[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6527187,"mediaKeyId","3642806-6884ec8d27958bd5149880f3bc71995e","parentId",3642806,"title","Board accepts 2024 housing progress reports, hears pipeline of nearly 1,200 units and sets long‑range priorities","audioSeconds",483,"startMs",14323000,"endMs",14806000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3642806-6884ec8d27958bd5149880f3bc71995e&start=14323&end=14806","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3642806-6884ec8d27958bd5149880f3bc71995e/thumbnail_14323000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6527187/Monterey-County/California/Board-accepts-2024-housing-progress-reports-hears-pipeline-of-nearly-1200-units-and-sets-longrange-priorities","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6527187-a7f276b0a7ba4ef4ef6bc56da21a964f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770587542&Signature=bbyAxxqkwLbq0n~1QVmhLTKhYEFsKqUZwP66WrdwNAf9Roe-RbCX6FEPNunQp5CqXTCw7mLNB4kyFksNhQiIn3L771caUIxlnyou24l69uN~RdTnDj2MQ0WgXFxSFSRZovcQn1J2ysb07smrtLwkXYvwI4BbU6B81RB~YVeAd0cdP~9VPDvN6XcOpWmAcfl~JRdfw49sECpGGDU3JDCHMyfIKVj-MsBwaE6hg~IyvRanBgaSbmJTbVCvOhqU8vpYsk1gNG7PoOVDJyJf6qe8pNlISWNk-dTcNKf408ydkaFaupHTMlwZMXDNXU2nA8OFyUitSuE5yaF~JjvOPiKW5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Monterey County","date","2025-06-04T00:08:42Z","article","Monterey County supervisors received and accepted the 2024 General Plan implementation and housing element annual progress reports June 3 and approved staff’s recommended planning priorities for the coming year.

Melanie Baretti, interim housing/community development director, summarized accomplishments and a planned focus for the next work year. The county reported 89 low‑income units and 92 above‑moderate units pulled building permits in 2024, and staff said accessory dwelling units accounted for a substantial part of recent housing production. County planning staff also reported a housing pipeline of approximately 1,186 units that have been applied for or approved but not yet constructed, including single‑family subdivisions and multi‑unit projects at various stages of entitlement.

To concentrate limited staff capacity, Housing and Community Development proposed focusing resources on a top‑12 list of long‑range planning projects for fiscal 2025‑26; the Planning Commission recommended adding the Pajaro community plan as an additional priority. The board accepted staff’s recommendation and authorized the director to submit the final progress reports to the State Department of Housing and Community Development, as legally required.

Why it matters: The annual progress report tracks the county's housing production against regional housing needs and the housing element programs the county must implement. The update also provides a snapshot of entitlements and the “pipeline” of units that could materially contribute to future inventory if projects complete construction.

What’s next: Staff will file the statutorily required reports with the state. Planning staff expects to continue work on community plans, specific plan amendments (including East Garrison implementation) and other adopted priorities, and will return to the board with progress and funding requests as needed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","County of Monterey Board of Supervisors Meeting 6/3/25","oneSentenceSummary","Supervisors accepted the county's 2024 general plan and housing element progress reports, reviewed a housing pipeline of roughly 1,186 unbuilt units, and approved a prioritized long‑range planning work program with staff focusing on the top 12 tasks next year.","taxTitle","Monterey County, California","taxId",3728,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6527191,"Board delays decision on Salinas Valley groundwater monitoring fees after debate over de‑minimis wells; GSA offers initial registration grants",2154,17172000,19326000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3642806-6884ec8d27958bd5149880f3bc71995e&start=17172&end=19326","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3642806-6884ec8d27958bd5149880f3bc71995e/thumbnail_17172000.jpg","/articles/6527191/Monterey-County/California/Board-delays-decision-on-Salinas-Valley-groundwater-monitoring-fees-after-debate-over-deminimis-wells-GSA-offers-initial-registration-grants","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6527191-02510e7a1537cff5f8b9e41a63854c91/orig.mp4?Expires=1770587542&Signature=YvQ78AOz7K3BUrf1cdJ1JpdLyIrWYrnJkjfNSmALgsNpEd5QqO31902kAQYFg64UqDRKNOxr73NReFnIXQZGQnfVz3QqM3IrkTWCdSbbSPoJkrnOd26BcmUAfhCcUncCeM~xAhHfyIKC-0T03Bba-iJoblSXucb~8ujvJ1wNoly8YotUbzLoc-i8ECBGrrboNQHQAEaSY2AqNbGmI6tjkw93DIogYmdRj2y5FP0gf47w9gWh8h4Z9fns45-qAAV96~5SmXEDMEgYnCoO11BrTHnQtpRrF3rQyqrWBiI6PRuel~6pASZApuE7-BODSPnRQ1GjDmXv5AbJ2U5kMictOA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Monterey County supervisors voted June 3 to delay for one month a decision on the proposed groundwater monitoring program regulatory fees that would fund a county‑run monitoring program for the Salinas Valley Basin.

Amy Woodrow, senior hydrologist at the county Water Resources Agency, outlined the draft fee schedule presented to the board by the agency and by representatives of the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). The proposal included five per‑well fees aimed at funding registration, annual renewal, groundwater extraction reporting, groundwater level monitoring and seawater‑intrusion quality monitoring. Example fees included an initial well registration proposed at $160.16 per well, an annual registration renewal at $21.86 per well and groundwater level monitoring at $117.68 per well.

The board’s debate focused on whether smaller domestic wells — so‑called de‑minimis wells pumping 2 acre‑feet per year or less under the state definition — should be included and whether the proposed fee structure would disproportionately affect small users. \"We had a range of comments about de‑minimis users and fairness,\" Supervisor Chris Church said during the discussion.

Salinas Valley Basin GSA staff told the board the GSA has grant funds available to cover the proposed one‑time initial registration fee for domestic well owners during the initial registration period. Sarah Hargrave, deputy general manager of the GSA, said the agency “does have grant funds that could be utilized for the initial well registration fee ... and we would like to proceed with ... covering that one‑time cost.”

The board voted to delay the decision for 30 days to allow staff to clarify legal constraints under Proposition 26 (which governs regulatory fees), confirm how other groundwater agencies structure fees and return with a clearer explanation of options for protecting low‑income and de‑minimis users while funding the monitoring program. County counsel told the board some options are limited under Proposition 26 but that staff would return with alternatives.

Why it matters: The proposed fee would create a permanent revenue stream for a county‑run groundwater monitoring program the GSA requested. The program is intended to support groundwater sustainability planning and respond to state requirements under SGMA. But how to apportion costs fairly between agricultural, municipal and small domestic users is a live policy question with potential financial impact on rural households.

What’s next: Staff will return in roughly 30 days with more detail on legal constraints, fee alternatives and outreach results. The GSA said it can use existing grant funds to offset the one‑time registration fee for small domestic wells during the initial sign‑up.","Monterey County supervisors voted to delay a decision by 30 days on a new groundwater monitoring regulatory fee schedule proposed by the Water Resources Agency and the Salinas Valley Basin GSA, after concerns about costs falling on small domestic (de‑minimis) well owners.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6527194,"Board adopts sheriff’s military equipment use policy as state law requires; policy lists drones, armored vehicles and responses",202,10755000,10957000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3642806-6884ec8d27958bd5149880f3bc71995e&start=10755&end=10957","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3642806-6884ec8d27958bd5149880f3bc71995e/thumbnail_10755000.jpg","/articles/6527194/Monterey-County/California/Board-adopts-sheriffs-military-equipment-use-policy-as-state-law-requires-policy-lists-drones-armored-vehicles-and-responses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6527194-0601ceccab1d1973b9f7d1c8e93a607c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770587542&Signature=IgKfhvGLGfMh9-4kvjUIW8uNNw3Xe8ovJF8im-9P0UOL~aqGHH0sAqhTPazgmvZ6JevgaVsQ~Bs7e9mwWEh1ha6ItmZfNq0bpQCesjHtIMd~dZAe-xWe5kl30i9RDJdnRiQz0Qmto3G5lyghPemz5qpND4-UKzIBSula6LxC1BT5FEuZUGm-3nq6zdj6q0FvqX7sefrZstZcTXblHdQM-zCHJ~GOwZgqI3u5R5fMCVYTO-fvFOAbHYjapk4GiSEiaGuV9ydGPGcGyAwNH7DIkFePXIVME3bdt8tAC2n7d24wPt-E~YjEGoCiXk-geWFcYPRp4T46hozwZ3LLkVx4ng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Monterey County Board of Supervisors voted June 3 to adopt the sheriff’s 2024 military equipment use policy, a requirement under state law set by Assembly Bill 481 that seeks to increase transparency when local law enforcement acquires and uses so‑called qualifying equipment.

Chief Deputy Jason Smith presented the sheriff’s report to the board. He summarized the equipment covered and explained the policy and reporting obligations: \"This is the 2024 military equipment use policy and summary report out. Assembly bill 481 ... requires the sheriff's office to obtain approval by the board of supervisors through adoption of military equipment use policy,\" Smith said.

The policy the board adopted lists specific equipment categories the sheriff’s office owns or may seek, including unmanned aircraft systems (drones) — the sheriff reported 10 drones in use for patrol, search and rescue, tactical response and bomb squad operations — and nine vehicles in qualifying categories including one MRAP, five Humvees (used for patrol and high‑water rescue), a Bearcat armored vehicle and a mobile command post. The sheriff’s report also cited nonlethal launchers, breaching charges used by the bomb squad, specialized rifles and other items. The department reported 86 deployments of qualifying equipment in the last year; deployments are documented by the office and governed by existing Lexipol policies covering use of force, unmanned aerial systems, crisis response and complaint handling.

The board’s action followed public comment and questions about notice and attendance at the sheriff’s prior annual meeting. Several supervisors endorsed the policy while stressing the value of public transparency: Supervisor Chris Church urged that the annual reports be widely advertised and said the policy’s public notice could be expanded; other supervisors emphasized that equipment is used for rescues, flood response and search‑and‑rescue as well as tactical incidents.

Why it matters: Assembly Bill 481 requires local agencies to adopt a publicly‑posted military equipment use policy and to report annually on acquisitions and deployments. The board’s adoption satisfies that statutory requirement and creates a local public record of what equipment is owned, the stated purposes, and the internal policies that govern use.

What’s next: The policy will be posted on the sheriff’s office web page and is subject to annual reporting to the board. The sheriff’s office said it will continue to provide briefings and respond to public questions about deployments and training.","Following a public report, the Board adopted the sheriff’s 2024 military equipment use policy under Assembly Bill 481, listing drones, armored response vehicles, explosive breaching equipment and related training and complaint procedures.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6527197,"Board approves $2.75 million contingency transfer after sheriff’s office reports mid‑year shortfall; staff directed to propose audit options",312,11929000,12241000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3642806-6884ec8d27958bd5149880f3bc71995e&start=11929&end=12241","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3642806-6884ec8d27958bd5149880f3bc71995e/thumbnail_11929000.jpg","/articles/6527197/Monterey-County/California/Board-approves-275-million-contingency-transfer-after-sheriffs-office-reports-midyear-shortfall-staff-directed-to-propose-audit-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6527197-9d56541968a214555dae361011642734/orig.mp4?Expires=1770587542&Signature=iykSMwLwypVm9ljThsMFOcZYueoQdLXaXEoNVT9ACLsExYqXI0-hgtdYBe1cexnLVdVnw1hGkuryOL~7mWgVVVuspC3j3HR6qWpLn45hmoGxTJX73sJWaWR4JJOLfwadX9IlTIEyS4QH3sBx7nGnMv6IurHJ1bBp5zt2MulaReJoFyV03rHtgmYEB540Yxgjy1x2TU4YalxJOusL~CBEm8y7Trm6uIiVcOgtIVN3na3iIKfNqY-YVy~GclQBFw1gYBJV0zW-QwEjXXiXv9ICw75Niv9QcpC-sulyYk5M0ZyyWtcT6mLV8vvr0B67c61FW8kG0hdrG~P4~oaGX9SNtw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Monterey County supervisors voted June 3 to authorize adjustments to the sheriff’s fiscal 2024–25 budget after the sheriff’s office reported a mid‑year shortfall and accounting errors that left appropriations misallocated.

Undersheriff Keith Boyd told the board the sheriff’s office identified a swap in cost‑plan charges that created a $4,247,000 appropriation mismatch and asked the board to authorize the auditor‑controller to move existing budgeted funds from one sheriff appropriation unit to another. Boyd also requested a separate increase in appropriations of $2,750,000 to cover projected shortfalls in patrol operations, corrections and other divisions. \"Today we are requesting the board authorize and direct the audit controller to increase appropriations by 4,247,000.000 in the sheriff's office fiscal 24 25 budget,\" Boyd said in the presentation.

Board members pressed the sheriff’s leadership on causes for the overrun. Boyd and sheriff’s staff said overtime and temporary professional staff costs rose because of unbudgeted wage increases across bargaining units, recruit training, extra temporary hires and higher than forecasted attrition. Sheriff’s officials said they reduced procurement‑card use, limited overtime where possible, and cut other spending to reduce the projected shortfall from about $7 million at mid‑year to the amount requested.

Budget office staff said the requested $2.75 million would be drawn from general‑fund contingencies if the board approved. The board approved both requests.

A central point of the public and board debate concerned oversight and transparency. Several supervisors — including Supervisors Alejo and Esc ew — urged additional financial review. Supervisor Esc ew proposed and the board added direction for the county administrative office, in coordination with counsel, to return with options for a budget or financial audit specific to the sheriff’s office, including the possibility of contracting external expertise. The board approved that direction.

Why it matters: The sheriff’s office is one of the county’s largest operating departments, and the board’s action preserved the office’s ability to meet payroll and pay vendors through the fiscal year. But supervisors emphasized the need to understand how the shortfall occurred and to present stronger internal controls to prevent year‑end crises.

What the county will do next: The auditor‑controller will effect the appropriation adjustment authorized by the board. The CAO and counsel will return with options for a financial review or audit approach and any recommended changes to internal controls or reporting timelines.","The board authorized an internal budget reallocation and a $2.75 million transfer from general‑fund contingencies to cover the sheriff’s fiscal 2024‑25 shortfall and directed the CAO to provide options for a financial review of the sheriff’s budget.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6527201,"Monterey County to extend temporary no‑parking barriers at Bixby Bridge after Rocky Creek repairs",328,2539000,2867000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3642806-6884ec8d27958bd5149880f3bc71995e&start=2539&end=2867","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3642806-6884ec8d27958bd5149880f3bc71995e/thumbnail_2539000.jpg","/articles/6527201/Monterey-County/California/Monterey-County-to-extend-temporary-noparking-barriers-at-Bixby-Bridge-after-Rocky-Creek-repairs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6527201-6a56d7040e7f1db58946e6408fb53a71/orig.mp4?Expires=1770587542&Signature=J0aVyUw7mL4dnXizUwoRUQ5Vlj7yOGY1YTKHb9AFHfKdG78EMhhz9jCso1YnuBPH5npqmm-noTDmPmi~gLwxf4wExCZEq2Cyu6YQBZUtGWcuLoTPdxQ0g~uYwwZ0nkLD8RojNOfpc2Q8Yb2V3I-eoCMLfBVFESOS9GS9NM3ePFAyykPNwpYAKhghhciHlCrf~GnOyUxfsssFd8T9-pv2SZP1Hg70XiBEEyAKgfwddPdFkaAF5LYi~NCT3cOlGxnkxWOWpG~gA3iTwgzFPT4bupceN~OPgLWiKIlFuT08BvFRFrulnJXGR2NJC2-1yFu8w73v9uEUKnvELA7pPS9~BA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Monterey County supervisors voted June 3 to keep a temporary no‑parking zone and physical barriers on Old Coast Road at Bixby Bridge in place after Caltrans finishes repair work at Rocky Creek.

County Public Works Director Randy Ishii presented the referral, saying the temporary measures had reduced unsafe roadside parking and pedestrian crossings since they were installed during the Rocky Creek repair. \"We find that with the no parking and the temporary traffic control in place of the k rail ... there are some violators, but not the same number of what has been experienced in the past,\" Ishii told the board during his presentation.

The board backed a staff recommendation to continue talks with partner agencies and, if needed, pursue a coastal development permit or other approvals to make a longer‑term change. County staff said they will return in July with options after further discussions with the California Coastal Commission, Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol and county public safety agencies.

Why it matters: Bixby Bridge and the Old Coast Road have become a recurring public‑safety concern because visitors frequently stop, park legally and illegally, and cross Highway 1 to photograph the bridge. Residents and emergency responders say blocked access on Coast Road has impeded egress for homes and response routes. The temporary barriers were installed while Caltrans controlled traffic during a nearby slope repair at Rocky Creek.

What the board heard: Local residents and community groups urged the supervisors to keep the measures in place. Rachel Goldberger, program manager for the Community Association of Big Sur, told the board the temporary K‑rail and no‑parking pattern “strongly support[s] making these changes permanent” because it improved safety and reduced trash. John Yeras, a resident CHP post officer who works in Big Sur, told the board the site remains a safety hotspot and said CHP supports continuing the restrictions while a more permanent solution is studied.

County staff flagged next steps: the county will continue stakeholder meetings, perform required CEQA analysis for any proposed permanent changes, and outline permit options and costs. Ishii estimated preliminary cost ranges for further improvements from roughly $10,000 for signage up to $100,000+ depending on scope and Coastal Commission conditions.

What’s next: The board voted to continue the temporary parking prohibition and directed staff to return with firm options in July. County staff said they will work with the Coastal Commission and other state and federal agencies to identify a path that preserves safe access for residents and emergency responders while managing visitor use.","The Board voted to continue the temporary no‑parking zone and physical barriers on Old Coast Road near Bixby Bridge after Caltrans finishes Rocky Creek repairs, citing public‑safety concerns and ongoing visitor‑management work with state partners.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board accepts 2024 housing progress reports, hears pipeline of nearly 1,200 units and sets long‑range priorities

Board delays decision on Salinas Valley groundwater monitoring fees after debate over de‑minimis wells; GSA offers initial registration grants

Board adopts sheriff’s military equipment use policy as state law requires; policy lists drones, armored vehicles and responses

Board approves $2.75 million contingency transfer after sheriff’s office reports mid‑year shortfall; staff directed to propose audit options

Monterey County to extend temporary no‑parking barriers at Bixby Bridge after Rocky Creek repairs