New one. Your hair looks great, Erin. It really does. Okay, we can get started.
Excellent. Good evening. And are we ready? Right. Great. Good evening and welcome to the February 5th,
2026 City of Napa Regular Meeting for the Planning Commission. Roll call, please.
Commissioner Ivak. Here. Commissioner Massaro. Here. Commissioner Myers.
Vice chair Olin. And chair shot will.
Present. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands. One nation undergone.
The Planning Commission conducts all meetings in accordance with the Ralph Milton Brown Act.
California government code section 54950 at sec and pursuant to the city's rules of order for planning commission meetings.
Policy resolution 10. Staff. Any changes to this evening's agenda or any supplemental reports?
No changes. Commissioners, any proposed changes to the evening's agenda.
Tonight we will vote on the Planning Commission chair and vice chair.
And I just wanted to say before doing so it has really been an interesting ride.
I've really enjoyed it. My tenure here is in two years of being chair.
It was daunting, but rewarding and it would be my honor to nominate vice chair Olin as chair.
And vice and commissioner Myers as vice chair.
I am open to other nominations if needed. Do we have any other nominations?
No second. All in favor.
Hi.
Great. Thank you. Enjoy. I just want to do this one last.
But we're not adjourned.
Do we switch?
Yeah, so you will immediately switch and then.
I might need a lesson on this.
This should be the script.
Oh, there's something to do.
Excuse me.
So.
We just finished this.
So.
All right.
Let's start with public.
Okay.
Public comment provides an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the planning commission on items of interest.
Not otherwise noted on the agenda.
Each speaker's comments will be limited to three minutes and will comply with the rules of order for planning commission meetings.
Do we have any members of the public who wish to provide public comments and non agenda items?
Oh, I thought.
I'm sorry.
I said we do because I thought she was here.
Okay.
That's okay.
Do I need to even open comments?
We just closed comment.
All right.
The consent calendar.
These routine items may be approved by a single vote.
However, any member of the public or commissioner may remove an item for consideration during the public hearing portion of the agenda.
This evening, we are reviewing the planning commission regular meeting minutes for December 18, 2025.
And December 15, 20, 26.
Do I have a motion to approve the minutes for December 18, 20, 25?
Some moved.
All those in favor?
Second.
I will abstain from January 15, but I approve December 18.
We're sorry.
We're doing both of them at the same time.
Sure.
I know what to have two separate questions.
I was doing just December 18.
Okay.
Great.
So I abstain from December 18.
Perfect.
All right.
So all those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Approved.
And now motion to approve the meeting minutes for January 15, 20, 26.
Do I have a motion?
So moved.
And do I have a second?
Second.
All those in favor?
Aye.
abstain.
All right.
Fair with me.
This is no.
Consent hearings.
We have no consent hearings.
Public hearings appeals.
None of those.
Administrative reports.
Administrative report items include reports and recommendations from city staff that do not require.
A public hearing prior to action by the commission.
The commission may take action if the agenda description provides for it.
Only the planning commission may authorize public input for these items.
It is within the discretion of the chair and commission to allow public testimony.
Tonight we have item eight a annual review of policy resolution number 10.
Ralph M. Brown Act and conflict of interest laws.
We will now hear a report from staff.
That would be me.
Can't afford to.
I've taken the reports from the past and tried to summarize them and make them a little shorter.
The review is on policy resolution number 10.
The Brown Act and the applicable conflict of interest laws.
Let's see.
I have a little device here.
There we go.
So it seems to me appropriate to point out that the goal of all these things is to foster public trust and confidence.
Because as we get into.
What the rules are there so many rules we couldn't go over them all here.
But it helps me when I think about.
Trying to make sense of all the laws and rules things to understand if I.
Excuse me if I need to decide what the appropriate rule is.
It always helps me to understand what the goal is underlying goal.
And for all three of these items that we're going to review.
The underlying goal is to foster public trust and confidence in government.
So as as you go through your.
You know your practice is a commissioner if you're thinking.
What do I need to do here?
What's the right approach is this consistent with the Brown Act or.
Or do I have a conflict?
It always helps to think well you know what's the underlying purpose here.
And that usually helps me find the right answer.
So in this case.
The way that these three items achieve that goal is with respect to policy resolution number 10.
It requires government officials.
In this case the commissioners to follow certain rules and procedures.
It applies to you as individuals right.
With respect to the Brown Act.
It requires that government be conducted in the open that's the underlying thing.
And I hope that as we go through this and we'll go through it as quickly as I possibly can.
That you'll see that you know that everything is about making sure that government is not done in secret.
And with respect to conflict of interest laws.
It applies to individual government officials to make sure that they're acting in the public interest.
And not out of their own self interest.
So starting with policy resolution number 10.
By the way, does everyone have a copy of policy resolution 10?
I've read it several times.
And I've been asked many questions from commissioners and staff.
And most of the time when I go to look for the answer I find it in there somewhere.
Right.
So for example, Alex, I think you asked me a couple of meetings ago about whether a motion was necessary to open and close public hearing.
I think so.
Yeah.
Do you recall that?
And I never got back to you here.
I am getting back to you.
I'm wondering.
Yeah.
I'm sure it was keeping up at night.
A motion is not required.
The chair can open public hearing.
But a motion is supposed to be required to close the public hearing.
So the chair has broad authority to govern the meeting, the new chair.
But when it comes to closing public hearing, that should be done by a motion second and a vote.
Other questions come up about how to make motions, how to recuse things like that.
Pretty much everything is in policy resolution number 10.
So anyway, policy resolution number 10 applies to rules for conduct.
Individual conduct as well as group conduct as commissioners.
The two primary sort of rules are to conduct yourself with professional respect and civility.
And to attend each meeting and be prepared to fully discuss all the items on the agenda.
And there are various aspects of that that go into a lot more detail.
That's in that policy resolution.
So one thing that I'd like to mention just as kind of tearing from what Dan has to say is it's really important from staff as far as expectations for attendance.
Relates to conflict of interest to be notified early in advance because when we prepare agenda forecasts.
Put projects on agendas and comply with all noticing requirements.
Some of those, especially as it pertains to residential projects, we have very tight timelines that we have to meet.
And so if we're not aware of maybe a conflict or an absence until soon before the meeting, it kind of puts us in a predicament.
And at times we can run into legal implications if we don't have the ability to process it.
So if anything to reiterate, he's had.
When we're doing agenda forecast, if any questions about projects, ten of the timelines or projects kind of on the horizon.
So if we're free to reach out to staff if you have a question about conflicts.
So again.
Individual conduct group conduct, which are the procedures for meetings, order of business for meetings is described in detail.
How the meetings are conducted.
The authority of the chair is set forth in some detail.
Everything you need is pretty much in sections eight, nine and ten of policy resolution number ten.
If you have any questions about that, I'm going to move on to the Brown Act, but if you have questions, you know, feel free to interrupt me and ask.
I don't want to try to go into detail about everything that you can open policy resolution number ten and look at.
The Ralph M. Brown Act, and I have to credit Beverly for telling me that it's the Ralph M. Brown Act.
I always called it the Brown Act before she enlighten me as to that.
So again, these are rules to ensure that government is conducted in the open.
The primary way that's done is to require government officials to deliberate and to act in the open before the public and not in secret.
And so all commission deliberations and actions have to occur in the context of a duly notice public meeting.
And except in a duly notice public meeting commissioners are prohibited from communicating with one another in a way that would cause them to deliberate or discuss items that are within the commission's jurisdiction.
So that is in a nutshell what is required and then there of course are a thousand variations on how to comply or not comply with that.
Which again are in policy resolution number ten.
But the rules are basically that you're not allowed to meet for lunch and at least three of you I should say you know it applies.
The rule is that a majority of the commission cannot meet.
I think just as a matter of perception it's good practice not to meet even if it's not a majority of the commission and to meet and discuss you know to informally these kinds of things because I could lead to what is called a serial meeting.
It does everyone understand the concept of a serial meeting okay so I don't need to go into that but.
Those are basically the the two big rules right everything has to be done in a meeting and you can't have serial meetings and serial meetings can occur when you know Beverly talks Alex and then Alex talks to Lindsey and.
Suddenly, you've decided on some action at the commission that you haven't acted on in public. They could also happen if you're talking to someone who's not a commission member, you know, an applicant or someone some member of the public who's playing a game of telephone basically, right? And you're talking about commission actions. So, you know, no informal meetings, there are, you know, civil and criminal penalties.
These are these sorts of things you probably aware that and nobody wants to be faced with those sorts of things.
So, there are some exceptions to the rule of, through these sort of informal meeting rule where three commissioners, you know, are not supposed to be meeting.
But these exceptions again are in the policy resolution, but I'll run through them quickly.
If you're attending a conference and three or four members of the commission there are there and it's a general interest, you know, then you're not prohibited from talking about topics that are relevant to the conference, but you don't want to wind up.
You wind up having the conversation lead into items that the commission is going to come before the commission that would be a violation of the Brown Act.
Commissioners are allowed to attend meetings of the city council and things like that, you know, you could, of course, all attend meetings and discuss those items there.
Social events, you know, you're not told you can't all attend the same social event.
I'm guessing there may be one tomorrow night that will be attended by more than three commissioners.
No violation of the Brown Act there, as long as we don't see you in the corner, you know, whispering and talking about items that are going to come before the commission.
There, there were a number of, you may have heard that there were, there was a big piece of legislation that had to do with reform of the Brown Act this year.
And all those reforms, none of them applied to these fundamental Brown Act restrictions on your conduct.
You know, they relate to things like how to conduct teleconferences, a lot of it was updating to bring these meeting laws into the 21st century.
But I've looked at it and I don't see anything that relates to the fundamental prohibition on, you know, restriction to meetings and prohibition on informal meetings and serial meetings.
So there's nothing there as far as I can tell that needs to be updated with respect to those kinds of violations.
And I'd be happy to look at it further if you have questions about it, but I don't think it relates to your conduct really so.
Any questions on Brown Act because I'm going to leave that topic to now.
I just have, oh, I have a couple and unless someone would like to ask something first.
So a couple of things, do you know whether the revisions have.
I'm not on social media, by the way, but I know it came up that.
That there may be a big conflict if people are on social media and they like tag something that is related to an agenda item either past or future.
Yeah, I don't think that the reforms.
I address that specifically, but the risk of using social media is related to the risk of having a serial meeting right where you've communicated with someone.
On the commission and you use social media back and forth and two or three of you have talked and suddenly you have a serial meeting where.
You're not conducting, you know, the commission's business in the context of a public duly notice meeting.
That's how that problem typically arises.
The other question I had is I've always been apprehensive to talk too much about items that we've already voted on and have moved to city council until they've been voted on by city council.
Because I've always wondered could something come back to us before it was whatever agenda item that may be in question or for the vote on city council could anything ever come back to us.
Make sure I understand is the question whether if something that the commission has approved.
I've moved and recommended, you know, to forward a recommendation to city council and then we start we so we voted let's say we voted in it majority and then we're all like celebrating that was, you know, I'm so glad.
Well, great conversation, you know, after the fact and then it goes to city council and is there ever a possibility of it coming back to us.
After the council has acted.
Sure.
I mean, so is that I mean, so that that would that would just it makes me think that we'll then should we ever talk about anything after we've already voted.
The way the I mean the most common way and I'm not sure I can think of another way that it would come back.
Is if the council acted in a way that sent it back to the planning commission, you know, maybe they.
If there was some sort of action like say a development agreement was presented and.
Commission recommended approval it went to the city council and they.
And it's not the same D.A. that wasn't considered by the planning commission.
Well, in that case, since it's a D.A. and has to go to planning.
It has, you know, has to go to planning commission and then council and if they change it then it's not the same D.A. that was a planning.
You were okay, that makes complete sense because if it comes back to us, there will it it comes back with some type of re like revision.
Yeah, yeah, and that would apply to like a general plan or specific plan.
Any any approval that is required to go to planning commission and city council.
We changed in the meantime, without having to go back, I shouldn't say can't be, but can't be substantially changed in a way that.
You know, otherwise it has to go back to planning commission.
Okay, thank you.
I mean, there can be revisions, but.
It would minor right so we wouldn't we I total unclear.
Okay crystal clear. Thank you.
Yeah, of course.
Brown ex stuff or no.
Conflict of interest. Everybody's favorite topic, I'm sure.
So there's basically two kinds. There are lots of different laws again that prohibit conflicts of interest.
There's basically two kinds. Financial conflicts and non financial conflicts, right?
And there are government code provisions that prohibit financial conflicts of interest.
The three kinds you probably or the two kinds, I should say relating to financial interest that you probably heard about her.
Government code 1090 which prohibits someone interested in a contract from influencing or voting on that contract.
And then there's political reform act prohibitions that are broader than that.
And actually political reform act kind of encompasses the government code 1090.
But political reform act addresses not only contracts, but conflicts of interest that may arise from relationships with sources of gifts or income.
You can't vote on something from an applicant who is your employer.
For example, is a source of income or someone who has given you gifts of a certain value.
I think it's still around $500 a year.
If the decision relates to real property that you own as to be specifically related and commissioner, you might like.
I writer told me that you may have a question about this.
Also, you business investments of yours.
If you have an investment in a company and the company is an applicant before you, then that would be a financial interest.
The other thing to keep in mind about financial interest is it could be a financial interest of your spouse or dependent.
That could be attributed to you and give rise to a conflict that could be disqualified.
So with respects to the real property writer, correct me from around to actually commissioner, you could.
My understanding was you have property that may be within 500 feet of certain applications that will be coming to the commission.
No, so I'm looking for clarification on the definition of how how it is interpreted like financial interest in a property because I rent where I live and I've seen different interpretations of this in some cases.
And I think it relates in part to the length of the least from what I've seen.
Yeah, unfortunately poor use of laying in this laws are not always well written as I'm sure we all know.
The law itself uses the term least hold interest can give rise to that kind of conflict, but month to month leases are have been determined not to count not to like you're monthly residents if you have a month to month lease.
That's not a disqualifying conflict of interest now having said that if if you had a month to month lease.
And the applicant the property was within 500 feet you know that wouldn't necessarily be a disqualifying conflict, but you could have a non financial interest the other type that you know I mentioned right so.
If if for some reason you were opposed to the project because you believe it was inappropriate in the neighborhood or you know or there were other effects of the project that you were opposed to and.
You didn't think that you could be impartial then you would be prudent to consider or to recuse yourself from that and you know these.
The conflict determinations they're on you guys to make right and it's up to you to determine whether the conflict that you feel like you may have is a disqualifying conflict or not.
And there are lots of sources where you can go to talk to you know lead the city attorney's office obviously but.
FPPC other places that provide guidance on this but in the end you know you're the one who has to determine for yourself whether that's disqualifying conflict of interest.
And fairer unfair if you get it wrong you could be subject to civil or criminal liability right so.
It it makes sense to reach out and investigate these things if you feel like you may have a problem.
Do you clarify what you mean by month to month please.
Do you mean like the at least where you pay the rent on a monthly basis and where.
Well, and I will tell you this is my interpretation right and I haven't seen anything.
In the cases or in the law that spells it out with great clarity but in my view if you have like a a three year lease requires payment on a month a month basis and you have like a 30 day right to.
To get out or they have a right to give you 30 day notice.
Excuse me that's month a month please okay so it's not okay got it I was thinking like the term of the least agreement that's not what you got no no thank you and.
And again I mean.
That's my interpretation if you had a 25 year lease you know that that.
It had rights of termination in the middle. That would be a factor in determining whether you had a conflict.
I think that I would still not change. I think that when they put the word leasehold interest in the law, they were talking about more commercial kinds of leases and things like that that really almost are like,
you know, the equivalent of fee title and the property, right?
You know, that give you a, you know, because you see 100 year leases, 50 year leases, my interpretation is that those are the kinds of leases,
leasehold interest that were intended to give rise to the kinds of conflicts that could give rise to criminal liability.
And in this case, I likely will still refuse myself because of the perception that I could have impacts on me based on the impact of the development, but that's helpful.
Thank you. And I'm glad you said that, actually, because that relates to the next point about the non-financial interest.
That extends even to like an appearance of impropriety, right? If the public believes that, or if it would be reasonable for someone in the public to think, you know,
you, you could have a bias here, even though you know in your heart and in your head that, you know, whatever this, the factor is that's giving rise to this potential conflict is not present for you.
If it's reasonable for someone in the public to think that you may have a bias, then you should probably think about whether, you know, it makes sense to recuse or abstain.
So, lots to think about where you guys there, but, okay, so, what to do, if you have a conflict, you refuse, right? You refuse yourself from the item on the agenda and you make no attempt to influence the decision at all.
Right? And, refusal process is pretty simple. Again, it's laid out very clearly in policy resolution number 10.
You, after the chair has introduced the item, you identify your, you know, your interest that gives rise to the conflict.
If the item is not on the consent calendar, then you have to leave the room. If it's on the consent calendar, you just leave the dyes, but you don't have to leave the room.
And then again, you don't participate in the vote or to try to influence the vote at all.
And as usual, there are exceptions to the rule about influencing the vote.
Limited exceptions, if, if you're a design professional, I know there are design professionals here, and you have a client and you've been retained to prepare designs.
And then you can do that, and you can talk to staff, you know, and you can appear at a hearing and, you know, explain and discuss the designs and answer questions, right?
In the capacity of your professional work and representing your client.
Of course, you're not going to vote on the, you know, the matter, right?
The other exception to the rule is you can appear at a public hearing as a member, just in your own capacity as a citizen, right?
Just as a member of the general public.
You can't represent anyone else, but, you know, if there's a matter that you've been conflicted out of, but you have, you want to appear and voice your interests in your capacity as a citizen,
then you're allowed to do that.
It's first amendment right, basically, so.
Dan, just to clarify, on number one, be out if you're in the design profession.
You can talk, as it says up there, you can talk to the city staff.
We're guiding all your documents and things like that, but when it actually comes to your presentation in front of the commission,
you're not allowed to, is that, to the commission?
No, you can't.
Excuse me.
You can appear as the applicants.
Or is there ever, yeah, or design professional, but.
Yeah, I mean, you know, these are squishy, right?
So you have to be careful what you're saying, right, you know, but of course, if you're the engineer or the designer or whatever,
the commission may have questions for you about it, you know, and.
I think, you know, one of the.
Was, you know, Bob was on the commission.
Sure.
And when our projects came through, we typically go and we meet with each of the commissioners.
We meet with city council and whatnot, but he would never do those meetings.
Right.
And so that's something I would never do.
I would send someone else to do those meetings.
Yeah.
The rules explicitly say that partners, business colleagues are not prevented from doing that.
You know, and so I mean, I understand that.
That's the prudent thing to do, right?
I think.
But there is a tension with, you know,
I don't want to say it's.
I mean, there's a tension with first amendment actually, you know, and so.
I would follow, I think yours and Bob's practice.
But I think that's the right thing to tell you.
Did you do that, right?
Yeah.
But I think that's the right way to do it.
Yeah.
Okay.
Very good.
Thank you.
I mean, that's clear.
Question.
Others.
Okay.
Well, I think I said this already, but if you do have questions, I mean,
I can't urge you strongly enough to, you know, talk to someone.
If you feel like you have a conflict because, frankly, the repercussions could be serious, right?
So, I mean, in most cases, they're probably not, but you never know.
And politics can be a dirty business, you know.
So, you know, you got the city attorney's office that you can talk to.
The FPPC has two avenues for advice.
You can get informal advice and you can log under their website.
And they will communicate with you and answer questions and things like that.
And you can get an informal opinion from them that can be very helpful.
But if you want formal advice, there's a separate process that you need to go through.
Again, it's on the website.
And if you get a formal FPPC opinion that will immunize you against criminal or civil life, I think it's both liability.
So, you know, if you had a serious issue and you were worried about it, it would probably be worth getting a formal FPPC opinion.
But it takes a while.
It does take a while.
Yes.
Have you been through that process?
Really?
Yeah.
Okay.
I have not, so.
Real pain.
How long?
I think it was, I mean, around a month, which is tough if you don't have enough.
Yeah, right.
Because it always comes up in the last minute, right?
It's actually not as long as I thought.
It could have been longer, but that's my recollection.
Anyway, also, the Institute for Local Government website is up there.
It's a pretty useful place.
They have a lot of information about conflicts of interest.
So, that could be very helpful.
I think, oh, that's going to say I think I've come to the end, but I haven't.
So, there are two, a couple of other things I wanted to mention.
This city charter has a prohibition that, on accepting gifts.
It's section 103.
You can't accept gifts from a single source that exceed $460 in a year.
I'm not sure whether that's gone up or not.
That was the last publication of the charter.
And, of course, you can't accept gifts from a person who's doing business with or seeking to do business with the city.
You know, these, again, are kind of common sense.
I learned everything in kindergarten.
I need to know what you think, hard enough.
The government code requires that you undergo by any old ethics training.
Every two years, you have to certify to the city clerk that you've done this.
This was actually news to me, but not having been a commissioner.
I didn't know that.
So, you're supposed to certify to the city clerk.
What is within 60 days of becoming a commissioner?
And then every two years, and then within 60 days of departing as a commissioner.
You know, a quizzical look is me.
I don't know what the penalty is, but I said it, and there it is.
And then every, I don't know if you fill out four of seven hundreds.
Okay, everyone knows about that.
Anyway, I think that brings me to the end.
So, any questions?
Any questions for staff?
No, thank you.
Thanks for sitting through it.
The Planning Commission requires no formal action.
Are there any additional questions or comments for staff?
Is this number nine?
No, that was number four for eight.
Now, moving on to number nine.
Are there any comments by commissioners and or staff?
Beverly, thank you for two exceptional years as the chair.
Really wonderful job.
And I think we all enjoyed your chair.
Personship very much.
Wow, thank you.
That's very kind.
And as I had mentioned, it really is daunting.
But it literally took six to eight months for me to understand my take on it.
And what I can contribute, you know.
So, it's individual.
In my opinion, it's individual for each chair.
Everyone does it differently.
And I couldn't be happier with our band.
We've broken it.
Well, it was a pleasure sitting next to you the last year and learning what I could.
Bear with me as I get my footing.
I do truly appreciate your confidence and support.
I'm donating me for chair.
And I'm grateful to work alongside such thoughtful commissioners.
And I look forward to continuing our work together in serving our community here in Napa.
So thank you.
Any other comments?
Well, just echo as Alex.
Thank you.
Beverly, for your service.
The last year.
It's been really good for me to be up here with this group of people.
And you, especially.
And you also in the rest of you guys too.
So I appreciate that.
I look forward to this coming here.
Thank you.
All right.
Was that?
Oh, the next regularly scheduled meeting.
I do have one update.
Planning manager, staff response, tentative agenda schedule projects.
Yes.
I do have a quick update to go through.
But I'll echo what the fellow commissioners have said.
Congratulations on your two years as chair.
Now commissioner shot well.
Also, congratulations to chair.
Oh, and invite chair Myers.
I look forward to the growth within those roles and the confidence that you build over time.
I mean, making decisions within your roles.
But yes, we've heard an interest from the commission just to provide kind of a tentative schedule of projects on the horizon just to kind of gauge the pulse.
Sometimes it's an interest of planning out your year.
And so with the agenda forecast on the horizon, next planning commission meeting tentatively schedule.
We have the general plan annual progress report and housing element annual progress report.
Angela Planner and our office is working very diligently on those numbers and it's taking a lot of time for her to work on that.
We should have that.
That's to present to you as admin reports for the next planning commission meeting. As far as March, beginning a March, we don't have anything scheduled for that planning commission meeting, but we do have a relatively busy schedule, tentatively for the second meeting in March.
If it helps at all a lot of the times that the project files are the address for the project and I know that's helpful.
We can commit to as if we don't have the address listed on the files to list the address as well if it helps in any way determining whether there's a conflict or not.
And as you plan kind of your individual schedules.
One thing I'd like to mention to on Tuesday this week that the Health Subdivision was approved by City Council unanimously.
So if you haven't watched that yet and go back and watch the recording for his infant health subdivision,
we'll receive definitely was not the most popular project of the night.
There was a Lincoln Avenue discussion that filled the council chambers.
As far as April, we don't have anything tentatively scheduled yet, but that was subject to change.
One other update to provide as far as conference is zoning update or likely chat kind of tracking to have a screen check draft of the zoning ordinance update for public review around spring.
We don't have a set date for that yet to know set dates for workshops or subsequent hearings.
Ultimately, overall timelines still tracking for the fall for full adoption.
So if you have any questions, always available.
I want to just say thank you because getting that responses in terms of how things went with City Council is so helpful because oftentimes I have every intention of watching it or at least following up.
And so thank you for that and this advanced forecast of what's ahead is also so very helpful.
Thank you.
And always open the feedback to if you're looking for any regular updates.
I do have a question about next month's training has any decisions been made about which commissioners are going to be able to go.
Not yet, but we'll keep you up to another.
All right, the next regularly scheduled meeting for the Planning Commission of the City of Napa is February 19, 2026 this meeting is adjourned.