[0:51] Thank

[0:56] you. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Napa County Board of Supervisors meeting. I'm calling this meeting of August 25th, 2026 to order. May I have roll call, please? Vice chair, I see you. I sent supervisor Ramos, supervisor Gallagher, supervisor, chair,

[1:17] chair.

[1:20] Thank you. At this time, I would ask everyone who's able to rise for the pledge of allegiance. And I would like Scott Wagner, director of Housing and Community Services to lead us to

[1:52] Are next item is pet of the week and as requested, if you could please be quiet, if you really adore this pet, I can offer you if you would like to twinkle in support of the pet.

[2:02] That's a nice quiet way to show that you're pleased about this beautiful dog that we're going to meet now.

[2:08] So Louise, whenever you're ready,

[2:23] okay, so this morning we have Phoebe and Louise, would you

[2:29] like to tell us about this wonderful girl?

[2:32] Okay, you guys, Phoebe is a little nervous, so you'll see her kind of just pan, pan, pan,

[2:37] seeing a lot and or hiding behind me, doing the little pacing that she's doing right now.

[2:42] I wasn't really expecting her to do this when she got here because at the shelter she is

[2:47] really, really shy at the beginning, but then once she sees you and she recognizes you,

[2:50] For example, even with me, when I go up to her channel, she will kind of go down and she's like,

[2:56] who is that?

[2:56] Do I need to run away?

[2:57] And then she sees that it's me.

[2:58] And then she gets really, really bubbly, very social, very outgoing, very soft like.

[3:04] She kind of turns into a puppy in the sense that her butt starts doing that big puppy wiggle.

[3:10] Her tail goes kind of wild.

[3:12] Her licking is very, very soft.

[3:15] Very curious, like a puppy not a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a,

[3:19] But Phoebe has been at the shelter for about a month.

[3:23] She did come with him siblings to the shelter.

[3:25] So we know that she has the skill to be social with other dogs.

[3:29] One of my favorite things about Phoebe is I really want her.

[3:32] She reminds me a lot of my dog at home.

[3:35] She has got the droopy face. She's got the sad eyes.

[3:38] But once you get to know her and she starts to be more social with you.

[3:41] She really turns into like, oh my gosh, I love you so much.

[3:44] I just want to be near you.

[3:45] If you pet her, she's really, really soft.

[3:48] she's a chubby little girl. She's about 80 pounds right now. But yeah, she's just a little shy,

[3:55] little, a little overwhelmed with the city, the car drive, all the noises, all the people

[4:01] elevator as well. But she's actually doing really well. She's just ready to go back to the shelter.

[4:09] Okay, and Phoebe's adoption fees are way for this week? Yes. Okay, beautiful. Thank you for

[4:14] and Phoebe for us today.

[4:17] Good job.

[4:19] Good.

[4:21] I see some flinkles.

[4:22] Thank you.

[4:38] All right.

[4:39] That brings us to item four approval of proclamations and commendations.

[4:42] And the recipients for today's intended proclamation for teen mental health awareness

[4:46] month are unable to attend the meeting.

[4:49] So we're not going to present the proclamation today.

[4:52] But I will ask for any public comments on the proclamation.

[4:55] and also a motion in second to prove it.

[5:00] Information will be presented to the recipients offsite in the near future. So are there any public comments on this item?

[5:07] Not seeing any or there any on the phone? So, okay, I'm motion to approve.

[5:12] Second, okay, motion by supervisor, almost, second by supervisor, control, all those in favor.

[5:18] Aye. That passage unanimously. Very well. That brings us to item five, our consent calendar, including special districts, and we'll be pulling items to five B as in boy.

[5:29] and 5b as in dog. So that is consent calendar items A through R with the exception of 5b and 5b.

[5:40] Do we have any public comments on this on any of the items not being full from consent?

[5:51] I'm not seeing any on the phone now. Okay.

[5:53] And they have a motion, and a second to approve consent calendar.

[5:57] I can say through R accepting 5b and 5d.

[6:00] So moved, rather, second, control.

[6:03] Okay, we have a motion by Ramos, and a second by control.

[6:05] All those in favor.

[6:07] I, I, that passes unanimously, and we'll be hearing those items during item eight in the after board reports and announcements.

[6:21] So at this time I would welcome any public comment for items not on the agenda or on our free closed session items today. Is there any public comment on items not on our agenda? Yes, please come to the podium and if you'd give us your name please and you have three minutes.

[6:37] My name is Mark Leonardo, and I'm the co-founder of the Michael Leonardo Foundation, and had I known you were adopting dogs today. I'm going to come a little more prepared. I just got one, so I can't up to.

[6:50] Good morning, Madam Chair. Members of the board. Again, my name is Mark Leonardo. I'm the co-founder of the Michael Leonardo Foundation, which was created in memory of my son, Michael, who lost his life to fentanyl poisoning.

[7:02] It was a simple mistake he made by biting a pill with some friends off Snapchat and, unfortunately,

[7:09] with the two milligrams of fentanyl in any of these counterfeit pills, it's enough to kill

[7:15] the normal average size personal.

[7:18] Our mission is deeply personal, but our work is focused on the entire community.

[7:22] We are dedicated to educating young people, parents, and families about the very real dangers

[7:27] of fentanyl, fentanyl poisoning, and counterfeit dip pills, and accidental overdoses.

[7:34] I don't know if you all know the difference is between accidental overdoses and poisoning.

[7:40] Poisony is basically something that you're trying to be buying. So let's say an oxy cotton off of

[7:45] some dealer on the internet. And that pill has no oxy cotton in it. It has strictly fentanyl

[7:51] and you're unaware of that. And that's basically somebody who's trying to poison somebody.

[7:55] be just like them giving you rep reasons.

[7:59] Our major part of our work is going to be directly in front

[8:02] of young people.

[8:03] We part with schools and community organizations,

[8:06] and we have it to have honest,

[8:08] age-appropriate conversations about fentanyl,

[8:11] the dangers of elicid pills,

[8:14] and the reality that is today that one pill can kill.

[8:18] We want young people to understand that the pill obtained from a friend

[8:20] through social media or anywhere outside of legitimate pharmacy

[8:23] can contain a lethal amount of fentanyl.

[8:25] But education is only one part of what we do.

[8:29] We provide free in a lock zone.

[8:31] We provide fentanyl test strips.

[8:33] We provide, we connect families with resources,

[8:36] host community, presentations, and awareness events.

[8:40] And we're to reduce the stigma surrounding substance use

[8:43] and overdose, including poisoning.

[8:46] We believe one person, we believe one open conversation

[8:49] can save many lives.

[8:50] We also believe that preventing needs to reach young people

[8:55] in ways that resonate with them, young people don't necessarily want to hear me stand up and

[9:00] talk about this all the time. That is why we music has become such an important part of our

[9:04] outreach. This Saturday, August 29th, we're bringing that mission to downtown Napa with our music

[9:09] and awareness concert at the Car Club from 47pm. It's about more than a concert. It's about bringing

[9:15] our community together using music to start the conversation, providing its potentially life-saving

[9:20] information and resources and reminding young people that they have choices in their choices matter.

[9:26] I'd like to personally invite each one of you to the Napile Car Club this Saturday and enjoy

[9:32] the music, learn about our work, and help continue spreading the message through outer community.

[9:37] Awareness creates conversation, conversations create change, and sometimes one conversation

[9:42] can save a life.

[9:44] Thank you very much for supporting the health and safety of our young people and our

[9:47] community. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Lianardi. I have some of these here. I'd like to offer you guys

[9:54] comes in a lineup here. That's okay. That's great. Thank you. Thank you for your time again.

[10:02] Good morning, Mr. Relios. Good morning, chair and supervisors. I'm Donald Williams, Mayor of

[10:10] Kalisoga. It's been two years since the sale of the Fairgrounds and for that accomplishment

[10:15] we're grateful to you and to CEO Al-Sauper his assistance. The history is interesting. Decades

[10:22] ago the property was transferred from Kalisoga into the county in order to facilitate state funding

[10:29] for the Fairgrounds. The county made the purchasing using mostly state, not local funds, and the

[10:35] express purpose was maintaining a fairgrounds. It never was intended as a marketable real estate

[10:41] asset. As state funding diminished, the county acknowledged the fairgrounds was outside of scope,

[10:48] and then the real question was not ownership, because the public is the owner, but which jurisdiction

[10:54] and would manage the fairgrounds, and calisogans were interested.

[10:58] We put thousands of volunteer hours and millions of dollars into the property.

[11:03] We're doing what we can in-house, but to make the fairgrounds self-sustaining,

[11:08] we may want to invite professionals to manage some parts of the property, for example the golf course

[11:14] or the RV park. There are developers who've shown interest in investing in the fairgrounds,

[11:21] But they have indicated they may need terms of more than 25 years to recover their investment.

[11:28] So we ask that the limit on leases be extended to 50 years.

[11:32] That would enable us to negotiate the best possible terms with sets professionals.

[11:38] The agreement with the county is two years old, but the main object today and going forward

[11:43] for all of us is the success of the Fairgrounds.

[11:47] already we've hosted many community events there for public recreation and benefit.

[11:53] Allowing longer leases would not affect any other terms of the agreement.

[11:58] It would continue to be zoned for public recreation and historical uses.

[12:04] In fact, allowing longer leases actually strengthens and supports

[12:08] the essential purpose of the transaction, which is to restore the property to public use.

[12:15] The revitalized fairgrounds will be a resource for residents, an attraction for visitors,

[12:21] and a haven in emergencies, the longer lease limit can help us achieve those goals.

[12:28] After all, what purpose does a 25-year lease limit serve that a 50-year limit wouldn't do as well?

[12:36] And how does the public gain by keeping the lease restrictive?

[12:40] because next to nothing to make this change and the flexibility of a longer

[12:46] lease term can help Calistoga bring to fruition the promise of a thriving

[12:52] dynamic fairgrounds for all the public to enjoy. Thank you. Thank you Mayor

[12:59] Williams. Welcome, Council Member Eisenberg. Thank you. Kevin Eisenberg,

[13:04] Calisto, the city council of first I completely concur with Mayor Williams

[13:10] points and I will try not to repeat them. I have a few short comments. First I

[13:18] also am grateful for the work that CEO else up in the two advisors did to work

[13:24] with Calisto get to keep the fairgrounds alive.

[13:30] And also I don't believe that this

[13:33] board intends to execute the right of first refusal and take back the

[13:38] fairgrounds because when expanded least term. I know that's not your intention.

[13:44] I believe the board only has good intentions for the fairgrounds, but not

[13:49] changing this one word on the agreement from 25 to 50.

[13:56] It does cause additional time and expense for Calastoga and Napa County to go through the process each time we want to change or accept a lease agreement.

[14:13] All of the safeguards protect the county and guarantee that the Fairgrounds will remain as recreational space for the benefit of the people of Napa County remain in place.

[14:24] And I'd like to conclude with asking you two questions.

[14:32] How does limiting the least term to 25 years benefit the county and its residents?

[14:41] And how does changing the term 50 years harm the county and its residents?

[14:49] Thank you.

[14:55] Thank you. Welcome as Andersen, the morning supervisors. Thank you for being here.

[15:00] I'll just follow up with, with the folks from Calestoga said, it seems to run parallel the request with what you're requesting from the BOR at Lake Barry Yesa, or at least the concession airs are saying they need a longer time in order to execute a plan out there.

[15:17] So it appears to be a pretty common thing. I just wanted to mention a loss of all these beautiful oak trees up and down the trail in 29 to Mediterranean oak ore.

[15:28] As a LSEO, probably saw the beautiful oak tree in front of Burgess for her event this

[15:34] last weekend, and I had an idea, I don't know if it will work.

[15:39] When there was Dutch owned disease trees that were confirmed diseased, it was considered

[15:44] rude with.

[15:44] It was a source of anoculation for other trees to move that wood around.

[15:49] And I don't think the past, there's much that can be done by the Agriculture Commissioner.

[15:54] But what if we worked with the operators of the landfill to allow tree companies to take that contaminated

[16:04] infested wood and bury it at the landfill?

[16:07] That was what is done with Dutch owned disease trees.

[16:10] Is it the bury the wood?

[16:11] So it was not transported around for firewood.

[16:14] So maybe that's something that could be done.

[16:15] It's just offer that opportunity to tree companies.

[16:19] And I don't know, maybe Mr. Letter can mention,

[16:22] are we taking M.O.B. killed trees along our public roads and offering that would along the

[16:28] side of the road for people to cut up. Maybe we don't want to do that anymore. I just want to

[16:33] thank you guys again for funding vegetation management along Cal Mountain Road and Anguan.

[16:40] It is magnificent and what that work has done has allowed PUC staff with their own small

[16:48] rickety old equipment to come back in where the larger

[16:53] massification occurred and just kind of routinely come through.

[16:57] I have seen tractors working in places where no equipment has done

[17:01] forest management for 30 years.

[17:04] So it's really uplifting and you're leveraged that money a lot.

[17:08] And then lastly, maybe Mr. Bardona knows about this.

[17:13] When these vineyards start coming out on really steep hills,

[17:17] For example, England or Mount Veter. A lot of these may be predate from the 70s, so they might predate some of them, our erosion control ordinances.

[17:27] What policies are we putting in place to stabilize those hills?

[17:34] I see some that are really going to be dangerous, and they are have the potential to contaminate concrete.

[17:40] So I hope we have policies in place to protect the hillsides when those vineyards come out.

[17:47] Thanks. Thank you. I'm not seeing any other public comments in the room. Is there anyone on the phone?

[17:54] Okay. And that brings us to item seven Board of Supervisors reports and announcements.

[18:02] I welcome any of my colleagues. I see supervisor Gallagher first.

[18:10] Yes, thank you and good morning. Just a couple of things. I think several of us up here

[18:18] have the opportunity to meet with representatives of the UC Ag and Natural Resources group

[18:28] that actually runs UC Cooperative Extension was really, really informative and I will be talking

[18:34] about it more in my newsletter and talking a little bit more about the programs that they offer.

[18:39] we have 18 different programs and initiatives that come out of ANR and there were many that I didn't

[18:49] even know about. Ons of course that we do like for age but many others that we didn't necessarily

[18:54] know about and so I think it's really really a wonderful asset to the community to be able to

[19:03] how our UC Cooperative Extension and how access to all of these great people around California

[19:08] who can be really helpful in terms of not only agriculture but community development and

[19:15] youth development and other things that they do so. Stay tuned I think for more

[19:21] information about how the county can work more in concert with that group. Also just wanted to

[19:29] comment on Mr. Lianardi's comment about the Lianardi Foundation and so that everybody knows

[19:41] we actually have a committee at the county through HHSA called the Napa Obioids Safety Committee

[19:47] that meets every month and does a lot of work around Obioids Safety and so please if you have

[19:54] opportunity to go to one of their trainings. Please take advantage and you will find in the lock.

[20:00] All over the place. And so if that is something that if somebody is actually overdosing, you can use that to save some, actually, it's a lifesaver, or we also make sure you have a box of that with you at all times.

[20:17] And so if you go to the event on Saturday, I'm sure they will have those available, but you can find those in clinics and other places around the community.

[20:25] It's really, really important that we talk about this in the community and that we are actively participating as community members and we understand what we can do to help others.

[20:40] So, wanted to mention those two and then I do have a report from our ad hoc inclusion committee, which is myself and supervisor Ramos.

[20:53] We have been meeting, we've also been in meetings and discussions with other jurisdictions around the Bay Area, and we would like to make a referral to staff that we draft an interim urgency ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on the Friday construction conversion or operation of a new or expanded detention of new or expanded detention or correctional facilities within the unincorporated area of Napa County.

[21:22] This is something that we're looking at all throughout the Bay Area.

[21:27] We want to do this quickly because it's really really important that if we're looking at anything like a detention center that we consider the various policy implications and

[21:41] we are able to take that time to do that and develop a comprehensive approach to regulating and mitigating impacts in terms of land use

[21:50] and also community impacts of these kinds of facilities.

[21:55] So we do have a draft from San Mateo County.

[21:58] They are actually taking that up at their meeting today.

[22:01] So we do have a starting point

[22:03] for our planning and building department

[22:05] and our county council.

[22:08] And so we'd like to see that come to us in a draft

[22:13] as soon as we can.

[22:15] I think that for now, that is all.

[22:18] And if I think of more, I'll come back.

[22:22] Thank you, Supervisor Gallagher. I see Vice Chair Lassia.

[22:30] Thank you. I was also going to be mentioning the

[22:36] the Napa Opeoid Safety Coalition I attended the last meeting and it really was a report regarding

[22:43] Opeoid use, methamphetamine. That I mean is on the rise,

[22:48] mentioned on the rise, and a lot of someone is being used as well-sourced in our community.

[22:55] I think this is a really important report to bring back to this board. So when it works for

[23:02] our public health department, Dr. Blue, she could bring that report to this board, that would be

[23:08] so it would be great. I thought it was very important. And that is a regular meeting that you

[23:12] can attend virtually via Zoom. So I encourage people to know what's happening in our community

[23:17] in that area. I want to report back as at the MCE Board representative chair and I also chair

[23:26] the MCE Finance Committee. Some of you may or may not be tracking that there was a grand jury

[23:33] report on MCE at our last board meeting. We went through the response and improved the response

[23:41] two-degree, with some few amendments. There was a lot of agreement over all on that report with the

[23:50] grand jury in terms of findings. There's a lot happening in MCE, including a CEO search,

[23:57] including a current governance assessment, which will then follow up with recommendations and

[24:02] implement implementations for changes. MCE is going through a changes in growth, if you will.

[24:09] So, it's a positive step forward.

[24:14] I know some of you may know that the right now,

[24:19] the Napa County flight control,

[24:23] is, well, the currently working and

[24:24] constructing the flood wall that's

[24:27] Lincoln north.

[24:29] I think the Lincoln to train guests.

[24:31] I have exactly right.

[24:33] And they're also working on the Abajo area.

[24:36] This southern portion, which is the last mile.

[24:38] And this one folks know that this board, which is on the flight control board, is working with, and we've got two supervisor Gallagher, the Ann Council member, Inavara, who's this is their district, who are working with the Baja residents. So just like Napa does.

[25:00] With any message that can impact community with community engagement, we're listening and there's neighborhood meetings and I want to thank supervisor Gallagher for her work on that.

[25:13] Let's see here. Also, just to let folks know, there's it's fairly a new formation of a green workforce coalition that I'm joining.

[25:23] This is what City Council member Beth Painter, Chris Benz, is what's

[25:29] Neppophilament now.

[25:31] And some other folks that are involved in this area of climate change and looking

[25:41] at, how can we, how can we create a workforce as a course for these in this community

[25:47] and building a green workforce as something we can do and other areas have done.

[25:51] And that's his perfect MCE has that's given grants to Marin County for a green workforce project.

[25:59] So more to come on that.

[26:01] I want to congratulate Michael Constances.

[26:04] I was invited to attend and speak at his Eagle Stickout Court of Honor.

[26:10] Well, I wouldn't spiring.

[26:12] If you ever the opportunity and you can attend an Eagle Scout Court of Honor, it's really special.

[26:18] Michael, in particular, started as it comes down when he was six years old and first grade, continued through, until he joined the Boy Scouts, and

[26:29] all the way through until he turned 18, and just where he turned 18 was given the approval to a musical project for this honor.

[26:39] It was very inspiring, so I just wanted to congratulate him.

[26:43] I did attend the Open House of a new nonprofit called the Sarah Lessley Foundation, and this is housing for women and children who have left an abusive situation and many times people will use news as a emergency shelter, which is fantastic news does incredible work and has for decades.

[27:11] So the Sarah Leslie Foundation extends housing for them for up to a year with really modest monthly rent.

[27:23] And the first three months is for you, and then I think it's like 30% or something.

[27:27] But it's on the sliding scale. It's really doable.

[27:30] It's a four bedroom for bath house. It's really nice.

[27:33] It's in the city of Napa and there's actually a detached garage.

[27:38] It also has an ADU that will also be available with some property on the side for more small housing to extend for women and children.

[27:48] One of the fallouts is when you leave an abusive relationship.

[27:52] I'm sure this is with men too with, you know, offenders.

[27:56] But I guess I can speak specifically for women is that you often lose your income.

[28:00] You also, you lose the ability to stay in this community where your family and your support and your friends are.

[28:07] So being able to have an option for victims of abuse, to have housing as they rebuild their lives and rebuild their souls, if you will, is really important.

[28:18] So I want to wish Sarah Leslie Foundation, all the luck and support from this community.

[28:26] Speaking of support, I did attend two events and I'm just mentioning this because there's a lot of work that goes.

[28:32] Now we're going to be talking about community events here later in our agenda, but there's

[28:36] a lot of work that goes behind these community events that are for nonprofits that

[28:43] serve nonprofits that meet the critical needs of our community.

[28:48] When a nonprofit goes through and they raise these funds such as Stomp and the Salvation

[28:54] Army out of the fire, they're raising hundreds of thousands sometimes millions of dollars

[29:00] for people in our community to benefit from.

[29:03] So I just want to thank them and congratulate them

[29:06] for a two-grade event site and to thank you.

[29:10] Okay, thank you for those informative updates.

[29:12] Supervisor Control.

[29:15] Thank you, Chair.

[29:16] I wanted to report out on two board meetings I attended

[29:19] first for RCRC, the rural county representatives of California

[29:24] and also CSAC which is the California State Association

[29:30] of counties. The first represents 40 rural counties in the second is all 58 counties. This last week

[29:37] both boards considered a range of the propositions that will be on the ballot coming up this fall.

[29:45] RCRC did not take positions on them. C-SAC took positions on three that I wanted to share with the board.

[29:52] First, proposition one that will authorize bonds for housing affordability programs. You know that's

[29:58] going to be really important.

[30:00] In our county and throughout California, CSAC took a support position on that proposition, on proposition 3, which would provide permanent funding for schools and healthcare by extending and existing tax on high income earners.

[30:17] So that's not a new tax, it's a continuation of the tax, and it's really key for

[30:23] public schools across the state.

[30:25] And so CSEC took a support position on that one as well.

[30:30] And the final one is Proposition 43, which would limit voters ability to raise revenues for local

[30:37] government services by increasing the threshold that a citizen's initiative would have to meet

[30:43] from what it is right now, which is a majority to a two-thirds majority.

[30:51] So significantly raised that CSAC took an opposed position on that.

[30:56] So I wanted to share those updates with you.

[30:59] We also had a lot of discussion in both board meetings about

[31:03] proposed changes to wildfire liability,

[31:08] and also local government's ability to recover for damaged infrastructure.

[31:13] there's a strong coalition right now between those two groups and also the League of Cities has been a critical partner there too.

[31:21] And to me that's I think an important partner that we don't often look to as a county.

[31:27] So I'm looking to supervisor or less you because I know you've been quite involved in that.

[31:30] So I think there's looking forward to more we could do there.

[31:35] Also, was able to attend stomped this weekend and congrats to the grape growers for how much money they raised in support of the farm worker foundation, which provides really critical training and education for our farm worker population.

[31:51] And we had a very small fire in District 3 on Sunday on Con Valley Road.

[31:58] It brought out both ground and air support.

[32:00] I wanted to thank the Napa County Fire Department.

[32:03] And also the St. Lena Fire Department and other up Valley crews were there too.

[32:08] We have both volunteers and career firefighters there.

[32:12] And there was a quick fire retardant drop too.

[32:16] So reminding everyone to stay vigilant.

[32:19] That's all I have.

[32:20] Thank you.

[32:20] Okay, very good. Thank you. Supervisor Bichelle. Supervisor Ramas.

[32:24] Thank you so much for report out. Just did owe to a supervisor could trial on the CSAC executive committee meeting that took place last. Sorry, the CSAC board of directors meeting that took place last week. I also attended the CSAC executive committee on August 13th.

[32:45] Supervisor Manfree, and I attended the Programming and Allications Committee for MTC, the

[32:54] Bata Oversight Committee in the ABAC Housing Committee, and the Bafa Oversight Committee,

[33:01] a lot of acronyms, and last Friday I also attended the Joint MTC ABAC Legislation

[33:08] committee,

[33:11] the and and also the ABAC executive board and the ACFA governing board, it was my first meeting in immediate past president. It is the greatest title. I will just say that. Next, I did want to report out to my colleagues at an opportunity to attend the press conference for fixed date route 37 on the 19th and

[33:38] happy to report that the California Transportation Commission did

[33:41] in fact fund the Tully Creek Bridge Replacement, which is truly an

[33:46] environmentally superior bridge replacement that allows for fish

[33:51] passage that is not allowed through the tons of concrete that we have

[33:56] in place right now. And so we are on our way while we have lots of

[34:00] funding to break together to make this all work. I'm really

[34:06] exciting to see a unanimous support from the California Transportation Commission. I wanted to

[34:12] invite all my colleagues to the last meet me in the street, which is we're adding one. So it's

[34:16] an September 9th. We're not going to have another meeting before then. It's from 5 to 8. And you can

[34:22] find me straddling between my district booth and also for each will be having its open house

[34:29] at meet me in the street. And we're trying to figure out how in fact we get some some animals there.

[34:35] little. It's a little peculiar with foods, so we're figuring that one out if it could be a

[34:39] tick-in or a bunny. And then one referral over to, let me just say two items. So when I'd like to

[34:47] request a proclamation recognizing Mayor Sedgley, he is receiving the first Molly's Angel's

[34:54] Community Impact Award that will pre-present it on Friday's September 18. So I'd like to be able to

[35:00] We were able to present a proclamation to them at that event and I'm asking for that referral.

[35:04] The next one, we did receive a comment regarding Knoxville Road.

[35:11] And I had the opportunity to tour Knoxville Road with Captain Thompson of the Sheriff's Office.

[35:17] It was recommended I'd take by the constituent of, I believe it's in District 3, recommended I'd take my personal car.

[35:25] I opted not to. That was a very smart choice to not take my own personal car. I have had a conversation. I know many of us have had the opportunity to look at this road and I have had a conversation with the CEO and also much as a referral as much as maybe it's an opportunity for us to come back and to really look at those roadways that while they may not be volume serving, they serve a critical emergency role for us in the county.

[35:55] And we had a great focus and emphasis on this after the 2017 fires.

[36:02] And I think working with fire and the fire marshals office and OES, it would be helpful for us to kind of understand.

[36:10] Mapping wise, what those priorities of those roadways are and what the conditions of those roadways are so that we can truly have a plan as opposed to a patch and seal,

[36:22] because some of these roads are definitely beyond the patch and seal.

[36:29] That's all. Thanks. Okay. Thank you, Supervisor Ramos. As my announcements are, as Supervisor

[36:36] Ramos mentioned, August 12th, MTC committee meetings, nothing really to elaborate. We're

[36:41] mostly looking at regional projects funding in this committee meetings. On the 17th, I attended

[36:47] of that prevailing waste management agency with Supervisor Control and the 21st, the California State Association of Counties Sigma working group with Supervisor Control and I found that to be a very eliminating meeting just seeing how other counties are working through their fee roll outs and some of the problems they're encountering and it's certainly it's certainly a topic of a lot of discussion statewide and it's it's interesting just to compare how it's going here with with other look.

[37:18] on the 24th of August, I also attended the UC Agnatural Resources, UC Extension discussion

[37:26] about how the UC might be more active in informing up County about their, through their

[37:37] connections to the science community and also how they might more actively participate in our

[37:42] water planning and agricultural planning processes.

[37:46] And that was a very good discussion.

[37:49] And yeah, just looking forward to that one very much,

[37:52] is to how that plays out.

[37:53] I also attended with Supervisor Petrell,

[37:56] a meeting with Lake County Supervisor Jessica Pyska,

[38:00] about home hardening.

[38:01] And that was also really interesting to see

[38:03] how Lake County is channeling funding for home hardening

[38:07] into dense, like clustered remote neighborhoods

[38:10] to make them more fire resilient and I'm looking forward to that discussion continuing as well.

[38:18] And as Supervisor Control mentioned, we had a fire on Sunday afternoon in this county and

[38:24] it was not a huge disaster thanks to all of the preparation and quick response from our fire

[38:29] community. So I want to thank you very much for that. And I will also mention that it is very dry out in

[38:36] right now, and luckily we haven't had any wind events just yet, but everyone should have their go bags packed.

[38:43] They should be prepared for fires because this is the time of year one. It gets very, very serious.

[38:48] And if we have, if we have, implement weather conditions, it can get bad pretty fast.

[38:55] So just sobering reminder about that level of risk that we, we face in this community.

[39:01] And that I believe concludes board announcements and we are going to move on to item 8 which is discussion of items.

[39:09] Oh wait, I think we should take a comfort break actually.

[39:14] Before oh wait oh wait I'm sorry after this.

[39:19] Let's do this and then take a comfort break because I expect the things that come after this to be quite long.

[39:26] Thanks.

[39:28] So, so discussion of items pulled from the consent calendar, we're going to start with item 5B, which is, except in file, the report summarizing the results of internal audit review of NAPA County's 2025 County Wife Lumpsdam and other compensation.

[39:44] And I welcome our auditor controller Tracy Schultzie to discuss to start us off on the discussion of this item.

[39:52] Thank you. Good morning. Tracy shows the other controller. This folder is the backup for item 5A, which I was expecting questions.

[40:00] And so I would happy to answer any questions you have on five B.

[40:04] Thank you so much. I definitely do appreciate the thorough work and senior, your backup folder there,

[40:11] give me great confidence in the work that you have presented to us. And my question really comes

[40:16] down to not so much of what is in here, but what I don't see in here. And so looking at government

[40:21] because such in 53, 891, I didn't see any specific language

[40:25] as to signing bonuses.

[40:28] And I don't see any guidance necessarily as to how

[40:32] signing bonuses are accounted for if it's separate

[40:40] from salary, it's not hersable.

[40:45] So it would seem to me logically to fit into a lump sum category,

[40:50] but it's not presented here. And so my question is, is it here and I just missed it or how do we

[40:59] account for the reporting of signing bonuses in these types of reports? Sure. As the report states,

[41:07] there's about 38 pay codes that we audited. Signing bonus is one of them. We did select one

[41:16] sample for the sample size for that. And there is a policy. I believe all the personnel

[41:22] policies are section 37 of the county policy. So within we also we audit based on state law

[41:28] we also audit on payroll rules and of course our county policies. So the signing bonus there

[41:34] is a policy for special hard to fill positions. And believe it came out of the need for

[41:42] correctional officers and sheriff deputies and some other heart to fill positions in health

[41:47] and human services like psychiatrists and so forth. The sample that we pulled for this audit

[41:53] was for health and human services mental health counselor. And the audit really just goes through

[41:58] and makes sure that it conforms to the policy. So the approvals were done. The position was assigned

[42:05] as a high risk or a difficult to fill position so that is part of this policy. The other caveat

[42:14] to be between those is also that the CEO and the HR director have the ability to assign

[42:19] hard to fill positions to provide the signing bonus as well. Okay, and thank you. That is very,

[42:26] very helpful. I will say, you know, we certainly through our difficulties in hiring through

[42:34] the sheriff's office, corrections, mental health counselors,

[42:40] there's been a, there's definitely a specific type of position

[42:45] that in fact these sign-on bonuses have, I have been utilized

[42:51] for marketing of these positions. I think separate from this,

[42:56] it would be very helpful for us and I don't know, I would leave that by way of

[43:00] for all of the CEO and to the auditor controller to figure out if it would be appropriate to

[43:06] have an internal audit or to just have a report out of what has been the success rate. We've

[43:12] been doing this for a while. What is the amount I know for the sheriff's deputies? We started

[43:18] at a much lower amount and I think now we have an up to 30,000 on sheriff deputies on those

[43:30] very helpful for us to understand what we have offered, what has worked, and also to understand

[43:40] where are those signing bonuses competitively? Because I'm sure others see the signs on the

[43:48] freeways. I feel like it's always a race to the top for signing bonuses coming from

[43:54] Contercostal County. We are not Contercostal County, but certainly that is a competitive market for us.

[44:00] I would leave that by way of referral. I have no other questions in this report itself, but I do think we need to look at the efficacy of our siding bonuses going forward.

[44:12] Okay, thank you. Super Resuramos and Auditor Controller, Chelsea.

[44:17] So are we watching what will come and then I'll make motion for right out.

[44:21] So at this time, I welcome public comment from anyone in the room.

[44:26] I'm seeing none. Is there anyone on the phone?

[44:28] No. Okay. Then I welcome a motion.

[44:30] I'll make a motion to approve item 5B.

[44:34] I'll second.

[44:34] Okay, we have a motion from Supervisor Ramos.

[44:36] A second from Vice Chair, Alessio.

[44:38] All those in favor?

[44:40] Aye.

[44:40] Aye. That passes unanimously.

[44:42] Thank you very much.

[44:43] And we are moving on to item 5B.

[44:50] Get there to read it out.

[44:51] So item 5B is a point of the of a.

[44:55] A slate of members to the airport advisory commission with terms

[44:58] commencing immediately.

[44:59] Really?

[44:59] Yeah.

[45:00] And this is seven seats, representing the General Public Chamber of Commerce, Napa County Airport,

[45:09] pilot's group, local education industry, and wine hospitality industry. And so at this time,

[45:17] I would say if staff could join us in case there are questions about this or just open up the items.

[45:26] So let's see, is Steve letter here?

[45:29] Do you want to come up just because I have a feeling

[45:34] this is going to be a conversation?

[45:36] So is there anything you'd like to tell us

[45:37] about the process for this item starting off?

[45:43] Yeah.

[45:44] Steve letter republic works.

[45:46] There's a regular process for appointing committee members

[45:52] to various commissions. This process at the request of the Board and the CEO was done slightly

[46:00] differently. There was a committee selected to interview the committee members. I think primarily

[46:09] because all of the committee members had actually expired, so we actually had technically had

[46:16] and on the commission. So, some of the, it's pretty typical for existing commission members to review

[46:25] potential future members. But again, in this case, all of our members had expired. So,

[46:31] it was a slightly different process. So, the board and the CEO asked that an independent committee

[46:39] separate from the AAC, the airport advisory commission, and separate from the airport review

[46:48] the potential candidate.

[46:53] So myself as a director of public works, Michael Klein and representing the CEO's office,

[47:01] and Todd Walker, who was a former AAC member, currently on the airport land use commission,

[47:09] the ALUC, which is a separate body. So anyway, the committee formed and interviewed the

[47:15] people who would apply in several cases. There was only one applicant for a particular position

[47:24] And for the public, there were actually more applicants than there were places, ultimately the committee made those recommendations, although at the end of the day, of course, the AAC is an advisory commission to the board and the board ultimately determines who they want on that advisory commission.

[47:46] I did see several public comments who disagreed with a written position of one of the candidates.

[47:56] I will say that it's not at all unusual.

[48:01] I think I think it's fair to say speaking for my fellow committee members that we didn't necessarily agree with all of the positions of all of the candidates.

[48:10] But that wasn't what we were trying to select.

[48:13] We were trying to select people who had knowledge,

[48:16] who were interested, who would provide value in that advisory process.

[48:25] And that was not necessarily the people that we just agreed with,

[48:28] or who just agreed with us.

[48:30] So the Commission's recommendations are in the report.

[48:35] And beyond that, I guess I'm happy to answer any questions as to

[48:39] what the committee did, and I'm sure the clerk in the board would be happy to answer any questions on the

[48:45] process of selecting committee members in general.

[48:49] Okay, thank you, Mr. Letter, for that introduction. I welcome any discussion or questions from my colleagues.

[48:55] I see a supervisor Gallagher, and then after that, Vice Chair Alessia.

[49:00] Yeah, I actually do have some comments, but I do think it would be important if there are people in the

[49:09] can respond to that. Okay, that is a very good request. So at this time, I'll welcome

[49:13] public comment from anyone in the room. If you'd like to come up to the mic, anyone who

[49:18] wishes to comment will have three minutes.

[49:23] I'm not seeing anyone. Is there anyone on the phones?

[49:28] Oh, okay, welcome.

[49:33] Good morning, chair and honorable supervisors. My name is May

[49:37] and I live at the Napa Yacht Club and supervise the Gallagher. I want to thank you for your

[49:45] response to my letter and I note that you and your staff work weekends. So thank you for being

[49:53] always on there for us, and I have just took...

[50:00] I don't necessarily disagree with the appointment of Jason Johnson, but his stance is very ill informed because I think it reflects that he does not know that the airport, the NEPA airport is a class two airport.

[50:22] We are not equipped for regional, or national planes flying overboard, and I can tell you that personally, my family and I have lived in the Napa Yarta since 1990 when this subdivision was built.

[50:40] So, we know about the noise and what happens there.

[50:46] And as I said in my letter to you, sometimes I'm walking up at 3 a.m. in the morning.

[50:50] And what is all this about? There's not an emergency.

[50:53] It's not in comment whether.

[50:56] And this is very disruptive, not just to neighborhood, but also to schools and hospitals.

[51:05] So,

[51:08] I would like the board to take a look at this that the appointments committee might not be aware of the airport being a class two airport and this is totally inappropriate.

[51:22] And the other comment I want to make is, I want to thank supervisor Ramos for being at the AAC meeting last week, last month, where Mark with so made a comment and I think he said the ugly part out loud and I'm glad he did that.

[51:47] He said, all the complaints, all the noise complaints were 87 complaints, and they were from the same people.

[51:56] So in his opinion, all these 87 comments can be collapsed.

[52:01] He used this word, can be collapsed down one complaint.

[52:06] So virtually he's saying that all these people can be ignored.

[52:10] So, I am saying that as staff, his job is just to report fairly and honestly about what happens and not to put his finger on the pulse.

[52:23] Okay, he is not allowed to do that, and he's done that, so I just want you to be attention to what's happening.

[52:30] Thank you very much.

[52:32] Thank you, Ms. Infeldt. Are there any other public comments on the side of today?

[52:38] Not seeing anyone.

[52:41] Oh, yes, Mr. Letter.

[52:48] I probably shouldn't have gone that far away.

[52:50] Just a comment on the, if you will, the status of the airport.

[52:55] We, you have a general aviation airport that does not allow commercial service.

[53:00] It's never been the policy of the board to go in that direction.

[53:05] in order to allow full, what also a full commercial service that JSX is, and that sort of

[53:13] services, what's called a part 380, it's allowed at general aviation airports less than 30

[53:18] seats, but the concept of full commercial operation would require millions of dollars of security

[53:26] investments, TSA type investments, and that's not in the board policy. So if the board wanted to

[53:32] So in that direction, they could, but that's never been the direction of the board in one

[53:37] opinion of one AAC member, probably is unlikely to change that.

[53:42] But we are general aviation airport.

[53:46] Okay.

[53:46] Thank you.

[53:49] All right.

[53:49] Then I'm going to go ahead and bring it back to my colleagues for discussion, Supervisor Gallagher.

[53:54] Thank you.

[53:55] And thank you, Mr. Letter, for explaining the process.

[53:59] And also, you're experiencing on the committee and I really am just going to kind of amplify that.

[54:09] So I think it's a, I received a lot of comments on this from people in my district, so I want to make sure that I respond.

[54:17] It's important for everyone to understand that this is an advisory committee and it has no independent decision making authority.

[54:24] So, you know, the board makes the decisions, this commission can advise us, but it doesn't make decisions about the airport.

[54:34] The bylaws of the committee set out what sectors should be represented on the committee, and that includes two general public seats.

[54:44] So this particular position is someone to represent the chamber of commerce.

[54:51] And so I think it's reasonable to assume that that person is going to have a...

[55:00] Local Chamber point of view. So, every member on the committee is not expected as Mr. Letters alluded to, to agree to one perspective. The point of having an airport advisory committee is to have that cross-sector representation.

[55:18] And I'm sure that everyone on the committee has different opinions about the airport and about the direction the airport may or may not go.

[55:29] Based on their individual experience, but also based on the group that they have to represent.

[55:37] So I don't think that this is, you know, this is something that we need to be concerned about.

[55:44] if you don't agree with that person's position, that's okay, you know someone else may not agree with another commissioner's position and that's the beauty of having

[55:57] every perspective in the room. So, and I think also it's really important to understand that there wasn't independent committee that

[56:06] interviewed and did recommend the candidate. So I just think that we need needed to kind of set

[56:12] it straight in terms of helping people understand the process, but also the thinking behind how the

[56:19] committee is how it's together. So those are just my comments. Okay, thank you supervisor Gallagher,

[56:27] Super Vice Chair, Leslie, and then after that, I see Supervisor Ramos.

[56:34] Thank you.

[56:36] And thank you, Supervisor Gallagher, for kind of going through that.

[56:40] I think that was really informative and helpful.

[56:43] And that this committee is an advisory committee to the Board of Supervisors.

[56:48] I want to thank all nine applicants to that applied.

[56:52] Public service is, we don't take that for granted.

[56:56] we appreciate people that do apply and for this panel

[57:00] for making the decision, I'm narrowing it from mind to seven.

[57:04] To me, it looks like a strong committee.

[57:10] So with good representation, we know that there are concerns

[57:15] about the noise that has a change of flight path

[57:20] that the FAA approved, that the flight path is outside

[57:24] of our jurisdiction. But the flight times might be within our jurisdiction. And Mr. Letter,

[57:33] not getting off topic and this may be something we bring back in the future. But is this

[57:39] commission looking at flight times and maybe what the commission can make a recommendation

[57:45] to the Board of Supervisors? So there isn't the one AM 2 AM 3 AM disruptions for people

[57:51] middle of night that we limit the flight time because I do believe that's within our power

[57:59] to narrow down in terms of the potential disruption. Other airports have done that.

[58:07] Small airports, especially. That impact, you know, residents. I would need to check on

[58:14] FAA regulations and our grant requirements is, as this board knows, the county owns the airport,

[58:22] but really 80% of it has been built with federal funds. So we are very reliant on and need to

[58:31] be really careful about following FAA regulations. So it's something I could look at as to whether it's an

[58:38] option or not. I appreciate you looking at that. San Jose has restrictions and I believe Orange County

[58:43] resources just as a couple. And again, that's that was been narrowed down by the local jurisdiction

[58:49] versus the FAA. But if you look into that again, we're very different airports. But we can

[58:55] we can look at what the rules are. Oh, I see we have some Sabrina. That's a probably has it for me.

[59:01] Good morning. Yeah, Sabrina Wolfson, Deputy County Council and I'm happy to answer that question

[59:06] in that federal law as well as the grant assurances that go along with the grant money that the airport

[59:11] receives prohibit the airport from discriminating against airlines. I mean, sorry, flight times and things like that and restricting it. So as I understand, there was a FAA approval process, but the FAA has never approved those types of things in any restrictions on flight times are purely voluntary. So those are like fly friendly programs.

[59:33] Okay, so there's really nothing that we can adopt to a gear locally based on what you

[59:41] know basically we need to continue work with the FAA and or the commission the committee

[59:46] camp. As I understand any measures that would restrict flight times or limit if them would

[59:53] be purely voluntary so they could ask the pilots to abide by those but it's voluntary camp

[59:59] mandatory.

[1:00:03] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And just trying to bring this back to the item that is before us, which is the appointment to the airport advisory commission. I appreciate the questions that have been asked. I think this is an item that is of great public interest and importance. And so we should really not be talking about the.

[1:00:29] the flight path and times on an item that hasn't been properly noticed in that way.

[1:00:36] What I will say, I appreciate as supervisor Gallagher kind of sharing the perspective of what

[1:00:45] the role is here of the Advisory Commission, and I will say to my colleagues, I do sit at every

[1:00:50] single meeting. I have that there at every single meeting for 10 years. If I can't go, my assistant goes.

[1:00:56] We are never unrepresentative as in we the board are never unrepresentative there at the airport advisory commission.

[1:01:06] The role of the commission is not to flight paths and flight times.

[1:01:15] We made that very clear and we took that back from the commission.

[1:01:19] We did have a noise working group and we took it back.

[1:01:22] That rest solely with this board.

[1:01:26] In the past, there were concerns and very, very well-publicized our fixed-based operator process and contract negotiations, that too, was not an airport advisory commission item, that was solely for the sport.

[1:01:44] When you look at truly what the Commission is tasked to do, the Commission is tasked to

[1:01:56] advise airport management, but again airport management works for this board by and through

[1:02:03] the Director of Public Works. The Commission is supposed to promote aviation and I think that

[1:02:11] the most important function is understanding these are people who are pilots they are

[1:02:17] recreational they come in for for business use and they use our airport and they inform

[1:02:24] management what's working and what's not it's an opportunity for them when the tower decides to show up

[1:02:32] for them to communicate with the tower what's working what's not to communicate with our fixed-based

[1:02:37] operators. That has been incredibly helpful because we now have two fixed

[1:02:43] operators. It's also an opportunity to facilitate at our last meeting

[1:02:49] Travis Air Force Base, who manages the airfield around Travis Air Force

[1:02:55] Base and provides connectors in an air route, gave a presentation of what is

[1:03:02] helpful to them to maintain safety and how they can help better landings and

[1:03:07] efficiency of landings and takeoffs at the Napa County Airport. All of those things really are

[1:03:15] how we create a great synergy at the airport, how we ensure the sustainability and the longevity

[1:03:22] of the airport itself. But I want to stress what's really important is that all decisions regarding

[1:03:32] interactions with the FAA, all decisions regarding what happens on the ground,

[1:03:37] rest entirely with this board. The Commission meets six times a year, and I can guarantee

[1:03:44] you and Council knows it. If I see something that is not going right, I will 911 one of the

[1:03:52] lawyers at County Councils and say I need you. Sabrina's been there with us and is at the meetings

[1:03:58] and provides guidance as to what is within the purview of the commission and what is not.

[1:04:05] I just wanted to acknowledge the comment you made in regards to the complaints and the

[1:04:13] the sources of the complaints.

[1:04:17] I hear you.

[1:04:19] I understand the frustration with that.

[1:04:24] I've spoken to staff about the concerns about that.

[1:04:29] And you're right.

[1:04:30] It doesn't minimize the effect of the concern.

[1:04:35] We, in fact, asked people to call us.

[1:04:38] So I just want to acknowledge that comment.

[1:04:40] The Airborne Commission provides us a great opportunity to know what works at the airport.

[1:04:47] And that's it.

[1:04:48] But even the public comment that's coming about the flight noise.

[1:04:54] I would say the Airborne Commission is being kind to listen to it.

[1:04:58] That's solely rest with this board.

[1:05:00] Decision wise and the end by and through the consultant that we have hired through Kaufman and Associates. So I just wanted to kind of clarify where we're at and certainly I appreciate the questions regarding what we're able to do and not do, but I would certainly ask staff to bring that as a separate item that can be properly noticed so that people can know when we are going to be talking about flight path matters. Thank you.

[1:05:30] Thank you, Supervisor.

[1:05:32] Thank you, Supervisor.

[1:05:33] I'm almost Supervisor Control.

[1:05:36] Thank you.

[1:05:37] I really appreciate these comments.

[1:05:39] And just want to echo what a lot of what I've heard.

[1:05:43] First of all,

[1:05:44] Supervisor Gallagher.

[1:05:45] I appreciate you walking through,

[1:05:48] you know,

[1:05:49] the independent committee.

[1:05:50] Excuse me, the interviewing committee.

[1:05:52] And we've heard that from Mr.

[1:05:54] Ledger, the importance of interviewing the candidate.

[1:05:57] So I feel good about the process

[1:05:59] that we have in place here, and you pointed out that the bylaws call out the different sectors

[1:06:04] representatives, so that there's a lot of intention there about making sure we're getting a

[1:06:09] broad range of folks participating in the commission. And again, supervisor LSEO thanking

[1:06:18] all the applicants, I completely agree with that. We are always looking for volunteers to participate

[1:06:23] in local government and here's a great opportunity. So thanks to everyone for doing that.

[1:06:29] and Supervisor Ramos talked about the role of the Commission to support aviation. And again,

[1:06:35] it's a chance for public dialogue. So really appreciate Ms. Infield coming today and

[1:06:41] and offering her perspective. And hopefully there's a conversation with all of these applicants

[1:06:48] joining. So I am supportive of the process that we've heard today and happy to make a motion

[1:06:55] when that time is right.

[1:06:56] Okay, thank you.

[1:06:57] I'll just, that's been a lot of really good discussion.

[1:07:02] I will concur with thank you to all the applicants for this.

[1:07:06] Whether selected or not, it is a wonderful thing when people step up to take part in the public process.

[1:07:13] And also, thanks to staff and supervisor Ramus for clarifying the boundaries.

[1:07:20] So, I would actually really appreciate it directly letter if you could kind of recap which types

[1:07:28] of comments are appropriate for which channels and how a concern citizen can best communicate.

[1:07:38] I'll just start that off by saying we have the Operative Advisory Commission itself.

[1:07:42] we have a website where people can report or comment specific incidents and we also have an

[1:07:50] airport manager and we also have this board involved and there are also several members of

[1:07:54] the staff of public works who there's a chain of about I think five people between the board

[1:07:59] of supervisors and the airport I'm not the airport advisory commission but the other so yes

[1:08:07] if you could clarify because there's actually a lot of a lot of moving pieces in this situation.

[1:08:14] Yeah, you actually, you actually, yeah, you actually covered it very well. There's there's the airport, yeah, there's the airport website, there's the airport advisory committee there is the board.

[1:08:26] Actually, only two people in the training command, the airport manager works for Lee Sharp, one of my deputy directors and Lee works for me.

[1:08:35] So, we're not that big an organization, we could have five people between me and anybody at this stage.

[1:08:43] So, yeah, I mean, you hit it, there are multiple ways of commenting.

[1:08:47] And we do think that the airport webpage, which is very specifically set up to accept that

[1:08:56] and all the data is captured there forever.

[1:09:01] And the data is the data, and anyone can parse it, however they choose to do so.

[1:09:06] But there are numerous ways of communicating at the end of the day, as mentioned the airport

[1:09:12] advisory committee is advisory to the airport manager is advisory to the board in terms of policy

[1:09:22] and budget and all of that at the end of the day, that book always stops with the board.

[1:09:28] Okay, thank you. And people can attend the airport advisory commission meetings,

[1:09:33] they're public. Of course. And for members of the airport advisory committee, is it appropriate

[1:09:40] for members of the public to meet one-on-one with them as they would with us.

[1:09:43] That is really up to the committee members. As long as they don't meet as a as a

[1:09:48] quorum, there's certainly welcome to meet with people. They're not in my experience. The airport

[1:09:54] advisory commission members do tend to respond.

[1:10:00] Whether by phone or by email or whatever. But it's their choices to whether they want to do that or not.

[1:10:10] Okay, great. And then I will say that we get some comments written. I certainly get a lot of comments that are just person to person.

[1:10:20] And I'll say that it is helpful if the comments are written down in an email so they can be forwarded out.

[1:10:26] at minimum to this board, but potentially also to members of the airport probably that the

[1:10:34] airport director specifically, but just so that they actually have an opportunity to kind of

[1:10:39] percolate through all the involved parties. So just encouraging anyone who cares about this issue to

[1:10:48] to send to send it in and writing, it helps. I will offer that I get as altithices in my district

[1:10:55] And also North Napa, and I'm getting a fair amount of complaints person to person on both.

[1:11:01] I mean, this is what I'm door knocking or just out in the community of events.

[1:11:05] Or, you know, yeah.

[1:11:07] So I think there's quite a lot more discussion about this going on than just the people who have time to actually navigate the websites and make a formal complaint.

[1:11:15] This really is a, you know, I would say I'm well into the many dozens of individuals who have who have spoken to me directly about it.

[1:11:26] And if there's that many that I'm encountering in person, it's probably even more than that.

[1:11:32] So yeah, so I'll just say that I do believe it's a more broad issue.

[1:11:38] Community wide based on that experience and that input.

[1:11:43] And I've also gotten the feedback recently that even with the website revamp, which I appreciate and I know it was a lot of work.

[1:11:49] I'm hearing that it's still a little bit clunky to find the connection to making a complaint.

[1:11:56] And so I would suggest maybe moving that right to the top or making it more obvious somehow.

[1:12:03] And what else?

[1:12:05] I think I think those are my comments.

[1:12:07] I think this has been a really good discussion.

[1:12:09] And then I don't want to go into repeating things that have already been said.

[1:12:12] So thank you for, yeah, thank you for all the additional information on this.

[1:12:16] Do you have any closing?

[1:12:17] I'll just mention, you said that you get comments directly anything that you want the AAC to be aware of, feel free to send to me, I'll make sure the AAC clerk receives that it can be included as public comment at the AAC meetings.

[1:12:34] Okay, that's a great note. Thank you.

[1:12:36] you bet. Okay. Madam Jerome. Yes. Now I ask your permission. I'm going to put Holly on the spot.

[1:12:44] And I would like her to ask her to come up to the podium on this topic. We have people paying

[1:12:50] attention to tell everybody where they can go to provide information to complain, give advice,

[1:12:57] ask for things. Please, Holly. Thank you. Holly Dawson Chief Communications Officer. Thank you for

[1:13:03] opportunity. Website has been mentioned several times. We have developed a several

[1:13:09] special public engagement platform called Connect Napa County and the URL is

[1:13:15] ConnectNapaCounty.gov.gov and we have an airport page there which has a lot of information

[1:13:22] FAQ other information but an opportunity for people to share and submit feedback about the airport

[1:13:31] and particularly the noise issue. And that is the easiest place for people to go. So again,

[1:13:36] napaccounty.gov. Connectionappaccounty.gov. Thank you. Yes. Holly, if they didn't write that down,

[1:13:42] just now, all they have to do is go to our website, which is Jubilee Napaccounty and you go to

[1:13:48] our website and they can find that on our website. So if you, yeah, if you don't have an on you

[1:13:54] and can't remember that, just go to our website, which is napaccounty.gov. And on the bottom of our

[1:13:59] website. There is a link to that website. We also featured on our social media. And when I get back to my desk, I'm going to look at the airports website section and make sure that it is highlighted there. Thank you.

[1:14:13] Thank you.

[1:14:15] Thank you.

[1:14:16] Officer Dawson, I see supervisor control.

[1:14:20] No, that was great.

[1:14:21] I just, my question was just if people,

[1:14:23] because I used to just going to the website.

[1:14:26] And so, great to have that link at the bottom.

[1:14:29] My suggestion to this team might be to have a link to connect

[1:14:33] Napa County right at the top, too.

[1:14:38] Okay.

[1:14:39] Welcome back, Officer Dawson.

[1:14:42] There actually is a banner ad at the very top of the website

[1:14:45] that does highlight connect to Napa County.

[1:14:47] and I'd like to mention that. Thank you. Okay. Okay, on where are we? So we've taken public comment.

[1:14:57] We've just dressed this at life.

[1:14:59] Terrific. Yeah. I like it.

[1:15:00] And make time motion to approve the slate of selected appointed committee members.

[1:15:07] Thank you. Second that. Okay, so I have a motion by Vice Chair, LSEO, and a second by Supervisor

[1:15:12] Kitchfrell, all those in favor. Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you for your lively discussion.

[1:15:20] Okay, so at this time, I will let us take a comfort break. And we'll return to here to public hearings.

[1:15:26] And I'm 9A is temporary event ordinances, so I look forward to that discussion.

[1:15:32] Thank you.

[1:30:29] Okay, welcome back from our brief break. There, we are on item 9 public hearings. We are hearing item 9A, introduction and intent to adopt an ordinance of the NAPA County Board of Supervisors amending chapter 5.36 temporary events of the NAPA County Code relating to the application processing and noticing of requirements for temporary events in NAPA County section 18.10.020.

[1:30:59] And I welcome our planning director, Brad Bordona, to introduce the topic and the report from

[1:31:05] staff.

[1:31:07] Good morning.

[1:31:07] Thank you, Chair Man, for you members of the board.

[1:31:10] I'm joined here today with Charlene Galena and Caleb McMahon.

[1:31:15] I just want to enter this item out and just recognize and acknowledge that the proposed amendments

[1:31:20] that are here before you today are a culmination of a two-year collaborative process involved

[1:31:25] the event organizers, community, and industry stakeholders, non-profits, and county departments.

[1:31:31] This effort also reflects the significant work of staff across multiple departments to evaluate

[1:31:36] existing practices, respond to stakeholder feedback, and develop practical improvements

[1:31:41] to the ordinance and to the manual.

[1:31:44] Importantly, the definition of what constitutes a temporary event is not changing.

[1:31:49] The amendments do not expand the activities required to permit, a modernized and streamlined

[1:31:53] the process for events are already subject to the ordinance. Temporary events are also separate and distinct

[1:31:59] from winery marketing events, which are governed by a winery's use permit and improve marketing

[1:32:03] plan. With that, I will pass it off to Charlene McKayla.

[1:32:10] Thank you. Good morning. We are finally here. We just talked about this McKayla and I started this project

[1:32:17] in October 2023 when she first came and we had a first meeting and so it's finally come to

[1:32:24] tuition here about at least presenting it to the board for your review and consideration.

[1:32:34] So, the first temporary event ordinance was adopted by the board in 1971 and the purpose

[1:32:41] was to regulate license outdoor festivals. Then the comprehensive update to the

[1:32:47] that came in 2006, along with adopting the temporary events manual and the application packet.

[1:32:59] And it was to provide guidance for applicants of middle and review of applications and

[1:33:05] issuance of an event license by multiple reviewing agencies. After receiving board

[1:33:11] direction in 2018 to conduct a comprehensive update to the temporary event ordinance to extend

[1:33:18] review timelines from 60 to 90 days and to build in code enforcement process staff started their work

[1:33:27] in 2023 and we started meeting with the agencies in 2024 after figuring out and looking at

[1:33:36] other event ordinances throughout the North Bay. Delays did occur in this effort due to

[1:33:46] doing the circumstances highlighted in the staff report and competing priorities.

[1:33:53] So why do we have, why are we updating it?

[1:33:56] Because of the board direction, we have new federal and state requirements.

[1:34:01] We have evolving county regulations.

[1:34:04] We have more and more complex event operations.

[1:34:08] And we have the tools to do it today.

[1:34:10] Technology and online permitting tools.

[1:34:13] And there's a changing community expectations regarding temporary events, and we have two decades of experience of what works and what doesn't.

[1:34:24] The goal is to give applicants clear answers early while giving county agencies the time and information they need to conduct sufficient review.

[1:34:35] So, our opportunity to modernize, like Brian said, the temporary of that process, providing

[1:34:41] a clear, more predictable and user-friendly process.

[1:34:46] Like I said, we've been looking at it since 2006, reflects two decades, makes requirements

[1:34:53] clear, and applications more complete.

[1:34:56] It creates a more predictable process for event organizers.

[1:35:00] And county reviewers, and it also preserves the public noticing and opportunity for public hearing for larger events.

[1:35:11] What is not? And what is a temporary event? And a temporary, I'm just want to start out, a temporary event is not a marketing event.

[1:35:21] It's not weddings or private parties.

[1:35:24] It's not member only events, exclusive dinners,

[1:35:29] winery, club events, or marketing events,

[1:35:32] marketing of wine activities.

[1:35:33] It's not private events not open to the public

[1:35:37] and it doesn't include the public roadway events

[1:35:40] like a parade or a marathon.

[1:35:43] That gets processed in public works.

[1:35:46] And that is called a special event.

[1:35:49] and they have their own process in the you know spoke out temporary events include public gatherings

[1:35:56] involving expressive activities and it's the ambient to the to the first amendment process

[1:36:03] of the U.S. Constitution.

[1:36:12] Our temperament ordinance update is the more predictable

[1:36:15] streamline process one clear timeline fewer unnecessary steps we're going from 60 days to 90 days

[1:36:25] A deadline across, we heard the industry say that some of the larger events, we had proposed

[1:36:31] 120 days. That was too long for them. And so we brought it back down to 90 days. And staff responded

[1:36:43] by proposing this single, predictable 90-day timeline. The new timeline provides agencies adequate

[1:36:51] time for coordinated review gives applicants time to respond to comments, allows licenses to be

[1:36:58] issued earlier, creates greater certainty for organizers and attendees, gives applicants more

[1:37:04] time to process building fire and environmental health permits or encroachment permits if require

[1:37:11] an allows sufficient time for public hearings if requested. It usually takes about under the 60 day

[1:37:19] review, it takes about 48 days to process a public hearing when it's requested or when it's

[1:37:27] required.

[1:37:30] And I like to point out to that most of the applications come in late. So 60 days

[1:37:35] is our timeline now, but we get a majority of them come in anywhere from 60 to 50 days so we're

[1:37:43] ready running behind schedule in our processing and staff did provide a timeline under the 60 days

[1:37:51] as one of your attachments and it just walks you through the process that it takes to get the event

[1:38:00] permit issue. One positive thing is that ticket sales are no longer required. They were required,

[1:38:08] But everyone sells tickets anyway a year in advance and this one we just recognize that it's very difficult to regulate it

[1:38:18] So we just decided to pull it out and not be a requirement, but it's still at the

[1:38:25] Organizers risk of selling those tickets because what if they didn't get the event

[1:38:35] Public hearings we kept and notices we kept the public access

[1:38:40] included in the Tampa mat. We illuminated unnecessary automatic hearings. What stays the same

[1:38:48] is we still have public notices. Temporary event applications remain ministerial and are not

[1:38:54] subject to the appeal process in chapter 2.88. Because we didn't the 60 days didn't allow us enough

[1:39:04] time to process through the Zoning Administrator and then go to the Board of Supervisors.

[1:39:10] We had an issue a few years ago with that process.

[1:39:15] What changes larger events with no longer automatically be set up for Zoning Administrator

[1:39:22] public hearing or hearing would only occur when they requested by the member of the public?

[1:39:27] So this is what happens.

[1:39:29] the approach is for events of 400 people or fewer, we would send out a notice of intent to

[1:39:35] approve to properties within 1,000 foot radius and to the PBS's interested parties lists.

[1:39:43] Events over 400 and event series would stay the same as what I explained, but it gives the public

[1:39:51] an opportunity to request a public hearing before the zoning administrator, but it's not required

[1:39:57] and it just gives them that opportunity to say, we...

[1:40:00] We would like to have a public hearing. The benefit, it avoids unnecessary staff time, applicant, preparation, hearing costs and administrative burden when no hearing is requested.

[1:40:14] The ordinance provides more flexibility for event organizers, late applications. Once they hit today, the 50 days, we have to say no, because we don't know provisions in the ordinance to allow them to come in.

[1:40:29] So we replaced that current rigid cut off with the director's discretion to accept a late application.

[1:40:38] It provides flexibility for legitimate reasons times sensitive or unexpected events.

[1:40:44] Like if we had a fire here and we wanted to do a fundraiser for fire support, they could come in with a late application with an explanation and have an event.

[1:40:58] also political rallies or political expression of a message that they want to make they can

[1:41:06] come in. Time limitations would be placed on an unreasonable restriction on the expressive

[1:41:12] activities and events that can be accommodated without compromising county review would most likely

[1:41:19] be authorized and they would be able to come in for a late application. We have a new category,

[1:41:25] 6. It's an event series. It covers multiple events within the 30-day period. It allows qualifying

[1:41:33] event series to use only one application and one deposit. For example, music in the vineyards

[1:41:40] has several events. They would have to come in with individual applications to process depending

[1:41:47] on the size one or two may have to go to the zoning administrator. This way they can come in

[1:41:54] all at once. And if somebody wanted hearing, then we would take that packet to the zoning

[1:42:00] administrator. The requirements would still apply to each applicable parcel though.

[1:42:07] It is simpler separation requirements. We reduce the separation requirement. It's very

[1:42:14] convoluted. And we just said four days between each of it. And that gives a rest for the public

[1:42:20] and allows people to not be inundated with events.

[1:42:27] Now, I'm going to talk a little bit about the manual that we propose.

[1:42:33] It's modern, user-friendly.

[1:42:35] We did a major overhaul.

[1:42:37] We invited all the agencies to help us.

[1:42:41] This is the one that took a lot more time

[1:42:43] because we had to make sure, and it addressed what

[1:42:48] was currently under our regulations, both federal and local and state regulation.

[1:42:55] So the manual becomes the applicant's roadmap.

[1:42:59] It was fully revamped, accessible, modernized.

[1:43:03] It provides clear navigation, the submittal requirements presented first.

[1:43:08] Compliance requirements follow.

[1:43:11] It provides clear guidance on what applicants need to submit.

[1:43:15] It's up front information is provided about additional permits that may be required, such as

[1:43:23] tents, stages, generators, food services, traffic, and culture permits, et cetera.

[1:43:29] It gives out timelines to make sure that they're not late to get those events and it provides

[1:43:35] a comprehensive site plan checklist.

[1:43:38] It provides updated agency contacts and clearer coordination.

[1:43:42] This is really key because the planning division was the only one that would be the one to answer questions and we'd have to figure out who to call now

[1:43:51] They could call them directly and ask for clarification of what would be required of them

[1:43:57] So they call public works. They call the CHB. They call the sheriff's office based on what is

[1:44:04] Identified in the manual and they get that direction

[1:44:07] directly from the agency rather than us putting them on hold and calling and trying to figure out.

[1:44:15] Planner's trying to figure out what is required.

[1:44:18] It's a proposed as a living document reviewed and updated annual annually depending on the regulations that change.

[1:44:33] It's built to save applicants time and money.

[1:44:36] It's better information up front, fewer avoidable review cycles because the information is there they can ask questions before and before they submit their application.

[1:44:50] It's comprehensive site plan checklist, provides clear submittal requirements, it's more complete applications can reduce back and forth.

[1:45:00] Review and Review cycles. Avoiding unrequested hearing can reduce staff and applicant time and associated

[1:45:08] hourly costs. It we clarified the traffic control plan that was an issue with the public about requirements.

[1:45:19] And how can we allow many events to use an experience of that planner rather than a license engineer were appropriate.

[1:45:28] The new line application that will be processing upon an adoption of the ordinance and the manual allows the applicant, like they submit for a building permit, create an account, save applications as they go, return to applications later, reuse information from prior submissions.

[1:45:50] So, we don't have to dig out and are on base the prior application and send it to the applicant if they want to see it, it's right there for them to use, especially valuable for the reoccurring events.

[1:46:07] So, this was a very collaborative update.

[1:46:11] It was built by the people who used the process more than two years of outreach and collaborations.

[1:46:18] We worked with the organizers, we worked with the industry groups, including the nap of

[1:46:23] value vendors, we worked with nonprofits, every time they came in, we talked to them about the events.

[1:46:30] We had a whole year of processing events, and so we learned from that process.

[1:46:34] we asked them questions, we told them, go to our website, see our new ordinance, see what

[1:46:40] to think about it, give us some suggestions, and that's how we evolve the documents that

[1:46:48] we have today. And we also worked with the county departments and agencies, winery, hospitality,

[1:46:54] and advanced staff, and the board members to get all sorts of feedback for the documents that

[1:47:01] prepared. We incorporated public engagement, two public comment periods were held, 1 in 2025,

[1:47:10] 1 in 2026. We had public workshops held in 25. We held a public combine in person virtual workshop

[1:47:18] just this past July. We solicited written and email and in person comments using both the

[1:47:26] sites, social media, staff responses, which is included in our public comment document,

[1:47:33] Excel spreadsheet. We had those were written comments, or email comments, or phone comments,

[1:47:39] and we provided direct responses to that and posted it on our current project explorers.

[1:47:45] So people could see it and we posted those documents about 10 days ago before the hearing.

[1:47:51] And then based on those responses, they were used for revisions to the documents.

[1:48:01] Today, we are asking the Board to conduct a public hearing to introduce an ordinance

[1:48:08] that would amend the Napa County code to address chapter 5.36 on temporary events.

[1:48:16] We also ask that we amend Section 18.1, 10, or 10.020 duties of the zoning administrator and also Section 18.120.0.0, exceptions to use limitations of the chapter of exceptions.

[1:48:39] We also asked the board to adopt a resolution

[1:48:42] approving the temporary events manual

[1:48:45] and directing that the manual and application be maintained

[1:48:49] by the NAPA County PBS Department.

[1:48:53] And then after adoption,

[1:48:56] or actually knows the intent to adopt,

[1:48:59] we will come back on the 15th for a final

[1:49:02] ordinance adoption by the board.

[1:49:04] And then after that, staff is proposing to train, to provide training with event planners and reviewing agencies on new ordinance and manual provisions and processing of applications.

[1:49:19] And then the effective date that staff is recommending of the ordinance is January 1st, 2027.

[1:49:26] We'll have the new application and manual effective for the 2027 events.

[1:49:33] And we'll be working with the event organizers or a transition plan that will help them

[1:49:40] because if we get an event in January, they need to submit prior to January.

[1:49:47] So we'll be providing that transition plan effort and help assistance for the review or for the review

[1:49:55] agencies as long and along with the applicants.

[1:50:00] In conclusion, I like to thank the supporting departments and agencies that assisted McKayla and I. It was a lot of effort. A lot of work, they came forward and helped us, specifically from the PBS Department, planning, building, environmental health and natural resources, county council health, the fire marshals office, the emergency medical services office, public work, staff, risk management,

[1:50:30] the Sheriff's Office and the California Highway Patrol, all of them, while they were

[1:50:35] processing temporary events permits, they were assisting us in putting together the program.

[1:50:43] And with that, I like to share that they have attended this meeting to answer any specific

[1:50:50] questions that you have regarding the manual and any specific requirements from their agency

[1:50:56] with that. Thank you very much, and we're available to answer any questions.

[1:51:00] Thank you for that affirmative presentation. I would just like to mention that the public hearing

[1:51:06] has been open. I think I did not say those exact words when I started this, so my apologies.

[1:51:14] And at this time, I welcome any public comment on this item. If there's anyone in the room

[1:51:18] if you'd like to comment, please come forward to the podium and you'll have three minutes to speak.

[1:51:27] Welcome. Thank you, Michelle, nearly with the Napa Valley Ventures. Today's proposal reflects a very significant update from the manual and the ordinance of 2006 with many significant changes.

[1:51:44] I will say that this version before you today has been significantly improved from the draft

[1:51:53] that was made available in 2025 and includes a lot more flexibility based on a lot of the

[1:51:59] comments provided and so I want to acknowledge staff's work to do that and to field those

[1:52:07] comments and have those discussions that's very much appreciated. I don't know that I'm specifically

[1:52:13] asking for a change but I do want to flag for you that when I look at submitting our for our

[1:52:20] large annual philanthropic event I am now estimating that we will need to set aside approximately

[1:52:28] 10 to 15 thousand dollars for the permitting fees for at least a few years associated with that and I've

[1:52:35] that are internal team, know that.

[1:52:41] Because the nonprofit fee waiver program is now non-operational,

[1:52:45] there will be impacts to the nonprofit community.

[1:52:49] And while some of the smaller events are likely to stay

[1:52:51] under the $2,000 deposit amount,

[1:52:54] it's not necessarily guaranteed.

[1:52:56] So I would recommend that an email to all applicants

[1:53:01] from the last 36 months, all non-profit applicants in the last 36 months is sent, as soon

[1:53:08] as everything is adopted, with three clear messages. The updated submission timeline, the new

[1:53:15] online system and the fact that fee waivers are no longer available. And because there are

[1:53:22] there is a lag between adoption and implementation, I think it's wonderful to treat the manual

[1:53:28] as a living document, but to also bring this subject back to the board within 12 to 18 months,

[1:53:36] just to discuss if further refinements are needed. Thank you again to the supervisors,

[1:53:42] to CEOs office, to county staff for all of your hard work on looking at this, and I appreciate

[1:53:49] the opportunity to share comments with you today. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Novi. Welcome.

[1:53:59] Kelly Anderson

[1:53:59] from Angwin, I had a couple of questions and I'm a wonder chair, man-free if you could get an answer

[1:54:09] from Miss Cayena or Mr. perdona, are all of the events under these new program philanthropic

[1:54:20] or fundraising, or can they just be activities that you're selling tickets to a concert and

[1:54:27] they keep the money. So that is the question I had.

[1:54:35] I read in there, I looked at the

[1:54:39] the luminous report. I saw somewhere in there where it said certain activities could go

[1:54:44] till 2 a.m. And I wanted to get verification on that. And I know that's probably not a subject

[1:54:52] for this change right now, but I was curious to find out if in fact events can go till 2 a.m.

[1:55:00] And I'd like to reference my husband when he says nothing good happens after midnight. So I'm just kind of curious why we do permit activities to go that late. That's more suitable for a bar in town.

[1:55:15] And then lastly, I am curious, has any application ever been denied? Those are my questions. Thank you.

[1:55:22] Okay, thank you Ms. Anderson. I'm not seeing anyone else lining up here in the room. Is there anyone on the phones?

[1:55:30] We don't have anyone on the phones. Okay, so a lot of good work by staff on this. I just want to acknowledge how lengthy and thorough this process has been.

[1:55:42] At this time, I welcome any comments or discussion from my colleagues on the board.

[1:55:49] I see Vice Chair Lesia.

[1:55:51] Thank you, again, I definitely want to thank staff for your work on this, your collaboration, which really starts with listening and inviting people to come in is really to be commended.

[1:56:06] So, thank you for that.

[1:56:10] I would if it is possible, let's start with if you can provide some responses to the public comment questions we just had from Miss Anderson.

[1:56:19] Good

[1:56:23] morning, McKinley Mann, Deputy County Council, and I'm going to tag team these three questions with Shirley.

[1:56:29] The first question regarding non-profits and fundraising, because it is first amendment activity anyone can apply.

[1:56:37] So both non-profits, private orgs, anyone can apply for a temporary event license.

[1:56:42] To the second question, as to 2AM, there's provisions in our ordinance that allow events on New Year's Day to go to 2AM and that has been in our ordinance since 2006 and that is not, there are no proposed changes to those ordinance provisions as a result of today's staff recommendations.

[1:57:04] And if we did have a proposal for a 2 a.m. New Year's Eve party, we would welcome the public and they would have the opportunity to request a hearing. And we can look at that proposal at 2 a.m. or scale back the timeline to what the normal timeline is midnight.

[1:57:26] As for denying an application, yes, we did have an application that was denied, and that was a winery that wanted a dump of that.

[1:57:38] And the neighbors did come out, it was denied by the, and it didn't have time to go to the board of supervisors.

[1:57:48] So they counseled the event and moved it to Sonoma County, so they could have it.

[1:57:55] Let me see what else, so that was the only one that was really denied that caused for change in our process.

[1:58:05] Thank you.

[1:58:08] Just a couple of comments.

[1:58:12] I really appreciate the efficiency that been created and streamlining to help not just the previous department,

[1:58:22] But to get the actual source experts, get them directly involved, to be able to answer those questions.

[1:58:30] I think that makes a lot of sense.

[1:58:33] I know where we are reducing the time in which somebody can turn in their application from six to

[1:58:41] days to 90 days.

[1:58:43] I will tell you that that gave me initial pause just because I know there's folks out there that

[1:58:48] working about being too late to get their application at the 60 day mark. And we're not talking

[1:58:56] about, you know, professionals. The professional of that makers, they understand their prepare,

[1:59:01] they know the system, talking about more the lathe person out there trying to do community good,

[1:59:08] community benefit, that they, that they're going to get caught and they're going to feel like we can't

[1:59:14] do something really good for our community,

[1:59:16] or our neighborhood, or whatever,

[1:59:19] because of that 90 day, the 90 days out.

[1:59:24] They may not even think about it until three months,

[1:59:26] and then it's already too late.

[1:59:27] And that's just the reality of what happens out there.

[1:59:30] So I am, I'm pausing on that.

[1:59:34] I do know that, and I appreciate that there is discretion

[1:59:40] with the PBS director that he has discretion in terms of accepting applications beyond the 90 days.

[1:59:51] So I'm glad there's some kind of flexibility there, so I'm just going to keep thinking about that.

[1:59:57] But I would personally prefer bass.

[2:00:00] Just on practical, you know, booth on the ground, the reality out there is that 60 days can be challenging in itself, let alone 90 days.

[2:00:11] And in terms of

[2:00:19] the zoning administrator, very smart decision, that makes total sense, because it just wasn't well-time.

[2:00:28] It wasn't time we'll use or resources used.

[2:00:31] So that makes great sense that if it's requested,

[2:00:34] then we have a ZO-S-E-8 meeting.

[2:00:39] So thank you for doing that.

[2:00:42] It's also good that folks can actually promote their events,

[2:00:45] though, it is at their risk.

[2:00:49] And that shows, again, additional listening

[2:00:52] and flexibility here, so I appreciate that.

[2:00:56] Late fees is mentioned here, how does that, how does that determine, is our late fees based on a sliding scale, a percentage of what the geography would be, how does that work?

[2:01:10] It's a flat fee.

[2:01:11] So it's a one time fee, so they would have to pay for processing the application as well as a late fee.

[2:01:19] Okay, so it's about four, 25, I think it is for something.

[2:01:26] Okay, remember off the top.

[2:01:27] So $400, yes.

[2:01:29] Okay.

[2:01:30] And I'm going to end my comments with something regarding the fee exemptions that we once had for nonprofits.

[2:01:37] but I'm going to, I want to go through this really quick, Mom's Stand.

[2:01:44] Let's see.

[2:01:49] I really appreciate the fact that for those annual fundraisers,

[2:01:54] that they can use the prior year's information

[2:01:58] and use that. That'll also save time for the, for the applicant and for the county.

[2:02:03] So that makes a lot of sense doing that.

[2:02:07] In terms of the actual, you know, we're proving the manual, but we're not looking at the application.

[2:02:16] So we don't have that before us, because I guess the portal or the application that we have the manual,

[2:02:22] that'll be built out later. And I did share with staff and I say this with with respect

[2:02:31] that in some ways I'm buying a car by having the manual but not being able to test drive the vehicle.

[2:02:44] So, but the manual looks great.

[2:02:47] So what I'm going to ask is that when the actual application is formed and it's available,

[2:02:55] that you bring that back to the board and give us a presentation.

[2:02:58] So we can we can actually kind of test drive the vehicle and have an opportunity for the public to provide comments and for us provide comments.

[2:03:07] So I guess that would be a referral at that a request in doing that.

[2:03:13] Um, the other, um, let me just finish on, I think I've got everything except for the, um,

[2:03:22] in the future, I know we're not discussing fees and I know that this board based on the

[2:03:30] fee study was either earlier this year or last year, um, on the face on the fee study was recommended

[2:03:36] that we are 100% recovery of staff time through fees.

[2:03:45] I said it correctly. Does that make sense?

[2:03:48] Yeah, cost recovery. Thank you, cost recovery.

[2:03:51] 100% cost recovery of staff time.

[2:03:54] And that was what was recommended by a

[2:03:56] in-depth fee study.

[2:04:00] With that said, I would like this to come back to the board.

[2:04:04] That's some point to look at where and how we can offset those fees for the nonprofits that are creating and developing philanthropy funds that really identify addressing our local health needs here in Napa County.

[2:04:25] There is an entire process of having a community health assessment that's very in depth with non-profits and local organizations through public health.

[2:04:37] And then it goes through identifying those priorities and a strategic plan.

[2:04:41] And we have nonprofits and those who are poor profit, but their intent is to raise money to address the local needs and the health and safety of our community.

[2:04:58] And, you know, not only are they paying their time.

[2:05:00] Time and money in doing that. But a lot of people donate items of income that can be auctioned, can be sponsored.

[2:05:09] And there's a lot of giving in terms of creating these nonprofit events that will be going through this process.

[2:05:16] And the only folks I don't see that has skin in the game, but this point is a county.

[2:05:21] Meaning we're not doing anything to say, this is our part.

[2:05:25] One before we had a fee exemption that said,

[2:05:29] we see the value of multi-millions,

[2:05:33] we're talking hundreds of millions,

[2:05:35] to hundreds of thousands, hundreds of millions,

[2:05:38] I don't know, it's a lot, especially over time,

[2:05:41] in terms of what's generated a funding

[2:05:44] that really would have to be covered

[2:05:48] by local government to address these needs,

[2:05:51] most of them within HHSA.

[2:05:54] So, again, if we can bring this back in the future for us to have this discussion, I think it's worthy, and I think it would it's our ability to be a partner with the local nonprofits and folks who are working in addressing the needs of our community through fundraising.

[2:06:12] And that's all I have. Thank you.

[2:06:15] Thank you. Super Vice Chair, I see supervisor Gallagher and after that control.

[2:06:23] Actually, I'm just going to hold because I did have a lot of questions answered by staff over the past few weeks.

[2:06:33] And I was just going to suggest that we take public comment because I think that,

[2:06:40] Oh, that was it. We did public comment. Oh, Michelle Novis.

[2:06:44] Okay, sorry, just thought there would be more.

[2:06:46] So are we, to the point of actually talking about what, not just questions, okay, all right, I'll go then.

[2:06:57] Okay, thank you.

[2:07:00] So I did want to thank staff, I know that this, and we have talked about this a lot.

[2:07:05] I've had an opportunity to go through the whole draft and ask questions for many months.

[2:07:14] And one really, really quick question is, we don't really have anything special around the one category 1, 1A and 1B around complaints and enforcement, so I'm going to make the assumption you can tell me if I'm wrong or not that those are complaint driven, and if there's a complaint about anything in the category 1, that that's just a code enforcement.

[2:07:45] Yeah, that's correct.

[2:07:48] In the event, we receive a complaint about an activity that is in the realm of the

[2:07:53] temp event.

[2:07:54] That's at the category one, 50 or less, we would handle that as part of a normal code enforcement

[2:07:59] investigation and let the facts take us where they go.

[2:08:04] In the event, I suppose somebody does a temp event that doesn't get a permit, that would affect

[2:08:11] the processing of that type of end the next year.

[2:08:16] Okay, all right, that answers that, thank you.

[2:08:21] Also just wanna, I guess, again,

[2:08:25] we're not discussing fees today and fee waivers.

[2:08:30] And I think that when we do,

[2:08:31] we're gonna have to look at the lawfulness of that.

[2:08:33] There's legal implications

[2:08:35] and what we are able to do not.

[2:08:37] So we need to be cognizant of that needs to be part

[2:08:40] discussion. In terms of the 90 days, I didn't see much in the public comments about having a

[2:08:48] problem with 90 days. I think it's called one comment, the other size saw where we're regarding

[2:08:53] the originally proposed 120 days, which was changed based on stakeholder feedback to 90. So it's

[2:08:59] the cross-the-board 90, and that seemed to be acceptable to those who participated in public outreach

[2:09:07] over the last few years, which has been just about everyone. It seems like I now understand what

[2:09:15] unreasonable restriction of accessibility is, so don't need to ask that question. I'm a little

[2:09:23] concerned that there seems to be some comments from Ms. Novi about this costing more. I'm confused

[2:09:33] that because there aren't any new regulations. This is just process change, and I would

[2:09:43] like a director of what we're done at comment on that. And I'd like to you to comment

[2:09:48] on if we didn't have a process and we didn't have a manual and we weren't providing all

[2:09:54] guidance and pre-mining, what would it look like for somebody who wants to hold an event?

[2:10:01] Yeah, the manual itself is a road map or a guidebook that contains regulations. The manual itself is not regulations. So, absent, the manual, those regulations would still exist, absent, a manual, an event coordinator would have to, I guess, interact individually with departments about a road closure permit.

[2:10:22] They would have to go to fire about whatever fires, requirements are building environment

[2:10:27] a health CHP for road closures, public quirks.

[2:10:33] So what the manual does is it provides somewhat of a one-stop shop to where all the requirements

[2:10:39] are consolidated, guidance is provided as to how to comply with all those requirements.

[2:10:45] So it's an effective service and it's a vast improvement from the O6 version and in terms

[2:10:55] of the costs that I just know we mentioned, I don't, like I said, yeah, there's no new regulation

[2:10:59] so the temp events cost, there's no changes to the ordinance that would drive or affect costs.

[2:11:05] So I'm not clear on that part.

[2:11:08] Um, but, um, lost my train of thought. Um, yeah, I'll just leave it there.

[2:11:14] Did I have any? Director, I can just jump in. I think it's regarding the design

[2:11:18] professional that's going to be required. Um, that wasn't a requirement before.

[2:11:24] Yeah, so one more thing I found my thought. Um, so the manual in a sense, and my view,

[2:11:28] particularly with the improvements to it, um, the net net of that is a cost savings,

[2:11:33] relative to the 06 version. The comment are concerned about the design

[2:11:38] professional. This relates to the occupancy of a structure that was not

[2:11:46] designed and built for assembly, which is people occupying and staying in a

[2:11:52] space. Barrel rooms are a classic example. The current ordinance in manual

[2:11:56] does not allow for the use of those at all. So it's just a no. The new manual

[2:12:03] does in fact allow for those spaces to be used. So long as a design professional assesses

[2:12:11] the structure, identifies evacuation plans and other measures to ensure public safety,

[2:12:19] but it's now an option, whereas before it wasn't. And the whole point of that is to make sure

[2:12:25] spaces are occupied in a safe way. And that are concurrent or congruent with the design of

[2:12:33] the building that was originally designed and approved by a qualified professional.

[2:12:38] So I view that as an improvement. And yes, if someone chooses to occupy one of those spaces,

[2:12:44] it may cost them some money to hire a design professional to evaluate the space and make sure

[2:12:49] they're safe and aggressive. And all those types of things. And I believe Jason Downs is here

[2:12:54] along with our CBO, there's more detailed questions

[2:12:57] about the fire of building code.

[2:12:59] I'm beginning to get way over my sees on that topic.

[2:13:04] Can I take it back?

[2:13:07] Oh, sorry.

[2:13:09] Thank you for that.

[2:13:11] That is great.

[2:13:12] That's very clarifying and makes absolute sense.

[2:13:17] And it's a point of flexibility.

[2:13:20] You're saying, this is a space that could not be used

[2:13:23] for now we are saying it can be used but it has to be used safely and that has to be, you know,

[2:13:31] well thought out planned for approved, right? Correct. That makes sense. It's an option now

[2:13:37] whereas in the O6 manual, it's not. Yeah, so thank you for that. You know, I think it needs

[2:13:46] Because we are updating this, and we are making this process, we're streamlining it, there aren't any new regulations.

[2:13:56] I think it's going to be really, really important to get this information out as

[2:14:00] however we can to everybody that has held events that could hold events.

[2:14:06] I mean, I understand, there's only so much we can do, but we can maybe try to come up with some ways,

[2:14:11] And I'm sure we all could help you through our different channels as well to make sure people get the information.

[2:14:17] Because we know there are events happening where people do not get permits.

[2:14:21] And they're not, it's not because they're a category one.

[2:14:25] It's because they aren't getting the permits because they either don't know to get the permit.

[2:14:30] They don't understand how to get the permit.

[2:14:33] They don't, they don't maybe just want to go through the process of getting the permit.

[2:14:39] You know, there could be myriad reasons, but this is an opportunity to educate everyone that if you're having an event, you're falling under one of these categories and you need to go look and figure out which category you follow fall under and what the reasons are for the, you know, for that and what is the process.

[2:15:00] And if you do, what is it you have to do? And I think the fact that we have a manual that helps guide people through that process. And we're going to have an online form of a great and is correct where you can apply. And you can go step by step. I think that we're doing everything that we can to make it as easy for people as possible. And the fact that it's a living document that will be updated annually is.

[2:15:30] You know, our, our promise, really, the communities, they will take your feedback, you know,

[2:15:36] we're, we're, we're attempting to make this a better process, but give us your comments

[2:15:43] as you go, as you plan your events over the year, and then we can look at it again, and if we

[2:15:48] see that there are gaps or there are unintended consequences or places where we need to make

[2:15:53] changes, we can come back and look at that. So, I appreciate the work you've done. I know it's been

[2:15:58] really, really long time and I think you've done a great job and I also thank you for all of the

[2:16:06] outreach that you've done over the last since 2023 to bring in stakeholders and others to

[2:16:15] really hammer this through and get it right. Yeah, I appreciate that and I just want to maybe

[2:16:20] take the opportunity to expand on what we do plan to do in terms of outreach. So if the

[2:16:27] We will be conducting outreach making folks aware and frankly touting the benefits of these improvements identifying those benefits and how this process is now a more streamlined.

[2:16:40] I was writing down and I appreciate the comments from Ms. Novey some of the suggestions that she had included those are already on my list so great minds think I like.

[2:16:48] We're working with our PIO to get the word out as well.

[2:16:52] We've also discussed the community other as survey to receive feedback on how the manual

[2:16:56] and the ordinance is working and like was discussed that's a living document.

[2:17:01] So we'll have the ability to modify as we go as opposed to bringing something back

[2:17:06] before the board to do so.

[2:17:11] Thank you, Supervisor Gallagher, Supervisor Couchral, and after that, Supervisor Ramos.

[2:17:16] Thank you, Chair, and thanks to my colleagues.

[2:17:18] This has been a great discussion and to the public comment that we've received echo, just have to echo. Thank you. Thanks, staff for all the work here and the engagement. I will be supportive of this of what's before us today. I do have a couple of questions.

[2:17:39] I think this is a real improvement over what has been existing.

[2:17:45] I think it's important also to restate that this is not creating a new program.

[2:17:51] This is streamlining and clarifying what has been existing.

[2:17:57] So it's not like there's suddenly a new suite of events that are being approved here.

[2:18:03] It's improving a process.

[2:18:06] So, a few things, one of the questions I had, and thank you for attaching the draft manual.

[2:18:16] I think that's really helpful.

[2:18:18] We have mapped out there three types of events.

[2:18:23] One of the things I think it might be helpful to add is the AB 720 category because that's not a winery event.

[2:18:32] It's not any of the other things, and so just to have that clarified there, we know we still need to do more education on those type of events too, but just to make that spell that out to, to say, this is not what this manual is if you need information on that go elsewhere.

[2:18:50] So that's one item, and then let's see, I would love, we thank you to both Ms. Novi and Ms. Anderson for the questions, and I think just to be responsive to Ms. Anderson, again, she mentioned a new program, and we know this is a continuing program, but she also had a question about philanthropic events.

[2:19:16] And if, because I know there was one section that was taken out that was that kind of a definition of non-profits but that's not because these type of events are specific to or only for non-profits. So can you tell us a little bit about that.

[2:19:35] That is struck out in the ordinance because that word is no longer used in the ordinance so doesn't need to be defined non-profits can still apply for a temporary event license.

[2:19:46] right and but also it you don't have to be a non-profit correct anyone can

[2:19:52] arrive for a temporary event and even if we wanted to go down that path that

[2:19:55] would probably be an infringement of First Amendment rights so we wouldn't.

[2:20:00] That's not something that we could do. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. And then I think the other piece about, you know, what I see here and I think it came up with supervisor Gallagher's points that really this adding in flexibility, the 90 days, first of all, these, the review of these take a lot of staff time. So it's important that staff has the time to do the work.

[2:20:25] And so I understand the 90-day time frame, and I appreciate the built-in flexibility with that and also the design professional piece because we know that without that, that would just remove several kinds of spaces from a potential use in these kinds of events.

[2:20:49] So I see that as an added piece of flexibility.

[2:20:54] One thing I will like to see from staff is

[2:20:57] I like that there's some discretion built into that 90 day deadline.

[2:21:01] I think it will be really helpful for staff to have guidelines about

[2:21:05] what we mean by that.

[2:21:07] And Ms. Glenn, you'd walked through a set like an emergency event in response to a wildfire, for example.

[2:21:15] Right. And we'll, because humans are humans, we will see people walking in to say, well, this event is really important and critical and time sensitive. So I think in order to give people an expectation of what that discretion means, I'd love to see some sort of bullet points some other way that you're framing what those parameters are.

[2:21:39] But that I'm also I appreciate Ms. Nobe's point of maybe coming back to us in a year and a half sort of saying how how this has rolled out thus far and what we've learned.

[2:21:52] I think that would be really helpful for the board as well.

[2:21:55] And then my final point, I also like the idea that at another time we can talk about the waiver, well, it makes sense to me that we're removing the waiver for nonprofit fees because that's what our fee study, that's what we approved under the fee study and I think I've heard from staff that the cost is about well, maybe I'll ask you what is the cost of our our waiver program.

[2:22:25] at this point.

[2:22:31] I'm quick and from wrong, surely in blast I asked it was around $1,800.

[2:22:38] I don't have a exact number, but that's what I read.

[2:22:42] Yeah.

[2:22:42] My question was more what the total cost is to the county of the staff time that we don't

[2:22:48] recover because of the nonprofit fee program, because at the end of the day that is we should

[2:22:55] as a board look at that, like, is that an investment we want to make?

[2:22:59] It's taxpayer dollars and to rise

[2:23:01] or less you'll made a great point about all the value

[2:23:04] that our nonprofit community brings back.

[2:23:07] So I think there's a good discussion to have there,

[2:23:09] but that should happen in a budget context.

[2:23:12] Yes, we're planning to bring forward

[2:23:16] a matching of the fees associated

[2:23:18] with the temp event categories in September.

[2:23:22] So that's just that fee discussion for processing applications

[2:23:27] And then there'll be another discussion with the budget regarding fee waivers at that time.

[2:23:33] We would be able to have a full blown analysis on what how much the county is losing in terms of processing fees.

[2:23:43] Got it. And then we're really having the conversation about it as an investment, right?

[2:23:48] Yes. And what is returned. And I will also point out that we do have nonprofits who do events here in the county that perhaps

[2:23:56] are going to support things outside of the county.

[2:24:00] So that will be an interesting discussion

[2:24:02] to talk about local nonprofits versus ones

[2:24:05] that are serving an audience outside.

[2:24:09] So those are all my comments at this point.

[2:24:11] Thank you.

[2:24:12] Thank you so much, Supervisor Gallagher, Supervisor Ramas.

[2:24:18] Thank you so much.

[2:24:21] And let me start off my question.

[2:24:24] Supervisor Cato alluded to it.

[2:24:26] And I believe that when we had our AB720 conversation, we matched up AB720 to be in line with what is now category one less than 50 is that not correct.

[2:24:41] So we essentially do have it acknowledged in here because it's a category one to review less than 50.

[2:24:48] That correct.

[2:24:52] Who gave me correct?

[2:24:53] Okay. Cool. I'm going to gallery in the back. Thank you. Um, okay. So I just wanted to-

[2:25:00] To see that point, but I don't believe we need to make a reference because those AB 720 events are less than 50.

[2:25:13] Next, you know, when it comes to, let me go to, okay, let me start with. On the application, I appreciate supervisor Lossio's request and trying to see an application.

[2:25:28] I want to caution this board. We don't ever review applications. It would seem very out of the ordinary for us to get into a space where we are approving forms and context.

[2:25:44] we have the enabling resolutions attached. We have the manual and we give direction. We certainly

[2:25:55] have the ability as time goes on to provide feedback to staff. Should there be a problem,

[2:26:04] but

[2:26:04] these applications are pretty simple in nature and everything seems to be in attachment.

[2:26:10] and so I would really, I would really caution us to not go down that path and to let stuff

[2:26:16] lead the way in this space with with our direction. I want to spend a little bit of time and

[2:26:24] I want to spend a little bit of time and and talk about these indoor spaces not for assembly.

[2:26:30] And in particular for my colleagues, I'm on pages. I think it's eight nine and ten of the

[2:26:38] A&9, sorry, of the manual, at the bottom it says indoor event spaces assembly occupancy that is governed by the building code and chapter 10 events are limited to buildings or portions of buildings currently permitted for assembly occupancy and this includes restrictions on events using production areas fermentation rooms barrel rooms warehouses caves.

[2:27:03] And if you want to have assembling these areas, that is where the detailed plan prepared by licensed design professional comes into play.

[2:27:22] So my question we've talked about this and I know in meeting with staff, I asked this question before, and I don't see a time frame on this.

[2:27:32] So let's take for example, location I have been to many events

[2:27:39] at is Louis Martini,

[2:27:44] when one of these detailed plans,

[2:27:49] per the manual comes in, is approved, is it only applicable

[2:27:55] to that event?

[2:28:00] Yes, it would be.

[2:28:02] It would be applicable to that event.

[2:28:05] So when Louie Martini came in, and when a winery comes in, if they want to have identify

[2:28:13] where they want to have their marketing events, because we would have to go through the same

[2:28:18] occupancy classification for any space in a winery.

[2:28:24] So if we do get something that comes in and they say in the future, we'd like to have marketing

[2:28:29] events or temporary events in this area, then staff would look at that through the building

[2:28:35] permit review process or the major modification process or modification as we process

[2:28:41] at use permit for the winery. But it would be an I could bring up David due to CFC here in

[2:28:48] the audience. But he's here. Yeah. And be heard of John. Yes, please come up. But it would be for that

[2:28:56] temporary of that. So I guess what I'm getting at here is I think that there's an opportunity for us to be supportive but I do not understand the limitations of the building code and perhaps maybe you can help me.

[2:29:17] I think this through. But when I think about some of these spaces, so let's take the barrel room at Louis martini.

[2:29:28] They have events there. How do we get something on file that is, and I use on file very liberally here, how do we get something on file that allows

[2:29:42] that venue to be able to do a copy paste on these

[2:29:49] lights on these detailed plans signed off by a licensed design professional

[2:29:55] that we can utilize. So to say, hey, if

[2:30:00] Non-profit ABC had this event. And now, you know, DEF wants to come in and have this event, they could just say same plan as ABC.

[2:30:12] Is that an option here for, because in my head I'm not going to go ahead and list all these venues, but in my mind, I can think about five or six of these venues that are repeat hosts.

[2:30:27] that would benefit from us to be able to keep something on file, and maybe that is a separate category that we can include in here at a later time, or maybe there's a way for us to incorporate a slide amendment that say that a detailed plan if it is substantially similar.

[2:30:51] that it can stay on file for two years.

[2:30:55] Assuming no large building code changes,

[2:30:58] I now, let's discuss.

[2:31:09] I like to use this room as a good example.

[2:31:12] This is a room that is considered assembly.

[2:31:16] And you'll see that there's an occupancy load.

[2:31:19] So it's every building's different.

[2:31:21] If we choose to make this assembly,

[2:31:23] that's it triggers other things like exiting. So because of the 99 people that are allowed in here,

[2:31:29] we have to have two exits. And that means if someone like say Ryan's laptop catches on fire

[2:31:36] and we've got over 120 people in here, people might panic and run for the doors. So we want to make

[2:31:43] sure that that load capacity to get out is here. So we have that design for 99 people in this room.

[2:31:50] When you take a fermentation, processing,

[2:31:55] warehouse, those are usually like a F occupancy,

[2:31:58] which is fermentation, and they're designed for production.

[2:32:02] Those are designed to maybe only have five people in them,

[2:32:05] and they have maybe just one exit, because there's only five people in the building at any one time.

[2:32:11] Then you've got other factors in there.

[2:32:13] It's designed. It has drainage troughs.

[2:32:17] There's walking surfaces that are issues.

[2:32:19] There's all sorts of things that go along with the designing it to for a production facility.

[2:32:24] So that's the challenge.

[2:32:27] What I have seen is we've tried to encourage people when they're designing their winery is to look at maybe a mixed use of that winery.

[2:32:35] So for things like that where they plan to have repeat events, they could do that.

[2:32:41] They could look at the building to have the proper exiting that they can sort of make that conversion if they wanted to have events in there.

[2:32:48] Haven't seen a lot of it yet, but it's very challenging when you have production and assembly.

[2:32:55] So I know everybody wants to have their events in the barrel room amongst the production

[2:33:00] facilities kind of cool, cool looking, but it presents a lot of hazards. So what we've also looked at

[2:33:07] is we do like a basically temporary occupancy change for an event. And then we ask that a design

[2:33:14] professional, just like they would, if they were designing the building, come in and actually

[2:33:19] design it to make sure or at least look at the existing exiting and see if they can make

[2:33:23] it work.

[2:33:24] Because they may be in a situation where they don't have enough room, it's down it maybe

[2:33:29] it's subterranean and they only have one stairway out of there, that can be a huge challenge

[2:33:34] to try to convert those spaces temporarily.

[2:33:37] So that's the big challenge.

[2:33:38] we need to see that, because we don't want to have an event in the Valley resolved in some

[2:33:45] fire earthquake, panic situation, active shooter, you name it. People need to build to get

[2:33:51] out of the building in a series and panic situation. So yeah, so there's as avenues, but that's

[2:34:00] why we have to have a design professional coming and evaluate that building and see if it works.

[2:34:04] They may have huge roll-up doors that they can let for the day while they have there in that.

[2:34:11] So that there's a lot of options out there, but it just depends on the building and it varies from

[2:34:17] from event to that.

[2:34:22] Thank you. That's great background, but to get I think to your question,

[2:34:29] more specifically, it sounds like you're suggesting that there'd be some form of a blanket plan

[2:34:34] going to be applied over and over and over again. I think to some extent, yes, it's going to

[2:34:40] depend on to what extent the event changes. The plan is specific to the event. If it's a 100

[2:34:47] person event, there's going to be a plan. If it's a 1000 person event in that same building,

[2:34:51] it's a different plan. If they rearrange tables and barrels and whatnot, that also could be a different

[2:34:57] plan, so I think to the extent, the...

[2:35:00] Plan is still applicable in subsequent years or events. Yeah, it could apply. One of the things, and this is another improvement that is going to occur with this new manual and application processes.

[2:35:15] we will now be retaining on-file previous submittals.

[2:35:21] So let's say martini comes in and they submitted a plan for the barrel row.

[2:35:27] It's there on-file and if you're just needing to make some small little tweaks to it,

[2:35:33] you can't, you don't have to start from scratch.

[2:35:37] And so that's particularly helpful when folks do subsequent events.

[2:35:41] They essentially can reapply with nearly the same material that they did in previous years, which cuts down, of course, the review on their part and ours as well.

[2:35:52] So I don't know if we need to include a provision necessarily in the resolution or the manual.

[2:35:57] I think the CBO has discretion and authority to take those in a consideration, but we course would be happy to consider any language changes along those lines.

[2:36:08] If you, if you have them.

[2:36:10] Thank you. I appreciate that. You know, I guess certainly understand a 100% event. It's very different from a 1000% event. What I guess the one thing is making sure that through the chief building officer that we're compliant with the building code, you know,

[2:36:39] needs to be some sort of language that says that those designs on file can be utilized for

[2:36:47] X number of times or years, unless there is a substantive change to the building code.

[2:36:57] Yeah, we can include a note in the manual that they may become outdated in the event building code

[2:37:03] is updated. How often happens every two or three years? Every three years. Yeah, so there's a three-year

[2:37:08] cycle, but we've been includes a clarifying language to let us know that it could change.

[2:37:13] I think that would be incredibly helpful if we have that expressly included in there.

[2:37:18] Then the next question that I have, and this is more of a...

[2:37:23] I am unaware of who is the applicant here.

[2:37:27] Is that the person having the event or is it the venue?

[2:37:31] It's the person having the event.

[2:37:34] Okay, is that applicant. So then that is I think probably more at the central to my question is how do we,

[2:37:45] is the new system that's allowing for these documents, is it allowing shared information between applicants that are relevant to the same site.

[2:37:59] So, if non-profit ABC is having a 100% event at Martini has done the detailed plan, signed off by licensed professional, how do we make sure that non-profit DEF can benefit from that same plan?

[2:38:20] I think they would have to have an internal discussion with one another to see if they can benefit.

[2:38:27] Or if the winery itself, the venue does the analysis for temp events, you know, different ranges of sizes.

[2:38:37] They, in that stage with the winery, then when the vendor or when the event coordinator comes in, they can say,

[2:38:44] Oh, you can use this that we had as a starting point

[2:38:50] for meeting the building codes or fire codes,

[2:38:53] regarding occupancy.

[2:38:55] So I guess this is where I see more so then

[2:39:03] than even looking at fee waivers and deviation of that.

[2:39:09] I see that there is an opportunity

[2:39:11] for us to be supportive in that space of those venues that are repeat hosts, to be able to say we want to work with you and your support of the nonprofit community.

[2:39:29] Here's a specific toolkit for you and how you design up these 100 to, you know, the category

[2:39:38] ones, two, three, and to have that on file.

[2:39:42] That's, I guess, that's more of where I'm going at that I see a little disconnected.

[2:39:47] We're saying here's the manual and that's great.

[2:39:50] I think it has really great suggestions and great guidance, but if there's a way for us to facilitate

[2:39:56] Okay, not reinventing the wheel, everything.

[2:40:00] Single-time, I think that that's where we have some space that we can be supportive of.

[2:40:06] However, there is a caveat here. So if the venue space wants to, or the venue, wants to make changes to their production area,

[2:40:19] we still have to abide by the winery definition ordinance when it comes to the production to hospitality ratio.

[2:40:28] So there's that fine line that they may not be able to do permanent, you know, changes to that, but at least we could have it, you know, for in our system that they can use that analysis for the next event of that.

[2:40:45] Oh, I'm not at all suggesting the permanent changes. I'm suggesting those temporary changes that facilitate these indoor assemblies for temporary.

[2:40:58] Yes. Okay. I

[2:41:04] see. Okay. I see that I see that I see Vice Chair Lassio. Do you have further comments?

[2:41:13] Thank you. Just after listening to my colleagues at an end of the response back. I appreciate that.

[2:41:19] What supervisor Ramles kind of reminds me of an I really like her idea trying to think about how the problem solved something that

[2:41:26] to cost, you know, $7 to $15,000 for a design

[2:41:30] professional depending what they need is, and again,

[2:41:34] this may not work because of what your response was.

[2:41:37] But it reminds you a little bit of the Napa ADU program

[2:41:40] where there is pre-designed approved pre-designed designs

[2:41:47] for ADUs and if there was approved pre-designed

[2:41:52] for some of these indoor spaces based on previous use.

[2:41:56] That would be helpful.

[2:41:57] I think that would that could meet the criteria

[2:42:00] without adding additional cost.

[2:42:04] But I know if there's a variable changes,

[2:42:06] if there's a variable change, but maybe it's still,

[2:42:08] they could use that original concept, that original design,

[2:42:12] and they could have their design professional just amended.

[2:42:15] So it's not starting from scratch.

[2:42:18] So it just trying to be practical and also thoughtful here.

[2:42:21] I

[2:42:23] just wanted to mention, so the tricky thing about hiring an architect or a design professional is they have a copy right on those designs, so that's just something to consider.

[2:42:36] If they do a one for a particular event and then six months later someone else wants to use those plans, we aren't able to just give those over.

[2:42:47] That would be something that you have to go back to that design, just something to keep in mind

[2:42:52] the sort of the copyright infringement of of design by architects.

[2:42:57] So, and that's going to ask you.

[2:42:59] Thank you for mentioning that because it's going to say,

[2:43:01] who qualifies as a design professional?

[2:43:03] Because architects are very expensive.

[2:43:05] Is there any other profession that qualifies as the design professional that would for this purpose?

[2:43:10] Well, you can have, so there's

[2:43:13] architects, which are trained in the building code, they go through their education for that,

[2:43:20] and then they get licensed to the state, so that right there qualifies them,

[2:43:24] then you also have other fire protection engineers that can provide exiting,

[2:43:29] they can also be someone who you could use for that sort of analysis. So there's some design

[2:43:39] familiar with exiting and life safety. Okay, for buildings. But still it, it is a, you know, a

[2:43:49] cost burden that may or may not allow, and I'm going to go back to nonprofits, because it's the

[2:43:56] community good that they're doing that may or may not allow somebody to have an event indoors,

[2:44:01] when there is no, maybe it's a, you know, it's a seasonal issue and it's raining and they have no

[2:44:06] option and, you know, and so if they need to do indoors and their budget, they just cannot.

[2:44:14] They just don't have it in their budget, right? Um, but, um, so I really liked what

[2:44:19] supervisor almost was trying to think of a problem-solving solution. Um, it would be nice that

[2:44:25] we could expand what their design professional, um, category look like, um, to a lot more people to

[2:44:33] to do this, be qualified,

[2:44:37] but I'll let that go at this point because I kind of heard staff

[2:44:42] response on that. Going back to what I said before regarding the 60 days to the 90 days. I

[2:44:52] hear everybody. I do think that the outreach and the education can be really important. So I'm

[2:44:59] I'm going to push back.

[2:45:00] On that, I'm just going to say, you know, it's a living document as it's reported here. We're going to learn more.

[2:45:06] I really appreciate what Director Bernoulli said about surveys and getting feedback and we can make changes.

[2:45:15] So again, I'm just trying to prevent any barriers for people that they know provide goodwill and you know funding for our community where we need it most.

[2:45:30] Let's see, I think I have one more follow up.

[2:45:37] It's regarding in my request of bringing back the application once it's formed and once it's ready.

[2:45:43] On our next item today, we're going to be looking at that application.

[2:45:47] It's part of our presentation.

[2:45:49] It's my recollection we've looked at applications before.

[2:45:52] It's an online portal that shows the process.

[2:45:55] And so, again, it's not just for this board to have an opportunity in for, but also the public to have an opportunity to see how the manual actually actualizes in the product of the application for, you know, even the layperson to be able to be able to use on this community not just the event professionals to use would be very helpful.

[2:46:21] And so, again, I still then extend that request.

[2:46:24] And then the other request is already standing in terms of looking at,

[2:46:29] and you said something from back in September,

[2:46:32] because we're not talking about fees today.

[2:46:34] Though, when I saw the, you know, not the nonprofit,

[2:46:37] you know, kind of light red line through,

[2:46:40] because the definition, I understood why,

[2:46:43] because that's what it, it tied to.

[2:46:45] That's where I started that discussion,

[2:46:48] but we'll discuss that more in September.

[2:46:49] But, and that's all I have, but just a lot of gratitude. Thank you.

[2:46:55] Okay. Thank you. I see supervisors Gallagher and after that control.

[2:47:02] Thank you. Something that, uh,

[2:47:05] Superzeromus brought up when she asked the question,

[2:47:07] who's the applicant? We need to be really clear who the applicant is.

[2:47:11] I'm looking at the manual and in the, in the burger page at the top,

[2:47:15] It really doesn't say who is the applicant like am I an applicant I see you know the question does my event require and qualify for temporary event license but I think that there is a lot of confusion out there when a winery for example is is hosting or providing the venue for somebody you know doing a fundraiser whatever I don't know that it's completely clear who is responsible for applying is there a way to make that really clear.

[2:47:45] on all the document. So the current application that's located on the website has and this will be

[2:47:53] an application will take that application and that will be used to develop the online application.

[2:48:01] It allows for the applicant who's hosting, who's coordinating the event to apply. But we also

[2:48:10] required the property owner, which would be the winery, to sign acknowledging that they're

[2:48:16] going to use that venue. So we have to have the property owner and the applicant sign

[2:48:23] the application form. And that will be, make sure that. Yeah, that'll be put in the online application

[2:48:31] because they'll have to provide some sort of documentation showing that they have authorization

[2:48:36] to use that venue. Okay. I think that's super important and maybe it's a reason why sometimes these

[2:48:43] applications don't come in because nobody knows who's going to do it. And a property owner can apply to

[2:48:48] for a for a temperament. Right. Right. So you can be sure people understand that if they're involved in the event,

[2:48:56] they are most likely if it's something that needs a permit, they are going to have to be part of the

[2:49:06] are, you know, there's no waving of accountability. Yes, that's okay. The other thing was

[2:49:16] the supervisor of Lesios requested about looking at the application. I don't have a problem

[2:49:22] looking at the application. I don't want to approve applications. I don't want to approve your

[2:49:27] forms. I don't want to approve any departments forms unless there is a legal reason why we have to.

[2:49:34] So I just don't want to get in the habit of approving the forms that you need to create based on our policy direction, so just want to make that clear that we're not setting any kind of precedent or that we would you would be bringing something for us for approval.

[2:49:52] It's prerogative of the board.

[2:49:54] It's not something that we typically

[2:49:55] been asked to do.

[2:49:57] But if it is, we will.

[2:49:59] In my view.

[2:50:00] I'm looking at the application now. The manual is the heart and soul of the process. And I'm looking at some of these old things on this checklist and this application that are going to go away because they've become obsolete. And my view, the application should be a one-pager. Your name is the applicant, your name as the property owner, the partial number, the type of event you're applying for and everything else lives in the similar documents that are dictated by the manual.

[2:50:28] There's no sense in requiring 10 page applications anymore, particularly as we're moving to online submittals.

[2:50:36] We don't need folks filling out all these blanks here anymore. This is a lot of obsolete information.

[2:50:42] But that said, I want to be completely respectful of the board.

[2:50:46] If there's a desire to see the new application, we would be more than happy if we're coming back as a check in in six months or a year or I can't remember the interval.

[2:50:55] to present that to the board, if they wish, we will be presenting that to the public and offering

[2:51:01] workshops as to how to submit applications, target it at those that submit temporary applications.

[2:51:08] I suppose all members of the public, if they're interested, are welcome to attend those,

[2:51:12] whether they do or don't submit temporary applications. But again, the idea is to streamline and

[2:51:20] reduce down this 10 page application to one maybe two pages and in fact it won't be a page anymore.

[2:51:26] It's going to live inside the system. Thank you. I think I just wanted to note that

[2:51:31] looking at something is fine, but I don't want to have any role in approval of something like that.

[2:51:40] Yeah and given that's not something that we hadn't anticipated, I do want to caution the

[2:51:44] that if we are asked to bring something before we can launch this, it could jeopardize launching this

[2:51:51] in time for submittals on January 1, particularly if we're going to receive feedback and tweaks on it.

[2:51:58] A lot of this is going to be interacting with our IT department and our internal IT department

[2:52:02] and helping create the system through our online permitting system, which hasn't been built yet.

[2:52:08] Thank you for pointing that out. It's important. Thanks.

[2:52:14] Thank you.

[2:52:16] Thank you.

[2:52:16] I wanted to first go back.

[2:52:17] I like where supervisor Ramos and supervisor, unless you were going in thinking about an applicant not having to recreate the wheel with the space analysis.

[2:52:28] I also think there's only so much that county can do on that because as Mr.

[2:52:37] just what two different applicants working with

[2:52:41] a venue will interact about.

[2:52:44] So maybe my suggestion is maybe we can have some language

[2:52:47] out there that says something like,

[2:52:50] you know, if a venue has had an approved event in this space

[2:52:53] and there has been an approved space analysis,

[2:52:56] like, you know, you may want to use that.

[2:52:59] Or you can, you may be able to use that subject

[2:53:02] to time limitations or just putting applicants on notice

[2:53:06] that that's an option that the county because I think that gets to

[2:53:10] supervisor Ramos's point that we want to be able to say the county's okay with you using

[2:53:15] a previously approved space plan. Yeah that's a good idea because there could be multiple

[2:53:21] applicants for various events and they may not be aware of the previous event organizer having

[2:53:27] submitted a plan. We can include some language in there that makes them aware if they did or

[2:53:32] to find it or otherwise kind of get a good suggestion.

[2:53:36] Great. Thank you. Okay, great suggestion. I was going to say something very similar to what

[2:53:41] Supervisor Katyal just suggested. And that's along the lines of as our staff pointed out,

[2:53:47] you know, the tables could be moved around or, you know, certain things could change. But,

[2:53:52] you know, if there's a, if there's something already on file and the plans were seen in the first

[2:53:57] iteration, I don't see why you'd want to see the same plans again at, you know, at an extra

[2:54:02] expense whoever's coming after that because presumably if you've permitted a situation in a certain

[2:54:09] configuration once, I can't see why it would be denied for the same situation a second time

[2:54:15] around. So I think I think that's a great suggestion. Thank you. Supervisor Petrell.

[2:54:23] Let's see. I have a couple of things here. I do also want to thank everyone on the board for

[2:54:31] very likely discussion here, and everyone in the public for participating in this through

[2:54:36] the last couple of years, there's been a lot of conversation and staff is taking a lot of

[2:54:43] different perspectives than to consideration getting to where we are today.

[2:54:50] Okay.

[2:54:51] I think my only outstanding item is the great thing about going last is everything's already

[2:54:56] been discussed.

[2:54:58] Who clearly outstanding items?

[2:55:00] Is that I read through this and I correct me if I'm wrong, please point me to the language if I am wrong. But for the categories of events that we have, there's limitations on the number of each type of event you can have over the course of a year, so per type 2A, there can be six events type 2B, six events type 3, six events type 4, 3 events type 5, 2 events type 6, 1 event and they have to be separated from any other events.

[2:55:30] typically by four days, right. But I don't actually see any language addressing additive events.

[2:55:38] And so if a entity, if a location wanted to be doing, each type of event to the max with

[2:55:47] the maximum number of people, this would be actually be a terrific amount of events potentially

[2:55:51] going on every other week across a year. So yeah, so please let me know if I miss something.

[2:55:57] If there's a place in here where it says, you know, additively no more than X, that's that's my question.

[2:56:06] There is not and that is what's currently existing in our ordinance right now as well.

[2:56:12] So it is per parcel and they could have the max two a two b three.

[2:56:17] Okay, and I can see where that's something that I mean,

[2:56:22] of a facility would pretty much have to be designed around functioning at that incredibly high level of capacity.

[2:56:31] My concern is that we're looking at the entire county jurisdiction and this included

[2:56:36] places that are very accessible as well as places that are very remote. And this is this is

[2:56:44] what I'm struggling with. Like if it's not, if there's no, I mean I guess we can, you know,

[2:56:50] have arrested at a board at a future date if there's an ongoing concern somewhere in the community,

[2:56:56] but I do feel like that's an area of potential oversight in terms of the impact that could exist,

[2:57:04] particularly in a place that is where people have a reasonable expectation that they're living in a quiet

[2:57:10] part of the community and all of a sudden something really changes.

[2:57:15] So I don't know if there's anything more anyone on staff has to say about that,

[2:57:19] or if I'm just kind of playing that out there as a, yeah.

[2:57:23] Yes, I think this is where the reviewing agencies come into play.

[2:57:27] We had an event out in Pope Valley and emergency management services required that an ambulance

[2:57:36] be put on site because of the distance to such services.

[2:57:43] We look at traffic control, we look at music.

[2:57:46] Even though the ordinance says that you can have an event that goes till midnight, most of the events are till 10 o'clock.

[2:57:54] We have the noise ordinance that plays into how loud the music can play and the noise and everything not to disturb the neighbors in the surrounding area.

[2:58:07] And this is where those neighbors will get notified and if there are some concerns and say it's a notice of intent that doesn't require.

[2:58:15] hearing. We would work with the applicant and the party that made comments to make sure that

[2:58:23] those issues would be addressed during the hearing or during the review of the application.

[2:58:29] If there's a hearing, then they can come and testify. But either way, we would have them work directly

[2:58:35] with the applicant to try to resolve any of those issues that make them up. Okay, thank you.

[2:58:44] I guess I can I can just close this by with a little bit of an

[2:58:48] advantagement to people to be neighborly. And we'd all prefer to not be hearing complaints,

[2:58:55] and so just take into consideration and communicate well with your neighbors. As this rolls out,

[2:58:58] I hope we have no problems, but I do see that as a potential problem area if people are not neighborly.

[2:59:05] So, um, so thank you so much for considering that. Um, okay, we are here. So, um, seeing no further comments from the board, I will close the public hearing and I will ask for a motion of intent to adopt the ordinance.

[2:59:25] I will go ahead and move and I'm going to first of all ask for county council.

[2:59:30] I know that this is we make the motion with an intent to adopt the ordinance and then

[2:59:37] the final adoption will be at our next board meeting.

[2:59:40] So I will move that the board intent to adopt the ordinance of the Napa County Board of Supervisors

[2:59:46] remaining chapter 5.36 of the Napa County Code, and then I will also make a motion that we adopt the resolution approving the temporary events manual and the right.

[3:00:00] Second, we're almost.

[3:00:06] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Motion by control. Second, my supervisor, Ramus, all those in favor. Aye.

[3:00:11] That passes unanimously. Thank you.

[3:00:17] Okay.

[3:00:18] We're moving on to administrative item 10A. And I do recognize that we are hitting the lunch hour.

[3:00:24] And I will, let's take item 10A because I know there are people from out of the area here specifically to speak to it.

[3:00:32] And then after that, we will see where we're at and we may take a lunch break depending on how long this takes or you may power it through if it's quick.

[3:01:36] So, um, supervisor Gallagher will rejoin us in just a moment.

[3:01:39] Let's go ahead with item 10A, the adoption or consideration of adoption of a resolution updating the NAP account.

[3:01:44] left-turn lane or in slash screening continued from June 23rd, 2026, I welcome a staff report from

[3:01:51] our Public Works Director Steve Letter and affiliates.

[3:01:56] Thank you, Chair Man Free Members of the Board. I am here with S. and Cosmy, our County

[3:02:01] Traffic Engineer and Jeff Rubendol of Fair and Peers, and they will both have roles here shortly.

[3:02:09] Um, for background, um, as you mentioned, we were here on June 23rd.

[3:02:15] There was one public comment, um, when we came on June 23rd from Michelle Benvenuto of

[3:02:21] great growers, uh, we did meet with Michelle, and she was so satisfied that I think she left.

[3:02:29] So, um, and we've not received any additional public comment since, uh, June 23rd.

[3:02:35] So, by background, our current left-turn lane process,

[3:02:41] basically the process whereby we determined whether a private

[3:02:44] development requires a left-turn lane or not,

[3:02:47] was originally established in the 1980s.

[3:02:51] And it had actually been working reasonably well,

[3:02:53] but it was old.

[3:02:55] And a lot of the history behind its original establishment

[3:02:59] was lost a time, if you will. Council had recommended that it would be a good idea to update

[3:03:09] the standard to today's current standard technology, if you will. And also, of course,

[3:03:19] have the background available to defend it. So that was the process we went through.

[3:03:28] We also

[3:03:29] contacted a number of our local practitioners

[3:03:32] to get their input.

[3:03:34] The goal was to make the current process easier to use

[3:03:39] and more clear.

[3:03:41] Obviously, the fence among them,

[3:03:43] there was no desire to make it harder.

[3:03:46] In fact, it actually is probably a little slightly easier

[3:03:48] in a couple of cases, harder or easier.

[3:03:51] I mean, we're not expected that we're going to get a whole

[3:03:55] bunch more left-turn lanes that we would

[3:03:57] otherwise or a whole bunch less that was that was not the goal. So we are here today and we're

[3:04:04] going to ask you to adopt a resolution updating the left-turn lane warranty screening process.

[3:04:11] We did include some of our process type items in the agenda item, our left-turn lane analysis,

[3:04:19] the screening and user guide, the fillable form that we'll be using and we included it largely

[3:04:26] because I think it's kind of cool, but we're not asking you to adopt that. Just the, just the

[3:04:32] resolution. So I'm going to stop here. I'm going to turn this over to Jeff from Fair and

[3:04:36] Pierce. We did want to get expert outside analysis and Jeff's going to talk for about eight

[3:04:44] minutes and no more and we'll get you guys to watch.

[3:04:50] Thank you. Jeff, we're going to look

[3:04:51] fair and Pierce. I'm just had a couple slides to walk through the process. Some of the key

[3:04:55] mindings and answer any questions you all might have.

[3:04:58] Just don't echo what Steve C. mentioned.

[3:05:00] Is really the goal was to find an objective and defensible process, make it a streamlined and easy to apply as possible that's consistent and transparent.

[3:05:11] The current process that was established in the 80s, like I said mentioned, is a curve, a graph like this, that somebody would apply data to and with a little bit of details in how you apply it.

[3:05:24] It's a pretty simple way to do it is just the underlying research and basis was hard to track down.

[3:05:29] established but not necessarily as as documented. So we kind of identified like what we kind of looked, we research what the typical best practices are for left turn, you know, screening criteria.

[3:05:41] What kind of inputs are easy to collect in terms of the methods as well as the cost to do so.

[3:05:47] And other traffic engineering basics that are pretty common to when you're evaluating a new site in an area like Napa County.

[3:05:57] If did a fair amount of research going back many decades,

[3:06:01] there's been a lot of research about left-term warrants,

[3:06:04] and when you should have one, when you shouldn't nest on a need to have one,

[3:06:08] the most recent one being in 2013,

[3:06:11] which is the National Cooperative Highway Research Program,

[3:06:14] or NCHRP report, which is a federally recognized research-based

[3:06:18] series of traffic engineering fundamental reports and documents

[3:06:22] that kind of help set the standards for

[3:06:25] typical traffic engineering, civil engineering, geometric roadway design elements.

[3:06:31] What we found as part of this is that the previous, because this is the most recent one

[3:06:36] was established in 2013, everything that preceded that is actually based off the underlying

[3:06:41] research from the 60s with very little update over the time other than just applying that

[3:06:46] same data set in slightly different contexts.

[3:06:48] So what we found is that there's actually an opportunity to leverage the most current research

[3:06:53] associated with that.

[3:06:54] This is a snapshot of that old 1967 research, as you can tell it's very greeny, where the application

[3:07:01] of it is a little harder to apply. So it does kind of track that the older research does sort of

[3:07:07] correlate to the established napkinny curved graph. It wasn't necessarily a one-to-one comparison.

[3:07:15] So what we found was using the most current and CHRP process, which is actually

[3:07:20] It seems like weird, but it's the straight lines and it gets very easy to plot data points and you don't have to interpret whether it's you're rounding up or down or anything like that, and it's very common in the specific context of NAPA County.

[3:07:33] So comparing the old graph with what we are seeing is what the current research supports, just a slightly, it's very, yes, it's a graph and you can plot numbers on it.

[3:07:41] but really at the underlying research and the thresholds with which to apply left-turn

[3:07:46] Elaine is easily applied with the current research.

[3:07:51] In summary, the proposed process itself offers a safety-based research-based approach that

[3:07:57] uses peak-hour traffic, existing traffic and proposed traffic predictions using an industry-bet

[3:08:02] relying on industry best practices related to traffic engineering and safety interventions.

[3:08:07] The quick summary of the things that change, it is based off of the Federal Highway Safety Manual.

[3:08:13] It uses definitive, collectible data such as peak algorithms, turning movements both existing and closed or calculated.

[3:08:21] Very distinct linear lines making it easier to plot.

[3:08:25] And it's consistent with current as practices.

[3:08:29] And we actually use a fair amount of previous data as part of other applications.

[3:08:33] to make sure that how that different approach may have changed whether a left-room lane would

[3:08:39] be needed or not, and found some interesting correlations very similar to the results of Steve

[3:08:44] alluded to with a few exceptions. Process itself streamlined. It's very similar to the type of data

[3:08:52] that would be collected as part of a traffic impact analysis. Even if a traffic impact analysis

[3:08:56] is screened out, there's still that process that we would be suggesting followed to collect

[3:09:01] data of the surrounding area, there's a very established volume

[3:09:06] warrants that you applied during that NCHRP document.

[3:09:09] We did include a site distance assessment which is kind of separate from

[3:09:13] a volume based approach to make sure that the roadway geometry itself

[3:09:17] is allows for safe movement of people in cars as well as allowing

[3:09:23] the ultimate result allowing county to weigh in on specific context of a

[3:09:29] application to make sure that it's as concrete as possible, but also gives the county the ultimate decision based on other external factors.

[3:09:39] Steve mentioned the form. This is a snapshot of it. It's basically a cell document that you can fill out and it populates the results using a series of formulas that are underneath it.

[3:09:51] We also developed a user guide that is geared towards the applicants themselves and their consultants or whoever they're using to support the development of their

[3:10:00] It really walks through how to fill out the form, some of the underlying research, but really just

[3:10:05] alluding to the appropriate federal documents, so a design professional or a professional can kind of

[3:10:11] track the end document, the basis of the analysis.

[3:10:16] So in summary, the new process that we're proposing is

[3:10:19] defendable, compatible with the current county GIS guidelines. There's very little room for interpretation,

[3:10:25] and argument and it still ultimately provides the decision authority to decision making authority to staff through the best practices and the context of our particular application.

[3:10:38] With that, happy to answer any questions you all may have.

[3:10:41] Okay, thank you so much for that presentation.

[3:10:44] I see Supervisor Carroll.

[3:10:50] Yeah, thank you for this presentation and this work.

[3:10:53] It makes a lot of sense.

[3:10:54] It's going to, again, provide more clarity for applicants and stuff.

[3:10:59] So my question is, so it sounds like there's these will result in similar, you know,

[3:11:09] we're not changing what the, well, not that we are changing the standard, but it's not the

[3:11:16] volumes aren't going to be significantly different.

[3:11:20] Can you help us understand for current applications or that maybe already had their analyses accepted?

[3:11:31] Are we going to go back and do anything and once that kind of change over date?

[3:11:36] Thank you.

[3:11:36] I was actually going to cover that.

[3:11:39] Great.

[3:11:39] Great question.

[3:11:42] So if an application is already considered complete and they've done the old process,

[3:11:48] We're not going to ask them to do that. Again, they can just, they can do the result from the, the previous. So let me just make clear.

[3:11:57] So when applications are, again, it's complete. They did the old process and they don't require a left term.

[3:12:02] We're not going to make them do this new process to see if, so they're good. The flip side of that is if they already have an application and, and the old way did require a left term line.

[3:12:15] if they want to do the new process and see if they can get a different result, they're welcome to

[3:12:21] do that. If their date is really old, they'll need to get current data. But we're not we're not

[3:12:27] trying to jeopardize anyone who's already done who's already completed the work. So I don't think I

[3:12:35] that really well, but I hopefully, I'm going to

[3:12:37] just do something about that. Thank you. Appreciate that.

[3:12:41] Okay, I did not take public comment.

[3:12:44] So is there anyone wishing to speak up?

[3:12:48] Yeah, go ahead and come up to the podium.

[3:12:50] We'll have three minutes.

[3:12:54] After Aaron jobs to board,

[3:12:55] to get some peatmen authority,

[3:12:56] not here for any particular client.

[3:12:59] Since I've been

[3:13:00] credited and or blamed for this,

[3:13:03] I figured it was only fair for me to show up.

[3:13:05] This has been a long run in discussion with public works on this.

[3:13:08] I do appreciate all the effort that went into this director letter or awesome.

[3:13:13] The team that came up with the new warrant.

[3:13:17] There is now an engineer warrant that replaces the old graph that I will leave for another day,

[3:13:23] whether or not there was any basis for that or not,

[3:13:25] but so I'm glad to see that we've got something new.

[3:13:29] You know, on our specific comments about it, I will note that there was only one option presented to the board, which was,

[3:13:36] frankly, a very restrictive, more and there were other options for the board to consider.

[3:13:42] It is not consistent with the call transfer and so there was to be two different warrants in place in Napa County with two different results.

[3:13:50] Projects that are on state highway will be subject to a different standard than this, and that is a looser standard just so everybody is aware of that.

[3:13:59] The other thing that hasn't been talked about at all is the cost of benefit, the left-turn

[3:14:04] lanes in general.

[3:14:06] You know, all of the costs right now is put on the applicant and the event of the left-turn

[3:14:10] lane is required, but the applicant gets very little of the benefit from the left-turn lane.

[3:14:16] One of the big benefits of the left-turn lane is reducing backups behind left-turn vehicles.

[3:14:22] That's a public benefit, right?

[3:14:24] And so for this board and you don't have to consider this now, but for the future, you should think about, you know, who should really be bearing the cost of these public improvements that are designed to be traffic for the public.

[3:14:38] But, you read minimal benefits for the ash wool, you know, applicant this charge with putting the man.

[3:14:45] Because these are very expensive installations, right, a million dollars to put in a left turn, could they?

[3:14:52] And the other thing for the board to think about is the perception that a winery spoon required to put these in.

[3:15:00] And the county is not putting them in. All right. If you write up a silver router trail, you at north of your park, there's a dozen left turn lanes to wineries. There's not a single one at any public intersection. All right, so keep that in mind. When you know wineries shows up and says, why do I have to put in a left turn lane when the county's not doing it. But with you know what that all said, I'm glad to see a little bit of progress on a little concern about.

[3:15:29] The language in the site distance, it seems to mandate changes, rather than make them discretionary.

[3:15:40] The new language is that changes will be made to infrastructure, as opposed to maybe required to infrastructure.

[3:15:47] I think that should be clarified a bit, because otherwise you're going to end up seeing a lot of exception requests.

[3:15:55] So, but with that, thank you to Steve and the team for seeing this process through.

[3:16:01] Okay, thank you for this comments. Is there anyone on the phones?

[3:16:09] Okay, no, so no one on the phones. I don't see anyone else in the room. Is there anyone else?

[3:16:13] Oh, I see on the board wishing to comment. I see Vice Chair Lesio.

[3:16:17] And thank you. Thank you for the comment. That was, that was interesting and helpful.

[3:16:24] Does that have any response in terms of any of the comments and questions that were brought up

[3:16:31] especially the two different standards between cow trans and our own? That's like distance?

[3:16:37] Yeah, a couple of things. One is I will I will credit not blame Josh for kind of driving the kind of the original

[3:16:47] but this program, we probably wouldn't have done it otherwise, but I think we ultimately benefit from doing it.

[3:16:58] So actually, I'm not playing credit, so thank you on that.

[3:17:03] So a couple of things, one, in terms of the value of left turn lanes, and I do disagree in that a Wangerie does benefit very much from a left turn lane.

[3:17:17] absolutely a left-turn lane helps with flow of traffic. There's no question about that, but there are also safety elements associated with it.

[3:17:25] We all know on so about a trail, for instance, if there is not a left-turn lane to winery.

[3:17:33] First off, again, the safety element in terms of rear end accidents and what not.

[3:17:38] Secondly, in terms of cars diving to the right essentially into the bike lane to go around someone to make a left-turn lane.

[3:17:44] So there are definitely safety benefits that accrue to the people making that left

[3:17:52] online and the people around the person trying to make that left turn.

[3:17:56] So I believe it is a joint benefit.

[3:18:01] In terms of the cost of a left turn lane, obviously everyone's different.

[3:18:05] We did do a partnership deal with the winery recently.

[3:18:11] we were doing a paving project, they needed a left-turn lane so we partnered on it and even using

[3:18:18] government expenses, if you will, you know, all of our rules and prevailing wage and all that.

[3:18:25] The project was I think about $430,000, which I think is way more typical than the million and

[3:18:32] the million and the half numbers that I often hear thrown around. So I have not the $400,000

[3:18:38] significant amount of money, but it's not a million dollars. Josh is correct that there are

[3:18:47] some, some intersections on Silverado Trail, that are public intersections that don't have left

[3:18:53] her lanes. I mean generally what happens with a left-turn lane is a, is a project triggers

[3:19:00] the need for it. For instance, when the county built our new jail, we put in a traffic signal.

[3:19:07] that was required. So what generally triggers, I suppose if the county wants to build a winery next

[3:19:15] to done a wheel lane, then the county will probably be required to put in left turn light.

[3:19:20] That being said, when we do a paving project, we do look at safety and we do look at, you know,

[3:19:26] the oftentimes depends on simply whether there's enough space there and we definitely add those sort

[3:19:33] safety improvements when we count in the context of county projects.

[3:19:39] The last, last thing, the count trans standards versus the county standards, Josh's

[3:19:44] correct.

[3:19:45] Count trans does have their own standard.

[3:19:48] When we started this process, sometime ago, we actually talked to a number of local traffic

[3:19:54] engineers and sort of, well, why don't we just go use the count trans standards and

[3:19:58] they were horrified?

[3:19:59] You're all right.

[3:20:00] Go, we do not want it. They're basically the CalTrans standard is really, really difficult to

[3:20:05] use. They did not want to go that way. It is also true. The CalTrans standard is somewhat less

[3:20:11] restrictive than the county standard. Our new standard is essentially the same as the old county

[3:20:17] standard. We did not try and change that. I'll just say the CalTrans roads are different than hours

[3:20:26] in a lot of different ways,

[3:20:30] and our standard is what effectively, what it's been and it

[3:20:34] serves as pretty well. That being said, if the board wanted a different standard, we could

[3:20:40] go back and create a different standard.

[3:20:43] Yeah, can you explain some of those in terms of not the process, it sounds like the process,

[3:20:49] health trans processes, you know, complicated, but there's more

[3:20:54] flexibility or ease to it. What could some of those benefits be that

[3:21:00] count trans has that actually could benefit us here at the county?

[3:21:03] Yeah, the count trans stand, you know, the process is really complicated,

[3:21:07] but just separate from that. The short answer is that there are projects

[3:21:11] under the count trans standards that won't require a left turn line

[3:21:15] where some under the county standard will. So they end up with fewer left turn links than we do.

[3:21:23] But again, their processes are very different for a lot of reasons. For instance, if you look at

[3:21:30] state route 29, as we go up the valley, counterances invested at the tremendous amount of money

[3:21:36] about with doing a standard dual left turn line in a lot of different places. So a lot of

[3:21:45] could be restaurants, other businesses along there,

[3:21:48] end up not having to do the left turn line simply

[3:21:50] because count trends has already built that infrastructure.

[3:21:55] If you look at Silver Outer Trail,

[3:21:57] there are areas of the trail that are over time

[3:22:02] have significantly been built out with wider shoulders

[3:22:04] and whatnot that are closer to 29,

[3:22:07] but there are areas of the trail that are not.

[3:22:10] So I hope that answers your question.

[3:22:13] Yeah, on my recollection, if I'm visualizing, remember correctly, there's a left-hand

[3:22:19] turn line going south, northbound on subroad, trail turning on the yonkel crossroad.

[3:22:25] So I recall there wouldn't be there. I don't recall if there's one at Oak Null or not.

[3:22:30] I know that's a high hazard area, that'll have access to Oak Null. They think there's one at Oak Null.

[3:22:36] There is. Okay, so we do have some, um, and we're those both by couch hounds or us.

[3:22:42] Well, the ones on the trail are built by us.

[3:22:45] Okay, that's right.

[3:22:45] Okay.

[3:22:46] Well, that's good to know.

[3:22:47] There's a couple additional slides that I received that weren't in this presentation.

[3:22:52] Maybe we cut the presentation short.

[3:22:54] I don't know.

[3:22:55] Please, or maybe I wasn't looking at your entire presentation.

[3:23:00] Good.

[3:23:01] I definitely leave that right after the slide, which is like walking through the form itself.

[3:23:04] Yeah.

[3:23:04] If we can do that if we if there's a question about that.

[3:23:07] No, I was just going to compliment.

[3:23:10] the form improvement, just because it's excelled based, which is going to help people to

[3:23:16] automated, you know, calculations. So I think that's great. It looks really simple, you know,

[3:23:22] it looks very streamlined. So I was just in a compliment on that. And, you know,

[3:23:30] you're one slide, you know, the new process will, it's defendable, compatible, minimal work

[3:23:35] room, which I think we were talking about there, which can be a plus or not, but and the

[3:23:42] decision to make authority. So I just thought was worthwhile, just to mention that you did

[3:23:47] out these sides for more clarity and information on the form of the application process.

[3:23:53] Yeah, I will say when we were plotting against the old graph, particularly if you got close to

[3:23:58] the line, this was a graph that was drawn 30 years ago. So it was drawn with a pencil. And as you

[3:24:04] close to the graph, it was very easy to try and decide whether your dot was on the line or

[3:24:09] above the line and with the new form, we just got to yes or no. So it's clearer.

[3:24:16] All right, thank you very much, thank you for your time. Yeah, just add to it. It also does

[3:24:20] plot the actual dot in unbubber below that line, so you actually can visualize it as well.

[3:24:25] Great, great, thank you. Okay, thanks, great, great input there from everyone all around. I just want

[3:24:33] to just want to call out that from the perspective of the general public or the county that

[3:24:39] went and applicant comes forward with a process, they're asking for a change to existing

[3:24:42] conditions and there's, you know, that's their prerogative to ask for the change. And for

[3:24:48] me, it's hard to understand why it would be the public's duty to then pay for the change

[3:24:52] that they're requesting. So just from that public perspective, you just call out kind of the

[3:24:59] difference in how

[3:25:00] Now, that looks from a different angle. And I will also call out that we have recently prioritized

[3:25:05] a terminated opening, which I'm looking for, you know, that's a important project for us. And that

[3:25:12] vision zero, which is a goal of zero, serious injuries and zero fatalities on our roads is a priority

[3:25:17] for this entire board and anything that moves us in that direction is welcome. So, thank you for that

[3:25:23] and for our entire community helping us work toward that goal. I don't see any further

[3:25:29] comments from my colleagues.

[3:25:34] So I will ask for a motion to adopt the resolution.

[3:25:43] Thank you.

[3:25:44] I have a motion from Supervisor Gallagher. I'll second that. Second from Supervisor Control.

[3:25:49] All those in, are there any deliberations? Now, all those in favor. I pass it as unanimously. Thank

[3:25:58] so much. Okay, and we have two more items and also close session on our agenda. How hungry

[3:26:05] slash hungry are my colleagues? Would you like? Let's go. Okay, so we're going to go to close session

[3:26:11] and we'll return to return to complete the meeting after close session.

[3:26:20] Okay,

[3:26:23] well done.

[5:14:05] All right, we are returning from close session and I welcome a report out from county council.

[5:14:10] Thank you chair. So the board met in close session this afternoon on the items 12 A through 12 C.

[5:14:18] Item 12 A conference with real property negotiator involving the Calistoga Fairgrounds direction was given to the county negotiator.

[5:14:29] No reportable action was taken on item 12B conference with legal counsel existing litigation in the case of Rogers Vaughan versus County of Napa.

[5:14:44] By unanimous vote of the board, the board authorized,

[5:14:49] the county council, the file and the appeal of the courts denial of summary judgment,

[5:14:56] an item to 12C existing litigate.

[5:15:00] Senate County Supervisor Chris Korsy to serve on the county medical services program governing board with a term effective immediately, following the election, in which we'll expire on December 31, 2027. I welcome the staff report from Ms. Hoskins, our clerk of the board.

[5:15:17] Thank you, Chair. Right now, there's currently a vacancy in the group three county supervisor position following the resignation of Solano County.

[5:15:25] Excuse me, supervisor John Vasquez and the C.S.C.M.S.P. governing board has asked the group three counties to submit the attached, the ballot attached to this item to vote for a supervisor to fill that seat.

[5:15:37] So just for information purposes, not the county is part of the group three county supervisor seat along with Solano, Marin and Sonoma counties.

[5:15:45] The candidates for the designated seat are Solano County Supervisor Cassandra James and Sonoma County Supervisor Chris Corsine.

[5:15:53] The term for the seat will take effect of immediately following the election and expires December 31, 2027.

[5:16:00] So I asked the board, please vote on one of those members of this.

[5:16:05] Okay, thank you.

[5:16:06] I welcome any public comment on this item.

[5:16:08] I'm not seeing anyone in the room, but is there anyone on the phone?

[5:16:12] Okay, then I will ask the board if there are any comments or questions about this item.

[5:16:20] I do see Supervisor Gallagher here, but I don't know if it's from.

[5:16:24] No, it's for now. Okay, then go ahead.

[5:16:26] Are you ready?

[5:16:27] All right, thank you.

[5:16:28] I think it makes sense to go ahead and appoint supervisor Cassandra James.

[5:16:34] I believe the retiring seat is from Solano County, so staying with Solano County.

[5:16:41] make sense, and I know she's well-qualified for the position based on her experience prior

[5:16:48] to her role as the supervisor. So I would go ahead and make the motion to appoint a supervisor

[5:16:54] of Cassandra James.

[5:16:54] Now, second that.

[5:16:55] Thank you for those same reasons.

[5:16:57] Okay.

[5:16:58] I have a first and a second on the floor, and I would also extend our, our, our, our

[5:17:09] So I have a first and a second on floor, all those in favor.

[5:17:15] Hi.

[5:17:16] That passes unanimously.

[5:17:17] Thank you.

[5:17:19] And our next item is 11, 11 A, adopting a resolution establishing recorder notification program

[5:17:26] pursuant to the California government code section 27297.7, requiring an assessor

[5:17:33] personal number on certain documents and establish a notification be of $11 for a recording

[5:17:39] each week but claim deed or deed of trust slash mortgage. And I will open the public hearing

[5:17:45] on this item. I invite John Teter, our county recorder or kind of clerk on his behalf. I'm not seeing

[5:17:53] it. Mr. Teter is in presence. So deputy county council. Fitzgerald will take a look. Yes, I would appreciate

[5:17:59] that very much. Go ahead when you're ready.

[5:18:03] John's on his way. Okay.

[5:18:04] I know this has gone longer. I think then he was here all morning.

[5:18:08] So I'm Ryan Fitzgerald WD County Council representing the recorder clerk.

[5:18:15] And the John can tell you a little bit more about it when he gets here.

[5:18:20] But the purpose of the government code 2727.77 is to make sure that all property owners receive notice.

[5:18:33] If there's a indeed quick claim deed mortgage or deed of trust recorded against their property.

[5:18:41] So beginning on January 1st of 2027, the recorder is required to notify the required to send notice to the

[5:18:56] or John can tell you a little bit more to be.

[5:19:01] Thank you for joining us, Mr. Shudder.

[5:19:03] Thank you.

[5:19:06] It was my own fault. I should have read the agendas because so having read it for eight years. I skipped this one.

[5:19:14] So let me give you a little bit of background. Have any of you had phone calls from constituents about protecting their property from fraud.

[5:19:22] I get them all the time.

[5:19:25] I just want to say that it's really not an issue.

[5:19:30] I mean, it is for somebody who's properties taken,

[5:19:32] but in my 29 years as a recorder,

[5:20:00] We've had two cases of real estate fraud, near person lost their property, one of them went to jail.

[5:20:08] And we have a great cooperation with our district attorney. And so it's out there in the public. There's been lots of

[5:20:15] infomercials about title lock and life lock. Give us 1998 a month and we'll take care of it. That's why you have me and they have me. That's our job and along with the

[5:20:27] to resist them in the Secretary of State. But given that, the legislature still feels it's important

[5:20:34] that every property owner who has a deed recorded against their property, get a notice that

[5:20:42] a deed was recorded against their property. So there are two categories, deeds and deeds of trust

[5:20:49] mortgages, they're also known as. So effective January 1, 2027, all counties must,

[5:20:56] It's a shell, a doctor resolution, which is before you today, and adopt a fee if required.

[5:21:05] Not all counties are charging a fee, some are some aren't.

[5:21:08] Our fee analysis has been sent through the CEO's office and approved.

[5:21:13] And I'll go briefly through what that is.

[5:21:16] And then once that takes place, we have set up between our two vendors,

[5:21:22] megabyte, which is our property tax system, and the

[5:21:25] recourse, you don't send the notice to the person who gets the

[5:21:29] deed back, because that's the grantee. We're sending it to the

[5:21:33] grand tour, and the recorder doesn't know who the current

[5:21:36] grand tour is. I mean, we see their name, but we don't have their

[5:21:39] name and address. So Lizilesio grants to John Tudor. I'm not

[5:21:43] sending it to John Tudor. I'm sending it to Lizilesio, but Liz

[5:21:47] name and addresses in the assessor system, not in the recorder system. So there's a connection

[5:21:54] between the two. We're spending $5,000 with our vendor one time forever to set up the system

[5:22:03] on the megabyte on the property tax side to take a list from the recorder a file which gives them

[5:22:11] the document number, the name of the grantor, et cetera, megabyte overnight will generate

[5:22:17] letters address to those people that will be sent back to the recorder for

[5:22:24] printing and mailing the next day. We have 30 days to do that. The problem is

[5:22:30] some counties are way behind on changing ownership when they get deeds. Other

[5:22:35] counties are caught up. We're pretty caught up. So I want to get it done

[5:22:39] immediately. So the person Liz gets the message about the deed she did. I do want

[5:22:45] point out that 99% of these documents are going to be ones they did. I sold my house. No,

[5:22:52] I just got to notice I sold my house or I just refinanced. I'm going to get a notice that

[5:22:57] I just refinanced. But that's the system because there's one in a million maybe more in the

[5:23:04] large counties where they didn't know that somebody was trying to detaway their property or they

[5:23:10] didn't know that somebody had taken out a mortgage against their property without their in

[5:23:15] college. So that's what it's for. And we're ready to get going January 1, 20 27. The reason

[5:23:23] I'm here before you today in August is the code section that the legislature passes. There's

[5:23:29] 120 day notice before you can collect the fee. So that 120 days starts September 1. So that's

[5:23:36] why I'm here with you today. And all of the publications have been done. Let me just explain

[5:23:41] about the fee, they're really three components to the fee. The first is this $5,000, which

[5:23:49] we're amortizing over five or ten years. I forget how many. The second is the printing and

[5:23:55] mailing of the actual notices. And I should mention along with the notice, there will be the first

[5:24:02] two pages of the document. The reason it's two pages is there's some time cover pages, so the

[5:24:09] person who gets this courtesy notice will get the first two pages of the document that we're

[5:24:16] telling them about so they know what they're getting and not just the deed was recorded

[5:24:20] and then come down and look at it we're actually going to send it to them.

[5:24:24] So that's the second component and then the third component is all the traffic this is going to

[5:24:31] generate for our office on the recorder side.

[5:24:34] when people get these notices, I've made it as glad I think I've sent it to you all

[5:24:39] and if I haven't, I will after this meeting, I've made it as clear as possible.

[5:24:44] You probably should disregard this notice, but just in case we're sending it to you.

[5:24:49] It's an English and Spanish, it's one page and it directs them to call me because I don't want

[5:24:58] our staff being

[5:25:00] If calls these first few months when this goes out or maybe a few years I don't know how this is going to work. So I put myself in as the contact that way I can track how many I get and what kind of answers I get. And then I'll be aware if there is a fraud immediately so that I can then operate with a district attorney and get going if something is fraudulent.

[5:25:22] So, those are the three components of the fee and the fee is only charged against those documents.

[5:25:30] So, somebody doesn't pay a fee for an easement.

[5:25:36] They don't pay a fee for something unrelated to a deed or a deed of trust.

[5:25:42] We expect that there's seven or eight thousand of these documents a year in our county.

[5:25:47] And that's what we base the fee on and amortize it over those seven or eight thousand.

[5:25:53] That's not going to change our number of documents or down at the moment because of the economy.

[5:25:59] But even at our height seven or eight thousand should be probably the number we picked.

[5:26:05] And average it looks back over several years.

[5:26:08] So about 33 documents a day, or letters a day will be sending out to people.

[5:26:14] So, that's the background. I'd be happy to answer any questions or for already.

[5:26:19] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for that throughout background information. I don't think I took public comment on this yet.

[5:26:28] So, I'm going to go ahead and take public comment before we bring it back to the board for questions.

[5:26:32] I don't see anyone in the room on public comment. Is there anyone on the phones?

[5:26:37] No, okay. Then I will bring it back to the board for any questions or comments.

[5:26:42] I see supervisor, vice chair LSEF.

[5:26:46] Thank you for the information in the background history.

[5:26:51] So, what we have in terms of what we're approving as an 11 dollar fee,

[5:26:57] but you also mentioned a $5,000 fee.

[5:27:00] No, that was a one-time expense.

[5:27:02] Oh, that was a one-time expense.

[5:27:03] That's one-time, not every year,

[5:27:07] or the megabyte vendor who support our business terms.

[5:27:12] And much more in terms.

[5:27:13] I see.

[5:27:14] Just to set up this program.

[5:27:15] I understand.

[5:27:16] Okay. Great.

[5:27:17] Yeah. That's fine.

[5:27:18] I'm happy to.

[5:27:19] Okay.

[5:27:20] Forward.

[5:27:20] Okay.

[5:27:21] Was that a motion?

[5:27:23] That is a motion.

[5:27:24] Okay.

[5:27:24] I'll second that.

[5:27:25] Okay.

[5:27:26] I have a motion.

[5:27:27] And the second.

[5:27:29] All of those in favor.

[5:27:31] Hi.

[5:27:32] Thank you.

[5:27:32] That passes.

[5:27:33] Thank you.

[5:27:34] Thank you.

[5:27:36] Okay, and I believe that brings us to item 13 on our agenda and I would just like to note that I think at this point all of us have gotten the

[5:27:49] unfortunate news that Allie Parton passed away recently and so I would like to adjourn this meeting in

[5:27:55] Allie Parton's honor and I would like to note that she was one of country music's most singular talents

[5:28:01] Her imagination library served children and continues to serve children here in Napa County and across the entire United States.

[5:28:08] It's amazing resource, what an incredible thing for one individual to have worked to establish.

[5:28:14] I'm sure the health and support of many of her associates and I will also know that her kindness touched all generations.

[5:28:22] She was an ambassador for good. She brought joy and kindness and asked all of us to reflect on how we might contribute to a world of sport equity.

[5:28:29] for people who were less fortunate, resource-wise for women, for children, for people of color and for the LGBTQIA community.

[5:28:40] She was just incredible in that respect and her family statement.

Board of Supervisors on 2026-08-25 9:00 AM

Agenda

Transcript