach in partnership with San Luis Obeso County, Santa Barbara County, and the city of Marlowe. In this reach study, Montmick Donald evaluated necessary facilities for the construction and operation of offshore wind, and it specifically included a valuation of these areas, set parts and lose Cal Polypyr and Maro Bay in the county. Montenegro also prepared sections of the 2023 State Lands Commission AB 525 Port Readiness Plan. The scope of this study included in valuation of potential O&M facility sites along the central coast and again, including Port San Louis, Cal Polypyr and Morrow Bay. So with the new study, the intent is to build upon the previous work that Malt Mcdonald has done, although it would involve digging deeper and getting into more detail. So to understand the scope of the study, I think it's important to first talk about what are we, what are we thinking, speaking of when we talk about an offshore wind, operation and maintenance of facility. Basically, it's a place for vessels to dock. Specifically, service operation vessels, crew transfer vessels. The service operation vessels, for example, would be out at C, doing maintenance on the turbines for up to two weeks at a time, come in to docked for 12 to 24 hours, get more supplies, new crew, go back again for another two week period. The crew transfer vessels are out for a shorter time period, more like a day, go to shorter distances. So we're looking at, again, docking of vessels like that. O&M also includes warehouses, offices, and storage yards. Although those do not necessarily need to be located immediately adjacent to the coast. So I'm going to turn it over to Rebecca, who's going to get into more detail on what Operation Amatens facilities could look like. So I'm going to turn it over to Rebecca who's going to get into more detail on what Operation and Maintenance facilities could look like. Do you want to take that? Okay. Keeping in mind that every site will have unique features and options, we wanted to take a look at what might these look like. And so we're going to show you some examples around the world that we were able to look at. So this is an example of operations and maintenance facility. It's the Taiwan International Port's Corporation facility, and it's located in Tai Chiung, Taiwan. This one is a rendering of a potential site that will be in Tisbury, Maryland in the United States. This is an operation in maintenance facility rendering. You can see the boats. And that would be for the Maryland Offshore Wind Project. This is another example of offshore wind project. This is another example of operations and maintenance facility. This one's located in Scotland at the Montrose Port. These are an example of the vessels. So on the left side is the crew transfer vessel. These are about 65 to 90 foot long. Their duration offshore is one day, and trips usually are limited to approximately 30 miles. On the right side of the screen is the service operations vessels or SOVs. They're typically anywhere from 250 to 300 feet long and can accommodate up to 100 wind technicians and crew and their duration offshore would be about two weeks so they would come in, pick up their crews and go back out. To be clear there are no actual plans designed on right now. In our first earlier study this was depicted this is a depiction of our larger facility for offshore wind. There are no larger facilities proposed to go on the central coast. Long Beach and Humble are pursuing development of those type of facilities and so the staging and assembly would take place there. So just to be clear, an earlier study explored, whether these facilities could be accommodated here and this picture is not representative of the facility that would be here. I want to just talk briefly about what the scope of work is under the study. I think it's important to point out first that the scopes were developed with input from Port San Lewis, Harbor District, Cal Poly and Marrow Bay. The Montmack Donald would be under contract with the county, but they would be working with us and with these other entities. So the studies divided into two parts. There would be one study for San Louis Bay covering Port San Louis and Cal Polypyr and then another study for Marl Bay. They would both be prepared in parallel. The San Louis Bay study would take approximately five months. The Marl Bay study would take approximately nine months and the difference is tied to the different scopes of work for both of the studies. So what they have in common is that obviously, they kick off meetings for both. They would both have a basis of assessment and existing conditions assessment, basically establishing a baseline. They would include an assessment of nagevigation and dredging requirements, environmental and permitting assessment, and then resulting in a conceptual waterfront infrastructure design and a general cost estimate for the design. Where the scopes are different for ports and Lewis and Cal Poly, it would include a key side mooring and downtime assessment. So this would include wave modeling that would look at when waves conditions would preclude a vessel from docking and based on that would additional protection in the bayry be required. Would also look at an assessment of potential co-uses and benefits. So for example, how would offshore wind, operation and maintenance work in conjunction with the existing uses of Port San Luis and with Cal Poly? In terms of Moro Bay, there would be an evaluation of onshore sites to support offshore wind. And then this for scope for Moro Bay includes two public meetings with Montmigdon to discuss the draft and the final study results. I want to point out that this does not at all mean that there won't be public meetings or public outreach associated with the San Luis Bay study. It was just when we developed the scope. This aspect was included in the Marrow Bay study for Cal Poly and Port San Luis. We're going to be coming back to you in a month or two with another contract for a communications firm. The public meeting and outreach for the port and Cal Poly will be developed as part of that scope. In terms of the subrecipient agreements, these would be agreements with the county and individual agreements with the county Port San Luis Harbor District, Cal Poly in the city of Marl Bay. And the intent is to transfer the remaining funds from the million dollar earmark remaining would be after the Montmigdonal contract is $315,250 to each of that divided up between the entities. The funds would be used for staffing resources for them to work on the study, and then also for the communication and community outreach activities. So once again, we're recommending that the board approve the sole source contract with Matt McDonald for not to exceed amount of $684,750. And then authorize the County Administrative Officer Designee to sign the subrecipient agreements with Port San Luis Harbor District, Cal Poly, and Maro Bay, and Rebecca and I are available for questions. Questions of the board? The one question is in regards to the entities that you're partners that you're dealing with, they're all good, right? So I remember six months ago I was getting a lot of questions from one of those partners. And so I just, they appear to be moving in the direction of wanting to get this study going for the information that it's going to provide the community. That's correct. Okay. Okay. Easy crowd. No more questions. Well, of the board will. Go ahead and open public comment. I have quite a few. Request to speak here. So we'll start off our public comment with Cara Woodruff, District Director for Senator John Laird, and Cara will be followed by Rachel Whalen. Good morning, Chairperson Arnold and Supervisors and staff. My name is Cara Woodruff on the District Director for State Senator John Laird, and I'm here today representing him. and supervisors and staff. My name is Cara Woodruff on the district director for state senator John Laird. And I'm here today representing him. Senator Laird secured the funds for this contract in the state budget to enable slow county to assess the viability of smaller operations and maintenance facilities in three areas, Port San Luis, Cal Polypier, and Moro Bay. I want to note again that this study will focus on smaller, unlikely vessel-based O&M facilities, and not the very large staging and integration facilities that were earlier proposed by Reach, as you know, that design is off the table. The purpose of the study is to ask and answer what types of O&M facilities may be viable and appropriate in this region. And a lot of our counties unique, ecologically rich and largely natural and undeveloped coastline. The right kind of Owen and facility may be critical in serving the central coast when energy area and thereby supporting the state's transition to renewable energy sources, which is of course essential in managing our climate crisis, and also brings much needed jobs and revenues to the central coast. In the end, Senator Leard believes it is possible to support offshore wind development and a strong local economy while also ensuring the protection of the marine and coastal resources of the central coast. And that is the purpose of this study to explore and find the right path to serve all of these goals. He commends a county's leadership in moving this analysis forward and urges your yes vote. Thank you. Thank you. Rachel Whalen followed by Eric Greening. Good morning, Madam Chair and supervisors. I'm Rachel Whalan, the governmental affairs coordinator for the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. I'm here today to communicate our position to support your proposal to enter into agreements for the purpose of preparing offshore wind operation and maintenance facilities, infrastructure studies at Port San Luis, the Cal Poly Pier and Moro Bay. The Slow Chamber Board of Directors recognizes that almost all the proposals on the future of offshore wind off the central coast have been mostly theoretical. That is why we, the Slow Chamber of Commerce, continue to advocate for allowing the lease holders and the decision-making bodies to take the important next steps of surveying, mapping and studying the feasibility of those theories. The information we are operating with right now is our best guess of what's possible for offshore wind. But now it is in the best interest of the community and the decision makers to understand what these proposed developments would actually look like where they would actually reside, and what actual impacts it would have on our community. The slow chamber believes those who would tell you to just deny it before getting definitive actual information or worse yet are using misinformation on this issue, are doing a disservice to our community, our state, and our long-term sustainability. We view that your proposed contract with Montmigdonald is an important step towards giving our community an accurate picture of what could be coming to our region if offshore wind was to be found feasible to operate off the central coast. Previous conversations had said that the large staging and integration facilities could potentially be in our region. After further study and discussions, it was decided that wasn't going to be the possibility. And now if it happens, it will be located all the way down in Long Beach. Those discoveries happened because of the continued study and analysis of offshore wind. That is precisely why we need to continue to understand the feasibility and opportunities of all these locations as offshore wind operation and maintenance ports. The study will allow you and our community to have a real understanding of the impacts that come with this work. We appreciate you spending these resources ahead of time to help our community understand what our future could and would look like with offshore wind as a part of our slow county region. Thank you. Thank you. Eric Greening and Eric will be followed by Eric Venom. Thank you. I'm Eric Greening to quote from your staff report. mock mock mock McDonald was quote selected through a competitive bid process with reach unquote by the time it reaches your board then it is packaged as sole source along with the Rincón subcontract how did it come to be that the bidding process was overseen by an entity not connected by a chain of accountability to the public. Normally, county staff and or the staff of Moro Bay and or the harbor district directly answerable to elected officials who were answerable to the public would be entrusted with this responsibility for doing the public's business. How did reach gain this power? Was there a public hearing at which it was openly decided they would be vested with it? Due to this process irregularity, I would prefer that you not move forward with this. In the event that you do move forward and the studies are prepared, I would ask that all impacts be evaluated simply as impacts and not offset against imaginary climate benefits. These benefits are imaginary because creating new energy sources does not subtract emissions unless more emissive sources are permanently shutting down. What we are seeing instead is rising electricity demand to accommodate vehicle electrification and the voracious energy voracious server farms to force more and more AI, which we have always done without into our lives with huge prospects for all sorts of mayhem. Until we have genuine conversations about restricting to energy use to that which makes our lives better rather than worse, climate action should focus on drawdown via living natural systems, leaves, ocean plankton, soil microbes, beavers, allow these to thrive and we can thrive with them rather than making environmental sacrifices on illusory pretexts. Thank you. Thank you. Eric? You see, Eric? I'll come back to Eric. I don't see him in the room. Okay. Okay. I'll save it. Karen Tillman. Thank you for checking. Good morning or afternoon. My name is Mandy Davis. I represent React Alliance. I'm the president. Additionally, I'm representing a national off-shore wind opposition alliance called NOAA. And I represent thousands of people nationwide. And they agree with my comments here today. I do agree with everything that Eric had to say. The absurdity of the fact that the county is looking at doing feasibility studies does not escape me or many others in this county. Why do feasibility studies, when one, CET is already doing one for Port San Luis, and that was discussed at length last night at the AVAC meeting. Two, Moro Bay is obviously, if you knew anything about Moro Bay, the fact that it's even on the table, and also the fact that when companies have agreed in closed session and in private meetings, that Moro Bay is not a viable alternative. It's narrow, it's shallow, it is marine protected area, it is the site of endangered species habitat, there is extensive ash and the ridiculousness of even looking at Moro Bay is pretty mind-blowing. But also have a question, why in God's green earth, would you guys consider contracting a company that the last time they did a feasibility study, it was less than sufficient. And I'm being a really polite, and you know me. I'm not generally polite. So why would you even take a look at that? But here is what's really interesting. Is that the county keeps saying, we don't have anything to do with offshore wind. We're not a player. We don't have anything to do with the decisions that are being made. Yet here you are. Why is that? And why made yet here you are. Why is that? And why is it that you are looking at feasibility studies for an industry that is increasingly being opposed here in the county, that you refuse to listen to our voices, and that you are looking to do something that is 100% unnecessary. React opposes this absolutely and unequivocally. Thank you. Karen Tillman and Karen will be followed by Susie Watkins. Good morning Chair Arnold and Board of Supervisors. My name is Karen Tillman and I am the Economic Development Advisor to Cal Poly President Jeff Armstrong. I would like to express our support for the county's efforts in commissioning this feasibility study for offshore wind ports in Port San Luis and Morro Bay. The Central Coast region is uniquely positioned to become a leader in clean energy. As we explore the potential for offshore wind, it's critical that we've proceed with a full understanding of the engineering, environmental, and economic impacts. Your approach to commissioning a detailed engineering study will ensure that any decisions made are informed by structured analysis and grounded in a realistic understanding of what is possible and what is not possible. The offshore wind industry offers an unprecedented opportunity for a region in terms of economic development, job creation, and contributions to California's ambitious climate goals. At the same time, we must protect the natural beauty and environmental integrity that define the central coast. Balancing these priorities requires not just good intentions, but rigorous fact-based analysis to ensure that we understand the full scope of what port development could bring. As we consider the potential development of offshore wind and its associated port infrastructure, it is important to recognize the long-term benefits projects like these have to potentially increase the economic benefits to our economy, creating high quality jobs and positioning the central coast as a hub for renewable energy innovation. We are all deeply committed to understanding that these gains must be achieved in a way that considers environmental sustainability, coastal ecosystem protection, and community engagement. I would also like to extend my thanks to County staff for spearheading this effort. We know it hasn't always been easy, but the diligence you've shown in working with the process with all of us has been greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time today. Thank you. Let's see here. Susie Watkins. Susie will be followed by Tess K. Or Ted. Ted, yeah. Susie, thank you. Good morning. I'm Susie Watkins. I am the Harbor Director for Port San Luis Harbor District. I would echo and emphatically agree with everything Karen Tillman just told you. In short, the harbor district has been evaluating the possibility of hosting a facility in support of offshore wind for some time and over the last few years that focus has narrowed to an operations and maintenance hub as being the best fit for the San Luis Obispo Bay. Our staff has been working with county staff as well as staff from our partner agencies for some time tracking the developing information and navigating how best to support this new and evolving energy sector. This presents an unmatched opportunity for our district and we are excited about the possibilities to generate investment and job creation for the region as a whole. We appreciate the support provided by the state to fund this infrastructure study and follow on public outreach and education as we move through the process. We're looking forward to robust dialogue and public engagement. We are looking forward to receiving the information from the study on today's agenda and thank your board for your engagement in this important effort. Thank you, Ted Key. Ted and Ted will be followed by Aaron Pierce. Good morning, Ted Key from Cambria. I have some concerns regarding the state grant and the pro-posed spending and I'll try to stick to that issue as opposed to my full view points on passive power for California which given the climate crisis must be put on a greatly accelerated pace which isn't offered by offshore wind. First, sole sourcing is always worsen, especially when there were issues previously from that provider. I wasn't privy to the bidding process, but I'm always skeptical of such decisions, certainly in this case. Second, it would seem that the proposed technical assessments is a repetition of what CET is already doing in Avala. Why repeat it? Now it seems anyway that Moro Bay isn't being considered for construction or services center. The concern there seems to be the Vistra battery proposal that apparently the Coastal Commission isn't very fond of, at this point. The real issues for California are storage and transmission, and a lithium battery center there is the wrong choice, and I'm with Coastal on that one. What I believe should be done is a large outreach to the central commissive communities to really see what your constituents think about the real ramifications with floating offshore wind. These meetings must be very well advertised, and they must have equal representation from all voices side by side, or they are rendered useless and stilted. I know large numbers of people in Morabe are adamantly opposed to the Battery Center, i.e. the best mess. I know from last night at the AVAC meeting that there are now more people in Avola that have grave concerns as awareness has been greatly accelerated as they awaken to the imminent realities. Many of the numbers I saw shown last night, I believe are horribly underestimated. Yes, wind power has been disgusted in pro-media, such as the Tribune, but people are only really waking up now with the money actually in play. Wind can be a solution to power source, but not in this configuration. I am thoroughly disgusted with several NGOs who appear to be bought out by big wind and by leaders whom I voted for, not being willing to stand up for the obvious flaws both ecological and economic with this method of energy generation. Let me provide a data point up front. The dozens of Cambrians I've spoken to real at even the idea of placing moonstone beach in the same pair as Nantucket when twice blade failures led to beach shutdowns. We are in direct line of the detritus from the destroyed blades or turbine explosion, which will happen given the number of turbines proposed. Until this point, you guys have managed to keep yourself out of this because it's a federal issue but no longer after today when you make your decision you will be in play. Thank you Mr. Key, Aaron Pierce and Aaron will be followed by Carolyn Krueger. Thank you. Good morning everyone. I'm Aaron Pierce, the director of the Initiative for Climate Leadership and Resilience at Cal Poly. My comments are in support of the proposed infrastructure feasibility study as an important part of the responsible path forward. And in general about the importance of offshore wind for the central coast, neutral with respect to the consultant. In the big picture, every breath we take and every bite we eat impacts the environment. So the critical question of sustainability is how to govern development in a way that minimizes impacts and maximizes benefits for present but also all future generations. We have two premises. The population will increase. People will require power. And this will only increase as our economy goes electric. So how do we provide power in the most responsible and least environmentally impactful way? Offshore wind is a critical part of the supply power supply mix. For example, the entire country of Uruguay now uses 97% renewable energy. Notably, they do not use battery storage. They solve the challenges of solar intermittency entirely by balancing the power supply mix with solar wind, biomass, and hydro. Thus any decision for or against offshore wind development is a decision against or for fossil fuel development. These decisions can be influenced by misinformation and so it's important to be on guard. According to investigations by Brown University, the Center for American Progress and multiple other research teams, fossil fuel corporations are actively spreading misinformation about the impacts of offshore wind, exaggerating impacts and a bid to discourage development, which has sometimes been successful. However, with respect to emissions, effluent, ecosystems damage, transportation impacts, material life cycle analysis, and other metrics, the impacts of fossil energy are much more extreme. Therefore, arguments against offshore wind for environmental reasons amount to arguments in favor of a far more dangerous and impactful alternative. An article entitled Spatial Planning Offshore Wind Farm, and sorry, Wind Energy Farms in California, by White at all, appeared this year in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Development. The research team conducted an extended analysis of the Moro Bay Wind Energy Area and found that responsible development of offshore wind is strongly compatible with both local ecosystems and continued fishery and tourist operations. Additionally, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has only designated three call areas on the west coast and two are here in our county. This comes at a time when the world must shift quickly away from fossil fuels to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis and it means that build out of clean energy infrastructures necessary here. In addition to being a key part of an environmentally friendly future, offshore wind development would be a key economic driver for the county. There's an overwhelming national demand for clean energy from offshore wind and the development of maintenance facilities for offshore wind is a huge opportunity for the community and would lead to dozens of high road jobs here for generations to come. The slow climate coalition is offering an educational and informational webinar on this topic, September 18th at noon, featuring nationally renowned experts. Details can be found on the Slow Climate Coalition website. Thank you. Thank you. Carol. Carolyn Krueger, followed by Gary Krueger. Good morning supervisors. Carolyn Krueger from Moro Bay. I oppose awarding a sole source contract along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant funds to Mott Mcdonald for the preparation of an unnecessary offshore wind operations and maintenance infrastructure study. Under the auspices of Reach and exploitive corporation with tentacles spread across the central coast, the study is to center on Morabay and Avila Beachport, San Luis. A go ahead would mean that the Slow County Board of Supervisors is content to seed its authority and hours to a for-profit entity and continue to disregard and bypass its constituents. This in the face of a project that would be the largest in the county's history. Where is the public engagement on decisions around Slow Counties pushed to industrialize Moro Bay and Avila Beach in the service's history. Where is the public engagement on decisions around slow counties pushed to industrialize Moro Bay and Avala Beach in the service of offshore wind projects that are destructive, ineffective, and expensive? Our Board of Supervisors is in favor of grafting industrial mechanized facilities onto the charming and barcadero harbor and invaluable marine ecosystem of Moro Bay, which generates approximately 800,000 visitors annually, who spend approximately $161 million. This amounts to approximately a 9% share of visitor spending within San Luis Obispo County. Such reconstruction of our waterfronts will render them unrecognizable. My knowledge of the wind industry and my observations of hasty, uninformed, and irresponsible decision-making by our elected officials make very clear to me that slow county residents must be included in discussions and recommendations regarding the future of our precious coastal assets. I'll end with a quote from Marcy Gwinnigrad. Not one more dime and let us be heard in venues throughout the central coast. Who are these unelected making decisions, absent public hearings and transparency? If the electeds want to abdicate their publicly invested power, they should resign now. Thank you. Gary Kirkland and Gary will be followed by Nicole Dorthman. Thank you. Several times I pointed out to this board why there is no climate crisis A. Be the climate's been changing for 4.5 billion years. And if you think putting up windmills is going to stop climate change, you're fooling yourself. The other aspect of it is global warming is good for humans. And a retrospective, I've told you, that when the last ice age ended because of global warming, we had civilization in Mexico, Iraq, Egypt, and China without global warming, no civilization. Prospectively, if with the northern half of the northern hemisphere, which is where most of the landmast on Earth is, would be nice places to live. There's good soil there, arable land, and lots of water. So we want global warming, so I want to use more fossil fuels, not less. And I love the idea that if you disagree with the people who want this, that you're putting out disinformation and therefore you're not to be to count it. When the fact that people disagree with somebody doesn't mean either side is putting out disinformation and the code of civility would, that's name calling, when you call somebody a disinformation specialist or whatever, a global warming deniist or whatever that thing. There is no climate crisis. The other thing is I've talked to engineers, the, who worked out a job low, those windmills because of the climate out in the Pacific Ocean and the storms in the saltwater will last about two years. We're going to go to all this expense and all this trouble for something that's going to last two years at the most. The other thing is we've already got a safe reliable source of energy that's renewable and that's Diablo Canyon. Why would we go to something? It's, we've already got it. It's already here. And we should continue to support Diablo Canyon and nuclear power so that we have energy source. And the idea that we're going to go back and live in a cave because we won't have energy for it, I don't think so, and I hope not. Thank you very much. Thank you. Nicole Dorkman and Nicole B. fellow by Cynthia Hathaway. OK. Hello. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Nicole Dorkman. I live in Moro Bay. And I want to say thank you for finally, finally, allocating some funds to Moro Bay. As you know, we've been in the thick of this for over a year. Moro Bay officials have repeatedly asked for funds and have received zero, have received nothing. Despite the fact that ongoing they have had interaction, staff time resources in negotiating this offshore wind. So it's about time. So thank you for that. Another thing I want to say is we're talking about these wind turbines as helping solve a climate crisis. But I think that that's really a false narrative. According to this report from Harvard University, it's called Climatic Impacts of Wind Power by Lee M. Miller and David W. Keith. From 2018, their conclusions are that wind power reduces emissions while causing climatic impacts such as warmer temperatures. The warming effect is strongest at night when temperatures increase with the height of the turbine. Night time warming effect has been observed at 28 operational U.S. wind farms. Winds warming can exceed, avoided warming, can exceed, avoided warming from reduced emissions for a century, okay? So it's gonna take a century to bring us back to baseline from these gigantic wind turbines. That's according to this report in June. Another thing, here's something from our Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, our federal government. As they wrote in the Vineyard Wind, Offshore Wind Energy Project, final environmental impact statement, and I'm going to quote. Development of Off wind projects and the construction implementation, operation, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning activities would cause some GHG emission increases, primarily through emissions of CO2. Overall, it is anticipated that there would be no collective impact on global warming as a result of offshore wind projects. That's the federal government, folks, they're admitting it. So if we want to say we want to have these wind projects here for jobs, for economic benefit, that's something to research if that will be the case. But to claim that we're solving some climate emergency, I think that's disingenuous. And one more thing, this council, while we're saying we have to solve the climate crisis by doing this massive industrialization of our coast, on the other hand, they're saying, hey, we want to have dozens of rocket launches off of Vandenberg, which is a tremendous carbon footprint. So it seems a little schizophrenic to me that policy. So one or the other, please. Thank you. Thank you. Cynthia, I have the way. I'll be followed by Mike Brown. Hello. I'm Cynthia, I have theaway. I've never spoke before. I'm a resident of Moro Bay. And I live on a boat. And so I'm close to the fishing community and the Embarcadero and all the businesses and stuff. And I'm really in touch with community feelings. And I was stunned to be able to see the all the businesses and stuff and real in touch with community feelings. And I was stunned to find out only about a couple of weeks ago about this whole contract process. And I was very surprised that public comment and things you have mentioned haven't been done before all this money has been allocated and any contracts are being signed. I think more time needs to be spent with people in the community. I haven't heard any talk about what is the community feeling and thinking. I don't know anyone personally that is pro-wint, these large wind farms, I am pro-wint generation for sure, but these large complexes that will require a football field for each turbine and 800 gallons of oil for their lubrication, 270 miles of chain for each platform and numerous anchors that are dragging about on the floor, not to mention the electrical output that disturbs all the fish. Excellent, make some go away. I just can't believe I'm finding out these things. And I'm just stunned that not more effort is being made to involve the community. So I would ask for you to slow down on this particular contract, because signing a sole contract with one company, Matt Mcdonald, when there really hasn't been an open bid, I think maybe there's local companies that could be benefiting better in our county from doing this research and some research already being established to be done. I would ask you to, I oppose the contract that you may be, you know, asked to sign up for today and give this a little more time and let and let there be some serious community involvement because it impacts everyone and these large solar wind farms are not beneficial. They cost too much in the long run. It'll make our electric bills go up. Thank you. Thank you. Mike Brown and Michael be followed by David Yoey. Good morning again, Mike Brown, Madam Chair, board members, let me say that the CoLab board has not considered nor taken a position on offshore wind in general general or obviously any specific project and we're going to need to talk to these proposers before we do that. Saying that, however, we do agree that hopefully it's true that the decision was made not to industrialize Marrow Bay or Avila Beach, you know, would be a terrible waste. And I hope that holds. As to Marrow Bay for a maintenance base, I think the shuttle ferry that was in the presentation could be 250 to 300 feet in length. You might simply ask the Coast Guard to bring a 300 foot cutter up here and try to turn it around in the space that's there and see how that works. And that would save that part of the study, because I think it would be very difficult to do that. Beyond that, Matt, or, you know, Kohlab has supported industrialization. It's responsible to have our society. So we've supported tank cars, refineries, the retention of Diablo, a whole bunch of things here. And we think, you know, you don't want all your eggs in one basket. You need multiple energy sources. If you look at McDonald's website, which is quite prominent, quite fancy, there are huge worldwide corporation with their headquarters in England. And they have subhead quarters all over the world. And they do big stuff, like big tunnels, big energy projects, canals, major environmental deals, and so forth. And they're an employee-owned company and clearly they are totally in the tank with the whole theoretical climate change deal and disastrous global warming their employees are mainly young, recently educated engineers and technicians. And so they're in that. And then they also have a huge DEI component. So philosophically, the people that are going to be doing this study are part of the movement out there in the world that we're trying to contend with here that's undermining our society. So even in this, and we don't have any opposition to the study per se, sure, find out if the boats can turn around and stuff. But think about what will a kilowatt hour of electricity cost from this delivered to the grid. You don't know. David, no he, and then if Eric, we miss back in the building, and he can hear me, if he wants to speak, he would be our last speaker. Thank you. Good morning, my name is David Yo. I live in Moro Bay. I don't know if any of you travel outside of the local area, and if you've ever gone to Moro Bay, or even to Avala Pier, and you realize that Avala, there's one access road that leads to the pier. That's for everybody, anybody who wants to get there, whether they live their residence, or they're going there for tourism purposes. So if you've been to Moro Bay, you would also know that Moro Bay is not a port, it is a harbor, it's a leisure harbor, fishing, some small boats, and it's an estuary. The access to Moro Bay is rather minimal for large trucking to be bringing and hauling whatever the equipment is for both locations down these particular roads to get to the harbor, as well as once the transport boats are loaded up with the 100 or 200 or however many employees that go out daily or weekly. Well, while they're out, their cars are going to have to be parked someplace. More obey has no place for those cars. Those people are going to have to live someplace. More obey has no place for those people to live. So you guys are all coming from the ocean side, saying the wind is gonna be the answer. Wind is gonna be our solution. Those turbines are just bringing nothing but havoc. If you agree to any of this, you will destroy the gem of San Luis Obispo County. You will destroy two gems that sit on the coast. And for some, this may not be of any interest and your minds may be off to what you're gonna have for dinner tonight. But for those of us who live in these areas, we're gonna have to put up with all the transport, all the truck, all the dust, all the dirt, all the problems that are going to be coming our way. And we're not going to like you anymore when that happens. And you guys are all temporary. You're all here for just a short period of time. We'll be there for the rest of our lives. We didn't come here to have to deal with this. I'd rather be sailing. I'd rather be kayaking. I don't want him have to come here and beg the people that I think are supposed to represent me and my community to ignore me. To turn around and go, well, we're going to reach for the stars. We're going to reach for the stars. We're going to reach for the wind. You've got all these, I don't know, the rain makers have come to town and made you believe they will end the drought. They will end the energy crisis by their wind. Don't fall for the rain makers, the charlatans. Protect the people that put you here. Thank you. Protect us, please. Thank you. OK, that concludes our request to speak if there's anyone else. OK, we're going to go ahead and close public comment then and bring this back to the board for comments and deliberations, supervisor Ortiz Le. Yeah, thank you. Thank you staff for the presentation. Thanks for people coming out. You can see that there's a lot of things to talk about here. Try to be brief due to our timeframe. But it's very important that we get some things clear. Susan, could you please explain what was misunderstood in regards to the Mont McDonnell soul sourcing and what happened prior, which again has been the more information we tell the more people confuse. This is a very complex issue I will note. And so, but I think it would be important to have people understand that this isn't just Montmack Dials first dance card here and how this all came about. And so I think that was confused, please. Thank you. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. is a competitive bid process, the county participated in that process for that reach study. And that did evaluate overall what's required for construction and operation along the California coast with regard to offshore wind. And it did include a provision that looked at what could you do, what are some ideas of what you could do along the central coast. So that was one study and then another one was the one conducted by the state lands commission. The Montmackdonald prepared sections of that study, including looking at Port San Luis, Marrow Bay and Cal Polypyr for Operation and Maintenance Facility potential sites. Thank you. We don't know how the lands commission came to determine Montmackdonald I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry on the initial study that was commissioned by the county, the city of Morro Bay, and I wanna say there was a third one. Santa Barbara County, that's right. Because Santa Barbara County also wanted to know the impacts on the coast. And so when we were informed that the offshore wind was moving forward in the federal waters, our responsibility was to be able to look and say, what does that mean for us? And what we understood is that until we had port infrastructure to really support the offshore wind farms that we would basically be left out in the cold without any economic benefits. And in that time, even though the officer when conversation began 2014, 2015, so if you haven't heard anything about it, you haven't read newspaper in 10 years because it's been in the paper for a long time. But understanding that media is what it is today, that when we decided to do the initial study, we asked Reach. It wasn't Reach's idea. We asked Reach to help organize us to do that. And I think that's really important. So I want to make sure that you understand how this came about. And really, all of this came about because of trying to make good decisions. Because as a ocean facing county, we have had a long history of our engagement with commercial interest on our oceans. Matter of fact, if you go back to the days of Montana Deoro, when the Spooner Ranch was the location where dairy products were then pulled off into the schooners from that dairy ranch. I mean that's how our county got started. Avola Beach is a US port of customs and so we have this history obviously we have the transmission lines which I had mentioned many times before because people somehow think that we don't, that this just came about, but having major transmission lines, one of them being semi-empty out of Moro Bay is of a great value to the entire state as well as our region. So I wanted to clarify that, and then the second thing I wanted to clarify was, did we receive any expression of support from the city of Moro Bay in regards to this decision today? We did and it was included in the agenda packet online, but Moro Bay did provide a letter of their support for doing the study and the work we've done with them in terms of developing a scope of work that works for them. Yeah, thank you. And then lastly, for my comments right now, I just wanted to note that in regards to Mont McDonnell and being a global entity that has extensive infrastructure background, they did in this proposal bring in a local firm for the environmental studies. And so I think that's important. Rincon, which is a local firm, it is being pegged as their partner on the environmental aspects and other aspects of the study. So it's not just somebody from outside. It's also the inside. And then in regards to McDonald's DEI policy, I also want to note that being a former employee of PG&E that DEI policies flourish in all large companies these days. And PG&E does an excellent job of promoting those policies and inclusivity for all. So I'll stop there and I have things for later to see how things go here. So Fraser Gibson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Is the supervisor of the other district affected by this? have things for later to see how things go here. So, Fraser, give some. Thank you, Madam Chair. Is the other, the supervisor of the other district affected by this. I think this is something we absolutely need to move forwardly, worked hard with. In partnership with Senator Laird, and it's interesting to me as I've listened to the conversation over offshore wind. A lot of that conversation is infused with speculation and unsubstantiated assertions. And I would point out that the business that we're seeking to conduct today, you know, the study that we're seeking to commission today goes exactly toward providing the facts that are necessary to see what the next steps on this project might be. So I'm fully supportive. Look forward to supporting the motion when it's appropriate to have one on the floor. Any other comments? I'm like, what makes you here? Then I'm just going to say a couple things real quick. I think this is the day I'm going to get off of this strain. And I'm just saying that because I think I entered this whole wind energy deal with an open mind some years ago. But just putting all the pieces together, I'm definitely a proponent of dependable energy. In this day and age, as a representative of our local constituents, energy is really important and the more dependable, the better. But Sacramento really surprised me when it started the efforts to decommission Diablo, and that's what started making me think. I'm old enough to remember when Diablo was just a concept, and then it evolved, and it was a long haul and all of you that remember and lived here then you know there was a lot of concern and a lot of opposition to building a nuclear plant on our coastline and we went through all that and as taxpayers you're also rate payers and whatever energy we're we all is here for all of us to enjoy and and use we're all paying for that somehow or another so we did pay for that we paid for all of it we paid for the time it took to do the studies on Diablo the protests years and on and on we paid for all of it and eventually we all know know. And I mean, I'm not even here to argue the pros and cons of nuclear energy. But the fact is, we paid for that, and we built it in this tax payers and as residents of this county that housed it, we were told that the plant would provide this energy through the 40s anyway and beyond. I mean, most of the time we were told beyond. And then all of a sudden, there's talk, and this was coming from the state, from the state, but to decommission that, and it feels like moving on, we're gonna try something new now. So I've been watching that, and then as the wind energy concept started to show up and here we were identified. And when we talk about the studies, the first study, the million dollar earmark to provide studies, the Deepwater Port Visibility Study for Offshore Wind Procurement, it starts out. Then in 2022, that's when reach came along and provided the, and Matt Mcdonald was used, I approve, I believe you're doing the right things, Susan. You have some, you have specialized, specialized consultant and go ahead and use them. But the central coast emerging industries, waterfront, sighting, and infrastructure study. And then that was followed in 23 by the state lands commission, maybe 525 provided money for a port readiness plan. And then here we are today, our operations and maintenance plan, but we see the pattern. And we saw it with Diablon, we see with many things we do. We're just being kind of pulled into the, pulled in and we're using taxpayer dollars. This is the start of the pain for something, right? So I actually said all these things at the field hearing that was held in, the congressional field hearing that was held in Mara Bay. And if you were probably there, September of 22. So two years later, I can't believe it's been two years. But that's when the federal government was deciding whether they were going to get the leases right here off of our coastline. And the fishing industry and myself were both seeing, I was seeing this then. You know what, my constituents and many of the taxpayers' ratepayers in the state, they already paid to build a nuclear plant on a very small footprint. Now we've enjoyed dependable energy for several decades, but nobody told us that it may be decided that, okay, well, we're done with that. We're going to decommission it at a very high cost. That's very expensive. And then while we're doing that, we're going to go take more of your money. We're going to go to a whole different source of energy with the wind. I feel like continually being pulled along this trail is basically agreeing with all this path that we seem to be on. And so I feel I'm sorry to Moral Bay. I know you're excited to get money to be able to use in your way for these studies, and this would provide that. But for me, it's just saying no. I think we're at a time when money, we're running out of money federally, locally, and so forth, to be making these kind of ginormous shifts in our energy. And I'm not even going to take the time to go into the solar plants and the crystal plants and all that. But we seem to be energy at the front of all these new movements, energy movements right here in San Luis Bistbo County. But today I am not going to be supporting this. I believe it will be passed. But I just want to share that I feel like the floating offshore wind farms are less efficient source of energy with potential for long-term environmental consequences. The industrialization of our coastline's concerning to me and the disruption of the local fishing industry. So if I was queen of for the day that could make the decision, would say we're not a decommissioning Diablo and we're you know we're just going to take what we've already paid for and try to and and has been successful and continue you know continue on with that maybe even make improvement. So anyway that's my spiel started to takes a long guys to provide you a push on. Yeah, I just wanted to add that I'll be supporting this today because this is a study. We're going to do science and we're going to figure out if the thing is actually viable. And so I appreciate the staff's hard work on this. I mean, you've taken a lot of slings and arrows over this. It's turned into something that it's not. This is a study and we're going to have another public will have another public comment on this in the future when the results are known and we'll get a pretty good idea of what we're able to actually get accomplished so thank you. Supervisor Pulding. Thank you chair I just wanted to say I'll be supporting this today too for all the reasons articulated by the board. Great so it's do you want to just vote or do you have more comments? You all have your lights on. We're called vote. Emotion actually. We need emotion. I'll move staff's recommendation because I think it's important to study this ginormous potential project. I'll second that and with that I'd like to just add a few comments if I may in regards to one I just wanted to to have Assozi Watkins as far as your port. What do you know the amount of deferred maintenance you have in regards to the infrastructure of Avala? Thank you. Again, Suzy Watkins, Port St. Louis Harbor District. Our five-year capital maintenance plan identifies about. That is the repair maintenance and betterment of our existing assets. We have a lot of infrastructure. And it's a the waterfront environment's difficult. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for that, Susie. And I think that when we talk about infrastructure in 2024, it's just a critical piece. And for us not to go forth with this study would be completely irresponsible. There's a number of things. You know, we have the electrification of maritime industry that's happening. We have the need to support other ocean users, whether it's recreation, commercial fishermen, our tourism industry, our tourism industry comes in number two here. These are all important and have relationship to this. We have the long-term job, you know, it's great that people are retired and can go, you know, kayak and do these things, but we have to think about the future and the children of the future and they're and what they're going to be doing. And then lastly, one of the things that I think that nobody thinks about is the emergency access. Right now in our county, we really don't have a way to emergency access the ocean in a way that Santa Barbara does. And when Santa Barbara had their mudslides, the way that people in Santa Barbara got back and forth because of the mudslide on the 101 was from the port. And that's something that we need to be thinking about. It's a bigger picture. And again, there's a lot of misinformation and people are scared to death about stuff, but this is why studies are so important. So we can clarify and look at the bigger picture. And so with that, not only do we have the infrastructure study, but we also have the communication aspect of this grant, which is very important and for us to be able to help folks understand more about what this means and and you know let people have the information that they need so they can see the benefits of this and so with that I'm kind of done. Someone want to make a motion on this? Oh, we did. So you second it and then make comments. Okay. So we will. That's for real. Call vote, please. Supervisor Gibson. Yes. The director of teeth like. Yes. Supervisor Pashong. Yes. Supervisor Paul Dean. Yes. And so personal. No. So that takes us on to item 37. I think we're going to go quickly through this just and thank you. We'll ask the clerk to introduce the item and then we'll move right into the presentation. I'm hearing to consider a temporary commercial outdoor entertainment license application from Spartan Race Incorporated for an event to be held at Santa Margarita Ranch on November 2nd and and third, 2024. Ready. Sorry, well, feels like a hurry up wait or wait and then hurry up. Yeah, take your time. Take your time, Justin. All right, thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. I am Justin Kool-E from the Auditor Controller, Treasure Tax Collector, Public Administrators Office. And we are here to introduce the public hearing for an application for a temporary commercial outdoor entertainment license by Spartan Race for an event to take place as Santa Marguerite Ranch. On November 2nd and 3rd. So like I mentioned, this will take place at Santa Marguerita Ranch. They have also proposed a Plan B in the case of rain, which will move the parking to the air strip and provide for shuttles to the event. This is a map of the proposed Plan A. You see it's a little south of 58 at the Santa Marguerita Ranch. This is the same location where this event has been held for the last several years. And if you got some deja vu and you saw the staff report, that's because it's nearly identical to the previous applications. So just a little background on this process, County Code has a section which governs these types of commercial events. It covers things like music concerts, athletic events like this, and even things like circuses. Looking at the code section, it was adopted in the late 60s and early 70s. And they were clearly concerned with whether or not something like Woodstock would happen here. And I say that because the phrase rock concerts appears in scare quotes three or four times. But it does also cover athletic events like this when more than 3,000 people are anticipated. And Spartan race is anticipating up to 5,000 people per day. So the way this process works is our office receives the application. We then distribute it to a group of county agencies who are responsible for reviewing it and providing recommendations to your board and I'll talk about that more in a minute. We then schedule this public hearing. We notify property owners within 500 feet of the proposed event and publish in the new times in this case. And then today at the hearing, your board can take any testimony that is received and also ask any questions at the Review and County agencies who I believe some are here. In case you have questions. And then at the end of today's hearing, your board is asked to make some decisions and there are three main paths your board can take. They can approve the license as submitted. They can approve the license with the recommended conditions from the county departments. Or you can deny the application. So part of what you need to do is to determine, and I'll get back to this in a second, is determine whether you can make some necessary findings. And those findings are contained in the code section. I will not read this to you, but I will summarize it that you are determining that the application is complete, that the applicant has been truthful in submitting their application materials. And we're broadly that approval of this application will not endanger public health safety or is unlikely to result in a property destruction. So on those points, you receive recommendations from the following agencies, the Department of Planning and Building, Environmental Health, Public Works and the Sheriff. In addition to those required departments, we also distributed to Cal Fire in the CHP. As part of your application packet, you will see that those recommendations have been received. All reviewing departments recommended approval of this application. And they for the most part did include some conditions that they recommend. Those conditions are included in the draft resolution that we and County Council have put together for recommended adoption. So these again are the list of findings that you need to be able to make in order to approve or approve with conditions. If you find that you are unable to make all of these findings, then you may deny the application. And believe it or not, that really concludes my presentation. So as I mentioned, some members of county agencies are here. Unfortunately, the applicant was not able to get here in time, so they are not present. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Questions of Justin? Don, did you have a question? I do. The conditions that you all are talking about are those new? Or are they this? Because this event kind of happened like a cookie cutter same way for several years now. Yeah, I think you will find the conditions are, if not identical, very similar to previous years. The only difference I would note is actually we seem to have streamlined this process a little. Some of, in particular, I'm thinking of the sheriff's former conditions seemed to have been incorporated into the application materials itself. So. No big changes and the applicant, um, so it's just kind of this same thing they've done. They're not going to object to the conditions because it's just kind of the same thing they've done. They're not going to object to the conditions. We work with the applicant and the departments during this process. There will be no surprises. Everyone knows what's in this. Thank you. Okay. Supervisor Pasha. No more questions. Open public comment. I don't have any requests to speak. No, we'll bring it back for comments and deliberations. And I'll say, just now we're talking offline that either five or six years this has gone on. And I live right out that way and passed by the area where this event happens. And for 5,000 people, it's been pretty seamless. I feel like I can say confidently that it's not disruptive to the area, the neighborhood, anything like that. I don't believe the counties have received complaints, but it does bring in a lot of people and they seem to enjoy themselves in the venue for what they're doing, the racing and the all that. Just add to that, yeah, we notify the neighbors and we publish on it. And I don't believe I've received in the four or five years. This has happened happened any negative Yeah, public comments agree so with that all go ahead and make a motion to approve stuff Seconded I was out there last year and it was fine So and is it 5,000 for the whole weekend or 5,000 a day they're anticipating 5,000 per day. Yeah, so that's great So second that motion any other discussion and we'll ask for a roll call vote please. Chairperson Arnold yes supervisor Pashon yes supervisor Gibson yes supervisor T's like yep supervisor Pauline yes Okay, so with that we're going to um get ready for closed session open public comment to close session I do not have requests to speak on that. Saying no one, I'm gonna close public comment on closed session, ask council for time estimate. Yes, good afternoon, Rita Neal. Going into closed session on items two and 13 and we should be about 20 to 30 minutes. So are we good to come back at 130 everybody? Okay, everybody get on that. So we will be back for our, to reconvene the main unit at 130. you you you We're going to reconvene the community. We're going to reconvene the community. We're going to reconvene the community. We're going to reconvene the community. We're going to reconvene the community. We're going to reconvene the community. We're going to reconvene the community. We're going to reconvene the community. We're going to reconvene the community. We're going to be convened to ask council to report out a close session. Yes. Good afternoon. Nile County council. Your board did give a direction and close session to initiate litigation. And once that litigation is commenced, the defendants and all those particulars will be able to negotiate litigation and once that litigation is commenced the defendants and all those particulars will be disclosed to those who ask and that's the end of the report. Great. Thank you. So moving on to item number 39, I'm a last clerk to introduce item, please. So, the middle of the Title 29 Affordable Housing Fund for fiscal year 2023-24 annual report. Great. We'll look to our presenters. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairperson Arnold and members of the board. I'm George Solos, Administrative Services Manager with the Homeless Services Division. And I'm joined today with March Castle Program Manager. This afternoon, staff will present the Title 29 Affordable Housing Trust Fund Annual Report for fiscal year 2023 through 2024. I will now hand the presentation over to March. Good afternoon, Chairperson Arnold, members of the Board, ladies and gentlemen. I'm March Castle, Program Manager for the Department of Social Services, Homeless Services Division. Today, staff presents the Title 29 Affordable Housing Report for fiscal year 2023 through 2024 for your consideration. Staff will provide an overview of the contents of the Title 29 Report, a summary of all accounts, the projects funded in part with Title 29 report, a summary of all accounts, the projects funded in part with Title 29 funds, and the remaining amounts for future projects. Staff will request the board to receive and file the Title 29 report. The required elements of the Title 29 Affordable Housing Fund report include a statement of accounts, expenses, disbursements, and uses of the Affordable Housing Fund, number of housing units constructed or assisted, types of units, income levels, and location, amount of funds leveraged in the amount of assistance provided and the project status. The summary of accounts includes the period from July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024. For the purpose of this presentation, all dollar amounts have been rounded. During this period, funds in the amount of $1,121,031 were dispersed to local affordable housing providers. The balance of Title 29 funds committed from prior year allocations, but not yet dispersed, total $340,163. Funds allocated in the 2024 action plan total, $518,503. The remaining balance is $149,085. This amount is not adjusted for risk rating. We'll provide that information later in the presentation. During fiscal year 2023, 2024, 158 new affordable housing units were leased to low income households. The following slides will provide information regarding the affordable housing projects that received Title 29 funds. Templeton Place 2 was developed by People's Self-Help Housing. This 36 unit Senior Affordable Housing Community in Templeton includes 10 units reserved for veterans' experiencing homelessness. The project was completed in Least in July 2023. A total of 17 persons previously experiencing homelessness were housed in this project. Additional funding for this project included tax credits and funding for veterans experiencing homelessness. Rockview at Sun sunset was developed by San Los Abysbo Nonprofit House in Corporation. This 34-unit affordable housing community in Morro Bay houses extremely low and low income households at 60% or less of the average median income. The project was completed in least in March 2024. Additional funding included tax credits and community development block grant funds. During the grand opening ceremony, a rock view resident took the stage to share her story. She left the long-term relationship due to domestic violence. She moved back in with her parents where she shared a small room with her son. With her income not sufficient to qualify for an apartment on her own, she knew applying to rock view was not a guarantee, but she was willing to do what was necessary. After a few months, she received a call that informed her that she was approved. When she viewed the apartment with her son, he didn't wanna leave. He was so excited that he got a room to himself. He didn't care that they didn't have furniture, and it didn't matter to him that it was empty. He was just happy that it was their home. She expressed gratitude to everyone who worked to make it possible. She wasn't sure who it was or where the funding came from, but she was able to afford an apartment for her and her son on her income alone. Pismo terrace apartments was developed by people's self-help housing. This 50-unit affordable housing community in Pismo Beach includes 25 units set aside for no place like home, which overlaps with five transitional age youth units. Five City's homeless coalition refers clients for these units. No place like home provides permanent supportive housing for persons who need mental health services in our experiencing homelessness, chronic homelessness, or who wear at risk of chronic homelessness. The transitional age youth program serves youth between the ages of 18 to 24 experiencing chronic homelessness. Additional funding included state homelessness emergency aid or heap, homeless housing and assistance program or app, no place like home funding, tax credits and funding from the city of Pismo Beach. People self-help housing shared two stories from residents who received housing in the Pismo Terrace project. I had struggled with housing for over a year before getting this opportunity to apply for Pismo Terrace. After a long wait, I finally got a key to my new home and have successfully moved in. I'm extremely happy and grateful for this opportunity. Another resident shared the following. Last year at this time, I was drinking, smoking weed and mistreating people, especially my loved ones. I wasn't taking care of my mental health. I was a disconnected parent struggling with stability. Then late last year, a blessing in disguise happened. Since then, I have been mentally stable with the help of my therapist and medication. I have reconnected and earned the trust of family and friends who had lost all trust in me. I've taken parenting classes to learn to reparent my child in a healthy way. I've made a conscious decision to be sober and have almost a year clean and sober. With stable housing, I was able to regain custody of my child. My hard work paid off. Thank you to Pismo Terrace and people self-help housing for giving me this opportunity to start over. I'm forever grateful. The apartments at Tuscano was developed by San Lo Subispo to start over. I'm forever grateful. The apartments at Tuscano was developed by San Luis Obispo Nonprofit Housing Corporation. This 38-unit housing community in San Luis Obispo houses extremely low to low income households at 60% or less of the average median income. The project was completed and leased in April 2024. Additional funding included tax credits and community development block grant funds. Haslow also shared tenant success stories from the apartments at Tuscano. A single mother of two children of her own, with legal guardianship of her granddaughter, all under the age of 12 years old, have found stable housing in the apartments at Tuscano. This family was homeless living in an RV in Pasarobles while the mother was fully enrolled full-time in the psych tech program at Cuesta College. This mother juggled her own school, her two children's school, and daycare for the youngest all will not having a stable housing, a kitchen to cook her family's meals or proper plumbing. After moving to the apartment to Tuscano, she has found her footing. She feels safe within the community to take evening walks with the children and to let them play on the playground within the complex. She continues to be a role model for her children while pursuing a higher education to provide them with a better life, now with a safe and stable home for them that they can afford. The second story describes a disabled man on a fixed income who is struggling to afford his current living situation and with the rising cost of living. The apartment's at Tuscano has provided a home for him that he can afford without struggling to pay his additional expenses after making his rent payment. He states that he is so grateful for the opportunity to live within a nice community and to utilize the amenities that the complex offers. Shell Beach Senior Apartments is being developed by San Luis Obispo Nonprofit Housing Corporation. This 25-unit affordable housing community in Shell Beach will house seniors aged 62 and older at 50% or less of the average median income. The project should be completed in fall 2024. Additional funds included home investment partnership program, home investment partnership program American Rescue Act, Pismobiche Inclusionary Housing Funds and Fee Wavres and Commercial Loans. Vine Street Homes is being developed by Habitat for Humanity. The project provides nine units for very low and low-income households. The project should be completed in fall 2024. Additional funds included donations, volunteers, and funds from the city of Passourables. Del Rio Ridge is being developed by people's self-help housing in a taskadero. The project will provide 42 units in a taskadero for extremely low to low income households. Constriction is not started on this project. Additional funds include CDBG, Home, HomeARP, State Veterans Housing, and Funds from the City of a Taskadero. Additional funding is needed for this project. Aroyo Terrace is being developed by San Luis Obispo Nonprofit Housing Corporation. This project in Aroio Grande will provide 63 units of affordable, multifamily housing for low and very low income households, including 16 units for those experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. Three affordable housing projects were funded with Title 29 funds during the 2024 action plan process, totaling $518,503. These projects will provide 147 additional units of affordable housing. Rolling Hills 3 in Templeton will provide 28 units for low income individuals and families, including seven units for persons experiencing homelessness. The Oroio Terras apartments in Oroio Grande will provide 63 multifamily affordable housing units. Monterate Crossing in San Lozo Vispo will provide 56 units for low income seniors. There are no refunds to report during this time period. The risk assessment was completed by the Department of Planning and Building in July 2024. County Council reviewed and concurred with the recommendations. Funding deemed high risk and medium risk have an increased potential for refunds. Staff does not recommend including these funds totaling $27,567 in the 2025 action plan notice a funding availability or NOFA. There are five permits totaling $21,323 deemed high risk, which are permits with zero to one inspection. There are five permits totaling $6,244 deemed medium risk, which are permits with three to nine inspections. The chart shows the beginning balance of $634,919.518,503 was allocated during the 2024 action plan process. Accrued interest totals $32,668. The total of high and medium risk funds totals $27,567. This amount is deducted from the remaining available amount. The remaining amount recommended for use in the 2025 NOFA is $121,518. Staff requests that the board receive in final the Title 29 Affordable Housing Fund report for fiscal year 2023 through 2024. Thank you very much for your time staff are available for questions. Thank you, March. Questions of the board. Open. Everyone question. Yeah. Were you able to I didn't't see the, the Cambria apartments on there that's always been kind of on that list for a long time. You do any update on that one? Yes, I did reach out to people self-help passing. They did submit a TCAQ application on July 2nd. Awards have not been announced, but they are not optimistic about being funded in this round. They project needs 4.75 million to make it competitive for TCAQ. So they are planning on applying for the HCD, CDBGDR grant that is going to be released at the beginning of the year. But yeah, they need more funding. Yep, they do. Thanks. Thank you, March. You're welcome. There are lights on. We have one request to speed. We'll open this to public comment. One request. That's Mike Brown. Madam Chair, board members, good afternoon Mike Brown representing CoLab. You know this program has been pending for a couple of years now and we're just here to hopefully see that nobody proposes that it be reestablished. We think it would be better and more accurate and inform the community if the title in the agenda would say what program it is, because it's actually the in-lu-fi, which is the in-lu-fi was a tax posing as a fee, and not everybody has memorized the county code to know that Title 29 is the in-lu-housing tax. And then on the presentation, very nice showing the different apartment houses that were built, and the amounts granted through this program, which have to be a very tiny portion of those part, you know, they got to be tens of millions of dollars, right? Funded by other sources. And I think the problem is to a lot of lay people, they might look at that and say, oh, this is great. Look at these beautiful things that we're getting for $7,000, $7,000, $2,16 in the case of one of them. And it would be more fair on those slides if you listed in the case of one of them. And it would be more fair on those slides if you listed in the little matrix at the bottom, these funds and then the other sources from HUD or syndications or whatever they are. Finally, we would hope that no one would be tempted to reactivate this program. Your staff did a lot of work a few years ago with the nonprofit housing corpse and they figured out that you need about two to four million dollars a year to really provide the solid unfettered, unobligated base to leverage the other funds. And that sort of wandered away and I don't know where that issue is but I think that would have been the thing to work on here is where you're going to find another two to four million in the general fund to provide that ongoing even source so these not for profits can bank on that as they seek to leverage the other funding in those and not run an unfair program that actually taxes housing, the thing you want more of to pay for it. But in any case, that bigger revenue plan issue that we talked about this morning is the real issue here. Thank you very much and I'm available for questions. Thank you. Lindy, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair and Board. I'm Lindy Hatcher speaking on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Essential Coast. We represent over a hundred industry businesses that work and operate in slow and Santa Barbara counties. So we ask the board to do some due diligence on this. We know it's a problem. We know that we need more money for affordable housing and there are other innovative ways to address affordable housing that do not involve policies like the IHO which we all know not only raise housing costs but cause less projects to pencil. So we emphatically know that the IHO and in Luffy's benefit one population and ultimately raise home rent and cost across the board for all others and drive up prices. So we have a housing policy crisis. We can build whatever you want to build. When you say build we're on it. But what we can't do is settle any more expense on the back or the shoulders of the middle class. We're struggling too. There are creative and effective options that other communities are exploring that we might want to look at. In Santa Barbara County, for example, one of the chambers there and several large employers that need housing and affordable housing are creating housing consortium. That's one option. And I would be remiss in not bringing up using part of the TOT tax, even half a percent. What better direct benefit can you find to significantly house the number of hospitality workers needing affordable housing than that fund that they raise? Ask any employer, we desperately need more housing, not policies that tax the very thing we want more housing. Not policies that tax the very thing we want more of. We've got issues, you know, HOAs, insurance increases. Prices are going back up in the supply chain. And, you know, we just cannot afford to tack anything else on to the price of a house for everyone across the board, not just affordable housing, but everybody pays that's buying or renting. There are a myriad of state and local funds that nonprofits use, nonprofit organizations. We know they're not enough and we urge the board to thoroughly research and let us be at the table with you and help find a solution. Thanks. Thank you. I don't have any other requests to speak so we're going to close public comment and ask you. Board has the other comments. Supervisor. I'd be happy to move staff's recommendations. I think this is a receive and file, but we can do that. We can just receive a motion to receive and file it. I thought you were gonna direct staff to come back with a proposal for the in-lue housing fee, which I would second in a heartbeat. And so the talking points that we got heard trotted out here in public comment have so much mold on them. I thought they might have been lost. But let's get clear. The Inlu housing fee did not affect any house that was even remotely affordable to a middle class income level. And let's also be clear that it is not a tax. It was a fee that was set way less than it could have been set by a fee nexus study. And so I know that various members of the public and various members of the board are a fond of calling this a failure against no particular, against no particular standard of success. It was never indicated that it was going to solve the housing, the affordable housing affordability study here. But the continued assertion that it somehow impedes the affordability of housing is simply not consistent with the facts, whereas it may have made a relatively small contribution to the projects that were reviewed in the report. I think anybody who understands the affordable housing market and the way in which these projects are generated would understand that there are sometimes six, eight different streams of funding. And this was headed toward generating a million dollars a year that we don't have. So it's sad to see we're down to only $121,000. I hope that that can be put to good use. I hope at some point we can find three votes to bring inclusionary housing back in a manner that it roughly was before, where the fee applied to those extremely large and extremely expensive houses that in fact generated the need for more housing and thus was a fee. So I see supervisor Pashong's light on. I expect a recitation of the talking points, you know, but I think if there are any public listening, which seems perhaps unlikely, that they understand that this is an approach to inclusionary housing that is extent many jurisdictions. And we've lost an opportunity to bring it here. So we move on. We thank staff for bringing the information to us. It is a receive and file and hopefully when we have a thoughtful discussion on housing policy we might reconsider this. Supervisor Paulting, I feel like I cut you off there. You made a motion and all I said was it staff's recommendation which was to receive a file. all I said was it. It's a staff's recommendation, which was to receive a file. So I didn't mean to just cut you. Oh, no, that's fine. That's all. The resort East Lake maybe has comments. Yeah, I'll pick you back off those. Okay. And then if you want to come back and get a second on that motion to staff's recommendation, can be received in file and we will whatever you want to do. So it's revised for TSA. Well, I can wait to say, but I did want to respond in that. I know that things have moved very slowly, but we have heard loudly and clearly, and I think that on the calendar coming up, you'll see an invite in regards to our idea storming that we're doing in order to raise some of those funds in alternative methods. There's a great deal of desire to replace this, whatever you want to call it. I'd rather talk about what we can do and I think that there's a lot of options with people that are building willing to participate in. And so I won't go into the details but I think that we should be getting something between now and the end of the year from planning staff on where we are with our, you know, some of the things we were talking about whether it's land alternatives to the density bonus fees. Some of the other things that are within the land use changes to hurry up approvals and make it easier as well as opening up more areas of land for multifamily type housing. So I'll stop there and we hear you're loudly and clearly and just thanks staff for what they've been working on with what they've had. Supervisor Pichon? Yeah, so I'm gonna be positive Supervisor Gibson. So, and not talk about the housing tax. I did attend failed housing tax. Last week I was in Monterey County with four of the five supervisors, Senator Laird and all of the mayors of I think they have 11 cities and they did a housing forum discussion with the Chamber of Commerce in the peninsula. One of the things that I thought was really interesting is they each had their own take on it but a majority of them were actually feeling pretty good about hitting their in numbers. So they actually brought up the fact that they're doing free ADU plans through the county for people. We have that. And so, but we have plans, but they also then, they also as the permitting comes in, that's free too. So you can move pretty quickly on those. I love the idea of looking at the finding maybe in the general plan, $2 million. I mean, that was the thing is that was supposed to raise $2 million and it didn't. So I think if they were serious about this, $2 million out of the general fund, if we could find it in next year's budget. I love looking at Matt here because he's the magician that will be working on these incredible things. And then I'd love to know about this housing consortium that you talked about, but I don't know anything about. So it was kind of interesting. The TOT one, I completely agree that in our economy and our county, hospitality is where a real need is. That and seniors, remember, we are the fourth highest population of 80 plus year olds in the state of California. So I mean, that's, I think, a lot of the ADU stuff can really help in that segment of the population and housing for seniors. So I think there's some really good ideas out there. I was blown away by the fact that these mayors said that they thought they were gonna hit their numbers. And so, and they're doing it with a combination. There's not a silver bullet here. There's a combination. And so I'm looking forward to hearing the results of the housing, what did you call it? The Fandango? What's the? Round table. Housing round table. Because there are good ideas and counties are using those ideas. There's a lot of counties that also had inclusionary housing and they stopped using it or exempted the big projects from it like the city of Oakland and the county of Alameda did to be able to build a lot of those really nice condominiums that look over the bay and into the city of San Francisco. So I think that there's ways to make this work. So looking forward to it, appreciate all the hard work you do on this. And I really think we're working together, we can find some solutions to the problems we're facing. And that's my positive message for the day. I'm going to stay positive too. I guess it's chiming in on the big picture. Our board, I think, directed staff to bring back almost 12 different items when we had our last last very robust discussion around housing policy. And so in looking at the schedule, I think there's been a tentative schedule provided by our planning and building department, but they're still working on that. When those items come back, and I think that in some cases when we have the down payment assistance program concept or some of these alternatives to the in lieu fee that we're going to need to form a committee that has membership from everybody in the community that engages in the space, the nonprofit builders, the HBA, the community foundation. There's a long list. And so I think we're going to need as a board, probably, an ad hoc committee that is meeting regularly with those groups and getting their ideas and input in that process because I don't think it's just going to be a staff run thing. But I'm not sure if it's the appropriate time to form that now. Otherwise, I'd be making that motion. But you've done saying, let's do it. I mean, I'd be happy to serve on that. Survivor Ortiz Leggan, I have been talking about that. If we think it's inappropriate time, then I'd say let's form up the committee now. I'm willing to do it. I'm willing to do it if you are. I certainly am. All right. Well, others on this board want to participate. We do need to have some direction to provide staff, continue to push staff, even though they know what our desires are. I think it's really important that we do have that con do it between the elected's the stakeholders in the community and the staff to To get these ideas implemented Okay, well then with with that I'll make I guess it's a receiving file the item before us But I'll just move that anyway that we approve the recommendations of staff on the Affordable Housing Fund and then that we form an ad hoc committee of this board comprised of supervisor Ortiz Lega myself, which will engage with community stakeholders on the implementation of the actions that our board has already directed the planning and building department to bring back to our board and it would meet semi-regularily and of course the ad hoc committee would simply make recommendations that this board would deliberate on it wouldn't have any decision-making authority and would have representation from our planning and building staff on it. Second. Okay. Okay. We will ask for a guess a rule called vote on this and there's no further discussion. Supervisor Paul Dien. Yes. Supervisor Gibson. Yes. Supervisor Teeslight. Yes. Supervisor Pshong. Yes. Chairperson Arnold. Yes. Okay. We're going to move on to item 40 on our board agenda which is any is any supervisor asking a question for clarification, making announcements, report briefly on his or her activities and in addition, supervisors may request staff to report back to the Board at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or may request that staff place a matter of business on a future agenda, any request to place a matter of business for consideration on a future agenda requires the majority vote of the board. So board discussion, anybody have anything? Supervisor Tislay? Maybe somebody else can go. I said you're right. I saw your light on it. Yeah. Okay. No other light lines? I'll turn mine on. Okay. This Sunday in Pasarobles in the park, the Muharris de Axion is having a big Latino festival. And so I just wanted to make sure everybody knew about it. I'd love to see Sunday afternoon. I believe it starts at noon, goes to nine o'clock in the night. Two bars of Paladin. I just wanted to raise awareness to the Creek's to Coast cleanup event that is a yearly event being organized here. I'm trying to pull up the actual information for it. 21st. Okay. It's a September 21st and you can sign up to participate on ecoslow.org. To advise her, T's Lane. Yes. I just wanted to say that next week we have our annual 3CE board meeting, policy and operation boards together. It will be up in Santa Cruz and we will be reporting back. We are starting to move into our implementation phase. So there's some things to be reported out on what's going on with our community choice aggregation. And then next Tuesday night, those that are interested in supporting Prop 36, we do have a fundraiser that's available for people that are interested. They can contact our offices. But that's another thing I wanted to promote. It'll be here in South County. available for people that are interested, they can contact our offices. But that's another thing I wanted to promote. It'll be here in South County at the Thousand Hills Ranch. So that's an item. And then I think that is all I have at this point right now. Thank you. Okay. Then I think without further ado, I need to open public comment. Seeing, having no requests to speak, I'll close it. And then I think we can go ahead and adjourn the meeting. Next meeting will be Tuesday, September 24th, 9am.