Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Welcome everyone to the Napa County Board of Supervisors meeting. I'm calling this meeting of April 28th, 2026 to order. Roll call, please. Vice Chair Leio, present. Supervisor Ramos, here. Supervisor Gallagher here. Supervisor Catrell, here. And birthday girl Chair Manfrey here. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday dear Amber. Happy birthday to you.

Thank you. That was a singular experience. Amazing. All right. Um, could I please have uh I know. Um, could I please have J.R. Rogers lead us in the

pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Um, I now have the pleasure of introducing the pet of the week, uh, Theodore. And Luis, would you please tell us about Theodore? Um, I understand Bellia is going to assist with the pet of the week presentation. Thank you. Okay. So, what can we learn about Theodore this morning?

Yeah. So, as you guys can kind of tell, I'm getting some assistance doing all the heavy lifting today. Don't let him fool you. He is he is a chunky old man. Uh, but you're doing an amazing job. Theodore has been at the shelter since January. Unfortunately, his owner passed away and next of kin weren't able to take care of him. uh when he was brought to the shelter, he was, you know, in in good condition, but since he's been with us, he's been in so much in a much better condition. Um the main thing that I noticed when he first came in is he had that orange coat. He had uh he was a little bit thinner, not unhealthy, but just thinner. And since he's been with us, I've just been able to watch him kind of blossom. The main thing that I noticed is his coat. It's super soft now. It's really, really bright. we were able to do a dental on him because he had some bad teeth that needed to come out. So now his specialty when he sees people around is his little tongue just kind of dingles out. So if you see him around, he's uh it's just adorable. Um but yeah, other than that, he's been at the shelter since January. We kind of let him roam around the room when we're uh not busy or volunteers are present to kind of supervise him. And he just kind of does shot calls around the shelter, checking on the other cats, making sure everybody's doing okay. And then whenever he sees me around, he's like, "Okay, Luis, where are you gonna take me today so I can run away?" But I think he's really, really enjoying himself um today.

Wonderful. And adoption fees are waved. Is that right?

Yeah, that is correct. And we're going to be doing an adoption event from the 30th to the 3rd. So, in case Theodore is not the cat that you're interested in, there may be other cats or other dogs or even rabbits at this point that are available for adoption that the fees will be waved for. Yeah, I'm hearing office cat. So perhaps we'll have a catio on one of those little out outside areas. Okay, great. Thank you for introducing Theodore today, Louise. He looks like a delightful addition to the right household. So any of you can take Theodore home. Think about it. Okay. Uh we are now moving on to item four, approval of proclamations and commendations. We have two proclamations today. Uh the first recognizing sexual assault awareness month and the second recognizing wildfire preparedness month in Napa County. Do I have any public comment on either of our proclamations? I'm not seeing anyone in the room. Is there anyone on the phones?

No. Okay. May I please have a motion to approve the proclamations? Second. Okay. First by Supervisor Catrell, second by Vice Chair Allesio. Uh, all those in favor? I. Any opposed? No. Okay, that passes unanimously. Um, executive director Tracy Lamb will be accepting the sexual assault awareness month proclamation on behalf of news. So, I invite you to the podium and um, yeah, I

All right. And I'm inviting to Vice Chair Allesio to present this one. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for being here. Thank you for this honor chair. Um this is a proclamation board of supervisors Napa County, California sexual assault awareness month, April 2026. Whereas this year, Napa County joins the news domestic violence and sexual abuse services in recognizing 25 years of sexual assault awareness month and the shared commitment to end sexual assault, abuse, harassment. And whereas this sexual assault awareness month, we underscore that we believe violence has no place in our homes, our schools or our community. And that we believe safety, dignity, and respect are not a privilege, but they are they are rights. And whereas according to the center uh for disease control and prevention, more than half of women and nearly one in every three men in the United States have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes. And in one in four women and approximately 1 in 26 men have experienced completed or attempted rape. And whereas by observing April as sexual assault awareness month, we show that our community is committed to supporting survivors and working toward the prevention of sexual sexual violence across generations. Now, there be proclaimed that this board of supervisors, County of Napa, State of California, on this 28th day of April, 2026, does hereby join news advocates and communities across the country in taking action to prevent sexual violence. We recognize that April 2026 as sexual assault awareness month in Napa County and we urge the community to join in the effort not only in April but all year long all year long.

Thank you. And Tracy, would you like to say something? Executive director of news. There you go. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate. Thank you.

Um good morning to chair Amber Manfrey and members of the council. Um, I'm joined here today with our program director, Christina Gomez, and our team of advocates who are here. If you guys could just raise your hands and let them know. These are the these are the people that are doing the work 247 to respond. And we're also joined by Michelle Farhat, who is the director of the Monarch Justice Center where the news advocates are co-located doing that work. So, I wanted to recognize them because they are the ones that are really doing that work every day. Um, when I was a child, we were taught about stranger danger. And nobody told me that it could be my coach or my teacher or uh somebody like my stepbrother or a neighbor could be the person who might abuse me. No one explained how hard it would be to tell someone if that ever happened to me or how I would find the words. What if telling would mean that it would tear my family apart? Or if I have to talk to the police, how scary would that be? Or go to court? And what if I go to court and the jury doesn't believe me? None of us want to believe that this happens as often as it does. And I know this is a difficult topic to talk about, but it is happening every day in our community. This year's sexual assault awareness month theme is we believe because of the overwhelming barriers. There are many, many more survivors who will remain silent and will never disclose their abuse and can carry it for a lifetime. And I think right now sexual assault is having a moment and we're seeing like in the the issue of Dolores Wuerte what it is like to carry a burden of a silence for basically your whole life. Bringing attention to this issue and letting the community know that there is a safe place where survivors will be believed and healing can happen is why we ask for these proclamations to be read. I really want to invite everyone if you want to take a stand, if you want to say something about this or if this is meaningful to you, um we're having the Walk a Mile event. This is our annual event that we have to recognize sexual assault survivors and stand with them.

It's going to be on Sunday, May 3rd at 2 o'clock. Um it'll be at the Napa Oxbow Gardens and um this year we're planning to do the walk and then have a kind of a community gathering with entertainment and stuff afterwards. So we'd really love it if everyone could come and show up and I think it will send a strong message to the community. If you want to register a team um come out. It's um napwe.org. walk a mile event. You can look us up and register at the event and we'd love to see you out there. And I think Christina may have a couple of words, too.

Just wanted to especially thank you all for the continued support and to the community here because it truly it's work that we can't do on our own. Um but I wanted to especially highlight Elma, the um advocates on the sexual assault awareness team because they're the ones that put their hard work into this day in and day out and they still show up with kindness and their smiles on their face. So, thank you both for just being part of the team. Thank you all.

Great. Thank you so much for your work. I'd like to invite my colleagues to the well for a photo and anyone else on the team. Come on up yesterday. Somebody else. Thank you. Okay. And we have a second proclamation uh recognizing wildfire awareness month. I would like to invite uh Chiefs Ryan uh Greenberg and Ham along with Fire Administrator Rogers, Fire Marshall DS, and Deputy Fire Marshal uh Eric Hernandez to accept this uh with me at the podium. Wonderful. Whereas uh extreme wildfires are an increasing threat to public health and safety, homes, air quality, climate goals, and our forests,

California is experiencing fires that burn longer and hotter than ever before. And since 2017, California has endured 72,456 wildfires, including the Tubs fire, which is the fourth deadliest in state history, as well as the Atlas, Nuns, Glass, LNU lightning complex, and picket incident. And with increasing vegetation from winter rains and hotter, drier weather approaching us today, fire danger is to be expected to be high in 2026. Public education and up-to-date regional emergency planning are critical to strengthening community resilience to wild fire and other extreme weather events. And wildfires are a natural periodic occurrence in California. Many native species depend on cyclical fires for survival. To continue to enjoy the economic and recreational benefits of our rural and wilderness lands, we must strive to achieve a balance between California's fire ecology and the need to protect human life and property. And here in Napa County, we know that fire prevention is everyone's responsibility. Every resident and property owner, especially those in high-risisk areas, have a vital role to play in preventing the loss of life and property during wildfire events. During the month of May, as we begin peak fire season, we must all take responsibility for raising awareness and taking proactive steps to protect homes, families, and communities. And Napa County is committed to fire prevention and fuels mitigation, investing over 23 million over the past four years and matching funds to the hazard mitigation grant program and fuels reduction grants. And in recognition of wildfire awareness month, the Napa County Fire Department in cooperation with CalFire, Napa Communities Firewise Foundation, 24 active fires safe councils, our industry partners, and numerous community partners has intensified efforts to educate residents on essential wildfire preparedness steps. Life and property saving information can be found at

county of napa.gov, napacount.govcounty fire, sorry, readyapacount.gov, and readyforw wildfire.org. Now therefore, let it be proclaimed that this board of supervisors, county of Napa, state of California, on this 28th day of April, 2026 does hereby recognize May 2026 as wildfire awareness month in Napa County. And in doing so, we extend our heartfelt gratitude to the brave men and women who dedicate their life's work to keeping our community safe from fire. And we strongly urge all residents and property owners to understand and maintain appropriate vegetation management and defensible space. Harden their homes, have an evacuation plan, assemble an emergency go bag, and stay alert, informed, and ready.

Thank you. So, thank you for your work. Go, Would you like to say a few words? Absolutely. Thank you so much. Of course.

Good morning. JC Greenberg, deputy fire chief here in Napa County Calire. um joined here by our team behind us that is working on this daily. So, thank you, Chair Manfrey, uh board of supervisors. Uh we are honored to accept this proclamation recognizing recognizing wildfire preparedness and awareness month. Uh from 2017 through the fires of 2020, our community has experienced some devastating impacts across Napa County. Uh wildfires have affected our residents, our local economy, our industry partners, the natural re landscapes that define this region of Napa. These events have underscored the importance of preparedness, the coordination, and the sustained investment in fire resilience. Uh today, I want to acknowledge the dedicated teams working every day to keep Napa safe. Our fire marshall's office continues its critical work educating the public and conducting inspections. Our partners in the sheriff's office play a vital role in coordinated evacuation planning, including public alerts and warnings. We also recognize the coordination of our fire administrator and Napa Firewise for their leadership in fuels reduction efforts ahead of peak fire season as well as our network of 24 active resident fire safe councils. These are the residents that have vested into this program that are here for fire resiliency. So, and also importantly is the Napa prescribed a burn association for advancing the proactive fire management across Napa. This also marks the 94 years of cooperative agreement between Calire and the Napa County Fire Department. This partnership represents a highly trained emergency response force over the past two years. We have also graduated 32 new volunteer firefighters, bringing our total volunteers across the county that work with us here up to nearly 106 firefight or 160 firefighters serving Nava County. Under the leadership of Calire Director Joe Tyler and local fire chief Matt

Ryan, we have expanded year-round engine staffing across the LNU region, including three engines here in Napa County. These additional resources enhance the emergency response and support the fuel reduction projects here locally. But the important part about this, these state-f funded resources that are here in Napa come to no additional cost to the county at all. I also want to recognize the countywide community wildfire protection plan and the continued investments made by the board of supervisors to fund this program. Uh these investments are making a difference. During the recent picket fire, which burned 6,819 acres, prior fuels reduction work played a critical role in protecting infrastructure along the Silverado Trail in the communities of Deer Park, Anguin, and Pope Valley. The outcome would have been a totally different without this foresight of the collaboration and these investments and our partners with Napa Communities Firewise Foundation. Additionally, CalFire continues to advance techn technology across the Elen region, including the deployment of new AI powered fire detection cameras to improve wildfire detection and response. And through our continive cooperative agreement, I am pleased to announce the return of our exclusive use Chinook helicopter to the Napa County Airport. A familiar call sign a papa Juliet has a capacity of 2,300 gallons and nightflying capabilities. This aircraft significantly enhances our aerial firefighting capacity. Additionally, CalFire has its Firehawk stationed up out of Bogs Mountain Helack base in Cobb. And additionally, one other exclusive use helicopter at our Soma Air attack base and both of those copters have a thousandgalon water dropping capabilities along with nightflying drop uh water dropping uh missions as well. In closing, wildfire is a reality we continue to face across California, including here in Napa County. It is essential that we remain committed to building fire resilience across our

communities and our neighboring counties. Wildfire does not recognize boundaries. Uh please stay tuned later in this meeting for our fire department's annual report where we will share additional accomplishments that we've uh completed over this past year. And thank you for this.

Yeah. Uh, I invite my colleagues to join me in the wall for a photo. blue. took Congratulations. Absolutely.

Okay, thank you all. Our next item is our consent calendar which includes special districts. Um and please note that there is a correction memo on 50. Wasn't there second correction memo or is it not on consent? Not on this item. It's later.

Okay. Thank you. So um we're looking at consent calendar items A through AC. Do we have any board comments or items to pull off of the consent calendar this morning? Not seeing any. Um, is there anyone wishing to make public comment on any item on consent? Not seeing anyone in the room. Is there anyone on the phones? No. Okay. Um, may I have a motion and a second to approve uh approve consent calendar items A through AC as amended? So moved.

Second. Okay. Uh, first by Vice Chair Allesio, second by Supervisor Catrell. Um, all those in favor? I Okay, I see none opposed. Um, so that passes unanimously. Um, and we are moving on to general public comment. So, we will now take public comment for anyone wishing to speak on items not on the agenda or Oh, and there's nothing there's no closed session today. So, just for items not on the agenda. Is there anyone in the room wishing to speak? Okay, I'm seeing come. Yeah, approach the podium and form a line if there's several of you. Thank you. I guess I'd like to. So, uh, three three minutes and Oh, it won't take that long.

Okay. I have two two important items. The first is in case you don't know already, today is Chair Amber Manfreyy's birthday. Oh my god.

Sorry, but that's we can have a little levity around here too, can't we? I hope. Second thing is I just in in general I I really didn't have much to say, but I drove down here and I thought of I I'd really like to say this because I drove all the way down here and I'd like to bend your ear just a little bit. As you know, some of you know I was in the airline business so I'm quite familiar with the FAA and the role they play. They not only oversee the uh possibility and promote the the airline industry, but they also oversee it. Sounds a lot like your jobs. You oversee the safety and welfare of our community and our wine industry, but you also are in a role of promoting it. I think what we see here in the wine industry right now is what exactly what happened in the airline industry when things got too busy and people started allowing the industries uh individual manufacturers uh to not have enough oversight. Boing is an example. We all read the newspaper know what happened there. many crashes because there was not enough FAA oversight. The analogy here for me is that we're never going to be able to deregulate ourselves out of this wine industry crisis. We're not going to grow our way out of it. We have too many wineries and it will self-correct. But it is your job to also promote the wine industry, but also keep it regulated. Thank you very much for letting me spout off.

Thank you. And I'm Mike Hackett from Anguin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hackett. Welcome. If you could just start by stating your name.

Good morning. I'm Maya Dalival and I'm representing today as a board member of Naval Valley Grape Growers. So, good morning and thank you to Chair Manfrey and the supervisors for the opportunity to address you today. Last month, Calpaly St. Lisa Bispo released the first study that put a precise number on what Napa growers pay annually just to comply with regulation. The findings are dramatic. Over $1,700 per acre for large growers, over $1,100 per acre for small growers. The CEO of Napa County Farm Bureau, which commissioned the study, called the results shocking. I would say the same. Critically, all of these costs reflect requirements already in place as of 2025. They do not include new compliance costs taking effect in 2026, such as groundwater fees. What the board is considering adding sits on top of an already documented crisis. The groundwater fee structure compounds that problem in a specific and correctable way. Fees assessed by acreage, not actual consumption, treat two vineyards identically, regardless of how efficiently they use water. An operation that has invested in conservation pays the same as one that hasn't. That is not water stewardship. It penalizes the right behavior and ignores the wrong one. The CalPoly researchers note that regulatory costs now represent between 8 and 12% of total production costs. And that figure at the as the study's authors explicitly state does not yet account for what this board is contemplating. Growers are already deferring planting and investment decisions. The cumulative weight is affecting long-term viability, not in the abstract, but in real decisions being made right now. The grape growing community is here today as part of a joint industry proposal with three specific asks. Correct the fee structure to reflect actual consumption rather than assume acreage. Commit usage

base assessment as a governing principle. The study's authors warn explicitly that without change, viable agriculture as we know it in Napa may not survive. and with it the agricultural preserve that has defined this county for over 50 years. But I want to end on this. Groundwater man monitoring manners matters and the work the county has done to take this stewardship seriously is something the grape growing community genuinely supports. Water is the lifeblood of this valley and we want to see it protected. This that is precisely why we are here. Not to obstruct oversight but to help make it work. A fee structure that is fair, proportionate, and grounded in real data will be more effective, more durable, and more worthy of this county's legacy than one that isn't. We are ready to do that work alongside you. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome. Good morning. Good morning. Uh Lee Hudson, uh Carer, Napa Valley, wine grower, grape grower. Um what was your name? Lee Hudson.

Thank you. Um, Supervisor Manfred, I thank you for for for entertaining my comments. Um, I would like to draw attention to the letter you received uh on April 10th in regards to the the four trade organizations that came together which is a really unique uh moment. It they don't come together that often and they came together to really speak to you about the regulatory atmosphere in Napa County. Um, we we all support the general plan and the WDO and the hillside ordinance and all the things that protect and preserve agriculture and wine-making in this county, but the regulatory atmosphere is really unbearable and it it it is really about an attitude. the the applicant stands naked in front of you and I think that you as leaders in the county need to be more supportive of the applicant and that is something that is the the applicant goes through the planning process at the in the planning department and the planning department does a fantastic job of showing the applicant what works and what doesn't work within the general plan and the wishes of the community once they come out, the sharks attack. You guys need to be dolphins. You need to help the applicant through this process. That's an attitudinal adjustment. There's regulatory adjustment that needs to be done, but there needs to be an attitudinal adjustment. This the the the naysayers cannot be constantly listened to. We have a vital and dynamic community here that supports the incredible tax base here. and I'm concerned about the tax base in this county. And if we continue to say no to everything, then we're going to really damage that and that's

going to be the long-term environmental negative effect on the county. Thank you very much. And I hope you pay good attention to this letter on the 10th. This is a very important subject and it's unusual that all four organizations would come together to with a such a specific stance on this regulatory process. Thank you very much for your hard work. Thank you, Mr. Hudson. Welcome. Good morning.

Good morning, supervisors. My name is Dan McCulla representing the North Coast State's Carpenters Union Local 751. Uh community for workforce agreements sole purpose is for labor harmony and to pro promote the efficiency of construction operations. But how can it be effective if it excludes one of the largest trade unions? The one that on average performs the most work on construction projects up towards 60 or 70% of the projects. C.WAS also set regulations and working conditions that our members work under. Our members expect us to do our best in negotiating agreements for their work. An agreement without the carpenters union means our members are put in a position where they neither get to vote on the agreement or have their union participate in crafting it. The carpenters were excluded from the CWA that you have on built the building 4 project. Even after county staff repeatedly asked the building trades, "What about the carpenters?" Building trades answer was, "The county is negotiating with the building trades and we are including a line for the carpenters to sign." We got that information from a public records request for emails regarding the Napa County CWA. We will never sign an agreement that affects our members and their working conditions when we were not involved with it from the beginning. I understand that this was a one job trial CWA to see if it would work for the entire county, but moving forward, should the county choose to utilize a community workforce agreement for the entire county, please give clear and concise direction to include the North Coast State Carpenter Union as an equal party to any CWA in Napa County. Thank you and happy

birthday. Thank you, Mr. for welcome.

Uh good morning. Uh my name is Chris Palmo. I'm a senior organizer with the North Coast States Carpenters Union. Um I represent local 751 and then I also represent uh local 152 which is kind of one I wanted to talk about the importance of having the carpenters union as a separate entity and the the ability to negotiate for our membership. So like Dan was talking about, you know, the whole point of a PLA or community workforce agreement is labor harmony. We represent the general contractor and all 11 11 of principal uh subcontractor uh carpenter trades underneath that. Again, that's majority of the project. You can't have labor harmony when you're excluding that many members. You know, we don't exclude them from be able to negotiate for their members. They shouldn't be able to exclude us from for negotiating for ours when that happens. So, there was a PLA in the city of Pittsburgh. We weren't a party to it. We didn't sign it. So, there's a non-union general contractor that got that project. It was prevailing wage. they were not paying the prevailing wage. We caught that. The project was on hold. So then when went to rebid, the city had to pull out of their um another fund to be able to uh because the c the increase of cost was upwards of 200%. Because at that point they were stuck and they had to take the bids from the non-union. The reason why that happens again is because the trades don't have an organizing department. The carpenters union does. We have anywhere from 40 to 50 organizers on any given day walking projects, monitoring projects, and making sure the right thing is done. their organizing tool is a PLA and that's it. So again, we need to be a party as a separate entity to make sure that the right thing is done on these projects and we can negotiate for our membership. That's all we're asking for. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good morning um board of supervisors and chairman. My name is Tom Davies, president of Isatouille Winery. Also, I'm on the board of the Nap Valley Grape Growers. Today, however, I'm putting my hat on as um as a former board chair of Visit Napa Valley. I served with Visit Napa Valley for um six years on the board and I want to speak about the the regulations, the letter that was sent in by the the four major groups. You know, one of the things I learned in my role with the visit Napa Valley is that we are in competition with all the other wine growing areas of California. And you know, I think we think of ourselves as making some really great wines here in the Napa Valley. And we do, but the truth is is that other wine growing regions here in California also make really great wines. And and if you really look at all the 90 plus point scored wines, you'll find that areas like Sonoma and Santa Barbara and St. Louis Abyspo have nearly the same number as Napa. You know, we come out ahead because we have so many great single vineyard cabs, but other than that, they're making some really good wines. And so when we say that, you know, so if quality is really up there, you know, I think Napa Valley is really at a disadvantage because we are competing for visitors. They're not only looking for great wines, but you know, welcoming and easy visitation, interesting wine experiences with food and music. I believe we are competing with one or maybe both hands behind our backs as the rules set 36 years ago have not evolved with today's industry. In 1990, when we enacted the WDO, there were 45 wineries in the Central Coast. Today, there were 600, outnumbering Napa

by 20%. Isn't it ironic that a set of rules designed to protect agriculture are now posing as a threat to our egg preserve if wineries are not allowed to be competitive in a highly competitive environment. I also argue that many of the rules are perhaps most, you know, likely unconstitutional as evidenced by a recent court ruling in Michigan and current cases being heard by the US District Court. Here's just a couple of examples. You let's take for instance visitation Napa by appointment only. Central Coast highly permissive. Sonoma does not have a mandate for appointment only. Loi Amador open walk-in. If we look at food, Napa education only, Sonoma, some have full food can sell prepackaged food on site. Central Coast have catering and small plates. If we look at Tmacula restaurants, in fact, many of the wineries around the world have restaurants. Um, music Napa indoor only, Sonoma permitted, Central Coast permitted. I could go on and on. We just really need your help to um to go through these set of regulations and please don't kick this can down the road with the with the general plan. We need we need your help now. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Davies. Sir, okay. Okay. Welcome. Hello.

Good morning. Super Robin Bagot, Alpha Mega Winery, uh, past chair and member of the board of Napa Venters and also chair of the wine institute currently, but I'm not speaking in that capacity. speaking from my 40 years experience of as a lawyer and um I think you all know uh the federal court ninth circuit basically reversed the stay and there's an active case going now in the US district court northern district of California where I clerked about 60 years ago. Um, you got to take this seriously now because you don't, I said this two years ago, you don't want a federal judge running your wine industry. And so I think times of the essence is kind of fortuitous that the four groups got together at this time with ideas and you know you you know we have a constitution and they're big constitutional issues in these case and the constitution was really drafted because they wanted limited government. that they didn't want government to control our lives. And so the more regulation and limitations you impose on the wine industry, you're you're risking what happened in Michigan where they got a $50 million judgment and they have they're bankrup they bankrupt the county. Uh so let's work together to try to resolve these issues before a federal judge does it for us. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome. Good morning. Good morning, Chair Manfrey, Board of Supervisors, and Napa County staff. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. I'm Caleb Mosley with the Napa Valley Grape Growers. Um, a lot of comments today about the work that the four organizations have done, and that's kind of what I'm here in in support of speaking about, but I also wanted to ground us in something remarkable that's going on right now in our valley. Um, everyone remember the month month of March, record-breaking heat, unprecedented. Oh my god, it was nice to go to the beach in March. Well, our vines woke up and in many situations, um, folks have had to expedite their their growing practices by two to three months. I'm hearing reports from people. You're you're getting an off-the cuff cuff uh growing season update as we speak, but our vineyards have grown exponentially. Um, we have some operators that are talking about 3 ft of canopy growth and and hedging right now. Usually this time of the year, we're in the middle of suckering and chute thinning, moving along. Everyone's starting to whisper about bloom. How's it going to look in May? There are reports of people that are completely done with bloom and looking at clusters. And we're in late April on your birthday. Happy birthday. Uh it's remarkable in that um when you drive around the valley, you notice two things. One, there's more vineyards removed than we've seen in this county for a very, very long time. And two, the vineyards that remain look outstanding. Our teams and our growers have met that challenge, expedited their practices, and have hit every every metric you've needed. People have suckered, shoot thinned, pulled laterals, hedged, done with canopy management, the bulk of their budgets in the first 90 days of the growing season. When I sit back and I think about that, I go, "Wow, our teams were really wellprepared. people that had started their budget process, their talks last year for this year, threw it out the window in the first 90 days and were able to basically adapt to this situation. Mother nature throws us

curveballs and here we are. This is why Napa is excellent and we serve kind of as a as an example for a lot of other counties. But again, stepping back, growers had to say within the first 90 days of their growing season, all right, budgets are out the window. Let's go for it. Everything's expedited and thrown up front. Um, teams had to be in place. Phone call after phone call after phone call. I've always said that grape growing is not uh uh an individual sport. It's a team sport. So, your your fertilizer folks, your your crew leaders, your FLC's, everyone had to be on the same page and going forward. I think it's it's interesting in that the four groups kind of had a similar mentality. Let's get on the same team and start moving forward. And I also want to say that a really important part of the success of any grape growing region or any growing season is is the state, federal, and county governments that we work with to kind of facilitate what we can do, what we can't do, what's safe, what's not safe, how do we promote each other, and how do we move forward. So, just wanted to ground you with a growing season update. Kind of say that we've already a lot of growers have already spent the majority of their grape growing budget this year and in some cases they don't have a contract signed. It's a pretty scary place to be. Um, so grounding a little bit of the reality of where we stand. But with that, I I appreciate the opportunity to work as a team on on making a a landscape that better matches the challenges that we're seeing right now. And I thank you all for the opportunity again.

Thank you, Mr. Mosley. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to speak? Yeah, go ahead and come up to the podium.

Hello everybody. Um, thank you for allowing us to all come here and comment. I am really just tagging along on so many of these other Just state your name, please. Sorry, that's okay.

Um, but uh I'm Shotti Throchmorton. I'm the owner of Relic Wine Sellers, the business manager of Baron's Family Winery and the chair of the board of directors of the Nap Valley Venters. Um, so my husband and I built our small winery in Soda Canyon over 10 years ago. And it was through this process that I became intimately familiar with the Napa County's permitting framework. Uh those experiences led me to become more involved with permitting and land use uh in hopes of really improving upon a system that has become unnecessarily complicated and which can yield unpredictable and costly outcomes for everybody. The recommendations that our four industry groups have shared with you which were effect thoughtful pragmatic changes the county can make to support the community. They're based on lived experiences of venters and growers in this valley, including myself. Um, at the time when at this time when nearly every cost for a winery, excuse me, is rising due to outside due to uh measures outside of our control and also in a challenging economic and sales environment. Opportunities to ease the burden of doing business in Napa Valley should be embraced. We appreciate that the board has asked staff to report back on the recommendations we have made and we hope that information can be shared quickly and changes can be made with immediate effect. We thank you for your partnership in this process. I had the pleasure of being in DC last week with Supervisor Catrell and Andrew Mai and Joe Nordinger from uh Napa Firewise. Um advocating primarily for fire mitigation but also a handful of other things for our community including tariff relief. It's just another example of how when we work together, we can make real change, the private sector, public, and nonprofit. We talked about this ad nauseium um on Capitol Hill. And I just really looking forward to the support that you can give to Napa's agricultural future. I think this is really important for our entire community um and hope we can keep going

forward together. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to speak? I don't see anyone. Is there anyone on the phones? Yes, we have. Okay, go ahead. When they're ready, Chris, are you there? I am here. All right, Chris, go ahead. You have three minutes.

Thank you. Uh, my name is Chris Min. I'm the executive director of the Institute for Conservation, Advocacy, Research, and Education, and we've been monitoring the health of the Napa River since uh 2000. And uh all indications are we're trending towards uh decreasing water quality in the Napa River and groundwater. Um the reason I want to talk to you this morning is one of um the Clover Flat landfill which is perched high in the mountains uh just above uh above Yachville above St. Alina and before Kalisoga on the eastern side it's in a deep ravine. It's also in a high wildfire risk area. Uh it exploded during the Glass Fire due to methane leaks. Um in January there was an inspection by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Alex Karpowit, who found that the erosion control measures had failed uh and that there was additional landsliding above the module five, which is where it's currently filling. Uh and this is after a lot of work by the counties erosion control people and the state uh water quality monitoring people. There was a lot of failure of erosion control uh which then causes leech to get into the surface waters. uh two groundwater wells are showing high POS um and POS is a forever chemical. Also the runoff uh that came comes off of the

landfill especially uh increases when erosion control measures fail which they did and that's what the January 2026 report by the uh water board and Alex Carpowitz showed. Uh, I've been trying to get that report to you, but you can view it at GeoTracker. Um, and it if you put in Clover Flat, it'll show you all the violations and all of the inspection reports. But that's a really hard um trail to follow on water quality coming off Clover Flack. I ask that the county make it more uh accessible to the public since this is a major pollutant to the a river and has been for many years. Uh the owners of the landfill have failed uh to uh protect water quality for many years, including in 2018 and 2019 where the the previous owner illegally graded a road causing uh a chemical reaction when it hit the creek to form um sulfuric acid uh which completely nuked the creek and the river had to be posted. Not only because of that, but because of uh

Chris, you're at three minutes. Okay. So, uh if you could please uh get accessibility to documentation from Clover Flat available to the public because right now it's not transparent. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Mail. Happy birthday, Amber. Oh my gosh. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else? Is there anyone else on the phones? That concludes public comment. Okay, great. All right. Thank you everyone for sharing your thoughts. Um Oh, is there one more person in the room? Yes. Go ahead. Uh three minutes and please start with your name.

I'm Ricardo Gaino. I'm the historian for the Napa story with two Ps. Hi. How you guys doing? Uh, I came because I dropped off to start an enterprise initiative for a charity uh for Ryan. Um, the most definitive historical summary that was done in 1986. And uh basically uh the way we're kind of organized in Napa, people don't know how to assess the civil uh the civil geography so that the facts are produced uh from county documents. Now, this is very important because when you do a job, you want to do it right. And so, I wanted to have this conversation with Ryan and I never got a reply or my materials back. So, we're at an interesting point here. So you understand where we're at in our preparedness is that the history of Napa is the history of the United States. See, you don't think like that and you don't know the fact, but we do have the granddaughter of Daniel Boone at Tula Cemetery who raised eight children at the Missouri colony on Dry Creek

Road. So for everybody in the room except for me, that's a fact. And then that relates to other aspects for growing community education. So this is for Brian because we don't have time to waste to chase around people especially because we're carrying the ball with our own money for celebrating the 250th. But Napa as the leader for the 250th, we developed our own identity which I have on which is the spirit of 1776. So right here you got a lot of messaging power that will increase in our youth, our teens. Like for example, this map.

Thank you. If you could conclude your comments, please. This map gives an historical perspective that nobody in the room has. Here you go. That's for you. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you for being here today. Thank you for your comments. Okay. Okay. I think I don't see anyone else approaching the podium. Okay. We're going to move on to item nine on our agenda. Uh public hearing uh for considering an appeal filed by Water Audit California. What's that? Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Um that's

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I sorry I'm getting ahead of myself. Um Board of Supervisors reports and announcement. Uh my mistake. Um Supervisor Gallagher, would you like to start?

Um sure. Thank you. Um, so I'm going to uh attempt to keep my board reports concise. Um, I'm going to be from now on focusing on the mandated reports uh from certain boards and subcommittees uh that I participate in as well as just any pertinent updates from other committees or commissions. And uh just to let everyone know, if you'd like to know about what District 1 is up to um and the various activities and and events and things that we we are participating in, please uh subscribe to my newsletter and uh follow us on Facebook and Instagram. Um so very quickly, um I did want to mention what's happening at the Air District. Um many of you have maybe seen uh public comments circulating around uh the rule change 9.6. Uh this is to do with the zero emission standards for newly sold and installed water heaters. Um if you recall we made this change in 2023. Um the first uh date for rule implementations 2027. So that's coming up. um our staff was tasked with assessing readiness two years before the compliance deadlines. So uh there has been uh implementation working group of over 40 stakeholders uh that convened 20 meetings uh between 2023 and 24. Um the staff identified flexibility options in a concept paper that was released last year and uh that was um we took public comment on that in October of 2025. So there was a 30-day uh comment period. So that's why you may have seen um a lot of um talk again about the rule change. Um we will be looking on May 6 at our air district board meeting um at a report

from staff with uh updated flexibility concepts um and trying to you know obviously incorporate some of the public comments that they received last year. So, just to let you all know, I did um talk with um our staff that uh helps us with the uh climate action committee, and we're going to try to put a presentation together for the CAC to review this a little bit more. So, I invite you to take a look at that when we do that, or we could potentially do something for the board, too. Um depending on what you all uh would like to see. Um let's see. Just wanted to check any other committees. Um, Napa Sanitation, we are in process of looking at our budget. Um, climate action committee. We are uh we looked at our budget um at the last meeting and also um we are moving forward on the RCAP as you all know. Hopefully it will come to the county sometime in the fall. is going to go to the full RC cap um in the in sometime in the summer and that it'll make its way around to the various uh jurisdictions as well. Um and then just one announcement, there is a Careros Fire Safe Council meeting tonight um at 6:00 at the Careros Fire Station number 10. So if you live in the Careros area, uh please come out. This is really exciting. This is our newest fires safe uh council and um there are a lot of people uh working on that and excited um with the progress. So stay tuned for more. Thank you.

Thank you Supervisor Gallagher. Supervisor Allesio. Uh thank you Supervisor Galler for reporting back out on climate action committee. I had that on my list too. Um I don't have a lot to report out. I do want to congratulate the school district though and the new agricultural um and culinary center. It took them about 10 years to move the old farm to the new location. Uh it was about $10 million. They did not use bond money or taxpayer money. That was really money that they received through the sale of other facilities or property. But um I was at that ribbon cutting with Supervisor Gallagher and I just want to congratulate them. That's all I have at this time. Okay.

Great. Thank you. Uh do I have any other updates? Uh Supervisor Ramos.

Thank you, Chair. Um I wanted to um I wanted to first let you know um here close to home, I attended the BCDC meeting and there was an enforce enforcement decision on a cease and desist letter and a civil penalty for unpermitted fill in Vallejo. Um, so interesting. BCDC's jurisdiction is uh was born out of do not fill the bay. Um, and now it's really uh turning more towards uh sea level rise protections, but unfortunately there is still unpermitted filling of the bay happening. So um that was a a long time coming and so that enforcement action um has taken place. Um, also, uh, the Richmond Sanrfell Bridge. Um, there's been a lot of talk about what is happening with the Richmond Sanrfell Bridge. There was a pilot project of a bike lane and there is going to be, um, a transition of that. There was a vote. Um, and I will just say I do recuse myself on that because I serve in all capacities when it comes to the Bay Trail and the Richmond San Rafale Bridge. I serve as an MTC commissioner. I serve as uh the sponsoring agency for the Bay Trail. uh nonprofit. I serve as the appointing authority for the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority and I s sit on BCDC. So, as far as lawyers go, um their eyes crossed when we discuss the conflict. So, I do not vote on it, but I'm letting you know that there are some benchmarks that are being established and there's more to to come uh uh in in the next six months. um at the Napa Valley Waste Man Napa Valo Waste Management Authority, we did um receive a draft of our our budget and I am always thoroughly impressed um with the tonnage that keeps on coming through um and it's impressive operation. As I said before, please do go see how we deal um with our materials diversion um that's the right phrase I'm getting

there. Um here in Napa County, especially on the south side of the county. um for MTC. Um, I did attend with my um with I was able to attend the the meeting with my colleague Amber um on uh April 22nd and we received a a budget uh workshop and um and I think one of the um other more important things to to know is that um uh our Clipper program is um if you use a transit pass um be very mindful of how your funds are going. We've had some transition problems, myself included, um into your Clipper Bay pass. Um but just make sure that um you are using those those transit opportunities whenever possible. I'm grateful to uh our chair for making me uh take transit more often than not. And then uh in my capacity as both uh BCDC and and AAG president, I actually had the opportunity to tour the horizontal levy um project in PaloAlto, which was phenomenal and um not that big. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Rama, Supervisor Catrell. Thank you, Chair, and happy birthday. Thank you. Um uh a couple of things. First of all, uh, thank you, Supervisor Manfrey, for I mean, Supervisor Gallagher for giving us a frame on reporting out. I think that's really helpful and I know everyone on the board does incredible newsletters, so it's a great direction to find out about other things there. I have two main things to report out about and then two community events coming up. Uh I've uh through SEESAC have been engaged in some meetings about uh insurance for our communities and had a recent meeting with Lake County Supervisor Jessica Pisca who is uh seeing a rebuilding home hardening project in her community and

also Jen Goodland who lived in the community of Paradise and has been leading the rebuild paradise effort for several years now and they're really working on bringing insurers back into that community And so the conversation is about how we could help our residents here in Napa County make some of those same changes. And so it very much slots in with what we're talking about um the the wildfire preparation. And then the second thing I wanted to u report out about um Shotsi already sort of gave gave you a preview was uh the past week in uh spent four days in Washington DC advocating for county interests. We probably had 20 meetings over four days. uh two days we were advocating in partnership with the Napa Valley Vitner and Napa Firewise telling about the strong public private partnership and nonprofit partnership that we have and really making the case that we have done so much in the county thanks to prevention and also the response. So appreciate having um so many first responders here today, but also that we still need federal action and support. So, we spoke with uh California congressional representatives, but also representatives from Arkansas and Colorado because we're really seeing wildfire hit across the country in various places. And we were also able to do some education about the damage that smoke can do to grapes and that was we saw a lot of light bulbs go on. People did not understand that. So, and then uh the Napa County team had two days of advocacy also on wildfire topics and insurance also about impacts of HR1 and uh finally advocating for support for local road projects. So, it was a a busy trip, but I think it was we really um are able to those face-to-face meetings make a difference to be able to walk in there with our local residents and local businesses is impactful. And then finally, two upcoming community events.

There will be the Anguin Flea Market on Sunday and the Napa Bikefest on Sunday as well. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much, Supervisor Catrell. Um, so a lot of what I had to say has been covered, but I do want to thank everyone remaining in the room for the best birthday party ever. Um, it's really amazing situation here. Thank you. Um, and uh, other than that, thank you, Supervisor Romance, for covering MTC updates, which I'll just ditto that um, this I think everyone here has met with the Flood and Water Conservation District since our last meeting, too, and they're basically the big news there is that they're moving forward with the uh, connecting trail from Oxbow bypass up to Lincoln. So, that's uh, we're going to start seeing that work in the next few weeks is what I hear on the street. And I also met with Upper Valley Waste Management Agency and Napa Valley Transportation Authority. There is a Kumsville Wild Horse Fire Safe Community on Thursday the 30th of April at 5:00 p.m. So if you're in that community, look out for that event. Uh it's a great way to connect with your neighbors and also make sure you're getting the most up-to-date information on staying fires safe in the community. And if you're anywhere else in this community, I hope you join the fires safe council closest to you because again, great way to connect and uh and keep everyone safe. Um, and also sign up for newsletters. Um, I have a very good one and so does everyone else here. So, uh, with that, we'll move it on. We have quite a few things to go through still today. Um, next item is item nine on the agenda, a public hearing considering an appeal filed by Water Audit California concerning the Arrow and Branch Winery use permit major modification and the decisions made by the Napa County Planning Commission on December 3rd, 2025 to approve the use permit major modification application number P23-000057 mod and adopt the initial study mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Appalent applicant and staff request that the board consider and

adopt the revised conditions of approval to resolve the appeal. Um board members, I would like at this time to ask if you have any disclosures regarding any exparte communications or new Libyan Act disclosures, if any. Vice Chair Allesia.

Um some of these are going to be obvious, but um received emails um in regards to this um this hearing that of support and opposition. Um I did meet with the applicant's attorney and project manager uh via Zoom to discuss this. I went to Darmms Lane and I I didn't speak into any of the neighbors, but I really looked at the scope and the space of that. Um and also had a site visit of the winery and the creek.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to make disclosures? No. Um, I will say that I have received communications from Water Audit California, from John Murphy, from David Ule, Nancy Ule, Antonio Allegra, Dave Wignel. Oh, oh, really? Okay. Um, oh, I see. Sorry. Okay. Um, on this one, I have received communications from Dena and Bill Faulk, um, and Robert and Alicia Ringstad. Um, so see no one else. Um, so I'd like to open the public hearing and request staff uh a staff presentation on the revised conditions of approval that Apple and applicant wish the board to adopt to resolve the appeal. Um, and please note that there is a correction memo on this item. Go ahead when you're ready.

Good morning, chair and supervisors. Matt Ringle, Nappa County Planning this morning discussing the AON branch winery winery project appeal P2612 of use permit major mod modification P2357. My presentation today I'm going to begin with a brief project history, site description, summary of permit request as well as changes and recommendation. Beginning with project history, the project went before the planning commission and was approved as a major modification. Subsequently, Water Audit California filed a timely notice of appeal. Subsequently, the applicant and appellant have reached a private agreement to settle the appeal which includes incorporating changes to the conditions of approval with the site description. The proposed project is located at 5215 Solano Avenue within the agriculture resource general plan designation and agricultural preserve zoning district. The permit request the proposed m major modification proposed changes to visitation previously as you can see within this chart I've broken it down between existing and proposed request as a summary. The proposed project proposed increasing visitation from 15 visitors per day to 34 visitors per day. Included changing the marketing program from six events per year with 30 guests, one event per year with 125 to increase to 12 events per year with 30 guests and one event with 125. propose increasing the employing count from four full-time employees to five full-time employees as well as increasing the production from 30,000 gallons to 40 thou 45,000 gallons annually. The proposed project also includes physical improvements with

changing outdoor on-site consumption as well as the increase of physical um development which I'll show on the next slide. Notably, the project did include a decrease in water usage by 10% compared to entitled conditions. Reviewing the physical improvements, this is a site plan of the first floor. Beginning on the left hand side in yellow is the proposed new tasting deck with hospitality space. On the top is proposed barrel storage building which would go north of the proposed project site. On the eastern side is a fermentation indoor area as well as outdoored covered terrace with fermentation. This next slide shows the proposed second floor and on the left hand side it's a deck with no tastings primarily just for employees as well as proposed office space which a large area that also looks to the first floor. Here's a rendering of the hospitality edition showing all the way on the western side the proposed new hospitality space with offices. Speaking of the changes um the project updates um that came from the private agreement to settle the appeal. There are two matters that were were edited within the conditions of approval within the agreement. The first being condition of approval 4.9. In summary, it references that the permit shall record and upload well monitoring data to publicly available website and the data shall be made available for the county's groundwater monitoring network. Subsequently, condition of approval 6.12E, which is also mitigation measure BO5, references that the permit shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife if impacts to bed, bank, channel, and repairarian areas of the stream cannot

be avoided. Subsequently, staff did provide a change memo to further the applicant and appellants uh agreement um which included reference that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife is a trustee or responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act. And ending with staff's recommendation. Staff's recommendation is to adopt the revised conditions of approval in attachment A and reflected in the updated mitigation monitoring and reporting plan in attachment B and reflecting the changes within the supplemental staff memo. That concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for any questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Um I'm going to continue through uh inviting testimony from the appalent water audit California before we get to discussion and also testimony from the applicant before that. So um at this time is uh water audit California available to address the board. Uh there's three minutes allotted for that. There's is there No, there's no one on the phones. Okay. Um and then is there any testimony from the applicant? Okay. Welcome. Um I'll give you three minutes.

Good. Good morning, uh, Chair Manfrey, Vice Chair Allesio, Supervisors Gallagher, Catrell, and and Ramos. My name is Brian McMahon. I'm the attorney for the applicant. Um, and with me today in in in the room are the principles and the owners of the winery, the Catersy family, Steve Canon and their son Steve, as well as Donna Oldford, the project planner, uh, with whom I know most of you are familiar. Uh on the phone we we have uh Tony Hickeyi of Sllayton Associates who conducted the phase three uh water availability analysis as well as Mike Mulewrath of applied engineering who is the civil engineer for the project. Now, we have all these people here, but I'm pleased to say that the only reason I'm here this morning is is not in a litigation capacity, but to ask you to adopt something that'll resolve what otherwise could have been lengthy and protracted litigation. While we certainly felt that uh there were sufficient grounds to deny the appeal, um I engaged in negotiations with the attorney for uh the appellant and we were able to come to an acceptable agreement to to my clients that resulted in only these modest additional supplementary u conditions that just further a supplemented and amplified uh the water monitoring. uh area that made it clear that uh this data that's going to be recorded through metering would be uploaded to a public website. And then uh also just to acknowledge the the trustee uh uh position of the the CDFW should there be uh any impact to to the creek that could not otherwise be avoided. But other than that, uh we

we've resolved everything. of course is conditional upon your approval and adoption of these revised conditions and hopefully to avoid litigation and uh and and that's about it. And uh um I'm certainly happy to answer any questions you might have as as are any of the other members of uh the the applicants team.

Thank you. Uh thank you very much. Um let's see. Um, so are there any members of the public wishing to speak on this subject today? I don't see anyone. Oh, okay. Yeah, go ahead and form a queue at the and and work your way up to the podium. Thank you. And I'll give you three minutes. Welcome. Good morning.

Hi. Happy birthday. Uh, Michelle Beno Wears of Napa County. Um, wine grower supports responsible groundwater management, but we are concerned that the conditions being adopted today exceed what the county's own WA requires of any applicant. Monthly reporting and public posting of well data data are not WA standards. They are being added to satisfy third party appellant. This sets a concerning precedent for future permit applicants. If Water Audit California wants this information, Arrow and Branch can report it to them directly. The county should not be committing additional staff time and ongoing administrative obligations above and beyond what its own adopted standards simply to satisfy an activist group. We'd also note that this has been characterized as a private agreement between parties, but conditions of approval are adopted at a public hearing, recorded against a property, and administered by the county. These are all public obligations. We'd apprec appreciate clarity from the board on what exactly is private and what is an ongoing county responsibility. We'd also encourage the border the board to state on the record that these conditions are project specific and do not constitute a new standard applicable to future WA applicants and to consider whether public postings belong in a use permit given the ongoing county obligation it creates with no basis in adopted policy. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and members of the Napa County Board of Supervisors. My name is Bill Faulk and I'm here on behalf of 12 neighboring property owners along Darmms Lane. We recognize that a settlement has been reached addressing a subset of the items in the appeal, those having to do with the water and stream related issues. We acknowledge the forward progress. However, the agreement does not address the core concerns of the surrounding neighborhood. concerns that were all included in the appeal. After reviewing more than a decade of county records and approvals, the central question remains. Is the r is the winery built located where it was ever actually approved to be built? The record suggests it is not. Earlier approvals placed the structure significantly farther from neighboring properties and outside more sensitive areas. The current structure appears materially closer affecting privacy, sight lines, noise, and overall compatibility. And importantly, we cannot find a clear approval that authorized that relocation. As reflected in the appeal materials, prior sighting placed the building substantially farther from the neighbors and outside the flood plane. This is not a minor detail. Building location is a fundament is fundamental to the original approval and environmental review. Multiple efforts to engage earlier in the process years and years ago uh were disregarded. In particular, my wife Dena and I and asked many many questions over email and phone calls. We sought clarity. We requested the opportunity to participate in public hearings. Based on public records included in the appeal, a public hearing was not held when it should have been. notifications were inconsistent or not received and decisions appear to have been made assuming the project ma matched prior

approvals. That assumption now appears questionable. Before considering any expansion or intensification, the county should answer a simple question. Does the project as built comply with prior approvals? Yes or no? We have requested in writing signed by approximately 20 people from our neighborhood a code compliance investigation in identification of the governing approved plans and a comparison to the asbuilt condition. Without that clarity, approving further modifications will compound this already egregious situation. Our position is practical. We are not here to stop a lawful winery. But if the structure remains where it is today, then there should be no expansion, no increase in events or visitation, and no further operational intensification. Denying the major modification is a reasonable and balanced outcome that prevents additional impact while preserving current operations. This comes down to process, fairness, accountability, and compliance. Approvals should match what is built. Neighbors should have a voice and decisions should be based on accurate facts. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Faulk. Welcome. Good morning. Good morning. If you could start with your name, please. Uh, Robert Ringstead. Thank you.

Uh, some of my comments are going to be a little bit redundant to bills, but I'm going to go ahead because I think they're pretty important. Um, my comments today are not dependent on the appeal being discussed here. They relate to the issues now in the public record that the county must address regardless of the appeal status, specifically the project sighting and the permit compliance. Early county earlier county approvals located the winery building outside the flood plane and a substantial distance from Dry Creek and the neighboring properties. Materials submitted in the current proceeding indicate that the winery as constructed may be located differently, raising a question as to whether the project is in compliance with its prior prior approvals. It is also not clear that relocation of the building was fully disclosed, publicly noticed, or environmentally analyzed in compliance with SQA. Under SQUA, environmental review must be based on an accurate project description. If the location of the winery differs from what was analyzed, then the environmental review may not reflect actual conditions. Before the county approves any additional development, it should first clearly establish whether the current project conforms with prior approvals. We have formally requested that planning, building, and environmentally services conduct that review, and we look forward to the findings. We're not asking that the county eliminate the existing winery operations. We are asking that the county avoid the compounding impacts of expansion until these underlying issues are clear clearly resolved. A reasonable path forward would be to maintain the current permitted operations. Refrain from expanding visitation and event activity at this location and ensure that any future development occurs in a manner consistent with prior approvals and environmental review. These issues, project sighting and use permit compliance, exist independently of the appeal and remain within the county's responsibility to address.

We respectfully ask that the board ensure these matters are clearly resolved before approving any additional entitlements. Because these issues are now identified in the record, any further reliance on existing approvals would occur without full uh would occur with full awareness of those unresolved issues, making it especially important that they be resolved before additional construction or investment proceeds. Thank you very much. Thank you. Um is it I don't see anyone else in the room wishing to speak. Is that correct? Is there anyone on the phones for public comment? Not for public comment.

Okay. And I understand that Mr. McKinnon from Water Audit is now available on the phone. So I'm going to go ahead and give him three minutes to speak before we move forward. Hi Bill. Are you there?

I am indeed. Good morning and happy birthday uh member. Um I just want to speak to one thing only uh and that's public comment of Ms. Ben Bonudo. uh she suggests that this settlement is making uh new policy, breaking new ground, but she is factually ill informed. In 2021, um the planning department imposed the refugees conditions on the applicant and they are being restated from the prior approval. They are not new. Um, and the only thing that's new is that the county is providing a place for the data to be deposited. Remarkably enough, for some years, there has been a policy requiring reporting granted at the discretion of the PBES. Uh, which discretion, to my knowledge, they never exercised. But it turned out that at least until today, there was no place for the data to be sent. So again, this is not changing something. It is simply implementing something that was decided five years ago. I have nothing further to say. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon. Uh I believe that concludes public comment and not recorded on Zoom. Okay. Um Okay. Um thank you. And I have a request for a comfort break. So, um I will close the public hearing now and give us a brief break before we go to uh board uh deliberations on the revised conditions. Uh let's say 10:28, let's say 10:35. And if I have two other supervisors here, we'll go at that time. Okay.

the public hearing has been closed and the board will now uh discuss and deliberate on the revised conditions. Before we go ahead with that, um could I please have council just frame the parameters for the discussion just for everyone's clarity? Yes. I'm gonna invite Miss Anderson up to the podium and help frame it.

Happy birthday. So today, unlike usual usually in appeals where all of the grounds of appeal are in front of the board for consideration, um since the parties have reached a resolution, um the only thing that is in front of the board today is whether or not to accept and adopt the revised conditions of approval. And if the board is comfortable doing that, that will resolve the appeal. If for some reason the board does not want to adopt the conditions of approval, then um we would need to continue the item and go back to the parties and figure out, you know, what the next steps are. Yeah, go ahead. If you have a question.

Yes, I have a quick question. I'm confused because I thought that the county was included in this settlement though I know the settlement was discussed between the winery owner and water audit but somehow the county is looped in this time. Is that correct?

So the county is not a party to the settlement. That's a private agreement. The only thing the county is being asked to do is to adopt revised conditions of approval. and um the conditions that we're being asked to adopt. We reviewed there's something that we would generally adopt. Um the parties have asked for us to adopt it. It doesn't have any presidential value. It's not establishing new policy. We're just adopting conditions that the parties have requested. Thank you. Okay. That Yeah, that's that question. I I'll have I'll have more when Okay. Yeah. So, um I'll go ahead and open it up to deliberations now. Okay, Vice Chair Allesio. Okay, I might as well just go from there. Oh, is that

I have a question. Um I'm not sure if my button which way. Just go ahead. Okay. Um perfect. Um or birthday girl. Um so I guess my question I wanted to start with staff and a few questions. Um can you tell me who reviewed uh this application and what departments, county, state, federal? Can you go kind of go through the litany of how the thoroughess or if we missed anything?

Absolutely. With this project, this is a winery major modification and through that process, the applicant provides an initial submitt and that initial submitt is then routed through other departments within Napa County as well as other agencies. So in this case the initial submitt went to planning division, building division, environmental health, code enforcement, engineering as well as Napa County Fire and Public Works. So that's the the initial review. This application went through five of those reviews just conversation back and forth between the applicant as well as county verifying that county code requirements were met just clarifying submittal requirements. Once the application is deemed complete, then the environmental review is completed. Um staff begins preparing that document. Um throughout that process, um project planner writes the environmental document. In this case, it was a mitigated negative declaration. And so with that, that document is then prepared by staff, reviewed internally through planning supervisors, planning manager as well as county council. And then it is submitted to the state's website, Sequinet, SQU submit. And at that stage it is sent to um about is a myriad of different agencies for this project. It was about 25 different state agencies as well as other agencies where they have 30 days to provide comment. This one was we just received comments from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. So once we received those comments then it was their concerns were added into the scope of the conditions of approval. So we made the the requested edits. Then it goes before planning commission and in preparation of planning commission staff reports conditions of approval um and and other documents are prepared where once again everything's reviewed by planning staff supervisor manager as well as county council and coordinating with other departments and divisions. So it's a brief summary for a major

modification. That's a lot. So probably seven departments within within the county and then 25 department state department agencies will review this correct with CD um FW responding. Um the question that the neighbors brought up um in terms of some kind of um change that was not approved um I guess it was 2020 it was considered a minor modification. Did that go through the proper approval process?

Correct. with a winery minor modification. It is reviewed um and a notice is sent out to neighbors regarding the proposed action and at that time it was approved by the zoning administrator and subsequently building permits and the proposed or the existing structure was built under building permits and obtained final occupancy. And were neighbors notified of that minor modification?

Correct. Then okay, I just want to make sure um that we covered that and because I I appreciate the neighbors coming out expressing, you know, their concern. Um and um just want to make sure that we cleared that up. Um so how long did the whole process take with all the different reviews, the five rounds of reviews and all the different departments and agencies?

The application was submitted March 14th, 2023, and the application was deemed complete. on November 19th, 2024. That's for the first five initial reviews, kind of conversation between county staff and the applicant to deem the application complete. Following that, um environmental review was completed, initial study was completed and it was sent to the other agencies approximately 25 through the SQA process where they along with members of the public have 30 days to review the project. Then a couple days later it goes to the planning commission. So did this application meet the standard conditions of approval at the planning commission meeting?

With that the there were two hearings for the planning commission on this item. The first um goaround at the planning commission. There were requested changes or clarification the planning commission requested and so it did require a second hearing in order to further elaborate the planning commission's proposed changes or clarifications. but it included the standard conditions of approval and there were some additional modifications and mitigation measures with the squid document. So it met the standard um conditions of approval but then there were some additional mitigations and additional ask. Okay. Um and that includes the water monitoring.

Correct. There initially was well monitoring. Um the proposed uh settlement of the appeal does include additional measures. Okay. And my understanding the water monitoring the the our policy for water monitoring in this situation is that the winery would have to uh record and report um the water monthly and report that monthly for the first 12 months and then after that if there's no issues um it would be by annually. Is that correct? That's our standard policy. Correct. Yes.

Okay. But in this application, what has been um worked out between water audit and the winery is that the winery needs to record and report um every month into perpetuity like forever every month. Correct. Yes.

Okay. Seems excessive to me. Um and that now we as an it's being put on us as an agency we do keep those uh the water reports are accessible they're available accessible um through like PAS correct um we don't have like a portal at this point um but so I'm just not sure why we are now and I agree with uh Miss Benavutoo that there is a a precedent being set right now that I'm concerned about that if we take this on that it's now going to trigger and require that every winery does this and that's not our own policy that exceeds beyond our policy and I think it's in my opinion it's just too much um to put that on the winery if they're following um if they're reporting everything is clear in the first 12 months and they keep up the reporting bianually. So, do you see this as a a precedent change for the county in terms of going beyond our own policy

with this project? It's a project specific condition of approval that was requested by the applicant as well as the appellant um not county implementing this policy um through public hearing. It's the the parties of the project are requesting it be added. So, it is project specific in this case.

Okay. Um again I I agree that that really needs to be between the two parties in my opinion. Um um so um okay uh let me I do have questions for um the applicant. Um, if I can, um, let me just say, yeah, if I can ask, can I ask the applicant a question? Yeah. Okay, great. Go ahead. Thank you. I'm just waiting for him to come up.

Hello, sir. Thank you. So, as I'm as I'm understanding, I don't see that there's any there have been really any material changes from the approval the final approver with the with the um planning commission and then the the private that I I'm not really sure what I understand there isn't any significant changes or material changes before then and now. Is that correct? Well, well, pursuant to the settlement, the only the only thing that the applicant is agreeing to um that the county is being asked to consider is these additional modifications and supplements to the conditions of approval. Um, as Mr. McKinnon indicated back in 2022 when the prior minor modification was approved there was there was also a requirement of of water monitoring and in in the current 4.9 the the demand management program that was added. That's one of the two sections that that the board is being asked to adopt. That's essentially um the same language that that the applicant is already subject to. Correct.

Um so the only real difference I I suppose would be this issue about reportability. We we always had to report the data. Now they were asking that there be a public datab you know accessibility to view the data should they wish should the public wish to view the data as as an applicant we were always required to to provide this data and they're just simply saying now you've got to actually somebody be able to look at it um and there may be some additional um I mean I can't speak to any additional administrative cost or anything relating to that. But the reporting obligation was already in existence. And if this if this um u minor major modification were not approved, the applicant is already subject to to this with the with the additional layer only of of for this project. As Miss Anderson has indicated, it's a project specific thing. In our view, we figured that it's not unreasonable for us to to do this on an ongoing basis because we believe in complying with the conditions of approval that say we could only use so much water. And I know that that the the whole paniply of decision making uh before the planning commission is not before you today, only the approval of these two conditions. But but as has been noted uh by Mr. Ringold, the the act applicant is actually using less water and the conditions of approval are are obligating the applicant and and he voluntarily agreed to use less water than he's already permitted to to have. And so if the if his application were denied, he'd be actually entitled to use more water than

he's agreeing to under this modification. So in our view, simply reporting this data is is being a responsible uh uh public citizen. and and uh in terms of doing it on an ongoing basis. Well, water conditions change uh and and and we have the watering uh monitoring and metering ability and it's not an additional burden for us to actually supply the information that would be relevant to a determination by the county as this project proceeds whether we're complying with those conditions. So, we think it's it's it it's reasonable. Um, but I, you know, I only represent the applicant. I I I wouldn't purport to to say that that this imposition of of this modest additional requirement would be applicable to every single project going forward. Not no two projects are the same. Um but in this project the applicant is is is trying to be responsible and and so this settlement uh is agreeing to to do that. U and and beyond that uh um you know obviously we we didn't agree with the grounds of appeal. We we vigorously uh negotiated those. We vigorously believe that uh should this matter have been litigated that that uh there are significant reasons to deny the appeal. But like every other litigated matter um you know there are in uncert inherent uncertainties and and most matters uh at least uh the goal is to try to achieve a reasonable settlement. We we believe and the uh appellant uh agreed and and have executed uh an a settlement agreement

which would dispose of all of those issues uh save for these two uh modest additional conditions. And the the second uh condition is really just the the the addition of language reflecting what is already the law um that that the U CDFW as a trustee agency etc. So right to to us that's that was an easy thing to agree to um and we we'd like your support.

Thank you. So what I'm hearing is that there's really no material changes in the conditions except for the monthly watering into and monthly reporting on the watering which exceeds our own policy here into per perpetuity and obviously the winer like all wineries all applicants have to follow the CDFW the state mandates that's the regulations there um was there a financial settlement between the applicant and water audit

well the the the terms of the the the settlement between water audit and and our client are confidential and I'm not uh at liberty to disclose the terms but I can I I I can say uh that um you know they were vigorously negotiated uh and and we're satisfied that the terms were acceptable to to my client and and are not precedent setting for any other winery. All right. Thank you. That's all I have for now.

Okay. Thank you. Um could I understand that we have now heard from you at length and we also have the uh water out of California representative on the line. So could we give Bill one minute to respond? Just one minute though to try to conclude this.

Yes I I can do it in 60 seconds. I I I agree with councel for the uh applicant that the matter was vigorously uh negotiated. Uh and I agree that uh we were persuaded by the fact that when they offered to measure and monitor and show what they were saying they were going to do was true that we were most impressed with their cander and thought that a wonderful idea. Um, I I think that though I'd like to take 15 seconds to say that the technological manifestation of this reporting is a piece of hardware that is very very modest by today's terms which sits on the wheel head and once a month sends a Wi-Fi or a cellular signal to the database that is now being operated by the county. I was shocked that there wasn't such a database as part of the GSA groundwater inquiry and quite honestly I think there is one but we managed to get someplace for the data to go up until now all of the conditions of asking people to monitor their water etc etc have been pointless because apparently there's been no place for

Mr. Mr. Excuse me. That was that was a minute. So, we're going to we're going to move on. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Um Okay. So, I have uh Supervisor Gallagher and then after that, Supervisor Catrell. Thank you. Um yeah, some of my questions I guess have been answered. Um, I I I'm just wondering if we need to hear a little bit more from staff um on the precedent versus uh project specificness of of this these uh COAs aroundwater monitoring because I do want to make sure that it's clear that um if this is project based that it's project based. Um I don't want everybody walking out here thinking we're setting policy on the fly. So, um, if someone can Mr. Bordona,

um, the way I view this, um, this is a private agreement between two parties. Um, simply put, this is a self-imposed condition, if you will, no different if somebody came in with an application that said they voluntarily wanted to preserve a bunch of trees or do something that's, you know, to an environmental benefit. Um, and as such, it's not precedent setting. Um, if it's helpful for the board, we can include some language in the documentation that speaks to that if precedent setting is a is a concern. And I'll defer to council on what that language may look like if if that is the uh pleasure of the board.

Thank you, Mr. Ba Berdona. Uh, anything else? Supervisor Gallagher? No. Okay. Supervisor Catrell and then Ramos. Thank you chair and thanks to my colleagues for the questions. I had similar ones. Uh I want to just make the comment that I think first of all it's important that when we have a situation where we have two parties who are agreeing and basically you know uh contracting here that the terms between the two of them unless they're I don't want to get in the middle of what the parties have agreed to. I appreciate Miss Benvveno's point that we don't want to be setting precedent and Supervisor Gallagher, you just said it too. We don't want to be creating new policy um on the fly, but I don't think that's the situation we're facing here. And it also doesn't sound like the lift to the county is anything other than modest. It's more like a a spot where data could be held. Uh so I'm I'm in support of that. And I also think that I appreciate the applicant uh acknowledging that they will be using less water and being able to share that information with the the appellant is important and also making it available for the public. So I think we're actually going to experience a an upside there uh to the public. So um I'm I'm appreciative of that. I do want to go back to a question that we heard from the neighbors which was are you know does the I think we're really talking about the project site does it comply with approvals so prior approvals so can you help us understand I know that's not the the issue we're deciding on today we're deciding whether we're going to support this um this settlement but as

backstory can you help us understand the answer to that question. Absolutely. With that, the applicant um they had an original winery use permit and subsequently have modified it. Um everything that is constructed has been approved under building permits as well as entitled for the winery. So the winery as it is configured now has obtained final occupancy and it has all been approved um through the Nappa County. We've given authorization for everything that has been present. Okay, thank you. That's all I have. Okay, thank you, Supervisor Catrell. Supervisor Ramos.

Thank you. Um, so my questions, and they'll be no surprise I've asked them to council before. Um, in terms of the private agreement, um, and the my my concerns really come from and my questions come from if there is not compliance with the additional terms of the private agreement, what is the county's responsibility? Um I think it's been stated a couple of times. Um in my view they're fairly redundant. Um they already have to monitor monthly. They already have to provide that information monthly. Um I guess one enhancement is is um we've enhanced the availability of that documentation. Um currently um the information sent to the project planner and is made available upon request. this in this case it'll be made available if someone chooses to go on our website and access it. Um the biological related conditions um are redundant as well in that there isn't any work proposed within the county's creek setback. Um we have a standard condition of approval that if your project happens to trigger state or federal regulations, go get those permits as you see fit. We don't dictate that. We don't regulate that and we certainly wouldn't want to. Um furthermore, um it's worth pointing out that the conservation regulations and our stream setbacks prohibit any work in the creek without first obtaining a use permit exception to the conservation regulations approved by the planning commission. So, um I think we're pretty good on the stream setback thing, but I guess this is belt and suspenders for the applicant and the appellant. Um but it doesn't obligate us beyond what the

original conditions were imposing. What if we um when the information is submitted, the county were to uh for data reasons not have the space to include the public availability file? Like we're not doing this for everybody. Um so, you know, have we looked at what is the cost from an information maintenance standpoint? Um what is the expectation? How soon does that get um uploaded? What are the protocols for if that information is not uploaded correctly? Um have have we looked at that?

Not globally as if we were to apply this to everybody. It does to some extent overlap what we're already doing with the GSA where we have a system in place where we're collecting and uh mapping groundwater related data for GSA and GSP purposes. this kind of piggybacks on to that to some extent because it's in the GSA. Um but in terms of any technological breakdowns or whatever, um this oneoff shouldn't affect us. Um we are looking to expand our uh monitoring data um along the lines of this portal. Um and we're working with our IT department to make sure from a technological standpoint we're there. As far as additional staff time and and resources along those lines, those haven't been thought through just yet. I mean, we would appro approach that in a way that shifts to the maximum extent the burden onto an applicant for uploading information. Um, but to answer your question, no, we haven't thought that through and we will if we're at some point getting to a more expansive reporting system.

Okay. Um, thank you. My my next question is about um the private agreement and uh why if this forum is necessary to implement some of the conditions agreed upon in the private agreement why this board is not privy to the private agreement. The only thing I can say is we're not a party to the agreement. We weren't provided a copy of it. We don't know the terms other than the request that um those two additional conditions of approval be adopted by the board. So, it's a private confidential matter between the parties. I will say um I'm very concerned about the utilization of this body, a public body, and us agreeing to terms that I do not know about. Seems very much like my children asking if they can go out and them not telling me where they're going. Um I I believe that the role of this board is to be informed. I you know my we have to um when we conduct public hearings um we have to sign um a document that says we've read everything. Um, and I haven't read everything in this case because I'm not being given everything in this case. I've expressed my concerns before to some of these parties and the fact that settlements are being used in an

exchange of funds. I know of prior appeals in which applications have been dropped because the payment of funds being requested through the um through the lens of a negotiated agreement was simply too much. Um, I do not have a problem with the terms that have been arrived at through this agreement. What I do have a problem with is that apparently all parties decided that this board and our staff were not competent at arriving at a reasonable and open public forum choice. And so um I'm I would I would then ask and and I will I will say you know in in other circumstances um we have had the opportunity and prior board you all haven't had the opportunity I've had the opportunity um to confidentially review documents um so that we could be informed Um, I I don't I'm I'm very concerned as to if all you arrived at was a transfer of money and these I think it's four red lines in one document and three red lines in another document, then why can't I see the the settlement? So, I guess I I would ask that to to council. Why? What? What else is in the nature of the settlement that this board is not privy to seeing? And yet you require

the approval of this board for your uh your agreement to be fully executed. Superi, excuse me, Supervisor Ramos, first of all, I just want to clarify that this board is not being none of the terms of of that agreement are binding the county or being the county is not being asked to approve anything that's in that agreement. It's not being subject to any obligations but for the two conditions that are before you today that are that are basically conditions precedent to the effectiveness and the dismissal of the appeal. Otherwise, the agreement is simply between the applicant and the appellant or the as you as you I don't know to what extent you you've reviewed the appeal packet but it was 64 pages. The appellant made numerous assertions about various things. We dispute all of those. I I've I've settled many agreements over the years where these types of allegations are made and some agreements are confidential, some agreements are not. In this particular instance, the parties determined to make it confidential. The county is not being asked to approve anything relating to that agreement. and and that's why it was confidential between the parties. It's a private matter except for any changes to the conditions that the county is being asked to to uh review and we put those before you and and and that's what we're asking you to approve today. It's not that we don't feel I mean I I

know you're a lawyer attorney and you're very ca capable of of of understanding the terms of an agreement but but it's also not uncommon for parties in this situation to have the terms be confidential and and and they are uh so I'm not at at liberty to to disclose them. That was part of the negotiation between the parties. um my client is satisfied with those. It's it I mean if if you were to if if you were to have a concern about that, all I can say is there's nothing in that agreement that binds the county and it even refers to the county other than the fact that this appeal was made. The appeal is being dismissed. Here are the terms. uh there'll be a you know the usual uh release of of liabilities and and agreement to dismiss um in exchange for the applicant agreeing to these other modest and I I I believe they're modest as supervisor Allesio referred to additional conditions that would allow the agreement to be fully implemented. We didn't intend to uh to to uh disrespect you or or to uh imply anything regarding the capability of the board in reviewing these things. But we didn't see the the need to take up the board's time to review private terms that have absolutely nothing to do with any change in the approvals except for those that are specifically before you today.

Thank you. So, um I I find that an interesting uh an interesting last statement that you said that the agreement has things that don't have anything to do with this land use approval, but here we are in a public setting. Um what if what happens if the board uh does not include the uh additional conditions of approval that have been requested here? Yeah.

What happens there? uh as as as uh as county uh deputy county councel an Anderson uh indicated uh the effectiveness of of and of of the agreement is conditioned upon the board's adoption of these conditions. Should the board not adopt the conditions or should they modify the conditions materially or in a way that either of the parties uh didn't consider acceptable to them then uh the matter would proceed uh and both parties reser reserve the right to litigate the matter. So, we are needed for the agreement and that's exactly my concern here that this county is not aware. I it it wouldn't even need to be this board. I I have concerns that our lawyers have not seen what is in here. I have concerns that a land use process, a land use appeal process is being utilized by your words for matters that are not pertaining to this land use hearing and that we are um a a condition precedent to the execution of your agreement for this appeal to go away. Well, I you know, maybe my my words were not as elegant as they they could have been or articulated as well as they could have been, but obviously everything relates to the fact that an appeal was filed and that my client is the applicant. A and that the end game is to resolve the matter in a way that would resolve the appeal without further litigation. And that is what was agreed to between my client. When I say some of this has nothing to do with the county, I simply mean there is no additional obligations imposed or being requested to be imposed upon the county in connection with this agreement except

for these two conditions that are before you. Um I I don't know what to say beyond that. I I mean if if the board uh if the board should condition uh the adoption upon the disclosure to confidentially to council I you know we have an agreement that says these things are confidential. Um but um if if the parties were otherwise to agree to to disclose them, I suppose they they could do that, but that would take both the applicant and the appellant at at this point because the agreement has been executed. And and and frankly, I mean, while I understand it may be troubling, I I don't see anything in the concept of a private agreement that has as one component the the adoption of of modest changes to conditions of approval that are being disclosed as as as unusual or inappropriate.

Thank you. Um my next question to staff being um I if you could refresh my recollection when I I watched the planning commission hearing um when the when it came to the water um to the monitoring data, not the actual monitoring but the monitoring data. Um was there any indication by the planning commission that monthly reporting in perpetuity um was something that they would be entertaining?

To my recollection the the primary topic is regarding reduction of water use. Um and there was a lot of discussion regarding process wastewater reuse. The the topic of reporting in perpetuity wasn't as much of a topic. Okay. Thank you. That's all.

Thank you. Um All right. So, I guess following on that a little bit with the groundwater component of this. Um, this is I guess this is probably a question for planning, but I'm wondering about workflowwise. How similar is this to what might be contemplated for the groundwater sustainability agency and for planning staff uh as a workflow uh that could be um how am I trying to say like just parallel to you know if we start collecting more data is this agreement going to be basically the same workflow so that you know it's we're not creating a unique situation that somebody has to comply with indefinitely. And you know, you know, would it what am I trying to say? like I I don't want to get get into a situation where we have one project that's just doing one thing and the county I mean as I think supervisor Ramos has pointed out is just uh facilitating that for decades until the project changes radically I guess or is re readjusted uh versus you know is there a way to put in wiggle room to it or to um to just make sure that it's aligned as much as possible with the kind of reporting we would expect to be doing under for the groundwater sustainability work that we're also doing.

Um that's kind of a tough one because they're for two different purposes but to some extent there's an overlap um somewhat I'm looking at a vin diagram in my little brain. Um so the reporting for the GSA is for GSP implementation purposes. It informs on the health of the aquifer both near and away from creeks um among a whole host of other things. This is for regulatory purposes um and are they exceeding the groundwater aotment um but it also can help the monitoring can also help inform the GSA. Um it can provide data on how well that well is performing, how much water is being extracted. I think to get to your question though, based on our current setup, providing this information in a more publicly accessible way is not a burden. Um, if we are going to be doing this um on a larger scale for all wineries, um, then we'll need to have a conversation about what that looks like and the resources we have to put that together. Um, which I suppose we'll have an opportunity to have that conversation when the water availability guidelines come before you later this uh summer.

Okay. Thank you. And then um I guess I'll just add that um in looking through the red line conditions of approval. I appreciate that this project is immediately adjacent to a creek and that extra effort has been put in to think through how groundwater monitoring could be useful. And um also I just happened to notice that there's uh an exterior lighting to be turned off no later than 10 p.m. which I think is also a good neighbor kind of concept and I appreciate that too. So um I don't see any other comments from my colleagues. Oh, super vice chair Allesio.

Thank you. Um I do have comments. I just asked all my questions

and I wanted to listen um to everybody and I think um everybody especially supervisor Ramos for her question. It's in terms of the this isn't this is an entangled situation we're in because we've got a private parties agreement that directly impacts the county into perpetuity. So I don't understand it's it's very complicated and I do see that it is going to impact the county. This is unique. I do believe that this is going to set a precedent. Um water audit will will start approaching every winery, every new winery with this. It may not be our policy, but they're going to use it um as you know. And again, I'm not against groundwater monitoring. I think it's very important. Our groundwater is a precious resource. We have a very vigorous process already and reporting and fees that are all attached to groundwater. And to add monthly reporting into perpetuity that the county is liable to receive and to post is county resources, cost, time, taxpayer dollars. that goes beyond a private agreement, a private settlement in my opinion. Um, you know, it kind of goes down to, and I'm just going to call it out, it comes down to the cost of business. Anybody can file an appeal for anything just like anybody can file a lawsuit, and it's $2,000 to file that appeal. it automatically triggers the person that's being appealed to fork over $10,000 or whatever amount once that happens. And then if they don't they don't come to some kind of

agreement such as aka a check being written, it could cost two to three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's what this is about. And I'm not about it. Um so in summation you know there's there were no material changes to the conditions of approval. The planning commission added continue mitigation including reduction of water use. Um, county staff did a thorough job and missed nothing. And from what I can tell, the state did the same. All 25 departments did the same. Um, there is a lack of merit for this appeal by water audit. And yet, like I said, there's a financial sentiment settlement benefiting water audit. I'm seeing an alarming pattern with water audit. that's eroding my trust and the public trust. I'm not sure where I'm going to vote on this because I do believe it entangles and it impacts the county on a legal matter and I think there's a moral issue here at the same time. So, I'm going to hold off on my vote and where I stand on this. I support the winery. I was out there. I looked at the creek bed as a kid. I used to play in that creek. I understand it. I, you know, I understand the neighbors concerns and I want the neighbors to continue in the winery to be a good neighbor to the neighbors such as the lighting and those other areas. We all need to be good neighbors and share the concerns and keep that communication open. And of course, let the county know

if you have concerns. But, um, at this point, I'm not sure where I'm going to stand because I support the winery, but I don't support the actions by water audit. Thank you, Supervisor Gallagher. All right. Thank you. Um I don't disagree with Supervisor Ramos's um comments about the full disclosure of what's in the settlement. I think that that um I think we maybe aren't technically a party, but we are in we are somehow party to this and we should be seeing full disclosure. And I think that this is something we're going to need to talk about um as we move forward uh because um I think as she said too, it it doesn't matter if it comes all the way to the board, but our staff should know what this what these settlements um entail. Um so I I agree with that. And also we have an agreement between an applicant and an appellant and they have made this agreement um and I don't want to stand in the way of that and force an appeal when these two parties have actually said that they have settled. So I would I would be uncomfortable sort of basically forcing an appeal on two parties that said we have an agreement. Um so those are just some of my thoughts.

Okay. Thank you, Supervisor Catrell.

Thank you and uh great discussion. I really appreciate everyone's perspective here. And I think um uh my feeling is uh echoing supervisor Gallagher's point that uh we have a parties who are have reached agreement. That's I think we always want to encourage that as opposed to uh litigation. So I want to I want to be mindful of that. And we've we've heard a lot about not wanting how this has um developed or um resulted today in being any kind of policy going forward. So what my position is is is there a way that we can approve this agreement with the strong language that I I mean I think we've made a strong statement about we don't want to see this kind of thing again. I think we want to say um it's important that staff has some daylight into it. Um and so and uh you know we don't we already want to be working on ways to make projects and applications move forward through our system in a timely manner. So I'm not interested in a delay. I think what I would um I I would like to ask staff I think for uh we had heard earlier about potential language that could be added to the the approval that would include um include a a a clarification that this in no way is a policy decision or statement or direction that the board wants to go in. We could add language to those conditions that make that clear that this was something that was um agreed upon between the parties and um self-imposed. It doesn't established precedent or policy, we can certainly include that language. Um and then to address the board's other concern about transparency of the agreement, um it certainly is within the board's option to make acceptance of these conditions

upon release of that settlement agreement. Thank you for clarifying. Is that it? Do you have more work?

Sure. So, I'm just going to put a motion on the table then, which is to let let me see here. To approve the use permit modification and uh the application and adopt the initial study mitigated ne negative declaration and monitoring reporting program. and that we adopt the revised conditions of approval to resolve the appeal with the amendments as suggested by our attorney. Okay,

which are two parts I believe. one stating that there's not a a precedent being set here and also a request about um daylighting the conditions the the the terms to but I'm I'm inviting amendments from my colleagues about who sees that. I have a question maybe before we proceed too is um if I could get clarification from council on what the pathways are if we don't accept the revised conditions just for just for everybody's edification. Thank you.

So, if the board um declines to accept the revised conditions, then um we would need to continue the matter indefinitely because most likely then we'll be be gearing up for um an appeal hearing. So, that's where we would stand. Okay. Thank you. Uh Supervisor Ramos.

Thank you. Um I sit in this very um dual position um with half my brain saying that settlement is and should be always encouraged and that's the lawyer part of my brain. But the supervisor side of my brain that values transparency, that values um uh providing access to the public as to our thinking process um is um is incredibly troubled. Um, we heard earlier today in public comment that there was um concerns about the cost of of of of running vineyards and and and at the federal, state, and local level. Um, this is not our cost. We didn't do this. Yet, when the tally of time that applicants tell us that it takes to get through an appeal comes up, this is it. We didn't do this. This is an appellant. This is the appellant of water audit creating this situation and then not fully disclosing to this board and creating I'm I'm sure you really wanted a swift um uh matter here, but here we are at well over an hour of addressing this because it simply does not meet the standards that I that I'm used to that this county strives for in terms of of full disclosure and transparency. Um the the cost of an appeal, the cost of an approval, these settlements are now

co are now part of that cost of approval. I'm going to reflect back to my my colleagues um three different appeals by water audit three different results and um and our involvement in three different ways. Um the first one Bonnie Vineyards Bonnie Vineyards there was no settlement with water audit and this board denied the appeal by water audit and that approval went forward. Um, Stagland uh, Stagland Vineyards had a land use matter. It was appealed by water audit. Um, they could not reach a settlement. Uh, there was a request for payment of funds associated with the settlement and minor modifications. That payment was not made and that modification was dropped by the applicant. So changed behavior and by the applicants and guaranteed the county gets blamed for this that it's so hard to go through the process when there's a third party involved in this process that we do not are not privy to those conversations. Now this third one with Arrow and Branch now coming before this board and utilizing this board to make a business decision of what you believe is the best and most cost-effective path forward. I don't just agree with that. Like I said with my with my lawyer side of the brain, absolutely you're going to make the best decision for you. Um, but I I'll I'll tell you I I I don't think you would have ended up at a different result truly that if you had gone through this process through the actual appeal. I am

incredibly concerned with it. It's it's been characterized as dimminimous of what we need to do of maintaining a data system. Um, sure it's projectbased. Um, but every time this county does something, and I'm I'm just as much to blame, someone will get at the podium and say, "Can you do what they did in that case?" And um what I am incredibly concerned about even if I repres if I accept council's representations that what's in the agreement um is is insignificant and not needed and only these red lines here are needed. The exchange of money is not insignificant for what this public process is because on the county website we have fees, we have hourly rates and you as an applicant should know how much there should be some predictability into how much this process is going to cost you. And then you have your consultants and now apparently there is a payment amount to make your appeal go away that is invisible on that fee structure. And so I I'm troubled with that because if it was I I'm I'm not going to throw out and prejudge on numbers, but if it's a a small amount that can truly be seen as, you know, nuisance value and cost of doing business, okay, but what if it reaches an extraordinary level amount that I, as someone who was elected by my constituents to make these decisions, finds unconscionable as part of a public process that makes

then appeals out of reach for other people. I um that is the troubling part for me. I I have no problem with the conditions that have been put forward, but the amount of money and our lack of knowledge of the amount of money. How would you feel if you found out that there's an exchange of $200,000 going on? Would you still be okay with this? I wouldn't. As the five of us have to sit in close session and we have to make these judgment calls and how we settle out these matters that come before the county on on liability matters and we go through that process and we we sit there and we say what's too much, what's too little and we have to pass judgment on it. We are passing judgment on an agreement that we know nothing about. And so and because of the way in which it is coming to us, it does not even appear on our form that requires us to read and understand everything. And that to me is incredibly troubling because if it was here on the line, I couldn't sign and I couldn't vote. Um, again, I'm I'm not opposed to the terms that have been negotiated openly and disclosed to this county. I am incredibly concerned and frankly disturbed by everything that is happening behind closed doors that we are told, "Trust us, it's fine. You're not needed." And then you're adding to the cost of doing business as a legitimate approved winery in Napa County.

Okay. Um, thank you for your comment, Supervisor Romer. Supervisor Catrell. Chair. Thank you, Chair. So, again, uh, I would welcome a modification to the motion. Uh perhaps what I'm hearing from my colleague is that actually having the board understand what that if there is a a number would be important rather than having that u go to staff. Could we could we take a recess like a fiveminute recess for for that disclosure to occur or is that not happen on the fly? Okay. Can I go ahead and say maybe we take a recess for the chair to talk with council? How about how about I propose a recess for the chair to talk to council and the motion still pending. Does not have a second.

That's great. Okay, we're going to take a fiveminute recess and work on the language and come back and continue.

When you're ready, chair, we're ready for you.

Okay. Thank you. Um, we are reconvening here from our brief hiatus and I just want to announce for anyone waiting for item 11A in at the abbey that given that we still have presentations from uh our fire partners after this before we look at in at the Abbey, we expect to reconvene at 1:30 to hear that. So, um, so we'll be taking up item 11 A in at the Abbey around 1:30 or at 1:30. Um and you can decide what you're going to do about lunch and and planning your afternoon. So, okay. Um we have returned. We are still on discussion and um before I just have one clarifying question from staff and I'm this is I don't think going to be complicated at all. But I'm wondering um it was mentioned in the presentation that this plan proposed plan um is reduces water use relative to the entitlement for the parcel. And I'm wondering if that reduction is then does it replace the entitlement or does the entitlement stay higher? It's really just like a technical question.

It would replace the entitlement.

Okay. Thank you. Um, okay. Then I'm going to Let's see. I see Supervisor Catrell. Um, if you want to bring us back. Thanks. Thank you, Chair. Um, I am going to restate a modify and modify my motion so that the motion is now to adopt the revised conditions of approval to resolve the appeal with two additions. first to add language as our county council has described that these additional uh that the con additional conditions in the settlement agreement are privately negotiated and not precedent setting or binding on the county. That's part one. And then part two that the board's action today is subject to disclosure to Napa County of the entire settlement agreement.

Thank you. Thank you. So I have a motion on the floor by Supervisor Catrell. Do I have a second or or any friendly amendments? Nope. I'll take I'll second that. Okay. Second from Supervisor Clarification question. Chair. So this so your motion and second are requiring the county to maintain monitoring data on its county website monthly in perpetuity.

Yes. Okay. So I have a a motion by Catrell. I have a second by Allesio. Uh, all those in do we need a roll call on this one or no? Okay. All those in favor? I I I. Any opposed?

No. What's that? Unanimous. Yes, it's a unanimous vote. Thank you. Okay. Um, that concludes item nine. Thank you for your time. Uh, Chair Manfrey, um, I do have a referral I'd like to, um, provide. I'd like to have a provide a referral. We're not there. Okay, we'll just wait till the end of the day then.

Okay. Can you guys

Yeah, we're still Okay. Okay. Sorting things out here. Um Okay. So, we're going to go ahead and move into item 10, administrative items, uh with presentations from Napa County Fire, uh on their 2025 annual report. First up as item 10A, I welcome J.R. Rogers, fire administrator to Oh, I see we have Jason DS and JC Oh, I'm sorry. Um Brian Brian Ham, Chief Ham here uh to present. Go ahead. When you're ready.

Good morning, chair and supervisors. Uh first of all, I'd like to on the behalf of the Napa County Fire Department and CalFire Sonoma Lake Napa unit wish Chair Manfrey a happy birthday. So uh I'll go ahead and give you the annual report uh for the year of 2025. So starting it off uh starting off with 2025 was sending resources to the Eaton and Palisades fire in Southern California. Resources included engines from CalFire Sonoma Napa unit and engine 10 staffed by eight volunteer firefighters. So, engine 10 had actually swapped um personnel uh midstream of the incident because it was we were committed for so long. We also had several personnel respond as overhead positions including myself. Next, going to training. Our training bureau hosted the Napa County and South Lake County Volunteer Academy. Uh after 5 months of training, we will have 20 volunteer firefighters graduate from the county with 15 being a part of Napa County Fire Department. We have enhanced our service levels by adding a sur a surface water rescue program to Lake Beressa while in strong communications with the Napa County Sheriff's Department. We added a we added a rapid extrication module support team also known as a REM team. There is an 11 member rotation with a 7-day a week coverage. the REM team through our inter agency rescue team that provides crucial rescue activities assigned to extended to major incidents. The uh next I want to talk about our uh investments to tablet command. So the local investments into the technology tablet command which puts vital information into our firefighters hands includes live call information with notes from the emergency command center communications operators. And I know we we began this project in 2023. Um this includes life safety information, customized mapping layers, automated vehicle locations, call sharing with

neighboring jurisdictions, call routing, incident command ability shared live with all users. It includes a mobile data terminal which will give us the exact information for response times and accountability to meet our obligations of NFPA 1710 and 1720. This investment has come back to Napa County Fire by not only all local agencies adopting this technology in Napa County, but CalFire um as of 2025 has adopted uh this platform statewide. This gives us and all other local agencies visibility on where all state and local fire resources, including our aircraft, are statewide, giving our resources the upper hand to place vital resources to priority locations of our incidents. Okay. And next we have uh prescribed fire. More than 115 acres of prescribed fire were completed in PUC, Los Padus, Wild Horse, and the Pope Valley area. Next, we have pile burning. More than 4,000 piles burned supporting Napa Firewise, the Picket Fire Cleanup, Land Trust, as well as other portions of the county. Next, we have uh our call incident information. Um, in 2025, Napa County Fire Department uh responded to 4,921 calls for service and now we have the breakdown of the call type information at scene. So, there's a diverse amount of calls that we went to. Um, usually what's highest is our emergency medical aids. Um, next, uh, within the, uh, 4,921 calls for service, I would like to mention the response to the picket incident. As an extended attack, as the extended attack incident commander, uh, would like to recognize our preparations and partnerships that positively affected the outcome of that incident. In addition to the paid county and CalFire response, we had 11 volunteer engines that responded to the incident from the time of dispatch. We utilized the California mutual aid system and went into unified command with the Napa

County Sheriff's Office with Sheriff Ortiz being the unified incident commander through the duration of the incident which served as a vital link to our communities. Evacuation measures were done in a surgical manner having Kyle Edelman fully engaged in all evacuation operational conversations. This allowed fire and law enforcement to choose who needs to be evacuate evacuated while not over or under emphasizing the seriousness of the need. The fuels treatment additionally proved it gave us the upper hand in minimizing damages. This is a monumental uh amount of work that has been and continues to be done with partnerships from our industry groups Napa Firewise and County of Napa. And I'd specifically like to uh thank the supervisors and chair for engaging every single day on the incident and giving us um what we needed to get our job done. Uh next I would like to highlight uh the resources from 2025. As always we continue to bolster our volunteer firefighters bulldozers um 8 Papa Juliet uh which is CalFire's exclusive use nightflying Chinook staffed again starting June 1st at the Napa airport while CalFire transitions to yearround engines to support county fuels reduction at no cost to the county.

And that's my ended report. We'll go over to Jason DS. All right. Thank you, Chief Ham. And good morning still, uh, board and chair Manfrey. Happy birthday on behalf of the Napa County Fire Marshall's Office and members of the board. Uh, Jason DS, Nap County Fire Marshall. 2025 marked a significant milestone for the fire marshall's office. Our fire marshall's office is responsible to for delivering fire prevention and life safety programs in the unincorporated county and in the town of Yatville. Our responsibilities include plan review, construction inspections, fire code enforcement, and oversight of fire and life safety requirements for existing occupancies. And we also lead the county's defensible space program and our fire department publication efforts, public education efforts. We also uh in 2025 began providing a public information officer to support emergency operations with timely and critical information. our staff uh full completed a full transition to all county staff. We started that transition transition in 2023 and we completed it successfully in 2025 and our team now includes seven full-time personnel and last year we hired six seasonal uh extra help employees uh that are responsible to support our defensible space pro program and we hire them during the peak fire season months. Some of the key metrics you see before you, uh, we reviewed 1,947 plans. We conducted 893 construction inspections. We expanded partnerships with internal departments such as PBS and public works. And we also expanded our relationships with key stakeholder groups and industry professionals. We also rolled out in January of 2025 a new fee schedule um that previously hadn't been updated since 20 2016. This

allows our office to generate revenue for the services that we provide in hopes that we can achieve 100% fee funding, allowing our fund balance to be used for fire operations and boots on the ground. We expanded our defensible space program to six inspectors. And with that expansion, we were able to achieve 5,49 inspections. Uh this is a new annual record for our program. We also issued 10 abatement warrants which uh were used to clear vacant parcels and reduce community wildfire risk. As I mentioned, we we lead and manage our fire department's uh community outreach and education. And with the help of our uh volunteer and full-time station personnel, we were able to deliver fire extinguisher training, handsonly CPR training. We conducted uh school fire drills uh and we participated in many of the town halls uh that this board hosted along with attending many uh fires safe council meetings throughout the county. At both the town halls and the fires safe council meetings, we were able to continue to emphasize the importance of defensible space and home hardening. Lastly, as I mentioned, we provided uh a PIO uh to support our operations staff with critical and timely information. Uh this uh PIO uh Eric Hernandez uh responded to uh the Eaton fire in January of 2025 down in Los Angeles and also was assigned here uh locally during the Pickicket fire. Uh at both incidents, critical emergency information was delivered both in English and in Spanish. Lastly, uh the fire marshall's office would like to thank uh you know for the continued support of our CEO and the CEO's office uh and this board. We are actively uh

focused on building on the progress and look forward to delivering that to you in 2026. Thank you, J.R.

Good afternoon, J.R. Rogers, fire administrator, and I'll wait till my next report to wish happy birthday. Um we're going to talk a little bit about vegetation management and a lot of the work that's been uh done uh this year and last year throughout the county. Um last year uh and this year as well uh this county investing a little over $3 million annually in our vegetation management work. And in the great report um that uh Deputy Fire Marshal Hernandez has put together as a wonderful table showing kind of the uh year-over-year of what we've done. But just to highlight a couple things from this last year. uh 474 acres in shaded fuel break, 57 road miles of roadside clearing, 446 acres of grazing uh which is increasing year-over-year. We're utilizing that more often. Uh and 58 miles of strategic dozer lines, again, which we are continuing to put in place and continuing to do year-over-year. Uh and as previously mentioned, very uh crucial uh in the uh picket fire that we experienced this last fall. So, our next table giving you some of that again year-over-year. Um, that bottom line being the one that's uh showing last year surging ahead in many of those different categories uh as we continue the really great work of fills reduction here uh in the county. And again, I will mention the year that we are in currently um doing mostly maintenance of the lot of the things that we've done uh the past few years. Next, I'd like to highlight our uh chipping program um that is free to the residents of the county. Uh it just started up two weeks ago and they are off and running. Uh we did have a little bit of a downturn last year in the amount of yards that chipped though our number of requests still remained up near a thousand uh requ sorry 700 requests overall. Um we are noting that a lot of these surges that we've had over the years have been circumstantial. Of course snowedon that we all experienced uh being a big part of that as well. Um, but we have also noted that a lot of the uh folks that take advantage of this program are returning. Uh, and so we continue to want to get the word out there and appreciate all of your efforts putting that in the

newsletters to find uh additional residents to uh to get free shipping. So again, napacount.gov/chipping. They're out there right now doing the good work and will be through the end of October. Lastly, wanted to give a brief highlight over um some of our federal grant projects that are out there and running. Uh the first of which being uh the 2022 hazard mitigation grant program. Uh that's a 9010 split for a little under $9 million. Um that uh is currently in phase one planning. Uh our submission deadline is July 11. I'm happy to report we are very much on track to make that go uh where we will enter a review phase waiting for phase two which is actually getting the work done. Uh and fingers crossed maybe this fall. The second being uh the 24 local predesaster mitigation grant that has been uh completely submitted uh for review to Callowas and FEMA uh awaiting final award there. That is an earmarked from Congressman Thompson's office in the 2024 budget uh which is working to um harden around Lake Hennessy and are at the pump stations out there and reduce fuels on Glass Mountain. And lastly, the final two are both uh applications that are submitted uh that we put in uh this year for HMGP doing work around various highlands uh and an LPDM just recently again through the congressman's office uh for the Kawasoka Foothills and both applications are complete and under review. Um so all that to say we have uh a lot of work, a lot of different funding sources and a lot that uh all of you have committed to um really reducing the fuels here in Napa County, making it more fire resilient. Um and we really uh thank you for your time. That is the uh end of our report. Again, refer you back to the um beautiful um program that's been put together for you all to look and welcome any questions.

Okay, thank you so much. I look to my colleagues for questions or comments. Sup, uh Vice Chair Lasio,

I'm just going to keep this short. I I'm just so grateful um and really on and on behalf of our community. I get I get all kind of shook up here emotional because my family's been impacted by multiple fires um losing everything they had. Um but we are so fortunate to have all our fire agencies working so tightly working together uh just demonstrating the excellence and and service to this community. Uh we're in really good hands. Um and we need to continue that. We can't take that ever for granted. We need to continue that investment and continue uh what we can do to support you in your work. So, thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Catrell.

Thank you. And really well said, Supervisor Allesio and I just wanted to add my compliments to the entire team and it is such a well well-run team. So, thank you for that. And I think the other thing that is worth calling out is just the amount of communication that is ongoing between all of the teams and the community. Uh I think we the community understands more now not just about the importance of the work but where it's actually happening and giving people more security is a wonderful thing and it's also motivating people to do the work they need to do. And I will just call out I think where I'd like us to see moving forward uh figuring out how we help people with these individual home hardening projects because that is just a tough nut to crack and it's it's amazing to see how far we're moving with defensible space and we don't want to let up on any of those things. But I look forward to working with you all on the home hardening challenge. And then the other thing I just wanted to call out on the Glass Mountain um fire break, fuels break that not only is reducing um fuels for the neighborhood there, it's reducing fuels around the hospital. So it's a really important um public safety asset to keep safe. So um great to hear about that one, too.

Thank you. Um Supervisor Gallagher. Um, yeah, just wanted to add my thanks and uh to Fire Marshall Downs, setting records is always great. So, thank you for mentioning that uh our inspections are an all-time high. Um, very, very helpful. And I did want to say that Eric's fingerprints are all over this because it's got a lot of drama and color and uh yeah, just I I was like, Eric must Oh, yeah, Eric. So uh but great communication and just to you know echo the other um my colleagues um we have come a long long way in terms of having an really well organized and sort of um seamless uh at least to the public seamless uh delivery of services and I really really appreciate all the work you've all put in. Thank you.

Okay. Um, I'm not seeing anyone else right now. But, uh, I had a question about the full report, which I and I'm I think it was this one and not the second one. If it was the other one, you can just, uh, redirect me. But, um, there was a total hot spot for responses around station 12 in Yville. And I'm just wondering if that's because why

it's the vets home specifically. Okay. Yeah, it was really noticeable. So, thank you for responding for that community, too. And I'll just add that um you know as someone who lives in a rural part of the landscape, I can really see the change as I move through the parts of the county that are um farther out and also representing the southern part of Beressa and getting up to Knoxville last weekend. I just see the change all over the place. It's really apparent. It's really visible. And um my neighbors and my own family participate in the chipping program regularly. It's superior. It's fantastic and we appreciate it so much. And I also want to say that I appreciate that um that fire personnel are showing up at the fire safe council meetings, at community events, and at town halls. You're also very visible in the community and I think that helps a lot too.

If I could add, as I had my foot on the gas, I split right past uh just giving thanks to our partners Napa Community Firewise for all the work they've been doing. Truthfully, they've been the boots on the ground for this and also CalFire with a lot of efforts that they've put in as well. Frankly, if we didn't if we didn't have this great working relationship between them and other partners that the list is very long, we wouldn't be doing this. So, I wanted to back up the bus and make sure I sled that in there. So, thank you. Uh, great. Speaking of Supervisor Catrell,

I I did also just want to take the opportunity again to say where the our our fire department is as an organization, including our volunteer firefighters, is a different uh country than we were several years ago. And so I'm really grateful for all the volunteers that we have and uh getting them built into the system is terrific. And you know what would be great is as just to echo what you're saying, we see all so many of you team members out at our public community events, which is great. And so let's get um some of those volunteers to drop in too. Thanks. Okay, great. Um I think we're there. And so uh if uh we want to move on to item 10B, a presentation on the fire organizational structure study and for the this is an item where the board can provide directions. So I welcome J.R. Rogers, fire administrator, and Rob Finn, vice president, Matrix Consulting Group, for a presentation.

Good afternoon, J.R. Rogers, fire administrator, and madam chair, happy birthday. We are pleased to present the uh final report out of a fire organizational study that uh was set by the board to review uh the service provider of the fire department. with me as mentioned uh Rob Finn from Matrix Consulting who was a part of the team to review this. Um and I'll have him present those findings in a minute, but I want to briefly set the stage and walk us down memory lane back to June of 2023 um when the fire department completed their AP Trident long-range master plan. Uh that plan delivered 30 recommendations, 19 short-term, nine midterm, and two long-term. um that ultimately saw things like some of the volunteer reorganization of its core development of the county owned fire marshall's office and improvement of apparatus response times. Now two and a half years later this fire department has uh completed over 70% of those recommendations. Of course the three I mentioned above. Um and frankly that's a big thanks to uh you as a board uh supervisor Ramos for sitting on FSAC. Supervisor Catrell for a lot of political navigation. Uh CEO Alop for his support, assistant CEO Craig for his leadership. Uh we will miss you. Uh all fire department personnel, Fire Marshall DS, Chiefs Ryan Greenberg, and um Chief Ham for a lot of the uh initiatives that he's put forward that has truly changed this fire department and how we do business. In November 7, um the county came back and awarded Matrix um Consulting the award for this particular grant to review. Uh I was sitting in the back row not far from where Holly Dawson's sitting in my very first board meeting as a program manager and was surprised to learn that we got to administrate the report. So we set right to work and over the next year met with many many people in this room uh all the fire departments, all the municipalities in the county to really uh do this study. Uh it was completed towards the end of 24, beginning of 25. However, as

we went into negotiations and contract with CalFire for the current agreement that we're in, we put a pause on it so we could make sure to update and reflect those values that you'll see here today. Um, we finished that work at the end of 25 and uh, we've had some very busy board meetings. So, we've now find ourselves here today to uh, present that report. And so, I'll let um, Mr. Finn uh, get us through that.

Thank you. Thank you, chair, members of the board of supervisors. Uh, at this point, uh, Chair Manfrey, I would be remiss if I didn't wish you a very happy birthday. Uh, from myself and the entire staff of Matrix Consulting Group, we we wish you the most joyous day ever. So, I'm here to report on the organizational study. I'm Robert Finn, uh, vice president with Matrix Consulting Group, and I was the project manager. I'm going to fast forward my presentation past some of the formalities that talk about us, the firm, and and everything else and just get to the heart of the matter, which is what you guys are interested in today to let you get to your birthday lunchon. So, uh, the project took several several phases. It started with data collection and interviews. Uh met with most of you county staff uh personnel from all the fire departments, Calire and and the departments. Um touring all the stations, touring the critical community risks present in the county. Uh Jr. was nice enough to be to be my tour guide. And we spent most of two days driving all around the all around the county. And then we took data provided from the municipalities, volunteer fire departments, CalFire, the county, analyzed that and ultimately arrived at our findings and recommendations. So when when you looked at the call demand, uh not surprisingly, the call demand aligns with your population center and that that hotspot being the uh the veterans home. Um which you'll see had 2,183 calls in the data we looked at from 2018 through 2022. um f uh emergency medical calls

represented about 67% of the of the workload. So so by far the highest call demand and the veterans home would be in the the hot spot that that showed up most prevalent on the map when we looked at your system performance. So in in in evaluating fire services, there's three areas to look at for for best practices. Uh one is call processing time. How quickly does the dispatcher uh receive the call and get units in route? So controllable, you measure it and and you can control through protocols to make sure those are done timely. 1 minute 90% of the time is the best practice and fire any mess services. Um turnout time is how quickly then once they're notified do the firefighters get up, get to their apparatus, get out of the station. Again, if you're measuring it and and reporting on it, th there can be systems put in place to speed that up. If those two things shorten, then to your customers, suddenly it looks like you're getting there quicker, even though nothing changed. Travel time is from when the wheels are rolling until they arrive at the emergency scene. That's uh a time and distance impact. So, unless you build new roads, you know, the weather's perfect. uh if if you have to draw down from a different station than the first station, all those things affect travel time. So, not something that's really controllable. Um so, so without increasing stations or improving the road network, it it is what it is. But your uh CalFire typically doesn't monitor uh call processing time because they're the way they they work and the way they deploy their their emergency communication centers are more concerned with resource deployments. So, where are the resources, where are they deployed, and those things verse how quickly are they dispatched because of the wildfires and and the and the different components that go into dispatching those. For your

for your turnout time, um you were three minutes for EMS calls and four minutes for fire. So longer than the one minute best practice for EMS calls where they don't have to put on protective gear and and uh three minute two and a half minutes longer than the minute and a half that you typically see as a best practice for fire. So if systems can be put in place for those career staff stations, this doesn't apply to volunteers to have to drive from their home to the to the station, but for the career staff station to uh to speed up those. Again, to the customer, it would look like you're getting there two and a half minutes faster than than your current deployment. And then your travel time was 10 minutes or less in what we consider that urban core, the the main the main core of Napa. uh and then um 21 minutes or less in in those rural areas that are typically staffed by the the volunteer agencies. So, we looked at several service delivery item uh options. One being status quo, staying with uh your contract with CalFire um and maintaining service levels that are defined through the contract uh with Calire to ensure that the county's needs are being met. Um other other options were contracting with other communities such as Napa or the American Canyon Fire Protection District. A third option was to form a county dependent or independent fire district that that it so uh in independent would be a a separate governing body. Uh a dependent fire district would be this board acting as as the board for the fire district and determining service levels and and funding of the different components. And then the last was to form and fund a county fire department using uh county general funds as as it currently exists.

So when we looked at the uh service delivery assumptions that we used in our analysis, um the status quo was was the costs were determined by analyzing the the new c the current uh contract that you're under with CalFire to see what those costs would be. Um, Napa County and American Canyon both provided us with cost benefits, payroll, and and the other things to to be able to arrive at what the cost would be for them to staff career stations. Um, forming a county fire district or a county fire department. We worked with county HR for needed positions and and new positions that would be required um to determine what the potential salary benefit ranges and different costs would be for that. In the uh station location assumptions, you can see that the uh the stations are are mostly located again during that along that busier corridor. Um and then and then you would have career stations being stations 12, 25, 26, 27. Uh Amidore stations being 24, 25, 30, and 38. Numerous volunteer stations. And then you would you would continue with mutual aid stations from Napa, American Canyon, Kalisoga, and St. Helena. So we looked at the staffing and cost considerations. Um status quo at the time used 31 uh shift personnel was their was their minimum staffing. Um when we looked at the other options, they all used a 36 personnel scheduled with a 30 personnel uh minimum staffing requirement for for staffing the operations. So in this you can see the the cost

breakdown um of 27.8 8 million ranging to 31 million under the status quo. Um contracting with the city of Napa would significantly in increase your cost uh to 45 million to to to 53 million over over the years studied. American Canyon also would be more expensive. um an independent fire district um would would be slightly more uh expensive mostly due to the personnel estimates, the additional personnel that would be required to be added for support functions and other things that the the county has currently provided. And then a a county funded um independent fire department again would be several million dollars more than the the current the cost of the current contract with CalFire. So some other items that we considered were were those ancillary benefits of the CalFire provides. So the the surge capacity, the fact that they keep aircraft at your airport and immediately available for wildland incidents and others in speaking with CalFire leadership. If that were if CalFire were to go away as the county uh provider of fire services, typically those types of assets are then redeployed to where schedule A services are provided so that they're they're uh immediately available to the agencies that are that are utilizing their services and are in in uh most demand of supporting that CalFire mission that's going on in that service area. um the other agencies when we met with them there were little to no interest in them um participating in a in a fire district. So while you could form a fire district and others could opt in later

um there was little interest in them from the outset. So there was no economies of scales gained because of having partner agencies. Um, and then looking at the formation of a fire district, it's it would take about three years, require Lefco approval and a and a vote by the voters to to get that in as a as a new funding mechanism for fire. So that said, um our recommendation was to continue with CalFire as your service provider and and further cons further study the consideration of a dependent fire district if you were to choose to use a parcel tax or some other method to fund uh fire services in the county moving forward. But the board would retain uh control of how operations are handled, staffed and and funded even under that district formation. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you for that informative presentation. Are there any questions or comments for my colleagues? I see uh Supervisor Catrell. Thank you, chair, and thank you very much for the report and uh feels like a long time ago when we first started uh the commissioning of it. And again, you know, I said in the previous item that we are in a very different place in terms of our volunteer teams as part of our fire department now, which um I think is is an important um change that that I I think some of the challenges that we were having in past years led to more interest in this question that was being asked today about what is the right path. And so it's great to have this result and also sorry a little too.

Okay, I'll sit back. Um anyway, so my two questions today are when you were mentioning the costs associated with the independent fire district or the county funded fire district. We don't own the county doesn't own any fire stations. Correct. So the cost of the real estate and the structures needed that's is that part of the calculation or is that those were the operational costs. So the so the capital costs there's a

a myriad of ownerships from stateowned properties to volunteer owned to county owned to the shared site with the veterans home that that that station's provided. So there would be a lot of capital costs to to unwind and untangle in terms of apparatus and facilities. Got it. So so we're looking just at operational costs in that chart and then there would be additional capital costs significant additional startup costs. Yes.

Yeah. Thank you. And then you mentioned other there was not interest in other agencies. Little to no interest in forming a fire district. So were you talking to Napa and American Canyon and Kalogga and Saint Telina all all those communities? Yes. And that they So Napa and American Canyon had interest in if if we're the service provider. Um that would interest us if we had full control of the system but no not not interest in joining uh a countywide system where then they lose local control. Okay. And then the smaller communities they had no interest. Okay, great. Thank you.

Okay, good questions. Um, Supervisor Gallagher and then Vice Chair Allesia. Thank you. Um, I'm sorry, you had a slide that indicated uh staffing I'm sorry, staffing at 31 for Calire, but all the other options were 36. If you can go back to that.

So, so the 36 would be the scheduled staffing, but due to people taking time off, sick leave and that. So the way the way fire departments staff is there's a scheduled staffing and then there's a minimum staffing. So typically you would see um an engine for example staffed with four personnel but if someone's off that day it can go to three personnel as the minimum staffing before then overtime is brought in because uh if you fall below the minimum staffing levels it's unsafe for the crews to operate. Okay. So, but in terms of the um projected costs, you you were projecting at 36

36 personnel is what would be scheduled and then due to leave factors and that the minimum daily staffing would be 30, right? And then in terms of cost, you're using 31 as the number for the um yeah, the status quo. So, and this is probably not a question you can answer, but I'm I'm looking to um other fire leadership. Is that going to change the uh 31 shift personnel minimum in the status quo option?

No, it doesn't. And the way we work with Calire in our arrangement, they guarantee that staffing. Um, so if someone is on leave, they backfill that position uh with another firefighter to make sure that or or captain or whatever rank to ensure that we have that full staffing 100% of the time. Okay. Because I think I'm just trying to figure out if this um you know the projected costs are actually like taking all of that into account, we're not going to see a change, right? And that that is a benefit of working with the CalFire contract is that you know we have those personnel on all the time. We don't have the unfunded liabilities that technically come with it. uh as well. So some of those workers comp the you know retirement things of that nature are born by the state.

Okay. Thanks. Okay. Thank you, Supervisor Allesia.

Well, this is like the easiest question I have like all week probably on terms of this recommendation. Um you know, we've already, you know, through the reports. I'm just going to echo what I've already shared. Um, and really also echo what Supervisor Catrell shared is that we've come a long way, baby, if I can put that. Um, and um, you know, and I was an outsider looking in as I was still with Napa City Council and I wasn't on the county board as this started to get a little bit more pulled together. Um, I just want to commend all the leadership, right? Eagles were set aside. It was true leadership that brought everybody together. The leadership of all the different agencies, the leadership of our CEO, the leadership of the um volunteer fire stations of firewise. It was really coming together because um this is a communitywide concern. I mean, this just makes so much sense. I mean, it's working so well. We're so cohesive. Uh great partnerships and alignment, great outcomes, excellent outcomes on on all fronts. So, um, you know, when the time comes, I'm going to make that recommendation to continue to use Calire as our county fire protective services and provider.

I appreciate that and that's I mean, that's the reason I started this out the way I did in the sense that, you know, we have come a long way and to acknowledge that hard work um by many in this room and those that are not. Um, we've done a lot. We've done a lot. Yeah, absolutely true. And uh sup I see supervisor Catrell and I also realized I forgot to take public comment. So we're going to

Yeah. So I only see a couple members of the public here, but is there anyone in the room wishing to make public comment on this or the previous Can I do that for the previous item because I think I forgot that too. Yeah. For either of items 10A or 10B. Is there anyone on the phones? No. Okay, then let's go ahead. Supervisor uh Catrell. Yeah. Thank you. So, one of the options that isn't before us here is to continue with Calire and look at other ways to fund them. So, that's the the dependent fire district. That's that's that's the

you would have to use the information in the report. You would have to get uh LAFCco approval um to show that services remain equal to or exceed what's currently being provided. and then the formation of a district would have to go before the voters. Got it. Okay. And so that's something that that was part two of your recommendation to continue to look at a model where we're not putting so much pressure on our general fund to pay for this important piece. Is that what I'm getting? Correct. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Um I Oh, I see Ramos. Go ahead. Uh thank you and thank you so much for for this report and kind of um this this truly is a a long time coming for us as to how we're going to look at the future of um operational services, fire services um here in in Napa County. you know, you did you mentioned um that other agencies would be interested in being the lead on a fire district. Um and so my my question to you is, you know, where when we look at uh St. Alina has three engines, Kalisoga has I think it's one engine. Um when we look at the opportunity um to to provide a more seamless service delivery in fire services. I I certainly am it's not anything anyone doesn't know. I believe we can do it better than most. Um and part of the reason is because we have the ability to leverage um the scale and impact that comes through Calire and having um having the the um LNU office over in St. Alina and being able to really just distribute from from a homebased um standpoint and deployer from a mothership standpoint I I should say. So my question to you comes from, you know, obviously contracting with others does not make sense. Um especially really when you look at city of Napa, they have a paramedic requirement on on their charter city model. Um American Canyon, they don't have the requirement, but

that is their standard. So that certainly does change the the staffing and the hiring component um if we were to contract through them. Um so my then next question comes to what about smaller agencies contracting through us? So we already have Yville that has this agreement. Um when you look at the cost of St. Alina and uh them providing fire services, I think they say the last I looked was like $1.6 million um for them to run those operations. whereas we would be able to do it at probably a 1.2 maybe $1.3 million cost. Why not look at expansion and growth in that sense? I think as far as the scope of the report was done was to really kind of look internally and set that aside for the reason being that where we work with uh Yville it is a contract for service and so it is completely a based on actual reimbursement situation which we would then do of course with those specific entities. So really we'd be working to recover our cost you know on actuals for for those agencies and so that's why I didn't really necessarily play a factor in this report but um if any of those entities wanted to come and and look into that uh avenue we'd be more than welcome to look at willing to look at it.

Thank you. And then um the question I didn't have I appreciated seeing um the level of mutual aid that we receive is it about 9% and uh and we're givers at the county because we give I think it was at 12.1%. Um how does that is that normal? Is that a lot? Is it not enough? um I don't have a basis for understanding what mutual aid normally looks like in a more rural area.

So the the benefit of the mutual aid is when the scale of an incident exceeds your your local capabilities, you're able to bring in those additional resources. And obviously California's got a great system from from the local systems all the way to to the statewide mutual aid system that's in place for the for the large large scale fires. Um so what you want to look for there is is a balance and and yours is is balanced in that even though you're giving a little more, you're the you're the larger player in the room. So it it it's typical for the the larger service provider to provide more aid than the than than they would receive. But you're you're also receiving a fair benefit. The a a next step um that that works well in in agencies is to do more of an automatic aid where boundary drops exist and it becomes more of a closest unit response. So therefore, if your uh station is is deployed on a on an emergency call and say Napa City station is the is really the closest one instead of another um county station, they would automatically be dispatched to that emergency as the the next due available resource. So that just enhances the uh emergency response system and and and balances it out where it's not only in when requested due to agency scale or or resource availability, but but ensures to the caller who really doesn't care when there's an emergency what unit shows up at their house. They just want to help uh that the closest most appropriate unit is dispatched. So that's the other option in an automatic mutual aid environment. Well, I'll piggyback onto that to say that we do have a lot of those uh with Napa and Marian Canyon currently in flight with uh Kalisoga and so a lot of that automatic aid does exist and I would say uh some of that percentage tick increase for us again being the bigger um entity

is also some of those specialty calls right so we operate the inter agency hazmat team in cooperation with um a number of the cities obviously we have technical rescue teams and things of that nature that a smaller um one station agency might not necessarily Thank you. And then in terms of um you looking at the staffing, the $5 million differential of having a fire district versus maintaining the status quo. one for my colleagues. I'm on page 81 of the report that kind of goes through and talks about um the positions that are are needed and you know HR generalist and logistics and manager and technician and and all of that. Um, can you please explain how those positions were determined as being needed in the modeling for um, my dream fire district and how that is taken down from the value of the CalFire contract because um, the CalFire contract if if if some of these positions we do pay for by virtue of the CalFire contract. So, how did you how did you get to it being a $5 million differential?

So, we worked in in concert with with the county with the the county positions and what would be needed to support an an organization of of this size. So when when you move into being an independent or dependent fired district, now suddenly you're responsible for all those administrative functions that happen magically from from Sacramento um in the CalFire system that you know payroll, HR, hiring, um all the things that go into to running that fire business. So, so working with with county administration, uh JR and his team and and then our experience of of what is typical in a in a fire district in terms of staffing. Um we arrived at those those numbers and the cost of those extra people obviously cost uh money in terms of the annual salaries and benefits that are associated with them.

Thank you. And I think um you know when I the next question is more maybe you have the answer to it. Um there is um when you look at a a county fire district, there is also the additional component of being able to bring in EMS into the fire district. Um because if we were to if we were to bring EMS services into the fire district um much like um the alliance model that exists in Contraosta County and others um that in fact would provide a revenue stream because by your data 22% % of our population is over 65. And when medical transport is needed, and this is where the Yonville station is actually incredibly important because when medical transport is needed for a person who is Medicare eligible under the 1962 Social Security Act, there is a reimbursement amount that comes back to the the governmental entity running fire if they are the direct EMS provider. not the contracting provider, but the actual direct EMS provider. And it's like, I don't know, a few years ago it was like $600 a transport. I think it's like upwards of $900 a transport. That is money that we, the county, do not get right now. We contract directly with AMR and it goes through Health and Human Services. AMR has no ability to charge back that money against social security

on the on the medic on the Medicare claim. If we were to create a fire district and move EMS in through the fire district to be a fire administrated EMS, y'all still with me? Yeah. Okay. If we were to do that and move EMS and run it through the district, through an fire services provider utilizing um utilizing the paramedic bill of rights that I don't remember the numbers too in California that would allow us to then trigger Medicare reimbursement dollars and we in fact could still contract with AMR to provide the ambulance servicing, but they would just have to be nicely badged like Napa County Fire and then that would provide um uh a revenue stream. So my question, that was my preamble. My question is where do we go to next? because by my back of the napkin really back of the postit calculations um we can more than make up that $5 million on transport if we were to move fire EMS in utilizing an alliance model of of emergency services. What would we need to do next to I would imagine a supplemental report and looking at a district model more specifically that includes EMS services.

Yeah, that would require a completely different study that was beyond the scope of this project. uh and the financial components are are really the key to that because uh AMR is likely billing for those Medicare because that's that's considered your full reimbursement for transporting that. So they not knowing how your contract status with them is they're they typically come in they charge you a fee for for operating EMS in the county and then and then they collect the revenues. So, as part of that billing, they they likely are billing for uh Medicare, Medicaid, self-insured that direct pay, as well as insurance agencies that that pay for their service. So, you know, I don't I don't know the payer mix in the county. I don't know what the what the revenue stream versus costs uh would look like for that. So, that would be what would have to be studied to see if that makes financial sense for the county.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, I don't see any other uh buttons on here. So, I'm going to thank you for your report today. And we have some good food for thought there. Thank you for bringing all that up. Um, yeah. And I think we're going to break for lunch. We'll be back at 1:30. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much for your report and for all your Did we need a second recommendation? I don't think this wasformational. Okay. Yeah. So, um, so yeah. So, we're concluding this item breaking for lunch and we'll be back at 1:30. 30.

Welcome back. Um, we are now beginning item 11, public hearings. Item 11 A is uh to conduct a public hearing to consider the end of the Abbey use permit modification P19-000038 mod requested by Jackson Family Investments LLC and the planning commission's March 4th 2026 advisory recommendations to the board including certification of a final environmental impact report state clearing house number 202079021 adoption of findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adoption of a mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program. Uh, find the project consistent with the general plan, approval of a major use, major modification, and conditions of approval that would encompass demolition of existing structures and construction of a 79 room hotel involving 78,500 square ft of new construction split between multiple parcels and adoption of an ordinance approving a development agreement between Naba County and Jackson Family Investments 3 LLC. So I'll start by asking board members if they have any disclosures regarding any exparte communications or new living act disclosures.

I did if I want sorry how do you want to say this? Sorry. I think supervisor Catrell made it to the buttons first. Go ahead. Um thank you chair and good afternoon. Um I had uh several phone conversations with both the neighbors and also the applicants to the project. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Um, Supervisor Allesia, Vice Chair Allesia, thank you. Um, I had a site tour with the applicant and received emails from the neighbors and I was out on the site yesterday. Okay.

Thank you. I previously prior to the planning commission meeting had uh visited the site um with neighbors um and I've also met with the applicant and this was prior to it going to the planning commission. Okay. Um not seeing any more. So I have uh met with the applicant prior to it going to the planning commission and uh visited the site and also met with the representative Rob Angland uh to discuss the project recently. Um and we've also received quite a few comments from the public which I believe are public record and which everyone here has probably seen. So okay um let's see. So, I will open the public hearing and request staff to present on the project. Go ahead when you're ready. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and supervisors. Matt Ringle again with Napa County Planning Division and today's hearing is in regards to in the Abbey. This is a use permit major modification request along with a development agreement use permit number P1938. My presentation today, I'll begin with a site description, move to the permit request, and end with a recommendation. Beginning with the site description, the proposed project is located across six park parcels. The environmental reports along with the staff reports primarily reference the north parcel of which is an aggregate of four parcels on the north side of Lodi Lane and Highway 29 and the south parcel which is an aggregate of two parcels on the southern portion of Highway 29. The general plan designation for the site is agriculture watershed and open space. The project site is located within two zoning districts. The commercial limited zoning district as well as agriculture watershed. The excite this existing site has a multitude of existing uses including a winery, vineyard, six residences, restaurant, five room motel, commercial building, accessory structures, three groundwater wells, and an existing service to the city of St. Helena's water services. Permit request. The proposed project, as referenced, is broken apart on the northern portion of Loi Lane and the southern portion. So, beginning on the north portion, the project considers um construction of 55,500 ft hotel structure, including 50 guest rooms with additional space for a spa, retail, and a rooftop terrace with

public space. Additionally, it includes renovation of a 12,900 square f foot region or area of an existing stone building, including a hotel lobby, retail space, and cafe, along with conference, meeting room, and wine uses. It additionally includes unconditioned areas including approximately 17,800 square feet for an arrival and valet courtyard, approximately 1300 13,100 ft of outdoor pool area and an outdoor lounge area with landscaping and an underground parking garage with 54 parking spaces. It includes 141 surface parking spaces with ADA parking, 14 bicycle parking stalls along with modifications to an existing public water system and wastewater improvements. The proposed project would require the demolition of an existing Bravo Terrace restaurant building, the removal of trees with replacement at 2:1 ratio for oak trees. Now moving to the south parcel, the two parcels on the southern portion of Loi Lane. It includes construction of 11,150 square ft of a hotel structure including guest rooms and the rem remaining area will be conditioned space including a kitchen library, back of house mechanical area and circulation uses. It includes the construction of 7,500 square f feet for a hotel barn structure in quot including 12 additional guest rooms totaling 5,100 square ft and the remaining 2,400 ft of condition space includes back of house mechanical uses. Additionally, it includes construction of two bungalow structures including six guest rooms totaling 4,000 square ft. In aggregation of the northern and southern portions, this total is 79 total hotel rooms for the project. Project also

includes construction of a 350 ft fitness studio, unconditioner area for outdoor pool area, outdoor patios, and lounge areas along with a lawn area that is landscaped. The southern portion includes eight surface parking areas with access to ADA parking, four bicycle parking stalls, and integrating the south parcel hotel development into the public water system existing on the northern parcel. Includes construction of a graywater system, a one-way loop looped driveway, as well as demolition of existing structures. Next, delving into some of the the structures being modified. The first is a historic stone building. Proposed project proposes interior renovations to the historic structure meeting the secretary of interior standards for historic rehabilitation of historic structures and includes the addition of a hotel lobby room as well as retail on the ground floor. And the top floor includes conference room as well as a cafe. Here's a virtual rendering of what that northern structure looks like. As you can see, the bottom portion is a parking garage for parking in that structure. And the proposed project does meet the county's 35 foot height requirement along average natural grade. There's a slope to the site. Um, and so with that, the average natural grade is 35 feet and it meets that throughout the project scope. Here is a picture of the site plan of that north building um parking area. This is a a multifloor building. So, beginning with the ground floor. Here's the parking area with a few hotel rooms, back of house mechanical. This second level shows the spa pool

area as well as more hotel rooms as well as this is in a sense the third floor accessed from um highway 29. So highway 29 you can go directly into the building. Um and this is known as the arrival level with lounge areas, arrival areas and a terrace. And this is the top floor, the guest room level with solar panels as well as additional hotel rooms. Next, moving across the street, this is elevation of the South Hotel building. You can see it's broken apart in multiple different regions. On the ground floor, it includes uh another lobby area with back of house, kitchen, library, hotel rooms. This area additionally has a pool and lawn area. This is the second floor of the structure with more hotel rooms and back of house. Next, moving to the northern portion of this parcel. Um, I've shown both levels. It's proposing two bungalows that are two stories a piece with larger guest rooms. And throughout the environmental document, they're described as the bungalows on site. Delving into water use for the proposed project. Beginning with tier one, the existing groundwater usage is estimated at 10.77 acre feet per year. The proposed project would decrease groundwater use by 2.15 acre feet, resulting in an overall water usage of 8.62, equivalent to approximately a 20% decrease in groundwater usage. Um, while we're on the topic of water and water usage, the proposed project proposes groundwater use as well as it has an existing agreement with the city of St. Alena for additional water use to their city hookups. Now talking about a tier 2 and tier three persuant to the water availability

analysis. A tier 2 analysis is required when a neighboring off-site well is located within 500 ft of a project well or the well is located within 1500 ft of a spring or the proposed project is no net increase in groundwater use. The project proposes an approximately 20% decrease in groundwater use. Therefore, the county's tier 2 requirements have been met. Similarly, a tier three a tier three review is the county's adopted method for complying with its duties under the public trust trust doctrine. The project proposes a 20% decrease in groundwater usage. The proposed project conforms to WA tier 3 guidelines for groundwater surface water interaction. The proposed project for environmental review had an environmental impact report completed. Throughout the environmental impact report, there's a a number of mitigation measures. So, so to summarize, there's a fugitive construction related dust minimization, preconstruction protocol level surveys for special status plants, breeding birds, bats, as well as other species. Avoidance and pre-construction surveys for um mitigation of oak trees for old oak trees to be removed and replaced at a 2:1 ratio. cultural resource sensitive training, archaeological and Native American monitoring, um and inadvertent discovery for human remains as well as paleontological resource includes greenhouse gas measures for all electric development with no natural gas infrastructure. includes electric electric vehicle charging infrastructure, construction noise mitigation measures for um items regarding to noise for the building stationary equipment as well as the rooftop terrace and south parcel lawn. Their mitigation measures and includes a trans transportation demand

management plan as well as a load lane crossing improvement and safety plan. The proposed project does include seven items that are a part of a development agreement that has gone before the board previously for draft versions and these are seven items that are included for public benefit. Delving through those items includes the first being on-site employing housing. There are six existing dwelling units on site and the six dwelling units on the south property um shall be renovated and leased to employees of the project at affordable levels indeed restricted. For additional off-site housing, the owner shall cause and construct andor commit to deliver five new residential units in Napa County that may be occupied by employees of the project, employees of owners affiliated companies or outside tenants. The off-site units shall be subject to a deed restriction or equivalent restriction requiring any rental to outside tenants be within the rents affordable and moderate income levels as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. This restriction shall be in the form of a mutual agreeable form and have a term of 40 years. Next is the applicant shall pay transit occupancy tax for the hotel and commercial ventures on the property. It includes LOI lane crossing improvements. The project shall include atgrade street crossings, enhancements to existing vine trail to increase pedestrian, bicycle and on-site operational safety and may include traffic calming measures such as rumble strips, speed strips or signage along Loi Lane to reduce traffic speeds and increase driver awareness. Additionally, fire prevention contribution. The owner will contribute a total of $250,000 to Napa County for fuel reduction and

management. The payment shall be made across 5 years and $50,000 sums based off of final issuance of the certification of occupancy for the building permits on the structures. Next, the last two items of the development agreement include a GSA pilot program. Prior to issuance of final certificate of occupancy for the project, the owner shall instill install two tool sensors or similar evapo transpiration centers on the owner land owner's land within the Napa River Sud Basin. Data from these sensors shall be shared with Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Sustainability Agency. And the final is in regards to sustainability measures. The project shall include graywater recycling and reuse um as described within the project approvals. The owner will offer excess treated gray water to adjacent property owners for future irrigation. Conveyance of reclaimed water to adjacent properties shall be subject to county approval and willingness of nearby property owners to connect the to the property's water system conveying the reclaimed water. Additionally, the project will be designed and constructed to a minimum lead gold standard, but the owner is not required to obtain the official lead gold certification for the project. The project will pro provide 150% of the number of EV charging stations required by construction codes. The project will include ebike charging stations that will be available for both hotel guests and public users of the Vine Trail. The project will not remove or convert existing vineyard on the property to another use. The owner's management and farming of the existing vineyard remains within the owner's whole discretion. And finally, prior to occupancy, the owner shall install an air quality monitoring sensor to provide data on an online platform that communicates air quality information to

the public. That concludes the project scope. It's staff's recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution with an attachment one certifying the final environmental impact report adopting findings in accordance with SQA. Adopt the mitigation monitoring reporting plan. Find the project consistent with the general plan and approve use permit major modification number P1938 subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth in attachment A through D and adopt an ordinance attachment six approving a development agreement between Napa County and Jackson Family Investments 3 LLC as set forth in attachment one. That concludes staff's presentation. staff's available for any questions along with our EIR consultant with ESA Jillian who's available via Zoom. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. Uh I would like to follow this by inviting testimony from the applicant. Uh and um let's uh let's go with 15 minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair Manfrey supervisors. Um, we're very excited to be here today. Um, not least of which to celebrate Supervisor Manfreyy's birthday. Um, birthday.

Uh, and and I'm just I I I will say, you know, a joke is fun and celebrating birthdays is fun. If your birthdays fall on a Tuesday, watch out because I think Supervisor Manfrey is coming for you. Um, but I'll happily wish you a happy birthday then, too. Um so uh this um so first let me introduce our team that's here uh today from the Jackson family. Ra Jackson is with us. Uh we also have Leanne Edwards and Jeff Scott um who I think you know people are familiar with from being involved in the project. We also have Daleen Whitlock our traffic engineer from WTR as well as Paul Waro of RSA plus a civil engineer on the project. Um you know as I I'm going to have some remarks. I'm gonna have Denene uh make some remarks too because um I feel like you should hear about traffic from a traffic engineer. Um but um first I'd like to also thank staff for uh not only just being here um but for you know just working hard on this project. Jillian from ESA obviously did a lot of work even though she's with us virtually um and and it's a lot of work and it's taken a while. Um this is a P19. Um I think Mr. Hawks has had two children in the time that this application has gone forward. Uh so um so but but it's worth it is is my opinion. Uh this is the sixth public hearing uh on it and and we're hopeful that that this is the last one. We're hoping for an approval today. Um but we'll I'll explain why. I think that it's a project worth approving. Um this is a very unique site. Uh the Napa County General Plan lists all of the commercial zone properties by APN number. There's not a lot of them. Uh there's very few. Uh this site also, it has a a winery dating back to 1886. Uh it has starting in the 60s a lot of use permits uh approved there. Two restaurants, a cocktail lounge, ice cream parlor, um the herd candle factory. Uh it's got a it's got a lot of activity approved there. And that's just

the north side of the parcel because it also has a five-unit hotel and then um I don't want to call it a strip mall, but a kind of a small strip commercial center. How about that? It's so it's got some retail there. Uh so so a lot of activity approved on the site historically. Um the parking lot is is there. It's it's got I think right now it has 222 spaces uh surface parking to serve all of those different uses that have been occurring there. It used to all be zoned uh PD. And when I say all of it, like the 16 acres on the north side of Loi Lane was all planned development, which was a kind of a hybrid zoning district that mushed together um uh residential and commercial uses. In the 1980s, uh the county went through a reszoning process and really pulled back the zoning uh to just the CLZONE areas that are that are zoned commercial now. uh and and then change those PD areas to uh AW agricultural watershed. Um and then uh you know so we have a lot of activity. We have the the the two uh restaurants. My wife grew up here. She's been to the Bravo Terrace restaurant I think for prom. Um so you know it's it's just had a lot of activity over the years. um you know it is not what it once was today and that's true but I think people forget how much activity has gone on there and how much the entitlements are there so when we looked at this site you know this is a great uh a great case for adaptive reuse of a historic commercial site um what can we make here uh and when we when we put together that proposal we knew that the county would want to be able to work with us uh to provide benefits to the public that made the county uh feel like it was approving a quality project. And so that's why we applied for a development agreement because that gives the county the uh the ability to negotiate with us. What we get out of it, we get a 20-year term uh

on the on the entitlements. And um what the county gets out of it are the public benefits that that Matt very well articulated. Um some of the and I won't list them again, that'd be repetitive, but some of them I will note are things that other projects have not provided. Um, you know, in the DA term negotiations, we were challenged to provide housing in terms of units built and we're doing that. I don't think any other project has done that in the county. Uh, we are the grreyuse uh recycling and reuse is something that no other project that I've ever worked on has and I don't think any other project in the county has. Um, and so we we worked really hard on those DA terms. We brought them at at two hearings before you. Um and and I think at the second hearing, uh Supervisor Catrell said, "Well, you're going to work with fire on this, right?" Uh because the terms were a little different back then. Um and I think Supervisor Catrell asked us a couple of times, "So, you're going to work with fire, right?" And we said, "Yes, we're absolutely going to work with fire." And and we did. Uh you know, after during the time that the draft was being circulated, um fire reached out. We had, you know, multiple meetings and and learned a lot um about what would really help them and what doesn't so much. Uh and so we revised those terms in collaboration and coordination with uh Fire Marshall DS uh Deputy Chief JC Greenberg and we put forth uh the monetary payment because you know I think as things stand today uh in the in the kind of the fire prevention landscape that we're in that's what would help them. So um that is a change uh from the DA terms that were listed previously. Uh we feel like it's a good change. We're glad to have fire support for it. Um and and we would uh love for you to to accept that change in the DA terms. Um we did a study on how much other benefits so those are public benefits that are added in. We had C CBRE which is a real estate firm

calculate uh how much toot uh sales tax and property tax would flow to the county. Uh and they estimate that it'll be 39.4 million in the first 10 years of the project. So in addition and those are taxes we have to pay right I mean I'm not saying that those are like voluntary taxes those are taxes we have to pay um but it is a you know an you know a positive of this project that those taxes would be paid and would go to the county. So all of that um and and I should say additionally rather than trying to do this project on a mitigated negative declaration, we decided a very early stage we wanted an EIR. I we just wanted that thorough analysis even if the initial study showed that the the impacts could be mitigated to less than significance with mitigation which is what the EI did end up saying. Um, so from a technical legal perspective, we could have tried a mitigated negative declaration, but but the board and the county has the comfort of knowing that a full environmental impact report was prepared. Uh, we went through a 45day comment period uh last summer. Uh, the final EIR has responses to each and every comment that was made during that comment period. Um, and so there's a very thorough analysis backing up the county's decision here today. So, um, you know, we in doing so, we we we earned some support from some neighbors. We know that not all neighbors are happy with it, but the Wignels, uh, wrote in a letter of support and Kanan wrote a letter of support. Um, the Napa Vine Trail has previously let written in a letter of support. Uh, as has, um, most recently the Napali community housing um, organization. Uh they operate um Vista Va the 14 unit uh house affordable housing project that exists across the street. Um and we've worked with them as good neighbors which is reflected in the uh in the letter of support. Um uh

Missclar was actually here. Their executive director was here earlier. Uh she was going to speak in support um uh but couldn't stick around. Uh you had a a a longer day than I think anyone expected. Um so uh she had to split. Um but I asked her if I could mention her name and she said yes. So you know we have worked with those neighbors and and they've supported the project. Um and you have also the unanimous recommendation of approval from your uh planning commission. So um I think you know that that those are all the positives of the project. We have had since the planning commission hearing we got a couple of letters that I would like to address. Uh, one is from Water Audit California. Um, I was a little surprised, I guess, in some ways because, um, Mr. McKinnon had wrote an email in December of 2023 uh, you know, asking that the project look at uh, whether or not it could connect to a municipal water supply. So, you know, he was aware of the project. So, I thought, well, okay, during the EIR comment period, we'll we'll see a comment from water audit. they'll be engaged in the process like other commentators have been. And we didn't get a comment letter um nor did we get a comment letter at the planning commission on March 4 this year. Instead, you know, he called me last week and said he was going to comment and then sent the comment letter um on Sunday at 5:05. Uh but that's fine. I mean, I think he would have gotten a more thorough written response in the final if he had included those comments a little earlier during the public comment period. Um, but I'll address a couple of things uh that I feel like are are Yeah, I probably can't hit everything that Bill puts in his letter, but I can talk about a couple things that I think are highlights for me. Um, one, he he doesn't like the water use calculations uh and and the use of the the water use assumptions from the county's adopted policy document as opposed to metered data. We don't have metered data. Uh, so instead,

we use the water use assumptions that are in the county's adopted policy document. Um, those are not our numbers. They're the county's numbers. They're used every day in this county. Um, I don't think that they're proposed to change in the update to the water availability analysis, but nevertheless, they're the county's policy, not ours. Um, he also um despite his remarks earlier about uh the arrow and branch condition not being precedent, he does ask for that condition of approval in this project. Um, and we don't think it's necessary. We have a we have a a reporting requirement that's monthly. It's it's in uh our conditions of approval. It actually requires monitoring and reporting not only on an aggregate basis but on a per well basis. Uh and so we feel like that covers the impacts adequately. Um the other thing that he mentioned is the Wilson well. He says that the Wilson well is not disclosed and not addressed. That's actually not correct. Um it's not mentioned in the water availability analysis document because it's not a project well. It's not part of that analysis. Um, it is mentioned or actually is discussed on uh pages 4.8-26. Uh, no, sorry. Oh, sorry. 4.8-3 and 4.15-2. The Wilson well is discussed as being it's connected to the fire um tank which has 300,000 gallons of of fire suppression water in it. Now, uh it's connected to it. It's also connected to vineyards. it's not connected to the portable public water system that would supply this project. So it's it's it's not a part of the project. So it's not in those uh WA water use calculations. Um and I think uh you know another comment that he that he made was you know we assume an occupancy rate of 70% on our water use calculations our water need calculations that that's how much you

know our occupancy rate would be. and he said, "What if it's higher?" Um, 70% is pretty aggressive historically and you know, even after during the kind of the COVID revenge traveling in 2022, we peaked at 63% on a county basis. But we don't have to worry about that because we have caps on the water use. So, if the occupancy is higher, the water use is capped and we have a monthly monitoring of that water use. So um and so you know if the occupancy is higher then operational changes will have to be implemented to save water within the the amounts that are allowed. Um additionally uh water audits letter has a an attachment from a consultant. I think the gist of the consultant's complaint or the what what she states uh as her basis for um you know opposing the project is that the water availability ability analysis doesn't provide her with sufficient information to understand where all the water is with the water balance. But key to the her opinion is that she states that the three-page water availability analysis doesn't provide her the information. Well, she's not looking at all the report. It's a 24-page document. Some of the questions she asked in her letter are answered within the other 21 pages. Um, additionally, she asked questions about, you know, amounts of graywater and things on the wastewater side, and those wouldn't be in the water availability analysis. They'd be in the wastewater feasibility report, which is attached as a technical appendix to the EAD draft environmental impact report. Plus, we have a whole hydraology section on this in the draft EIR and and so you get more information from there, too. So, I think, you know, I think I would just say that if you were just relying on the first three pages of the water availability analysis, yeah, that would be that'd be slim, but we have a lot more analysis in this document in the

full EIR. Um, turning to some neighbors who have uh written in some concerns. Um, I'm going to I'm going to touch on a couple things and then I'm going to turn it over to Dalene. Uh so uh Mr. John Murphy and Mr. I think it's Dave Ule uh put in kind of a bulleted list that they sent over and we've been talking uh with Mr. Murphy and Mr. Ule and any neighbor who had talked with us and and the Jackson family team actually met with them yesterday and they sent over the list. Um some of these things we want to respond to. Um for example uh they referenced the Vine Transit stop being right in front of um in at the Abbey. It's actually moved north now. Um so it's in front of Trinaro Napa Valley. So it's further north along 29. Um secondly, parking uh is an issue that that you know that they uh they reference. Um parking is actually calculated in the draft. The peak demand is calculated at 196 spaces and that's in the draft EIR's technical appendices. Um we're providing uh 203 spaces. So we have more parking than peak demand is projected to be. And I'll also note that condition of approval 4.12E limits us to parking in approved areas uh prevent and allows no overflow parking onto access roads or to um or onto AW lands. So um did I run over 15 minutes already? Oh wow. All right. Um, well, yeah. Um, I can I'll just turn it over to Denene then because I didn't expect that that was going to take 15 minutes. My apologies, chair. I'll turn it over to Den Whitlock to address traffic and then we'll be available for questions.

Thank you. And I will make I will make this very quick. My name is Den Whitlock. Um, I'm a senior principal with WTR in Santa Rosa. And we have been working on this project for a number of years. um during which time the SQA measures that were used for traffic have changed. When we did the initial traffic study, we looked at service levels and delay and under that metric, the project had a less than significant impact or it would have had a significant impact without mitigation. And so it was recommended that the um approach from Lo Loi Lane to Highway 29 be restriped to provide separate left and right turn lanes um so that the people turning right don't have to wait behind those turning left. And that mitigation measure alone was enough to achieve less than significant impacts on under traffic under the old rules that uh changed in 2020. Um under the newer VMT rules, the project also has a less than significant impact though it is being required to do a transportation demand management program. Um and so that will be part of its you know post approval uh work. But um the the same mitigation measure to put in the striping was also applied to the duckhorn project. And in fact those those improvements are under design by our firm. So the the two two-lane approach is is probably going to happen before this project even gets um fully designed or at least by before it's constructed. So that that mitigation measure will take place. And as part of the vine trail, they've already done the enhancements that are part of the mitigation measure that was um that Trevor discussed earlier about the crossing enhancements. That crosswalk has already been installed as part of the vine trail. So, I'd be happy to answer any questions, but I wanted to keep that as brief as I could.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Gayen. Well, uh let's see. Um thank you for keeping it brief. Uh, are there any other interested members of the public who wish to testify regarding the proposed project? Or in other words, is there anyone here wishing to speak for public comment? Welcome. U if you could just start with your name and uh we'll give you three minutes. Okay.

Good afternoon, madam supervisors. David Ramos, 299 St. inaway north. As explained by staff, uh the project site consists of several parcels and has seen numerous commercial uses over the years, but uh their use has been sporadic and only a few have operated at the same time. Even if every prior commercial use was operating at the same time, spread across the project site, their cumulative impact would be dwarfed by the scope and impact of the current project. There's nothing like it in St. Alina. There's nothing like it along the entire stretch of Highway 29 from St. Lina to Kalisoga. The scale of this project is completely out of character with the immediate environment and it should be rejected. I live directly across the Highway 29 from the project. Lived there for over 25 years. I'm concerned about the noise from the project. It's a quiet area, but sound carries through the valley. When Krug Winery uh which is over a mile away has an outdoor music event, we hear it. Barriers to redirect the sound as proposed by mitigation measures NOI 3 and four of the ER are inadequate to address the noise. Outdoor amplified sound should be banned outright for this project. I'm also concerned about the traffic impact. Again, mitigation measures proposed in mitigation measure TRA2 of the IR is inadequate. Posting speed limit and turn signs and an enhanced crosswalk will not address the access and safety issues created by this project. My primary concern, however, is the impact this project will have on the groundwater. My only source of water is a well, a well which was not um recognized or considered in the ER

despite being across the street from the project. I raised some of my concerns in my May 26, 2025 email response to the draft EIR. My EIR my email questioned the determination of available groundwater and groundwater usage for the project and questioned the inadequate analysis in the draft ENIR. The IR relied on um not on measured available groundwater, but rather on estimates and unsupported projections and in some places was internally inconsistent. My concerns were elaborated and expanded upon by the April 26, 2026 memorandum submitted by Water Audit of California. I'm not familiar with this group and hadn't heard of about them until I saw their their submission, but I gather from the earlier hearing that you have some familiarity with them. Um, but I would uh urge you I've read their report. Um, it's sub for the most part it's substantive and accurate. Um, and I would you urge you to consider it um without prejudice. I won't repeat their statements and recommendations, but subordinate adopted in its entirety. Tier 2 and tier three groundwater analysis were not performed.

Three minutes, so I'm just wrapping it up. Groundwater analysis were not performed based on supposition and gueststimates. Accordingly, the ER should not be certified and the studies required by law should be completed. Thank you. Apologize for going over.

It's okay. Uh, anyone else in the room wishing to speak? Not seeing anyone. Is there anyone on the phones? No. Okay. Um. All right. So, I will close the public hearing and I will bring this back to the board for discussion and deliberations. Do we have any questions or comments? Okay. I'm I'm seeing that uh perhaps people don't want to be the one to start, but oh um I see Supervisor Catrell. Go ahead. Thank you, chair, and thank you to the applicant and the members of the public who have weighed in on this project. And it has been uh uh gone through many meetings, many different phases of review. And so I appreciate everyone's patience and uh deliberation and careful consideration. So, one of the things that I want to communicate um and ask some questions about, you know, understanding um this is in my district and I've uh had conversations with neighbors there with some concerns and so I want to share those and ask for we've heard a lot about the responsiveness thus far uh of the applicant, but I think it's worth taking this opportunity to really understand some of the operational considerations. Um it's I also want to just point out a couple of notes that I have taken going over the documents and the EIR. Um Calrans notes that the project would this is from CALR would not generate net new trips and it so it results in a less than significant

increase in vehicle miles traveled. And also I think the other the thing that I hear from neighbors is the concern about there was a large project approved at the east end uh of Loi Lane in Duckhorn and now this project is coming forward and so what what does that what happens to that street and so uh and I think the other thing in speaking with neighbors is just the concern about safety. So, I'd love to I I don't know if we can bring up a slide of the overall project. Uh, one of the things I would love to know and uh and this is not necessarily something in the document so much as if someone could kind of walk us through how someone enters the property, how a guest would enter, how they would park, how they would leave. I just think that would be helpful um for folks to see. Um, again, I think something that I had an initial concern about was the number of rooms. And one of the things that I've learned in the document is that the applicant could have come in with a request for up to a hundred rooms. And so for me, seeing that that request came in under that, that is worth noting. Um, uh, and so I think those are a couple of the questions I have at this point. And so if someone can kind of if we can look at a map and do a little walkthrough of traffic flow, I think that would be helpful.

Absolutely. I'd be happy to I can pull up the PowerPoint with a few of those slides. And I was anticipating a couple questions, so I threw in extra slides at the end. We knew you'd plan ahead, Matt. Let's see here. So, beginning with the site plan um with Loi Lane just in the center um might be easier. We have a big site plan over there. If you guys like I can point also we also have it on the screen in front of us. So, yeah.

Hotel as side on this side. This is a road Right. So that was my understanding is there's also a right turn available on the northern entrance up toward the northern part of the property as well. Uh and so one question that I heard from the neighbors is just to set the stage for what kind of activity they have seen is there are occasions when there are large trucks moving uh east and west at the same time if we're if we if we can all agree that for these purposes we'll call load east and west. Um and but and also when a large truck is coming uh west and either turning north or south um it the the entrance to the um hotel is it possible what I've heard from neighbors is a concern about that a truck could potentially block that that entrance. So I don't know you know if that actually that matches up with the site here. We need a little toy truck to show that graphic, but I'm curious if the applicants have thought about that and what what some potentials would be. And then I will say thank you for walking us through the parking loop on the south

side. That's helpful to understand. I guess another question and and chair, forgive me, I'm asking some questions that maybe we could ask the applicant to respond to. Yeah. Um, but will a guest be directed to one part of the property or the other? What I would what I hope doesn't happen is that we've got people arriving and then driving multiple times back and forth. So, just some that's again kind of a operational detail question, but I think it would be helpful for the neighborhood to, you know, learn a little bit more of these details.

Absolutely. And before directing it back to the applicant to to answer some of those, um, just to reference a few of the benefits of a design such as this is regarding pedestrian access going back and forth between each side of the site with the driveway on the northern portion. So within this image on the left hand side, the driveway is closer to Highway 29 and so it directs pedestrians to cross at the signed intersection that would be the Vine Trail as well. And I do have a later slide that I can show the improvements on Loite Lane, making that a little safer turn going onto Highway 29. But with a design such as this, having the driveway being pushed closer to 29, it really pushes pedestrians to use a a safe crossing across the the driveway access. I believe I'll move to one of the later slides. Here's the um load and 29 improvements. You can see on the left hand side is the existing and with the right hand side it proposes with the building in with the Napa Valley Vine Trail as well as leveling off that right-hand turn lane. So, if you're coming down Loi Lane to Highway 29, it'll change the geometry and make those better uh intersections for safe crossing of those pedestrians.

Great. Thank you. This is a great slide to have up. And I think one of the comments that we have received is um for folks traveling west on Loi Lane, I think one of the neighbors said is our car is going to have to kind of nose out across the Vine Trail. And so hearing a little bit more from the applicant about the sight lines um looking north from that um from that intersection would be helpful. I will try to remember as many of your questions as possible but you may have to prompt me again. Um Denene Whitlock again from Wr. So on the striping plan, one thing I want to note, this was a preliminary. This is not what it actually is going to look like. That's not the design that's being that's moving forward. Um and that crosswalk is already existing. So um it it doesn't look like the one on the left. It looks like the one on the right in terms of the crosswalk. Um the distance part of what the benefit of putting the separate left turn and right turn lanes is that if if it gives you double the amount of stacking space. So it gives you, you know, twice as much room, twice as many vehicles before they would back up as far as um the inbound driveway. Um the other thing is that that allows the right turning traffic to move out more quickly. One of the things we did with Duckhorn, and that was the other project you talked about, and as a matter of fact, the the traffic analysis includes the Duckhorn project. It also includes analysis of future volumes, which um everyone who's ever looked at the model volumes for Napa County shakes their head. They're so high. Um they're they're talking about 8,000 vehicles a day or something compared to 3500. You know, it's just it's just an an insane increase on both Silverado Trail and Highway 29. Um, and it does it, you know, it's probably 20 years ago it may

be what we thought was going to happen, but everybody knows things have changed and and development is not as intense and it's not happening as fast as we thought it would. So, um, the volumes that we used were were probably greatly overstate what is actually going to happen out there. But even under those conditions, we, you know, we didn't project any any queuing issues or any conflict issues at this intersection. Um, as far as sight lines go, the the road at that point is is straight, fairly straight. I mean, there is a a grade to it, slight a slight upward grade as you go north, and so there is a crest um north of the driveway, but the the um but the sight lines are adequate for, you know, a public public road intersection. Um, the other thing I would note in terms of of just stacking and how this works is for both this project and for Duckhorn, um, one of our recommendations was to post signage that directs drivers who want to go south to go over to Silverado Trail. So, or and if they want to go north to go to Highway 29. So, we're we're trying to el limit the number of left turns to the extent possible because of the fact that those are the ones that cause the delays. Right turns are much easier. Everybody knows that. Um, so, you know, trying to get people to go where they um where they would not have to to stop and wait. And that includes the trucks coming coming out of the the Duckhorn site as well.

Did I miss any, Miss? I think that was a lot of them. Yeah, since I have you up there with the permission of the chair. Um, there was also a mention of the um Vine Transit site being relocated further north. And so suddenly we're talking off the parcel. But I'm just wondering where that is that you know there are cars moving quickly through that entire corridor from you know Loi up to Brasswood. Um and so can someone on the team tell me about where that where that transit site's going? Thank you, Miss Woodlock.

Sure. That movement's already occurred. uh NVTA moved it to in front of Triner Napa Valley if you're familiar with that. So it's just a little bit to the north. It it actually is great for us because it's not on our property anymore, but um employees residents at Vistava uh are you know they can all use it. Um so but that that has actually already happened. It's not didn't happen because we moved it or as part of this project. That's just what MVTA did. Thank you. Thank you. And now that you're answering the question, I can visualize where it is. And it's kind of up at the top of the rise, which I think is helpful from a safety perspective, too, so people can see it coming north and south. Absolutely. Thank you. My pleasure.

Okay. Thank you. Um I don't I don't see anyone else right now. Um Vice Chair Allesio, go ahead if you're ready.

Thank you. Um I I well first of all I just want to say I appreciate the development agreement and really some really I mean we talked about precedent setting earlier. This is really positive precedent setting um by this applicant. So I thank staff and I thank the applicant for doing this work and really um you know rising to the occasion here. Um, growing up here as supervisor control and some of us, I remember how busy uh, that whole Fremark Abbey was. I had a lot of great childhood memories there. The candle factory. I think we actually had a field trip there. U, went to dinner there. Um, it was a buzz activity and was actually a destination that people would travel to go to experience and had multifactors uh, in terms of the what you could do there. Um, you know, looking at the the property over time, it's it's been kind of sad to see how it's just kind of faded in terms of purpose and potential. And I feel like the applicants done a really good job to really preserve the historical factor and amplify all what can be there to benefit both the locals, uh, the neighbors and, um, and those who visit our our beautiful county. Um the and I won't go through all the development things because we already talked about all those great things. The gray water the housing the housing on property that you know deed restricted housing these are all like dream things when you talk about somebody who's in our position um for those that we want to help. Um the only question I have um and the only concern because I was out there yesterday. I was out there for probably an hour. I saw one cyclist come down the vine trail, but that was just during the day. Um, is that shared space of the vine trail with the use of the N. And I am thinking because again I I use the vine trail on occasion. Um, and it

can get congested on the fine trail just in general when you're talking about people who are cycling, walking, walking their dogs, kids in little tricycles or whatever their little their little, you know, three wheels or whatever they're they're working on. It can get a little dicey on a bike because you've got people at different speeds and different capabilities that are sharing the vine trail. And I would feel uh more comfortable both for the applicant and for the public who uses a vine trail if there was a parallel uh space that was designated just for the the inn um and to leave that vine trail strictly vine trail and I really think that's going to prevent some potential confusion accidents etc. So um that would be the only thing I would change just on a practical sense. Um, and so just give that I wouldn't make that a condition, but I do think that would be beneficial for all. And that's all I have to say. Otherwise, I support the project.

Thank you, Vice Chair Allesio. I see Supervisor Catrell. I'll keep going if my colleagues don't have things. Um, I thank you for the point about the vine trail. I I I don't think that's a bad thing to look at. I would, but I I'm with you. I don't think that needs to be a condition of approval. The other thing I would be interested in the team looking at is this um distance from Loi Lane to the driveway to the north and you know if it um again that's something that I I have heard from the neighbors. I'm guessing you've heard from the neighbors or would be interested in um what your thoughts are about that. Again, I don't I'm not I don't know that we need to make that a condition of approval, but I think from a safety perspective, that's worth entertaining. Um, I also just want to Supervisor Gallagher and I uh when we served on the planning commission um had a hotel project come before us and the county's ability to request affordable housing impact fees, uh resulted in I think that project was a 50 or 60 unit project and the uh regulations um resulted in a $300,000 contribution which is less than one unit and we were able to increase that by um I think up almost up to a million dollars and that still wouldn't cover more than two units. And so what we're looking at here is a significant increase in what the county has been able to do um in terms of affordable housing linked to development before. So I'm I just want to um thank the applicants for looking at that option. Um I also note in the um the sustainability measures I appreciate the participation in the GSA pilot and I

want to thank um Mr. Ramos for his comments. Um I I I think I um have a different perspective on the groundwater work. We we are we've seen a lot of these tier one analyses and the the proposal that this project reduces groundwater use by 20%. Is that's significant to me. And if we're off by a 10% calculation there and it's only 18% that is I I I mean we we are holding the applicant to the 20% but that is the right direction to be going in. So I'm I'm supportive of that as well. Um, I appreciate the responsiveness to the input from the fire marshall and the um, Napa County Fire Department and in general I am supportive of this project.

Okay. Thank you, Supervisor Carol Vice Chair Allesio.

Thank you. I got so focused on the vine trail. Um, a couple that just and this might be or again just some u food for thought. Um though I didn't see a lot of trucks and I didn't see a lot of people going in and out off of Loi. I was just there for an hour so I'm not a traffic study so I want to share you know um I understand that. Um but I do see the traffic moving quickly and this is a problem all over Napa County, the city, the county. People are driving really fast. Um, and so just something u um just for thought is maybe um having a eastbound and northbound uh solar uh powered um speed display radar sign. Uh just to remind people that the speed that in which they're going um again just want to put that out there. Um it would be on Highway 29. So I don't know if that would be the applicants or it would be something that we would do as county or it would be CALR since it's Highway 29. But um just in general, I'm in favor of that. And then in terms of the crosswalk, the crosswalk is actually quite wide. Um so I do think that's an easier shared space and it's well marked. Um but maybe a uh a flashing pedestrian signal there. So real minor things, but again, it's just about reinforcing awareness and safety.

Thank you, Supervisor Alamos. Um thank you so much. I did have one question for staff in regards to I think we're dealing with it's a total of five parcels correct south parcel and four on the north side or two six four on the north and two on the south

two on the south okay um and certainly there's a a roadway in between and all that. So um can you speak a little bit about um consolidation of the parcels? Um in the past we have required that. Um and in the um Tyson um the Tyson approval for the tasting room for uh Raymond Winery, we required um consolidation of a parcel. Um we required consolidation on the Carneros in I believe um as well on the commercial uses of it. So, can you speak a little bit about um about why we're not doing that here

regarding potential consolidation? One thing four and two

four and two um some measures that come to mind are existing legal nonconformities. So, such as on the southern parcel um there are many residences residences on site. So those are agriculture watershed or agriculture zoned and the addition or merging those parcels. They're already existing nonconformities on site with I believe five or six residences. So merging those parcels would exacerbate that nonconformity. Adding an additional residence to a single parcel where right now they're nonconforming, but merging parcels may create a larger legal nonconformity. Um specifically on the northern parcel there's a lot of um existing non-conforming uses such as um it's agriculture land with measure P is being a measure of it. So we cannot expand nonconformities of commercial uses on the agriculture land. Um so want to be careful on on merging parcels and just increasing the legal nonconformities.

Okay. If I can. Um, Supervisor Ramos, you mentioned um a winery example. I I believe the winery definition ordinance requires all winery uses to be on the on a single parcel. So, I don't know the example you use there. That might have been the reason there. And I'm not I'm familiar with the Caroneros example you gave, but I think you mentioned it had maybe had something to do with the wastewater system. Um, and and so that's the possible reason there. I I I think what Matt brought up with the um existing um uh legal non-conforming uses is, you know, a good reason there and that there's not necessarily something in the code um that we saw in review that led that would lead staff to um include a condition to consolidate on this project.

So in terms is it possible to go to the back to the map of there we go. There was a bigger map ahead there. That one that one there. Thank you. Um so um when we we look at it and um and trying to understand, you know, this is one project. We're dealing with it as one project of both the north side and the south side. Um, what protections from the resolution standpoint do we have that say the southside isn't going to be sold off as a separate parcel with a separate use? Because that that's really where the consolidation question comes from. think the Apple Kent's gonna get up and maybe comment.

Come on down, Rob. Uh, so um on that question, so I think um I'm going to go to the map a little bit and yell because we might have a microphone. Oh, sorry. Never mind. Yeah. So there there's six parcels, right? And then um there are two here that are commercial that are separate parcels. Yes.

Um if it's the board's pleasure to have those two parcels merged into one single commercial parcel, we don't have a problem with that. Um I don't think it really changes that much. Um your question is a little different. Uh your question is okay, what happens if the south parcel is sold separate than the north parcel? Currently the development agreement doesn't envision that at all. Right. And there's one use permit and there's one development agreement. uh that will be recorded against all these parcels. Um I think if I was coming to that situation as a buyer and I'm trying to buy a 29 unit hotel that operates separately from the 50 unit hotel, I can't actually legally comply. Like you you couldn't you can't you can't operate the the affordable housing in the way that you need to. you can't operate the water system in the way that you need to. Um, so I think that functionally you can't do that. Um, are you ask so then your

So now the legal question your next question is going to be um because I've been up here enough to to at least guess uh is okay. Do you want to write that in?

And I think we can write that in. You're not going to sell the you're not going to sell the the parcel separate from you're not going to sell a 29. I think I want to be precise about how you say sell it, right? Because we have multiple parcels here and if you had an investment and a finance in it, then you would be just in the hotel portion. There are there are bits on the AW that have nothing to do with the hotel. Right? We are talking about one parcel and a lot of the restrictions as to groundwater apply to the whole parcel, but we haven't talked a lot about the winery because the entitlement's there and it's it's not it's not changing. Same with the vineyard, right? The vineyard's there. It's not changing. So, I I think we we would be open to some kind of language that said you you thou shalt not sell the south parcel separate from the north parcel such that they could be operated independently. I mean, that's that's not the intent. And if you want to put that intent in writing, then that's not a problem.

Um, I'm I'll take that and then I'll raise your bet. Um, and I would like to add on top of that that that is not envisioned. It is one that um there cannot be a bifurcation of uses in the use permit that is that would extend from this. So that you know it so that in fact if if it gets sold off on the I can't prohibit you from selling it. Right? That that's not what I'm saying. What I'm what I'm saying is it would if

one of the if a portion of these aggregate parcels that are creating the project are sold off. That would not be a use permit modification. That would be a brand new use permit. Yeah. Can I say it back to you maybe in a little bit slightly different way to see if if I'm understanding it? My apologies. That's okay. Um that there would be a condition that uh that splitting the 50 from the 29 would require a new use permit be uh be issued for one of the two. Yes. Okay. Yeah. I mean,

yes. Does that make sense to staff? Maybe I should ask. I I I'm just over here just I mean, you know, having a conversation and apparently we're having bets here. Um, the end the end result would be it's a 79 unit resort and in order to operate it se independent as a 50 and a 29 to to legally operate it separately, then we would need to have county approval for that change.

Absolutely. Yeah. a a new process because the way I see it is you're going with the totality of the acreage here is being considered as one parcel. Circumstances completely change if the south parcel gets sold or if the north parcel gets sold and they are being operated independently. Um this data that supports these findings um no longer hold at that point. Understand? Okay. Yeah. and and and we're clear that it's the commercial portions that we're talking about, right? It's the because that's where the resort is because the resort portions. We're not not to the winery portions that are already there.

Yeah. Then then we both won our bets then, I guess. Or I don't know. We're on the same page, I guess. Is that a It's a push, right? That's what they the cards been, right? Yes. There's card people somewhere in here. It's push.

I am not I'm not one of them. While I'm up here, can I can I can I take this opportunity? especially because the map is here to point one other thing else out. Sure. Um, Supervisor Allesio talked about the the use of the vine trail and so I want to point out a couple things. The first thing I want to point out is that we do have um we have pathways on property that are not the vine trail. Right. So, so around here and up and around and around here and up around there are pathways that are on the property that are not the vine trail. I also want to make clear that the use of the Vine Trail by guests and employees will be bikes, pedestrian or an ebike, but it will have to qualify under vehicle code section 312.5. Um, and that's not just a condition of approval or our proposal. That's your county code. So, your county code limits how the Vine Trail can be used. And I understand that that people are like, "Oh, guests will be going back and forth." this segment of the Vine Trail will be used by thousands of people and and you actually have a lot of crossings of the Vine Trail. I mean, so this one I think will be a pretty good crossing because of the improvements that are proposed here. Um and and I think um so so I think those things can can give the community comfort that that um you know, golf carts are not going to be used for hotel purposes back and forth. That's what I was because I I read that in the neighbor in one of the neighbors concerns and I thought I think I'm concerned with that too, but thanks for clarifying that. I feel much better.

Okay. I appreciate that. Great. Okay. Oh, you might want to stay there. Um, thank you, Mr. England. Certainly.

Um, I have a question which is, uh, is there any phasing to this with the timing of construction in terms of, you know, we renovate this and then we build that and then we build this third thing over time or is it going to kind of all spring up at once? Wow. Construction phasing. I I don't We have not contemplated and I'll turn around in a second and get confirmation. We have not contemplated phasing the resort development project. I I could imagine um well maybe some early stage stuff in the stone building, but for the most part this would be constructed all at one time. Um and so we you know it would be you know now construction would take the time it takes. there's some demolition and whatnot, but but there's not a plan to have um for example, you know, the north side built first and then we'll come back later in three years and do the southside. That's that's not contemplated and probably wouldn't make sense from a financing standpoint either. Um because you you'd rather just if if you're going to get the you know, if the investors and the people who are wanting to do this, they're going to want to do the whole thing so that all of the resort can start paying off for their investment, right? Okay, thanks. Um, I I'm not sure I'll ask have any specific questions for you, but I do have a list of things here, but I also have Okay. Um, so I don't know how many people here have ever tried to walk from Pete's Coffee across to Outdoor Supply Hardware. Anyone? Anyone? Take your life in your hands. Um, so yeah, so one of the things that um that caught caught my attention reading through all the public comments on this was the concern about how much back and forth traffic there will be across Loi Lane and what that might mean for uh for the safety of pedestrians, for the safety of vine trail people, and for the safety of people in cars. Um, and it does kind of occur to me looking at this mockup that in a way what is a public

road is going to start functioning a lot like an entrance to a hotel. And I'm just thinking that, you know, if this um meets your objectives for commercial success, there's going to be a lot of activity at this corner. So, um, I don't know. I think that's more of an observation than a question. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah. But yeah, if there's a response, it's it's welcome. Well, it's just that this everything's designed as a loop. So, give you this that way people out in the outside can hear you. Very.

Oh, okay. The project's designed as a loop. I'm Leanne Edwards Jackson family. Uh to have interior loops and an exterior loop. Right turns, as Denene said, are much easier than left turns. We'll have to have some left turns, but for the most part, we'd want we designed it such to try to accommodate that. Um, and hotels are very accustomed to working in areas where there's conflicts between ped pedestrians and cars and bicycles, etc., because a lot of hotel operators are urban operators, not just rural operators. But that said, so there's also a right turn here. And we put that little pork chop in with the vine trail to make sure this is right turn in, right turn out. Because it used to be before we built the vine trail that you could left turn into this. And it was a little dicey. So we all said, "Okay, let's make that design change now. It's safer. We feel more comfortable. Right turn in, right turn out." So as a loop you can enter and enter the hotel here or you can come up and enter the hotel here come back valet the courtyard is here valet only valet goes through the garage the garage also comes out to a large area that circulates either operationally back and back out and out or back up and we have a maintenance loop that currently exists that's back here that comes back also serves the winery serves the backside of the hotel. So, we're trying to separate those two uses so that you have a maintenance loop um and a vineyard operation loop and then a hotel loop. And then that's was kind of the same thinking on this side that this is in and out in the same way to try to create that same loop and right encourage right turn movement movements versus more left turn movements. Suffice it to say, there

will be left turn movements, but hopefully less by the way it was designed. Okay. I really appreciate that discussion about the traffic flow. Yeah. And uh uh how before you go, um could we talk about how that works for pedestrians that might be staying on the south side and want to cross over? Like what are their options for

Yeah. So, we've actually talked a lot with hotel operators about this and um we've talked to Supervisor Catrell about uh there's safety committees and we're going to require that of any operator to have their safety committee and maybe a hotline to talk about, you know, complaints regarding safety to make sure that our neighbors are safe. But at the same time, um pedestrians, there's going to be shuttles that are roadworthy that will be carrying people back and forth. We don't know what kind of shuttles yet, but there will be shuttles and ebikes. Those, as Rob said, will ease and pedestrians can use the vine trail. Um, any others, there are some parking spaces over here for the 29 rooms, but pedestrians will use the vine trail as we see it or be shuttled over or take a car over. So, would you add anything else to that, Jeff? Rob. Oh, the pedestrian paths which we have internally at one point we did actually have a pedestrian path that we showed coming up to this portion of the property and crossing. Um, but in talking I think some years ago with staff, we all thought that that was less safe than consolidating pedestrian crossings down at the fine trail.

Okay. Thank you. We're we're open if if that ever makes sense in the future. Okay. With public works.

Okay. Thank you. Very helpful. So, um I've heard from other hotel operators in the region. No, I mean from one from one uh property specifically, but it wasn't it wasn't a comment on this project, but it was a general comment that they're concerned about saturation of their market. So, I just I just want to make sure that's kind of in people's minds while moving through this. It's not our job to make business decisions. Um, but you know, it's uh there's a lot of rooms going in lately and um that's a lot uh a lot of a lot of um potential competition. Uh so um okay, I think we're done with that post-it. I have quite a few here. Um uh I think I'm gonna Well, I you know what? I think I'm going to go to Supervisor Catrell and collect my thoughts on water and then come back. Go ahead. You okay if I go? Yeah. Okay. Um, a couple more questions and I feel like I'm kind of looping around here uh to come back to them. I appreciate and one of my questions was about the safety committee. So, I appreciate hearing that. Um, also just uh making the point that you know neighbors have established contact with the applicant team which is terrific and also um Miss Edwards you mentioned you know an operator on the site. So just making sure that whatever the ultimate operator is here that that that team is well connected with neighbors too. And um so I'll run through my my items here, but um so I would love to hear from you a little bit about the logistics of that safety committee, what that will look like. Another question I've had from neighbors is about the process of relocating the families who are currently living on site. Um what their time frame will be.

Um I think that would be helpful to hear. That's number two. And then back to the question about the parking spaces. I think it's more a clarification question that I understand there's 203 parking spaces. I think I've heard concerns from neighbors about if there's a particularly high occupancy event night, something like that. Um, as you said, Mr. Angland, there are um restrictions on where parking can occur on the site. And I also understand that your team has allowed um NVCH across the street to use some of your parking. So there is some mutual aid parking that exists, you know, across properties, but if you could tell us, I think neighbors want to know that that there's some other plan for that. Um and then um I think my final question at this point is the traveling southbound on 29 there is a turn pocket there and one of the questions was is that long enough. So if you could speak to that that's like four or five questions. Sorry about that.

All right. So I may need prompting too because um there's a lot of questions there. So on the parking um the the calculation that's in the draft environmental impact report in the technical dependencies is the peak demand for parking at 196 spaces. So at 203 um we would exceed that. Um so it's not just the condition of approval. There was an analysis that was performed to do that the parking. Um oh man I so the turnpocket um Denene advised me and she can thumbs up it if I'm saying this correctly. She she just says that the turn pocket turning left onto Loi is long enough that there is enough room to stack for the uh volumes of traffic that would be expected there. Is that right Den? Okay. And then there was um parking additionally the parking the use of the parking currently by uh Nafi Community Housing that was to allow them they've been remodeling those those units. So that was a neighborly accommodation um which they very much appreciated. So, we work with our neighbors. They needed some space to stage. We gave them that space. I I I don't they're not there's not a shared parking arrangement other than their than their staging for construction. So, there's not park a parking arrangement for those folks to be parking on our property or vice versa. That was just for the construction while they were remodeling their units.

Um, got it. Thank you. And I think the last ones were if you could talk us talk with us a little bit about the existing tenants on Loi Lane and then anything on the safety committee and that's it.

Yeah, I think the safety committee Well, I guess first I'll start off we have had an emergency or we have had a point person of contact. I think it's Ari Jackson's cell number um you know so she gives that out. So that that has been our point of contact. Um certainly we're happy as a condition of approval. You know I think it's just good practice to have a point person who's designated to work with your neighbors and if you want to make that a condition of approval. I don't think we have any objection to that. um you know for the phase when there's an operator there you know we can give them somebody else's contact besides Ari Jackson's cell number um

yeah so um so regarding the tenants we do have there's six units there um four of them are occupied uh you know I think when you talk about relocation we're kind of assuming that they won't want to work at the project which maybe they do um you know the currently there's no restriction on the rents there uh you know and I've I said this at the planning commission hearing because this topic came up there as well. Um Jackson family works with people uh and they do that very well. Um we may have investment partners in this project but they're they're going to continue on with it and and be deeply involved in it. Uh so you know you're talking about a company that's voted best place to work for by the North Bay Business Journal like nine years running. um they have employees that they have as tenants um in some properties in Sonoma and Napa County. So, you know, it's I I don't know how much of a land use issue it is, honestly. Um but it but it is a human issue. Uh it's absolutely a human issue. Um and so, you know, we will work with those folks to give them lots of advanced notice. Um currently in in talking with our friends at Nephi Community Housing, there's four units that are available at the Vista Valley. And so if they qualified for that, they could actually move over there now if if they qualify um at the income levels that uh that you know rate as affordable. Um assuming they they don't want to live over there and assuming that they don't want to work for the project. Um because some of them I think worked for Two Birds One Stone or Roadhouse 29. So uh but assuming that they don't want any part of any of that uh we would give them lots of advanced notice before moving forward on the project with a 20-year DA. you know, this isn't something that happens tomorrow or next week or even a month from now. Um, I was thinking about this and thinking about like how we could handle it and I thought, you know, so when you submit a building permit on a project like this, it takes like six months to plan check that thing, you

know, right? Because there's just so much going on. Um, and one thing that we might do because we'll be in contact with them, but I'm trying to think about something that the board can put on writing, right? And so what I might suggest is a condition of approval that says at building permit submitt, we would notify any existing tenants and let them know that that submitt has happened and that that means that the project is moving into this next step before construction, right? And so that gives them at least six months to work with us and and we would help them to try to find other places to live. Um, and it may be that they would want to live in those units and and work at the project or live at Vistava or live somewhere else entirely. Um, but but they get a lot of advanced notice uh and time to to make plans.

Thank you for all of that. And then the just to follow up on my earlier observation that I heard from the neighbors and I think your team has heard from them too about the possibility of a slight relocation of the entrance to the north parcel. Yeah. Um can I have the microphone because I I know you want I really appreciate getting

I don't want to make your job harder. Um so this is the entrance we're talking about right Supervisor Catrell. So, uh, and this, so you you can move it here, I think, is what we've heard from neighbors as an as an option. This was something that we looked at early on and and did not put in, um, for a couple reasons. Um, you know, you would lose some vineyard, right? So, so that's a negative to us. Um, we've from the beginning said we we didn't want to lose vineyard in this project. Uh, and then, um, secondly, um, this, you know, all of this is AW, right? And this is our existing access that's been here since before it was zoned AW, you know, back when it was all PD, which was that zoning designation I was talking about earlier. So, if we're moving this over, uh, we're putting new parking in AW lands. Now, and and we're not 100% sure that this is all feasible with road and street standards, but but I think the idea that the neighbors had was, well, you could move it over here and it would line up with this other uh on the south parcel of this entrance. We're open to looking at that. I think we'd have to know that it works um you know from a road and street standard standpoint. Um you know public works I think would have to be really comfortable with it and would need to appine on it. Um so we could put in a conceptual plan that does that. In doing so, the reason I reference the AW is we have something here that's that's AW uh that's the grandfather isn't the right word, but we have this existing uh kind of commercial serving access here. And we and so if we did move it, we'd want to be able to backfill this with agriculture uh because we wouldn't want to lose, you know, agricultural lands on a net basis. And then we also wouldn't want to create more problems than we solve in terms of, you know, measure J or measure P. Like I I I don't I don't want to put us into a measure J or measure P situation. So that that would

be that we're open to it. Um you know, it was something that I think came up in the meeting that Jackson family folks had yesterday with with those neighbors. We can look at a plan to do it, but those are kind of the issues that make it a maybe and not a definite.

Absolutely. And so I if we could come up with a condition of approval that um asks the applicant to look at it, but also understanding that we may hear feedback, you may hear feedback from public works, from other departments that it's not feasible. It it um you lose too much eggland, you know, things like that. I'm not looking for it has to move there. Um I what I appreciate is your engagement with the neighbors over something that um feels responsive to them on this issue and and to me there's a safety benefit in removing the risk of stacking from that traffic um uh going west on Loi. So, if there's language that you could suggest to the board on that um on a COA, a a condition of approval speaking to that, I'd be I'd be interested in that with for my colleagues.

Okay. And of course, I would want to work with your staff on it on that condition language. I have I have something that I think knowing that this might come up. I had something. It's not quite back of the napkin, but you know, I certainly would want to work with your staff on it, but it would be a conceptual plan that could go in that could be considered. Um, and uh, and the nice thing about our development agreement, it it does allow for these kinds of changes, you know, at a staff level. So staff could actually consider it and and you know, through the through the process that's baked into the development agreement as a conforming modification. Yeah. And just to be clear, I'm not asking for something that needs to come back to the board. Yeah. I I I I took your meaning, but thank you for saying so. I think I heard Rob say thank God, but I'm not sure.

Almost. Almost. I didn't want a seventh public hearing. I'm I'm hoping for not, but I guess we're not there yet. I'm hoping for not. Right. Very good. Um, Supervisor Gallagher.

Um, thank you. Um, honestly, most of my questions have been asked and also have been answered. Um, but I did want to second the um COA around the um southern parcel the 29 unit. Um uh the I'm really I'm it's late. What time is it? 3:00. Uh Supervisor Ramos, the discussion you had, Mr. England, with her. Um, I like that uh that agreement and want to see uh that put into um into this so that we don't have any worries about you know someone coming up later with a some kind of modification rather than a a new project. Um, so I think sometimes we lose sight of the, you know, this entitlement runs with the land and we don't know 20, 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now, uh, what that's going to look like and, um, what the owner may need to or want to do with their parcel. So, um, I very much want to see that as part of that. And also, I think a COA naming a safety contact is a good idea. Okay. Thank you, Supervisor Gallagher. Um I uh I do have a couple questions on the water side of things. So I'm not sure whether this will be more for staff or more for applicants, but um my first question is how is the existing water use calculated? And the reason I'm asking is because 10 almost 11 acre feet of water use annually seems very high for an area that has four maybe 5 acres of vineyard and a winery without an you know without an absolutely enormous amount of production. It just it just seems like that to me that that seems like a high estimate for what annual water use has been over you know the past 5 or 10 years under the kinds of

conditions that are on the property today. And so I'm concerned about that because we're comparing uh that estimate to say that there will be a reduction in use and I'm wondering why that initial estimate is 11 acre feet. And with that I'd love to have the applicant explain a little bit more. Um before having the applicant describe that I would like to highlight that there are two water sources both groundwater as well as city water. Um, so with the proposed project, it's culmination of both of those uses.

For sure. Yeah. Maybe we could pull that apart a little bit. And I know that there is um I understand for our conversation yesterday that there's metered water coming out of the city of St. Helina for portable use. And then there's also wells that are used for other uses on the property. And then there's also a well offsite that is used to fill a water tank on the property, which is a rather large water tank, 300,000 uh gallons, which is coincidentally most of an acre foot. If anyone wants a visual, that's about like 50 feet around by 20 feet high. So, okay. Um, yeah. anyone from the team who wishes to talk about how you came how you arrived at an estimate of 11 acre feet a year give or take

I'll I'll I'll talk a little bit about it and then I'll probably lean on Paul Waro of RSA plus um so to just to clarify some of the sources and there are three wells on the on the project site uh the Alam well which is uh on the south parcel and has been part of a public water system there uh because you know it has a it has a hotel there. So that has had to be a public water system for many years. So that's one well. Then there's what we call the abbey well uh which is on the northern parcel and uh that abbey well historically has been blended with city water which is provided through a city water agreement blended together and used on the Freark Abbey site. And then there's what's called the vineyard well which is in the middle of the vineyard and that's been used as irrigation. Now there's the Wilson well which is off parcel and offsite. it is plumbed to the big fire protection tank um just because historically that's what it has been. It's it's not used on the project site um you know it's it's used elsewhere for irrigation uh but it's plumbed into there because it's just been in there. We we we came to the site with a 300,000galon fire protection tank which is great because it's actually more water than we'll need for fire protection even for this project. So, um, so that that's kind of those are all just existing infrastructure, not proposed. Um, as far as the water uses, all of the water uses are calculated based on the water use estimates for the approved uses on the project site. So, restaurants use a lot of water. Um, hotels use some water. Um, a winery of 60,000 gallons uses some, you know, an ear and vineyard irrigation uses some water. Um, so that uh is the calculation that was made. If you want to drill into the specifics of each of the uses and all of that, there's a water use memorandum in the WA um that that runs through the calculation of it. Um I can have Paul come up and talk a little

bit more about the specifics because I'll probably stop here before I start getting into engineer territory. Um so mc

hello there Paul Waro uh civil engineer with RSA plus and uh so given that we don't have meters on the existing wells to to measure that uh we ended up pulling the water information for the existing unit uses for from uh wastewater water. Uh so on the north parcel, the wastewater system that currently exists is a combined system that uh takes water from uh from CIA. It takes water from wine country in uh from some other places goes down to Markham vineyards and there's a uh waterboard regulated uh wastewater system that is on that parcel uh down at uh at Markham vineyards. And so uh we have a certain aotment within that wastewater system for the uses that were calculated out uh in uh 2022 by Summit Engineering. Uh and so that uh those wastewater numbers uh are in our water availability analysis. Uh that's what we drew from for uh the majority of the of the north parcel. uh on the south parcel. Uh again, we did not have uh water metering data for that. Uh but we do have a very good knowledge of what the uses are on that site. So, uh, south parcel domestic use was calculated based on the existing commercial, uh, the existing, uh, five unit motel that's on there and the, uh, and the residences that are on that, uh, that parcel as well. Uh, and each of

those residences has their own individual wastewater systems on the, uh, on the south parcel. Uh but uh we were able to use uh Napa County code uh numbers from environmental health uh to identify the amount of water that would be used by those by those units. Do you have any recollection of what was it an acre foot you know an acre foot a year per house or do you have a I mean that's a high level standard or was it calculated to be less or I mean I'm just I'm sorry I'm just trying to get to

we we calculated that by bedroom Napa County uh uses 120 gallons per day per bedroom uh with the assumption of those are are double occupancy bedrooms uh and uh and so we use that based on the the 12 bedrooms that are in those units that are existing uh to calculate the water from there. Okay. And then I think you heard I heard you say that the houses are on how did you say it individual wastewater systems or something? Did you mean septic? Correct. Individual septic systems. Okay. And then on the south parcel. Sure. And then um are those going to be rerouted to be included in the wastewater treatment system when they're renovated or like what's the plan there?

They're they're not currently actually. See if I can grab the microphone here. Make sure it's on.

There. We'll just make sure that that's on. Great. So, the existing residences that are up here on the we'll call it the eastern portion of the south parcel, they each have their own individual standard wastewater systems uh for each of those structures. Uh and then for the lower portion of the south parcel right here, uh there's uh a res a residence on York Lane, which is just off the the screen here. Uh that uses a combined on-site system with the existing commercial uses, which is down in this area here. So, we've done some looking at uh at the existing wastewater systems. uh we'll need to look uh a little bit more closely during design. But uh one uh one option that we had included in our uh in our plans is the potential to abandon those old wastewater systems and put in a a new combined pre-treated on-site system that's treated to a to a higher standard on that southern parcel. uh and uh and that in in case any of those other existing septic systems uh were uh no longer had much life left in them.

Okay. Um very good. Yeah, that's something that I would think with the age of the houses might become an issue over time. And it just seems like it'd be a uh expedient to to address that in, you know, while all this construction is going on instead of just waiting and then having I mean, again, not my decision to make, but um but I have I in doing this this job now and also living in a rural area, I ran into a lot of situations where um old septic is an issue and also septic and proximity to wells is an issue. So my next question was going to be like where are the closest wells whether they're with this project or just on nearby parcels and like are there any conflicts there or the distance is adequate?

So we did we did look at that in citing that uh that potential new wastewater system made sure that it's outside of a 100 foot setback from from any wells. Uh we also did a uh a septic site evaluation where we dug test pits, looked at the the soil to see to check for high groundwater levels, uh anything that could uh that could potentially impair a septic system in that area. And so that's that's something that we that we have studied as as part of this process and that we did include in the in the civil plans as uh as an optional improvement and uh I've I've lived in the house on on septic as well and you don't want to wait until you have a problem with septic.

Preferably not. Um okay, thank you for clarifying all that, Mr. Waro. And then um refresh my memory, the existing 300,000galon tank that is got its water source from an off-site well is used for what? Uh existing because I know it's not used for portable water. I know it's I don't think it's used for the project. Where is it going to be used?

Correct. So, that's uh this existing water tank right here. It it is actually is as big as as you would think. Uh and uh and that existing uh water tank is uh is plumbed to uh firewater lines that go through the parcel. And we're al planning as as part of this to actually loop those firewater lines to provide uh additional fire flow through there and also provide uh fire protection for the the southern parcel. Uh the existing water tank is uh also has connection to vineyards as well.

Okay. And then um what kind of timing does the well that that tank is filled with do you anticipate being uh it is late in the afternoon. Um what what kind of timing over the course of a year do you anticipate the the well uh having for filling that tank?

Uh I I don't anticipate that well filling the tank. The uh unless there there's a fire essentially. So if there's if there's a fire, if the fire water is depleted from that, then the water tank would be refilled using uh using the Wilson well. Uh we do have uh existing uh on-site wells uh which those are supplying the water that's used for the the public water system for the uh the irrigation uh that we're uh we're also planning on putting in a a processed wastewater treatment system for the uh as part of the winery and a graywater system to also help provide irrigation water as well.

Okay. So, we we don't expect uh the the Wilson well to be uh to be feeding that that water tank unless there's a catastrophic fire. Okay. I thought I heard you say it was going to be used for irrigation also, but no. That's clarify. Yeah. So, it's it's used for irrigation, not on this parcel. Oh, it's used for irrigation on a vineyard that's this way. Oh, okay. I see. and and that's on our utility plan that we submitted in 2019. The line comes in from the Wilson well and goes out to what's called the Ahern vineyard. Can you see why I might be confused about this?

Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, it's an EIR. It's like hundreds and hundreds of pages. Like there's plenty to talk about. Um and and so and I believe and Paul, isn't the vineyard well, isn't it also plumbed to the tank? Yeah. So, the vineyard well is also plumbed to this tank. So if there were a catastroph catastrophic fire, right, and the water was used and so in that scenario, um I mean I I guess the v the Wilson well theoretically could be used, but also the vineyard well could be used. Um we would also have the ability because assuming you have a fire, you're not going to have water using operations. So you might refill it with water that you would otherwise use for your operation. Well, this project won't, but the vineyard would adjacent would be using it. I mean, however they're using it,

right? I guess I'm just making I'm just saying that like if the if there was a fire and and you and you're like you you would have you would have those water sources available as well. And then, you know, sometimes when fire um occurs, fire tanks are filled with trucked water. 300,000 gallons is maybe too many trucks, but um but we have multiple sources and probably the you know these these wells sorry the Abbey well and the Alen Ball well um would have less activity because there would be a fire that you would be recovering from. So that's yeah so

just real quickly the capacity of that tank the project requires Yes. So the for that uh for that tank, we did look at the fireflow requirements uh for this for this project and the uh the 300,000galon tank is is well oversized uh for the the fire requirements. Okay. Thank you. Um, don't need that one anymore. Down there.

We're getting down there. Um, so I think, you know, the bottom line for me is I don't want to repeat the situation that we had with Satoule where we were finding out after a meeting that there had been some uh missing information. So, um, not because I wish to express any agreement. Uh, I but just because I want us to all be clear. We got um a rather large letter in from water audit on Sunday and on page 17 um I I just want to give you an opportunity to respond to the four specific points they make there on page 17 if you happen to have it that might help you stay on track too but um it is executive summary of objections item A is fails to present a transparent reproducible mass balance which was basically my first question is how did you arrive at the estimates that you had But perhaps you want to elaborate on it more uh because that question is more broad. Appears to rely item B appears to rely on circular accounting that obscures net potable demand. C does not quantify consumptive use versus return flows. And D does not provide uh substantial evidence sufficient to understand the project's true groundwater demand and potential impacts. So any reply you want to give there is welcome. Um, they also make a very specific request for a numeric flow diagram at the end of the following paragraph. All right. Well, the uh the numeric flow diagram is in our water availability analysis. Uh this is this is it right here. I'm sure you have it on your on your screen. And this quantifies the uh the water use in acre feet and in uh gallons per year uh from each of the wells uh from the source to each of the uses uh for the sinks. And it's

colorcoded based on the water type uh that's being used uh with the St. Helina water coming in in yellow uh and uh the uh well water uh and then treated processed waste water and also the uh uh the gray water that we'll be using uh that we'll be generating on the site. Uh as far as the mass balance for the water, uh that is uh not listed in the in the first three pages. The first three pages of the uh water availability analysis are summary tables to uh clearly show uh what those uh what the total water uses are. The mass balance calculations are further back uh in the water availability analysis uh and they are uh referred to in uh in the appendices uh referenced from those tables in the first three pages. So that is the uh the mass balance that is the uh water uh uh water diagram. Uh I might need some prompting. Thanks. It was uh reproducible mass balance um circular accounting that obscures net potable demand.

Uh that might be because of the reuse component,

right? So that's that's the reuse component. So uh we're we're proposing on-site graywater production uh separating from uh the the new structures that will be built. Uh we'll have dual plumbing uh on the sewer side for gray water and for black water. Uh and the gray water will be diverted to a a treatment system that will end up being reused uh treated to NSF 350 standards and reused on site for irrigation. uh that may be some of the circular accounting because that is a water demand that's being provided uh on the site. That's that's water that's being used twice essentially. And the same with the uh winery process waste water. Uh at this point the winery is currently plumbed to the combined septic system on the uh uh on the north parcel whereas we'll be diverting that high strength waste water treated it on site and then reusing that for vineyard irrigation. So again, that's that's water that is being used twice on site. Uh and that's additional groundwater that's not being pumped from the ground.

Okay, that's helpful. And then um I think that's also basically item C, which is consumptive versus uh consumptive use versus return flows. And then item D is uh evidence sufficient to understand the project's true groundwater defend uh true groundwater demand and potential impacts. Uh to that all I can say is that we had submitted our our engineered reports to staff and staff had reviewed them. Uh we had some some back and forth with uh with changing goals whether we were looking at a uh uh at for a a water neutral goal uh or the request then came in that we wanted a 20% reduction in use and uh so we went around with staff a few times on that and uh and we were satisfied with our calculations. staff was satisfied with our calculations. Uh I'd be happy to answer any other questions.

Okay, great. Thanks. Um and then uh this is probably more of a question for staff. Thank you so much for that, Mr. Waro.

Thank you. Um more of a question for staff, but uh uh just um if I could get a quick summary of like how this interfaces with our groundwater sustainability goals and uh any participation in that program or you know, this is a county area. It's in the groundwater basin that we're concerned about. So, um you know, I I guess I'm just thinking like there's a probably a lot of surrounding wells. And I will couch this in saying too that this was a site that had a relatively high level of use in the probably in the 70s certainly in the 1980s which I remember which supervisor Allesio also recalled. Um and then it went into an era along a lengthy era of disuse and probably very low water use relative to historic levels and now surrounding use has increased and now we're looking at increasing this too. So, um, the total net increase is in the area. I mean, just, you know, just ballparking it. Um, uh, we're not we're not approving this project in 1960 or 1970 when the surrounding uses were so low. We're we're considering it today. Um, and I'm just wondering how how contextually that looks in light of what our goals are under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. In terms of the goals of the GSP um as it relates to extraction, it's a 10% reduction um which this is meeting at 20%. But I think what you're referring to, unless I'm getting this wrong, is the difference between what's on paper and in reality. Um the only way we would know that is if we had actual water use, which we don't. They don't meter. So they relied on the county's assumed amounts. Um but that assumption I'm assuming includes the current entitlement at full boore. Um which I think your point is that's not actually what's occurring on the ground. So it

becomes more of a legal argument as what what constitutes the baseline water use. We've traditionally used what the entitled is. Although we don't entitle water, we entitle uses under the assumption that x amount of water is needed to support that use. So it's kind of tricky from a legal perspective. Um, I think that's the best way I can explain it. Tier two, um, and tier three is not in play here. Um, just the overall water use within the basin. Um, and the goal of reducing by 10% which this meets on paper.

Okay. Thank you. Um, so let's see. I don't I don't see any other questions right now. Um, I do appreciate the affordable housing component of this, the partnership with the Vine Trail and the fire partnership, which I know has been a a good a good robust conversation going on for quite some time now. So, um, the options before us are to approve the proposal uh in full to prop uh approve a reduced proposal um and to continue oh wait, deny the proposal and to continue the item. And I uh I noticed Supervisor Catrell making fantastic notes as she often does. And I I I do believe we had some um modifications to the language possibly, but I had my thinking cap on, not my note-taking cap. So um if I could get a motion uh with any amendments from any of my colleagues, it would be welcome. And I'd be happy to to throw when I was taking notes during the

Oh, great.

during the time, there were three topics where I heard potential conditions of approval to be added. The first regarding splitting the resort uses for the north and south parcel. Um, if the proposed resort is to be split and the uses to become independent, they shall require a new use permit. The second I heard was the permit shall coordinate with the county staff regarding moving the driveway to the north. And the third um the applicant referenced notification to tenants at the building permit stage part of building permit submitt. The applicant shall provide verification to PBS staff that they have notified tenants regarding the processing of building permits. Moving to that stage, those are the three primary items I heard.

Thank you. That's very helpful. I al I also had a note about speed feedback signs. I think that was Allesio potentially. Um there is a condition of approval I think from um public works for speed feedback signs on Loi Lane. Okay, great. Um I didn't have where those I just had that as a a note. I didn't have that. Yeah, I don't know if it's a condition of approval and the pedestrian flashing signs I think would be helpful that crosswalk section. Yeah. So, I don't know if I want to make that a condition, but I do think that is a best practice in terms of slowing traffic. And yes, ma'am, our traffic engineer at Can I jump in? Um, actually, you can't put flashing lights at a stop sign. Oh,

for the pedestrian. So, I just want before you put something in there that that is not legal. That's true. There is a stop sign that nobody stops at at that for the vine trail. Well, that No, there's a stop sign on Highway before you entered Highway 29. Oh, the stop sign at on the road, not the stop the bike trail. Okay. Yeah, that's where the cross for the road is for the bike trail, right? I I do believe they stop before they burn. Okay, that's good. Thank you.

I would entertain a motion. Um I'm happy to make the motion, chair, but I wanted to ask county council for um the proposed actions as set out in the staff report. It says um part of it is to adopt an ordinance and then it says the ordinance may be introduced, read and passed at this meeting. Do we need to have a reading of the ordinance before? No, it it can be adopted immediately. Okay. It's permissive there for a public hearing.

Okay. So, I'm happy to go ahead and make a motion to adopt the proposed resolution attachment one, certifying the final environmental impact report, adopting findings in accordance with SQA, adopting the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, finding the project consistent with the general plan, and approving the use permit major modification application number P190038 MOD subject to the recommended condition of conditions of approval. approval and the three additional conditions of approval developed in this meeting as set forth in attachment A through D. And number two, adopting an ordinance attachment six to approve a development agreement between Napa County and Jackson Family Investments 3 LLC as set forth in attachment one to the ordinance.

I'll second all of that. Thank you for doing the hard part. And I'll second as the easy light part. That's okay. I have a first by Supervisor Catrell, a second by Vice Chair Allesio. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Seeing none, that passes unanimously. Thank you.

Okay, so um so that concludes item 11 for today's agenda. We have no closed session today. So, uh I could I do I need a motion to adjurnn or just No. Okay, I can just adjourn. This is great. Um we will now adjourn to the next board of supervisors meeting to be held on Tuesday Tuesday, May 5th, 2026 at 9:00 a.m.