[0:07] I'm in place for the city of Saint Helena planning commission regular meeting, Tuesday July 21, 26. I'm calling the meeting to order.

[0:18] Commissioner Ferdek, would you like to,

[0:22] you'd have some much of allegiance?

[0:24] Sure.

[0:26] I did the last time.

[0:31] I play a lot of allegiance.

[0:32] I play allegiance to slide.

[0:33] I play allegiance to America.

[0:35] I need to do it with our public for which this is a one nation.

[0:39] If it is a little, whatever you do, it's just a small one.

[0:43] Thank you.

[0:44] How would you like to call the roll, please?

[0:50] Commissioner Covell.

[0:51] Here.

[0:52] Commissioner Lopez.

[0:53] Here.

[0:54] Nice chair for it.

[0:55] Yeah.

[0:56] Chair Warner.

[0:57] Here.

[0:57] Thank you.

[0:58] Thank you.

[0:59] And through the chair, Lee's a McIll director of community development.

[1:03] I did want to just let the commission know that Commissioner Anderson did formally resign from the planning commission due to personal reasons.

[1:12] So, with that being said, we will miss her, she has done a wonderful job, my understanding

[1:18] over several years here at the city, and we do have an opening for the Planning Commission.

[1:24] So, I'll mention that again during my report, but I did want to let the Commission and the

[1:27] public know that's why Ms. Anderson isn't here.

[1:31] Thank you.

[1:32] And I think some of us would like to probably have some kind of tribute and gift for Commissioner

[1:38] Anderson.

[1:39] And we can discuss that later in another forum.

[1:42] Thank you very much for the announcement.

[1:44] OK, this is a time and place for the public forum.

[1:46] This is an opportunity for the public to address the commission

[1:49] on items of interest to the public that are not listed on the agenda

[1:53] because of restrictions imposed by the Brown Act.

[1:56] The commission may not engage in discussion or take action

[1:58] on matters not described on the agenda.

[2:01] If there is anyone who does have any public forum comments,

[2:03] please limit your time limit to four minutes.

[2:06] Does anyone have any public forum comments seeing none?

[2:12] We can go on to the approval of the minutes.

[2:17] Have you all reviewed the minutes and have any changes or any amendments?

[2:24] Given that I was absent for that meeting, I won't be by refusing myself on that, but I

[2:30] would entertain a motion for approval the minutes.

[2:34] But really quick, Chair, if you read the minutes, you are able to vote on that.

[2:41] Okay, thank you.

[2:44] Yeah.

[2:45] But then we approve the minutes as written.

[2:49] Do we have a second?

[2:50] Second.

[2:51] Please call the roll.

[2:54] Commissioner Cabal?

[2:56] Yes.

[2:56] Commissioner Lopez?

[2:57] Yes.

[2:58] Vice Chair Ferdick?

[2:59] Yes.

[3:00] Chair Warner?

[3:01] Yes.

[3:01] The motion passes unanimously.

[3:04] Thank you.

[3:04] And we'll go on to our public hearings on agenda item 5.1.

[3:11] Before we consider the item, I do want to just disclose that I have a personal

[3:15] friendship with the applicant, I have known her for many years, I've not been involved

[3:19] or spoken with her or had any contact with her regarding the application and I feel that

[3:25] I can be objective and not personally involved in reviewing the application on behalf of

[3:29] the commission.

[3:30] So that's my announcement.

[3:31] So, we go on to a staff person.

[3:34] I will add that I am also personal friends with the applicant and we did have some discussions

[3:40] when she was considering putting in an application more informational, who should she talk

[3:47] to, did inquire about part of the code and I directed her to Jackie Annadly.

[3:55] Very good.

[3:55] Any other announcements by Commissioner Sugarding this item?

[3:58] If not, we can move on to the staff presentation.

[4:00] Thank you chair Warner, Lisa McCyle, Director of Community Development.

[4:04] We have with us tonight assistant planner, Natalie Brissie, who will provide a presentation

[4:09] and overview and she'll be available for any questions of the commission.

[4:15] Good evening commissioners.

[4:17] As Dr. McCyle said, tonight before you we have a new short-term room tool permit application.

[4:23] The address that this is located at is 1248 Stockton Street.

[4:27] The residents is an existing two-bedroom one-and-a-half bathroom.

[4:31] However, the applicant is desiring to rent the property as a one-bedroom one-and-a-half

[4:37] bathroom with an office.

[4:40] So anything with our code determining the maximum occupancy, we limited it to the one-bedroom

[4:47] instead of the two bedrooms.

[4:50] Additionally, the property has one on-site parking space at this time and if approved, the applicant is proposing to remove and existing shed that's on-site at the beginning at the front of the property.

[5:07] As you can see up on the screen, there's a picture of the frontage.

[5:10] It's over on the left-hand side of the image.

[5:13] It's kind of behind those little shrubs, you can see right here, but she's proposing to remove that to create the additional required parking space.

[5:23] As for the project location, it is located as I said on Stockton Street.

[5:29] It's zoned medium density residential, and it also has a general plan designation of medium density residential.

[5:36] And as I said, the properties being proposed as a one bedroom, one and a half bathroom with an office with only one parking space at this time.

[5:47] This is the site plan. As you can see over in the lower left corner of the plan, there is the existing parking space annotated in yellow.

[5:57] The proposed, where the, and that's where the parked car is in the image, the proposed parking space you can see is showing on the screen in a hatch and orange.

[6:08] That is where the shed is located. Other than that there would be no alterations to the site if proposed.

[6:16] Here's the existing floor plan.

[6:18] The front right room is the office with a day bed that will not be used to rent out with the short-term rental, but the back bedroom on the right-hand side will be.

[6:34] Staff evaluated the project against each of the required findings and determined that the project needs all findings for approval.

[6:41] The with the exception that the current parking situation be amended if approval to provide the two onsite parking spaces.

[6:49] In addition, staff finds that the project complies with all other aspects of the municipal code is consistent with the general plan.

[6:58] It's compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and meets all required findings.

[7:06] Staff further recommends approving the short-term rental at 1248 stocked industry, including action to approve a categorical exemption

[7:14] to the state-sequite guidelines based on findings and subject to the conditions of approval and staff is available for any questions and the applicant is here as well.

[7:23] Through the chair I'll just supplement for the commission a little bit more.

[7:27] The conditions of approval that have been presented to the commission are the standard conditions that are imposed upon all of the short-term rental permits as of present.

[7:38] Um, these could change later when we go through our ordinance amendments, you know, which

[7:42] is not agenda this evening, but we are in discussions about how these are operated, moving

[7:47] into the future.

[7:48] But this is under our current ordinance and set of standard conditions.

[7:53] It's at the pleasure of the commission if it's, if it's so chooses to amend any of them

[7:57] now as well.

[7:59] Okay, let's, before we have any public comment, um, I'll open it up for any clarifying questions

[8:04] from commissioners.

[8:06] I will have one, but I'll defer to my fellow commissioners first.

[8:10] So, as far as the parking, my understanding is that when it's rented, why would we need,

[8:18] I mean, why would you need to add an extra parking, is it because of using the office end?

[8:32] Sorry, so with the, so in the conditions of approval, the maximum occupancy allowed based off of the one bedroom rentals space,

[8:42] would be for persons. And in that regard, that could be possibly two groups with each

[8:50] of car. It could be if it's only two occupants, each person could have a car, but the

[8:55] requirement and the code is that they do provide two onsite parking spaces regardless of

[9:00] the bedroom count. And so that's why the one space is being added to the property.

[9:08] Other clarifying questions?

[9:10] I'll just ask one, I think it's in the conditions, but the applicant has 60 days to put in that second parking spot from the approval of the application is that correct?

[9:21] Yes, I believe so, from approval.

[9:24] I had one clarifying question just as to the process.

[9:29] So, are there any other pending short-term rental applications that have preceded this application

[9:36] and being complete in time.

[9:41] No, so with our wait list we only reach out to the amount of spots that we have and we give them a certain window to apply.

[9:49] So we have one other that's in process that we're that's being reviewed but other than that, no.

[9:56] So we generally process these first in time when they're complete is that correct?

[10:01] Yes.

[10:02] Okay.

[10:03] Right now, we're operating under the cap of 25 short-term rentals, so this is the 24th.

[10:10] There's one more in line.

[10:12] Yeah, very good. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions before you open it up for a comment?

[10:17] In regards to your comment, Dr. Ramisa, when the new SDR ordinance goes into effect, will that be retroactive?

[10:29] or do people or people grandfathered into this or how does that work?

[10:34] Potentially, they might be affected that's something that we will consider and will be

[10:39] before the city council. A lot of the review of the short-term rental ordinance and process will

[10:45] be evaluating all of our existing short-term rental permits as well in compliance with codes.

[10:51] But we're not speaking to that today, but we would be looking at all of the existing short-term

[10:59] as part of the short-term rental update.

[11:02] Let me just follow up that question.

[11:04] Is it your position that the city has the ability

[11:08] to retroactively change vested rights in a permit?

[11:12] So these have compliance requirements.

[11:15] All of these permits have requirements to comply

[11:20] with all their conditions of approval

[11:22] and with the existing ordinance.

[11:24] So I'm not taking any position as of right now,

[11:27] But we will be looking at this question through the process of our ordinance update.

[11:34] Okay, I think it's good to kind of assess that because a lot of our applicants rely on the vested rights that are given to them when they have approved permits.

[11:43] Any other public comments or questions before we open it up?

[11:47] Any other commissioner comments or questions before you open it up for any public comment?

[11:51] Chair Warner, I would only add to your comment that

[11:53] I think it would be reasonable for any permit holder to follow any of the conditions and obligations

[12:00] and if they're amended, and we're not talking about that right now, but then everyone would

[12:07] need to be in compliance at the same level.

[12:10] Again, my question is just solely the legal question about vested rights and whether that

[12:16] should or should not be.

[12:17] Speaking under the existing ordinance today, there's a renewal requirement.

[12:24] So you're not guaranteed every year that your permit is re-granted.

[12:28] So there is opportunity, this particular application that's before the planning commission

[12:34] this evening, and they're upon their renewal period, they'll need to illustrate that they're

[12:40] complying.

[12:41] That's a very good point.

[12:42] Thank you, Director.

[12:44] Any other commissioner comments, if not, I'll open up for public comment, including any comments by the applicant,

[12:55] if you would like to state your name for the record.

[13:01] Elaine Honig, so I'm applying for the short term rental permit.

[13:06] It's essentially a one bedroom house with an office, so my hope is to only run it to couples,

[13:12] you know, or single people and not have a lot of people in it.

[13:17] And again, I have a shed and some roses on the left, which I'll rip out.

[13:21] I wanted to wait and do that until I knew I would get the permit because I thought,

[13:25] if I don't get the permit, there's no point in ripping it out.

[13:28] However, if anybody were ever to change that, I think the house looks better with the

[13:35] roses in the one parking space is opposed to the two,

[13:39] but it's an aesthetic choice, and I'm happy to comply with code.

[13:44] And I think that's about it.

[13:44] I live there, so my hope is to rent it while I live there,

[13:48] and then do eventually at some point, I don't know if I'll stop living there,

[13:53] and rent it more.

[13:54] So I'm going to kind of feel it out.

[13:58] So that's my plan.

[13:59] Yeah, thank you, Ms. Hullick.

[14:02] If no other public comments, let's bring it back

[14:05] to for consideration by the commission. Any further discussion by the commission or by staff?

[14:10] Through the chair just to check that there's no public comments through the public hearing.

[14:15] Don't think that's there. There are no written public comments. And to just clarify that appropriate

[14:20] notice I was verified have been provided to neighbors correct. That's correct.

[14:27] Okay. Any further discussion? If not, I'll go ahead. I also like, well,

[14:35] aesthetically, and I don't know the code-wise, aesthetically, I like the balance of the look of it.

[14:41] You know, the lot and the green is kind of shame that we have to throw another parking space,

[14:47] I think that when you think about the parking, it's usually more congested areas that are bigger that need it, but no.

[14:56] Yeah, it's kind of a shame.

[14:59] But I guess if...

[15:00] That's kind of what the rules are. Other comments or discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion on this application.

[15:12] I'll make a motion to approve the application for the short-term rental permit. That's before us.

[15:21] I second. Any further discussion? If not, please call the roll.

[15:28] Commissioner Colwell, yes, Commissioner Lopez?

[15:32] Yes.

[15:32] Vice Chair Ferdick?

[15:34] Yes.

[15:34] Chair Warner?

[15:35] Yes.

[15:35] The motion passes unanimously.

[15:38] Thank you very much.

[15:39] Congratulations on the 24th permit.

[15:43] And thank you staff for good work on this.

[15:46] Okay.

[15:47] We'll move on to the next item, which I understand is informational.

[15:50] only is it, and a presentation regarding the Napa County hazard mitigation plan. Any

[15:58] introduction director for that? Yes. So, Lisa McIll Director, community

[16:03] development. We have with us this evening as a courtesy, Brianna Jones, and she's

[16:09] going to conduct a presentation for you all on the county's multijuristic

[16:16] has her mitigation plan. I will just preface before she begins noting that I have left the commission

[16:24] know I would be bringing some informational items throughout the year. Their educational information

[16:30] or they're not for deliberation or really discussion for the commission to provide

[16:37] direction or anything but it's to gain perspective and understanding of what we have going on

[16:44] regionally in our valley here.

[16:46] We also have with us Chief Sorenson from the Fire Department and interim Chief Tharp from the

[16:54] Police Department as well.

[16:55] If there's some more local questions that you all have, they'd be happy to answer some of those

[17:00] as well.

[17:01] We're not deliberating over previous projects or conditions of approval.

[17:08] This is again just informational and we're really excited to have Brianna join us here.

[17:14] And may I ask one clarifying question?

[17:16] Am I correct?

[17:17] And maybe she'll deal with this, is that this particular version of the house mitigation plan will at some point go before the city council correct?

[17:29] For the St. Alina portion?

[17:32] I'm not sure if it does, but yes.

[17:34] She can address that.

[17:35] To your point about deliberation, it's not like this is going to not be deliberated on by the city in some form.

[17:41] I understand each jurisdiction that participates in the multi-jouristictional planning of this and comes back when there's a final graph and a

[17:52] Dopcyt or doesn't adopt it

[17:54] That's correct

[17:55] I'm going to go quick so just before before we begin so we have again Brianna Jones here. She's joining us as a courtesy really excited to have her here

[18:05] this is the first informational session that we're having here with the planning commission and

[18:13] we'll welcome her, so hand it over to her. Welcome. I have one quick question, who is our representative from

[18:19] Sainhalina?

[18:22] On this. So there's a few different people. Originally it was your city manager. I don't know how that's

[18:29] change, there has been some change within your city management, however, both the fire chief

[18:38] and the police chief attend, and I think in terms of police chief, that's how your title

[18:46] goes.

[18:47] We've got an opportunity to attend one of the last meetings, but I believe prior to that,

[18:52] the police chief attended all the meetings and the fire chief as well.

[18:55] And I believe just an answer to Commissioner's question, the actual draft MHP includes for each locality, a list of those participants for each locality that are participated in the overall planning, because it's been a multi-year planning process.

[19:10] And I believe, Director, you're part of the most recent group of staff also.

[19:15] Yes, I have helped my eyes on it most recently. Again, I wasn't part of the city or the community earlier in the process.

[19:23] But I have looked at it. This is a standard process. It's also required under state law.

[19:29] Brianna will go over some of that for the commission. This is a regional view.

[19:34] It's not a localized detailed view. So I do think that that's important to keep in perspective as we hear from Brianna for this presentation.

[19:44] Yeah, very good. Welcome.

[19:46] Thank you so much. Again, Brianna Jones. I'm an emergency services officer for the NAP Accounting Office of Emergency Services.

[19:53] I know that's a lot, but we've shortened it by saying OES.

[19:57] I'm involved in a lot of different things, but hazard mitigation is one of the bigger projects.

[20:03] Hazard mitigation is really important because it drives a lot of our other plans.

[20:07] has her mitigation in general, though, is an all-encompassing plan.

[20:13] So when we look at it, we look at the plan today.

[20:16] It doesn't get into a lot of the specific.

[20:17] It talks about mitigation actions.

[20:21] And it talks about some of the hazards that the county has a hole.

[20:26] And I know that you had mentioned regional.

[20:28] It's more of the county where the county has developed some of the hazards that we believe

[20:32] are the biggest concern.

[20:34] But then each city kind of had an opportunity to talk about the hazard, because what Calistoga or San

[20:40] Lina might be Ms. A hazard may not be something that American can and is worried about.

[20:46] So one of the things that I think is important to know is this plan is very different.

[20:51] Plans are updated every five years. That's a requirement of FEMA to be updated every five years for grant opportunities.

[20:59] that's the only basis is that it has to be done every five years, it does not necessarily mean

[21:05] that if we did not invest in doing it every five years, the plan wouldn't be relevant.

[21:11] It's just for the funding opportunity. It has to be updated every five years. To do that update,

[21:17] it does take a lot of planning efforts. It takes a lot of time. And then once that process kind of goes

[21:24] So we're going to talk about it later in the presentation.

[21:27] That's when each jurisdiction will get the opportunity.

[21:30] The county will go first.

[21:32] I'll ask our Board of Supervisors to adopt the plan

[21:35] and then each jurisdiction and special districts

[21:38] will adopt the plan.

[21:39] So yes, this will have to go be for your city again.

[21:43] So the reason this plan is different is most counties,

[21:47] most cities do what is called a local hazard mitigation plan.

[21:50] So if you see L, H, M, P, that is essentially the same thing

[21:54] but they're doing at a local level

[21:56] for whatever that may be county or city.

[21:59] We decided to do a multi-gerest external hazard mitigation plan

[22:02] and we did that back in 2020.

[22:05] The reason this one is different is we've included

[22:07] a little bit more engagement.

[22:09] We had more stakeholders and it was more

[22:11] of an all-in-cup-it-seen planning effort.

[22:14] And I think that's really important

[22:16] because part of my job is to go after grant opportunities.

[22:20] I went after a grant opportunity.

[22:21] These are very costly plans

[22:23] because of the analysis that is done.

[22:26] Some special districts and some jurisdictions do not have the opportunity to have plans,

[22:32] so therefore they can't go after a fund grant or funding opportunities, because they don't have a current plan,

[22:38] or sometimes ever a plan.

[22:40] And that was important for me that we included some of those special districts, so they had that opportunity,

[22:45] which is why we chose to do a multi-judicial.

[22:49] In 2005, the city of Napa had also decided to go after their own plan because they needed to do a flood project, which we know now is the Oxbow.

[22:57] So the city of Napa for since 2005 has never been included on our plan.

[23:03] This time they are included on our plan, which is beneficial since most of the hazards for our tourism.

[23:12] Most of the population is within the city of Napa.

[23:14] that was very important that they were on our plan.

[23:16] So we have all five jurisdictions and there's a size that shows you everybody that's participating.

[23:21] The challenge to doing a plan that way though is now everybody is relying on each jurisdiction

[23:29] and special district to involve themselves in the planning process to review the plan, to

[23:36] provide comment, to attend their own meetings.

[23:39] That has held up our plan quite a bit.

[23:41] I think the benefits outweigh the challenges,

[23:43] but that is a challenge of a multi-juris-stictional plan

[23:46] to be quite frank.

[23:54] I'm sorry.

[23:55] There you go.

[23:56] Okay, so some of the goals of a multi-juris-stictional hazard mitigation plan

[24:01] is to protect people from loss of life,

[24:03] and drain economic damage from hazards.

[24:05] That is obviously the biggest priority

[24:07] in which I said, like I said, it drives a lot of different plans.

[24:11] I know that it's very popular to discuss evacuation planning.

[24:17] A goal of hazard, a multi-judicial hazard mitigation plan is to get to that approach,

[24:23] what are hazard, how do we mitigate those?

[24:26] Another goal is to protect critical facilities infrastructure property in the continuity of essential services.

[24:32] Again, each special district, each jurisdiction, had the opportunity to discuss their critical infrastructure.

[24:38] That's why special districts I believe are so important to hazard mitigation planning.

[24:43] Because special districts, for example, Napasan, they had never had a plan and now they're part of our hazard mitigation plan.

[24:50] They're a big special district that is now included and they have a lot of critical infrastructure.

[24:56] Preserve natural resources.

[24:58] That's another big part of it.

[25:01] That's one of the things that is discusses if we have hazards like wildfire.

[25:05] what natural resources are we taking away from?

[25:08] How can that be mitigated?

[25:10] Those discussions happen.

[25:12] And then promote community resilience

[25:13] through planning policies, like I said,

[25:15] a lot of these lead to a lot of other plans,

[25:19] a lot of procedures, and a lot of policy changes.

[25:22] But it also leads to, like I said, capital improvements.

[25:25] When we look at general fund,

[25:27] when we look at funding opportunities,

[25:29] when we look at grants,

[25:31] that's where we want to spend our money

[25:33] mitigation actions that have plans like this or analysis done to back that up.

[25:45] So because FEMA requires the plan for grant and funding, we are held to the FEMA standard

[25:51] for planning efforts.

[25:52] That's why I put the slide on here.

[25:54] There's a lot of different steps.

[25:57] So what the community of City have seen, I think a lot of people here participated in was

[26:05] that public review period.

[26:07] That public review is important as I think it is for the public to be part of that plan.

[26:13] It is also required by FEMA, as well as an admin draft.

[26:17] So not only did we go into a lot of different planning meetings on jurisdiction special districts,

[26:23] then we went into analysis, then we went into more planning meetings, then we went into mitigation efforts.

[26:29] We also went into an admin draft for each special district jurisdiction, then the county draft and then we went to public review.

[26:36] So we are now at that final public review step just concluded and now we're with CaloES for approval and then hopefully FEMA.

[26:47] Next slide please.

[26:51] So a few changes from 2020 to 2026, I know that that's probably hard to read, but we focused on a lot of priority hazards.

[27:01] So hazard mitigation plan in general does not focus on human caused hazards.

[27:07] That's something that I think a lot of people want to see because it is a concern, especially

[27:12] with cyber security.

[27:14] Those are addressed in other plans, so we try to keep them away from our hazard mitigation

[27:18] plan, just because it is really hard since it is a public document to include a lot

[27:24] about that, acts of tear, for example, that belongs in other plans, not necessarily hazard mitigation

[27:32] plans.

[27:33] because as much as we try to mitigate those, sometimes those can't be mitigated as much as

[27:39] you can, natural hazards.

[27:42] And another big change was the pandemic. So the pandemic was in

[27:48] there. Ironically, this plan, most of the planning efforts from 2020 were done in 2019. Prior to

[27:55] the COVID pandemic, but they still identified a pandemic as a hazard. We have now taken that out.

[28:02] I think a lot of people from 2022-2026 just felt that it wasn't necessary in a hazard mitigation

[28:09] plan.

[28:10] We learned a lot from COVID and those are addressed in other plans.

[28:16] Extreme weather was another big change, so we had extreme weather already in our 2020 plan.

[28:23] We have now included extreme heat as a separate component, just because there's so much

[28:28] comes to extreme heat and so therefore we just made a separate component to discuss separately

[28:33] and mitigation actions to that. And then of course like I said before the enhanced partnerships,

[28:40] we've now included more special districts and additional jurisdictions.

[28:46] And then FEMA had some changes. The climate change is the biggest one. We needed to include that

[28:52] and guidelines about climate change, it is a difficult subject, and there's not as much research on the mitigation actions, but however it was included in this plan, verse the 2020.

[29:05] Next slide, please.

[29:08] Okay, so in 2020, nine jurisdictions were involved in the plan was adopted June 9 of 2020, and in 2025 we identified 13 jurisdictions.

[29:21] So we have more special districts than added the city of Napa.

[29:26] The two bigger changes is like I said city of Napa, Napa San, and VTA who had a regional approach with other transit authorities are now part of our plan.

[29:35] So they can go after grant opportunity separately.

[29:38] And then American Canyon fire district because it is a district.

[29:42] They were included as part of the city of American Canyon.

[29:45] but because they are also deemed

[29:48] a special district now they can go after

[29:50] their own funding opportunities.

[29:54] Next slide, please.

[29:56] Okay, so it's hard to see,

[29:57] but these are the hazards that were identified.

[29:59] Bye.

[30:00] By the steering committee in 2020, like I said, a lot of that, the work and analysis was done in 2019, prior to the LNU lightning or glass fire, because like I said, it was adopted in June 9, I think of 2020.

[30:16] So, at that time, wildfire was identified as a county-wide hazard, but it was not necessarily at the top of the list, even considering we had the 2017 fires.

[30:28] people are still really concerned with climate change,

[30:31] damn failure and drought.

[30:35] And as you can see, just, I guess, to me a fun little tidbit,

[30:39] but we had 28 federal disasters since 1953 at that time.

[30:43] We've now obviously increased that quite a bit.

[30:47] Next slide, please.

[30:50] Oh, sorry.

[30:51] There's some stuff cut off at the bottom,

[30:54] but 2025, our hazard concerns didn't differ too much,

[30:57] other than what I've mentioned, climate change is on there as well.

[31:02] We have more information because even though we discussed it in 2020, there is a little

[31:07] bit more information and now it is actually a requirement of FEMA.

[31:11] Extreme heat was identified and wildfire, of course, but we took pandemic out of there.

[31:18] And each jurisdiction because they had separate planning meetings were able to identify different

[31:24] as are profiles, concerns, and mitigation efforts based off

[31:28] with the city felt.

[31:29] So even though the county has developed some,

[31:32] not every city has those same concerns,

[31:36] has the same mitigation efforts or the same profile.

[31:41] Another thing I just wanted to discuss here is,

[31:44] we broke it down and kind of talked about

[31:46] some of the concerns with like wildfire exposure.

[31:50] 17,000 people are in the high and very high severity zones.

[31:53] I know wildfire is one of our biggest concerns, and that's something that is talked about a lot.

[31:58] I'm asked to do a lot of presentations on wildfire concern.

[32:02] I'm also concerned about it, and I think it's very important to discuss, but I just wanted

[32:07] to highlight that that is, again, why has remediation planning is so important, because

[32:12] you know, flood exposure based off the 100 year and 500 year FEMA flood zones, 20,000 people

[32:18] are affected by that.

[32:19] earthquake exposure. You have, you know, 120,000 people affected if that West Napa fault.

[32:27] We're to have a concern so that's why even though I think it is something,

[32:31] it's all kind of a lived experience for us when it comes to wildfire. A lot of us were here in

[32:35] 2017, 2020. I certainly was. I know that it's a cause for concern but that's why hazard mitigation

[32:43] in planning is all encompassing.

[32:45] We have some other hazards to be concerned about.

[32:50] And then, I think I can go to the next slide.

[32:54] So the next steps from here, like I had mentioned before,

[32:57] the next step is really just getting that CalloES

[33:00] in FEMA approval and then going for adoption.

[33:03] Once I go to the county and I ask my Board of Supervisors

[33:06] to adopt the plan, that five years starts then.

[33:10] So when I say, hey, I want that plan to be adopted

[33:13] and they say it's June 9th 2020. You guys might do it on June 17th. You're still following

[33:20] June 9th. Is that five year mark? So just so everybody knows it doesn't matter if you say,

[33:26] hey, we're going to wait three months to take it to our council. You're still following this

[33:31] when the first jurisdiction adopted. Typically, it's the county. It doesn't necessarily have to be.

[33:37] So if city of Sanileena says, hey, we're ready to go and we would like to adopt the plan.

[33:42] just know that everybody's held to that date for a first adoption.

[33:47] And I think just to take it a step further,

[33:50] it's not just that we're looking for the FEMA Calloyas approval

[33:54] and then for obviously individual jurisdictions, special districts in the county's adoption.

[33:59] We're also looking now to take that further and take these hazards

[34:03] and then develop our own planning.

[34:04] Some of the plans that I'm in charge of for the county wide approach

[34:09] is the emergency operations plan for the county,

[34:12] the continuity of operations plan for the county,

[34:15] tactical, interoperable communications plan.

[34:17] These are a lot of the plans that drive this

[34:20] based off the hazard we have.

[34:22] So this plan is really a benchmark and a foundation

[34:24] for a lot of other planning efforts.

[34:28] And then last slide is just the Q&A.

[34:31] I'm available for questions regarding this.

[34:35] Let's open up for questions.

[34:36] I'll have a couple of questions.

[34:37] But first, let me defer to my fellow commissioners

[34:39] if you have any questions or comments or a director.

[34:42] Through the chair, just a reminder that we also have

[34:44] with us Chief Swordson and Chief Thub,

[34:47] if there are local questions that maybe aren't about the multi-

[34:51] jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan.

[34:54] And also, to be perfectly honest,

[34:56] I didn't get an opportunity to attend every meeting

[34:58] for every jurisdiction and every special district.

[35:01] I'm only one person.

[35:02] So they might have some additional information specific

[35:05] to the city of St. Alina on how they develop their hazard profiles, how they develop mitigation

[35:11] actions that take the stuff. And just to clarify the the the the information item is the

[35:17] multi-hazard mitigation plan not other plans. That's correct. I think that generally though this

[35:23] can be confusing. So just in case there are members of our staff here who can assist.

[35:31] All right. Okay. Questions or comments from fellow questioners? Anything? Go ahead.

[35:38] Commissioner Covell. So I'm just having a little hard time because I was

[35:44] under the impression where it's not really supposed to have a discussion.

[35:48] So I wasn't sure. General questions. I think are fine. Okay. We're not

[35:52] deliberating. We're not saying, you know, saying, yeah, or need to it. I think what

[35:57] What you were mentioning is we had an opportunity during public comment to

[36:01] Deliberate on the plan, but yes, I'm happy to take questions regarding the plan

[36:05] What it drives obviously that that's up to Liza, but how it drives are other plans?

[36:11] Happy to discuss that

[36:14] Okay, I bring in her. I think I've sent you a lot of public comments

[36:20] So

[36:21] So one of the general questions I have, I have a couple of general questions and I won't

[36:26] go into the detail that I have already done.

[36:33] In the, you said, Cal OES and FEMA, I need to prove it.

[36:38] You also mentioned that the public comments in general, it was open, Naples Countywide,

[36:44] general public comments.

[36:45] I assume there's some process to handling all those public comments and how do those comments

[36:57] then how are they addressed in the plan?

[37:01] That was question one.

[37:02] And then who specifically in our jurisdiction, local jurisdiction, reviews the section

[37:08] on St. Alina specifically and what timing is that, what's the timing of that to provide

[37:19] comments before it goes for approval?

[37:24] So, the administrative draft was the time period for the planning committee from City of

[37:30] St. Alina to provide comment. That draft went out prior to public comment. I don't have

[37:37] that in front of me, so I'm not sure how many people from the City of Saint

[37:40] Alina might have provided comment at that time.

[37:45] Then it went to public comment.

[37:48] We take those public comments between me and the consultant and we review the comments

[37:53] and then make changes.

[37:55] If there's a relevant change to the plan, because obviously, you know, the public can say

[38:02] whatever they would like, doesn't mean that it's going to require a change to the

[38:08] So we get a lot of, we do get a lot of those comments and then we get a lot of comments that, you know, specifically to some, like some of the comments that you sent me, some are very specific to evacuation planning.

[38:21] This is not an evacuation document, so they may, you may not see them represented.

[38:26] And, however, that would be an opportunity for you guys to look in the city of San

[38:32] Elena.

[38:33] If you want to take the hazard of wildfire and the mitigation actions and then develop

[38:38] another plant specific to it.

[38:40] Or update if you guys have evacuation plans, I'm not sure if you have a separate evacuation

[38:46] plan, but they might be able to answer that.

[38:53] Sorry.

[38:54] Oh, let's...

[38:56] Thanks.

[38:57] Anybody else?

[38:58] I had a couple of clarifying questions.

[39:00] I think.

[39:00] Go ahead.

[39:01] I believe this is almost a 1,500-page document, so very impressive, and I'm sure there's

[39:08] amazing great data throughout it, but if you were to point to areas that were more specific

[39:18] to our jurisdiction, where would we look in this 1,500-page document?

[39:23] So you want to look at volume 2. Volume 1 is the county. So right now, like I said, it

[39:31] out for public comment. It's with Kelli West and FEMA right now. But when we publish that document

[39:38] and it is a big document we do put it online but it is difficult to send people because even

[39:44] by email I have there's you know IDS stuff it's too big of a file so we can get those so there you

[39:50] guys can have them right at the city so it's available to the public you guys can print copies

[39:56] we always say whatever the jurisdiction would like to do and how they would like to address that

[40:00] public but I just put it online a lot of times I put the executive summary and I typically

[40:07] don't publish volume two unless a lot of people want me to publish volume two online.

[40:13] Volume two is specifically the jurisdictions and the special districts that are involved and

[40:18] it's broken out by that. So the way to look at it is kind of quote unquote an annex to our

[40:24] bigger plan which is volume one. If you'd like a lot of the information that's going to be

[40:29] volume one, but it's going to be county-wide, so it's not going to be specific to city

[40:33] of San Alina, volume two, we'll have that.

[40:36] Through the chair, I can add some more specificity.

[40:38] I believe it's under volume two, which is jurisdictional annexes, section four is the city

[40:44] of San Alina, annex.

[40:47] Thank you.

[40:49] Thank you.

[40:50] And other questions of questions of question?

[40:52] $859 is the page number.

[40:55] All right.

[40:56] Other questions?

[40:58] Some questions are for a deck.

[40:59] If not, I had a couple of questions.

[41:02] More technical.

[41:04] First of all, I get to clear that, as you point out, this multi-terristic

[41:07] No-house mitigation plan does not address emergency evacuation.

[41:11] Does not address the county's EOP.

[41:14] Does not address local emergency operating plans, correct?

[41:17] No, I mean, it's identified that those are brought in is kind of like a reference but no, it does not address those.

[41:25] So adoption of this plan does not affect the discretion or the ability of local jurisdictions to adopt, modify or continue to update their emergency operation plans as well as the county's the OP correct.

[41:38] correct. The county does have an EOP that was adopted in 2022 by our Board of Supervisors.

[41:46] So we do consistent updates probably every two to three years, but that doesn't affect any

[41:52] specific jurisdiction. Although we do ask jurisdictions if they would like to be involved,

[41:57] and then the plan looks pretty similar. There's an annex for a specific city if they would like.

[42:03] Some jurisdictions choose to participate, some choose to not participate, which I only assume that just means they do their own plan.

[42:11] I had a question on participating jurisdictions, a system of reference, I mentioned special districts, and I appreciate that this iteration is expanded into special districts.

[42:20] was the Napa Open Space District solicited to participate, and if so, why did they not choose

[42:26] to participate?

[42:27] They are a very large land manager up our way in the Myocama as well as over on the eastern

[42:33] side and up north of St. Lena between St. Lena and Calstoga, were they solicited to participate?

[42:42] We, I can't specifically speak to that, it was probably two years ago now that we got

[42:49] list from our Board of Supervisors and said, hey, we're reaching out to special districts.

[42:53] Please let us know the special districts you think would be worth reaching out to that

[42:59] aren't part of the current plan, because obviously we already knew some that would be interested.

[43:04] And at that time, that's when we reached out, we had NAPA San and VTA that decided to.

[43:10] Some choose not to, just because it is a big lift to be part of those, and we're pretty honest

[43:15] at the beginning is, we're taking on the cost,

[43:18] we have a grant, the grant sometimes requires a match,

[43:22] we utilize staff time as our match,

[43:24] so we're not asking the jurisdictions to provide anything,

[43:27] but we're pretty honest about the fact

[43:29] that it does require a lot of hours of personnel

[43:35] to participate, and so that might have been a reason

[43:38] why open space didn't, I can't speak to whether or not

[43:41] we actually reach out to them,

[43:43] or whether or not they chose why they chose not to.

[43:48] Well, as an emergency planner for the county,

[43:50] wouldn't it be useful even after you adopt the Mobile Jurisdictional HMP

[43:55] to reach out to the open space district to have them take a look

[43:59] and incorporate into their own emergency procedures

[44:01] for their own lands that they manage?

[44:05] Okay. Thank you. Those were all my questions.

[44:07] I think that's a very good presentation and very well done.

[44:10] and I reviewed the Saint-Lean Apportion

[44:13] as well as most of the plan.

[44:15] Other questions, your comments?

[44:17] Commissioner Covell.

[44:18] Thank you.

[44:19] Yeah, I also would like to say it's a very comprehensive document.

[44:24] I did read all 1500 pages of it.

[44:27] But, and I know we're not going to go into the Saint-Lean

[44:31] chapter particularly.

[44:34] But I want to understand, it sounds like in this presentation

[44:40] that this document helps people jurisdictions get grant money and funding for particular pieces

[44:49] that they need a help on correct. And so in the local annex chapter chapter chapter on St.

[44:59] Queen of...

[45:00] If the chapter is written and analyzed in a way that shows need for further analysis or study or something, this is the opportunity for our town to address these larger projects and find grant money or funding.

[45:22] correct? Like if it's painting a pretty picture and everything's great, then it's not really

[45:27] serving the purpose of getting grant money, correct?

[45:31] Correct. And so I like to look at it in different buckets. Hazard mitigation based off

[45:37] analysis, we've decided that these are the hazards. And the analysis just could come from

[45:43] like outside sources from GIS from mapping, from FEMA's flood maps. Calfires hazards

[45:51] these are outside resources that help drive some that hazard profile.

[45:57] For example, I could say City of Sainlina,

[46:01] most of your city is in high and very high fire severity zones.

[46:06] And you could, as the city say, you know what?

[46:08] I think we've worked on that enough.

[46:10] It's not our biggest hazard.

[46:12] I'm not saying that that's what happened.

[46:13] I'm just saying, for example, you could decide that.

[46:16] So the buckets are we're saying based off data.

[46:20] here is your hazard. Then you're saying this is a hazard, but I'm more concerned about this

[46:25] hazard. And then the mitigation actions are there. And as a city, those are in a planning

[46:32] committee, those are developed. A lot of times, a mitigation action could say the mitigation

[46:36] action is for the public to do this. Well, you guys don't get to control the public so much.

[46:43] So, or that mitigation action, but it might be the community outreach component related to that.

[46:48] Or it could say, yeah, you guys would really benefit from having more roads, for example.

[46:53] That is a very big cost, whether or not that's a grant opportunity or a general fund opportunity.

[46:58] That's for the city of Saint Helena to decide.

[47:01] But those are kind of the buckets that I look at hazard mitigation in is here's a lot of data.

[47:06] Here's your hazards, but you have the opportunity to say these are our concerns.

[47:10] Even though you're presenting the data, a lot of times people agree with it, but they could say,

[47:14] know what. I think we've really worked on wildfire. I'm really concerned about flooding

[47:18] in the city of San Alina and then a lot of your mitigation actions are developed off

[47:23] of your concerns. And I might just point out that San Alina has been very aggressive and active

[47:29] in seeking federal grants and state grants for various hazard mitigation. In fact, as part of

[47:37] my role on fire safety counsel, the city was very much involved in seeking funding from the federal

[47:44] government from FEMA. Unfortunately, as we all know, with the federal funding in Washington,

[47:49] a lot of the FEMA grants available for whether it's wildfire or other housing mitigation

[47:55] and planning have gone away or have been reduced drastically. So, we'll stand point of

[47:59] seeking grants. The the opportunity for federal funding is a lot less than it was. But,

[48:05] Wayne Alina, what was it chief, maybe six or seven years ago, applied for a full FEMA grant

[48:13] that was available to the city.

[48:16] So the city has not been shy about applying for additional grants five years ago.

[48:22] Thank you.

[48:23] So I'd like to ask some clarifying questions just about whose responsibility it is to apply for the grants

[48:30] and your role and is your priority county more county-wide initiatives? Do you lead grant

[48:39] applications for the jurisdictions or is that solely there's responsibility for the

[48:44] jurisdictions? How do you prioritize what you do?

[48:50] So when it comes to grants at the county I've become a bit of a subject matter expert on state

[48:55] federal funding, but it is up to the jurisdictions. So the City of San Helena said this is a mitigation

[49:02] action. For example, that is, we decided we can't general fund, but we would like to see state

[49:09] or federal funding and you found a grant opportunity. That would be up to the jurisdiction to apply.

[49:14] However, I'm not not available to help. It's just that a lot of times state and federal funding

[49:22] applications require a lot of local knowledge that I may not have, which is why it's not

[49:30] necessarily, I'm a bucket of like, here you go, just apply for this. This is what we like.

[49:36] It would be really difficult for me to do that, because I don't have that local knowledge. And

[49:41] I don't have the local perspective and a lot of state and federal grants, because they're

[49:44] so competitive. Now they're looking for kind of the picture of how this impacts and will

[49:51] helpful to your community and it's hard for me to tell a story on a local level because I'm

[49:56] always looking at that county perspective. So I hope that answers your question. There are

[50:01] quite a few grants. I manage the home land security grant and the emergency management performance

[50:07] grant which those are grants that are intended to help out the entire county home land security

[50:13] is based on terrorism. So when I'm looking for stuff, I'm looking at county resources like

[50:18] equipment for rescue task force operations for SWAT operations that will eventually help

[50:25] city of Santa Elena if any of those things, you know, would unfortunately happen in

[50:31] your city.

[50:32] And of course there's a state grant under opt or proposition four that's been subject

[50:38] to lots of pushing and tugging and pulling because various parties in Sacramento have

[50:43] want to get the lion's share of that funding because it includes not only wildfire but also

[50:49] parks and recreation very competitive I know because I followed the budget deliberations

[50:55] in Sacramento for Proposition 4 and it's not easy so even though that money is available

[51:01] it's highly competitive for various jurisdictions that are seeking it.

[51:06] Is there a clearinghouse for all the grant opportunities as a resource for each of the

[51:12] there's Dixins?

[51:14] Yes, and no, there's like grants.gov is a great place to find a lot of grant opportunities.

[51:22] Caloes and FEMA have websites, a lot of times you have to look at it, there's some

[51:27] FEMA grants, for example, that only state the states can apply for and then a lot of times

[51:32] the state will apply for it and then they'll become a subrecipient to FEMA and then you

[51:38] will become a subrecipient to the state.

[51:40] And so, sometimes you just have to look at what we call a no-photo notice of opportunity.

[51:49] And I think a lot of times they're pushed out between different disciplines.

[51:57] So I think law fire might get a lot of grant opportunities, fire may hear about some fuel mitigation,

[52:03] or I may not necessarily hear about those.

[52:05] So sometimes it's dependent on the discipline you're looking at.

[52:08] If you're looking for fuel mitigation, that's something that may come through your fire chief more.

[52:15] So let me ask our chiefs.

[52:17] Are you aware of these grant opportunities that come through?

[52:30] I just realized the microphone wasn't on.

[52:32] But yeah, you guys can sit there.

[52:35] Yes, we are.

[52:36] They come across our email through the city.

[52:39] We're always looking for these opportunities.

[52:41] We have a BWC grant right now,

[52:43] which is body camera, grant through the, I believe it's the prison, California prison authority.

[52:50] We just got, we just wrapped up one for an officer, the paid part of the salary.

[52:53] So we're always, always, always looking for grant opportunities.

[52:56] And they usually come through our POAO, which is Andrew Bradley, and he just kind of disseminates

[53:02] them out.

[53:03] And we see if it's something that we can qualify for, and if it is, we attempt to write

[53:06] it and get it.

[53:10] Yeah, that's all, all true.

[53:12] We have that, the big grant for the 2.7 million to clean up after the glass fire has been five years.

[53:19] And I had biologists, two biologists just come double-checking a couple of months ago.

[53:25] And so we're getting closer and closer.

[53:27] And then nothing will be said for six, eight months.

[53:29] And then I'll also look back and send out an archaeologist.

[53:32] So it's a very difficult grant to acquire.

[53:34] But it's still alive.

[53:36] They thought that it would have been since the last administration came in.

[53:40] thought it would have been axed, but that's not true. It's still still life.

[53:45] Thank you. Other questions or comments on this information item?

[53:52] Looking at the whole plan and then our town. Obviously, I know most of the concerns must

[53:57] be that we're in a great little valley where it grows a line in between hills and it only a

[54:02] couple of ways in and out, whether it's fire, flood, earthquake. I'm pretty sure a lot of

[54:08] community want a way out easy, but we live in a kind of like area that I guess what I'm trying

[54:17] to say is there might be a lot of input, but there might only be a certain amount of ways

[54:21] to handle these how to refer for our town, right? It's kind of been an on-running. I mean, forever

[54:29] there's only been a certain way in and out and being able to get away from these as safe

[54:34] as possible.

[54:36] Have we done any improvements?

[54:39] Because I assume if there is a disaster,

[54:45] we can't

[54:45] widen our rows more to get in and out in a timely fashion.

[54:51] Any improvements going to these plans?

[54:54] Is there anything coming up that you guys can see as a light?

[54:59] I, that's by interest kind of knowing maybe what new or stuff's coming in that might help us avoid

[55:07] for our community these, as many hardships or disaster efforts.

[55:13] Let me start off.

[55:15] So, early warning is the best.

[55:17] I mean, widening the roads, you know, Hector, that's really tough.

[55:21] You either go this way or you go that way.

[55:23] And it's, it is very dynamic.

[55:26] A lot of people say, well, where, where should I go if there's a fire?

[55:28] Well, where is the fire?

[55:30] You can get 270 degrees around this valley.

[55:33] Only the south end didn't have fire in the glass fire.

[55:36] It spotted over, burned the whole thing.

[55:40] So early warning, being prepared, being able to go out.

[55:44] If you head south, like every time with vineyards on both sides,

[55:47] you know, you used to be plowed.

[55:47] When you and I were in high school in San Lina,

[55:50] they were all tilled.

[55:51] But now there's grass.

[55:52] So there's a little bit more that can happen in some areas.

[55:55] it's hit and miss but we will let you know which way is the safest evacuation so on a fire

[56:05] if I was the incident commander I do not but a lot of people think that fire is in charge

[56:11] of the vacuations they're not that's police law enforcement is in charge but they take our

[56:16] recommendation so if we say the fire is here and in three hours it's going to be here I think you

[56:21] to give this as a immediate recommendation,

[56:25] and then this will be a warning.

[56:27] And so that's how it works.

[56:29] And I'll tell you, every fire, the deputies,

[56:32] the police, cities, have always been there right next to me

[56:36] for trying to take action.

[56:40] So, I happen.

[56:41] Anything to add, Chief Tharp?

[56:44] No, I would say that's correct.

[56:46] And people don't realize we spend meetings,

[56:49] these meetings and Santa Rosa that we during the glass fire that we

[56:53] rat every day discussing ways in and out of the valley where the fire was

[56:56] at what we need to be evacuated. There's a lot of effort that goes in

[56:59] that there's people don't even realize this happening behind the scenes.

[57:03] And I might point out that just recently you gave an update to the city council in

[57:08] terms of a emergency preparation in the city for for wildfire and I

[57:13] actor you might want to take a look at that city council presentation that

[57:17] that was received as an update and I understand we're going to have some drills, aren't we?

[57:22] Oh yeah.

[57:23] Yes.

[57:23] This year, drills are so important in terms of being prepared for evacuation.

[57:27] Through the chair, I just want to add one additional item.

[57:32] It doesn't stop at our city boundaries.

[57:35] So when there's an emergency or an urgent matter, they're not just talking to each other,

[57:41] but they're talking to their other respective partners that are in other jurisdictions as well.

[57:46] So it's not, it's not just here in St. Helena.

[57:49] Yep, county wide emergency.

[57:50] I wanted to add that I do get a lot of text for closures,

[57:55] damage, going around stuff.

[57:57] And I'm in Fairfield all the time at the main office.

[58:00] And so, and I even let my wife know she didn't read it.

[58:03] So that early detection is work.

[58:05] Oh, I just want to ask for everything.

[58:07] So I am very happy with that.

[58:09] And I'll just speak to this prior to my work with OES.

[58:14] I worked for AMR, which is the 19-contracted 911 system here prior to that was pioneers and I was with them as well.

[58:22] So I've been on every disaster since the earthquakes in 2014.

[58:26] And I was there in 2017 and I was there in 2020 and I evacuated St. Alina Hospital twice in 2020, which was really fun.

[58:36] But a lot now in this, the job that I'm in now, a lot has changed from 2017 to 2020 when it's come to

[58:44] Early detection it's come when it's come to alert and warning a lot has changed

[58:49] I know that's not the intention of this meeting, but that is something that at any point

[58:55] I think you guys can discuss with law and fire about the changes and

[58:59] Honestly, even at the county, I'm happy to provide information on that but there have been a lot of changes from 2017 and 2020 and

[59:06] Unfortunately, it is less than slurrent not that that's the way that we want to learn it, but

[59:11] We'd have taken that into account

[59:12] I just want to say that I can think to kind of also build off of what Hector Commissioner

[59:19] Hector.

[59:20] Sorry.

[59:21] Lopez was saying, I recently, like, I submitted this, too, as Napaccounty General Plan has

[59:31] affairs and peers report in their safety element, and it is dated back to 2018, and the study

[59:40] is done using measurements that are very different than this recent one that was just done in Sonoma

[59:46] County for Sonoma County counties, fair, and peers, evacuation modeling. And it's kind

[59:53] of addressing the same things. It's not addressing where like, you know, we have limited space to make

[1:00:00] Our roads wider, but it was a study that was done to show where the bottlenecks and the choke points were,

[1:00:07] were so they could be proactively mitigated before, so that in an event they could address

[1:00:13] those things now in a way that is not going to, it's not, it's going to help during

[1:00:22] large evacuations. And so one of my comments, at least that I had put in was that it would be great if we had funding from NAP for NAP Accounting to do a similar report that is based off that kind of style of report and analysis and using the metrics that they use instead of the one that we used.

[1:00:42] The other thing that I will say is in reviewing this doc and I hope everybody does review it.

[1:00:48] I think some of the things that are, you know, and this is about public health and safety.

[1:00:53] So, I think, and what I want to say is that I think some of the stuff that is saying that our town is doing what is our mitigation strategy is apparently

[1:01:10] Apparently, based off of the general plan chapters that the previous director has told us

[1:01:18] that we cannot use anymore, because there was subjective, there is a meeting in the reference

[1:01:23] where she said that the growth management chapter of the general plan is no longer.

[1:01:28] We can use that, and this strategy, mitigation strategy, says the growth management plan

[1:01:36] in this general plan is how we're safe.

[1:01:40] So I think also some of the new California laws

[1:01:43] that are coming out are increasing the numbers

[1:01:49] that is beyond what our general plan says.

[1:01:52] Our general plan says nine units a year.

[1:01:56] That's not what's happening anymore.

[1:01:58] So I think some of this doc

[1:02:00] might have been written a little while ago

[1:02:02] or something where it just hasn't gotten caught up

[1:02:06] some of the things that have been changing, and so I really wanted to just point that out

[1:02:10] for everybody in case they want to look at it in more depth because it's a significant

[1:02:16] health public health and safety. I mean it's more safety, life safety, and so yeah, that's

[1:02:28] kind of my big comment is that if we are able to get funding or grants that can

[1:02:36] help this town particularly because there's a lot of people

[1:02:40] funneling through this town during an emergency. Let's just say

[1:02:44] Calistoga and going and if they're they're you know they're funneling

[1:02:49] through our our roads which in and I pointed out in as a comment our main

[1:02:55] street is the highway which is different than many of the other local jurisdictions

[1:03:01] where the city is kind of off to the side, and, you know, our street is our main collector street for our town, as well as funneling people from different areas in winning North Northern cities.

[1:03:20] population. So I just hope as a town, we put this out in front of everyone more thoroughly

[1:03:29] and take the time to address it because this is the opportunity and it seems like if it

[1:03:37] can bring us funding or grants or anything like that to help us, I think it's worthwhile to kind

[1:03:43] of really dive into that. So I appreciate hold on. I appreciate your position or

[1:03:49] opinion on the St. Alina as well as the multi-hazard jurisdictional assumptions I disagree

[1:03:55] with you if they are inaccurate or not useful or credible. And in fact of course this plan

[1:04:02] has nothing to do with emergency evacuation planning. It references hazard mitigation and emergency

[1:04:07] evacuation planning is in a separate plan, separate approach. So this is not the plan to address

[1:04:15] emergency evacuation. I just want to clarify that. And again, you and I may disagree with

[1:04:21] our interpretation of what this graph plan does. I think this is quite a credible plan,

[1:04:27] based on useful data. Obviously emergency evacuation plans get updated. This MHP will not

[1:04:33] be updated for five years. That doesn't mean the EOPs aren't updated for every change in

[1:04:40] data or transportation planning?

[1:04:44] And through the chair, I think what I'll just add here is that I do think that Commissioner

[1:04:50] Covalu bring up some valid ideas for funding purposes and that I think as a team here

[1:04:59] at the city, we're actively looking, we heard from our chiefs here, they're actively looking

[1:05:04] for grants to constantly update what we can and if something does come forward where

[1:05:10] we can locally look at that, we would do so,

[1:05:13] and I think that that's a desire that we have locally.

[1:05:17] Again, this is, I don't think that this plan restricts us

[1:05:22] from seeking grants.

[1:05:25] It complements our ability to look for grants,

[1:05:28] but I'm gonna defer real quick to Brianna

[1:05:31] just to supplement what I'm saying.

[1:05:34] For grant opportunities, absolutely.

[1:05:37] It does supplement any grant opportunities you're looking for

[1:05:39] because it just shows that there is a research,

[1:05:44] and there's backing to whatever funding you're looking for.

[1:05:47] Obviously, I'll be addressed with what that funding is for,

[1:05:50] is in the scope of the projects.

[1:05:52] So, if you're looking for,

[1:05:54] and I think when you're talking about evacuation planning,

[1:05:58] one of the things that is a big concern

[1:06:00] for a lot of people is ingress and ingress.

[1:06:03] Obviously, the answer is more, right?

[1:06:07] that's just, but it's not realistic. It's more in every, it's not just the city of

[1:06:12] Sanalena, it's in every jurisdiction at least in that county, but most places, more roads,

[1:06:19] that, unfortunately, that's just not realistic for a lot of, financial reasons, a lot of,

[1:06:27] you know, state, sequel reasons, that type of stuff, and that takes traffic engineers and

[1:06:31] everything to develop that, but yes, the answer is definitely more, but that's where the

[1:06:37] scopes you want to start looking at the projects you're looking for, the scope of the

[1:06:41] project and then how you back up, whatever that scope may be, the hazard mitigation is just

[1:06:46] one tool.

[1:06:48] Well, let me just be sure, when you say more and more, it depends upon the risk evaluation.

[1:06:53] There's not necessarily an or is there the need for a grant if you have an identified

[1:06:57] the need for it for a particular purpose, correct?

[1:06:59] And typically there's not, I don't know of any grant opportunities that cover more roads.

[1:07:06] So, that's honestly just, you know, a comment about, like, yes.

[1:07:11] I think a lot of people agree that there are some areas, especially in NAP accounts, especially in this valley, where it would be beneficial to have more routes.

[1:07:18] But it's not realistic, just because of one, the funding, and two, we don't know, like you said, the risk that it would present.

[1:07:26] But again, the multi-hazard mitigation plan does not deal with

[1:07:29] ingress or egress needs for various jurisdictions or the county correct?

[1:07:33] It doesn't deal with the evacuation planning on it.

[1:07:36] It may address something that might be a mitigation effort.

[1:07:42] Or additional routes.

[1:07:45] Obviously, that might be a county-wide, or it could be individual cities,

[1:07:49] because the...

[1:07:49] And that depends on an individual assessment, correct?

[1:07:52] Correct.

[1:07:53] And I think the assessment you're talking about,

[1:07:55] I don't know about out at a county level,

[1:07:56] but the city of Sanoma did do a plan

[1:07:59] and it does discuss choke points.

[1:08:03] At the risk of signing myself up for more presentations,

[1:08:07] we actually just recently did one

[1:08:08] in the city of American Canyon

[1:08:10] because that was a concern for their Watson Ranch area.

[1:08:16] And we have some tools that we utilize

[1:08:19] that already discuss choke points.

[1:08:22] And your fire and police chief know

[1:08:23] about the tools of Genesis, they have access to it.

[1:08:27] And most of the time, if you talk to local fire

[1:08:30] and law, they're aware of the choke points.

[1:08:33] One of the things that these plans

[1:08:35] don't address is the human element.

[1:08:38] So it doesn't matter how much money we would like to spend

[1:08:41] on a plan, the human element is always

[1:08:44] the thing that is the most crucial.

[1:08:46] And we don't know what people will do.

[1:08:49] There's orders and warnings.

[1:08:51] And a lot of times people just won't

[1:08:53] listen to the morning or order, a lot of times they'll evacuate when they're not in an evacuation

[1:08:59] zone. Now that's adding more in. There's sometimes people that decide to go a different way

[1:09:05] than law enforcement tells them to go. There's always a human element that we can never address

[1:09:10] in a plan. But there's a lot of awareness on the choke points. And I think if you would talk to

[1:09:16] law and fire, they're aware of those for the city of San Alina, just like in the city of

[1:09:20] American Canyon we address that we have awareness of those choke points and we do have some

[1:09:27] I guess that being tools that show that point just a point of clarification through the chair

[1:09:33] Ingress egress we're in this context we're talking about new roads that people access so just point of clarification

[1:09:41] We don't have to discuss it at all just making that clarification for that's fine any other comments or questions before I mean

[1:09:49] it. Just to go off of that one is a lot of people kind of with talking like, well, every day

[1:09:55] in the rush hour, the choke point. There's choke points that are not really in our jurisdiction,

[1:10:00] right? They're kind of a little bit further down at the road, but it kind of impacts coming back up.

[1:10:05] So if it's not really in, let's say, chiefs, the chiefs here, jurisdictions to kind of identify those

[1:10:14] choke points. That's where I thought this multi-jurist

[1:10:17] dictionary kind of approach to it would address things like choke points

[1:10:23] down the road that could affect St. Alina residents in an issue, you

[1:10:27] know, in an evacuation. Or let's just say for mitigation measures

[1:10:32] to address potential. Well, in life safety issues, there's a positive

[1:10:39] and a negative to a human element. If you're aware of a choke

[1:10:42] point as a law enforcement officer, what are you going to do?

[1:10:45] You're going to send officers there to say, hey, I'm going to create this instead of using

[1:10:49] stop lights.

[1:10:50] I'm going to now use officers to send traffic through or there's things like contraflow

[1:10:55] for example.

[1:10:56] That's saying everybody that's going north, we're now going to take the south bound because

[1:10:59] we need everybody to go north from 29 instead of south or vice versa.

[1:11:05] So there's a positive and a negative that some of the planning documents, not that they're

[1:11:10] important but that don't address the human element of what people are going to do and then the

[1:11:16] element of what the law enforcement officers might do because I'm sure the chief is aware that

[1:11:22] there are some choke points in St. Alina that may that may be affected by other choke points within

[1:11:30] the county and that's when he would look to his sheriff's office or city of Calestoga counterparts

[1:11:35] to say, hey, this is where we need to send additional officers, but I'll have him speak to that.

[1:11:40] But you're not in the MHE addressing choke points or emergency evacuation at all.

[1:11:44] You're just identifying hazards and it's up to the local jurisdictions through their emergency

[1:11:48] planning to do so. And in fact, in terms of coordination, the countywide EOP provides for coordination

[1:11:55] among all the jurisdictions for ingress and egress in terms of evacuation routes. Correct?

[1:12:00] That's correct. And it's the sheriff's office is obviously outside of any of the jurisdictions.

[1:12:05] they're going to handle down incorporating areas, which obviously,

[1:12:08] seen a Lena has some unincorporated areas.

[1:12:11] I'm just going to, through the chair, I'm going to, I'm going to be a little less technical

[1:12:16] right now, but I'll defer to Chief Tharp.

[1:12:20] You know, in these are dynamic circumstances and situations when they occur, a plan is helpful

[1:12:29] when it's helpful, but at the end of the day, they're going to be making decisions

[1:12:35] and coordinating across our boundaries to make sure that the public is getting from point

[1:12:41] aid to point M or Z as efficiently and effectively as possible.

[1:12:46] That being said, I'm just going to hand it over to Chief Tharp and Chief Sornson, when

[1:12:51] there's an incident, you know, simplifying it, how do you operate?

[1:12:59] So we would, every, every fire is different, like I said before, you know, and so we would collaborate and it's going to be on the back of the tailgate somewhere on the fire line and

[1:13:13] Tharp will be with me and we will weigh all the options and what's the best, the best route.

[1:13:18] You know, we do have a big wide open space here, not like Calestoga is at the beginning of and everything v's out farther and farther and every mile you get, it gets wider.

[1:13:27] So, if you get into the open space just south of town, it is even in town is pretty

[1:13:36] defensible space and safety zones.

[1:13:38] I mean, my wife, we live in England, okay.

[1:13:42] And so my wife's bags are packed already, they're already in the trunk, okay?

[1:13:47] We're ready.

[1:13:47] The car is pointed out the door.

[1:13:48] She's just got to get the dog wringo in the car and her phone and forget about it.

[1:13:54] But in the middle time, you need to get on with your life.

[1:13:57] And people worry about it every minute of the day about the fire they have their watch duty on and they see the fire

[1:14:05] They see the one over in Rumsie. It's 390 acres and they're just just having a real hard time about it

[1:14:10] But you just need to be ready. It's going to be fluid. The Genesis will give you the path for the safest way out

[1:14:20] And I'll just ask Chief Tharp, you know, also you're in put how you coordinate its dynamic it's in the moment

[1:14:26] It's in the moment.

[1:14:28] We actually embed somebody most of the time in the county's EOC.

[1:14:33] It's a staff member from here.

[1:14:35] We have everybody's phone number that I have looked at Edelman's phone number that you

[1:14:39] should handle patrol.

[1:14:40] I'm not sure who's doing here right now.

[1:14:41] But it's dynamic.

[1:14:43] It would be amputing instantly if there's issues.

[1:14:45] And of course when the state gets ramped up, CHP has an almost an unlimited resource.

[1:14:50] If it comes to traffic control, of course it takes a couple minutes but it could happen very

[1:14:54] quickly.

[1:14:55] Director, I'd like to wrap this up.

[1:14:56] because this is informational and I think we need to move on here.

[1:15:00] That's through the chair and the Planning Commission. Again, I appreciate everybody being here for this informational item and it's helpful for us all.

[1:15:10] And as you guys know, he mentioned Genesis, that's the note your own program and that is something that's mentioned in the hazard mitigation plan.

[1:15:19] and is actually a requirement from Calo,

[1:15:21] we ask now to have zone-based evacuations.

[1:15:25] So that was a tool that we'll be mentioned in there.

[1:15:27] Thank you very much for your presentation.

[1:15:29] Very good and keep up the good work in terms of the planning.

[1:15:33] Thank you, this is the presentation.

[1:15:34] Presentation will also be at the Town Hall meeting.

[1:15:36] We will have Lieutenant Edelman.

[1:15:38] And if we get an opportunity, I'll talk to the chief,

[1:15:41] but we'll show you guys a little bit of Genesis.

[1:15:44] Thank you. Let's move on then.

[1:15:46] before we go. I'm just going to think both chiefs for being here in Brianna again. I don't

[1:15:51] know if you want to do a plaque. I did think her again. Oh yeah, Lisa asked me, John, who would

[1:15:58] be the best to present the has everything I said there's only one and that's going to be Brianna

[1:16:03] Jones right there and you did a fantastic job and yes, we have the town hall meeting which is

[1:16:08] going to be filmed as soon as you're going to miss it. It's going to be next Thursday the 30th.

[1:16:12] You're going to have calfire there.

[1:16:14] Brianna's coming back.

[1:16:15] I'll be there just in.

[1:16:17] It's going to be, there's going to be six presenters.

[1:16:20] Insurance companies say, how is your insurance?

[1:16:23] Is what is it based on?

[1:16:25] David Capone, who's been on the fart apartment

[1:16:27] our fart apartment for 20 years.

[1:16:29] He owns a portion of an insurance company in town.

[1:16:34] And then the city employees will have EOC training

[1:16:37] this Thursday, the 23rd.

[1:16:39] So we're ramping up.

[1:16:41] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, that was a good good discussion. Thank you all.

[1:16:51] We're on to, I think, the next item, which is our adoption of our work plan, am I correct, director?

[1:16:59] Yes, thank you. So, Lisa McIlligan, Director of Community Development, and just make sure she has everything.

[1:17:08] I'm going to assume all of our commissioners have gone through the plan because we've had it in front of us.

[1:17:14] Yes, so I'll go ahead.

[1:17:15] Yes, so I'll go ahead.

[1:17:15] Your presentation or maybe your summary.

[1:17:18] So we can take my brief presentation.

[1:17:20] Thank you.

[1:17:22] So this item was before the commission that it's last meeting.

[1:17:25] And there was a request and desire to look a little closer at it.

[1:17:30] Since that meeting, we have made a few amendments to it where we've sectioned off

[1:17:36] actual private projects that would likely be becoming before the commission, so you'll see that as a difference as well as our policy projects.

[1:17:46] And we added a few additional items to the policy projects. One is potentially, again, all of these are potential.

[1:17:54] They're not commitments and they're subject to approval of our city manager as well as a city council.

[1:18:00] But we added inclusionary housing and looking at our ordinance based on some conversations we've had with a member group that we have here in the city, our housing assembly group as well as looking at potentially cultural art on private properties, I would like to remove the word overlay from that and just look at our ordinance.

[1:18:28] with respects to artwork on private properties,

[1:18:34] so art and sculptures on private properties.

[1:18:36] And with that, happy to hear from the commission.

[1:18:41] I think this has been a great exercise

[1:18:43] where we're looking at bylaws,

[1:18:46] and we're looking at our code sections

[1:18:49] for the planning commission.

[1:18:51] And we will be taking this before the city council

[1:18:54] for their ultimate approval.

[1:18:55] So, good. I've got a couple of questions and additions. One of the things you and I have discussed is basically I would like to add on the, and this is, by the way, as a available, I think your section on inclusionary zone or inclusionary housing are all as available, because you've got a lot of workload that you do just to get the, the normal wash out. So, I understand that all these items are subject to availability and capacity, but I would like to add at the end of that list.

[1:19:25] on going review of downtown specific plan elements and standards in the zoning code to promote efficient quality responsive economic development.

[1:19:36] And my reason there is I know we have kind of suspended the detailed downtown specific plan work out of I think concern over funding as well as availability of time.

[1:19:48] But on an asavailable basis, I think we as part of the planning commission need to constantly

[1:19:55] asavailable review the elements of the zoning code that affect our downtown businesses

[1:20:00] in an economic development sense.

[1:20:02] So I'm not wedded any particular phrasing, but I thought I would recommend to my fellow

[1:20:08] commissioners that we had that.

[1:20:10] Secondly, I'd like to add something that I discussed briefly at our last discussion, which

[1:20:15] is ongoing review of potential amendments to the zoning code

[1:20:19] to comply with standards for objective versus subjective

[1:20:22] regulations and design standards.

[1:20:25] This, I think, came out of Commissioner Covelle's initial thoughts

[1:20:29] when we first talked about the zoning code update,

[1:20:32] but also I think it's a broader issue.

[1:20:34] It's the issue of we've gone as far as being sure

[1:20:38] that our housing-related regulations are objective

[1:20:43] and compliance with state law, but we haven't gone and looked at all of our current zoning

[1:20:49] code provisions in terms of whether they are objective or subjective.

[1:20:54] We have just achieved a very great, with a great staff work, a rewrite, a redo of the ADU

[1:21:00] standards, which make them more predictable and objective.

[1:21:04] I'd like to just add that Alan and Azavailable basis that we would be doing it on going

[1:21:09] review of the standards in the zoning code for objective or subjective regulations.

[1:21:15] I would like to, this might be controversial, but I feel very strongly about it.

[1:21:19] I think we did a delete the accessory cultural art overlay.

[1:21:23] In my opinion, the zoning, the planning commission has no role in regulating private arts.

[1:21:32] I don't believe that the planning commission has a lead on public art.

[1:21:36] I believe Parks and Recreation has a lead on public art, so I would not recommend that we

[1:21:43] approve this as part of our planning commission work plan, because I don't support it.

[1:21:51] I think, basically, getting into, first of all, I don't have a lot of resources.

[1:21:56] Second of all, public art is being something being dealt with by the Parks and Recreation Commission.

[1:22:00] And third of all, I don't know of any authority that this city has to regulate private art

[1:22:07] on private property that has no violation of any existing setback or any public safety standards.

[1:22:15] So I would ask if that accessory cultural art overlay be deleted.

[1:22:18] My personal interpretation of the code right now is that if I wanted to put a piece of art

[1:22:24] in my backyard, I would not need to go to the city for approval.

[1:22:27] So, particularly if it doesn't violate any particular public health or safety requirement.

[1:22:35] So those are my recommendations, but also open it up for other commissioners in terms

[1:22:39] of any recommendations and thoughts and director if you would like to address my recommendations.

[1:22:44] Obviously, you'll have a chance to do that too.

[1:22:48] Sure.

[1:22:49] So I've taken note of what you would like to add.

[1:22:52] These are items that our department has placed here on our work plan to potentially look at.

[1:23:00] And we will discuss them with our city manager and ultimately with the city council.

[1:23:04] Let me correct something.

[1:23:06] You're asking the planning commission to adopt this as a work plan, not as a staff work plan.

[1:23:10] I have no objection to the staff providing a work plan.

[1:23:13] But if you're asking for the planning commission to endorse a work plan, then it's not something

[1:23:17] simply take back to the city manager, either the planning commission approves this as the planning

[1:23:23] commission's work plan or we don't. So, Chair, I'm not going to, I'm not going to argue with you this

[1:23:28] evening, but I will love to hear from the rest of the information. Thank you. I do have some questions

[1:23:35] and comments. Under the projects that might come before us that you've listed, Gray, I have a

[1:23:46] question about whether you think the cliff family project

[1:23:49] who came with kind of a pre-application would be coming

[1:23:52] in the next year and also the spring vineyards.

[1:23:55] So those are the two other projects

[1:23:58] that I thought might, parts of it might come before us

[1:24:04] in this planning year and wondered what your thoughts were on that.

[1:24:08] Do you want me to ask you all of my make-all of my comments

[1:24:11] or should we go one by one?

[1:24:13] Yeah, I think one by one works for me.

[1:24:15] I think that's fine if acceptable through the chair.

[1:24:19] What I'll say about spring vineyard, the housing project,

[1:24:21] is that's not a project that's

[1:24:24] slated to go before the planning commission.

[1:24:28] So I wouldn't automatically be putting

[1:24:31] that on the work plan.

[1:24:35] I'll defer to Ms. O'Neill about Cliff.

[1:24:38] I have not heard any communications from the applicant

[1:24:43] for the Cliff Free Development Project

[1:24:45] since we had the initial pre-submittal application.

[1:24:49] So I wouldn't anticipate that it would come

[1:24:51] in this fiscal year, but we're hopeful

[1:24:54] that it will be coming back soon.

[1:24:56] Okay.

[1:24:58] And I'm just just that you consider that

[1:25:00] in terms of bandwidth because I think,

[1:25:02] you know, this fiscal year,

[1:25:04] we're talking about the one that just started, right?

[1:25:07] So we're talking about a 12 month period.

[1:25:08] So it's feasible that it could come back to us

[1:25:11] in 12 months.

[1:25:12] Yes. So I'll touch on that real quick.

[1:25:14] This plan is based on what we know and what we're operating under as of this point in time.

[1:25:22] So how we actually move forward before the commission is dependent on many factors, including

[1:25:28] was an application submitted that we didn't know about.

[1:25:32] Was it deemed complete?

[1:25:34] Will it be coming forward?

[1:25:35] This is what we know.

[1:25:36] We don't need to amend the plan again.

[1:25:40] It's just a snapshot today of what we're hoping

[1:25:44] to bring forward based on our work plan in the department

[1:25:49] and what we know is likely to come before the planning commission.

[1:25:54] Okay. A couple of other things.

[1:25:59] So I would love to add.

[1:26:02] And I don't think this is going to be a big ask,

[1:26:04] but under departmental projects that we revisit and make some updates to the planning

[1:26:16] department website pages to make them more public-friendly.

[1:26:23] And we talked about a dashboard, but there are ways.

[1:26:26] And, and to try to help with staff time, I mean, we could even do an ad hoc committee or something.

[1:26:36] I mean, there are people who understand how to make pages like that far more user-friendly.

[1:26:47] Obviously, it does also take some data entry as you're going through projects.

[1:26:51] I understand that requires staff time, but I think there are people who could help reduce the staff time and implementing that and it wouldn't take much to make a big improvement for public access to information.

[1:27:09] Yeah, so that's a great thing to bring up. That is on our department's work plan. It's not on the planning commission's work plan.

[1:27:15] So it wouldn't be, yeah, but I will say that myself, Natalie and Jackie, we're all beginning

[1:27:25] that process, we're incorporating it in, making little changes, you'll hear a little more

[1:27:31] for me about some of those little changes later on in today's meeting.

[1:27:35] But that is something that they desire to do greatly, and so that will be periodic.

[1:27:40] It wouldn't be in our planning commission work plan though, great.

[1:27:43] If you'd like focus group of small focus group, I'm willing to volunteer.

[1:27:53] Then I, my question you put attend the league of California City's planning commissioners

[1:28:00] as a Academy, I assume that you're budgeting for one or more commissioners to be able to go.

[1:28:07] Yes, we budget for that.

[1:28:09] Okay, how many commissioners are you budgeted for?

[1:28:12] It's fully budgeted and if there's a need to make edits we can, so it's highly desirable

[1:28:19] that the planning commissioners do attend those.

[1:28:22] I find them very valuable.

[1:28:25] And then what about an ongoing update, and maybe this is bringing in legal counsel periodically

[1:28:35] in terms of some of the laws that get past that impact what we do here. So, I'd love to see some, you know,

[1:28:50] reporting on that or presentations on that as they come up like not necessarily, you know, they can be consolidated,

[1:28:58] whether that's quarterly, whether that's you know, however that is represented, but I think

[1:29:04] it would be very helpful to this commission to understand you know, what new laws are being

[1:29:10] passed, particularly you know, in California, that effect zoning code and housing and all

[1:29:17] the things that come before us.

[1:29:19] Yes, so we actually already have that on here under the Department's Schedule.

[1:29:22] It's the last bullet.

[1:29:23] This is California Environmental Quality Act and State Legislative Updates as necessary.

[1:29:29] Yeah, got it.

[1:29:30] Great, great.

[1:29:32] And my last comment, I'm so sorry, but then that's it.

[1:29:36] Is Chair Warner, what you may not be aware of was that I did have some conversation with staff about whether the department,

[1:29:50] can weather code applies to sculptures and art on private property.

[1:30:00] The feedback I got, which is maybe why I think director Miguel probably put it on here, was that it could be considered an accessory building.

[1:30:11] And there's code that you have to follow for accessory building. So I would say, if we determine that it falls into the category of accessory building.

[1:30:21] We just structure, sorry, it says building in the code, but, okay, structure. Then we do then I would like to see this reviewed.

[1:30:33] If we determine that it does not fall in the category of an accessory structure, then there's no need.

[1:30:40] So let me respond to that, because I may be with a little hasty in responding director.

[1:30:45] But these are not recommended amendments.

[1:30:50] These are amendments to potentially be considered by staff to recommend to the planning commission.

[1:30:57] And go to the process.

[1:30:58] And I have a, as I think Ms. Verdeck knows,

[1:31:02] I have a particular position on private art that I would probably,

[1:31:08] and in the long run basically say it doesn't pass the left test for being an accessory building,

[1:31:14] particularly if it's simply somebody's decision that they don't like the art.

[1:31:19] That said, if what you want to do is these are not recommended amendments.

[1:31:24] These are simply amendments that staff may forward to the planning commission for consideration.

[1:31:28] We may decide them up or down.

[1:31:30] As long as we're making that clear to the city council, I know Public Art has certainly been a controversial issue in front of the city council.

[1:31:37] And others, I also know because I participated in the Parks and Recreation Commission's

[1:31:42] consideration.

[1:31:43] The public art is that Parks and Recreation Commission and the city are engaged in trying

[1:31:50] to update what was a very probably inadequate public art policy and process that was available.

[1:31:58] That said, I'm fine at keeping this mentioned as long as we make clear to the City Council

[1:32:03] that the Planning Commission is not necessarily recommending any of these amendments

[1:32:06] at this time. No, these are simply items that we will take through a process.

[1:32:11] I'm fine with that. And that the commission will be asked to consider all of the information

[1:32:16] in the record at that time. I'm fine with that. That's, and I think that's very true of all these

[1:32:21] items because I think they have an opportunity for us to, as a planning commission, consider what

[1:32:27] staff brings to us. And we may amend the degree, disagree, not a doc. I'm fine with that. So let's

[1:32:34] to keep it in. Thank you. Thanks for that interpretation.

[1:32:39] Other commissioners, comments, suggestions.

[1:32:43] I was just thinking would it be good to add something where we review the hazard

[1:32:49] this volume to.

[1:32:52] It's not within our jurisdiction.

[1:32:55] Can I finish my sentence?

[1:33:01] If you want, I think it's an important topic and I don't know if it needs to be a bullet point or whatever,

[1:33:09] but or a work plan, but you know, I think it's the city's due diligence now to review the chapter that was written for saying,

[1:33:20] you know, before it gets adopted and kind of really go through it. So I would like to add that to the work plan.

[1:33:26] If possible, if not, I'm just kind of...

[1:33:31] Is that the purview of the council and certainly Commission or Covel can weigh in with the council, you know, even in advance after reviewing it?

[1:33:41] I've already submitted my comments, so it's just more of a public...

[1:33:45] I thought it would be helpful for public to like review it and, you know, have a chance to talk.

[1:33:52] that they will have a chance in front of the city council to review it all

[1:33:55] with everyone else personally or anybody.

[1:33:58] It's just to start a planning commission jurisdiction item.

[1:34:02] I don't think that the chair, I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to inject what I can do.

[1:34:06] I can go ahead and I can ask, and if there's any access for it to be, if the commission

[1:34:12] as a majority doesn't object, we can bring it back.

[1:34:15] I don't believe it is in the jurisdiction, but I can certainly verify.

[1:34:20] You'll see in the sections that were informational, I did list it, which is our first item that came back before you all this evening.

[1:34:29] And I thought that was a great discussion, but I can certainly check.

[1:34:34] And again, I don't object to what we did this evening, which is informational and educational,

[1:34:38] but I would not recommend that the planning commission take on something that's only perfectly related to the zoning code and our planning.

[1:34:47] But again, defer to the director to bring back any recommendation.

[1:34:52] I just would not include it in the work plan at this point.

[1:34:57] Other comments, additions, subtractions?

[1:35:00] My only comment is I read it all and I like the layout.

[1:35:04] I like the trainings, the informational trainings.

[1:35:07] Looks like we have a full plate.

[1:35:11] I think it's good.

[1:35:19] So again, are you all right with my two recommendations on the addition

[1:35:23] related to downtown, specific business standards and economic development as well as the ongoing

[1:35:32] if available review objective versus subjective standards?

[1:35:36] Yes, I think just as long as the commission understands that what we've provided you

[1:35:42] is our full play, but things change, I don't have any issue with adding it, our city manager

[1:35:49] and City Council, let me have a different opinion.

[1:35:53] So let's not, we're not holding to what is written here.

[1:35:59] Just as long as the commission knows that.

[1:36:01] And this is again an attempt to strategize a little bit better annually.

[1:36:08] I think these are good recommendations that I'm pulling from

[1:36:12] from those studies that have occurred and I'm a new person here.

[1:36:16] And so part of the goal is that our committees and commissions are moving in this direction

[1:36:21] ultimately in our city council and everybody is on the same page.

[1:36:25] So if I can, so I'm so glad Chair Warner brought up DSP and I know that the projects, you know, the bigger scope,

[1:36:35] the original scope of the project is on hold. However, I do think there are very important parts of it

[1:36:41] our low-hanging fruit that I'd love to see sooner than later, and I think Council has asked for this too,

[1:36:47] and that is way-finding signs. So I don't know if that would ever come back to this.

[1:36:55] It would be a kind of part of the, I think we are going to have an overall kind of general review

[1:36:59] of our sign ordinances, which might include way-finding signs too. Am I correct and remembering that?

[1:37:05] possibly, we do have the sign ordinance coming back. I will say that way finding signs typically

[1:37:13] are in public rights of way or on public properties. There may be an opportunity where some

[1:37:20] of the signage might be on a private building. But we're looking into that. That being said, it is

[1:37:26] on our radar. I do want to let Commissioner Frederick know that that actually is something that

[1:37:31] city managers, a big proponent of. He has asked that I'd be part of that process, whether

[1:37:40] it's coming back to the commission or a different body depending on what we're proposing,

[1:37:46] but that is on the radar of the city.

[1:37:48] I just noticed one correction, which I think Commissioner Covell, I probably should have noted,

[1:37:55] You list the general plan annual review as discretionary,

[1:37:59] subject to workload and capacity.

[1:38:02] I think it needs to be under the actual mandatory work plan,

[1:38:06] the general plan annual review.

[1:38:09] I would move it to the actual work plan.

[1:38:12] So this is two different sections.

[1:38:16] One are anticipated land use application projects

[1:38:19] and the other policy projects.

[1:38:22] it's required. We're going to bring it.

[1:38:27] Well, then maybe make sure that.

[1:38:29] Hopefully we do it this fiscal year.

[1:38:31] We're on the motion for it.

[1:38:33] We're behind, and all I want to do is make sure that this isn't listed to the city council as subject to

[1:38:42] the capacity available capacity of the staff.

[1:38:45] It is a mandatory item.

[1:38:46] And so maybe what you just do is put general after general plan annual review put per

[1:38:52] and mandatory annual or put mandatory to be sure that's that's that's reference.

[1:38:59] Thank you.

[1:39:02] I'll just do a little plug on that.

[1:39:05] That most of our departments have reviewed.

[1:39:09] They've done the first part of reviewing what our general plan policies are our next step

[1:39:15] and they are aware that it will come back out to them again and when it does they'll be updating

[1:39:20] what they've been what they've how they've complied and implemented the general plan over time.

[1:39:26] That's going to take some handholding and some time but my goal is to get it back to you all this year.

[1:39:33] Yeah, let's get it back so that when they're not backed up into the next annual review for the next year.

[1:39:39] Thank you. That's all. If there's no further discussion with these comments and changes,

[1:39:48] I'd entertain, do we need a motion? I think we do. It's a plan and commission action. We need to.

[1:39:54] I just have a one to add to the Brown Act and Robert's rules of order TBD as necessary.

[1:40:02] It would be good to just maybe have a little clarity on social media like Brown Act,

[1:40:10] violations and what get a little more direction from legal and what training maybe we need some

[1:40:21] training on that I think you'll hear more from me during my report. Oh good yeah that was a good

[1:40:27] ad. Yeah good ad. Can you start developing? Yeah it's not as necessary it's we should be getting on going

[1:40:32] updates and training on those matters as well as the secret. Okay with that I'd entertain a motion

[1:40:40] for approval of the work plan as we've discussed and amended.

[1:40:49] I'll make a motion to approve the work plan with the additions expressed by the commissioners.

[1:40:59] Go here second.

[1:41:02] Any further discussion?

[1:41:04] If not, please call the roll.

[1:41:07] Commissioner Colwell.

[1:41:09] Yes.

[1:41:09] Commissioner Lopez?

[1:41:11] Yes.

[1:41:11] Vice chair for it.

[1:41:13] Yes.

[1:41:13] Chair Warner. Yes. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. We're on to elections.

[1:41:24] Has there been any time for campaigning? No. Is that our next item and director?

[1:41:30] Yes. That's our next item.

[1:41:33] There's not really any presentation on this.

[1:41:36] It's the way that it works is typically someone will nominate a person to be chair.

[1:41:42] than people will vote.

[1:41:45] There could be nominations for more than one.

[1:41:47] So I just want to make sure that that's clear.

[1:41:50] And once that vote is done, then you move on to Vice Chair

[1:41:53] and the same process occurs.

[1:41:55] No questions.

[1:41:56] Are there any nominations?

[1:41:58] I would like to nominate Chris Warner as Chair.

[1:42:02] Okay. Thank you.

[1:42:04] Any other nominations?

[1:42:06] I need any any we could take take also vice chair nominations together less director you think we need to do this separately I would I would do them separately because

[1:42:19] All right, let's pretend that it was voted down.

[1:42:23] Okay.

[1:42:24] Any further nominations?

[1:42:27] I'd have a question about, like, the, the autumn's seat. Now, what happens with that if

[1:42:38] somebody comes on in? Yeah, that could happen at any, I mean they might not get filled

[1:42:45] for four months. So, as a really what we would have done last time was voted for another

[1:42:52] chair and another vice chair but we were pretty impacted that meeting and so and for staffing

[1:42:58] reasons we pushed it to this meeting but it would day would just be in line for the next

[1:43:04] time which is a year out. Any further discussions or questions if not can we call for a vote

[1:43:13] on the nomination.

[1:43:19] I think we still have to second and then.

[1:43:22] High second it.

[1:43:23] Okay.

[1:43:33] You can abstain if you don't want to vote.

[1:43:42] Commissioner Covell?

[1:43:44] abstain.

[1:43:45] Commissioner Lopez?

[1:43:46] Yes.

[1:43:47] Vice chair Ferdick?

[1:43:49] And chair Warner?

[1:43:51] Yes.

[1:43:52] The motion passes three to one.

[1:43:55] Out three three to zero one abstain.

[1:44:00] Okay.

[1:44:00] nominations for Vice Chair, I would nominate Commissioner Ferdick for Vice Chair again if she is willing to accept.

[1:44:08] Yes.

[1:44:10] I second it.

[1:44:11] First of all, any other nominations? Let's see if there are any other nominations.

[1:44:16] If not, I don't think we need to technically second for an nomination, but what?

[1:44:23] Yeah.

[1:44:24] So any discussion?

[1:44:28] If no further discussion, can we call the roll?

[1:44:33] Commissioner Colwell, abstain.

[1:44:36] Commissioner Lopez?

[1:44:38] Yes.

[1:44:39] Nice chair for it.

[1:44:40] Yes.

[1:44:41] Chair Warner.

[1:44:41] Yes.

[1:44:42] The motion passes three, zero, one, zero.

[1:44:47] Okay.

[1:44:49] That concludes these agenda items, but we have reports and updates from director.

[1:44:56] Yes, so I have a few, some of them may not be popular, some of them may not be popular.

[1:45:00] So apologize in advance. But one of them that will be popular is that we will have a training in August, and it will be our county council coming to the commission, and they will be training on Brown Act, our bylaws, our ordinance code, and you know, general conduct, during that time as well, they'll also likely be looking at those guide books that you were provided.

[1:45:30] I've asked them to take a new look at those and for me to be able to look at them and we'll hopefully be presenting

[1:45:38] new ones to you all that we're all in the same page and

[1:45:42] our updated. So that's in

[1:45:46] August and I believe it's Andreas who will be here to do that training.

[1:45:52] Is that county council or city attorney?

[1:45:55] What did I say?

[1:45:56] Is it county council?

[1:45:57] So that's automatic, that's from your car.

[1:45:59] I elect from you.

[1:46:00] Yeah, it's our city attorneys will be here.

[1:46:04] And you might want to check around on commissioners availability

[1:46:08] in August because I know I'm out last 10 days of August.

[1:46:13] But others may have to.

[1:46:14] I am too out of the end of August.

[1:46:17] So we'll do that the meeting.

[1:46:19] So let me jump to the next.

[1:46:22] OK, I will check on that.

[1:46:25] Thank you.

[1:46:26] OK.

[1:46:26] I'm going to do some positive things before I do what I think might not go over very well.

[1:46:31] But you all may have heard that we're looking through through different items.

[1:46:36] We were looking at providing a new service to the city that includes automated sign-up and sign-off of notifications.

[1:46:47] So they can be called sometimes listserv, but basically they're interested parties list through our website.

[1:46:52] And so, the public is now able to, once the word I'm looking for, thank you, subscribe for different topic areas.

[1:47:07] So, for example, you might have the spring vineyard housing development.

[1:47:12] You might have for our stakes here in planning the ADU ordinance, short-term rental.

[1:47:18] We're creating those lists online right now.

[1:47:20] They'll be notified this opportunity is going to be going out to the public on Thursday through probably a news blast

[1:47:29] And we're really excited about it. I know this is something that worked really well for me in a different jurisdiction

[1:47:37] and

[1:47:37] luckily here in our city

[1:47:40] We have the ability to have this, but we weren't using it and implementing it.

[1:47:48] So

[1:47:49] As much as our planning commission meetings and he heard that this was a desire and he really assisted and jumped on this for us.

[1:47:55] And so I'm really excited to share that with you all.

[1:48:00] The planning commission meetings are not part of that for some regulatory reason, but other general topics.

[1:48:06] So you'll see, you'll see those coming forward.

[1:48:09] And I recommend that you all sign up so you get some information and as individuals you can look at what's happening in our department.

[1:48:17] I think that's great, and what I would suggest is that it's not a one and done notification

[1:48:23] to the public to sign up periodically, you may want to go out and say, hey, please subscribe

[1:48:30] if you wish to the following, because one of the things we've noticed on the planning

[1:48:34] commission through various applications as well as workshops and things like that, the

[1:48:40] public will come in and say, well I never heard about it, but they did, you know, they

[1:48:47] So, I like the idea, and certainly, I probably am the worst offender, and then I signed up multiple times for the newsletter, so I get about five copies of the newsletter.

[1:48:59] Luckily, this probably shouldn't happen.

[1:49:02] But it's a great initiative.

[1:49:04] Great.

[1:49:05] Yeah.

[1:49:06] You know, I think staffs excited to do this as well.

[1:49:09] I think the public once they understand it will.

[1:49:11] It'll be really helpful for being open and transparent and keeping everybody aware, so it'll be great.

[1:49:21] Snail mail is kind of not trendy anymore, so this is the new way.

[1:49:29] PC work plan we talked about, I'll be taking that to the City Council.

[1:49:33] I'll talk with our City Manager shortly.

[1:49:36] I wanted to remind the commissioners to reach out to our staff when you have items.

[1:49:43] I know a commissioner for it did as well as you chair Warner but when we have items that

[1:49:49] are coming it's really important and helpful for staff to be aware before we're at the meeting

[1:49:54] so we're not caught off guard and so that we really want to try and be helpful to you all,

[1:49:59] you know we take our job really seriously and we want to make sure that

[1:50:03] yourselves in the public have ample information, and so I just really want to push that a

[1:50:11] little bit more to each of you. I'll probably remind you all over and over and over for a little

[1:50:19] bit. Okay, last thing, which may not be as thrilling for you all, but we are moving towards

[1:50:26] at this point one planning commission meeting per month. We are short staffed. It is an exceptional

[1:50:32] amount of administrative work that goes into putting in our agendas and over the last month

[1:50:39] and a half we trialed our ability to do this and it really takes away from what our focus

[1:50:45] plans supposed to be which is the actual work. And so we are moving towards once a month from

[1:50:54] here forward. It'll be the what we thought was the second meeting of the month that allows

[1:51:01] as a better opportunity we thought through this of how to plan throughout the month and make

[1:51:07] sure noticing works well. I will also note that I'm in discussions of potentially amending

[1:51:15] the bylaws and the reason is there's an inconsistency with what our code says. So our code says

[1:51:22] one meeting per month. Our bylaws said two and so will likely be updating those. I've been here now

[1:51:30] or over three months, I've observed some of the bigger projects

[1:51:35] that we've taken forward with you all.

[1:51:37] I don't see that there's a need for two meetings.

[1:51:41] That being said, that doesn't mean that if there's a project that comes

[1:51:45] forward, that deserves its own meeting, that we can't do a special meeting.

[1:51:51] And that if there is, for some reason, slated, you know, five big projects,

[1:51:59] you know, we'll do two meetings.

[1:52:00] So, there's always that ability and that's what I'm very good at this across all the jurisdictions.

[1:52:08] When there's a bottleneck that's coming, we will survey you all to see if we can get a special hearing.

[1:52:17] I'm very happy about having one meeting a month with that discretion that if there's, for example,

[1:52:24] time is money for a lot of applicants so that there's an application ready to come even if it seems like a small application.

[1:52:30] but it's not not available for a meeting for 30 days. I'm perfectly willing to have a special

[1:52:38] meeting so that the applicants don't suffer the delay, but I agree with you probably with the

[1:52:43] workload you've got. You need to you have a discretion to be able to do one meeting a month.

[1:52:49] Yeah, we really want to do the work. We have it. We've found that we've not been able

[1:52:54] over the last month and a half and so this is a really good happy medium for us.

[1:53:00] Well, and that's my big concern, too, is just that we don't delay, you know, the applicant's

[1:53:08] time. And you may not know this. Actually, none of you may know this, but we had a terrible reputation

[1:53:16] for decades, maybe, but years for really being slowed, you know, in our planning and building

[1:53:25] department and we did I think and I wasn't involved but others were made a lot of improvements

[1:53:34] in that area and I would hate for the community feel like we're taking a step back so

[1:53:39] as long as you're willing to you know put a meeting put some things on you know things

[1:53:44] are coming up on an agenda and applicants you know if there's an unnecessary weight we can

[1:53:50] kind of pushed that through a little sooner?

[1:53:52] Yeah, I will say that so far experience has been

[1:53:56] the open communication with the applicants

[1:53:59] has worked really well, we're moving in constant

[1:54:03] direction of making that even better every time.

[1:54:06] I have no desire to become less efficient

[1:54:10] or less customer friendly.

[1:54:13] So I kind of feel like I was brought on here to propel those things.

[1:54:19] I just also want to say that usually even though I live here I work pretty far away and if I

[1:54:27] start seeing like a big agenda and I have to get up at four in the morning the next day and I'm

[1:54:32] an active construction guy and that's what I think I bring to the table and I've always asked

[1:54:37] to other cities and I wish we had a construction guy and our plan commission well it's hard if I

[1:54:43] are seeing that it gets long and debatable and I'd rather have two short ones whether they're

[1:54:49] two or three hours, but then I got to sleep sometime, right?

[1:54:52] I just want to say that how did it start seeing you might call in sick if it gets fruity

[1:54:57] ugly because I got it making to work, too.

[1:54:59] Luckily I think our code protects you.

[1:55:03] That's fine.

[1:55:04] Commissioner Lopez, before you benefit, we'll bring back the Hunter subdivision matter,

[1:55:10] Which for some of us took eight or nine hours in one fell swoop, but good point.

[1:55:17] All good, well, because the most important thing is for you is staff to pace yourself,

[1:55:21] to be able to have the time to do good quality work, by the way, great quality work for this meeting today, as usual,

[1:55:27] and we're happy to support you in any way we can. Thanks.

[1:55:31] And I think if that's it, I think we're ready to adjourn before 8 o'clock.

[1:55:36] before we adjourn on that note we are adjourning to August 18th so you wanted to make sure that

[1:55:42] everybody's here.

[1:55:46] I need at least a quorum so now we're down one. Let's see. We'll check.

[1:55:50] And I would like to ask you what the next steps are for filling the next commissioner that

[1:55:55] open seed. Thank you for that. Yes, so we have applications open and available right now.

[1:56:03] One of the plugs that I would provide is that I think that there is definitely a need for anybody interested in the operations of our downtown.

[1:56:17] And so, you know, the not necessarily operations, but the planning projects and having that focus area.

[1:56:23] So any business owners down there, any housing, strategists, those are all welcome positions

[1:56:32] here from a professional standpoint.

[1:56:36] I think that that is definitely something that could benefit all of us as we move through

[1:56:44] the next stages.

[1:56:45] Good point.

[1:56:47] I'm clear for the 18.

[1:56:49] Okay, great.

[1:56:50] I'm available.

[1:56:51] I believe I am, but I'll double check.

[1:56:52] great. And I see Michelle looking.

[1:57:01] So then the August 4th meeting would be canceled. Yes. Or maybe

[1:57:07] never scheduled. Yes. So we'll be looking at what the technicalities are of that. But yes,

[1:57:12] we were waiting until after this evening for me to let you all know what our plan was moving forward.

[1:57:19] Very good. Great work. And with that, I will, I turn our meeting. Thank you. Good work.

[1:57:25] and we'd lucky for air conditioning.

Planning Commission

Transcript