Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. We're going to go ahead and get started. Madam Chair, we're live when you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Napa County Board of Supervisors meeting. I'm calling this meeting of August 11th, 2026 to order. May I have roll call, please?

Vice Chair Alessio?

Present.

Supervisor Ramos? Here. Supervisor Gallagher? Here. Supervisor Cottrell? Here. Chair Manfrey?

Here. Would everyone who's able please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Thank you. And our next item on the agenda is our pet of the week. So when our handlers are ready, it would be great to meet Luna, our pet of the week.

I know, she's a heartbreaker. I know. What can you tell us about Luna today?

Hi, guys. So my name is Kelly. I'm the community programs coordinator and the behaviorist at the shelter. And so this is Luna. She's six years old. She did have a microchip, so Luna is her government name. So we will keep that for her. She's super sweet. She is great with dogs. She is great with everybody she's met. She is pretty calm. I swear she's pretty calm. She does have a very playful side. She did great in the car ride over here. Just a really easy dog. She's great for walks, house trained. She's really kind of the whole package. And so also, of course, as always, the fees for her will be 100% waived if you adopt her this week. And then for the rest of August, all animals at the shelter are 50% off their adoption fees for clear the shelter month. And then this weekend, we actually have a Cats at the Library adoption event. We do this every year. And so on Saturday from 11 to 1, it will be at the American Canyon Library. And all of our kittens and cats that are there will be 100% waived adoption fees. So if you're looking for a kitten or cat, now is going to be the time.

OK, thank you very much for bringing us Luna today. She's gorgeous. And I'm sure she'll find a good home soon. Good to meet you, Luna. Okay, our next item is the approval of proclamations and commendations. We have two proclamations today, one recognizing August 2nd through 8th as Farmers Market Week, and another recognizing the month of August 2026 as Child Support Awareness Month in Napa County. And is there any public comment on our proclamations today? Seeing none, may I please have a motion to approve the proclamations in a second? So moved. Second? Motion by Alessio, second by Supervisor Cottrell. All those in favor? Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you. I would like to welcome Cara Mae Woolwich to receive the Farmers Market Week proclamation at this time. And I'll be up for that one. Thank you.

Can we all stand up, or is it just me?

We have a whole room here.

Oh, well, bring everybody. Oh, come on up. Yes, everybody.

OK. I just thought you wanted to see the Board of Supervisors today. OK. So what would you do? What would you do? I know. Okay, so whereas 187 California farmers, food makers, and artisan crafters play a vital role in ensuring that thousands of Napa County residents have direct access to nutrition, locally and regionally grown foods, and handcrafted goods through the California Certified Farmers Markets in Calistoga, Napa, St. Helena, and Yonville, And farmers markets nationwide provide critical infrastructure for the distribution of agricultural and value-added products, contributing approximately $9 billion annually to the US economy. And California-certified farmers markets in Napa County serve as significant outlets by which small to new, medium, beginning, and veteran agricultural producers market agricultural products, generating revenue that supports the sustainability of family farms and the stewardship of precious agricultural land. and Napa County recognizes the importance of the Calistoga, Farmstead, St. Helena, Napa, Kaiser Napa, and Yachtville farmers markets as organizations that stimulate local business development and job creation, build community connections through direct-to-consumer relationships, and help to ensure that all Napa County residents have access to fresh and nutritious locally produced food. And in strong partnership with the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner's Office, Environmental Health Division, and Health and Human Services Agency, California certified farmers markets across Napa County are places community members can rely on to purchase locally grown produce and safely produced food. And the farmers markets in Napa County are dedicated to doing their part to address local food insecurity and last year provided over $200,000 in food assistance to increase equitable access to local food by our low-income neighbors. And a new regional initiative, Farmers Markets of Napa Valley, made possible through funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farmers Market Promotion Program, unites six certified California-certified farmers markets in Napa County under a shared platform designed to strengthen local agriculture, support small family farms, and connect residents and visitors with fresh, locally grown food. Now, therefore, let it be proclaimed that this Board of Supervisors, County of Napa, State of California, on this 11th day of August 2026, does hereby proclaim the week of august 2nd through 8th 2026 as napa county farmers market week in conjunction with the observance of national farmers market week we call upon all napa county residents to support the calistoga farmstead st helena napa kaiser napa and yachtville farmers markets and their mission to support local farmers markets and provide inclusive places for the entire community to purchase farm fresh produce specialty foods and artisan goods directly from the source

Thank you for being here.

So I'd like to invite Cara Mae Woolidge to address us about farmers markets. Great.

Thank you so much, Chair Manfrey. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Board of Supervisors and county staff and everyone here. I am Cara Mae Woolidge, the Executive Director of the Napa Farmers' Markets. While proclamations are always a fun way to celebrate our shared love of farmers' markets, I want to give special acknowledgments to the people working for the county that are essential to our market operations and food access programs. from the Agricultural Commissioner's Office, Tuesday Molito, Andre Napolitano, Veronica Oguni, Daniela Reagan, Jesus Tejero, Madeline Wise-Carver, Brandon Woolley, Summer Woolley, and Tracy Cleveland. These folks ensure that we keep the promise that our farmers grow what they sell and the integrity of the market by ensuring that these small farmers are growing what they're selling and that this is the freshest food that folks can get in Napa County. From the Environmental Health Division, Sarah Garcia, Michelle Lobo, Adani Ogoyeni, Avi Soma, Opal Stanfield, Willow Williams, and Janiyah McGill. These folks at Environmental Health keep our community safe by ensuring that our food is sold at the Napa Farmers Market is produced in a way that is safe. And the Health and Human Services Agency, Ali Mueller and Mukhi Kamanti at WIC, and Ali with CalFresh, they help connect us with our neighbors with low income that are receiving food assistance so we can ensure that our neighbors are accessing locally fresh food. Because as a part of the Napa Farmers Market mission, we believe that fresh, sustainably grown local food is for everyone, which is why we dedicate ourselves to increasing equitable access to farm fresh fruits and veggies. And since returning to downtown Napa in June of 2020, our customer counts have grown 180%. Over the past six years, the Napa farmers market has brought over 871,000 people to downtown Napa, including over 688,000 visits by our Napa city and county neighbors. And starting in 2012 with just $500, we've offered the CalFresh Market Match program, which doubles food assistance benefits for our neighbors with low income. As of 2025, we've matched over $475,000 in CalFresh benefits, which translates into increased sales for our small farmers and makes over 950,000 servings of locally grown fruits and vegetables for thousands of our Napa neighbors. The Napa Farmers Market has many other food access programs and exciting data points, so I invite you to explore our 2025 impact report at napafarmersmarket.org. And one last thing before I wrap up here today with my colleagues. We are thrilled to announce a new regional initiative, Farmers Markets of the Napa Valley, made possible through grant funding from USDA's Farmers Market Promotion Program. I cannot stress what a big deal this is. There were hundreds of RFPs submitted to this competitive grant program, and out of 44 that were completely funded, we were one out of five in California. So this joint marketing campaign unites all of the California certified farmer markets in Napa County under a shared platform. And check us out at farmersmarketsofnv.org, a one-stop shop to help you find all farmers markets across Napa County. So you can celebrate National Farmers Market Week, which was actually last week, all year long. But we live in beautiful Napa County, which means that we have the privilege to shop at farmers markets year-round. And is there anyone else that would like to say something, Wendy?

Thank you. My name is Wendy Strawn, and I have the great good fortune of being president of the board for the St. Helena Farmer's Market. I have to say the proclamation spells everything out perfectly, so we can't add too much to that. But I wanted to say our farmer's market started 40 years ago. Sheila Mannix, who lives in Angwin— realized that so many of her neighbors like her really wanted access to fresh produce. So she set about meeting with other farmer's market managers, with the farmers, and opened our first farmer's market on July 4th, 1986. on Main Street across from Maryvale Vineyards. So here we are, 40 years later, and as Cara May has said, we're delighted to be able to support our local farmers. Do remember that the farmers' markets are normally the only venue that a farmer has to sell the produce, so they're very important. We're delighted to be able to provide a place for the community to access all this wonderful produce. And a subject that's dear to all of our hearts, food insecurity is increasing, certainly up in our area, and it's very sad to see. So just like the Napa market, we offer a market match. I'm there every week. I get to see these people. They're not perhaps the profile you would imagine. bad luck. And many of the ones came to us initially have got themselves up and running. So for us, the market matches are very important. So I thank you very much, and I hope you'll come and visit us. We are May to October, Crane Park, Fridays, 7.30 to 12. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. I'd like to invite my colleagues to join me in the well, and everyone here from the farmers markets to join us in the well for a photo.

Oh, yeah. Ready?

One, two, three.

Thank you.

Okay, whenever you're ready, Supervisor Ramos. Thank you so much. It is my pleasure to invite up our Director of Child Support Services, Doug Duard, and our Assistant Director of Child Support Services, Ms. Avery, to receive our next proclamation. This is Proclamation Child Support Awareness Month, August 2026. Whereas Child Support Awareness Month recognizes the critical role that parents play in providing both emotional and financial support essential to the well-being and development of their children. enabling them to grow into healthy, productive, and well-adjusted adults. And whereas Napa County affirms that consistent, timely financial support from all parents not only fosters a child's physical and emotional health, but also plays a key role in reducing child poverty and promoting long-term family stability. And whereas Napa County Department of Child Support Services has consistently been ranked as one of the top performing child support agencies in the state of California based on the federal performance measures delivering quality services to those who live, work, or have family in Napa County. And whereas during the past year, the dedicated staff of Napa County Child Support Services has collected well over 10 million in child support, positively impacting the lives of over 2,300 families across the region. And whereas the governor, of the State of California declared August 2026 to be Child Support Awareness Month in the State of California, specifically mentioning that providing children with a healthy start is one of the best investments our state can make. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that this Board of Supervisors, County of Napa, State of California, on this 11th day of August 2026, does hereby recognize August 2026 as Child Support Awareness Month in Napa County. And in doing so, we encourage all members of the community to increase their understanding of the importance of timely and adequate payments of child support. Furthermore, this board recognizes that every family, in all their diverse shapes and sizes, has different wants and needs, but that we all have the same shared goal of protecting and uplifting the generations of our future. I just wanted to add my personal gratitude as our family is a client of Child Support Services and the dignity that this office and this amazing team provide to every single family is unparalleled. And you have been recognized year over year. And as a client, I absolutely know why. So congratulations on this recognition. And thank you so much for being here. And we invite you to say a few words.

Thank you. I love your shoes, by the way.

Thank you, Chairwoman Manfrey and the Board. Thank you for recognizing August as Child Support Awareness Month and for your ongoing commitment to children and families of Napa County. If I would, if I may, I'd like to brag a little about some of my team members if I could. Our case managers that work for our department now have an average of 18 years of experience. And I think that's what helps bring our performance numbers in line. And it really speaks to their commitment to what they do and the importance that they find in this job. And so I'm so proud to work with them and for them and help them serve the people of this county. Part of that experience comes with some conveniences, and that's led us to become number one in the state in the critical areas of collecting child support arrears, and second in the highest performing agency in the state for collecting current child support, Trailing Only Marin, and we're working together as a conglomerate with Marin and Sonoma right now, which has led all three of our counties to be in the top five in the state.

So we're very proud of our collaboration with our neighbors here up in the North Bay.

We also, a couple days ago, at National Night Out, we were able to distribute 173 backpacks with school supplies. This year, Ms. Avery's idea was to add on a little personal touch where we were able to let the children personalize by sewing on patches and iron on patches and pins, and the children seem to love it. So that's going to be an ongoing feature that we look forward to. And finally, I'd like to thank the board and the county in general for our new home. It's beautiful down there by the sheriff's office. If you haven't seen us yet, come on down, pay us a visit. We'd love to have you down there. We're also so glad to be a little bit closer to our constituencies down in the American Canyon area. I think it's a much more convenient place for us to be, and hopefully it will be more convenient for most people. So I'd like to thank my team and thank the county for your ongoing recognition of August as Child Support Awareness Month, and we look forward to moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. That brings us to item five on our agenda, our consent calendar items A through O. Do we have any board comments or items to pull from the consent calendar today? I am not seeing any. I was going to make a comment, but afterwards.

Well, you can comment now if you prefer. Well, I just want to say two things. One, it's great to see IMG having prevention and intervention, waiver health services funds for all these great agencies that's listed on our agenda. Each one of them works very hard to serve our community and this is a great need in Napa County as it is statewide, probably nationwide. Also in regards to item M, I'm very happy to see that there's going to be a project at Silverado and Oak Knoll and Silverado and Zipperdale Lane due to the Highway Safety Improvement Program. And they're going to be enhancing safety through, it says, including right lane turn improvements, upgraded bicycle facilities, enhanced striping and pavement marking, advancing flashing beacons, and related roadway improvements. So this is really needed on Silverado Trail, and those are two high conflict or potential high conflict areas. So it's great to see both. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you for calling those things out. Any other comments or... Nope, I'm not seeing any. Okay, so we will go ahead and... Oh, is there anyone wishing to make public comment here today? Ms. Malin, go ahead when you're ready. You'll have three minutes.

Good morning. Yes, is this the right time to ask?

This is for anything on the consent calendar items A through O.

Okay, I would like to pull E. Ask you to pull E, please. Okay. For conversation.

Okay. Let's see. Is there a comment you want to make about it during your three minutes here?

Yes.

Okay. Do we do that now or when we...

Either way. You can do it during...

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. If you want to just go ahead now with your comment and then we'll have, you know, a couple minutes to take it, you know, think about it before we... Okay. Yeah. Because I'll go ahead and pull the item and we'll discuss it. And go ahead.

Okay, great, thank you. Yes, so item E is reappoint Julie Shambone, Monica Cooper, Albert Filippi, and Miguel Garcia and Mathias Gondal for a third term to the Napa County Technical Advisory Group. for groundwater sustainability the term of the office shall commence immediately and expire on June 30th and the reason I'm asking you to pull it is because how long now have they been on this groundwater technical advisory group this is like five years or something like that and originally there were some of us that asked that we have a scientist on there that could advocate for public trust concerns regarding groundwater depletion affecting the streams in the Napa River we have segments going dry due to groundwater pumping and of course surface water diversions, but this is regarding groundwater and trying to reach sustainability by 2042. And a lot of the discussion that commences on this technical advisory group is regarding technical aspects of agriculture. and how to improve irrigation. And there's discussion of metering, but that doesn't go very far because the industry doesn't want to be metered and doesn't want to report how much groundwater they're extracting. So there's some disconnects there. But it just seems to me in this technical advisory group that's supposed to meet monthly and make recommendations to the Groundwater Sustainable Agency, which is all of you, is that we get lost. We lose the real significance of what groundwater unsustainable groundwater pumping does, which is it dries up the river and it kills the fish and it kills all the aquatic animals and it causes problems with the terrestrial animals and people can't fish, swim, and recreate. It's very devastating. And this is happening on the Napa River on a regular basis. And I just think that we need someone on this technical advisory group that can bring that to the conversations and the discussions of where groundwater sustainability is heading and not to lose the fact that

it's not just a yearly report that says that we're over pumping that along the way that's three minutes we'll take public comment again when we get to thank you this being pulled on the agenda yeah may I of course just uh um if and if it's okay with Ms Malin um instead of pulling the item I think Mr Bordona could come up to the mic okay maybe address some of what you said and if If that satisfies you, maybe we don't have to pull it. Okay.

My recommendation on this topic I think would be to come back to the GSA and have a broader discussion about the role of the TAG. Ask ourselves how it's doing. Could it be doing things differently? If that results, then changing the makeup of it to potentially include a biologist or ecologist to inject more of the biological topics into the overall discussion. I think that would be a good way to go about it, have a more broad conversation about the role of the tag. The tag has been doing what it's been doing for the last five years. If we're going to, to some extent, hit a reset button on what the tag, what we want the tag to be doing going forward, I think we would want some clarity and direction from the GSA as to how to go about that. So that would be my recommendation that we bring this before the GSA at their next meeting or at a future meeting and have a discussion and receive direction.

Do you need a referral for that or?

That would be great.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So I'd be happy to make a referral that we discuss this at a later date at more length. And for the time being, I mean, this is, to my understanding, something that the Board of Supervisors acting as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency can adjust anytime they wish. And so I don't see a problem. I don't think it's going to have to go all the way till next year to examine what's going on. and do the best we can to steward our water supplies. So, okay, so I will take back my request to pull that and we'll have continuing discussions about it at a later date. Yes.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar in its entirety. I'll second that.

Okay, I have a motion by Supervisor Ramos and a second by Vice Chair Alessio. All those in favor? Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. That brings us to item six, which is public comment for any item not on the agenda today and or on our closed session items. Is there anyone in the room wishing to comment on any item not on the agenda today or in closed session? Welcome, Ms. Malin.

Hi. My name's Chris Malin. And yesterday, as the executive director for the Institute of Conservation Advocacy Research and Education, along with Adam Pina, who is also on this board of ICARE, we went to a training by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board on the Russian River for freshwater harmful algaes. And we have a trained team of volunteers that monitors three sites on the Napa River, at Zinfandel Bridge, at the Napa Ecological Reserve, and also Olsen Park for freshwater harmful algaes. And we do that to try to keep the public and animals safe from cyanobacteria toxins that can bloom out of control during the warm season. And one of the things that I learned yesterday is that we should be putting the signs up warning the public as the conditions change. And right now, meaning caution or danger for freshwater harmful algae. And right now, Napa County just has a generic sign up that freshwater harmful algaes could occur. But the trainer recommended that we go out and post what's actually happening. so that the public doesn't get sign fatigue and just bypass the algae signs. Because they need to learn to be aware, to be cautious, and to stay out of the water, because it's dangerous. So I just wanted to bring that point to Napa County so that maybe we could up our protocol. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Malin. Ms. Anderson, welcome. Good morning, Supervisors. Kelly Anderson out of Angwin. I've noticed over the 30-plus years I've lived in Angwin that Cannon Creek, which runs basically from Viadare, Bremer, down to the Napa River, has been destroyed by every property owner adjacent to the creek. The creek is dry. It's no longer in effect. ephemeral stream, but it is a blue line stream and it feeds directly into the river. And I had an idea. I know staff in the past has sent out a letter notifying people about no grading after a certain time, like the 15th or whatever. If you're a property owner in AWOS, you need to stop work at this time. I'm wondering how difficult would it be to notify property owners, maybe in their tax bill, maybe when a property changes, you are adjacent to a named stream and these are the setback requirements that need to be upheld. I mean, I'm finding it personally exhausting and very depressing. to watch a new homeowner buy a piece of property and then just put it in a pipe, bulldoze it, park their cars on it. I mean, truthfully, I do not have the energy to be the Cannon Creek Karen. But somebody has to be, OK? And I have one little more minute. As you know, maybe you don't, there was a home fire in Deer Park during the last PG&E power outage. And that was caused by a home generator. These are friends of mine. And they're responsible thinking people that have owned that house for a very long time. But the use of portable generators during these power outages is really dangerous. It's dangerous because of the exhaust. It's dangerous because you can burn your home down. It's dangerous because a lot of old homes aren't really wired properly to handle that. It's dangerous because people like me aren't really good at starting them up. And it can also cause a wildland fire. So the answer here is PG&E has to get it together. We can no longer let people lose their homes because of inexplicable power outages. Yes, there's work to underground. That's wonderful. We're so excited to see that coming. But in the meantime, there are programs that PG&E has to provide backup grid-powered Tesla power walls that last quite a while. And it would be really great somehow if we could get the word out to people whose homes are adequate, that have adequate wiring. If you're on knob and tube, you can't use it. that there is an alternative to running generators. I mean, there's something about climate change that is induced by burning fossil fuels, causing us to shut down the power because of fire danger. So we fire up more fossil fuel generators to solve the problem. I hope you can help me. Thanks.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Anderson. Any other public comments in the room? Not seeing any. Is there anyone on the phones? Okay, thank you. Then we are at item 7, Board of Supervisors Reports and Announcements. I welcome my colleagues to provide any reports or announcements they have. Supervisor Ramos.

Thank you so much. I'll start off first with a report out from LAFCO that includes a referral to the county. LAFCO last week declined to include what is known as the Imola Affordable Apartments Excess Sites Project within the Napa Sanitation District sphere of influence. Per our housing element, there is a condition, there is a recital, pardon me, in our housing element that says if the Imola Excess Sites Project is infeasible for development, that the County of Napa will engage and help you to locate an alternative site. So I'm making the referral to Council and to the CEO that I think that language is ripe for action, given that there was not the approval to include that into the Napa Sanitation District's sphere of influence. I just wanted to say we had an amazing employee depart for a great opportunity, and that was Catherine Bales, who was our assistant airport manager. And she departed to become the manager of the Truckee-Reno Airport. And a phenomenal opportunity for her, and she definitely leaves a vacuum, but she left a great A great compilation of work, including a lot of the engagement that we've had with Kauffman & Associates and the FAA on flight path alternatives, and so I just wanted to thank her and acknowledge that. The city's biomass conversion facility and the anaerobic digester facility is moving forward, and this is actually really important for bird mitigation. near the airport and so that is moving forward and there have been the wildlife hazard assessments have have been done and I'd be happy to provide more information but that is an important project going going forward when it comes to the things I'm required to tell you about. I attended the Norman Mineta Summer Academy Capstone, Institute Capstone Project and we did have some Napa County students that participated. These are high school students that get a paid internship through MTC. to tell us what they think we need to do better in the world. And it was fantastic. One of the projects I got to see was on wetland recognition and what the region can be doing for wetlands. another one on affordable housing, and another one on public transportation, and one on leadership. So it was very great to see our kids at work. And then just to really thank the sheriff's office for the amount of work that went into a very successful national night out. I was hesitant years ago when you were going to do it in one location, and it truly has been a fantastic draw. I wasn't able to make it down to American Canyon because, as you hear from my voice, I was a little busy at the fair, yelling quite a lot, and congratulations to all of our livestock kids and the path that they have chosen to really be those agriculturalists in action. It truly was phenomenal, and I am glad to not be awoken by pigs anymore, as I was for the last six days. We are going to have Meet Me in the Street in American Canyon this Wednesday from 5 to 8, and I invite you to stop by because we're going to have mini conchas at my booth. Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Ramos. I have Supervisor Cottrell and then Gallagher.

Thank you Chair and thank you Supervisor Ramos for the referral on LAFCO. I sit on LAFCO with Supervisor Ramos and I appreciate that set of next steps. I wanted to give a brief, well first of all I wanted to thank Kelly Anderson for that point about PG&E and Occasionally, we have materials that speak to just what our public commenters say, so I have information here about the portable battery program that PG&E is offering. And tonight in Angwin, Congressman Thompson and I will be hosting a town hall for residents, and we'll be bringing some of those materials there. So thank you, Ms. Anderson, for raising that. And I extend my condolences to the residents in Deer Park who lost their home. So we're looking to do outreach as well there. I wanted to provide an update on something that RCRC has been working on in partnership with CSAC and the League of Cities, which is a package that the governor's office, we understand, is working on with stakeholders. There was a report out called SB 254, which talks about what measures the state needs to take to reduce welfare risk and deal with the huge liability liabilities that come out of a wildfire event. So one of the items, there are quite a few items in this package of solutions. Some of them are positive. For example, establishing a wildfire fund to help provide support after a wildfire. And others are very concerning for counties. And so I just wanted to flag too that are on the top of our list for concern. One of them is a concept we're calling the diminution of value, which would limit the amount of recovery a local government could recover based on the value of a piece of infrastructure. So I'll give you an example. So if you had a water system, for example, that was 20 years old and then was destroyed by a fire, the current proposal would provide recovery only for the current value, the 20-year-old broken-down value, whereas the cost to replace it would be significantly higher. So a proposal like this is really problematic for counties. We will be advocating strongly against that one. Another one that is concerning, and I'm grateful to have our first responders in the room, is limiting recovery for first responders. And that's going to be a real challenge for our first responder partners as well as local governments. So those are two real concerning items that I wanted to flag for my colleagues, and hopefully we'll stay engaged on those topics. And then the other thing, again, having to do with power outages, you heard from Ms. Anderson that there was an extended power outage in the Angwin and Deer Park and St. Helena and Calistoga communities recently. And so I met with a government relations partner at PG&E, Mark Van Gorder, who's here today. Thank you, Mark, for being here. And a couple other staffers to talk about that outage, the causes, and ask for resources to help residents prepare for upcoming epss that's the the quick twitch quick switch when you turn it off quickly and psps events so we'll be talking about that too and again want to also extend congratulations to all the competitors and exhibitors in the Junior Livestock Auction. That's a wonderful community event to see all the hardworking youth who are there and also see the way the community comes out to support. So thank you for that and good luck with the hay fever, Supervisor Ramos.

Thank you, Supervisor Cottrell. Supervisor Gallagher and then Supervisor Alessio.

Thank you. I wanted to report that I attended the California Association of Sanitation Agencies conference last week, which was held in Napa. It was actually really, really interesting. So those of you who think that sanitation is not interesting, well, you have another thing coming. It is absolutely fascinating because we talk about water, and it actually is really, really interesting to talk a lot about water. So I do want to congratulate Napa Sanitation District, which won the Organizational Excellence Award. And also we had some really great speakers. I'm going to be reviewing some of what I learned over the next few months in my newsletter, so please Please read. Also, I'll be working with Council Member Narvaez from the City of Napa. We're going to be working with staff from the Flood Control District and a couple of other members from the Flood Control Board to do a neighborhood meeting to talk more about the southern end of the flood control project, which is about 35% designed at this point. But we have special interest, of course, from the Riverside Drive neighborhood, and we're working collaboratively with Friends of the River, as well as flood control staff members. So we will be having a community meeting for that neighborhood. We don't have a date yet, but if you are in that neighborhood, please Stay tuned. I will definitely be posting that and including that in the newsletter as well and we'll have the county help us with reaching out on that. Also, I did also want to thank the organizations who we approved funding for today through BHSA for their really important partnership doing behavioral health work in our community. So I think that deserves a call out and thank you to Supervisor Alessio as well for calling that out. I also agree that I would like to look at going forward how the tag can best serve the GSA. I think this is a good point at which we reassess that and make sure that we are being served by the GSA in a way that really does help us to manage the sub basin but also implement our GSP and be creative in our thinking as to how we move forward and assure climate resilience and avoid those undesirable results as they're called. And, also, I do think that next year National Night Out really should include the board members serving at the dunk tank. And I know that Supervisor, I know Supervisor. At or in? In the dunk tank. I mean, what? No. We don't throw it. People throw it at us. And Supervisor Ramos does not like this idea. But I think that we would attract a lot of people to National Night Out if we put ourselves up. And I don't know, I think probably some of the first responders do. And maybe the CEO. Anyway, this is just a fun one. We've been talking about this since last year. Okay, that was just a little, you know, you don't have to wear like a suit.

All right, I'm done. Thank you, Supervisor Gallagher. Hard act to follow. Supervisor Alessio?

Controversy here at the dais. I am with Supervisor Ramos and I oppose that motion. Just a few things. First of all, I want to welcome Scott Wagner. He's, hey Scott, he's at his new capacity as the Director of Housing and Community Services. We're thrilled that you're here and welcome to your first Board of Directors. meeting as you're this director's new position. So thank you and congratulations in person. Also, I have great news. LaPete Oliphant Nursery and Preschool opened their doors today to working families, their children, and babies. And this has been a long haul, a big haul. I think there's been a lot of things that have been learned along the way. And a couple things we've learned, one is a result is SP 299, which is for the protection for childcare in residential areas to have the ability to open. Just as a reminder for every nine babies born in our county, there's only one space for that infant. And the other thing to note is that now that we have TK in the schools, the business model around child care and infant care has been set on its kind of What's the word? It's making it more challenging for it to even be viable. So it's great that we have four-year-olds in preschool, but it's pulled away part of their business model and very important funding for them to keep their doors open. Child care providers are not wealthy people. They don't make a lot of money, but they add a lot of tremendous amount of value, public safety, public health. and even supports our economy. So all things that we can do as a community continue to support child care providers and those who have the heart to open a business and provide this care for our working families and their children are to be commended. And so SB 299 is currently in the Senate, I mean in the assembly, it passed the Senate, it's currently in the assembly and it's pending referral to a policy committee. The other state legislation around child care that I think would be very positive is AB 1914. And if that passes, that means that cities and counties doing general plans includes child care in that planning. So I think that makes a lot of sense, too. I was going to mention the Napa Town Country Fair, just overall amazing success. It's just a clean, wonderful, positive experience for the community, all ages, all backgrounds. I always enjoy experiencing and watching the Junior Live Auction. and the awards and we congratulate Supervisor Ramos' children for their success and all the hard work to get to that. I'm really excited. Great to see these kids get recognized. Great to see the dedication and the hard work that's required to do so. So I just want to make a shout out to that. National Night Out was great. Like I said, I'm not getting in the dunk tank anytime soon. But I'm happy to support anybody else who wants to. But just want to thank all our first responders for what they do year round. And for making National Night Out something that people can approach and kids can learn about. and feel comfortable with. I think that's really important. You know, being a first responder is a community effort, such as community policing and community, you know, fire prevention and, you know, emergency responses, emergency health responses. So it's really spectacular. And the Highway Patrol brought out the helicopter, which was very exciting. So I want to thank the Highway Patrol for doing that this year. The last thing I just want to give a heads up that this Thursday, the Salvation Army is having their annual fundraiser out of the fire. All the funds from this fundraiser stay here locally, just as when they do the bell ringing for the Christmas holidays. There's some confusion that the funds leave this county. It doesn't. All funds at this fundraiser and for bell ringing stay in this county for their programs a lot around food access. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Alessio. Okay. I have probably briefer comments. Since I last attended a meeting, I've attended a number of reportable meetings. Metropolitan Transportation Commission on June 24th, the flood district on July 14th. I presume updates have probably happened since then because there was a board meeting in between. There was also a special meeting for MTC on July 24th where we looked at the next generation Clipper update was the agenda item. And so anyone interested in how the Clipper cards are working or not working, that's there in that meeting if you want to look it up. NVTA most recently heard about our countywide transportation plan and Vision Zero. We got updates on those projects. And at the August 4th flood district special meeting, we talked about ongoing issues with the Napa-Abajo flood wall proposals and other updates for projects moving forward along the Napa River flood walls getting put in. And I also attended National Night Out, and I observed that the dunk tank was a very popular feature. Supervisor Gallagher, I'll let you know that I watched a small child walk right up to the lever and just hit it with their hand. So if you're ready for that level of public participation, I'm happy to join you. And we can talk about how to coordinate our outfits and our blazers for the dunk tank, okay? Looking forward to it. That's it, I believe, for our reports and announcements. There's also another MTC meeting tomorrow for anybody who's following regional transportation planning. You'll see me and Supervisor Ramos there if you join the meeting. And I'd also like to make a referral to staff requesting a proclamation for Teen Mental Health Month to come before the board on August 25th. That's something that didn't quite make this agenda, but we'd like to see it at our next one. Yes. Okay. And so we have... Yes. Oh, yes. Let's take a eight-minute comfort break. See you back here at 10 at 05. Yes.

Madam Chair, we're ready when you are.

Thank you. We are back from our brief intermission there. And our next item is a discussion of anything pulled from the consent calendar. We did not ultimately pull anything today. So we're going to move on to Item 9, administrative items. And I look forward to receiving a presentation from the rural county representatives of California Presidents. and CEO Patrick Blacklock regarding the organization's 2025 to 2027 strategic plan, legislative priorities, and the activities of its affiliate entities supporting California's rural counties. Thank you. Welcome today. Thank you for being with us.

Thank you, Chair and members, for having me here today. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. And I just wanted to say from the onset, please stop me anywhere where you've got a question or feedback. I'm going to try to move fairly quickly through the material today because I know you've got more items this morning and this afternoon. But the value for me is to hear what's on your minds, the questions that you have. So please do stop me anywhere along the way. That said, I'm going to move right into it. And one of the things I'm going to talk a little bit about today is who RCRC is, but also some of our affiliate entities. And to that end, our board created a strategic plan about a year ago. It's a three-year plan. And I think the topics that you'll see on here probably look familiar to you, whether it's broadband, rural health access, wildfire resilience, et cetera. But I want to draw your attention to the vision on the right-hand side, because our board's vision for us is to be both their premier advocate in Sacramento and in DC, but also their innovative service provider. And to that end, think of us as the entrepreneurial arm of rural counties. When there's a challenge too big for a small county, they'll come to us to see if we can get economies of scale through our 40 counties and members. And over the years, that's led to us creating a number of both nonprofit and public agencies to do work on behalf of counties. So that's the second part of what I'll cover today. But we are in the middle of the – or near the end of the legislative session and very much in the thick of it with the topics that are being addressed in the final month of this year's legislative session. And so I want to start with advocacy because advocacy has long been the cornerstone of RCRC and our work. Again, I think the topics on this slide are ones that are probably quite familiar to you. But I would draw your attention to the key topics box because that's some of the higher profile issues that we're dealing with right now. And our board will form ad hoc committees to update policy around those topics, one of which is Sustainable Groundwater Management Act that you were just talking about. I want to thank Supervisor Cottrell for chairing that committee on behalf of our board. And they have been meeting steadily throughout the year, the goal being to develop updated policy that can then guide our advocates Particularly as we look that we're well into implementation of SGMA, there are likely refinements that could be put in place with SGMA. So this committee will work to identify what those might look like and then embed those in our policy. Two other topics I'm going to mention from this slide. One is state mandates. This has been a perennial challenge for counties. As you likely know, when the legislature enacts legislation that comes with a new, that requires the county to provide a new or expanded service, but funding isn't provided, it is potentially reimbursable as a mandate. But potentially means counties must file a test claim with the State Mandates Commission. And for many years, counties were pretty good about that. But then we dropped off for a decade or two. And that meant many potential mandates went through that ultimately couldn't be reimbursed because you must file a test claim within one year of triggering that cost. So our CRC has brought on some folks to help us file test claims on behalf of our member counties. And we've started really increasing the cadence of that. One, it helps make sure you get reimbursed, but two, it puts the legislature on notice that when legislation is enacted that brings a new cost or an expanded service to the county, we're going to play our role to ensure that that mandate is reimbursed. Secondly, we have an RFP out to help primarily our small counties then successfully file for reimbursement, and we have about a half a dozen counties that haven't received mandate reimbursements in the last year, and then another half a dozen or so that are well below the average, so we're going to help them on that front. And then the last thing on this box I was going to mention is the Jail Medical Services Study. Napa County is part of the Bay Area region of our counties looking at what are the long-term options for jail medical services. I really appreciate Napa being part of that, given your unique model with the corrections department. And so having you there at the table to bring your experiences forward I think is going to really help inform, ultimately, what are 25 counties across five regions that are looking at this question of what's the best long-term option for jail medical services. But we are in the final session. As Supervisor Cottrell mentioned, there are a number of topics that are getting a lot of attention. One of those is certainly wildfire liability. The challenge is those conversations are happening, but there's not actually language in print, and there likely won't be until the final days of the legislature. So that means we must do our advocacy up front. We must make sure that the legislators are well aware of county concerns. Wildfire liability is one. Liability reform in general for counties is a second one where there's conversations occurring. HR1 and its potential impacts on county indigent health programs is another one. Fortunately, Napa County is well positioned by Ming and CMSB in having a member of your staff on the CMSP board. You're in a little bit better position than some of the other counties as a result. And then one of the topics that you brought up earlier, child care, CEQA reform, Senator Cabaldon's bill on that front is also where Napa County is a leader in helping advance that set of legislation as well. All of those things in the next two weeks are going to get settled one way or another and then show up in print and in the final week be voted on. So it's a very, very busy time at the legislature as a result. I'm going to move on from advocacy to our affiliate entities, but happy to pause for a second if there's any questions at this point. If not.

Thank you for the introduction so far. I just want to flag my colleague, Supervisor Ramos, has been tracking sort of state mandate issues. So not to volun-tell anything, but I think that when you're looking for other instances or things like that, there could be probably useful conversations there.

Well, I would say if Napa County would like to file a test claim, we'll do the work of filing the claim. We just need the data from Napa. So if there's a particular mandate that you find egregious that you would like to be the one to file, because once one county files a test claim, all 58 benefit from that. To elaborate for a second, part of what we are doing is that if that one year period is passed for LA County, it probably has not for Alpine County. And so if we can find one of our rural county members for which the statute has not yet passed, we'll file that claim on behalf of that county. And then again, all 58 benefits. So something to keep in mind.

Thank you so much, and I do appreciate that. And I think that this is a great opportunity for us to have greater collaboration with CSAC and to look at what those are, looking at our unfunded mandates report. Certainly, we've drawn down the data specifically on court security. That's a very, very clean one where we can see the cost to the county. The one that we're also tracking right now is the mandated changeover of our website and email addresses from .org to .gov.

Absolutely. So happy to do that and maybe connect Arthur to Cheryl and do a little bit more work on that front with you. So I'm just going to move quickly through some of our affiliate entities. As I mentioned, we have both public and private entities. Golden State Finance Authority is a joint powers agency made up of the same 40 counties that provides financing for a number of different projects, from down payment assistance to our most recent one is providing a grant advance line of credit. And so here is where if there's a small CSD, for example, in Napa County that received a grant, but they have to expend the funds before they can pull down funding through the grant, we'll provide that cash advance so they have the cash on hand to do that. And as one example, not too far away from Napa County, the Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District recently signed an agreement for $200,000 for a grant advance line of credit for a multimillion-dollar grant they had received for a microgrid project that they're working on. Plumas County has a million dollar grant that we just provided them for a jail project they're working on. So if you have a small district agency in Napa County that maybe received a grant but can't quite figure out how to cash flow it, we're here to help them on that front. Another thing that GSFA does is no-cost down payment assistance for county employees. Now, I know Napa County, I believe you have your own program that's pretty robust, so you haven't had the same participation necessarily as some of our other counties, but know that it's there. We always have the willingness to partner if we can assist, and we have the infrastructure in place to operate that program. Our newest public agency is Golden State Connect Authority. Again, a joint powers agency made up of the same 40 counties. And it was formed five years ago to do one thing, bring high-speed fiber to remote rural communities. And so it was formed five years ago with a budget of zero. Within a year, we had pulled down $19 million to do engineering, including here in Napa County for last-mile fiber deployment. And now we have $285 million for construction. In fact, as we sit here today, we are in construction underground and conduit in Glynn County. We have six more counties where we are funded. $185 million of that came from the California Public Utilities Commission, and then $110 million in private bonds to complement that. And so that will be a program of work for us over the next couple of years. Think of that fiber system as the foundation. The goal is then to build out in concentric circles to continue to hit those rural communities where private providers have either been unwilling or unable to go. We're going to make sure we get high-speed fiber to them. Golden State Natural Resources is a 501 nonprofit our board formed about seven or eight years ago to really partner with state and federal agencies to advance the pace and scale of forest health, forest treatment, forest thinning. And GSNR sees its role as twofold. One is we're partnering with the Forest Service to get more projects approved. We just completed where we did the project management and the environmental clearances for a project in the Modoc National Forest that was about 30,000 acres or is about 30,000 acres. But as you can see in the picture, once those forest thinning projects are complete, and that picture is a completed forest thinning project, there is a considerable amount of low diameter biomass that remains. And if you were to drive along this road that's from Modoc County, you would see pile after pile after pile of that size. Tuolumne County, they told me they had 50,000 piles in their forest that are the result of it. And right now, those piles just sit there to either decompose or be open burned in place. So not a great solution either environmentally or from a financially sustainable viewpoint. So GSNR this fall will be releasing a revised draft EIR that would basically take that material, take it to two sites, one in Lassen County and one in Tuolumne County in the form of wood chips, aggregate it on site, and then be in a position to ship it rail to a future user in California. We're working with Lawrence Livermore Labs in the state of California and the Innovative wood products lab at Cal Berkeley to identify those array of potential future users, but think alternative energy, hydrogen, methanol, or energy production with a carbon capture component to it, or it could be wood insulation as an innovative wood product. They're not yet in California, but our goal is to de-risk the supply side so that when a user does come to California, will be a partner to help position to get the material to them. Ultimately, the idea is if we can find an outlet for the material, then any funding that comes in can be reinvested in forest thinning projects going forward. So look for that document to come out again this fall. Two more. I'll move quickly, I promise. One is our Environmental Services Joint Powers Authority. This is 26 of our counties. Napa is not part of this, but it provides assistance to those 26 with navigating basically the world of waste management regulation and CalRecycle. And then our Rural Advancement Institute is a 501c3 nonprofit we brought back to life a few years ago to do two things. One is provide educational tours for primarily urban legislators and their staff, and we're planning our third annual tour right now for that. And secondly, and this may be of more interest, is we do academic research on topics of interest to rural communities. And the project we're working on right now is with UC Santa Barbara's Wildfire Resilience Center, to study the issue basically of fire and EMS capacity in rural communities, generally the issue of decreasing volunteerism, increasing call volume, and not enough funding for paid staffing. And what do you do? And I know that NAPA has been a leader in this area in developing programs to enhance your volunteer capacity, to support your departments. But a number of our counties are struggling. And in some cases, there are areas where you could be driving and they're may not be an ambulance response if something happens because there isn't dedicated ambulance coverage for those areas, let alone volunteer response. And so right now, counties are dealing with it individually, and there's not a great awareness at the legislature. So our first report has been completed by UC Santa Barbara, and it says probably what you already know, which is this is a big challenge. But for the legislature, this is new information. So we'll be working with CAL FIRE. We'll be working with the Public Safety Committee of the legislature to raise the visibility of the issue. And then we're simultaneously working on a 2.0 version of the report with UC Santa Barbara that will say, OK, here's what we can do. And it will really begin to put some detail around a series of recommendations on what the legislature in particular might be able to do. It's going to take an interesting perspective. It's going to look at it through the lens of rural health equity. And how is rural health equity impacted by diminished fire and EMS capacity in some of our rural communities? And that's a topic that will hopefully resonate with the legislature as we go forward. So look for that report to come out in the coming year. And that gives you a flavor of some of what the Rural Advancement Institute is working on. And that is a very quick summary of what we're up to at RCRC. But I'm happy to take questions or any feedback you may have.

Thank you. I see Supervisor Cottrell and Supervisor Vice Chair Alessio.

Thanks. I just comment. Thank you, Pat, for going through all of it. It feels like I go to the RCRC meetings and there's a lot. So to be able to have it all on a set of slides is very helpful. I think the other thing to flag is the way that RCRC is able to bring different speakers in. We heard from Fiona Ma a couple weeks ago and then had the opportunity to talk with some of the gubernatorial candidates. So it's just one more way to connect people rural counties with folks who are working in Sacramento.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Supervisor Cutrell. Vice Chair Lozillo? Well, first I want to thank you for being here for this presentation and for the efforts and work the RCRC provides to rural counties, but it does ripple into the entire state of California and the residents. And I want to thank John Kennedy in specific with RCRC for his hands on support and effort around improving access and protection of childcare throughout the state. So I appreciate that. I do have one question and that is around the BEAD program. The broadband that is being federal funding that's coming to California, $1.8 billion. and how RCRC is advocating, or if you're advocating, is there a place for RCRC on this? Right now, the funding has been approved, and it's going to go before CPUC at the September 17th meeting for public comments and for a resolution. Is RCRC doing anything to advocate on this?

Short answer is yes. RCRC has been engaged in numerous TPUC proceedings, including the BEAD proceedings. What I might want to do is if you've got specific concerns on that particular hearing is connect you with Tracy Ryan on our team, who's our lead for this, and then make sure that your concerns are communicated with her so that if they are planning to submit anything or comment, they can make sure that's included. I will say for Golden State Connect Authority, We only received funding through the Federal Funds Account Awards, the FFA Awards. We did not seek funding under the BEAT application because we're very targeted for the rural communities we're trying to serve, and that required bigger geographic area applications, in short. We also needed to get our feet on the ground, demonstrate success, and then once we've done that, we'll be ready to maybe move out into some of the bigger areas. So yes, on the advocacy front, and then no, we didn't submit on the GSCA or the construction side.

Okay, very good. Well, it'll be great to have that. I know it's really targeted to rural areas. In my district, Comcast has been assigned to cover that for the rural area, the west side of the county. The east side might be different, but still be funding going to those rural areas, which is really important. So thank you for that. Absolutely.

Okay, thank you so much. I see Supervisor Ramos.

Thank you so much, and I just wanted to say that I really do appreciate the partnership that RCRC and CSAC have had. You know, we've entered a new territory, and when it comes to the carrier of last resort and the importance of making sure that our rural counties are well represented, and so Very much appreciate the outreach that has happened in that regard. We sit in a very interesting place in Napa. We're part of the Bay Area, so we're the small guy in the big pond there. then we're in the suburban designation at CSAC, but then you go out to the hillsides and you definitely realize we very much have a place at RCRC. So I do appreciate the recognition and the opportunity for us to be members and to serve in those leadership capacities through our colleague, Supervisor Cottrell. I did want to say, you know, in regards to things that I do believe that are incredibly important for that consistent engagement between CSAC and RCRC, with my CSAC hat on, I think carry of last resort, although we're in a very interesting relationship or status, I would say. It's not a relationship yet. We're just talking. A status with especially AT&T's determination by the FCC. The leadership that RCRC has taken there in regards to pods is really important. And so definitely do lean on the county of Napa to the extent possible. We have some areas specifically in the eastern side of the county that are just not likely to ever, for topographical reasons, ever be able to reach three alternatives from the POTS. So that's one area to definitely look out for, and we look forward to engagement. The other one is, of course, as we talked on the unfunded mandates, and I I was reminded that AB 1108 is actually your new great test case. AB 1108 requires conflict coroner appointment. I believe most of your RCRC members have a consolidated sheriff coroner appointment. For those of us that have a state facility like the Napa State Hospital or Solano County with Vacaville Correction or others. That brings its own challenges for those conflict coroner type of situations. And really, this comes down to a cost. I don't see any problem that has certainly been identified to say that this conflict coroner was necessary. but it overwhelmingly passed the legislature, which in and of itself is concerning. So I think that would be another one to put on the test case. I think as far as Napa County goes, working with our staff, the administration of justice areas, we have certainly honed in on what those unfunded mandates are, and we'd be happy to engage at a higher level in that subject matter.

One, I want to say we appreciate the partnership with CSAC as well. We're co-parties to the Kohler proceedings, and so appreciate CSAC being there. And then on the mandate front, I think we've got a pretty great, good division of labor where CSAC's really convening around the policy side, and then we're doing the work of filing the test claims, and I think that works well together. I just want to echo what you said on that front. As far as mandate test claims, we have additional capacity to file more claims. And so if NAPA has something in mind and you're willing to do the work of gathering the data, we will do the work of filing the claim. That's been a challenge for us. Some of our small counties, particularly, they just don't even have the capacity to pull the data together. And yet, if you don't, you can't get to an approved test claim. I'll just say one more thing on that front, too. Arthur, our general counsel, found what I'll call an arcane provision of mandate law called legislatively determined mandates. And basically, it says if the legislature tagged it as potentially having a fiscal impact, you can circumvent that test claim process by filing a letter with the Department of Finance as soon as the bill becomes a law, essentially saying, This is a legislatively determined mandate. We should work together to identify that amount so that it doesn't need to go through the test claim process. That has two effects. One is it puts the Department of Finance on notice as we send letter after letter after letter on these new legislations saying these are mandates, puts them on notice that we're going to be doing our role of making sure that we file test claims one way or another. And then secondly, it actually has a statutory provision of tolling the timeframe in which you have to file the test claim. And so as long as the Department of Finance is sitting on that legislatively determined mandate submittal, then the one-year provision, the statute of limitations, is told. So that gives us more time to file a test claim if the Department of Finance ultimately rejects it. So we are on all fronts working to make sure that we get mandates reimbursable to counties and help the legislature be aware of what the potential fiscal impacts are of new legislation. So a little more on that front.

okay thank you any i'm not seeing any more comments from my colleagues um or is there thank you for this incredibly informative presentation um is there anyone from the public wishing to speak who's present in the room on this item i'm not seeing anyone is there anyone on the phones no okay um then i'll ask for any final round of questions or comments i think we're pretty thorough yeah Yeah, really helpful. And yeah, so many nuances. And thank you for especially for fighting for getting unfunded mandates covered because that's the bane of counties everywhere. So yes, thank you. Okay. We are moving on to item 10, which is public hearings. Item 10A is the consideration of an appeal filed by Ariane Ariani. um much a lot and whether apologies for any pronunciation errors and weather vane ranch concerning the napa county planning commission's decision on april 1st 2026 to approve the hagoff and sellers winery use permit major modification number p19-00121-mod submitted by norman weir And I'm going to start by asking my colleagues on the Board of Supervisors if they have any disclosures regarding ex parte communications or new Levine Act disclosures.

So anyone? No. I had one conversation with Beth Painter, who's friends at the winery, and I think she's done some pro bono work for them, but that's it.

Okay, thank you for letting us know. Nothing to report. Yeah, I also have nothing to report. Thank you. So I will open the public hearing and request a staff presentation on this appeal. I welcome Emily Hedge, Planner, Brian Bordona, Director of Planning, Building, and Environmental Services, and Laura Anderson, our Deputy County Council.

Good morning, Chair and Supervisors. Thank you. As you know, you received some correspondence yesterday from the appellant. They provided a set of recommended proposed conditions of approval that they feel would resolve the issues of the appeal. The two councils, parties, the two parties, councils work together on these conditions. And because this has the potential to resolve the appeal, staff recommends beginning this with a discussion of those conditions, kind of temporarily hold on discussing the grounds of the appeal. So if that is amenable to the board, Staff has reviewed all of the proposed conditions and we're prepared to provide our recommendations or direction on them. If that is, again, what the board would like to do or if you have other direction for us, we're happy to take that.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the overview. So does that conclude your opening? Yes. Okay. Great. So I'll invite testimony from the Appalachian Council. Patricia Curtin.

Excuse me, Chair. Oh, sorry. I think that staff was hoping that if the board has questions about those conditions that were offered by the parties, if you'd like to hear from staff on what conditions we think might be appropriate and which ones we may or may not support, then you could hear that from staff first and then proceed to invite the parties.

I'm sorry. Thank you for the clarification. Yes.

It's a little unusual today.

Yeah, it is. I'm trying to follow the notes, but I'm now realizing they're not on track at all. Okay. Let's hear from staff about the proposed conditions of approval before we proceed.

Yeah. If I may, so I understand they were mailed to us yesterday.

Okay.

I need a little help finding them.

They're Neha, our clerk Hoskins sent them at 2.32 in the afternoon, I believe.

Yeah, I did not may I say something there? I'm a little thrown right now. I think the whole board is I saw the comments and the requests I read through those But I also read through the staff report and staff recommendations I feel comfortable moving forward with what staff recommends prior to the I guess what the appellant is asking for, because I felt like the report addressed those requests, and maybe I'm wrong, maybe I misread it, but I don't, I feel a little, maybe we, I don't know, I'm not sure if we try to do this later today so we have time to look at it again, but I'm not really sure how to move forward without more information and guidance based on the preparation I made for this meeting.

So staff stands behind what is before the board in terms of the conditions of approval and the overall staff report and the analysis of the findings. What occurred yesterday at around 2 or 3 o'clock, we got these last-minute agreements, if you will, from the applicant and the appellant. requesting that we formally include those as revisions to the conditions of approval to mend them in to the conditions of approval. We've reviewed those, and if the board is willing to entertain those requests to include those conditions of approval that they agreed upon, We're open to that. We have recommendations on which ones we do support and which ones we do not support and the reasons for that. If the board is not interested in hearing those and is comfortable with what staff has proposed as contained in the staff report, we're fine with moving forward. My sense is that if there is the ability to include some of those conditions in the conditions of approval, it may resolve the appeal and therefore forego the need to have to go through the entire discussion.

Can staff present what those conditions are since I'm a little confused? I apologize.

We got them to you or the clerk of the board got them to you as soon as we got them. And we were scrambling last night to go through them as well. But, yes, we are happy to walk through them line by line.

I think that might be helpful if we could do that so we can catch up.

It was an attempt to maybe save time. Sorry if it came across as a little clunky.

That's okay. Thank you. Maybe that's a place. I'm not sure, Chair, what you think about that. But that would be helpful to me to know where they.

Oh, yeah. I certainly think we need to hear what the new proposal coming in is so that because it sounds like, yeah, it was a scramble yesterday for a lot of people here. And yes.

Just so that I am clear, the document that we are looking at is the one sent by the clerk that has red line comments. I think the first one is privacy mesh shade cloth. Is that the document that we are to ask questions about right now? maybe maybe chair could i suggest could we take a brief a brief recess staff could print us out the exact um compilation of the revised conditions of approval that the parties are asking us to consider i think that's a great idea yeah let's um let's do let's get a fresh set of printouts so we're sure that we have the right thing i'm pretty sure i have the right thing but i i definitely

I think we all need to have the right thing. Yeah. And yes, let's reconvene in just a few minutes.

beliefs don't need to be regulated by the county. So a number of them we are not supportive of. A couple that we are would be under Exhibit A, which is modifying condition from the permit number 99477. They are asking for restrictions on outdoor use area. We are already recommending that we revert back to the existing language that's in the staff report. We believe that would cover most of what they're requesting. In regard to that, we could also add back in our standard condition of approval 4.4 on-premise consumption. This is where we could add the specifics regarding the location that they're asking We feel that would add further clarification that the parties are requesting. Additionally, under, again, prior condition six, number six, which is about the parking, in that area we could also add a condition of approval in that would ask for an updated site plan. They've asked for the site plan as part of this, and also in general they like an updated site plan. Those are two areas where we could add additional conditions that we believe would assist in accomplishing the goals of those recommendations or their proposed revised conditions. The rest staff believes would be more appropriate as a private agreement. And staff would recommend that if you would like to ask the appellant and applicant to come up and discuss further.

Yeah, that would be helpful. If the applicant and appellant would like to provide any further explanation on the proposals that you're putting before us today, that would be really helpful at this time.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair Manfrey and board members and staff. Appreciate this opportunity. And my name is Patricia Curtin. I represent the appellants, Arian Machalot and Weathervane LLC. These properties together own, I'm sorry, these owners own properties at about all three sides of the winery except for obviously Silverado Trail. I've heard many times this evening everybody is frustrated by how long it took us to get these revised conditions of approval to you and I admit it did and I apologized in the e-mail and I'm here to apologize again. We worked for months, months on these conditions and it took us that long to finalize them. These two property owners, well, Arian's been out here since the 80s, and the Haggiff & Winery's been here for I think now over 20 years, and there has been ongoing disputes throughout that entire period of time. Betsy and I, Betsy Strauss, who is the attorney for the permittee, worked extremely hard to come to these conditions of approval. So I beg you and urge you to not only adopt the ones that staff supports but rather all those that we provided to you today. I do need to point out two mistakes or errors if you want to call them, very minor, on the first page of the proposed conditions of approval. We are not asking for a modification to 1I. It's to 1J. I apologize for that. that we're just asking for a report on the number of gallons that are produced each year. That's already reflected in the proposed conditions of approval on page 16. And secondly, we wanted, and Betsy and I already negotiated this condition, to have prior notice of spraying to the property owners in which I represent. They agreed to that condition. It wouldn't be we're going to spray today or tomorrow, but rather they'll explain to us when the spraying period will occur, and that's when they intend to have it scheduled. That's extremely important to us. Now for a minute, I just want to go back. As I said, this has been an issue amongst the parties for quite some time. This is, again, really, really important for us to resolve these issues once and for all, because if they're not resolved here, I don't want to continue this. None of us do. We want these neighbors to get along. They've been neighbors for a long time, and we know that could happen with these conditions of approval. The ones that we're asking that staff's not supporting, one of them is the appellant wants prior notice of certain things. Those notice requirements were in the original conditions of approval. They were removed. We don't know why other than we were told that my clients did receive notice and never objected. Not true. Not true at all. They never received notice of the special events. They never received notice of anything else that they were required to get under these conditions. so we put that language back in we're not asking that this notice be mailed to everybody else that was once on the smelling list but rather the immediate adjacent property owners that's extremely important to us and i'll have arian speak on that point directly so you know personally what it means to her the second one is the storage if you look at the site plan that was just distributed to you that is a very old aerial It is dated January of this year. That is not true. I don't know how old this aerial is, but it's much older than that. But what we would like screened is all that outdoor equipment. You could see vehicles and pallets and everything else that goes up against the property line. There's no setbacks there. That's what we're asking to be screened. The condition of approval that is at page seven is important to us. This is what took us the longest time to negotiate. And we could move it wherever it needs to go in this use permit. If it can't go there because it's a standard condition of approval, that would be fine. But to have this as a private agreement between the parties is troubling because we need the county to stand behind this permit and to protect those who have been in this county for a long time. And we need some very specific provisions in here so we know what needs to be done and what doesn't need to be done. But all we're asking is that that area be screened with the olive trees that are going to be removed from the access road so she doesn't have to and her family doesn't have to continue to look at that outdoor material and storage. Again, that's very, very important. Some of the other issues that we are important to us, as I said, to get noticing of how many visitors come. It's noticing once a year of how many visitors come. It's noticing of once a year how many gallons are produced. And that's important because there have been talk that maybe other things are happening out there. It's also important that we get advance notice of the special events, 12 of them a year, so the neighbors know how to prepare for it. We're not asking for much. I don't really believe we are. But it's important enough to keep the parties happy and to allow things to move on. I'm happy to answer any questions. And I do want to say thank you very much to county council and staff for working with us and being patient. For your time here, I understand the frustration when somebody gives this to you on the eve of. I was a planning commissioner for 20 years in my own community, and I understand that. I'm sorry. But it took four years for this compliance to get in front of you. So just a few more minutes to focus on what's most important we're asking you to do. Thank you very much. Happy to answer any questions. And I'll save Arian's comments on rebuttal. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. So, yeah, are there any other speakers before we go into questions?

This is Betsy Strauss on Zoom, if that's appropriate at this point.

Yes, please go ahead. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much. I very much appreciate the opportunity to join by Zoom, and thank you very much for your patience with this application. I really would like to start out by not only thanking you for your patience, but also the patience and support of your staff, who have really been just wonderful to work with. Not only are they easy to work with, they're very knowledgeable, and I just have nothing but praise for them, and I'd like you to know that. I'd like to explain to you, if I could, the way I'm looking at these conditions that are in front of you. And why I think, in my own opinion, it's not too much of a stretch for you to approve them, or for you to include them in your approval of the permit rather than ask us to do this by private agreement. So if I could just go through that quickly. I put them into sort of two categories. The first is that notice of events, visitor counts, and how many gallons are produced, which are COA2. COA 3 and COA 21 are original conditions of the permit. And so in this process of affirming through your compliance program the use of the winery as it is today, we're simply asking that those original conditions remain. The second sort of category, at least that I'm The way I'm looking at this is condition 6.6 regarding the olive trees as a screen. Your condition 4.16 that is part of your approval or would be part of your approval, I should say, requires screening. And we'd like to suggest to you that 6.6 provides the details of that screening. And so we don't see it as anything other than how to do the screening, not a new condition of screening. Finally, final category of conditions in this list in front of you are the COA 23 regarding the locked gates. and the condition that was just mentioned regarding giving notice of the spring season. And we think that both of those conditions are consistent with the county's interest in balancing the use of the property, the sort of preeminent use, if you will, of the property for agriculture, but the need to balance that use with the residences that surround that use. So we think those gates, the condition regarding the gates and the condition regarding the spraying notice is consistent with what the county's general plan says about, yes, this is agricultural use, but when people are living there, let's try to have those uses get along. So we very much appreciate your consideration of including these conditions in your approval, and we hope to convince you that they're not far from what you've already, what your staff has already recommended. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your time.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Strauss. Okay. So at this time, I'll ask if there's any public comment in the room. Please step forward to the podium, and you'll have three minutes to comment.

Good morning. Michelle Benvenuto, Wine Growers of Napa County. We're not here to stand in the way of an agreement between parties. If it resolves the appeal, we support approving it. But you can't have it both ways. Either it's a private agreement between parties or it's held to the county's own standards. It can't be both. So we'd ask you to prove it as what it is, a private agreement between parties, not new conditions written into a county permit to satisfy a third-party settlement. We should not be writing private demands into a county permit, especially when those conditions do not have a basis in adoptive policy. As with Arrow and Branch, this is a clear illustration of the very concern our industry coalition has been raising and exactly the kind of precedent this board was careful to avoid setting. Under the current process, a project that has met county standards can still be forced to figure out a way out of a meritorious appeal just to move forward. This is exactly what needs to change. We look forward to taking this up with you this afternoon, and thank you for listening.

Thank you, Ms. Benvenuto. Anyone else in the room? Not seeing anyone. Is there anyone on the phones? No. Okay. Then I will bring it back to the board for questions.

Excuse me, sir, time for a rebuttal.

Oh, sorry. What's that? Okay. Yeah, of course. I know that you reserved your time for a rebuttal, so... Yeah, so if you have something that you'd like to say, now would be a good time.

Good afternoon, good morning. I'm Arianne Matchlot, the neighbor to the surrounding, the Goffin Winery. I'd just like to say a couple of things. I've had property and lived part-time and now full-time in Napa since 1977 at Silverado for many years and then on Silverado Trail for the rest. We bought the house on Silverado Trail in 1991 in April. In September, we found out that we were transferred to New York, which was difficult, but I wanted to keep it because I knew I'd never be able to buy it back. So we did, and we were back and forth for a few years. When it came time that we were notified that the winery had been approved, which that was the first notification we had at all, I was told that it was a kosher winery, and I didn't know a lot about that. So at the time, my husband had – the reason we went to New York is he was head of investment banking at Morgan Stanley. He eventually became vice chairman of Seagram's. And at that time, Seagram's was, the head of Seagram's was Edgar Bronfman Jr., Edgar Bronfman Sr., who was head of the World Jewish Congress. And so I could at least understand a little bit about what a kosher winery was. And I didn't know a lot about a winery and being a neighbor, so they also owned Sterling and Mum and asked Ray Chadwick of Sterling and the people from Mum to look at the application. So from that point, we had gone through several iterations of the use permit. The reason I'm asking for help on the conditions is that we don't get any support whatsoever on anything that we've asked for help. An example is the spraying. Last year the agricultural head of that department came out the day they were spraying. They have planted an entire row of vines on all of the property fence lines. And so this particular machine that they concocted was a four by four with a spray on the back, a big plume and a funnel that shot down right onto the on the fence line, which is right in my patio and swimming pool with my children. The reason that notification for the spraying is I understand I live in an agricultural area. I have no qualms with that. The only reason that I would ask that they would just let us know so that I could close the windows because the properties are right next to each other. There were two sisters that had parallel properties many years ago. I have a child that soon after we moved to New York at 12 years old was diagnosed with leukemia and went through four years of pretty difficult treatment, survived, is now 43. I have another son who is 40 and five years ago collapsed at his home from double pulmonary embolisms, which is called a saddle, which has a 30 percent survival rate. I was told that wouldn't happen by the time I got there. It did, and I lived there for eight months. So breathing the spray that comes, I'm told by my own vintners or vintage workers when they spray to stay out of the fields for 24 hours, and they suit up and spray things. I just want to be careful with my family, with my open windows. I'm happy to close them. I'm happy to let them spray when they need to spray. It's just we'd asked that that would be something that they could do, and they did it one time because the head of the department came out, and then we never got notified again. I'm described as being a difficult neighbor. I wouldn't say difficult. It's difficult having somebody answer to the different questions uses that are granted by the county. Soon after the permit was made for the winery, I had to go back to the East Coast. And I got a call from my brother-in-law, who is a real estate investor in California. And he asked me if I'd seen what had happened to my back six acres. I said no. While I was gone, the winery and PG&E put in four major poles diagonally across my back field, which was five acres, of power lines. And when they got to the fence line, they undergrounded it for the winery. There was no easement. There was no unrecorded easement. There was nothing. We requested from the winery, why did you do that? There was no notification, and you weren't allowed to do that. The long and short of it was it took four years to get that off of my property. Four years because they wouldn't explain to us why they'd done it. So we went to PG&E. They didn't explain to it. Then they went into bankruptcy. So for four years, they couldn't use for solar panels or to plant under it, to build under it. These crossed my property entire line. So in the end, we had to file a suit against PG&E to keep it open. It was for, at the time, was the cost of getting it done and all of the legal work. We had asked for $80,000. In the end, I talked with the people at PG&E and said, look, we could be going to court forever. I will give you an easement if you will underground it. And so in the end, they did. But the $80,000 between legal fees and trenching and things they put the underground in was paid by me for the winery. And several months or a few years later, there's electrical lines running down the main driveway to the gates at the winery. Why, if they're given the ability to put this in by the planning department, what recourse do I have except to have to spend a fortune to be able to use my own property? So there have been different things that have happened over the years. I never see Mr. Weir. I met him once when we first bought the property and he was talking to my children or in meetings, but I don't, A lot of times if I wasn't there, either my contractor would talk to him or the lawyer would talk to him, depending on whatever happened. I just want to be able to enjoy my property. I would like the support of the county that gives the use permit to be used that way to have some kind of teeth that We can both live there in peace. I understand that this was a family dream. I understand that. I support that. I just want to be able to use my property in a way that I can just live there and be safe with my family have peace. So I arrived there not knowing that there were issues between the other neighbors and the property owners that happened. I wasn't a part of that. But I sort of a lot of times have not been able to resolve things because there is no support from the other side to resolve it. So I would appreciate any help that I could get from the county at some point. There has to be some answer for when you, in the new application, there were three pages of violations and non-permits before he applied for the new use permit, and eight years went by. So all of a sudden, here we are. I'm happy to have a neighbor that I could coexist with, but I just need support in how it's done. So that's why I've come to you. But I appreciate your time.

Okay. Thank you for your comments. Okay. Do we have anything more in this section before I close? No. Okay. So then I will close the public hearing and bring this back to the board for discussion and questions. Do I have any questions to start us off? I see Supervisor Gallagher first.

Thank you. I'd like to hear staff's response to Ms. Benvenuto's comments. I understand this idea of having a private agreement. That's fine. But if we're involved, I don't want to be setting any precedent. And this is just getting a little out of hand. I feel like I'm in the middle of a planning commission hearing. So can you tell us a little bit more about sort of the downstream effects of putting what you consider private agreements into a COAs and And also on Ms. Strauss' comments as well, that would be helpful.

Sure. So I think that to the extent those conditions that staff believes really are private matters, and I'll use the olive trees as an example. Yes, we do have a screening requirement, but that is a standard condition. And the requirement wasn't – there wasn't a condition that said you have to plant this number of trees this far apart, this type, and maintain them in perpetuity. That's really something that they have privately negotiated. It doesn't address an environmental impact under CEQA. It's not needed to comply with the general plan or something that we typically require absent tying it to some county requirement. So, again, those private conditions that Emily mentioned, we really don't think it's appropriate for staff to be tasked with monitoring and enforcing them. And it sounds like, you know, unfortunately that's what the parties are wanting to do is have the county monitor this, you know, in perpetuity. So the only thing I could suggest is something that kind of similar to what was done with Arrow and Branch. And that is that if there are these private conditions, we could potentially memorialize them and list them on a separate attachment to the conditions. And at the top of that document, we would put all the disclaimers that says, These were privately negotiated. These do not establish a precedent. These are not monitored or enforced by the county. It's just for record-keeping purposes we are attaching these to our conditions. So if the board wanted to do that, that would be an option. I don't know if that addresses the party's concerns enough to where then the appeal will be resolved. We'd want to probably find out from them, but that's one option.

Okay, thank you for explaining that and thank you for that question, Supervisor Gallagher. Supervisor Cottrell?

you chair and thank you uh to staff for helping us understand this and i really appreciate what you just mentioned ms anderson because that may help us move through here um the i think the points i wanted to make and i appreciate supervisor gallagher's question because i i am concerned about the downstream effects of having conditions that really are between the two parties and i first just want to say thank you to the two parties for coming to agreement. It sounds like it's been a long time in coming. And I think it makes everyone's job easier when parties can talk to each other. So I want to put a flag in that one for a minute. At the same time, trying to understand exactly the point you're making that if If a condition of approval is in this document, then the county has some responsibility of enforcement, which we don't want to be. There's no, there's no general plan or reason to enforce a number of trees or a spacing of trees that could fall under a general screening, but that's separate. So, um. The conditions of approval that were in the original document, I will say, in my view, I'm fine having those remain because I feel like we've got sort of a logistical consistency in keeping them in. So that I don't have an issue with and conditions of approval re notice I think are I'm fine with those as well because I think that's that's an ongoing the spring one. I think we can understand health impacts from things that blow over into another property. I know we've asked for that in, I can remember from the planning commission often saying please give notice to neighbors or a specific list. So that one I don't have an issue with. The question of, so I think it's really, so I am getting to a question here, sorry. But to 6.6 is really where there are the conditions that staff would feel are problematic and not necessarily required by our existing codes or ordinances. So it's all of 6.6.

Yes, 6.6 is generally a standard condition that has set language regarding the screening. The reason that that was reserved in this situation was because they have a prior condition, which was about screening that came with the original use permit that we carried forward. So that's why 6.6 was reserved. So we wouldn't be able to include the language they've proposed partially because we can't change the standard language of 6.6, but also the specifics that are within it regarding the tree types and that kind of stuff we believe is more private agreement.

Okay, great. So you're actually providing some more information about there is a standard screening COA that is not necessarily inconsistent but isn't to the detail here. So, okay, so just for the sake of discussion and for things for us to think about, I would suggest that one path forward here would be to accept the majority of the conditions that are offered here as part of this agreement, with the exception of 6.6, removing that and using Ms. Anderson's idea of putting that, like happened in Arrow and Branch, in a separate document. Would that work from staff's perspective?

Yes.

Yeah, I think we would just want clarification. You want the noticing provisions that were in the original permit added back in.

Well, those I thought that's what was being asked here. Those that's not being asked.

Correct. So they had those conditions originally with the major modification that just occurred. Those portions were struck through because that had not been occurring. It was part of the code compliance program. They acknowledged that they were not complying with those conditions. So they asked for those portions to be revised and removed. As discussed, staff felt that is more of a private agreement between the noticing of parties for events for various reasons. It was discussed in the staff report and the response to the grounds. So staff supported removing that from the original conditions. They've now asked to put that back in. Staff maintains our recommendation to not put that language back in.

I think for me, that one again, I think about past practice and other cases, and I don't feel that's at all onerous to a winery operation. So I'm fine having those come back in. So that would be a position I would put forward for my colleagues. And curious what other folks think. Thank you.

Yeah. And before we move away from that topic, I'll just ask if this is the appropriate method for doing notification for spraying specifically, because I know through the Ag Commissioner's office, there's, you know, they have an internal process for some instances where people wish to be notified of spraying. I don't know if it would apply here. But I don't think there's anyone from the Ag Commissioner's office here. But that's, you know, just kind of asking, is this the right place or is this the right avenue for that specific item to come through?

That may be one where we could reach out to the commissioner and find out if there is a process that they could go through through that department. If not, we could add that again into the private agreement bucket and have it listed on that separate document that that's a private arrangement between the parties that they will give notice of spraying in advance.

Can I stay on this topic too?

Okay. Um, okay. So staying on this topic just really quick.

So I, I just, can you clarify, because I remember also, um, you know, approving a lot of these conditions in the past were about notifications for, you know, events and different things like that. So just can you explain why we've done it sometimes, but not others. I understand the spring one is a little different, but just in terms of the other things they're asking for around notification.

I think, as you mentioned, the Commission has, when there have been neighbor issues, has imposed conditions requiring notification to neighbors of events or activities. I can't speak to why those were adopted initially, but for this modification, those notification provisions would have remained in the permit. So I don't think it's inappropriate to put them back in. Okay. Specific to the events, which is what we're talking about. Specific to the events. Correct.

Okay. And then checking maybe with Ag Commissioner around the spring piece. Correct. I mean, that sounds like, yeah, important to try to figure that out. Okay.

Unless maybe Brian knows.

The spraying piece is not part of what was received yesterday afternoon. It is part of what was originally requested, which is incorporated into the staff report. The last I saw that, the wording was along the lines of using organic materials and notifying spraying. I had concerns with that. from a county perspective in that, one, the spraying and application of chemicals is already regulated by the state and administered by the Ag Commissioner. They already have to follow those set of rules. This could be redundant to that and or beyond that if we're having to notify of that. Furthermore, if we're having to monitor and enforce the application of a certain type of chemical, and confirm whether it's organic or unhealthy or not. I don't know if that's the position we want to place ourselves in, particularly when there's already regulations in place. And then finally, this is a winery use permit, not a vineyard use permit. We don't typically regulate or affect vineyard operations as part of a winery use permit, but it's totally the prerogative of the board as to how you want to approach this condition of approval.

Thank you, Mr. Bordana. Okay. Clear as mud so far. Supervisor Ramos?

Thank you so much. I think we find ourselves in a peculiar circumstance here. And while I appreciate the work that the parties have, the neighbors have put into providing these modified and agreed upon conditions of approval, I still sit in the position that it is not the parties prerogative to decide what is public appropriate provisions versus private appropriate provisions. If in fact these revisions, I will say I I do take issue with all of the additional provisions that are included in here by staff. And I'm going to go through and explain precisely why. The language on page one seems de minimis at best, so I don't have a problem with that. In section 6.6 on page seven, this county does not regulate the type of screening. And so, as I will say, as someone who lost an olive tree because of a fungus, for us to then be in the position of having to enforce a particular type of species, a particular type of distance, and then also to looking to incorporating references of distance to a chicken coop, which then would presume that the chicken coop is actually a central point in determining the layout of trees and property lines, would then force someone to continue to have a chicken coop, which you are free to remove. As someone who has 30 chickens, there might be a point in time where I might want to get rid of that chicken coop myself. So I do have an issue with that. The issue of promptly replacing any dead, dying, damaged, or missing trees, again, that is incredibly onerous and not a matter for code compliance. Anything that we put in here becomes our problem, a code compliance problem. And while I appreciate council's recommendation that we can have a private bucket, your private dealings are your own. Those are not a public matter. Anything that comes before this board and is approved by this board is enforced by code enforcement. If it's not being enforced by code enforcement, go ahead and create a private easement document and go and record it at John Tudor's office and enforce that way. But that is not a matter for this county. So I take a complete issue with everything and the details within 6.6 is I do not find them to be consistent with the county code. In regards to the mailing list that is, that is mentioned in 6.15 and then continues into the notifications listed on page 18. Again, I do not believe that this is appropriate county. We do not include into the application as to what the notified list should be for events and activities. In regards to vineyard operations, while I do appreciate the neighbors sharing personal experience, when you look at The county code in particular, I'm looking at the administrative code and our definitions and our right to farm ordinance of 2.94-020. In particular, some language that is very important here, and I think this needs to guide us in everything that we do going forward into these privately determined conditions of approval, Napa County has determined that the highest and best use for agricultural land as defined below is to develop and preserve said lands for the purposes of agricultural operations. And it will not consider the inconveniences or discomforts arising from agricultural operations to be a nuisance if such operations are legal, consistent with accepted customs and standards, and operated in a non-negligent manner. If property you own or are purchasing or may purchase in the future is located close to agricultural lands or within agricultural lands, you may be subject to inconveniences or discomforts arising from agricultural operations. Such discomfort or inconveniences may include but are not limited to noise. odors, dust, chemicals, smoke, insects, operations of machinery during any 24-hour period, aircraft operation, and storage and disposal of manure. One or more of the inconveniences described may occur even in the case of an agricultural operation which is in conformance with existing laws and regulations and locally accepted customs and standards. If you live in a near and agricultural area, you should be prepared to accept such inconveniences or discomfort as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a county with a strong rural character and a healthy agricultural sector. I believe that that alone guides us here and that notice is not necessary. Notice is provided in the code to all. Notice is provided by virtue of the zoning in which this property sits. And so to delineate, this then puts the county in a position of if one of these notifications changes, we have no process for how you become that interested party to be added to the notification list? If there is a sale, do we then have to add that into the sale notification of disclosures that happen thereafter in perpetuity? I take issue additionally with the requirements asking that visitor counts shall be maintained daily and made available to the department within five days' notice and shall be compiled in an annual report. This is above and beyond any condition of approval, anything laid out in the county code, places our staff in a position of unduly burdensome enforcement if someone does not meet this deadline. No one else is held to this standard, and for us to change the goalpost, notwithstanding the fact that it's been through a negotiated agreement, if that is the board's will, then we change the code. and we change it for all. And then we go ahead and we have a statement that includes that we support a data center in Napa County because if we continuously increase this type of notification and data and reporting, the amount of capacity that we are going to need to maintain these records is exorbitant. And that is not our job. This records maintenance is not our job. Being able to apply the code that this board has already approved, that is within our purview and prerogative. To have anything in additional notice, to have anything in additional measuring out of trees and having code compliance run down and check on trees is exorbitant. When it comes to the additional Condition of approval of number 223. I take issue with this one as well. It says subject to the approval of the county fire marshal. We've already had the county fire marshal opine on this. These conditions of approval and this application has stepped through the process. And for us to then turn around and because parties have said we wanted to potentially go through another process that we don't know the answer to is incredibly cumbersome. It devalues and undermines the very process we in fact have sent these applications on. I am sorry this has taken so long to get through. But if we go ahead and say go back again to the fire marshal, then we are adding time to it. I do believe that the process has been followed. I do believe that the Planning Commission was thoughtful in understanding our direction that we need to not add cumbersome and one-off Conditions of approval, and I would really ask my colleagues to proceed cautiously and what we believe might be de minimis. But, in fact, is simply a private agreement. The rules need to be applied equitably to all. And if we don't like the rules, then we ourselves should change the code that we are holding everyone to.

Okay, thank you for those thorough comments, Supervisor or Vice Chair Alessio.

Yeah, I completely agree with Supervisor Ramos. Pretty much everything you said and I appreciate you going through the list. You know, I think the Planning Commission was very thoughtful. I think that the original staff report and recommendations were very thoughtful and within the bounds of what we do here. I get concerned when I see private parties become the government and the police of their own neighbor. I think that doesn't resolve neighbor disputes. I think it adds fuel to the fire. And it's just outside of good boundaries. I think that as a county government, we do a good job with what we do. And as we need to make changes, we make those changes. They may not come right away, but we do make those changes in terms of what is right, just, equitable, what's in public safety and public health. And this is in the Ag Preserve that was established in 1968. So anybody after 1968 who purchased property in the Ag Preserve, that's what you're getting. And with that, you get beautiful open space in an iconic wine region of this world. And as Supervisor Ramos shared with what we have established, that does come with some other things that you may not may not want but it's part of the package it's part of what you you bought into and and i really want these neighbors to resolve their differences i think you know oftentimes we have you know neighbors who are really good people they just see the world differently and sometimes hard feelings over time just get embedded and makes it really difficult for people to be able to move on and get past this and just start fresh. And I really hope these neighbors can do that and just be neighborly and communicate, provide notices as neighbors and leave it at that. But at this point, I agree with Supervisor Ramos. and the staff original report and recommendation. And I want us to not be contradictory and not step into an area that we don't belong in in terms of a private agreement. And I just want to say one other thing. I think that these private agreements happen as a result of many years of anguish, cost, and they're just willing to make compromises that they don't really need to make. And I think that we're going to talk about that a little bit later on. And I want folks to know that we're here for the neighbors, but we're also here for the people that are in the agricultural business and the zoning. and not to fold so quick if it's something that's really going to compromise and hurt them in the long term. So we just want to say that. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Vice Chair Alessio. I guess I'll go through, too, and see what questions we might not have already brought up or answered. So I understood from the applicant's correction that it's not on item 1.1 . That was not a request to modify that, but it was the following. It was 1.1J to modify the permit to remove the requirement for submitting an annual report on the number of gallons of wine produced. Is that right? Okay. And I was just wondering if that is information that's available through some other channel as well, because I would... I mean, are annual gallons of wine produced submitted to the ABC or to another government entity? Yeah, I'm seeing yes. Could I maybe get like an explanation of that so everyone's clear on if someone wants to look that up, where they can find that information?

Yes, Charlene Galena, supervising planner. The applicant, the winery owners are required annually to submit their production records and their grape sourcing to the state of California. Staff does have access to that. There is a standard condition. I believe that we can ask for that information. We don't require it yet, but there was a resolution a few years ago by the Board of Supervisors setting up a self-certification program, but we haven't moved forward on that. But yes, we can ask for those records. Okay.

thank you yeah i just i'm sensitive to the duplication of effort and it actually quite oftentimes makes things more confusing and messy when you have multiple agencies trying to do the same thing or do one off or 10 off kind of kind of production of records so just making it clear that there's a existing pathway for that information And I will echo Supervisor Ramos' concerns on item 6.6. This is an incredibly specific list of details about which type of tree and where and how many, and from what it sounds like, maintaining that in perpetuity, which I don't think should be the county's responsibility to ensure. But there's nothing stopping private parties from making an agreement, and there's nothing stopping them from enforcing it through the courts. And so I think there's another avenue for that outcome as well. And I hope both sides will, in good faith, make a good faith effort to be good neighbors to one another and find a way to do that. It seems attainable. I appreciate that there are groundwater reporting requirements in here. I'll just call that out. I'm on, where am I now? 6.15. And I actually have a question about the mailing list because Supervisor Ramos had the comment that it was overly specific, but there was a previous mailing list in here. And so it would help me to understand how it got there in the first place, if that's a normative practice or if that was there for some exceptional kind of reason. and what the requirements are on notification because, again, we have, my understanding is that we have policy guiding who will be notified in what circumstances for proposed projects. So, any clarification on

mailing list that is proposing to be removed and or added and or what the practices are for notifications thank you so we can speak to the practices for notification but i think in terms of how that condition originated and was put in the permit originally it looks like patty curtain was involved and maybe betsy was involved back then as well so i would suggest we ask them and they can comment on it okay you're welcome if you'd like to explain how

the mailing list arose, that would be helpful for me to understand what has gone on here. Thank you.

Patty Curtin again for appellant. My recollection is that this mailing list was created by planning staff to address the concerns that were expressed by those who opposed the use permit originally.

Okay.

But this mailing list that we've put together only notifies Myself, Arian, Weathervane, and the person who receives Weathervane's mailing. Not everybody else within however many feet this was.

Okay.

So you're right. This is a modified list. Okay.

Thank you. That helps quite a bit. Okay. And then under Exhibit A, it looks like there's, it looks like what's going on with the proposal is to cut items D, 4.21 CD, I guess COA number one CD, and replace them with the language that is proposed here in item A, which also I believe has a typo in the placement of the parenthetical phrasing. But is that, am I reading that right? that's a replacement because it's it's moving custom crush activities up to item a when it was discussed in item c or actually i should just leave out item d because that's about the road and it sounds like that's already done but it's item c being moved to item a with that parenthetical statement and i i'm not sure we've maybe i missed something but i'm not sure that we covered this in detail so um

Condition 1C, that was revised by a condition back in 2018. Ah, okay.

So that's the note.

Yes. So back in 2018, that was revised. What's in red under A is what the appellant has requested to add. So we wouldn't normally make a revision to the existing condition. Exhibit a conditions we do strike through as you can see below when something is either completed we wouldn't generally add the text up there and then Additionally custom crush production is included in that total already. So I don't think so to specify that because that's already standard practice Thank you, that's really helpful Okay

Amen. Yeah, I think kind of same for visitor counts. It seems like maintaining a notification about that indefinitely is just that that does actually seem onerous to me, especially when we have, you know, methods through compliance to deal with a problem of excess visitation.

Can I ask a point of order question? Oh, sure. If we don't want to approve these new conditions as proposed to us by the appellant and the applicant, do we move off of this and go to the appeal? I'm just trying to figure out what are we doing because I don't think we're getting anywhere. So give us what process we need to be in.

So the parties were prepared today just to discuss the revised conditions. They didn't provide PowerPoints. They didn't identify any witnesses that would be offering support on behalf of their respective positions. So it really was to find out is the board amenable to resolving the appeal by adopting these conditions. If that's not the case, then I think that you know, the appellant would need to be afforded the opportunity to proceed with the appeal. It's their appeal. This was a way of resolving it, but they may want an opportunity to go forward with the appeal and have the board hear it and decide it on the merits.

Yeah. Do you know if they're prepared for to do that today? No. No, they're not?

I don't believe so. I don't believe so. No, I believe that this was... Yeah. No, they are not prepared to do that today. We would then have to continue it to a future date and come back.

Okay. Well, please chime in, everyone, but I don't think we're – I think we need to hear the appeal, and they're apparently not ready. Okay.

Rock, paper, scissors? Just kidding. You can go first.

Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Ramos and Chair. I appreciate the point of order question. And also, I think one of the things I want to just point out, I don't disagree with my colleagues' points that we shouldn't create new policies through conditions of approval. I will say again at Planning Commission meetings in the past and at the Board of Supervisors, we often have very tailored conditions of approval, not all of them because we do have standard conditions, but it's not unique to have a project-specific condition of approval that addresses unique conditions on a property because we review wineries' applications on a case-by-case basis, right? We could have gone a different route and said, you have 20 acres, you have X number of gallonage, but we haven't done that. So I just want to make that point. I also think, you know, that both parties came here today understanding, to Ms. Anderson's point, that it wasn't a done deal with what they're submitting here. But with, I mean, I think we do have examples. We have Arrow and Branch. I appreciate Ms. Benvenuto's point that we don't want to go way down that road. But, you know... I think we need to give time. If we're not going to be able to do this for people, then we need to have that signal and give time moving forward. So I just wanted to kind of make the point that folks came with what they felt would work for those two parties. If it doesn't work for us, I still think I'm fine supporting—again, I think I'm hearing unanimous agreement that we don't support 6.6. But other notice provisions, I'm fine with having in here. But I agree with Supervisor Gallagher that I think at this point we need to be prepared to look at the merits of the appeal when the time is right. MS. Thank you. Supervisor Ramos and then Alessia.

Thank you so much. I think this is certainly giving me a lot of thought as to the matter that's coming before us this afternoon as to when is the appropriate time for parties to come to us with their revisions. if it is appropriate i would say because this is extending um i cannot see myself being in a position of saying you have to plant an olive tree and it needs to be 15 feet apart i just i i don't that that's borderline telling people what color to paint their house and we've been down that path before you guys weren't with us we've been down that path before um as to what constitutes a natural occurring color So I appreciate the work that has been done by the parties. Again, that's a private matter. There is still an opportunity for the parties to resolve this. You can have a private agreement that is enforceable on your own civilly and the conditions of approval as are presented on appeal to this board could stand or if there are grounds for modifying them, those can come before us. I am troubled that we have an appeal before us and no one's ready to go on appeal. Notwithstanding the fact that these negotiated conditions were before us, everyone should be ready to go on appeal. It is incredibly hard to even get on this board's calendar for appeals and the fact that there was a lot of weight placed on the fact that we would somehow be amenable to this is troubling. So I would like, in the event that this happens again, hopefully it doesn't, but if it does, if negotiated agreements come before us, I would certainly like to see that the board address those negotiated agreements and then immediately proceed to the appeal. They should be ready to go. I'm ready to go on the appeal. I think all my colleagues are ready to go on the appeal because we all read it. And so I don't, I struggle to think what the delay is here and why we simply can't decide on this negotiated agreement and I think my question here to council is do we need a motion on these negotiated conditions of approval or can we simply not take action on them and say let's proceed with the appeal?

Staff is ready today, just to be clear.

Oh, no, I'm not saying you. No, no, no. I'm saying like everyone here is ready, but the parties aren't. That's my issue, that the parties aren't ready. And I'm concerned. This is not the first time. where assumptions are being made that private agreements will be honored. So that's my concern.

So it appears now that at least the appellant is saying that she is ready to proceed. So if that's something the board wants to do, given the late hour and the other items on the board's agenda, it feels like maybe there's not time to do that today. And we would also want to check with the applicant's counsel. I assume she's still on Zoom. Yes, I'm here. Thank you. Okay.

Vice Chair Alessio? Yes. I would like, I mean, what I'm hearing, there's consensus here that we want to move forward with what's been agendized today. It's been on the agenda. The public knows it's to conduct a public hearing to consider an appeal by appellant. And so we're all ready. I'm glad that Pellant is also ready, and I think we should proceed. I actually think that we've covered a lot here, and I don't think it'll take that long. And if it does, then we can come back after break. But I think we should get started and move forward.

Okay. Yeah, I know. We have a 2 o'clock set item, and we also have closed session in between. So could I have a couple minutes just to check on where people think we're at with timing? Yeah. Supervisor Gale. I'm sorry. Thank you. Supervisor. Oh.

Yes, I think the comments are, yes, if you want to call a recess, that's fine. I'm also, I feel like we have enough, we've spent a lot of, this has been a good discussion. I'm happy to hear this item at a later date. I think that would give the parties a time to, I mean, I appreciate that they're ready now, but it gives them time to present what they want, and we've given clear direction from here. And I'd like to be able to make sure we have time to hit the other things we have today. So I would be in favor of continuance. Okay, yeah.

I am going to do a recess, and thank you for sharing your thoughts. We're going to take into consideration everything we've discussed so far. We're going to break for lunch and closed session, come back and hear the appeal from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. and we're also going to be moving agenda item Agenda item 11D to the end of the agenda today so that we can be sure to take our timed items at 2 p.m. in a timely manner. So at this time we're stopping for closed session and we will see you all back here at 1 p.m. Okay. Thank you. Welcome back from closed session. Would council like to report out of closed session anything that needs to be reported? Thank you.

I was prepared to do this later, but I'm not going to do it now. Well, we moved the other item to the end. No problem. So the board met in closed session today under item 12A. The first case is Napa County versus Hoops Family Winery Partners. No action was taken. The board also met under items 12A2 in the case of Hoops Vineyard et al. versus County of Napa. There was no reportable direct action taken. And finally, the board met in closed session under 12A3 in the name of the case J.M.K.L.L.C. et al. v. County of Napa and no reportable action taken.

Thanks. Okay. Thank you, Council, so much. all right so we're going to go ahead and continue with item 10a which is uh the consideration of an appeal filed uh filed relative to high golf and sellers and we've taken a break and parties have communicated with one another and i'd just like to hear back any updates that we have right now from staff please

Thank you, Chair. Yes, there was one latest development that happened on the break, and that is the parties, I think, have heard the Board loud and clear, and they would like an opportunity to explore a private settlement that would not involve any action by the Board. It would allow them time to work out their grievances and put their terms together and Hopefully that will be successful and all we will see is a letter withdrawing the appeal. They have asked for the matter to be continued to November 3rd to give them an opportunity to do that. So that would be the first request in front of the board. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Is there any comment from the appellant or the

I think that they're comfortable with my representations unless either one of them wants to speak.

Yeah, if there's anything you'd like to say, we're happy to hear it. I just want a confirmation, November 3rd or September 28th?

November 3rd. Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, then I will ask my colleagues if they have any comments on that. Supervisor Ramos?

I am agreeable to that. What I would ask is on that day that the parties be ready to proceed. This is a set matter for appeal and so notwithstanding whatever agreement may have been breached if that appeal has not been dismissed at that moment. And we do need to have deliberation before the board that all the parties be ready to appear for a full hearing with their witnesses.

Thank you. Not seeing any other, okay, Supervisor Cottrell.

Thank you. I am happy to make a motion that we continue this item to the November 3rd date.

I'll second. Okay, we have a motion by Supervisor Cottrell and second by Supervisor Alessio to continue to November 3rd. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. Thank you. And we're going to resume the break because our next item is timed at 2 p.m. Okay, we're back. It's two o'clock and we're back from our break. And just as a reminder for folks, we have moved item 11D to the end of today's agenda. So we'll be hearing about that after items 13A and 13B. And that brings us to item 13, 13A. We're considering a resolution for the Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency temporarily reducing fees for fiscal year 26-27 and authorizing levy and collection of the fees on property tax bills. So I welcome a staff report from Jamison Crosby, our Natural Resource Conservation Manager, who's been working very hard on this for a long time.

Don't remind me. Good afternoon, Chair Manfrey, members of the board. Jameson Crosby, Natural Resources Conservation Manager. I'm here with Director Bordona and also Kyle Tankard of SCI Consulting Group. to seek your approval on this final step of the groundwater fee process, a resolution to temporarily reduce fees and authorize the levy and collection of fees for fiscal year 26-27. This idea was first presented to the board back in 2022 and developed over the intervening years. I recapped the various steps along the way in my presentation in December 9th of last year, so I won't repeat it here. Today's presentation is about the final step in the process. I will turn it over to Kyle to start the presentation, and then he'll pass back to me, and we will conclude as usual with the recommendation for the board and invite your comments and questions.

All right. Thank you, Jameson. And do I need to share the PowerPoint on my end?

You can if you want to, or I can. You do.

Either way. Yeah, if you can share it, that would be great.

Sure. Just say next slide when you want me to advance.

Perfect. All right. Good afternoon, Chair, board members. First off, it's great to meet you. My name is Kyle Tankard, senior consultant with SEI Consulting Group. And today I will present the fiscal year 2026-27 fee rates for the groundwater sustainability fee. As Jameson mentioned, this is the final step in the process that the board began with the adoption of Resolution 2025-05, which approved the fee study last December. Next slide. So, Jameis and I will cover six things today. So, first, a quick recap of the December's adoption. Next, why today's action is necessary. How the GSA fund balance contributes to a reduction in this year's rates. We'll go over the proposed rates themselves. And then Jameson will provide a recap of the spring outreach process. And then finally, our recommendation to the board. Next slide. So on December 9, 2025, the Board adopted Resolution 2025-05, which established the groundwater sustainability fee under Water Code Section 10730 to fund GSP implementation in the Napa Valley Subbasin. So the fee study behind the resolution did three things. First, it allocated costs across three user classes. So we have agricultural, self-supplied users, and public water system users. Next, it split those costs into common costs, costs which benefit all groundwater users broadly, and then applied groundwater use costs, agricultural and public water system users. And then finally, drove that allocation by each class's share of average annual pumping. One point worth underscoring here is that this is a regulatory fee under Proposition 26, and it is not a tax. And critically, Resolution 2025-05 approved the methodology and established the maximum fee rates. It did not by itself place a charge on a single parcel. That's what brings us here today. Next slide. So three things remain, and all three happen with the board's action today. So first, set the fiscal year 2026-27 fee rates. So today's proposed rates reflect the $750,000 fund balance contribution that the board approved on June 23rd of this year. Next, to confirm the levy rule, so the rule lists every parcel and the amount to be collected, which is all built on refined planted crop acreage data that the county collected as well as self-supplied parcel data and any waivers that were granted to property owners. And then lastly, enable collection. So once the resolution is certified and filed with the county auditor, the fee is entered on the assessment roll and collected with property taxes on property tax bills. And so installments are typically due in December 2026 and April 2027. Next slide. So this slide is about why the rates you're about to see are below the maximum rates approved back in December. So four points here. The starting point, the fee study, as I mentioned previously, set the maximum authorized rates that were sized to fully fund GSP implementation. So charging that maximum in year one would put the full revenue requirement on groundwater users all at once. The available lever here is that the Napa County GSA carried a fund balance from last year. So applying it lowers the revenue requirement across all three user classes without cutting the program. And I will point out that this is in addition to the $500,000 contribution that the county made that was incorporated in the fee study rates that were adopted back in December. And so what the board did is that on June 23 of 2026, approved contributing $750,000 from the fund balance towards the fiscal year 26, 27 revenue requirement. And as a result, the rates for this year come in roughly 55% below the maximum rates across every user class. So this provides relief for groundwater users in this first year of implementation, while also ensuring that the GSP implementation stays fully funded. Next slide. OK, so here are the specific numbers. So every rate on this table sits about roughly 55% below the maximum authorized level. So the agricultural base rate is at $17.53, down from the maximum of $38.58. The agricultural additional rate sits at $26.91 per groundwater irrigated acre, and that's down from $60.16. The agricultural combined rate is $44.44, which is down from $62.58. And then the self-supplied user rate is a flat rate of $28.17 per parcel, which is down from $62.58, and I apologize for the combined rate, that's down from $98.74. And then lastly, we have the public water system user rate, which is at $58.47 per acre foot, which is down from $129.87. Looking ahead to future years, the maximum authorized rates that were approved back in December can be adjusted annually for CPI, which is capped at 4% a year. As part of the annual process, the board will review the fee every year during its budgeting process and do a full methodology review at least every five years. Next slide. So this next slide gives you a sense of who's actually paying what. So of the 1,993 parcels that will be charged a fee this year, 813 of those parcels, which is the single largest single group fall at the flat $28.17 self-supplied rate. From there, the distribution climbs with planted crop acreage. and up to a highest single charge of $11,611.01. One thing worth flagging for the board is that an additional 29,116 parcels that are within the boundaries of the sub-basin carry no feet at all. This is because they are either a vacant parcel a public water system served parcel with no direct charge, or parcels that are served by municipal service areas, or if a parcel where less than half of the land does not sit in the subbasin, those were excluded as well. Next slide. And this last chart breaks down those same 1,993 parcels down by which fee component they're actually being billed on. So we have self-supplied, agricultural base, agricultural combined, or some combination of those. Self-supplied only and ag combined rate only are the two largest groups. The smaller split agricultural rate categories are parcels where part of the acreage is either dry farmed or uses a non-groundwater source for more than half of its irrigation. So in these cases, that part of the cropped acres is built at the base rate and the remaining portion of the crop Crop acres is charged at the combined rate. So with that context on the rates and how they land across the fee roll, I will turn it over to Jameson, who will discuss the spring outreach process and then our recommendation to the board.

Thank you, Kyle. Next slide, please. I guess I have the advancer right here. Thank you. So, yeah, I'd like to talk about the outreach process that we conducted for the first time in spring of this year. That process involved mailing out 2,600-odd postcards to all the affected groundwater users in the Napa Valley subbasin to the mailing addresses that were on file with the county assessor. Groundwater users as Kyle mentioned are divided into three user groups AG self-supplied and public water systems and there were three different versions of the postcard the one that you're seeing here was the one directed to Agricultural users the front of the postcard on the left and then on the right is the back of the card They were printed on large they're fairly large format six inch by nine inch glossy cardstock and the purpose of which was to First, notify people about the basic existence of the fee and provide enough information to induce someone to read it and understand it without being overwhelming, and then directing people to our website where we have, in fact, still have three very extensive FAQs, again, tailored to each of those three user groups. And I also included information and dates about two virtual community meetings that we held on June 17th and July 1st. for residents to learn more. Both of those were well attended, and we answered a lot of good questions from the participants. Yeah, so the postcard outreach process gave users the opportunity to let us know, for example, correct any planted acreage differences. So anything where they had made changes to their planted acreage after their last contact with the county assessor. If their well was outside the sub basin, to notify us about any groundwater irrigated acreage, to submit claims of dry farming or primary use of alternative water sources, and finally gave an opportunity for people to submit fee waiver requests if their income was less than 80% of area median income. And just to clarify, alternative water, as we defined it and it was on the postcard, alternative water sources are, one, surface water diversions from, say, the Napa River or tributaries that are permitted by the Water Board, recycled water or reclaimed water purchased from Napa Sanitation District or City of St. Helena or perhaps there are others, and in some cases, even recycled water that they may generate themselves on site in their winery, or three, any other non-groundwater source. And ag users will get the base rate if they can demonstrate that more than 50% of their total irrigation comes from an alternative source, either by itself or in combination with other alternative sources. Uh, recipients were instructed to contact the county, my staff at groundwater at county of napa.org by July 10th. And we made the commitment that if people got their toe in the door, so to speak, and they got that first email or call to us, we made the commitment that we would work diligently to analyze all of those and bring them to a conclusion, um, in time to reflect the changes on the tax roll. So we didn't leave anybody hanging. Um, for as long as they can get that first email in, they made it. And then it took a couple of weeks after that date to kind of wrap everything up and conclude those numerous emails, um, and to bring, bring it to a conclusion. And in the roughly one month or excuse me, two month period between when the postcards were mailed out and we concluded our work, uh, my staff had talked to about 164 individuals. representing about 392 parcels and almost 10,000 acres. And that's, to me, the meaningful number because 10,000 acres is almost a quarter of the Napa Valley subbasin. So it's a lot of coverage. There were over 1,000 emails and over 160 calls. So if you do a little back of the envelope there, you can see it wasn't. These weren't simple interactions for the most part. They were community case where we might have had to have five, six, seven back and forths with an owner or grower to kind of work out all the details. So we appreciate them sticking with it and doing that. This slide is kind of a summary, bends together the different types of inquiries that we received. About 29% of the contacts were wanting to make corrections to acreage. About 23% had maybe a general question. 17% were seeking an alternative water source claim. And 15% were seeking the base rate for dry farming. And just a little aside about dry farming, the California Sustainable Wine Growing Alliance did a study. and published a map of dry farmed vineyards around the whole state, of course, including Napa. And all of the folks, all the vineyards that were identified in their project received the base rate. And in addition to that, we got contacts from a lot of other growers who were contacted to let us know they were also dry farming. And for the dry farm verifications, we were greatly assisted by staff from the Napa Resource Conservation District, Francisco Larios and Miguel Garcia. who went out and actually visited the sites, assessed the viticultural practices, and made their own independent determination of whether or not the grower was indeed dry farming. Pleased to report that everybody, all 60, actually it was 68, not 60, all 68 that they visited, they did in fact confirm they were dry farming. And it was a pleasant surprise, honestly, to see how much dry farming is going on and the fact that they are only paying the base fee, the lower fee, is hopefully an incentive for them to continue to do that in the future and maybe hopefully grow that practice. So not to bury the lead, but how did all this outreach shake out and what were the outcomes? You can see the top row there. We had 123 parcels who requested the base rate on the basis of using some kind of alternative water, either surface water diversion from the Napa River or a tributary or purchased recycled water. Of those, 75 were approved, 75 of the 123 representing 1,886 cropped acres. 48 were denied, either because of insufficient documentation, submission of tile drain water, or finding out that what they thought was surface water diversions really ended up being a majority of conjunctive groundwater use. So that's how that concluded. The dry farm requests, as I mentioned, we had 68 requests. 68 were granted for a little more than 1,000 cropped acres. And we had eight requests for waivers on the basis of lower than 80% of AMI, and all of those were waived as well. And before I go any further, I really would like to take this opportunity to thank staff and partners at the county and also in the broader community for their work in helping us with all this outreach. First off, my staff, Brendan McGovern, Principal Planner, and Nick Featherston, Planner 2, the only word that I have to adequately capture what they did is outstanding. They conducted themselves with professionalism, meticulous attention to detail, and were very personally committed to getting all of these things right and tracking and You don't want to see the tracking spreadsheets, but they were detailed. One can never promise that these processes are perfect, but what I can say with 100% confidence is nobody could have done it better than they did. I also want to thank the Napa Resource Conservation District. As I mentioned, they did the drive farm verifications, so thank you, Francisco and Miguel. Miguel Garcia is also our technical advisory group member, of course. We had help from county environmental health staff, Kim Withrow, and engineering staff, Alexi Beloff. I would be remiss if I didn't also mention the Napa County Assessor, Mr. Tudor, and Jennifer Tadingo. We tried as much as possible to insulate them from the effect of all this data we were receiving related to the fee with the idea that we would collect it, compile it, and serve it up to them at the end. And that's what we did. But it was still a pretty significant impact on their time, and they were really supportive in helping us get it done. Of course, the next step in this is submitting this information if you approve the resolution to our auditor controller, Tracy Schulze, who will place the charges on the tax roll. And in short order, I might add, And then I also want to acknowledge the industry here. We acknowledge that this is a really difficult time for the wine growing and the winemaking industry. And we met with grape growers, the wine growers of Napa County, the vintners and the Farm Bureau a number of times over the years. Most recently, right when the postcards were mailing out and their help in kind of getting out the word. and disseminating it through their own channels was really important and we appreciate it. And then finally, not to short anybody, but Mr. Tankard and Ryan Astin of SCI and Olin Applegate of Larry Walker Associates. So just a few observations about that we kind of gleaned from the outreach, which is every grower's water supply portfolio is unique and many of them are complex. Probably not surprising. And irrigation water comes from multiple sources. They might have a well. They probably maybe even have multiple wells. They might have surface water diversions from the adjacent creek or river. They might be buying some recycled water every year or in certain years. Either purchased water, as I said, they may generate their own recycled water. And those wells might serve multiple purposes. So this is a very complex operation for them. And proportionally, The effort needed to demonstrate that 50% of their total water supply is an alternative source is really proportional to the complexity of their system. The more complex their system, the harder it is to demonstrate, essentially. And it depends on the depth of their record keeping. Speaking of which, record keeping, surface water diversions are required to be reported to the water board's CalWaters database. And the Water Board staff have told us that they know that database is somewhat error prone. There's duplicative reporting, unit conversion errors, operator error. And it's also because it's self-reported data, it depends a lot on the person entering the data. That might be somebody, you know, very high up in the operation. It might be a consultant, it might be a seasoned staff person, or it might be someone fairly new. So there are a lot of different variables that go into that. But we had a number of growers who submitted their proof of surface water right and thought, okay, well, there it is. There's my proof. What we also needed, and in many cases got, was, and in many cases my staff actually found it for them, documentation of how much they actually pumped, how much they stored, and how much they applied. Just saying I have proof to divert isn't quite enough, but again, my staff were super helpful, and in many cases, actually downloaded that information for them. Any documentation that people provide has to be verifiable. You know, lots of growers use alternative sources, but in many cases, they probably don't account for more than 50 percent, which was our threshold. I guess the take home is, as a grower, if you are not fairly sure that your alternative use is more than 50%, it may not be worth the effort to track it because it's complicated. And the more people that receive the base rate, the more rates in subsequent years could go up for other users. And being the first year of the FEAT, actually before I get to recommendations, one more observation. As I mentioned, my staff were really not just verifying growers' data. They were helping generate it. They were helping analyze it and collect it. They were pulling it from Water Board websites, putting it into spreadsheets, incorporating pumping data and other things, and kind of crunching the numbers for them to really help them. And they were applying a lot of leniency, honestly, and giving people the benefit of the doubt everywhere they could. So we won't be able to be that lenient next year, but we will provide examples of the kinds of good documentation that we did receive this year as guidance. So for recommendation and next steps, it's pretty simple. We're asking the board to adopt the resolution temporarily reducing fees for 26-27 and confirming the levy role for placement on the county tax roll. Upon adoption, I will deliver a copy of the resolution to the county auditor. She will then place it on the tax roll, and the fee will be put on the county property tax bills, which get mailed out in fall. The first installment is due in December. The next installment is due next April. After adoption, for any growers who might have missed the deadline this year to get that base rate, You'll have a chance again next year and in fact every year we will ask people to demonstrate if they qualify for the base rate or the waiver or dry farming. So if you missed it, you've got another chance next year. We will update and streamline our processes for how claims and supporting documentation are submitted, reviewed and approved. We will also be working with the county assessor. software system megabyte has a module that they'd like to implement to allow them to maintain the planted acreage more seamlessly so we're going to collaborate with them on that and then really just want to encourage growers to keep their crop reports current we were informed sometimes the assessor has not gotten updated crop reports from growers for a long time so Your rate is only as accurate as the underlying assessor's data. And that's why we did this whole postcard process this year, is recognizing that in the event their data were not caught up, this was the way to do it. But in future, it'll be all based on assessor data. So that is really my final slide. And we're happy to take questions or comments.

Okay, wonderful. Thank you for that very informative report. I'm going to go to public comment first. Is there anyone here today wishing to speak on this item? If so, if you want to come up to the podium, you'll have three minutes. Good morning.

Thank you so much. Caleb Mosley with the Napa Valley Grape Growers. Thank you, Board of Supervisors. Thank you, James and Brian, for a lovely report. And thank you all for working with us on this and taking all the meetings and all the calls. It was not an insignificant amount of work that we did collectively. In listening to the presentation, I'd be remiss not to take the opportunity, because this is what I like to do, is to talk about how great our growers are here in Napa County. and how lucky we are to be growing wine grapes and not other forms of crops. So I just don't want that to get lost in the zero sum. Either you irrigate or you use 50% or more, or you don't irrigate and you dry farm. That is the only three categories of farming that we have here in Napa County. We could be seeing alfalfa here. And for those of you that know, three cuts of alfalfa takes a lot of groundwater. We are really lucky and fortunate to have not only this crop, but also really, really well-educated and respected growers that know how to use their water resources effectively and with the right technology and the newest tools. So again, applaud all the work, the collective effort, and really appreciate the reduction in the fees for those that are being charged this year. And look forward to collaborating in the future. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mosley. Welcome, and I should say good afternoon.

Hello. Good afternoon. I'm Eve Kahn. I am very impressed with the work that your staff did. There's a lot of detail in here. One question I have is, were you asked or do you know how many wells are metered and monitored? Because that was one thing I did not see in any of the discussion. So you know that this is coming from groundwater. You know it's coming from a well. But you know how much water is coming out of that well. So I just want to pass that along. And if it's not happening this year, maybe it can next year. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Peter Rumble, Napa County Farm Bureau. I want to echo Caleb's appreciation and gratitude for all the work that went into this. A lot of work leading into the budget process, a lot of work coming out of that budget process, and a heck of a lot of calls coming in from growers and producers. So thank you very much. It's not a small task at all. Thank you also very much for this outcome, for stepping up with county funds, county general fund, to make this a little bit easier to take for growers out there. It's a significant reduction, over 50%, and it will be felt, it will be meaningful, and I really want to express my appreciation for that. um two hopes that i'll share coming out of this the first is to as we go forward look for ways that we can help make this process more efficient either working with our members and setting up some infrastructure right to make the reporting and validation easier be happy to help do that also would love to continue to look at the program itself and make sure that it is sort of sized appropriately. If we're going to ultimately fund this going forward without assistance from the general fund, we want to make sure that we have a little bit cleaner vision of what the program is going to do on our behalf. The second hope that I'd like to share is related to those drain tiles that were mentioned as a reason for denying the base rate only. Appreciate the legal opinion of that connection to groundwater. This technology really is the type of example of what we should be incentivizing. Capturing water when it's not going to reach the aquifer, when it's going to run off, to use during dry times to reduce groundwater pumping. And regardless of the specific definition of what a drain tile is and what water it captures, it absolutely reduces the demand on the aquifer. So again, should be the type of thing that we're prioritizing and incentivizing. So thank you very much. Look forward to continue to work together.

Thank you. Welcome. Thank you, Board.

Thank you, Board. My name is Ernie Eelsley. I'm with Eelsley Vineyards. My family farms primarily in the Yonkville and the Sagasleaf Appalachians. First, like everybody else, I want to thank the Board for working with the agricultural industry to reduce the proposed charges. It's super helpful. My main concern is where are the costs going in the future? I would like to ask the board to put some consideration and some guardrails on annual increases, establishing a maximum percentage increase per year so we have some predictability on where the budget's gonna go. I also have some concerns about the assumptions being used on the current groundwater models. My family manages approximately 500 acres within the sub-basin. We have detailed records of our actual water use. Based on our records, we use significantly less water than current assumptions. I believe the Agriculture Committee could be a really valuable resource here. If growers are willing to provide data, actual data, that information could help improve the accuracy of the models and give the GSA a better understanding of what really happens on the ground. I'm not opposed to paying my fair share, but I'm asking we make sure the costs are predictable and the science is sound. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good afternoon, board. Mike Pearson. I am a self-supplied user. I'm not a farmer or a business owner or any of that nature. I just have my own piece of property. I would encourage the board to establish some more community engagement as soon as possible, knowing that we have this year before fees could potentially be raised again. As a self-supplied user, I have questions all over the place as far as my usage, but also the usage in my neighborhood, such as a golf course and in the vineyards in that area. And I get we all have to pay our fair share or something like that. But it needs to make sense to everybody. And myself included, as a self-supplied user, I would wholeheartedly like to understand that and understand what is exactly happening with these fees and why it makes sense for me to pay a certain fee as a self-supplied user. And the golf course that's right behind my backyard is paying a fee but doesn't seem to be the right amount of fee based on their usage of water to irrigate 18-hole golf course. Secondly, I would encourage the board to establish some sort of oversight committee. I recognize this is not a tax, but it is being attached to our property taxes. And therefore, by assumption, it looks like it can be a tax. And having had the opportunity to sit on and oversee some oversight committees with school bonds, I know the importance and the value to have an oversight committee to understand where funds are being spent and why they're being spent and to allow that oversight committee the opportunity to at least understand where the money is going. So as a suggestion, I would appreciate that opportunity to see if that would be happening. And I'm also willing to help out as needed. So if you need my information or anything like that, I'd be happy to sit and volunteer whatever I can on that. So thanks for your time. Appreciate it.

OK. Thank you for that offer. And for your comments, welcome.

Good afternoon. Kevin Lemasters. I'm the president of the wine growers in Napa County. And I thank you for your time today. And I'm going to take a bit of a different take on this whole situation. While none of us are in favor of any additional fees to work and operate and live within the county of Napa, we understand we're under the gun here. It's a state mandate. Nobody understands it better than us, I can tell you that. But it seems to me that, once again, that agricultural is taking the brunt of these expenses. And it makes zero sense to any of us in the ag industry when we talk about the best use of our land is agriculture. And in that same statement, it says the best use of water in our county is for agriculture. Yet we're taking the brunt again. So we have a dilemma where homeowners who rely on groundwater are getting a better deal than agriculture. The brunt of the payment for these fees is agriculture. And knowing homeowners can use more water than it takes to irrigate a vineyard just doesn't seem very fair. So we'd like the supervisors, the board of supervisors, to take at the very least that these fees are proportionate to the homeowners and agriculture as opposed to just putting the load back onto ag. As we know, it is the best use of our land and it does take water to farm, but it does take a lot more water to maintain a home. Another area which I would like to see the board to review is the exclusion of the reused winter waters as mentioned before. We believe that this really can be a benefit to everybody and certainly worth a deeper dive. And just one last thing to be a little bit more controversial is, you know, the $750,000, while well appreciated, it's already our tax money being reappropriated. So, you know, we're not really going to see that discount. It's just our money being moved. So appreciate the efforts, and thank you, and we look forward to continuing this.

Thank you. Okay. Chris Malin. Capturing drainage tile water is just not practical because drainage tile is meant to keep the erosion from happening during storm events. So when the drainage tile has perforated holes in it, it's meant to keep the vineyard from sliding off the hill during a storm event. That water is going into the river and going out into the bay. So if you're going to capture it, you have to have a place to hold it for the summer. You can't capture storm water and use it during the summer unless you're storing it somewhere. So it's just not practical. Other thing, if the folks who are asking to be exempt from the fee because they have an alternate water supply, they mentioned or Jameson mentioned riparian or water right. Some of the Napa River is over-appropriated, so people can't get in line to get a water right. And riparian, you're not supposed to be pumping from the creek during the summer to put it on a vineyard because you then dry up the creek and you kill the fish. So riparian rights do have restrictions. So we have to be very, very careful that people don't rely on the stream to water the vineyard during the summer. And also I would like to know if it's possible, I think this money should be accountable as well. So I agree with the one speaker who said an oversight. The goal is to reduce groundwater pumping because we are over pumping our aquifer and the sustainable yield. is for groundwater pumping in the Napa River sub basin is 15,000 acre feet per year. And we've been exceeding that on an average of 3,000 acre feet per year. So the goal of this money is to apply it to the Groundwater Sustainable Agency such that they enforce or regulate the reduction of groundwater pumping. So if we're going to reduce the fee, is that going to hurt us in the long run? Are we going to get to groundwater reduction? And if we could see the calendar of the GSA for the year to see how we are using those funds to bring about groundwater pumping reduction, that would be helpful because the GSA doesn't meet that often. And it's really hard to catch up with what's going on. So if we're going to reduce the amount of money, are we going to get to the goal line? That's what I'd like to know. Thanks. Thank you. Welcome.

Hello.

Cynthia Group. I have a question. Move it up. OK. Obviously, a lot of work has gone into this study to make it equitable. My question is, if in the sub-basin you have two equal-sized parcels, they're both pumping. One of them is just vineyards. The other one is vineyards in a winery. My understanding is that wineries use a lot of water. I made wine for a while myself. I know it takes a lot of water. And certainly most wineries are going to take a lot more water than the average home. So has that been taken into consideration? So that's my question. Thank you.

Welcome.

Chair Manfrey and respected members of the board. I'm Mike Hackett. I just got out of a meeting this morning with the board of the Save Napa Valley Foundation. And just to reiterate, this is people like Randy Dunn, like Spotswood's Novak family, like the people from Dominus. I mean, these are respected winemakers and vintners, and they've been successful here for 50 years plus. Their message that I'm conveying to you, and it's too late this year, is to meter every well. It's simple. It's diagnostic. We will know for sure how much is being extracted. It won't be based on a model. It'll be based on reality. Then you can fairly, and that's the word that kept coming up, if you want a fair assessment of everybody and what they should pay, then you meter the wells. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Deborah Doman with Treasury Wine Estates. I just want to reemphasize the conversation about drain tiles. It's a great practice. It's practical. It works. We have storage. We do it every year on several of our parcels, and it directly reduces the amount of groundwater we pump. when you don't want us pumping in the summer. So it should be encouraged. So I encourage you as a board to reconsider that at a policy level. I believe it's a policy decision that you all should be making and consider and should be encouraging us to do. A couple of questions. I'm wondering when on timing we're going to know about for next year's budget because by the time you're meeting in June, our budget's going to be already cooked for the year. So the sooner that we get an understanding of what it's going to be next year, we're already planning for that. And like we're all doing in the industry, it's a really big budget. I would consider where you can make cuts. We're all doing it. Even though we don't want to do it and we say we can't cut anymore, we have no choice. So I encourage you to look at that other side of the equation as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. Kelly Anderson out of Angwin. This discussion about the drain tile water reminds me of this scene in Out of Africa. And do you remember Karen Blixen is there in the pouring rain with one of her workers, and she's trying to build a dam and make a pond. And he said, whatever he called her, Mrs., the water must run to Mosaba. And she says, yes, we'll build a pond and the water can go next. And here's the quote, if I can find it. The water must run to the sea. Using drain water that is sheeting across a vineyard, going into a large thump, you see them up and down 29 or the trail, and they're pumping massive volumes of surface water. The ground is saturated. They're pumping that water into creeks and streams and into the river. It is flushing the river. It is flushing the riparian system. It is enabling the river to have capacity so fish and the regeneration can happen in the winter. I've worked in many vineyards, and I'm very familiar with the need to get that water off so it doesn't stand or damage the crop or preclude spring work. That water needs to go to the river. And it came to my attention actually only at a treasury reservoir that was built on Larkmead Lane when I saw these perfectly workhorse vines being ripped out for this ginormous reservoir. I'd never seen anything like that. And I asked the staff, where is that water coming from? And the answer was subsurface drain tiles. So it is kind of a thing that we're all kind of picking on right now, aren't we? We're saying, hey, we want to use that free unaccounted water. And I'm thinking that water needs to run to the river. So the very fact that we are here nitpicking about subsurface drain tiles tells you how much trouble we're in. That water needs to run to the river. And I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Welcome. Hello. Michelle Benvenuto, wine growers of Napa County. So since 1968, Napa County's own policy has designated agriculture as the highest and best use of the land. That was the first ordinance of its kind in the nation, and it's the foundation of everything this valley is. Groundwater being used for agriculture isn't being taken from some other higher use Under the county's own policy, it is the highest use. So let's look at who is paying for this groundwater, and this is using the county's own numbers. So according to the fee study, Ag accounts for 74% of groundwater pumping in the Sun Basin, yet is billed 83% of the total fee. Self-supplied residential users pump nearly 18% of the groundwater, yet are billed less than 4%. The gap has nothing to do with how much water anyone uses. It was a choice. Self-supplied users were left out of more than half of the program's costs. So when you hear concern from residential rate payers, I gently offer this. Residential users are being asked to pay far less than their fair share of a resource they draw from every day. Ag is subsidizing the difference. Two more things. First, reuse winter water. Growers who capture and store winter water to reduce summer pumping are doing exactly what this program was meant to encourage, and it should be recognized as an alternative water source. Second, the appeal process. If you're overcharged, you have to pay the fee first, and then your appeal is decided by one person, the GSA executive officer. The decision is final. The board never reviews it. For a fee this significant, that doesn't seem to be a fair process. Napa's ag community hasn't asked to be exempted from its fair share. We're asking that reused winter water be recognized as an alternative source, that growers have a fair way to challenge their bills, and that the overall budget going forward is more transparent. And as one of the previous speakers mentioned, we need to look at how we can cut that in the future. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I'm not seeing anyone else in the room. Is there anyone on the phones?

Okay, no one on the phones.

All right. Well, we have a good discussion going already. I will bring this back to the board for any questions at this time. I see Supervisor Ramos.

Thank you so much. And thank you to staff for the presentation, as this is something we've been addressing for a while, a long time coming. And I wanted to ask a couple of the public comments. raised concerns about the fairness of the fee being charged based upon the user. And so I think it would bear revisiting and just for my own clarification, the reason we're applying a methodology is because we do not have well monitoring data on everyone. Is that correct? And so... Yes, just wanted to make sure it was heard. So, if users want to be charged a fairer rate for actual usage, we need everyone's well monitoring data. And that would improve The confidence in the rate being charged, but likewise would further the goals of the, am I correct?

Yes.

Okay. And so, you know, I. I think it would it would be helpful if you. But also just kind of revisit what the actual goals of this program are. The goals of the groundwater sustainability program? Yes, absolutely.

Ultimately, the big picture goal is by the year 2042, and ideally much sooner than that, bring the subbasin into a condition of quote-unquote sustainability where we're not drawing more from it than it's able to replenish itself. As some of the commenters noted, our seven-year rolling average of pumping from the groundwater basin is is exceeding the sustainable yield, a sustainable yield of 15,000 acre-feet per year. The seven-year rolling average is 17,700 acre-feet. Not catastrophic. exceedance above the sustainable yield, but more than we would like. So it's getting to that point and also not having any undesirable results as they're defined, minimum threshold exceedances. Yeah. Basically, in short, the ultimate goal.

Okay. I know the question was asked in terms of how many wells do we have monitoring data for. We've had some recent appeals that have come before the board that do include well monitoring data and usage. And so perhaps you can give us a lay of the land of the trajectory of how we have improved in terms of the data that is being shared with us.

I couldn't speak to the exact number of wells that are required to submit their data currently. Perhaps Director Bordona can, but the requirement exists when we issue a use permit. So it's a relatively small number as a fraction of the total number of wells, certainly. I'm certain it's grown, but I couldn't tell you what the exact number is.

To the best of your knowledge, do we have anyone that has volunteered their well data? We do. We do. And, and I should say, actually we have about, do we have like a billboard, like congratulating that, that well, you should.

Yeah. I try to thank him as often as I can. And also thank the people who voluntarily let voluntarily let us go out and, and measure their wells, their groundwater levels. Super helpful. Um, that's us taking the pulse and the temperature and all the vital statistics of the basin, um, In just the Milliken-Sarco-Tulike area, we have a little bit less than 100 wells that are required to report. In the rest of the sub-basin, I think it's probably less than 100. But I'm going out on a limb.

I don't have that number in front of me. But what I will say is that condition, as part of a standard condition of approval as part of a winery use permit, whether it's in the sub-basin or anywhere for that matter, has required the monitoring and collection of the monitoring data. However, it does not require you to submit it to the county. It only requires that you do so in the event that the director determines it to be necessary, in the event that there's some compelling circumstance. This is going to be a topic of the next item, and we can at that time, I think, speak to the standard conditions of approval are going to be a topic of the next item. And so we could maybe expand more, explore more on how we might be able to modify our conditions of approval to not have groundwater be just collected and only submitted upon request, but the board would have an opportunity to modify that to have it just be submitted as opposed to having me ask for it.

Thank you. And then my final question, in order, you know, if we're going to look at, say, a more trued-up usage fee as opposed to, I would call this a modeling fee, that would require what level of participation in terms of well-monitoring data to get to a usage fee versus a modeling fee?

Well, from just a fairness point of view, I don't know that we can say that, like, I mean, it's partly a scientific question, like how many, what is the representative sample, if you will? What is the percentage of wells that we would need pumping data from to be representative of the whole? I would have to speculate, you know, a majority, a large majority, something like that. But then you get into the question of fairness. What about the others that don't report? I mean, how are we deciding who is and who is not required would be my question that comes from that. So to me it seems like it's either everybody reports or not.

Thank you.

It would be something we would have to look into to see if, in fact, everybody has to report or some representative sample could be arrived at. So it's something that we can consider in the future if asked to do so.

Okay, thank you. I see Vice Chair Alessio and then after that Supervisor Cottrell and then after that Gallagher.

Well, I want to start off by thanking staff and all the stakeholders who are here and who've been involved to get us to this place. There's been a lot of work. There's been concessions, I believe, especially using this fund balance. Um, and identifying that again, I want to thank our CEO for seeing that fund balance and quickly making a shift with a significant amount. Base that was in there, I think it was like, 1.2Million was in there if I remember correctly, or 1.1, and we're using 750,000 on top of the already 500 plus. 1000 that we were putting in to offset this. because we recognize this historical time that's really frightening and creating great hardships and loss for people in the wine and agricultural business. So I want to start with those thank yous. In terms of the modeling, what is the percentage of error in this modeling? Is it like 5% error modeling? Because usually modeling has some kind of percentage of error. What's the percentage of error here? Because I'm getting a little bit of...

I don't know that you can speak to an error bar on the entire model. Every parameter and every kind of variable within the model probably has different error bars, if you will. If we're honing in on the percentage of the total pumping that is attributed to ag versus self-supplied versus other uses. To that one very specific metric, again, that's the compilation of many, many different parameters in the model. I couldn't speak to that. Our technical consultant, Ludolf Scalmanini, could perhaps speculate on that, but I think it would be a bit of a speculation. No models are perfect, but, you know, our model, and we invite people to think get in there and kind of you know tool around and we invite our tag members to do that in fact our groundwater technical advisory group um we have invited them to a number well they've they've seen multiple presentations a year on this topic and the model comes up at just about every meeting and just about every presentation at every meeting the model um discussed and we've had some more in-depth conversations with them they too want to kind of pull behind the curtain if you will and kind of get in there in the gears and like okay what happens if we turn this up and turn that down and how does it affect things but I I'm sorry I can't tell you what the error bar says are on the bottle

We are going to be bringing an item in a month or so. I think the October 13th date, and Neha can correct me if I'm wrong, I think she's been talking with staff about the groundwater, water availability analysis guidelines, and that may be a a greater opportunity to kind of get into some of those more technical details that aren't so much linked to the fee. But definitely germane and definitely important to discuss.

Yeah, I think it's important. I mean, based on other discussions and other areas of modeling, I have usually given an example of what that error margin is. for that model and it just depends on what you're modeling. So that's why I asked the question because I'm hearing some, you know, some concerns regarding the reliability of the modeling and how fair and equitable this is.

well a model is agnostic it has no sense of fairness there's no um doesn't have that but um to your point and i think we're the modeling at least in with respect to the groundwater fee has been particularly questioned is around drain tiles and the estimates of the volume that are computed and assigned to drain tile water. We have, I think we had been fairly clear in the past, but I'll reiterate right now, we would very much appreciate any tile drain data from growers, real data about locations of drains. In the GSP, Ludorf Scalmanini did an exercise to estimate where we think drains are located based on wherever there are low permeability soils. that also have vines on them. That's a pretty good proxy for where drain tiles are, which we estimate to be about 16% of the sub-basin. If that number is not right, we'd love to have that data and information from the industry. So I think I heard Mr. Rumbles say that he was willing to kind of help corral some of that. We would appreciate it very much.

Thank you. And the question came up in terms of when will this return back to the board for an e-fee adjustment?

Whenever the board asks us to. I mean, to me, just, you know, five years is kind of a good time. You know, you've got to kind of let things run a little while and see how they work. But really, at any time the board wanted to spend the money to redo the fee study, we could do that.

But in terms of, like, the annual adjustment?

Oh, the annual adjustment.

Yeah, right. So folks can prepare themselves in their budgets. Right.

Yeah, that was a good point. We do quarterly looks at our budgets and how we're doing with spending and so forth. So I think by the third quarter, we could probably make a pretty reasonable, you know, estimation of where we're going to come in with our budget for the whole year and maybe do some advance calcs about what kinds of fee that would that would translate to, and then the board can consider maybe even ahead of the budget hearings. Like that January to March?

Our third quarter, like January to March?

January to March would be tough, but maybe, you know, for January to March, the charges don't even really land until early May. Okay. You know, and so we could maybe give a good month, month or two.

Okay, I wasn't sure which third quarter. You're talking fiscal year or calendar year?

Sir, fiscal year, third quarter, but, you know, to wrap up, to get through March and You don't have your real – the numbers haven't hit the books until April, late April, May. But we'll – you know, I absolutely heard that comment. I think it's a good one, and we'll try to inform the board and arm you with the information you need as soon as possible so that you can pass that on and others can incorporate it into their budgets.

Thank you. Just a couple more questions. You know, growing practices, agriculture has really changed. And let's just say I'm looking at 20 to 25 years, since 2000, let alone before then. But at least when we had those drought years, year after year with drought, there were requirements by the state, just overall, everybody had to reduce and really be mindful of conservation. And I think that there was a behavioral shift that happened at that time, and there was agricultural shifts in terms of how they also conserve, whether it's reservoir. I'm hearing the drain tiles is another way that they're conserving. And I hear the other case saying, no, we need to flush out the creek, so I'm also hearing that. Um, two, but in terms, I mentioned this because let's just say over the 20 years of this, the practice of, of irrigation and for agriculture. And I do think that, um, you know, wine grapes is a very conservative kind of agricultural crop. And I agree. We're very lucky. to be an agricultural community that is wine grapes versus many others that would use a lot more water. But when was that baseline established that the state, because this is all coming down from the state of California. So when did the state establish that baseline that says we need to reduce an addition? I think it was 2021 to get to full recharge by 2042. Yeah.

It was 2014 was, I think, the period of record that they were asking us to go back and analyze. 2014 is when SGMA was passed. Honestly, I'm not sure, and I don't want to misspeak, but I believe it was about 10 years before SGMA was passed was the period of record in which they wanted us to kind of analyze and use data from that. So it's basically very recent since, you know, as you pointed out, ag practices have changed and evolved a lot, and it's more recent than that.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. And then just a couple questions. I think I have maybe two left. Do we have an exemption for people who are providing well water, like monitoring and providing? Is there an option for people to pay based on monitoring their well water use and reporting that, or some kind of oversight so we can continue to encourage people people to monitor more and then therefore their chart specifically based on use versus based on something that's a little bit.

That would be fantastic. I would love, you know, if it were a volumetric fee, then the kind of that conservation incentive is kind of built in. We hope to get to that. We're not there yet, but, um, Until then, we can't have, you know, one set of rates that are based on a parcel and planted acreage and then another set of rates that are based on volume and you get a credit if you don't. We can't do it yet. Okay.

It'd be nice to be able to incentivize that since there seems like there's a good consensus that that's the direction we'll be going to. It'd be great to incentivize and, you know, for that. And I think there was one more question, but I doubt it really is that important. So I'm going to let, I'm going to pass this on. Thank you. Sure.

Thank you for those questions. Supervisor Cottrell?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to Supervisors Alessio and Ramos for bringing up a lot of the points that I was thinking about, too. I want to begin. I don't know if we did kind of public correspondence. I think I know I'm in receipt of a couple of letters from residential users who are concerned about equity of water rates. And then I wanted to also echo my colleagues in thanking staff for their work here and particularly all the industry partners and residents who have come to participate. This is not an easy path. And the fact that we have heard at the podium people saying, you know, this wouldn't be my preference, but I understand why we need to do it. I really appreciate that. And that's the community working together. And just to set out or echo, Jameson, what you were sharing about what the goal is that by 2042 we're in a sustainability mode. I think also the goal is to have a long-term equitable fee structure. And we also know to meet that 2042 goal that we do need to do some reduction of use. And I think Supervisor Ramos made the point that a direct use-based fee is where you pay for the gallons that you use is an equitable way to go. And I would also argue that's an efficient way to go. We've heard, I think, appreciate commenters making the point that we want the program itself to be as efficient as possible. And also, we heard a walkthrough of all the steps that we currently need to go through in order to identify acreage usage and things like that. So Mr. Mosley, you made the point that probably most growers aren't in the 0%, 50%, or full irrigation, right? So what a direct metering use-based fee would let us do is do away with all of that sort of categorization. And then we would, it's my understanding, you would use that number and you wouldn't need to go through any kind of verification about dry farming or make corrections.

Yeah.

Right. Okay. Um, and and so then it would really be about, um, how we would get to that. So, I guess, let me back up for a minute to say, I appreciate what we have in this current, um. Fee structure and I'm and I really appreciate the staff was able to find a way to reduce it because I think working in partnership with our industry, we know that we need to look for ways to make the path which is bumpy right now easier. So I'm glad that we could do that. And I look forward to the conversation about where we would go next year. Um, but I'd love to make a referral, um, further out to continue to have a discussion about what it would take. to move us to a more direct use-based fee model. And so some questions related to that. I'm curious how other counties have implemented a use-based fee, what it looks like, where those numbers come in. I think that would be useful for residents and industry to say, where are those numbers coming from? Because I think one of the things we've heard is give us some certainty. Mr. Ilse made that point, like help us plan for that. And I appreciate his point, too, saying, you know, if growers could share their actual data, that would be, you know, helpful to this model. So, and again, I just wrote down some quotes. Every grower's water supply portfolio is unique and complex. And so the more we could just say what... What's the amount of groundwater being used? I think that would be helpful. I'd love to learn more about drain tiles. I think the importance of winter water is key and being able to store water when we have really splashy rain events. We know that we have events that we, more water is coming down than we can store, right? So it's possible to have a rain event where you could put some in a reservoir and plenty is still going into the river. So I think it would be helpful for us all to learn about that. The other question I had is the concept of the split ag rate. Again, curious how that's measured. We don't have to go into it here, but again, that's one of those artificial line drawing scenarios where if we just told someone you're halfway in the basin, you pay the percentage of your use based on how much you're in the basin. Anyway, I think you're getting the point, but thank you for this. I'm in support of the staff's recommendation, and I want again to say thank you for the work and for finding a way to reduce these fees.

Thank you, Supervisor Cattrall. Supervisor Gallagher?

Thank you. And I extend all my thanks to our staff that has worked really hard and with the industry partners too, who I know have been collaborating for a long time. Because this is coming up in terms of the fee, I think that it deserves a little bit of discussion. It may be something for another time. I think staff can make that decision, but there seems to be some conflating happening between runoff essentially stormwater and sump water. So one being surface, one being groundwater, percolating groundwater. And while we have very clear guidelines within our erosion control plans about what those diversion structures are, and those are put in many, obviously in the ECPs, you know, that refers to stormwater that goes into some kind of a settling structure that is a storage structure, correct? Okay, so that is not the same. In what I have learned and what I have read, and so I want verification of this, if you can give it now, as sump water, so the sort of sump water slash drain tile system, which is percolating groundwater. It is not considered surface water. It's not stormwater. It has already infiltrated through the soil and entered the subsurface, meaning entered below ground. So it is not actually what we're looking for in terms of water conservation. It's an ag practice to keep water out of the root structure so that the roots don't get waterlogged. As I understand it, it's not a water conservation method. So if you can briefly... Give me some feedback around that. If you think we need to have a bigger discussion, I don't know. It seems really clear in both the legal memo and in just reading through like the ECP guidelines and those kinds of things, what the difference is. But I feel like there's people are conflating the two. So that would be helpful.

Sure. So in the context of an erosion control plan, which is a hillside vineyard development, you are using subsurface drains to... Capture and control the runoff and hopefully in a way that mimics the current hydrologic regime, so you're not increasing runoff You're not collecting that water for consumption You are collecting and concentrating it and redistributing it out Hopefully in a way that mimicked the previous hydrologic regime that could be through a tea spreader retention detention basins and whatnot so in that context In the vineyard context, hillside vineyard context, ECP context, it's for runoff control to meet our runoff control requirements, both at the local and state level. The drain tile system, while also is modifying the hydrologic regime, it's doing so in a way that both intercepts, captures, and distributes rising groundwater as the soil becomes saturated, particularly at a time when the roots are sensitive to excess moisture. The drain tiles, that water would otherwise stay in the system if it wasn't diverted, and it would do whatever it normally would do absent the drain tile system, percolate into the ground slowly, and eventually work its way through the system and eventually to the river, into the summer, and then out to the river and to the bay. The drain tile system somewhat sidesteps that natural process by taking advantage, if you will, of the water that could be detrimental to the vines by putting it into a reservoir. And I don't disagree that this is a wise use of that water given that system exists. And I'm assuming that system originally existed. primarily if not solely for the purpose of getting the water away from the roots at the appropriate times. It was probably later decided or determined that, hey, we could probably use this water as well for irrigation as a wise use. So completely same idea in that you're modifying the hydrologic regime, but for two different reasons.

I guess I'm really, it doesn't seem like that system, I mean, in what way could you say that that system is somehow alternative to groundwater?

We haven't, but I know that those have. And it's not something that we've explored in depth, but what I will throw out there is that in the event we were to be asked or directed to evaluate this dynamic further and consider it as an alternate form, as we have the other sources, we would have to then ask folks to demonstrate that. In the process of demonstrating that, they would have to show us that 50% or more of this drain tile water is being applied to the system. In order to do that, you have to show us how much water you're extracting through your well. So I guess that would be a bonus in that we would now have the well data. But at the end of the day, from a fee perspective, it's not as if the fee would just go away. All the non-drain tile people would have to then absorb that additional cost. So Those on drain tile systems I guess would get a deal, and those not on the drain tile system would have to absorb it or offset that savings, if you will. So the money just doesn't disappear. Somebody else is just paying for it.

Right, and it's my understanding that if we, in some way, elected to treat this as an alternative water supply, that actually isn't in keeping with the law, California law. According to the legal memo and according to what California defines as groundwater versus surface water.

There's two things I guess for me in play. One, we're talking about a fee structure based on use of water in the basin to pay for the administrative costs of running the program. That does not yet include how one may go about implementing conservation measures that may then be incentivized, that may then get them a lower rate. That's a separate conversation. A lot of this is more in the technical bucket that could ultimately inform a fee rate, whether we do a base rate to make sure we have sufficient money year to year and there's some consistency, but then maybe we get less rate if you use less or something. I don't know. That would have to be explored. For me, this all falls into the technical bucket. And I know that there was a referral earlier this morning to kind of take a closer look at the role of the tag. SUPERVISOR CONTROL MENTIONED TWO OR THREE THINGS THAT I JOTTED DOWN HERE IN TERMS OF REFERRALS THAT I'M JUST GOING TO PASS OFF TO THE TAG. IT MAY BE, WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS, IT MAY BE A MORE TECHNICAL AND COHESIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT ALL THINGS CONSERVATION, ALL THINGS GROUNDWATER USE, DRAIN TILES, AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE OF THE TAG, OUR TEAM, LUIDORF AND SCALMANINI, AND HAVE A MORE THOROUGH CONVERSATION ABOUT IT. For me, if we're going to do the metering thing, I fully support it. It will help us advance the goals and objectives of the GSP. But if that's going to happen, I feel like we really need a commitment on the part of the industry if that's actually information that folks are going to provide. Because if they're not, ultimately, then there's no sense in us talking about it too much or investing too much time in it.

Yeah, I think, you know, I wanted to go kind of one step further with Supervisor Gertrall's referral and beyond having more discussion about it. It's like, I think we should just go ahead and do the work necessary to figure out how we even set up a program to accept real data. and look at what can we do on the back end to even be ready for that if that's the way we end up going. I mean, again today, I wanna be charged for what I used. Now, I mean, that's another discussion in and of itself because you're not, this isn't just about pain. It's not about pain per gallon, pain per parcel, whatever, pain per acre. It's about maintaining a system whereby we do not get dinged for undesirable results and end up being mandated by the state around how much water we can use. And I just don't want to lose sight of the goal. So when we're talking about I mean, the fee. Yeah. Okay. The fee is kind of here and we're discussing the fee, but then all these practices are coming in because the different practices affect what your fee is. But let's make sure the practices are actually in support of the goal. Because if they're not, you know, I don't want to be incentivizing things that actually are not, um. Protecting groundwater and that doesn't make any sense. So, you know, while while somebody might say. I want doing this for my vineyard. This is what works in my vineyard. That's great. It has to also comport with what has to happen across the basin in order to meet the goals of the plan. We don't, you know, we have to meet those goals. We don't have choice about like, no, we just don't want to do it because then the state's going to come in and tell us what to do anyway. So, and I know there are people who say, well, I don't care. Let the state come. No, that's, I mean, we can't do that up here. We're not doing that. We want local control. We want to make sure that we're doing what we need to do in our community. We don't want to be taking orders from the state. So I think we need to be really careful about what we're promoting, what we're encouraging, and what we're incentivizing.

Thank you, Supervisor Gallagher. Okay. I have my own set of comments and questions here. So I guess I'll just I want to start off by checking in with Council because we've received written communications questioning the basis for us being able to charge rates in the first place. And it's my understanding that um you know kind of uh following on our discussion this morning of unfunded mandates from the state that when the state legislature adopted sigma they knew they were putting an unfunded mandate on the counties and that they foresaw that there would be a need to charge fees and so they set up a structure to do that and they gave the authority to the gsas so um yeah anything you would like to tell us about that to make it crystal clear what the basis for all of this is would be helpful

Good afternoon. Tom Zeleny, County Council's Office. I've actually been to the Commission on State Mandates, and I do know that when they give you the ability to charge a fee, it pulls you out of the state mandate arena. So by doing that, it was by design, so we cannot go to the state and ask them for reimbursement for managing our groundwater program because they gave us the ability to adopt these fees. And what we've adopted here is essentially an administrative fee. The GSA is really in its infancy, and most of what it's doing is administrative Type tasks. We're not building infrastructure. We're not rolling out a meter program yet or anything like that So most of what we're doing is outreach communication You know mailing postcards and I did see one of the written public comments that spoke to well You know, you should really be charging more for people who are using more water But at this stage when we mail a postcard It's the same amount whether we mail the postcard to somebody using a lot of water or using only a little bit of water so it's difficult to structure a volumetric fee at this point because almost everything we're doing is really unrelated to volume. But that may change over time and there are other provisions in the water code that we're not availing ourselves of yet. that discuss volumetric fees. But it's also kind of done in the context of infrastructure, stormwater capture, groundwater recharge, where we're actually putting product into the ground, where you would charge people a volumetric fee to pull it out of the ground. my recommendation right now is to stick with what we have and what the fee study has concluded which basically an administrative fee and it is actually it is based on the relative benefit i know one of the speakers said well they're using i don't know 10 of the water they should be paying 10 of the fee it's that's an oversimplification because what the fee study does is it breaks it down into well here's this type of task um here are various types of customers who is benefiting more, who is benefiting less, and then look at task B and look at task C. So that's why you don't have a straight line of 10% consumption, 10% of the fee. It's a lot more complicated than that. But for now, because this is really, it's almost like an infant utility, the way the fee structure is set up now is really the best way to go.

Thank you for that, Mr. Zeleny. Okay. So I also want to put this into the statewide context. There's a lot of places that are complying with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act right now. It's not like it's just Napa Valley. And there are a lot of different approaches to that. But many places have already started charging fees and are well down this path. We have put this off for a number of years. basically as long as we possibly could, as far as I can tell. And I really want to second, third, fourth, the appreciation of staff and consultants and the industry partners and everyone in the community for being part of the conversation, working on it, getting it to this point, you know, and recognize that I... that the fees that we're implementing I believe are equitable and as low as possible given the information that we have right now and the resources that we have right now. Even, you know, even though I think, you know, nobody wants to be charged another fee and, you know, certainly I don't think we want to charge another fee just for fun, but we have to in order to run the program and we have to start somewhere and this is where we are today. So I also want to recognize that operating a well is not free in the first place, that it takes electricity to pump the water, that it takes money to drill the well and install the apparatus and keep everything running. So I'm under no illusions that having a well doesn't mean free water, which some people who have never lived on a well seem to think that, but it's not how it works. So yeah, so just recognizing that for everybody. Let's see. My notes were really organized in the beginning, by the way, but there's been so much conversation that now they're a little disorganized. Yeah, thanks. So I also want to raise the point that I'm a little concerned that we may at some point or it can be possible to conflate well levels with monitoring well levels with monitoring water use. Those are two different things. They're both important. We need to bring the groundwater level, the water table itself up in order to meet the goals of SGMA. However, it's going to be very difficult to do that without actually monitoring water consumption or water use. the amount of water being pumped out of the ground there. Because, you know, I could be over pumping my well and my neighbor could be not pumping at all, but the groundwater table could be dropping in both our wells, right? So just one piece of information isn't enough there. You really need both. And we do have a network of monitoring wells and that's good, but it's going to take more to get us all the way to correcting the condition that we find ourselves in. I also support universal metering and monitoring and I'm interested in seeing, you know, like how we could possibly structure a rate once we do have more information, how to roll out that program and then structure a rate around more data, possibly something like a base rate, like a utility charges plus. a use rate or I could also see giving credits for people who are really going above and beyond on infiltration and recharging the aquifer, perhaps more than they use. I think there's some possibilities there to create some really good incentives. And I also want to recognize that if a property owner finds themselves in the situation where they have impermeable soils, and are relying on drain tiles to keep their agriculture viable, those are indications that you have built your vineyard in a historic wetland. That's how you get impermeable soils. They're old vernal pools. They're old oxbow river channels. That's how they get deposited. And so it's something that likely wouldn't be permitted today. And it's an area that is actually very important for groundwater recharge and potentially bringing our water tables up. And so, I don't want that to get lost in the discussion about the way the landscape functions. And I also want to correct my earlier statement that there's two ways to address the problem. I previously said it's reducing use and increasing recharge and thinking about it more. There's also the potential of raising the water table, which you do by raising the river level. And so that's something you can do by, well, raising the river level, which you like by beaver dams or beaver dam analogs or structures in the stream that help raise the floor of the river itself. is something that will raise the adjacent water table across the landscape and that would also help us achieve our goal. And we are a community that has a long history of being a leader in multi-benefit projects. This is another potential place to apply those skills and achieve the goals. So, what else do we have here? The fees are based on the data we have available now. And, you know, I think a comprehensive monitoring program that helps us scale fees by actual water consumption would be a good long-term goal. I do support us moving forward today with the information we have and also second the referral or third the referral to the technical advisory group to look at drain tiles and their function on the landscape and just how that works in relation to groundwater levels and management. I think that's it. Thank you. Okay. So let's see. I see Supervisor Cottrell?

Yes. Chair, at this time I am happy to make a motion. So I move that the board adopt a resolution of the Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency temporarily reducing fees for fiscal year 26-27 and authorizing levy and collection of the fees on property tax bills. Okay, thank you. Do I have a second?

Okay, I have a motion by Cottrell and a second by Supervisor Gallagher. All those in favor? Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, thanks everybody for your participation on that one. We are moving on to item 13b which is a presentation regarding potential administrative and efficiency based amendments to title 18 of our zoning code napa county code and providing direction regarding preparation of future ordinance amendments for board consideration and i welcome a staff report from our director of planning building and environmental services brian burdona

I'm respectfully asking for a quick two-minute rest break.

Okay. We can do that. We'll take a quick break. Let's come back in five minutes, though. We still have quite a bit to get through.

I'm going to go ahead and resume our meeting. If everyone could take their seats, that would be awesome.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we're going to start up again. We're on item 13B, which I've already read in. So I welcome a staff report from Michael Parker and Brian Burdona. Anytime you're ready.

Just putting down this last starburst, make sure it's not pulling out one of my fillings.

Take your time. Thank you. All right.

No, thank you and good afternoon. Today we're seeking direction from the board on a handful of policy considerations aimed at streamlining the existing process. I want to on the outset emphasize that we're not proposing changes to the fundamental land use structure or framework. We're simply looking for opportunities to make the existing system more efficient. Predictable and responsive while maintaining the existing level of environmental review public participation Participation and all the protections that have been established by the board On your slide, this is the agenda We're going to be talking about These items, the winery admin permit process and some potential opportunities to build in some flexibilities. Modernizing the hearing and signage rules. We're going to be talking about the micro winery ordinance as well. The AB 720 pilot as well as some background on the appeals and we'll be looking for direction on that as well. And the modernization of our standard winery conditions of approval. PBS constantly is looking for ways to improve upon its processes, and as such, we recently identified a handful of changes that we think could be made to help streamline the process again without compromising any of the protections in place, excluding the public, environmental review, et cetera. Along those lines, as you're aware, in April earlier this year, the industry submitted a formal letter to your board, including some short and long-term items they had asked us to consider by referral from Supervisor Cottrell. She asked that we blend that into what we were already doing, and so we're doing that here today. Next slide. So with the admin permits, We have, this slide is showing a handful of items that are currently subject to our minor modification use permit process. We've identified three items on this slide that we believe by assigning objective standards to, we can convert to an admin permit. Those include flexibility with respect to a marketing plan. So for example, if you have an approval to do a 100 person event, We can look at potentially allowing a pathway that's quicker to break that marketing event up into, say, 10 person events and do that at an administrative level while also allowing for greater flexibility in the process for doing so. Rather than requiring an extensive minor modification, we can do that by way of a an admin permit. It's simpler, quicker, and in turn cheaper. That saves resources on the side of staff and also on the part of the applicant. But again, subjecting to the same level of standards that are currently in place, we're talking about a change in the process, not the substance of it. Similarly, we've looked at the potential to provide flexibility in the event a winery wants to hire more people. Currently, you have to go through a minor modification if you want to hire more people due to demand or need for more employees. We could look at a system that enables one to bring on additional employees while substituting out a commensurate number of visitation. And the reason for that is it will maintain the existing levels of impacts, if you will, on the overall systems, whether it be groundwater, septic, traffic, et cetera. Within the context of the admin permit, we have identified a handful of requirements that are somewhat dated and also in some ways can serve as a barrier to reaching our GHG goals. For example, if you want to put a charging station within your existing parking lot, you have to get an admin permit. You also have to get an electrical permit through the building department. For us, the electrical permit is just fine. We don't also need an admin permit. It's duplicative and simply unnecessary. Similarly, and folks may chuckle at this, if you want to put in a bike rack, you also have to get an admin permit. We would be fine with people just putting in a bike rack if they choose to. That's not something that we're interested or otherwise need to see. If you want to install a commercial kitchen, you have to go through the minor mod process. The primary interest there is making sure the environmental health requirements are kept in place. This is not necessarily a WDO issue. We will still want to, so we're looking to shift this to an admin permit process rather than a minor modification. while still meeting the same state-required EH requirements. We don't need to go through a minor mod, in my opinion, to do this. Um, this was an industry request. Um, the signage requirements currently the WDO from 1990, um, requires that you post a sign saying tourism tasting by appointment only. Um, there was a request to have that removed. Um, I think that's a good idea and I think we can do so without compromising any substantive aspects of the WDO. Other part of this is we have a handful of items that the code says must go to the zoning administrator. We are looking at ways in which we can only go to the zoning administrator in the event Concerned member of the public or somebody that's otherwise interest requests it time and time again. We have zoning administrator hearings where The only person or people that are there is the applicant their winemaker The 17 ologist that they had to hire to go through the process Staff at this table just like now staff at that table the clerk and the guy behind the wall there that's running all the system for a five-minute hearing and It probably adds up to 10 grand in total. And if folks aren't interested, it makes no sense to have it. That said, if folks are interested, we will have it. So not eliminating any requirements, just only applying them in the event that there's a desire to do so on the part of the public. The micro winery ordinance changes. This was discussed about a year ago when we brought the micro winery ordinance before the board and asked the board if you wanted to remove the sunset, keep the sunset, extend the sunset, or otherwise make any changes to it. As part of that effort, we also put forward what we thought were some reasonable changes to it to broaden or expand the parameters of the micro winery to broaden the tent, if you will, potentially remove barriers to entry by enabling people to produce more and have more visitation for economic reasons to hopefully help it all pencil out. What we had proposed back then and what we're proposing again for your consideration is moving the annual production limit from 5,000 gallons a year to 10,000, 20 ADT to 40 ADT. We're also suggesting the removal of the 75% estate sourced grape requirement, the requirement to wait for a couple years before you can come in and modify it. And we're also looking to only have a hearing in the event one is interested in it. One of the interesting pieces of the Microwinery Ordinance, all of these requirements can be sidestepped if you just simply wanted to come in and say, hey, Michael Parker, I want to do a new winery of this size, but I don't want to be encumbered by the 75% estate grape thing, the two-year waiting period, and I'm happy with just going to the Planning Commission. For me, this could serve as a way of just kind of modernizing, simplifying it, and reducing the number of various winery use permit types that we have. There has been an interest in looking at the pilot program for AB 720 to allow for the program to also be applied or expanded to include explicitly winery parcels. The current regulatory framework already allows for marketing activities on a winery parcel. It already allows for them to occur outside. It just simply needs to be identified in your winery use permit as to where you're conducting these types of activities. However, these marketing events on the winery parcel or the more traditional or otherwise ones that comport with the current definition of marketing, which differs from the definition of marketing in AB 720, I mention that because if we are going to be looking at expanding the pilot program to include winery parcels, we'll be dealing with this dynamic of, or having to rectify this dynamic of effectively having two different definitions of marketing on the same parcel. I'm not saying it's not doable, but it's something that I'm gonna have to work with the fire marshal on to see if in fact there is a path forward on this. and whether or not that path resides with the county, or if it's more appropriately with the ABC, where the O2 permit already exists on a winery parcel, where that may be just simply modified to identify these additional areas where this tasting is going to occur. On the topic of appeals, this was by referral from Supervisor Alessio, and I believe seconded by Supervisor Ramos. And I believe also a table showing this data has been provided to you by CEO Alsop. Nonetheless, I have summarized that table on this slide. This identifies that over the last three years, we have received 15 land use related appeals. They've been related to wineries, vineyards, and one parcel map, I believe, out in the airport business part. 10% of them have been winery-related. Nine of those apparently have been by one entity. To put this into context, during that three-year period of time, we approved 129 discretionary projects, all of which were where one could appeal or were appealable. The math works out that 88% were not appealed. 15 sounds like a lot, but in the context of 129, maybe not so much. In terms of staff time, we identified 2,173 hours. That's planning, engineering, county council, environmental health, and all the other divisions that are involved in a winery use permit appeal. And that translates to $400,000 that in turn was passed on to applicants. I am here solely at this time to present that data. But I do understand that there may be a desire on the part of the board to provide direction on potential updates to the appeals ordinance. And Cheryl and Laurie Anderson behind me are here in the event you have questions on as to how that might work out. I just want to put this on your radar. The board originally had adopted and directed staff to use standard conditions of approval for a whole host of reasons back in 2012, in large part to maintain or establish consistency and predictability as to what conditions a given use permit holder would be subjected to. Over time, they've been updated. They haven't been updated in quite some time. I'm simply informing the board that we're in the process of updating them to reflect a whole host of new practices that have come down from the state as well as the local level. I mentioned this earlier as part of the previous item that there could be opportunities to modify or otherwise strengthen the groundwater reporting requirement. putting this on your radar that we're coming to you later this year to have a conversation about that. So to sum it up, we're looking for your direction on these potential conceptual ordinance updates. Directing me to go continue my work on this is not a commitment to any particular change, any particular language change. What will happen next is receive direction to proceed on some, none, or all of these We will then prepare code language changes. We will conduct workshops and outreach. Given this is related to Title 18, it has to go before the Planning Commission before it comes back to the board. We will do that and then be back to the board in short order. I do not have a detailed timeline. I know Michael Parker and Laura Anderson have been identifying what that may look like. Our goal is to bring something back to the board before the end of the year, if not sooner. With that, I have Mr. Parker with me, Council for the Planning Commission Laura Anderson is here as well, and Charlene Kalina, the brain trust behind the Planning Division, is here as well. I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Director Bordone. Okay. So before we go to questions, I'll take public comment. Is there anyone in the room wishing to speak on this item? Go ahead and come up. You'll have three minutes.

Thanks Rex Stoltz, Napa Valley Vintners, and just kind of a scene setter. How did we get here? And I have to thank, I think we should thank and acknowledge this EO, Ryan Alsop, because over a year ago, the county was taking some criticism that it wasn't doing enough to help the wine industry during, you know, indisputably difficult times. Nothing like I've seen in 20 years I've had my job. And I think there'd be people in here that would say it goes a lot longer than that. And Ryan suggested that the industry groups come together, work together, and put together a series of policy recommendations, proposals, in the letter to the editor that he had in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. It was the right thing to say and the right thing to do. And we took that to heart and started meeting right away. And this started at the beginning of last summer. And it was at the Napa Valley Vintners offices, and it was board members of the Napa Valley Vintners, one of whom is here today. It was board members, the grape growers, the Farm Bureau, the wine growers, supported by staff, everybody putting their thinking caps on. We had a lot of meetings and brainstormed some common sense ideas that could help existing vintners and growers during these tough times. And it was a all for one, one for all situation. If somebody proposed something and it was objected to by others, we just took it off the table. There's enough that we can all agree on, as you've seen before you right now, that we didn't need to nitpick over things that we didn't agree on. And but after that, think about it. I mean, we all had to go through our own respective committee processes. And then once that happened, everybody had to go to their board of directors. And so these policy recommendations that you're looking and considering have been vetted by a lot of eyes of leaders in the Napa wine industry. All of these were unanimously endorsed by those boards. and um you know the result of this collaboration is a reasonable common sense list of recommendations that we're hoping you guys will take some action on today and help move things forward it's already been you know like i said really a year and a half since the letter to the editor and here we are today and they're targeted to help existing vintners and growers be able to continue to operate profitably here i don't need to tell you guys that this is the tax base for the county i don't need to tell you guys that This is the employment base for tens of thousands of us in Napa County. This is important stuff. And even though I don't need to tell you, I just kind of reminded you that this is very important. I started by thanking the CEO, and I'd like to end by thanking the Board of Supervisors. This is a serious matter. You're taking it seriously. You've dedicated some really good time this afternoon. The staff has put a ton of time into this. We appreciate that as well. And we look forward to some positive movement today. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome. Kelly Anderson, Angwin. I was really excited to see that Brian had mentioned proposing some updates to the conservation regulations. I have been collecting observations for the last 15 years of things that we can do with our vineyard development practices, which will protect our watershed and our wildlife. I will be happy to share my written comments and photographs of things that we can and should change. I do want to mention that the appeal process has lately been considered pesky, but it's so important and it is part of our process where people can appeal. And it is expensive. And it takes lawyers. And it's something that not every resident or neighbor can do on their own. And that's why it's important that other nonprofits or groups are able to do that. And I hope you don't feel like it's a battle against you. or against this circle that we call the county, but it is an effort to have every project be as good as it can. And because some of those projects that were appealed actually resulted in positive changes, I hope you emphasize that. There have been a number of just horrific, heartbreaking vineyard developments that have been permitted over the years in Angwin, the absolute deforestation of the headwaters of the Bell Canyon Creek that supplies the drinking water to St. Helena. I will name some. Steinschreiber, Simonelli, Davis, unbelievable destruction of our upper watershed areas. And because people like me don't have the resources to appeal it, those projects went through and the harm will continue unabated for years. So there's a little bit of environmental justice here. It's important that we permit without too much rebuff that some organizations are appealing projects. And I want to point out that on occasion, you have agreed with them. And in the case of the Lake Colleen Vineyard above Linda Falls, you did. So rather than take that as an affront to this circle that is the county, say how can we respect the information that we're getting and the results that we're getting and realize it is part of the process to make everything as good as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome back.

Thank you very much. Peter Rumble, Napa County Farm Bureau. Just two points that I wanted to make. The first is one that I think you all already appreciate. It led the staff's presentation, but needs to be said aloud and emphasized again, I think. And that is none of these requests is a call to unchecked growth to increased intensity, this is really about making it easier to operate under rules that have been in place for many, many years, might have made perfect sense then, and don't really make sense now. So this gives us the ability to adapt within the same land use restrictions and parameters that we have. The second is I wanted to also thank your board. Early on in that process that Rex laid out for you, I can't tell you how many times I heard from my stakeholders and members, like, this is just another plan. We had this conversation 10 years ago. It's not going to go anywhere. You don't have a receptive audience. Well, you have been a receptive audience, regardless of how the votes go. directing staff to do this amount of work hearing us throughout the months of this process and in having this meeting now is evidence to that so I wanted to thank you for it thank you welcome

Hello again. This is Yves Kahn. I want to thank Rex because I think he speaks the truth that the industry is looking at today, not maybe the way it was 20 or 30 years ago. And so there's a lot of changes. What I'm seeing, though, and this came up a little bit earlier, things like employee and visitation flexibility, adjusting employees. Two or three times the wording is specific, says no net increase in groundwater. Commercial kitchens, expansion of existing, no net increase in groundwater. I will go back to the comment I made earlier. If the industry is going to do this, they need to have meter and monitoring. And if they're not willing to do that, then those wineries should not accept this plan. Because I think that is key. They just blindly say, oh, it's not going to make a difference. But how do you know that? They need to be needed and monitored. So I'd like that to be a requirement. Now, not every winery wants to maybe take these changes. And if they don't, then they keep what they have. I think Liz and a few others talked about, we really should have this. This should be the requirement because we don't know how much change this will have and how much water it will have. And we know we've had wet years and dry years. And those of us who are not in the wine industry but want need to understand that. So I'm just putting that forward. I think that is something that it just implies that that's magically going to happen. And I think it needs to be codified. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Deborah Doman with Treasury Wine Estates. I also want to commend the four industry groups for coming up with this letter. But I also want to emphasize that it's the negotiated floor. It's where we need to start thinking, not stop thinking. We have to start talking about the ceiling, not just the floor. Because just that, it's going to be helpful, but not all of what we need. I've been doing this land use issues in Napa County for 25 years. And one of the concepts, and I shared this with Supervisor Alessio, I think it was just last week or the week before. It's been such a negative thing to say commercialization of the ag preserve in the ag lands. But the ag lands have always been commercial. It's never been a county, state, federal park. It's been a commercial venture that needs to make money or it goes away. So I think our concept about commercialization in the ag land needs a fundamental change. I don't want to go on about how we are with the industry and how Napa County is not shielded from that. Because trust me, it is not shielded from that. I can tell that from personal experience and what we're living right now. So I'll go directly. I went to our top three DTC professionals in our business. And these are the best in the industry. And I asked them three questions. What do you need to drive traffic? to sell wine and to maintain and expand club members. Because that's what we need to do here in Napa County to sell wine. And what they came back universally saying was culinary experiences. We needed expanded culinary experiences. Because consumer experiences wineries help build brand awareness, foster customer loyalty, and create demand that ultimately sustains vineyards, farming operations, and local jobs. I look back at a time when one of our tasting room events was we were going to do a yoga followed by a wine tasting, and we were shut down. Consumers don't want to just come and taste wine and sit at a counter or a table. They want something else. There's no impact to doing yoga and wine tasting. There's zero impact to getting different experience in there and our tasting experiences. Now, I would say it would have less impact because it keeps people on property longer and less traffic out in the rest of the community. But specifically, the culinary experience has become an essential part of attracting the next generation of wine consumers. Younger visitors increasingly seek immersive food and wine experience that connect them to the wine region, its agricultural products, and its winemaking heritage. Allowing wine has greater flexibility to offer food pairings, culinary programs, chef collaborations. We don't want to compete, we want to collaborate. And other agricultural-focused hospitality experience can enhance visitor engagement while reinforcing Napa's reputation as a world-class food and whining destination. So we need more. Like I said, what the letter is is a negotiated floor, and we need to start talking and thinking about the ceiling, because so much more is to come in the industry. We're just getting the very beginnings of it. So thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Patricia Damery. Well, first of all, I want to say thank you because I enjoy, that is probably not quite the right word, but it feels so important to participate in this kind of a process. In fact, I brought my grandsons because I wanted them to know something about county government and about this process that we all take part in. So that's kind of the long way around to saying how important I think the appeals process is. And I really hope that you don't make it even more expensive than it is. Because I know personally from having participated in the appeal of Anthem Winery, along with our neighbors, First of all, it drew neighbors together and it made us really think about neighborhood what needed to happen there, what was too much. When it was permitted, we appealed it. And it was very expensive. It was tens of thousands of dollars. And if we put a requirement on the loser pays all, you're going to select out the most wealthy people who are going to be able to appeal. So I hope you don't do that. That's not democracy. This is not a court. It is a county process. And I think all of us... It is expensive anyway. But to make it even more expensive, I think, goes against democracy. The other thing I want to say is that... Wait a minute, what is the other thing? I have several things here. Boy, I just reached a blank, because I think the Democratic part is the most important thing to me, that we maintain that here. I would like you to listen to why the appeals are happening. I know water audit has been a thorn in the side of a lot of people. But he's also had some really important things to say. And I hope we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater on this. I think the Center for Biological Diversity has been very important. So I think the function of the appeal process is bringing in what's being overlooked. It's very important we invite that in, not make it so expensive it can't be said. So thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair, and honorable members of the Board of Supervisors. Mike Hackett, back from Angwin. I want to just ask you all to, I'm going to draw a little picture of a scene, and I want you to stay with me for a moment. It's a courtroom, very splendid. And the place is packed. People are sitting down. It's a divorce case. And the judge comes in after everyone's seated. And he says, air all rise. And they all get up. And then please be seated. They all sit down very formally. The judge takes a place, looks at his piece of paper. And he looks up at the male in this divorce case, the husband. And he says, I don't trust you. Any chance you can get a fair trial at that hearing? I think not. This board allowed that to happen here in regards to Bill McKinnon and water audit. Clear back with Brad Wagon Connect wearing his you know, the little red button that said be respectful, be kind. It goes both ways, you guys, both ways. The fact is that the only reason you spent 2,100 hours on appeals is because the applicant hadn't done all of his work and the staff had not thoroughly analyzed it. And I'm going to, I've got a minute 32. I'll start with Nova Group. That was approved and appealed. And it was in spite of the fact that no Swanson's Hawk biological had been looked at, nor the Indian area Native American. I apologize to everyone. Inglenook, where there was driving in and out of the creek on Inglenook. And what was submitted to the state clearinghouse was different than what was presented here. Lake Colleen, which you all know about. Silverado Resort. Had a huge problem. It was approved. We appealed. Arrow and Branch, another one where we wanted just simply to get the groundwater, and we've talked about it a lot. They were willing to do it. There was no repository at the county for the data. Castello de Omarosa, you know you approved this. Embarrassingly, you approved this, and without an appeal, he'd be operating with over 400,000 people instead of 25,000 people. Just this in the last month, the Green Cemetery went to the Planning Commission, was not ready. Bremer went to the Planning Commission, was not ready. This week, there was a huge pavilion going to be built up on the Oak Crossroads, where it goes over towards Sonoma. that's it i believe that there's a real purpose for the appeal bill mckinnon is not the devil he is actually making all of your processes better thank you thank you for your comments uh welcome

I'm Joyce Black Sears from Save Napa Valley.

Yes, that would be better. Right. Thank you, Amber. I appreciate it. I haven't been down here for a while, and lately I've been motivated to come again. So thank you for the work you do. It's long and grueling. I appreciate it. I'm going to read a brief paragraph from a group, many groups actually, Save Napa Valley, Napa Vision 2050, and the Sierra Club. And you'll see this document shortly, but I just want to read a paragraph. Knowing that water is our sacred, shared resource, it is our stated goal to protect this precious resource for current and future generations. Yet too often we observe methods used to make permitting decisions for new or expanded water demanding projects that are inconsistent, rely on our outdated data, or fail to fully consider the broader context. These decisions significantly undermine the public trust, which is what Bill McKinnon is all about. But not adequately addressing the challenging realities of water resources, knowing that conditions will only worsen as we face a climate present and future unlike what we have known. We have made nine recommendations, these groups now. We have made nine recommendations to protect the public trust, and we hope that you will incorporate these into your ordinance. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Board. Tom Davies, Visatuli Winery, St. Helena. First, I want to thank the planning department for putting some good thought into this and some great ideas. Thank you, really appreciate that. Today, I've been hearing a lot about the environment and conservation and water. And I'd like to think of myself as a conservationist and environmentalist even. um but we have a crisis um we have jobs the livelihoods of many people in our industry and our industry is going through a crisis now you know just drive up and down the valley and see all the follow land the less visitation the less traffic inventories are ballooning There's really no market for grapes with just a couple of exceptions. Tremendous competition, not only from... We've had 100 new wineries in the Napa Valley just in the last 10 years, and certainly tremendous competition from other growing regions. And I think it's partially... Our industry is at fault. Our wines become too expensive. Our tasting fees, hotels, it's just expensive to come to the Napa Valley. And I think it's become inaccessible to a lot of young people. At the same time, I think a lot of it has to do with outdated rules and regulations. The WDO was written in 1989, adopted in 1990. There were 180 wineries in the Napa Valley at the time. Of course, there's now about 500. And as our industry has evolved, these rules and regulations have not. And I'm sure many of you have gone through this document, and you know it's somewhat comical in the sense that as a winery, we're not even allowed to make money from an event, that we can only cost recovery. Can you think of a, why aren't we treated like other businesses? It just makes no sense. We work really hard, yet if we have a special event, we're allowed for making a profit on that. And I think that's basically what I'd like to say today, is that I appreciate what you've done so far to come up with some new ideas. But boy, as Deborah says, this is just the beginning. There's a lot more. And I'm just really concerned about the sustainability of our industry. some of this you might say well it should be in the general plan you know that could be four years from now by the time you know 2030 and i'm just a i'm afraid that our industry is not going to be around it certainly won't look like it does today so whatever you can do as quickly as you can will really help with saving the napa valley thank you thank you for your comments welcome

Hello, board. My name is Elise Nerlov. I am the president of the Micro Winery Guild, formerly Save the Family Farms. And I want to first thank all of the trade organizations for including the Micro Winery Guild in these conversations. I met with everybody, and everybody was really receptive and allowed me to speak on behalf of the industry's smallest producers. Regarding the proposed changes to the micro winery ordinance, I'd like to express my support for the direction being taken while also emphasizing that these changes alone do not fully address the underlying problem. This is a starting point, but these cannot be the only amendments to the micro winery ordinance. The cost has got to match the ask. And the answer to a small business's inability to afford this process isn't to ask them to produce more wine or staff up to see more visitors. The message here is still go big or go home. And that message is the reason that the Microwinery Guild formed eight years ago and started working with board to solve this problem. Broadening the tent, as it was said, or making the room bigger doesn't do much for those of us who cannot open the door. I'd love to continue working with staff to see if we can make meaningful changes to the micro winery ordinance. There's been a lot of discussion about whether or not the micro winery ordinance has been successful. I think Brian Bourdonna brought up some really great points that when people are making the consideration between going the traditional use permit route or the micro winery use permit route, there's not much benefit to going the micro winery use route. The restrictions far outweigh the benefits as stated today. So yeah, I'd love to continue working with staff to carve out something more meaningful. And regarding the long-term priorities in the industry letter, there was talk of opening up the WDO. So I'd like to table the amendments of the micro winery ordinance until that happens, because I think we can only make meaningful changes to the micro winery ordinance if there's a little bit more flexibility. Thank you very much. Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, honorable supervisors. And it's nice to be here with you today. Mike Bassane, Napa Chamber, Small Business Development Centers. I'd just like to express today my support of the proposed policy changes and recommendations and staff's continued efforts to work on these updates, which I feel are very critical and very important. A shift and refinement of our outlook and common sense approach is critical to the health of agriculture, to the health of business in the Napa Valley, and our county's key industry. Thank you. Appreciate your consideration.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome. Good afternoon. My name is Yvonne Baginski, and I today am representing the Napa County Wildlife Conservation Coalition. We are a coalition of eight community groups who are very concerned about wildlife habitat. And looking over the policy concerns that were in that draft letter, one of the things that caught my eye was the offsite environmental mitigation request. Offsite environmental mitigation often fails. It almost always harms animals and trees because human strategies like planting trees in areas they won't grow or thinning forests or moving wildlife disrupts natural habitat. Mostly ignores complex ecological needs and treats ecosystems as simple fixes rather than interconnected webs. We have a monoculture here in Napa. This monoculture has destroyed critical microhabitats for birds and mammals. These animals don't just move on to some other property. They disappear. They die. They get killed by cars trying to access food and water. Moving animals and trees out of expanding and new vineyard developments causes high mortality rates. Displaced creatures have no place to go anymore and they struggle to find food, they lack shelter, and they face territorial fights. There are endangered species here in Napa that we are failing to protect. I will tell you that our local Audubon Society does not want to release locations of endangered and special status birds because of the risk of them being killed and nests disrupted before a development plan is ever drafted or submitted to the county for approval. With our wildfires and vineyard development, we are losing ground on biodiversity and wildlife in our county. Actually, it's happening throughout our state. But we are standing here now, and there are things that we can do locally with each other. I believe we are facing something greater than the wine industry not making its marketing goals for the year. This region will face higher temperatures, increased wildfires, and economic pressures. We need to protect the nature we have left. We need to preserve wildlife habitat and protect our water for not only our own use, but so the wildlife can thrive as well. Mitigation isn't the answer. Conservation easements and land use restrictions are. They're much more amenable to creating an environment so biodiversity can thrive. Napa's elite wine estates can do more to conserve and protect land for wildlife. Why aren't we asking them to do so? The list of policy demands to this county doesn't contain one statement of what they'll give back in return. There's room for negotiation here, especially to protect what we already have. Just so you know, I was in Detroit when the automobile industry crisis happened, when the industry crisis happened, and they came to the government and they asked for all of these all kinds of policy changes. And I worked for the governor at the time. And that was a very critical time. And I feel that the wine industry here is facing that time as well. And it was a negotiation process rather than giving the industry whatever they wanted. Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Jerry Hanson, Napa Chamber of Commerce. Thank you to the board for being open to this conversation and for putting it on the agenda. And to the staff for really putting a lot of time into the options for the path forward. And I think you're going to hear that word, and you've heard that today, that phrase, path forward. And I think that's where we're at. So I'm going to start at the end, and that is that I'm going to ask you to support these thoughtful modernization of the regulations with flexibility and clarity really at their core. And knowing and understanding that a regulatory system can be both rigorous and efficient. So we've heard a lot of voices today, and the current economy makes this conversation very, very timely. But this economy isn't the sole reason that these regulations deserve some review. The wine industry has been operating in a very different environment than 30 years ago. Changes in consumers, you've heard about that behavior. Technology, tourism, hospitality, business models, cost of doing business have occurred since then. And if we expect today's businesses to continue to operate under yesterday's conditions and we leave them without that viable path forward, we really risk losing the things that we are set out to protect. Standing still is not preservation or protection. Thoughtful preservation means asking if the policies that were set up to serve the purpose that they were created for, If the answer is no, then we need to review, adapt, and adjust. And I think that's some of what you're hearing today. The other thing that, from the chamber perspective, we represent so many different kinds of businesses that are connected to the wine industry. Hospitality, restaurant, retail, wellness. but also professional services, contractors, construction. And I think as we've found over the last, I guess, year or so, year and a half, how very interconnected that we all are. And I think sometimes on a day like today, it's hard to remember that, that we are interconnected in this community, not just by sectors, but by people, and our neighbors, and our neighborhoods, and our towns, and our cities. And sectors are an easy way to describe business, but sectors in business are really people at the end of the day, employers, employees, families with livelihoods. And so I'd also like to share that there's not a false choice or a false narrative that we have to make. It's not or, it's and. It's not preservation or progress. It's not change or protection. I think that the answers can be in the ands and not the ors. And what you've heard today are people saying, we've got the four industry groups who came together to come up with these recommendations. There are people here who will stand behind you and with you, and we can talk at you at any given Tuesday, but how about the in-between? We'd love to sit down with you and share with you more about what business feels like in our community. So thank you for your consideration, and we urge your support. Thank you so much.

welcome hello chair and board and staff and members of the public uh john dunbar napa and we've heard some very uh encouraging thoughts and recommendations from staff i want to thank you for all the time that you've already put into this and I'm gonna share some general thoughts, some of which have been touched on already, but I think it's worth repeating if not the first time. Napa County's land use framework has played an important role in protecting agriculture for decades, but regulatory oversight needs to be updated to ensure it remains relevant and benefits our entire community. The County's Winery Definition Ordinance Number 947 was approved by the Board of Supervisors in January of 1990, more than 36 years ago, with significant input from ag and wine industry leaders. It's been years, though, since notable updates have been made. County government has an obligation to reform and maintain the effectiveness and relevance of its oversight. As examples, the county has made beneficial advancements in governance over public health, wildfire mitigation, climate initiatives, habitat, and natural resource protection. Over the last several years, the county has approved new and modified winery use permits and vineyard development. That support of winery owners and growers has helped sustain agriculture as the highest and best use of land in Napa County. I would characterize that support as being an important factor in the overall vitality of our wine industry. With recognition that some laws are set at the federal and state levels, like in particular I'll use examples of labor or health and safety, Napa County land use and agricultural regulations exceed all of the other 57 counties in California. The proposed changes do not eliminate environmental or land use protections, but do ask for reasonable modifications and greater flexibility. Protecting our land and natural environment requires sustainable agriculture. Avoiding the erosion of agriculture in Napa County requires an ongoing commitment. Modernization of rules and permitted activities is critical to agriculture's long-term viability. Some people say the county should simply wait for its general plan update to take any action, but that's gonna take several years, as was already mentioned, and millions of county dollars. Acknowledging some reforms will require secret review. Progress can be made now, and we've heard some of those recommendations today, for meaningful changes that can then be folded into that final plan update. And you're not expected to be experts in all the sectors that you govern. You have residents who are valuable resources, many of whom are here in this room today. And they're willing to help by sharing their significant knowledge and guidance to help you make the proper decisions and to protect our natural resources, our agriculture, our wine industry. Thank you for your attention today. And I look forward to working with you along with all the industry leaders going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Hello again. Michelle Benvenuto, wine growers of Napa County. Thank you to staff and this board for responding seriously to the recommendations our coalition brought forward in April. This was truly a shared effort by a wine community working constructively with the county. That said, Winegrower supports the efficiency amendments in sections A through E and ask you to direct staff to move forward with these recommendations. We also want to be clear about what these requests are not. They're not about unlimited growth. They're about sustaining a working agricultural industry within existing constraints. We are not asking to put hotels or restaurants on winery parcels. We are not asking for agritourism that commercializes the land. We are asking to operate our permanent wineries with more practicality while the land use framework and its protections stay in place. That leaves appeals, where we feel the report falls a bit short. It frames appeals as a $402,000 cost to the county, but it's not a county cost, as Director Bardona mentioned. While appeals do divert significant staff time under the county's cost recovery policy, the applicant is responsible for all county costs in full. The applicant, the appellant risks a flat $2,000 fee. That imbalance is the problem. The current process does nothing to discourage meritless appeals. An appellant with no real estate can file, impose months of costs and delay on a fully approved project that has met all rules and regulations. While appellants may choose to fund their own traffic studies or analysis, the applicant has already paid for this analysis, then has to pay again to defend it. If the board is concerned about what an appellant might spend, it should also be concerned about what an applicant spends to defend a project that has been thoroughly reviewed and approved. Re-request the board explore creative ways to assure the appellant has skin in the game. At a minimum, create a mechanism that screens out meritless nuisance appeals. This is not about closing the door on legitimate appeals. And I'm going to repeat that again. This is not about closing the door on legitimate appeals. It's about discouraging the meritless ones. Additionally, as example this morning, if an appellant and applicant agree to a private settlement, keep it private. A settlement should not carry public asks or conditions of approval that bind the county into monitoring random conditions into perpetuity. Thank you and thanks for again taking this so seriously.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome.

Good evening. Oh, no, it's still afternoon, I would say. Robin Baggett, Alpha Mega Winery, 1155 Me Lane. I also live on Me Lane. And I guess I should say past chair of the Napa Valley Vintners, current board member, also immediate past chair of the California Wine Institute, and a current board member. So I'll talk to you first about my capacity at the Vintners. I've been involved in the proposal you have before you from day one. Ryan also agreed totally when he came to us and said, you need to speak with one voice. And so we've done that. It's taken a while, but we spoke with one voice. I think it's a floor. And I agree with Deborah what she said. That's the beginning. But you know this industry is just over-regulated. There's no other industry in the world that is regulated at the federal, the state, local level, as is the wine industry. Recently, you saw the cost of that in a report from Cal Poly, also known as the Harvard of the West, both from the grower point of view and the winery point of view. And it's just the costs keep coming. And we need to work on deregulation, I'll call it. Ending my statements as an NVV board member, I'll speak to you as an individual. And I talked to you last time about what I see some of the issues you face with the United States Constitution. I'm not going to talk about that today. But beware. The state of the wine industry right now is in a little bit of trouble. I have an idea. I think there are some things you can do immediately. And this is me. It's called a moratorium on certain issues. Do you really want to regulate how many employees I have? Do you really want to regulate how many people can come to my winery even though the fire marshal says I can have more? Do you really want to regulate all these marketing events? I think how the winery is going to survive is from sales. It's not from making great grapes and making great wine. It's sales. And we need sales. And you can help us with it. If you did something like that immediately, you'd go down as heroes, real heroes. And I'll leave you with one thought. It might mitigate some of the damages you might be liable to in the federal court. With that, I hope you'll, you know, one last thing I'll mention. WDO, 1990. What happened in 2005 was the grand home decision. Opened up direct to consumer. 90% of the wineries survive on direct to consumer. 1990 was written without the idea of direct to consumer. No thought to remember. Thank you so much. Have a good evening.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair Manfrey, Board of Supervisors and staff, Caleb Mosley with the Napa Valley Grape Growers. This is my first time going through something like this as a relative newbie to this whole world. And it's kind of been enlightening. Every topic that we brought up has been engaging in both sides, every side, curveballs, screwballs, whatever you want to call it. They're all coming at us. And I think that speaks to how much people care about this place, as I do. So I'm looking at that as a net positive. I would challenge everyone to just take things one step at a time here, and you might be sensing that things are getting drawn to far-off conclusions, good, bad, and different, depending on your opinions, but we're just looking for a really good place to start looking at our... at the recommendations that were made and where we can take steps from there. And I appreciate all the collaborative work on this. This is how I think, at least my mind's eye vision, of how we should be working together to benefit not just one, but the whole, if we can. So those are my comments, being a little bit tentative going into the day, thinking about how this is all going to go down. And it's been incredible to see so many voices and people speak. And I applaud you for taking this up this afternoon. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello.

My name is Debbie Fortune, and I represent Napa Vision 2050. But I'm probably here more just as myself. I need to say that I've had the experience of people in the wine industry telling me how grateful I should be for their business and challenging me about, do I like living here? And it's all due to everything that they've done for me. So I just want to clarify that my family's been here since 1850. And we came here for a lot of different reasons, mostly because we love the natural beauty of this place. And I have nothing against the wine industry, and I'm grateful for it. And for the most part, the things that were suggested today sound pretty good. However, the appeals process is where it really speaks to me. And I would hope to see that system still enabled, because it really is inaccessible by most of us. It's terribly expensive, it's terribly difficult. And I, for one, am grateful for the work that Water Audit has done and for the Center for Biodiversity. So it is, I think, illustrated that we do have problems. And having those two environmental groups work for us is really important. We know we have groundwater issues. We know we have a stressed river. We know we have changing climate conditions. And we know that we have terribly declining bird, wildlife, and insect populations. So for decades, the expansion of the industry into the hillsides has caused some real problems with intensive pumping, with widespread habitat fragmentation that's been documented. We have real problems with wildlife here. And I can just tell you from living here so many years, there are not the birds. When we see one butterfly, we get excited. It's not the same. The wildlife is pushed more into the urban areas, and they are threatened very much like Yvonne talked about, they don't have a chance. I've heard incredible presentations from the Land Trust about wildlife corridors and the problems that we have here. So one of the few ways that we can make a difference is through the appeals process when we see something that's problematic. And I don't think that you see anything that is frivolous. So please take that seriously when you go into making the changes. So to make it easier at this critical time for our environment to do more harm, all in order to prop up an industry that of course needs help, of course that needs to make its own and difficult decisions, its own right-sizing of itself, it's short-sighted to take away environmental protections. We cannot mutually survive and thrive in a challenging future if we make it harder to file the appeals against a powerful monolithic industry. The rest of us need a chance. Even if safeguarding this process ends up costing the county, what we are losing is absolutely priceless. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to comment? I think just about everybody in the room did comment there. So thank you all for a lively discussion. Is there anyone on the phones? No? OK. Great. And I will, let's see. I will bring this back to the board for discussion and questions. And I see Supervisor Cottrell is starting. And I also know that we will, yeah, that we will be losing Supervisor Cottrell in 18 minutes sharp. So yes, let's go.

Thank you, Chair. And just a big thank you to everyone who has stayed and taken the time to comment. I want to give a shout out to Patricia Damery's grandsons. I don't know if they're still here, but please tell them thank you. That was a lot. So maybe pizza later. I don't know. uh and i want to thank um ceo alsop and the staff for all your work here and i really think this vision of asking the industry groups to work together has been a really key move and because i know it's been really helpful for me to have meetings with representatives of the four groups and i want to thank them for their discipline and their professionalism right because i think caleb was illustrating things could go in a lot of directions and it takes focus to prioritize. And so we're not talking about everything here. We're talking about a few measured, discussed, vetted ideas going forward. And for me, my priorities are that we can simplify regulations wherever possible, add flexibility for our industry partners, which also makes it not only easier to comply with our regulations, but to track compliance and to where we need to track enforcement. The more Byzantine our rules get, the harder it is to know how they're being followed. And another big goal is the primacy of our agricultural operations, right? That we want to see collectively sustainability of our agriculture and our agricultural economy going forward. And a second big goal that we spent a lot of time talking about this afternoon that's attached to sustainability of agriculture is figuring out a path forward with our groundwater. So I think we've heard throughout the day a discussion about if we are moving forward with many of these, we really need to ask people who are walking in the door to be able to make some of these changes to engage with us and start monitoring and metering wells. Because that's actually going to be really helpful if someone comes in to ask for a commercial kitchen to be able to say, and look, I'm not increasing my groundwater use. Here's the data. I think that's going to be important. And then a final piece is to keep as much land in productive agricultural growing crops as we can. So those are some of the things I'm looking at going forward. So I'm just going to run through quickly the list. Yes, to the marketing plan flexibility, that makes a lot of sense to me. And again, the reason that I think that makes sense is the impact isn't about who that trip is. It's whether it's an employee or a visitor. We're already measuring the impact in trips, so we don't necessarily need to know the categorization of them. And that's true with the events as well. A strong yes to the removal of the by appointment only. and an admin process for commercial kitchens I'm okay with. Again, I would really like to know data about how an applicant can show that their water use isn't changing and that leads us right back to monitoring and metering wells. Completely agree with the removal of GHG reduction barriers, bike racks and charging stations should be as easy as possible to get. The micro winery ordinance, I hear, thank you Elise for being here and commenting. My gut is to go forward and make these changes. And we're continuing to learn with that process. I will say, in that ordinance, I appreciated the 75% rule. I think it had meaning in a moment, but we're not requiring that of our other wineries. With the general plan, I think we should have a discussion about how much land we have. planted to grapes, are acreage available for grapes, and what our production numbers are. I think that's a general plan discussion. In terms of appeals, I think that's one I appreciate how Ms. Benvenuto put it. I think her ask was that staff look at creative ways to address the appeals process. And I'm supportive of that. I'd like to see the parties who've benefited from the appeals. We've heard of a lot of strong, Debbie, I appreciate what she had to say, some strong reasons that we want to make sure an appeal process stays in place, stays accessible. So I'd like to see staff work on that in concert with multiple partners, both in the industry and our environmental community. Yes, on the AB 720 recommendations, yes, would like to direct staff to work with the fire marshal on how we could help AB 720 frameworks work for wineries, for parcels that have use permits on them. And I think that's about all the things I had to comment on. The one other thing I wanted to flag as a potential just referral is the idea, one of the things in the industry letter that was longer term was expand permissible wine marketing activities excluding weddings. And one of my thoughts as we think about what we've learned through AB 720, basically the concept there is a very small number of marketing visits or visits into a winery, right? And we're sort of looking at those as a de minimis number. I'm interested, can we, is there a way we could do some kind of pilot project that would explore another kind of, let's call it like experiential marketing where a group could come to a winery up to once a month for, I don't know if it's a yoga class or something that the end of the day, the winery wants to sell them wine, but it's something that's broader than just wine education. But if we did something like that once a month, 12 times a year, that's at 33% of even the very small AB 720 limitation. So anyway, that's an idea I'd like to see us explore a little bit, run it as a pilot, because I think any short-term

experimenting we can do right now in terms of flexibility is gives us some feedback and also is a way to help the industry in the short term so those are my comments for now thank you okay thank you for those incredibly organized comments um let's see i have the vice chair alessio and then after that supervisor gallagher

Thank you. Well, again, thank you everybody. We are all in this together and we're better for it. And so I'll start with that. I have just, in terms of the staff time, I was really impressed with how far you dug in to say, you know, what is that low hanging fruit? How can we have some common sense pruning? flexibility around what we've been requiring and easing that up. Because frankly, there's been a choke hold on this wine industry that is very outdated and it's only causing harm and it's not helping anybody, including sustainability, environmental impacts. And I'm looking at you, Brian, because I'm crediting you for great work along with Michael Parker and your team. And I'm really glad that we're here today. I'm not glad that our wine industry is in this situation, our growers are in this situation, but we are. And we're here to see what we can do about that without creating any harm, right? And that's what you've really done. You've looked at how can we be flexible here without creating more intensity and impacts as that first step as that floor that we're starting at and to move in moving forward so the you know some goals in terms of values or virtues if you will that i've been hearing is transparency clarity responsiveness efficient equitable, balanced, flexible, adaptable, reliable, while still maintaining existing state and federal land use requirements, because we can't get around that, and environmental reviews and protections, because those are also not only are those bound mainly by state and federal, but those are important to us as a community. We all care. about our natural environment. And again, you know, Vision 2050, thank you for being here. Saving Napa Valley, thank you for being here. My family only arrived in 1872, so you've got me on that, Debbie. But there's nothing more that I love than to hike the hills, and people know that if they follow me on social media and being a part of nature i just that's where i get my zen and my peace so protecting that is extremely important to me along with our biodiversity you know i think there's just so many great common sense updates the zoning administrator i questioned that when i first started i'm like what's a zoning administrator what do you do and does anybody show up And so it makes total sense that we only move forward with that as requested. It's an option to the public, but let's not put the staff through it just for a five, ten minute, no show, not needed kind of process. The signage, absolutely, yes. This is a business owner decision based on what works best for their current business model. Some people may want to continue to keep the appointment by appointment only because they don't have staff to to be there at all times when somebody may pull up to their small winery or their winery. So they may want to keep the by appointment only. And others are like, no, we're an open door. You know, this is a, you know, hospitality is our thing and we welcome all at any time. The micro winery ordinance key changes, yes to all. Exclamation. AB 720, you know, Let's see here. I wrote this before. Let me see if this still makes sense to me after hearing everybody's public comment. Let's see. So I have down here, yeah, because you talked about that staff to work with the fire marshal to see if a pilot program can include winery properties because we've heard the feedback that that was an unintended, I think it was an unintended miss, and there isn't quite equity there. There are people that have wineries that are adjacent that don't have the use permit, while those that don't can invite people for tasting. So I think that if I'm understanding correctly, and what not only I read, but what I've heard in the past, that's something I think that we can amend. create a little bit more even playing field there. I want everybody to know, appeals process is important to me, but it needs to be fair. It needs to be justifiable, and I think there needs to be accountability that's equally shared. I support a fair and transparent appeal process. And as mentioned, the cost to file an appeal is $2,000. I think it's important to have that accessible threshold, but it immediately does cost the applicant $10,000 or more to defend the studies that they've already paid for. And that's five times more than the appellant. And for me, that just seems, how do we make sure that there's justice there and there's not folks who are using the appeal process? And this is not, I'm not casting any name or anything, but just using a process or something and being able to use that to exhaust time and funds on somebody is, just to remove them from even being part of this community and part of the wine industry when they've already gone through years of studies and cost. So I'm interested in learning how we can improve that, both in keeping the appeal process, but also making it more fair, justifiable, and having accountability that's equally shared. There was a comment that, something about staff not doing a great job on these appeals. And I looked at staff, I'm like, okay, are you doing a great job on these appeals? I asked staff to talk to me about this. And I think it's fair, I want staff to be able to defend themselves on this. Because out of all those appeals, there was 15 appeals, now I'm just going off and not looking at my notes here. I think 10 were, let's see, there was 15 appeals in the last three years. 10, I believe, had to do with wineries. Let me get back, let me get to this page. And I guess my ultimate question here is, where'd it go? is, yeah, 10 appeals, so that's 67%, involved winery-related projects. And we had one group that filed nine of those appeals. Out of those appeals, how many of those were meritless? I mean, how many of those, should I say it this way, how many of those did staff not do a good job? And were there findings outside of this appeals or can we even, you know? I mean, a couple of them they brought up, I know for sure. I mean, there was a couple mentioned, but was there, help me out, I'm tired. You know what I'm saying? I'm trying to say, was there anything?

Staff did a great job on every one of them. Staff put forward the county's requirements consistent with the zoning code and the general plan and all the guiding documents. Any analysis on this appeals process, we need to have a conversation, I think, about I think there might be a disconnect in those that are appealing relative to what staff's ability is in affecting those changes by those that are appealing. I want to give you an example. The result of the Satui appeal, my understanding of the private details, not the monetary ones which I'm not aware of, but the stream restoration and those types of things, staff does not have a nexus to require those things. I guarantee you everybody in my conservation division would love to require stream monitoring and all these wonderful things that improve the environment. But absent a regulatory nexus, staff does not have the ability to put forward a lot of the things that Mr. Hackett and Water Audit have asked us to do. That's not staff doing a poor job. That's not staff sleeping at the wheel or missing something. That's simply staff following the regulations that have been adopted by the board. So a potential solution to this appeal issue is an analysis of the regulations. And there's been a lot of attack levied on staff and me and how we're not following the process and we need a checklist. My concern is that the issue lies with not the process, not the regulations, but the result of the process, what they essentially require staff to conclude by simply following them. And that's a legitimate conversation I think needs to be had if we're going to really seriously look at the number of appeals, and our ability at a staff level to affect the outcome of a given project. It comes up on everyone. Every result or change that I'm aware of that was compelled by the appellant is not something that staff has the ability to do because no nexus exists.

And the nexus doesn't exist because we haven't created here locally or it's not like where would that nexus be created? Would it be created here?

It depends on the topic. A common one is public trust resources. We are following what we're obligated to do when it comes to reducing harm to public trust resources. Um, until such time, we have a different approach or policy that affects that. Um, our only obligation is to reduce harm. We have no, uh, direction or requirement, the extent to reduce harm. We just have to reduce it. Um, and furthermore, we're not going to fix interconnected surface waters on the backs of five to 10 projects that come through the county, um, a year. The solution to that is implementing the GSP with strong focus on the interconnected surface waters piece. That's where we need to be focusing our energy. And maybe that's item number 17 we asked the TAG to look at. So I think we need to be thoughtful about the topics and what bucket or arena we put them in when we're discussing them. If we're just going to keep beating each other up over appeals over these things, it's never going to end until we focus on the issues and in the right place.

Yeah, as they say, the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, right? Thank you for that clarity. That really helps. That gives me good insight. I hope that gives others good insight. Of those 15 appeals, how many went to court? Or were they all settled? Did any go to court? Were they all settled prior to? Do we know?

I'm just wondering. I'm just looking at it. We have approximately three in court. Okay. Approximately.

Okay. Yeah, thank you for that. Again, I guess I just want to reiterate, I support the process of an appeal process. I just want to make sure that it's fair, it's just, and if there is, as you mentioned, these are what's hanging us up in this area. Because, again, let's try to figure, work our way through, and I appreciate your thought about giving that onto the tag to work on. Let's see here. Again, yes, we need to update our standard conditions of approval. We do not need to be – approval do need to be updated. As we mentioned, much has been changed in the wine industry, in this world of technology. As mentioned, this is all about direct-to-consumer. This is not about distribution, that it was long how it started off to be. including, you know, off-site crush and production centers, and just the other things we were talking about in terms of climate change and all those other effects. So there has been a lot that has changed since, you know, for instance, the WDO was created, and I am in support of working on the WDO where we can. to again look at more opportunities. I feel like today is that first swipe and I think there's opportunities in the WDO that definitely need to be looked at because as somebody says, you know, it's people in business need to have a viable business and they need to have revenue streams to keep them open. So I want to just add to that. I'm almost done here. You know, going through my notes here, you know, as mentioned also, I support the interest in expanding the agricultural wine experiences where our grapes are grown, our history and heritage exist. That will exist that, you know, that really provides folks with the authentic Napa Valley as we talked about, you know, 1850 on up. So there's just so many great stories, history and heritage and experiences that people really want these days for the authentic Napa ag and wine region experience and culinary experience and hospitality experience that goes back to when we were founded. You know, I want us to maintain our ag preserve, and I know that wasn't really discussed, but that's critically important to me. And I want us to maintain that we are the great wine capital of the world for the United States, that we represent that space, that elite space. And to do that, we need to make these changes. My overall direction, as you've heard, is yes. And I thank you for seeking near-term opportunities that we can uplift the wine industry while also preserving the natural beauty and precious resources of our land. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Alessio. I see Supervisor Gallagher and then Supervisor Ramos. And I also will note that our room manager has lowered the blinds, which means maybe it's nap time.

I don't know.

Go ahead, Supervisor Gallagher.

Thank you. I'm just going to try to keep this focused on what we're giving direction on today. The marketing and marketing plan flexibility, employee and visitation flexibility, GHGs, commercial kitchens. modernizing and streamlining the zoning administrator hearings appointment only okay yes on all those and I think I want to assure people that I think there was a comment that they were concerned that you just had to say there was no net increase but not show that there's no net increase that's not how it works so go Brian

No, I had mentioned that we will have to include objective standards that need to be met and have to be, of course, proved out.

Right. So we just want to kind of assure the public that it's not like, oh, hey, I don't, you know, whatever. And also, this brings to mind in the original resolution that established the compliance program, I believe, and can be corrected by Supervisor Ramos if necessary, that there was direction for the staff and the industry to work together on a self-certification process. So maybe that's time to bring back that discussion if You know, I don't know if it fits in. Um, so those, um, yes, appointment only. I think I said, of course, that antiquated, um, micro winery. Um, I could go either way if everybody wants to make the changes fine. I don't really. even think we need to make changes. I didn't hear anything from Ms. Nerlove or anyone involved with micro wineries that this in any way helps them. And in fact, I think she said something about don't make the changes now because I'd like to take a look at it when we go through the process of looking at WDO, general plan. So I don't know. It has never sounded to me like those changes make they have not been received by people who have gone for the micro winery permits or have thought about going for those permits as being beneficial, but there also may be some benefit to the staff in some way in terms of aligning and streamlining around, you know, So if that is the case, then I'm in support of that. The 720, I am concerned about this idea that we could get caught up in having to have two definitions for marketing on the same parcel. that sounds kind of kind of crazy um so if there is i mean i think maybe just need some more discussion if there if maybe the answer is to do the pilot put them in the pilot program because um you know if there's a way to just you go to the abc and they you draw the line differently maybe that's a better way so i don't know i think if you feel like putting them in the um pilot program can help sort through that then maybe that's that's what we do um appeals i think that i've been going like totally back and forth on this and the thing that makes me really nervous is this idea of weed out meritless appeals i mean that's not keeping with the way the law works i mean we If it's a meritless appeal, then the appeal gets denied. I don't see how you weed out quote unquote meritless appeals without making a decision on whether the appeal should be upheld or not. So I don't know. If you want to get creative around that, as some have suggested, maybe. But I mean, let's not do anything that is like, I'm going to fly in the face of the law. And let's see what else. And yes, please update our standard COAs. So look forward to hearing more.

Oh, gosh. Thank you, Supervisor Gallagher. Supervisor Ramos. Thank you.

In the interest of time, I guess I'll try and do the exact same way. On AB 720, understanding that this is an O2 licensing issue as opposed to a county issue, I'm not necessarily opposed to further considerations of the request being made for modifications to the AB 720 application, but perhaps it could use some peer review or collaboration or maybe even a question over to ABC if this is in fact an O2 licensing issue. Because AB 720 is a derivative permit, meaning it begins somewhere else, I do believe we need to be very cautious to expanding it on our own without input from ABC, understanding they are They'll choose when they responded, but perhaps there's a way to collaborate with other counties and to look at how we can. How we can interpret. Uh, with some, some greater flexibility, so. That's a yes if we get better guidance because it is a permit derivative from ABC. The winery signs, I'm fine with. Allowing administrative approval for marketing plan changes with no net increase. I think this is one where in theory, yes, but the no net increase and the intensity of increase has always been related to the capacity of the roadway. And so if you have a permit that's along, say, an arterial-like Silverado Trail, and you take your five events at 10 people and change that to a one event at 50 people, that's not necessarily as much of an issue as if you had that same permit at the top of Soda Canyon Road or Atlas Peak Road. And so when we look at... The changes of one-for-one, whether it's employees, I've always criticized, I don't think we should be counting employees. That is not my business. It's a matter of the infrastructure capacity. And so as we go forward and we look at the general plan, instead of utilizing those these use permit approvals in such a way to be, we've attempted to do this, and it seems to me we need greater refinement in terms of looking at the roadway capacity, the parcel itself, and the uniqueness of the parcel. Yes, parcel. It's late night. And then relying then on layering with the roadways to see what can the roadway actually uh carry because then you also have parking implications involved with that so i would just say yes And we need to look at the roadway structure and really lean back on that roadway infrastructure being the limiting factor on what really does create intensity leading into the parcel. Incomplete applications. I'm going to spend a little time here because I've thought about this one. I've lived with this one for a very long time. And I do The county often gets blamed for how long an appeal takes. Our staff gets blamed for how long an appeal takes. Applicants are very frustrated by the length of time. But at the end of the day, having watched what's happened, it is not our staff and it is not the applicants. What we have is a consultant problem. We have a consultant problem where consultants are submitting partial applications to get into the door, sometimes to beat the building code changes, sometimes to meet a deadline that we ourselves have imposed, say, through code compliance. But what they are doing is getting in the door and not completing the work that needs to be done. And so then that requires our staff to review it, send a letter, and say, you're incomplete. And then it goes back to the consultant. And then the consultant does the work. And then the next part coming from the consultant, whether it's an engineering consultant on roadways, whether it's an architect on a building, whether it's a water availability report, whatever it is, We have all these various points and it's very circular because it's not just one department that is reviewing the work that's been put forward. Sometimes it's public work, sometimes it's environmental health. You get the point. What I'm saying here is we need to have a moment in time where everyone is held to the same standard on what constitutes a complete application. And we do have pre-application consulting that is offered with staff and rarely is it do people take upon themselves to enter that process? And if they do, we still end up with incomplete applications. And so my recommendation here is to give direction to staff to have them require a mandatory application status hearing. And that there would be a moment in time, whether that's 30 days in or 60 days in, where staff reviews what's been submitted and there is a determination that is made at that moment you are incomplete and that the applicant has a certain amount of time to cure. That meeting would need to be with the consultants and the applicant themselves. And part of this, yes, I understand it's an additional meeting, yes, I understand it's additional work, but it would be very similar to, say, the appeals pre-hearing conferences that we have, where we set out the lay of the land and we tell all parties how we're going to proceed going forward. This county has a lot of work before it and our staff is being asked to process applications that are not ready and the clock is ticking. from the outside view of what we're doing. And this is an opportunity for us to be more efficient. It's an opportunity for us to say, you know what, you're not ready to go, to the back of the line you go. And so that we can move forward through other applications. So I would just put that up for consideration to my colleagues that having thought about this long and hard, we do need an opportunity to be able to manage these incomplete applications. and to make sure that everyone has the same set of information and it's not lost in translation through emails or letters. Moving on to the zoning administrator, hearing only if it's requested. I think that is a great suggestion. On the water policy, I would say we made some great headway today. I think what we've really heard today is that there is a desire for really trued up fees. That is a policy determination as to Are people willing to share their well monitoring data with the county to be able to have those treat up fees for us to really have the greatest efficient program that we can in the GSA? When it comes to the appeals process, what I do want to say on the appeals process is that We have had, I'm not gonna get into, 12% of appeals is not too large of a number. I do believe what we do need to know is who is behind appeals. And we have had appellants of a loose association or self-appointed association that don't necessarily include the names of who is steering the ship on these appeals. And I do believe that this would require council to do some work. If it is not an established nonprofit or incorporated association, there should be some sort of disclosure as to who is really the deciding person and who has the ability to influence what happens. I think that that is, again, a matter of transparency for this board. When we have friends of or neighbors of or residents of, It's usually only a couple of people and I think it's really important for the public and for this board to know who is behind that. The next one on the micro winery ordinance changes. I do, having heard that this is not helpful, I would say, you know, sometimes I think what we do is also in the name of efficiency for our staff. And I think one of the things that would in fact be incredibly helpful is getting us on the Microwinery Ordinance to a 4080 proposed. And the reason is 4080 has its foundation in agricultural road volumes. And so instead of creating different types of levels of ADT going to these proposed changes, getting us to 4080 would get us to a place where we are using the agricultural road standard. And then again, getting us to the zoning and administrator hearing only if requested, I think is incredibly important. On the estate grape requirement, I can live with removing it. because it would come with the increased ADTs, right? Part of the reason why we relied on a lower ADT level is we were removing truck traffic of grapes moving off the property through that estate. That's how we originally got there. But if staff feels comfortable with the recommendation of the 40 ADT relying on the ag roads, I think we can account for that slight increase in truck traffic for grape movement, and that that would be sufficient to remove the estate grape component. On the expanded winery experiences, I don't think that's so much today as much as it is a general plan. Look forward to how we incorporate these recommendations. And I think that's it.

Thank you, Supervisor Ramos. Okay, so that leaves me. And I do want to invite a staff response to Supervisor Gallagher's questions about the Microwinery Ordinance and why when the groups who initiated the Microwinery Ordinance in the first place are not asking for the changes being proposed now. Just to clarify for everybody why those changes are being proposed.

If I understood correctly, Mr looks comments earlier sound like she was supportive of the changes but fully acknowledge that that was the floor not the ceiling and that focus need to be applied to the costs primarily associated with building a facility. that they don't need. And that's rooted in the 60-40 requirement of the WDO that says you have to build a winery that designates 60% of the area to production and 40% of the area to non-production or hospitality. If you're a micro winery with a super small number of people and a small number of production, it may not make sense to subject it to the 60-40 rule. You're so small. One may ask what difference does it make? What are we really regulating there? How could you possibly create an imbalance on such a small facility between such a small amount of production and such a small amount of visitation? I guess I'll ask the question in a different way. Do we want to, does it make sense or otherwise move the needle in protecting ag and the balance between production and visitation on such a small facility? If it's at the cost of them having to invest trillions of dollars that they don't have or may not have or that it just otherwise represents a financial economic barrier. That's, I don't know if Elise is still here. And then there are other aspects. That's what I got out of her comments today. And, yes, the micro winery ordinance was created from requests from Elise and George and others. And it was well intended. But I think through that we found that we had limited ability to affect the portions of the regulations that actually functioned as barriers, particularly from a cost perspective. And that's OK. They gave it a good shot. We have an opportunity to maybe improve upon it.

Okay, thank you for that clarification. I am not going to go through every single thing because, in general, I think you've received a lot of guidance already in this process, and there's only a few places where my comments are going to diverge from those of my colleagues, so I'm going to just go through those. And I'll just acknowledge that it's not a great idea to make decisions when you're panicking. And so I'm just encouraging everybody to think about the long-term outcomes of the kinds of changes we're considering. In particular, I'm concerned about cumulative environmental impacts. I don't want us to be bypassing CEQA or undercutting our Sustainable Groundwater Management Act efforts or increasing our road use volumes without really thinking it through. It certainly is the case that little changes everywhere create a big change throughout a region. So I guess I'll just say that as kind of a high level thing of I don't want us to be making ministerial things that cumulatively create bigger problems in the long term, because that's only going to create more controversy that future boards will have to deal with. And I don't want that for them. So let's think about those things. I'm also specifically concerned about uses that may increase water use being handled in a way that's consistent with other efforts that we're making. And let's see. Oh my gosh. Okay. I think that I do have a really fundamental concern that we remain consistent with the intentions and the language of the agricultural preserve. I think we'll very quickly be on a slippery slope if we decide that yoga is agriculture. I mean, we've decided that wine tasting is agriculture because it's directly connected to the production and the sales and the success of the businesses that are the agriculture on the land. But if yoga is agriculture, I'm sure weddings are too. And I think we need to be really, really cautious about how we're classing things happening in an agricultural preserve that was established by the voters, not even by us. because that's just a really fundamental part of this community's identity. And I certainly want businesses to succeed, but also if we don't retain agriculture as a primary part of our identity, we're going to have an identity problem going forward, I think. And so I'm just putting that out there as food for thought for everybody. I also think that we have, and I think this has been clear for anyone who's been here through most or all of the meeting today, a real responsibility to the community as a whole, to our neighbors, to be just acting responsibly in relation to one another. And I'm just kind of thinking through the appeal that we heard earlier and how You know, some of the ideas that came up today in a context like that would just increase the level of conflict rather than helping to reduce it. I'm very interested in looking for opportunities that are consistent with agricultural zoning to help businesses succeed. So looking for ideas anywhere around that. I personally don't see a problem with our current appeals process. I'm taking a very long view on it. It's something I've been watching pretty closely since around 2010. And I think it's just changing through time and it will continue to change through time. But I don't think the process itself is fundamentally flawed. I also think that some of the appeals that have been brought have created better outcomes than if they had not been brought. And so sometimes they're very helpful in daylighting situations that where a procedural process was inadvertently bypassed or where data was inadvertently left out or where an additional step should have been required but wasn't, you know, sometimes the outcome is much better for the community in general. I am very against reopening the WDO at this time. This is not being widely requested from the community. It would be a huge undertaking and we're already in the midst of working on our general plan. And I think that this would create mayhem for staff and probably for the community as a whole to try to do both of those things at once. And so that's one that I would push back against. And I think that's it. We still have to hear from Andrew Mize before we close today. So, let's see, are there any other comments? I know Andrew is the most patient staff member of all today. You get the gold medal, Andrew. You get the chicken. Yeah, yeah. Are there any other comments or questions from my colleagues?

If I can. Thank you. I'm going to try to say this in a delicate way, and I am really tired. I know everybody is. We can stay within, and my belief is that clearly looking at Napa Valley, we're an agricultural community, whether we have yoga or not, whether we offer culinary experiences with the agriculture and the wine industry. We are a wine and ag industry. It's relative. But today's visitor, those who are spending their money in our county, in our cities and towns, and provide employment and support for the business community, they want more they want the the menu to be expanded and And in a way that's being presented by staff is in a way that doesn't increase intensity. It allows flexibility and viability So I just want to say I support those things that staff has said I'm not to counter what anybody else is here but I think that's it's vitally important at the end of the day and If we don't do that, what then are the consequences? And I'm fearful of the consequences are because I see wineries going down permanently on a weekly basis. And so how much time do they have to continue to sustain? So I think we're in a really dire time with the wine industry. I think Napa Valley in many ways is – I mean, I'm glad we're in Napa Valley, but we can't take that for granted. And I really do want to preserve our history and our heritage moving forward for my children and their children, and at the same time, of course, preserve the environment and the conservation here. The farmers I know are one of the greatest conservation environmental protectors I've experienced, in addition to the other folks in this community. So there's a lot, in saying that, I just want to say there's a lot of common ground, and we can acknowledge and share that we do care about this county, and it is and instead of or. So whatever we can do, to add that flexibility, to expand the opportunities without harming and creating intense impacts without hearing a more thorough process. I think we really need to do right now tonight. I really do. I think so, and I hear not everybody supports looking at the WDO. Maybe we could do a sneak peek or do a pilot program, something that doesn't crack the can open, but allows for some more opportunities for those businesses that it could be a lifeline for them. Thank you.

Okay. Supervisor Gallagher?

I just wanted to take an opportunity to say that I really appreciate your comments, Chair Manfrey. And I do think it always bears repeating that there needs to be a nexus. So our history is in our heritage, if you will, whatever. It comes from the Ag Preserve and the zoning that is associated with the Ag Preserve. As Chair Manfrey said, I mean, there are Things that are happening on ag parcels are considered agriculture because there's a nexus between growing grapes, making wine, and tasting wine, and selling your wine from your winery. We have to make sure that nexus continues to exist or we have completely blown apart the agriculture. Preserve, and that's because of how we created it and the rules we put around it. And as chairman said, and that is what the voters approved. So we can't just willy nilly. Okay. We're going to do this now. We're going to do that now. It doesn't work like that. And. I hear again and again and again about how over-regulated the wine industry is in California or in the U.S. It's also the most successful ag industry in the country, and it is the best preserved. It is the ag preserve upon which anyone else has tried to attempt this, upon which it is modeled. You know, we don't see this everywhere. It's really, really different. But it comes with all of these different pieces because it's about protecting the integrity of the ag zoning. And I just get really kind of freaked out when there's this, you know, and I get it. I agree with Chair Manfred. You know, you don't change everything because you're in a panic. We still have to be thoughtful. We still have to go through our processes. And if the community wants to vote to do something different with our ag lands, then the community can vote to do that. But that isn't the way it works. We don't go in and change the rules of the Ag Preserve because that isn't how it's done. And that's the whole reason it was voted in, so that we can't go in on any Tuesday and change the zoning.

that's my that's it that's thank you final okay thank you chair man free if I made through the chair after that I have clarity on everything other than WDO and so I'm asking respectively poor direction on whether or not you want PBS and the team to explore those things as part of this next step and effort because it's a major endeavor. And if it's not something that I need to be clear on that direction.

I am wondering if it might be appropriate to review the genesis of the WDO what it contains and what it means in a board retreat which i believe we're having one later this year or something like that or a special workshop or something because i this is this is an item that is it's so fundamental to the identity of the community and um i i mean i have had the incredible benefit of having many dozens of conversations with people who've been in the wine industry for decades and decades and decades about how meaningful it is and the content. And that's how I've come to the conclusions that I have. But I think it's a difficult thing to understand without really studying it or talking to people in a really wide cross section of the industry as in terms of what it means. And so, you know, personally, I don't, I don't want to just open it up for changing until we're all on the same page about what it is and what it means.

Um, so yeah, that's totally fair. And, um, for me, what we're talking about, it sounds like is, um, how we're defining the marketing of wine, what activities can people partake in while they are already there, not what in addition can they do with a net increase in the intensity. You're there, you're experiencing wine, what else can you do while you're there? That has to be looked at through the lens of all the general plan policies that are the foundation for the definition of ag, the definition of marketing, which is then embedded in the WDO with those definitions as well. It's not a short-term ask, and it's one that we have long time said is probably more appropriate for a general plan discussion. And that said, I'm willing to take whatever direction the board gives, but I just want to put that out there so we can manage expectations, not only on my part, but also those here that may be in attendance or otherwise listening.

Yeah. So I don't know. Have I been clear enough about where I'm at?

Sort of the reason is as part of Director Bordone's presentation was we laid out after receiving board direction what staff would do. We would go back. We would open up Title 18. We would look at administrative changes related to administrative permits, process improvement, things that were in response to the industry's letter. workshop that through the Planning Commission and get back to this board by the end of the year with what we think are reasonable updates. If board direction is to consider opening up the WDO, just to set expectations, that's something we can't do between now and the end of December. So we can always continue having conversations about what potential changes to the WDO would look like, but that would need to be a more intensive item that is more long-term, forward-looking, that maybe is separate from items that we're going to get before this board by the end of the year. okay so thank you and so just sort of differentiating what this board would like us to go walk away leave this room walk and work on between now and December now in November when County Council can you know get us through the the process of reviewing title 18 versus longer-term stuff that

requires opening the wdo but we can't get before this board by december okay do i see a ceo else up yeah i would just try to clarify so bait everything given everything mr parker just said um In the board letter, Mr. Verdona has outlined, so staff is seeking direction on A, administrative permits. You've outlined those. Marketing plan flexibility, employee and visitation flexibility. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. the GHG reduction barriers, the commercial kitchen expansions. So that's A. B, the streamlining of the zoning administrator, hearing requirements, C, requirement for tours and tastings prior to appointment signage. D, modernize and simplify micro winery ordinance. There are several things there that are good, but there's more to be done, I guess. E is AB 720 pilot program. F is appeals. G is other updates, winery use permit standard conditions of approval. And then you say next steps, bringing back, returning to the board with specific amendments for their consideration or all of those things with all of the comments that were provided across the board from each supervisor. There were a whole bunch of them. There were people that commented and we've taken all that input. I guess, To clarify this, if I'm not doing a good job here, the direction today is to move forward. You're directing staff to move forward with all of the input and all of the comments on all of these things. What is not included in this is the opening up short term of some of the longer term things that were listed in the industry letter that may be part of a general planning process. This is what your request is.

yeah i think you've said it much better than i have have recently i just wanted for so for clarity i i think the is the board giving staff direction with all of the input to go back and bring back the items that you brought take the feedback that has been given for for things beyond that you know i think we kind of put a pin in it you know i'm not opposed to having discussions going forward but i i think that's a bit much for today

Okay. That's all I needed. Thank you. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Do we need to vote on this because it, no? I wouldn't think so, but it's in my notes that we vote. And I'm like, really? Okay. Maybe not. Okay. Then we are going to go back to item 11D. I welcome Mr. Mize, the most patient staff member of all. to um to present to us about the transmission of an opposed unless amended position to the passage of assembly bill 1383 based on the recommendation of the county's pension opeb and section 115 trust advisory committee i welcome legislative analyst mys thank you for being with us thank you um

I am here today to discuss a pension reform bill pending before the California legislature. So let's talk about pensions. Just what everyone wants to hear about at 545 in the afternoon. Pension law is complicated, so I'll do my best to keep it simple and very short. Qualifying California public employees receive monthly pension benefits upon retirement through the pension public employee retirement system called PERS. The monthly benefit is a defined amount. The amount of the monthly benefit depends on three factors, final compensation, credited service, and retirement age. The bill we're here to discuss today, Assembly Bill 1383, makes several changes to a 2013 law that reforms PERS. That 2013 law is called PEPRA, the Public Employees Pension Reform Act. It is important to note at the outset that PEPRA stabilized the county's pension contributions to a sustainable level. Our pension obligations for PEPRA employees are now well managed. Notwithstanding this positive outcome, PEPRA also had the effect of incentivizing safety members in particular to make lateral moves to other jurisdictions once they reach its compensation cap. An outcome county staff did not anticipate that creates staffing challenges, particularly in our public safety departments. In current form, AB 1383 does three things. First, it lowers the retirement age for safety members, firefighters, and police officers from 57 to 55. Second, the bill introduces new pension compensation formulas called the McKenna formulas. These formulas are richer than the prior formulas. And finally, the bill increases the maximum compensation cap for all members with the net effect of raising pensions for those employees paid above existing caps, which is virtually all safety employees. The new formulas provide for either 2%, 2.5%, or a new optional 3%, which is bargainable, maximum compensation, which for safety members take effect at age 55. Currently, the richest formula available is 2.7%. For Napa County, the current pensionable limit for PEPPER members is $186,000. Historically, the limit for the so-called classic PEPRA was $350,000. So PEPRA really dropped that and saved us a substantial amount of money in terms of the final compensation cap. This bill would increase that limit back up to $249,000. So not back up to the classic $350,000, but a substantial increase. That's the NAPA figure. NAPA does not participate in Social Security. There are different figures in the formula for counties that do participate, counties and organizations that do participate in Social Security. The Senate Committee on Labor, do a little stage setting of how much this costs per employee. The Senate Policy Committee analysis estimated that the use of the 3% formula would add roughly $1 million in contributions over the retirement period of each individual PEPPER safety employee. Currently, employers and employees are required by statute to split evenly the normal cost pension contributions, but this bill may amend that provision for new safety employees. It's not entirely clear what the bill does. I'll talk about that a little bit later, but that's an amendment that we'd like to ask your board to seek. In response to the progress of the bill through committees and the bill's substantive proposals, staff convened a meeting of the Pension Advisory Committee. The committee composed the CEO, assistant CEO, chief human resource officer, county council, treasury tax collector, and auditor controller met on August 4th and considered the impact of the bill to Napa County's ongoing fiscal position and future pension contribution cost liabilities. For reasons I'll discuss, the committee voted recommend that the board transmit to the legislature and to the governor should the legislation pass a position of oppose unless amended. The committee found that AB 1383's proposed change to retirement age of 55 is a net positive for the county's fiscal position and suggests supporting that portion of the bill. That portion reduces the number of safety employees who remain in the workforce past the age of 55, so that 55 to 57 period. And they remain because their pension does not provide for livable retirement until they hit 57. There is a significant risk to the county during this period of increased disability claims from this population. And reducing the retirement age both serves to reduce that risk and improve the quality of life for retiring safety employees. The committee next found that Napa County has difficulty recruiting public safety employees, leading the committee to conclude that offering that optional 3% formula would likely be necessary to maintain a competitive position relative to other more populated counties. So Marin County may offer 3%. We will then have to offer 3% to remain competitive in recruitment. Contra Costa follow. So that advantage would be temporally fleeting. The committee further found that the new obligations as it relates to the maximum pensionable cost gap would also increase the county's future normal cost obligations. with local revenues flat and forecasted remain so at least in the short run the committee concluded that the new obligations would put the county in a significantly more difficult financial position to start each year that could adversely impact our ability to deliver mandated services that are funded by those local revenues um So those are general fund services. Thus, the committee voted unanimously to recommend a position of oppose unless amended. I want to note one other point of uncertainty in the bill, which is that cost sharing provision. The way that the bill is currently constructed, it may make that cost sharing for new PEPRA safety employees, so people joining after this bill would take effect, it may make that . So even though all employees currently are subject to a statutory 50-50 split, This opens it up for new safety employees to be able to bargain that down in the future. So that would be another way in which we might end up on the hook for a higher ongoing obligation. And the committee found that clarity would be appreciated in that to ensure that the current even split is maintained. So in short, and to wrap, the committee recommends supporting the age 55 retirement age, recommends seeking clarification, a clarifying amendment on the cost sharing, and recommends opposing the 3%, the new bargainable formulas, and in particular the 3% bargainable formula, and also the increase to the pensionable compensation cost cap. At this time, I'm happy to take questions. And our treasurer tax collector is also present in the event your questions exceed my knowledge. Thank you.

Thank you for that presentation, Mr. Mizen. Thank you for being here, Mr. Minahan. Okay. I will ask if there's any board discussion. Oh, wait. I should probably get a public comment. Is there any public comment on this item? I am not seeing any in the room. Is there anyone on the phones? No, there's no one on the phones. Okay. Then I will ask if there are any board questions or comments at this time.

Thank you. Supervisor? Yes, I have a question. So, look, thank you for the presentation. I'm trying to gather this. I read this and I'm like, okay, I can't wait to hear it from you. I'm kind of getting it. I'm not fully getting it. I'll just be honest with you. It seems like the staff supports the 57, drawing down the 57 to 55, that that is a benefit. And I think, truthfully, it's better for public safety that 57-year-olds are retired and let them retire at 55. I will also tell you that it's been my experience, and I know this is still current data, but first responders generally have a 10-year mortality shortage over the general population. So they're not around long enough to receive the benefits as people that are not in public safety or first responders. So I'm just going to put that out there. And so I have compassion on that. And disclosure, I'm a daughter of a police officer who follows those statistics, passed away at 78. So anyways, but so it sounds like that part is fine. So the second, so what's the major concern? It's going to cost, so it's going to cost the county more based on running the numbers of the age in which people no longer are receiving benefits if you go with general population versus first responder population?

So PEPRA, the 2013 law, did a lot of good things to kind of save counties from themselves in terms of the way that we bargain with safety units. And this undoes a lot of that progress. It makes... many of the things that previously were not bargainable, bargainable again. And as a result, we're likely to see quite a bit of backsliding. It kind of puts us in the Sophie's Choice of capitulating to new demands for benefits that might match what other competing jurisdictions are offering, or the specter of not having an adequate first responder force, but having our pension obligations well in hand. The 2013 law did a really good job in many ways of balancing those fiscal obligations and preventing counties from getting into that kind of race to the bottom. And this one does that. I think it's fair to say that there were also problems with PEPRA with the reform, chief among them that lateral bouncing around once you hit your income cap. in search of other benefits. But staff suggests that this is not the way to fix those problems.

And then really my real question is, do we have bargaining groups that are aware of this, SB 1383, AB 1383, and have they weighed in on it? Is that an appropriate question I can ask right now?

Yes. There are a number of statewide police groups that have weighed in in favor. In favor of? In favor of the passage of the bill. Passage, okay. and a number of statewide fire and also some local fire groups, firefighter organizations that have waited in favor of passage of the bill. I don't know, I don't have the complete list off the top of my head. It is publicly available at the Senate committees.

Okay. And do we know is that because of the age difference, because of the earlier retirement age or is it just overall they support just overall?

I think there's a lot to like here. Okay. But I think the point I was trying to make a little bit earlier is If these come to pass, what is put at risk is the budget where you're using to fund their department overall, the department's operations. I think there's a balance that you have to have in staffing costs and operational costs, and staff sense, the committee sense, my sense is that this veers a little too far in potentially putting operational budgets at risk because we have such ballooning staffing costs.

Okay, thank you for those answers. Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you. I see Supervisor Ramos. Thank you. And thank you for taking this up. I did ask that this be referred over to the JET Committee for their input, and I think what they provided us is incredibly thoughtful. I will say I do believe oppose unless amended is the right vehicle of sending our concerns. I have certainly said before I do believe that one of the faults of PEPRA was to make the safety retirement age 57 because on the back end what we will see and we are seeing is in fact workplace hazardous injuries that are increasing with age. And so we are at, what, 15, 14 years of PEPRA. And so we're not going to really see the realization of the full impact of a heightened retirement age. If you took a new officer, a new firefighter on the younger end of the 22 to 23 spectrum, We're not going to see it for another 15 years or so to get that real data, but we're starting to see those concerns. And so I do think that the reduction of the age is one of the benefits here, however, the multiplier factor of the benefit and puts us in the exact position as counties that PEPRA was designed to get us out of. And so PEPRA, the portability of your retirement is exactly what PEPRA was getting at. So that in and of itself creates an unknown factor for our budgeting year over year because every single For us specifically, I will say, the real troublesome part is on the fire side, we do not bargain with the employees. We do not bargain with CAL FIRE 2881. And so should, in fact, a bargaining occur with 2881 on, say, a gubernatorial reelection year, we all of a sudden are going to pay the price in our general fund. We don't just pay dollar for dollar on that contract when it comes to CAL FIRE. It's an all encompassing contract and so I think for purposes of predictability in our budgets, the modeling of PEPRA is in fact the good way for us to go. I do support and I would support even our letter saying that we do support the reduction of age from 57 to 55, given the hazardous parts of work affecting public safety and safety, those in safety retirement. But the flex and the multiplier is not something that I do believe is fiscally prudent for us to support. I'll make a motion that we relay over a letter of opposing those amended.

I'll second.

All right. I have a motion by Supervisor Ramos and a second by Supervisor Gallagher. Thank you so much for the presentation. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Okay. That passes 3-1. Thank you. I believe that brings us to agenda item 14, which is adjournment. We've already reported on a closed session, so thank you for that, County Council. And we will adjourn this meeting to the next meeting on August 25th, 2026 at 9 a.m. Thank you, everyone, for participating today.