Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Oh, it's not time yet.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Napa County Board of Supervisors meeting. I'm calling this meeting of August 25th, 2026 to order. May I have roll call, please?

Vice Chair Alessio? Present. Supervisor Ramos? Here. Supervisor Gallagher? Here. Supervisor Farrell? Here. Chair Manfrey.

Thank you. At this time, I would ask everyone who's able to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. And I would like Scott Wagner, Director of Housing and Community Services to lead us.

Yeah.

Our next item is pet of the week. And as requested, if you could please be quiet, if you really adore this pet, I can offer you, if you would like to twinkle in support of the pet, that's a nice quiet way to show that you're pleased about this, this, uh, beautiful dog that we're going to meet now. So Louise, whenever you're ready. Okay, so this morning we have Phoebe. And Luis, would you like to tell us about this wonderful girl?

Yeah. Okay, you guys. Phoebe is a little nervous, so you'll see her kind of just panting a lot and or hiding behind me, doing the little pacing that she's doing right now. I wasn't really expecting her to do this when she got here because at the shelter she is really, really shy at the beginning, but then once she sees you and she recognizes you, for example, even with me, when i go up to her kennel she will kind of go down and she's like wait who is that do i need to run away and then she sees that it's me and then she gets really really bubbly very social very outgoing very soft like uh she tar she kind of turns into a puppy in the sense that her butt starts doing that big puppy wiggle her tail goes kind of wild her licking is very very soft um very curious like a puppy not a I'll go back from that. But Phoebe has been at the shelter for about a month. She did come with some siblings to the shelter, so we know that she has the skill to be social with other dogs. One of my favorite things about Phoebe is I really want her. She reminds me a lot of my dog at home. She's got the droopy face. She's got the sad eyes. But once you get to know her and she starts to be more social with you, she really turns into like, oh my gosh, I love you so much. I just want to be near you. If you pet her, she's really, really soft. She's a chubby little girl. She's about 80 pounds right now. But yeah, she's just a little shy, a little overwhelmed with the city, the car drive, all the noises, all the people, the elevator as well. But she's actually doing really well. She's just ready to go back to the shelter.

Okay, and Phoebe's adoption fees are waived for this week?

Yes.

Okay, beautiful. Thank you for bringing in Phoebe for us today.

Good job. Yes. Good.

I see some twinkles. Thank you. All right, that brings us to item for approval of proclamations and commendations and the recipients for today's intended proclamation for teen mental health awareness month are unable to attend the meeting. So we're not going to present the proclamation today, but I will ask for any public comments on the proclamation. And also a motion and second to approve it. And the proclamation will be presented to the recipients off-site in the near future. So are there any public comments on this item? Not seeing any. Are there any on the phones? No? Okay. Motion to approve. Second. Okay, motion by Supervisor Ramos, second by Supervisor Cottrell. All those in favor? Aye. That passes unanimously. Very well. And that brings us to item 5, our consent calendar, including special districts. And we'll be pulling items 5B as in boy and 5D as in dog. So that is consent calendar items A through R with the exception of 5B and 5D. Do we have any public comments on any of the items not being pulled from consent? I'm not seeing any. Any on the phone? No. Okay. And we have a motion and a second to approve consent calendar items A through R accepting 5B and 5D.

So moved, Ramos.

Second, Cottrell. Okay, we have a motion by Ramos and a second by Cottrell. All those in favor? Aye. That passes unanimously. And we'll be hearing those items during item 8 in Let's see after board reports and announcements. So, at this time, I would welcome any public comment for items not on the agenda or on our 3 closed session items today. Is there any public comment on items not on our agenda? Yes, please come to the podium and if you would give us your name please and you have 3 minutes.

My name is Mark Leonardi, and I'm the co-founder of the Michael Leonardi Foundation. And had I known you were adopting dogs today, I would have come a little more prepared. I just got one, so I can't help, too. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Again, my name is Mark Leonardi. I'm the co-founder of the Michael Leonardi Foundation, which was created in memory of my son, Michael, who lost his life to fentanyl poisoning. It was a simple mistake he made by biting a pill with some friends off of Snapchat, and unfortunately with the two milligrams of fentanyl in any of these counterfeit pills, it's enough to kill the normal average sized person. Our mission is deeply personal, but our work is focused on the entire community. We are dedicated to educating young people, parents, and families about the very real dangers of fentanyl, fentanyl poisoning, and counterfeit pills, and accidental overdoses. I don't know if you all know the differences between accidental overdoses and poisoning. Poisoning is basically something that you're buying, let's say, an Oxycontin off of some dealer on the internet, and that pill has no Oxycontin in it. It is strictly fentanyl, and you're unaware of that, and that's basically somebody who's trying to poison somebody, be just like them giving you rat poison. A major part of our work is getting directly in front of young people. We partner with schools and community organizations, and we have to have honest, age-appropriate conversations about fentanyl, the dangers of illicit pills, and the reality that it is today that one pill can kill. We want young people to understand that the pill obtained from a friend through social media or anywhere outside a legitimate pharmacy can contain a lethal amount of fentanyl. But education is only one part of what we do. We provide free naloxone. We provide fentanyl test strips. We connect families with resources, host community presentations, and awareness events, and work to reduce the stigma surrounding substance use and overdose. including poisoning. We believe one person, we believe one open conversation can save many lives. We also believe that preventing needs to, preventing needs to reach young people in ways that resonate with them. Young people don't necessarily want to hear me stand up and talk about this all the time. That is why we, music has become such an important part of our outreach. This Saturday, August 29th, we're bringing that mission to downtown Napa with our music and awareness concert at the Car Club from 4 to 7 p.m. It's about more than a concert. It's about bringing our community together, using music to start the conversation, providing its potentially life-saving information and resources, and reminding young people that they have choices and their choices matter. I'd like to personally invite each one of you to the Napa Valley Car Club this Saturday and enjoy the music, learn about our work, and help continue spreading the message throughout our community. Awareness creates conversation. Conversations create change and sometimes one conversation can save a life. Thank you very much for supporting the health and safety of our young people and our Napa community.

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Leonardi.

I have some of these here I'd like to offer you guys. I'm just going to leave them up here if that's okay.

That's great, thank you.

Thank you for your time again.

Good morning, Mr. Williams.

Good morning, Chair and Supervisors. I'm Donald Williams, Mayor of Calistoga. It's been two years since the sale of the fairgrounds, and for that accomplishment, we're grateful to you and to CEO Alice Hopper, his assistance. The history is interesting. Decades ago, the property was transferred from Calistogans to the county in order to facilitate state funding for the fairgrounds. The county made the purchasing using mostly state, not local funds, and the express purpose was maintaining a fairgrounds. It never was intended as a marketable real estate asset. As state funding diminished, the county acknowledged the fairgrounds was outside its scope, and then the real question was not ownership, because the public is the owner, but which jurisdiction would manage the fairgrounds, and Calisogans were interested. We've put thousands of volunteer hours and millions of dollars into the property. We're doing what we can in-house, but to make the fairgrounds self-sustaining, we may want to invite professionals to manage some parts of the property, for example, the golf course or the RV park. There are developers who've shown interest in investing in the fairgrounds, but they have indicated they may need terms of more than 25 years to recover their investment. So we ask that the limit on leases be extended to 50 years. That would enable us to negotiate the best possible terms with such professionals. The agreement with the county is two years old, but the main object today and going forward for all of us is the success of the fairgrounds. Already we've hosted many community events there for public recreation and benefit. Allowing longer leases would not affect any other terms of the agreement. It would continue to be zoned for public recreation and historical uses. In fact, allowing longer leases actually strengthens and supports the essential purpose of the transaction, which is to restore the property to public use. The revitalized fairgrounds will be a resource for residents, an attraction for visitors, and a haven in emergencies. The longer lease limit can help us achieve those goals. After all, what purpose does a 25 year lease limit serve that a 50 year limit wouldn't do as well? And how does the public gain by keeping the lease restrictive? It costs next to nothing to make this change and the flexibility of a longer lease term can help Calistoga bring to fruition the promise of a thriving dynamic fairgrounds for all the public to enjoy. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Williams. Welcome Council Member Eisenberg.

Thank you. Kevin Eisenberg, Calistoga City Council. First, I completely concur with Mayor Williams' points, and I will try not to repeat them. I have a few short comments. First, I also am grateful for the work that CEO Alsop and the Board of Supervisors did to work with Calistoga to keep the fairgrounds alive. And also, I don't believe that this board intends to execute the right of first refusal and take back the fairgrounds because of an expanded lease term. I know that's not your intention. I believe the board only has good intentions for the fairgrounds. But not changing this one word on the agreement from 25 to 50 does cause additional time and expense for Calistoga and Napa County to go through the process each time we want to change or accept a lease agreement. All of the safeguards to protect the county and guarantee that the fairgrounds will remain as recreational space for the benefit of the people of Napa County remain in place. And I'd like to conclude with asking you two questions. How does limiting the lease term to 25 years benefit the county and its residents? And how does changing the term to 50 years harm the county and its residents? Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome, Ms. Anderson. Good morning, Supervisors. Thank you for being here. I'll just follow up with what the folks from Calistoga said. It seems to run parallel the request with what you're requesting from the BOR at Lake Berryessa, or at least the concessionaires are saying they need a longer time in order to execute a plan out there. So it appears to be a pretty common thing. I just wanted to mention the loss of all these beautiful oak trees up and down the trail in 29 to Mediterranean oak borer. Ms. Alessio probably saw the beautiful oak tree in front of Burgess for her event this last weekend. And I had an idea, I don't know if it will work, When there was Dutch elm disease, trees that were confirmed diseased, it was considered brood wood. It was a source of inoculation for other trees to move that wood around. And I don't think the pest, there's much that can be done by the Agriculture Commissioner, but what if we worked with the operators of the landfill to allow tree companies to take that contaminated infested wood and bury it at the landfill. That was what is done with Dutch elm disease trees is that you bury the wood so it is not transported around for firewood. So maybe that's something that could be done is just offer that opportunity to tree companies. And I don't know, maybe Mr. Letter can mention, are we taking... mob killed trees along our public roads and offering that wood along the side of the road for people to cut up maybe we don't want to do that anymore i just want to thank you guys again for funding the vegetation management along howe mountain road in angwin it is magnificent And what that work has done has allowed PUC staff with their own small rickety old equipment to come back in where the larger mastication occurred and just kind of routinely come through. I have seen tractors working in places where no equipment has done forest management for 30 years. So it's really uplifting and you leverage that money a lot. And then lastly, maybe Mr. Bardona knows about this, when these vineyards start coming out on really steep hills, for example, Angwin or Mount Veeder, a lot of these may be predate. They're from the 70s, so they might predate. Some of them are erosion control ordinances. what policies are we putting in place to stabilize those hills? I see some that are really going to be dangerous, and they have the potential to contaminate Concrete. So I hope we have policies in place to protect the hillsides when those vineyards come out.

Thanks. Thank you. I'm not seeing any other public comments in the room. Is there anyone on the phones? Okay. And that, that brings us to item seven, Board of Supervisors reports and announcements. I welcome any of my colleagues. I see Supervisor Gallagher first.

Yes, thank you and good morning. Just a couple of things. I think several of us up here had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the UC Ag and Natural Resources. group that actually runs UC Cooperative Extension. It was really, really informative and I will be talking about it more in my newsletter and talking a little bit more about the programs that they offer. We have 18 different programs and initiatives that come out of and there were many that I didn't even know about. Ones of course that we do, like 4-H, but many others that we didn't necessarily know about and so I think it's really, really a wonderful asset to the community to be able to have our UC Cooperative Extension and have access to all of these great people around California who can be really helpful in terms of not only agriculture but community development and youth development and other things that they do. Stay tuned I think for more information about how the county can work more in concert with that group. Also just wanted to comment on Mr. Leonardi's comment about the Leonardi foundation and so that everybody knows we actually have a committee at the county through called the Napa opioid safety committee that meets every month and does a lot of work around opioid safety. And so please, if you have an opportunity to go to 1 of their trainings, please take advantage. and you will find Naloxone all over the place. And so that is something that if somebody is actually overdosing, you can use that to save them actually. It's a lifesaver for real. So make sure you have a box of that with you at all times. And so if you go to the event on Saturday, I'm sure they will have those available, but you can find those in clinics and other places around the community. It's really, really important that we talk about this in the community and that we are, you know, actively participating as community members and we understand what we can do to help others. So I wanted to mention those two. And then I do have a report from our ad hoc inclusion group. which is myself and Supervisor Ramos. We have been meeting, we've also been in meetings and discussions with other jurisdictions around the Bay Area, and we would like to make a referral to staff that we draft an interim urgency ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on the siting, construction, conversion, or operation of a new or expanded detention, of new or expanded detention or correctional facilities within the unincorporated area of Napa County. This is something that we're looking at all throughout the Bay Area. We want to do this quickly because it's really, really important that if we're looking at anything like a detention center that we consider the various policy implications and we are able to take that time to do that and develop a comprehensive approach to regulating and mitigating impacts in terms of land use and also community impacts of these kinds of facilities. So we do have a draft from San Mateo County. They are actually taking that up at their meeting today. So we do have a starting point for planning and building department and our and County Council and so we'd like to see that come to us in a draft as soon as we can I think that for now that is all and if I think of more I'll come back Thank You supervisor Gallagher I see vice chair Alessio

Thank you. I was also going to be mentioning the NEPA Opioid Safety Coalition. I attended the last meeting, and it really was a report regarding opioid use, methamphetamine is on the rise, fentanyl is on the rise. Naloxone is being used and is well sourced in our community. I think this is a really important report to bring back to this board. So when it works for our public health department, Dr. Wu, if she could bring that report to this board, that would be great. I thought it was very important. And that is a regular meeting that you can attend virtually via zoom. So I encourage people to know what's happening in our community in that area. I want to report back as at the MCE. Board representative here, and I also chair the MC finance committee. Some of you may or may not be tracking that. but there was a grand jury report on MCE at our last board meeting. We went through the response and approved the response to the grand jury with some few amendments. There was a lot of agreement overall on that report with the grand jury in terms of findings. There's a lot happening in MCE including a CEO search including a current governance assessment, which will then follow up with recommendations and implementations for changes. So MCE is just going through changes in growth, if you will. So it's positive steps forward. I know some of you may know that the, right now, that Napa County Flood Control is, well, they're currently working and constructing the flood wall that's Lincoln North, I think to Lincoln to Trancas, if I have that exactly right. And they're also working on the Abajo area, the southern portion, which is the last mile. And I just want folks to know that This board, which is on the Flood Control Board, is working with, and we've got two, we've got Supervisor Gallagher and Councilmember Navarez, this is their district, who are working with the Bajo residents. So just like NAPA does with anything that's gonna impact the community with community engagement, we're listening and there's neighborhood meetings, and I wanna thank Supervisor Gallagher for her work on that. Let's see here also just to let folks know there's it's fairly a new formation of a green workforce coalition that I'm joining. This is with city council member Beth painter. Chris Benz is with Nepa Climate Now and some other folks that are involved in this area of climate change and looking at how can we How can we create a workforce that supports the needs in this community and building a green workforce is something we can do in other areas have done and that's as far back to has given grants to Marin County for a green workforce project. So more to come on that. I want to congratulate Michael consensus. I was. invited to attend and speak at his Eagle Scout Court of Honor. Wow, what inspiring. If you ever had the opportunity and you can attend an Eagle Scout Court of Honor, it's really special. Michael, in particular, started as a Cub Scout when he was six years old in first grade, continued through until he joined the Boy Scouts. all the way through until he turned 18, and just before he turned 18 was given the approval doing his Eagle Scout project for this honor. It was very inspiring, so I just wanted to congratulate him. I did attend the open house of a new nonprofit called the Sarah Leslie Foundation, and this is housing for women and children who have left an abusive situation. And many times people will use news as an emergency shelter, which is fantastic. News does incredible work and has for decades. The Sarah Leslie Foundation extends housing for them for up to a year with really modest monthly rent. The first three months is free and then I think it's like 30% or something, but it's on a sliding scale. It's really doable. It's a four bedroom, four bath house. It's really nice. It's in the city of Napa and there's actually a detached garage that also has an ADU that will also be available with some property on the side for more small housing to extend for women and children. One of the fallouts is when you leave an abusive relationship, I'm sure this is with men too, with both genders, but I guess I can speak specifically for women, is that you often lose your income. You lose the ability to stay in this community where your family and your support and your friends are. So being able to have an option for victims of abuse to have housing as they rebuild their lives and rebuild their souls, if you will, is really important. So I want to wish Sarah Leslie Foundation all the luck and support from this community. um speaking of support um i did attend two events i'm just i'm mentioning this because there's a lot of work that goes and we're going to be talking about community events here later in our agenda but there's a lot of work that goes behind these community events that are for non-profits that serve nonprofits that meet the critical needs of our community When a nonprofit goes through and they raise these funds such as STOMP and the Salvation Army out of the fire, they're raising hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of dollars for people in our community to benefit from. So I just want to thank them and congratulate them for two great events I attended. Thank you.

Okay, thank you for those informative updates. Supervisor Cottrell?

Thank you chair. Um, I wanted to report out on 2 board meetings. I attended 1st, for the rural county representatives of California and also, which is the California state association of counties. The 1st represents 40 rural counties and the 2nd is all 58 counties. Um, this last week, both boards considered a range of. the propositions that will be on the ballot coming up this fall. RCRC did not take positions on them. CSAC took positions on three that I wanted to share with the board. First, Proposition 1 that will authorize bonds for housing affordability programs. We know that's going to be really important in our county and throughout California. CSAC took a support position on that proposition. On Proposition 3, which would provide permanent funding for schools and healthcare by extending an existing tax on high-income earners. So that's not a new tax, it's a continuation of the tax, and it's really key for public schools across the state. And so CSAC took a support position on that one as well. And the final one is Proposition 43, which would limit voters' ability to raise revenues for local government services by increasing the threshold that a citizen's initiative would have to meet from what it is right now, which is a majority to a two-thirds majority. So significantly raise that. CSAC took an opposed position on that. So I wanted to share those updates with you. We also had a lot of discussion in both board meetings about proposed changes to wildfire liability and also local government's ability to recover for damaged infrastructure. There's a strong coalition right now between those two groups and also the League of Cities has been a critical partner there too. to me that's i think an important partner that we don't often look to as a county so i'm looking to supervisor alessio because i know you've been quite involved in that so i think there's looking forward to more we could do there also was able to attend stomp this weekend and and congrats to the grape growers for how much money they raised in support of the farm worker foundation which provides really critical training and education for our farm worker population and we had a very small fire in District 3 on Sunday out on Conn Valley Road. It brought out both ground and air support. I wanted to thank the Napa County Fire Department and also the St. Helena Fire Department and other Up Valley crews were there too. We had both volunteers and career firefighters there and there was a quick fire retardant drop too. So reminding everyone to stay vigilant. That's all I have. Thank you. Okay, very good. Thank you, Supervisor Cottrell. Supervisor Ramos?

Thank you so much. For report outs, just ditto to Supervisor Cottrell on the CSAC Executive Committee meeting that took place last, sorry, the CSAC Board of Directors meeting that took place last week. I also attended the CSAC Executive Committee on August 13th. Supervisor Manfrey and I attended the Programming and Allocations Committee for MTC, the BOTA Oversight Committee, and the ABAC Housing Committee, and the BAFA Oversight Committee. A lot of acronyms. And last Friday, I also attended the Joint MTC-ABAC Legislation Committee. and also the ABAC executive board and the ACFA governing board. It was my first meeting in immediate past president. It is the greatest title, I will just say that. Next, I did want to, report out to my colleagues that I had an opportunity to attend a press conference for a fixed date route 37 on the 19th and happy to report that the California Transportation Commission did in fact fund the Toll Lake Creek bridge replacement Which is truly an environmentally superior bridge replacement that allows for a fish passage that is not allowed through the tons of concrete that we have in place right now. And so we are on our way while we have lots of funding to to. sprayed together to make this all work. Really exciting to see a unanimous support from the California Transportation Commission. I wanted to invite all my colleagues to the last Meet Me in the Street, which is, we're adding one, so it's on September 9th. We're not gonna have another meeting before then. It's from five to eight. And you can find me straddling between my district booth and also 4-H will be having its open house at Meet Me in the Street. And we're trying to figure out how, in fact, we get some animals there. It's a little peculiar with food, so we're figuring that one out if it could be a chicken or a bunny. And then one referral over to, let me just say two items. So one, I'd like to request a proclamation recognizing Mayor Sedgley. He is receiving the first Molly's Angels Community Impact Award that will be presented on Friday, September 18th. So I would like to be able to present a proclamation to him at that event and I'm asking for that referral. The next one, we did receive public comment regarding Knoxville Road. And I had the opportunity to tour Knoxville Road with Captain Thompson of the Sheriff's Office. It was recommended I take, by the constituent, and I believe it's in District 3, recommended I take my personal car. I opted not to. That was a very smart choice to not take my own personal car. I have had a conversation, I know many of us have had the opportunity to look at this road and I have had a conversation with the CEO and not so much as a referral as much as maybe it's an opportunity for us to come back and to really look at those roadways that while they may not be volume serving, they serve a critical emergency role for us in the county. and we had a great focus and emphasis on this after the 2017 fires and I think working with fire and the fire marshal's office and OES it would be helpful for us to kind of understand mapping wise what those priorities of those roadways are and what the conditions of those roadways are so that we can truly have a plan as opposed to a patch and seal because some of these roads are definitely beyond the patch and seal. That's all. Thanks. Okay.

Thank you, Supervisor Ramos. My announcements are, as Supervisor Ramos mentioned, August 12th MTC committee meetings. Nothing really to elaborate. We were mostly looking at regional project funding in those committee meetings. On the 17th, I attended Upper Valley Waste Management Agency with Supervisor Cottrell. And on the 21st, the California State Association of Counties' SGMA Working Group with Supervisor Cottrell. And I found that to be a very illuminating meeting, just seeing how other counties are working through their fee rollouts and some of the problems they're encountering. And it's certainly a topic of a lot of discussion statewide, and it's interesting just to compare how it's going here with other locations. On the 24th of August, I also attended the UC Ag and Natural Resources, UC Extension discussion about how the UC might be more active in informing Napa County about their their through their connections to the science community and also how they might uh more actively participate in our water planning and agricultural planning processes and that was a very good discussion um and yeah just looking forward to that one very much as to how that plays out i also attended with supervisor cattrall a meeting with lake county supervisor supervisor jessica paiska about home hardening and that was also really interesting to see how Lake County is channeling funding for home hardening into dense like clustered remote neighborhoods to make them more fire resilient. And I'm looking forward to that discussion continuing as well. And as Supervisor Cottrell mentioned, we had a fire on Sunday afternoon in this county and it was not a huge disaster thanks to all of the preparation and quick response from our fire community. So I want to thank you very much for that. And I will also mention that it is very dry out in the hills right now and luckily we haven't had any wind events just yet. But everyone should have their go bags packed. They should be prepared for fires because this is the time of year when it gets very, very serious. And if we have inclement weather conditions, it can get bad pretty fast. So just sobering reminder about that level of risk that we face in this community. and that I believe concludes board announcements and we are going to move on to item 8 which is discussion of items oh wait I think we should take a comfort break actually before oh wait oh no wait I meant I'm sorry after this let's do this and then take a comfort break because I expect the things that come after this to be quite long thanks So discussion of items pulled from the consent calendar. We're going to start with item 5B, which is accept and file the report summarizing the results of internal audits review of Napa County's 2025 countywide lump sum and other compensation. And I welcome our auditor controller, Tracy Schulze, to discuss, to start us off on the discussion of this item.

Thank you, good morning. Tracy Schulze, audit controller. This folder is the backup for item 5A, which I was expecting questions on, so I would be happy to answer any questions you have on 5B.

Thank you so much. I definitely do appreciate the thorough work and seeing your backup. folder there gives me great confidence in the work that you have presented to us. And my question really comes down to not so much of what is in here, but what I don't see in here. And so looking at Government Code Section 53891, I didn't see any specific language as to signing bonuses. And I don't see any guidance necessarily as to how signing bonuses are accounted for if it is it's it's separate from salary it's not personable so it would seem to me logically to fit into a lump sum category but it's not presented here and so my question is um is it here and i just missed it or how how do we account for the reporting of signing bonuses in these types of reports

Sure. As the report states, there's about 38 pay codes that we audited. Signing bonus is one of them. We did select one sample for the sample size for that. And there is a policy, I believe all the personnel policies are Section 37 of the county policy. So within, we audit based on state law, we also audit on payroll rules, and of course our county policies. So the signing bonus, there is a policy for special hard to fill positions. I believe it came out of the need for correctional officers and sheriff deputies and some other hard to fill positions in Health and Human Services, like psychiatrists and so forth. The sample that we pulled for this audit was for Health and Human Services Mental Health Counselor. And the audit really just goes through and makes sure that it conforms with the policy. So the approvals were done. The position was assigned as a high risk or difficult to fill. So that is part of this policy. The other caveat between those is also that the CEO and the HR director have the ability to assign hard to fill positions to provide the signing bonus as well.

Okay. Thank you. That is very, very helpful. I will say, you know, we've certainly, through our difficulties in hiring through the sheriff's office, corrections, mental health counselors, there has been a, there's definitely a specific type of position that, in fact, these sign-on bonuses have have been utilized for marketing of these positions. I think separate from this, it would be very helpful for us and I don't know, I would leave that by way of referral to the CEO and to the auditor controller to figure out if it would be appropriate to have an internal audit or to just have a report out of what has been the success rate. We've been doing this for a while. What is the amount? I know for the sheriff's deputies, we started at a much lower amount, and I think now we have an up to 30,000 on sheriff deputies on those signing bonuses. I know for correctional officers, we had one. So I think it would be very helpful for us to understand what we have offered, what has worked, and also to understand where are those signing bonuses competitively because I'm sure others see the signs on the freeways. I feel like it's always a race to the top for signing bonuses coming from Contra Costa County. We are not Contra Costa County, but certainly that is a competitive market for us. So I would leave that by way of referral. I have no other questions in this report itself, but I do think we need to look at the efficacy of our siting bonuses going forward.

Okay. Thank you, Supervisor Ramos and Auditor-Controller Schulze. So are we... Why don't you take public comment and then I'll make a motion. Righto. So at this time I welcome public comment from anyone in the room. I'm seeing none. Is there anyone on the phones? No? Okay then I welcome a motion. I'll make a motion to approve item 5B.

I'll second.

Okay we have a motion from Supervisor Ramos, a second from Vice Chair Alessio. All those in favor? Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you very much and we are moving on to item 5D. Get there to read it out. So item 5D is appointment of a slate of members to the Airport Advisory Commission with terms commencing immediately. And this is seven seats representing the general public, Chamber of Commerce, Napa County Airport, Pilots Group, local education industry, and wine hospitality industry. And so at this time, if staff could join us in case there are questions about this or just to open up the items. So let's see, is Steve Lederer here? If you want to come up just because I have a feeling this is going to be a conversation. So is there anything you'd like to tell us about the process for this item starting off?

Yeah. Steve Lederer, Public Works. There's a regular process for appointing committee members to various commissions. This process at the request of the board and the CEO was done slightly differently. There was a committee selected to interview the committee members, I think primarily because all of the committee members had actually expired. So we actually had technically had no one on the commission. So some of the, it's pretty typical for existing commission members to review potential future members. But again, in this case, all of our members had expired, so it was a slightly different process. So the board and the CEO asked that an independent committee separate from the AAC, the Airport Advisory Commission, and separate from the airport review the potential candidates. myself as the Director of Public Works, Michael Kleiman representing the CEO's office, and Todd Walker, who was a former AAC member, currently on the Airport Land Use Commission, the ALUC, which is a separate body. So anyway, the committee formed, interviewed the people who had applied in several cases there was only one applicant for a particular position for the public there were actually more applicants than there were places ultimately the committee made those recommendations although at the end of the day of course the the aac is an advisory commission to the board and the board ultimately determines who they want on that advisory I did see several public comments who disagreed with a written position of one of the candidates. I will say that it's not at all unusual, I think it's fair to say, speaking for my fellow committee members, that we didn't necessarily agree with all of the positions of all of the candidates, but that wasn't what we were trying to select. We were trying to select people who had knowledge, who were interested, who we thought would provide value. that advisory process and that was not necessarily the people that we just agreed with or who just agreed with us so the Commission's recommendations are in the report and beyond that I guess I'm happy to answer any questions as to what the committee did and I'm sure the clerk of the board would be happy to answer any questions on the process of selecting committee members in general

Okay, thank you, Mr letter for that introduction. I welcome any discussion or questions from my colleagues. I see. Supervisor Gallagher and then after that vice chair Alessia.

Yeah, I actually do have some comments, but I do think it would be important if there are people in the audience who want to comment that we go ahead and hear their comments first, and then we can respond to that.

Okay, that is a very good request. So at this time, I'll welcome public comment from anyone in the room. If you'd like to come up to the mic, anyone who wishes to comment will have three minutes. I am not seeing anyone. Is there anyone on the phones? Oh, okay. Welcome.

Good morning, Chair and honorable supervisors. My name is May Imfeld, and I live at the Napa Yacht Club. And Supervisor Gallagher, I want to thank you for your quick response to my letter. And I note that you and your staff work weekends. So thank you for being always there for us. And I have just two comments. I don't necessarily disagree with the appointment of Jason Johnson, but his stance is very ill informed because I think it reflects that he does not know that the airport, the Napa Airport is a class two airport. We are not equipped for regional or national planes flying overboard and I can tell you that personally, my family and I have lived in the Napa Yacht Club since 1990 when the subdivision was built. So we know about the noise and what happens there. And as I said in my letter to you, sometimes I'm woken up at 3 a.m. in the morning. And what is all this about? There's not an emergency. It's not inclement weather. And this is very disruptive, not just to the neighborhood, but also to schools and hospitals. So I would like the board to take a look at this, that the appointments committee might not be aware of the airport being a class two airport, and this is totally inappropriate. And the other comment I want to make is I want to thank Supervisor Ramos for being at the AAC meeting last week, last month, where Mark Witso made a comment and I think he said the ugly part out loud and I'm glad he did that. He said all the complaints, all the noise complaints were 87 complaints and they were from the same people. So in his opinion, all these 87 comments can be collapsed, he used this word, can be collapsed down to one complaint. So virtually he's saying that all these people can be ignored. So I am saying that as staff, his job is just to report fairly and honestly about what happens and not to put his finger on the pulse. Okay. He, he is not allowed to do that and he's done that. So I just want you to pay attention to what's happening. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Infeld. Are there any other public comments on this item today? Not seeing anyone. Oh, yes, Mr letter.

I probably shouldn't have gone that far away. Um, just to comment on the, um, if you will, the status of the airport, uh, we do have a general aviation airport that does not allow, um, commercial service. Um, it's never been the policy of the board. um to go in that direction um in order to allow full um what i'll say full commercial service the jsx is a um and that sort of service is what's called a part 380 it's allowed at general aviation airports less than 30 seats but um the concept of full commercial operation would require millions of dollars of security investments tsa type investments and that's not been the board policy um so if the board wanted to go in that direction they could but that's never been the direction of the board and one opinion of one aac member probably is unlikely to change that but we are a general aviation airport

Okay, thank you. All right, then I'm going to go ahead and bring it back to my colleagues for discussion. Supervisor Gallagher. Thank you.

And thank you, Mr. Lederer, for explaining the process and also your experience on the committee. And I really am just going to kind of amplify that. So I received a lot of comments on this from people in my district, so I want to make sure that I respond. It's important for everyone to understand that this is an advisory committee and it has no independent decision-making authority. So, you know, the board makes the decisions, this commission can advise us, but it doesn't make decisions about the airport. The bylaws of the committee set out what sectors should be represented on the committee, and that includes two general public seats. So this particular position is someone to represent the Chamber of Commerce. And so I think it's reasonable to assume that that person is going to have a, quote, chamber point of view. So every member on the committee is not expected, as Mr. Lederer alluded to, to agree to one perspective. The point of having an airport advisory committee is to have that cross-sector representation and I'm sure that everyone on the committee has different opinions about the airport and about the direction the airport may or may not go based on their individual experience but also based on the group that they happen to represent. So I don't think that this is, you know, this is something that we need to be concerned about. If you don't agree with that person's position, that's okay. You know, someone else may not agree with another commissioner's position. And that's the beauty of having every perspective in the room. And I think also it's really important to understand that there was an independent committee that interviewed and did recommend the candidates. So I just think that we needed to kind of set it straight in terms of helping people understand the process, but also the thinking behind how the committee is, how it's put together. So those are just my comments.

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

Thank you. And thank you Supervisor Gallagher for kind of going through that. I think that was really informative and helpful and that this committee is an advisory committee to the Board of Supervisors. I want to thank all nine applicants that applied. Public service is, we don't take that for granted. We appreciate people that do apply. And for this panel for making the decision of narrowing it from nine to seven. To me, it looks like a strong committee. And with good representation, we know that there are concerns about the noise that has with the change of flight path that the FAA approved, that the flight path is outside of our jurisdiction. But the flight times might be within our jurisdiction. And Mr. Lederer, not getting off topic, and this may be something we bring back in the future, but is this commission looking at flight times and maybe what the commission can make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors So there isn't the 1 a.m., 2 a.m., 3 a.m. disruptions for people in the middle of the night that we limit the flight time. Because I do believe that's within our power to narrow down in terms of potential disruption. Other airports have done that. Smaller airports, especially, that impact residents.

I would need to check on FAA regulations and our grant requirements. As this board knows, the county owns the airport, but really 80% of it has been built with federal funds, so we are very reliant on and need to be really careful. About following FAA regulation.

So it's something I could look at as to whether it's an option or not I appreciate you looking at that San Jose has restrictions and I believe Orange County has restrictions just as a couple and again That's that was been narrowed down by the local jurisdiction versus the FAA, but if you look into that Again, very very different airports, but we couldn't we can look at what the rules are.

I

Oh, I see we have some Sabrina. Probably has the information. Good morning.

Sabrina Wolfson, Deputy County Council, and I'm happy to answer that question and that federal law as well as the grant assurances that go along with the grant money that the airport receives prohibit the airport from discriminating against airlines. i mean sorry flight times and things like that and restricting it so though as i understand there is a fa approval process but the faa has never approved those types of things and any restrictions on flight times are purely voluntarily so those are like fly friendly programs okay so there's really nothing that we can adopt to um here locally based on what you know it's basically we need to continue to work with the faa and or the commission the committee can as i understand any um measures that would restrict flight times or limited them would be purely voluntary so they could ask the pilots to abide by those but it's voluntary it can't be mandatory under federal law. Well, voluntary might be a good start, but thank you. Thank you.

Supervisor Ramos?

Thank you. I'm just trying to bring this back to the item that is before us, which is the appointment to the Airport Advisory Commission. I appreciate the questions that have been asked. I think this is an item that is of great public interest and importance, and so we should really not be talking about the flight path and times on an item that hasn't been properly noticed in that way. What I will say, I appreciate Supervisor Gallagher kind of sharing the perspective of what the role is here of the Advisory Commission. And I will say to my colleagues, I do sit at every single meeting. I have sat there at every single meeting for 10 years. If I can't go, my assistant goes. We are never unrepresented, as in we the board are never unrepresented there at the Airport Advisory Commission. The role of the commission is not to flight paths and flight times. We made that very clear and we took that back from the commission. We did have a noise working group and we took it back. That rests solely with this board. In the past, there were concerns and very, very well publicized our fixed based operator process and contract negotiations, that too was not an Airport Advisory Commission item. That was solely for this board. When you look at truly what the commission is tasked to do, Commission is tasked to advise airport management, but again, airport management works for this board by and through the director of public works. The commission is supposed to promote And I think that is the most important function is understanding these are people who are pilots. They are recreational. They come in for business use and they use our airport and they inform management what's working and what's not. It's an opportunity for them when the tower decides to show up for them to communicate with the tower of what's working what's not to communicate with our fixed based operators that has been incredibly helpful because we now have 2 fixed based. It's also an opportunity to facilitate at our last meeting, Travis Air Force Base, who manages the airfield around Travis Air Force Base and provides connectors and air routes, gave a presentation of what is helpful to them to maintain safety and how they can help better landings and greater efficiency of landings and takeoffs at the Napa County Airport. All of those things really are how we create a great synergy at the airport, how we ensure the sustainability and the longevity of the airport itself. But I wanna stress what's really important is that all decisions regarding Interactions with the FAA, all decisions regarding what happens on the ground, rest entirely with this board. The commission meets six times a year. And I can guarantee you, and council knows it, if I see something that is not going right, I will 911 one of the lawyers at county councils and say I need you. Sabrina's been there with us and is at the meetings and provides guidance as to what is within the purview of the commission and what is not. I just wanted to acknowledge the comment you made in regards to the complaints and the the sources of the complaints. I hear you. I understand the frustration with that. I've spoken to staff about the concerns about that. And you're right. It doesn't minimize the effect of the concern. We in fact asked people to call us. So I just want to acknowledge that comment. The airport commission provides us a great opportunity To know what works at the airport and that's it that even the public comment that's coming about the the the flight noise There I would say the Airport Commission's being kind to listen to it that solely rests with this board Decision wise and the and by and through the consultant that we have hired through Kauffman and associates so I I just wanted to to kind of clarify where we're at. And certainly I appreciate the questions regarding what we're able to do and not do, but I would certainly ask staff to bring that as a separate item that can be properly noticed so that people can know when we are gonna be talking about flight path matters. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor.

Thank you, Supervisor Ramos. Supervisor Cottrell.

Thank you really appreciate these comments and just want to echo what a lot of what I've heard first of all supervisor Gallagher appreciate you walking through. You know the independent committee or excuse me the interviewing committee and we heard that from. Mr letterer the importance of interviewing the candidates. So I feel good about the process that we have in place here. And you pointed out that the bylaws call out the different sectors representative. So that there's a lot of intention there about making sure we're getting a broad range of folks. participating in the Commission and again Supervisor Alessio thanking all the applicants I completely agree with that we are always looking for volunteers to participate in in local government and here's a great opportunity so thanks to everyone for doing that and Supervisor Ramos talked about the role of the commission to support aviation. And again, it's a chance for public dialogue. So really appreciate Ms. Enfield coming today and offering her perspective. And hopefully there's a conversation with all of these applicants joining. So I am supportive of the process that we've heard today and happy to make a motion when that time is right.

Okay, thank you. I'll just that's that's been a lot of really good discussion. I will concur with. Thank you to all the applicants for this, whether selected or not. It is a wonderful thing when people step up to take part in the public process and and also. Thanks to staff and supervisor Ramos for clarifying the boundaries. Um, so, uh, I would actually really appreciate it, uh, directory letter. If you could kind of recap which. Types of comments are appropriate for which channels and. Um, and how. Like, how a concerned citizen can best communicate and I'll, I'll just start that off by saying we have the airport advisory commission itself. We have a website where people can report or comment. Specific incidents, and we also have an airport manager, and we also have this board involved. And there are also several members of the staff of public works who there's a chain of about, I think, 5 people between the board of supervisors in the airport. I'm not the Airport Advisory Commission, but the other. So yes, if you could clarify, because there's actually a lot of moving pieces in this situation.

Yeah, you actually, yeah. You actually covered it very well. There's the airport website. There's the airport advisory committee. There is the board. Actually, only two people in the chain of command. The airport manager works for Lee Sharp, one of my deputy directors, and Lee works for me. So we're not that big an organization. We could have five people between me and anybody at this stage. So, yeah, I mean, you hit it. There are multiple ways of commenting. We do think that the airport web page, which is very specifically set up to accept that and all the data is captured there forever, and the data is the data. Anyone can parse it however they choose to do so. But there are numerous ways of communicating. At the end of the day, as mentioned, the airport advisory committee is advisory to the airport manager, is advisory to the board in terms of policy and budget and all of that. At the end of the day, that buck always stops with the board.

Okay, thank you. And people can attend the Airport Advisory Commission meetings. They're public.

Of course.

And for members of the Airport Advisory Committee, is it appropriate for members of the public to meet one-on-one with them as they would with us?

That is really up to the committee members. As long as they don't meet as a quorum, they're certainly welcome to meet with people or not. In my experience, the Airport Advisory Commission members do tend to respond, whether by phone or by email or whatever. But it's their choice as to whether they want to do that or not.

Okay, great. Um, and then I will say that, um, we get some comments written. I, I certainly get a lot of comments that are just person to person. And, um, I'll say that it is help. It is helpful if the comments are written down in an email, so they can be forwarded out. You know, at minimum to this board, but potentially also to members of the, um, the airport. uh probably the the airport director specifically but just so that they actually um have an opportunity to kind of percolate through all the involved parties so just encouraging anyone who cares about this issue to uh to send to send it in in writing um it it helps um i i will offer that i get a as alta heights is in my district And also North Napa, and I'm getting a fair amount of complaints person to person on both. I mean, this is when I'm door knocking or just out in the community at events or. You know, yeah, so I think there's quite. Quite a lot more discussion about this going on than just the people who have time to actually navigate the websites and make a formal complaint. This really is a. You know, I would say I'm well into the many dozens of individuals who have who have spoken to me directly about it. And if there's that many that I'm encountering in person, it's probably even more than that. So, yeah, so I'll just I'll just say that I do believe it's a more broad issue community wide based on that experience and that input. And I've also gotten the feedback recently that even with the website revamp, which I appreciate and I know it was a lot of work, I'm hearing that it's still a little bit clunky to find the connection to making a complaint. And so I would suggest maybe moving that right to the top or making it more obvious somehow. And what else? I think those are my comments. I think this has been a really good discussion and I don't want to go into repeating things that have already been said. So thank you for all the additional information on this. Do you have any closing?

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

Okay, that's a great note. Thank you. You bet. Okay.

Madam Chairman.

Yes.

May I ask your permission? I'm going to put Holly on the spot. And I would like to ask her to come up to the podium on this topic. We have people paying attention to tell everybody where they can go to provide information, complain, give advice, ask for things. Please, Holly.

Thank you. Holly Dawson, Chief Communications Officer. Thank you for the opportunity. Website has been mentioned several times. We have developed a special public engagement platform called Connect Napa County, and the URL is connectnapacounty.gov, G-O-V, and we have an airport page there, which has a lot of information, FAQ, other information, but an opportunity for for people to share and submit feedback about the airport and particularly the noise issue. And that is the easiest place for people to go. So again, NapaCounty.gov. Connect to NapaCounty.gov. Thank you. Yes.

Holly, if they didn't write that down just now, all they have to do is go to our website, which is Googling Napa County, and you go to our website, and they can find that link. Yes.

So if you don't have a pen on you and can't remember that, just go to our website, which is NapaCounty.gov. And on the bottom of our website, there is a link to that website. We also feature it on our social media. And when I get back to my desk, I'm going to look at the airport's website section and make sure that it is highlighted there.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Officer Dawson. I see Supervisor Cottrell.

No, that was great. My question was just if people, because I'm used to just going to the website, and so great to have that link at the bottom. My suggestion to the team might be to have a link to connect Napa County right at the top, too.

Welcome back, Officer Dawson.

There actually is a banner ad at the very top of the website that does highlight Connect Napa County. I neglected to mention that. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. Where are we? So we've taken public comment. We've discussed this at length.

Chair, if I can, I'd like to make a motion to approve the slate of selected appointed committee members.

Thank you. Second that. Okay so I have a motion by Vice Chair Alessio and a second by Supervisor Cottrell. All those in favor? Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you for a lively discussion. Okay so at this time I will let us take a comfort break and we'll return to hear to public hearings and Item 9A is temporary event ordinances. So I look forward to that discussion. Thank you. Okay, welcome back from our brief break there. We are on Item 9, Public Hearings. We are hearing Item 9A, Introduction and Intent to Adopt an Ordinance of the Napa County Board of Supervisors Amending Chapter 5.36 Temporary Events of the Napa County Code Relating to the Application, Processing, and Noticing of Requirements for Temporary Events in Napa County, Section 18.10.020. And I welcome our planning director Brian Bordona to introduce the topic and add a report from staff.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair Manfrey, members of the board. I'm joined here today with Charlene Galina and Michaela McMahon. I just want to intro this item out and just recognize and acknowledge that the proposed amendments that are here before you today are a culmination of a two-year collaborative process involving event organizers, community and industry stakeholders, nonprofits, and county departments. This effort also reflects the significant work of staff across multiple departments to evaluate existing practices, respond to stakeholder feedback, and develop practical improvements to the ordinance and to the manual. Importantly, the definition of what constitutes a temporary event is not changing. The amendments do not expand the activities required to permit. They modernize and streamline the process for events already subject to the ordinance. Temporary events are also separate and distinct from winery marketing events, which are governed by winery's use permit and improved marketing plan. With that, I will pass it off to Charlene and Michaela.

Thank you. Good morning. We are finally here. We just talked about this. Michaela and I started this project in October 2023 when she first came and we had our first meeting. And so it's finally come to tuition here about at least presenting it to the board for your review and consideration. So the first temporary event ordinance was adopted by the board in 1971, and the purpose was to regulate and license outdoor festivals. Then the comprehensive update to the temp event came in 2006, along with adopting the temporary events manual and the application packet. and it was to provide guidance for applicant submittal and review of applications and issuance of an event license by multiple reviewing agencies. After receiving board direction in 2018 to conduct a comprehensive update to the temporary event ordinance to extend review timelines from 60 to 90 days and to build in code enforcement process, staff started their work in 2023 and we started meeting with the agencies in 2024 after figuring out and looking at other event ordinances throughout the North Bay. Delays did occur in this effort due to extenuating circumstances highlighted in the staff report and competing priorities. So why do we have, why are we updating it? Because of the board direction, we have new federal and state requirements. We have evolving county regulations. We have more and more complex event operations. And we have the tools to do it today, technology and online permitting tools. And there's a changing community expectations regarding temporary events. And we have two decades of experience of what works and what doesn't. The goal is to give applicants clear answers early while giving county agencies the time and information they need to conduct sufficient review. It's our opportunity to modernize, like Brian said, the temporary event process, providing a clearer, more predictable, and user-friendly process. Like I said, we've been looking at it since 2006. It reflects two decades. makes requirements clear and applications more complete. It creates a more predictable process for event organizers and county reviewers, and it also preserves the public noticing and opportunity for public hearing for larger events. What is not and what is a temporary event? And a temporary, I just want to start out, a temporary event is not a marketing event. It's not weddings or private parties. It's not member-only events, exclusive dinners, winery club events, or marketing events, marketing of wine activities. It's not private events, not open to the public, and it doesn't include the public roadway events like a parade or a marathon. That gets processed in Public Works, and that is called a special event, and they have their own process in the municipal code. Temporary events include public gatherings involving expressive activities, and it's the ambient to the First Amendment process of the U.S. Constitution. Our Temp Event Ordinance Update is a more predictable, streamlined process. One clear timeline, fewer unnecessary steps. We're going from 60 days to 90 days. A deadline across, we heard the industry say that some of the larger events, we had proposed 120 days. That was too long for them, and so we brought it back down to 90 days. And staff responded by proposing this single, predictable 90-day timeline. The new timeline provides agencies adequate time for coordinated review, gives applicants time to respond to comments, allows licenses to be issued earlier, creates greater certainty for organizers and attendees, gives applicants more time to process building, fire, and environmental health permits, or encroachment permits if required, and allow sufficient time for public hearings if requested. It usually takes about, under the 60-day review, it takes about 48 days to process a public hearing when it's requested or when it's required. And I'd like to point out too that most of the applications come in late. So 60 days is our timeline now. But we get a majority of them come in anywhere from 60 to 50 days. So we're already running behind schedule in our processing. And staff did provide a timeline. under the 60 days as one of your attachments, and it just walks you through the process that it takes to get the event permit issued. One positive thing is the ticket sales are no longer required. They were required, but everyone sells tickets anyway a year in advance, and this one we just recognize that it's very difficult to regulate it. So we just decided to pull it out and not be a requirement. But it's still at the organizers' risk of selling those tickets, because what if they didn't get the event authorized? Public hearings and notices. We kept the public access included in the temp event. We eliminated unnecessary automatic hearings. What stays the same is we still have public notices. Temporary event applications remain ministerial and are not subject to the appeal process in Chapter 2.88. Because the 60 days didn't allow us enough time to process through the zoning administrator and then go to the Board of Supervisors. We had an issue a few years ago with that process. What changes? Larger events would no longer automatically be set up for zoning administrator public hearing. A hearing would only occur when requested by the member of the public. So this is what happens. The approach is for events of 400 people or fewer, we would send out a notice of intent to approve to properties within 1,000 foot radius and to the PBS's interested parties list. Events over 400 and event series would stay the same as what I explained, but it gives the public an opportunity to request a public hearing before the zoning administrator. But it's not required, it just gives them that opportunity to say we would like to have a public hearing. The benefit, it avoids unnecessary staff time, applicant preparation, hearing costs, and administrative burden when no hearing is requested. The ordinance provides more flexibility for event organizers, late applications. Once they hit today, the 50 days, we have to say no because there are no provisions in the ordinance to allow them to come in. So we replace that current rigid cutoff with the director's discretion to accept a late application. It provides flexibility for legitimate reasons time sensitive or unexpected events, like if we had a fire here and we wanted to do a fundraiser for fire support, they could come in with a late application with an explanation and have an event. Also political rallies or political expression of a message that they want to make, they can come in. Time limitations would be placed on an unreasonable restriction on the expressive activities and events that can be accommodated without compromising county review would most likely be authorized and they would be able to come in for a late application. We have a new category. Six, it's an event series. It covers multiple events within the 30-day period. It allows qualifying event series to use only one application and one deposit. For example, Music in the Vineyards has several events. They would have to come in with individual applications to process. Depending on the size, one or two may have to go to the zoning administrator. This way they can come in all at once and if somebody wanted a hearing, then we would take that packet to the zoning administrator. The requirements would still apply to each applicable parcel though. It is simpler separation requirements. We reduce the separation requirement. It's very convoluted and we just said four days between each event. And that gives a rest for the public and allows people to not be inundated with events. Now I'm going to talk a little bit about the manual that we propose. It's modern, user-friendly. We did a major overhaul. We invited all the agencies to help us. This is the one that took a lot more time. because we had to make sure and it addressed what was currently under our regulations, both federal and local and state regulations. So the manual becomes the applicant's roadmap. It was fully revamped, accessible, modernized. It provides clear navigation. The submittal requirements presented first. Compliance requirements follow. It provides clear guidance on what applicants need to submit. It's upfront information is provided about additional permits that may be required, such as tents, stages, generators, food services, traffic, encroachment permits, et cetera. It gives out timelines to make sure that they're not late to get those events. And it provides a comprehensive site plan checklist It provides updated agency context and clearer coordination. This is really key because the planning division was the only one that would be the one to answer questions and we'd have to figure out who to call. Now they could call them directly and ask for clarification of what would be required of them. So they call Public Works, they call the CHP, they call the Sheriff's Office based on what is identified in the manual and they get that direction directly from the agency rather than us putting them on hold and calling and trying to figure out, planners trying to figure out what is required. It's proposed as a living document reviewed and updated annually depending on the regulations that change. It's built to save applicants time and money. It's better information up front, fewer avoidable review cycles. Because the information is there, they can ask questions beforehand before they submit their application. It's comprehensive site plan checklist, provides clear submittal requirements. It's more complete applications can reduce back and forth review and review cycles. Avoiding unrequested hearing can reduce staff and applicant time and associated hourly costs. We clarified the traffic control plan. That was an issue with the public about requirements and how can we allow many events to use an experienced event planner rather than a licensed engineer where appropriate. The new online application that we'll be processing upon adoption of the ordinance and the manual, allows the applicant, like they submit for a building permit, create an account, save applications as they go, return to applications later, reuse information from prior submissions. So we don't have to dig out in our OnBase the prior application and send it to the applicant if they want it. see it, it's right there for them to use. Especially valuable for the reoccurring events. So this was a very collaborative update. It was built by the people who used the process. More than two years of outreach and collaborations. We worked with the organizers, we worked with the industry groups, including the Napa Valley Vintners. We worked with non-profits. Every time they came in, we talked to them. about the events. We had a whole year of processing events, and so we learned from that process. We asked them questions. We told them, go to our website, see our new ordinance, see what you think about it, give us some suggestions, and that's how we evolved the documents that we have today. And we also worked with the county departments and agencies, winery, hospitality, and event and the board members to get all sorts of feedback for the documents that were prepared. We incorporated public engagement. Two public comment periods were held, one in 2025, one in 2026. We had public workshops held in 25. We held a public combined in-person virtual workshop just this past July. We solicited written and email and in-person comments using both the website, social media, staff responses, which is included in our public comment document Excel spreadsheet. Those were written comments or email comments or phone comments, and we provided direct responses to that and posted it on our current project explorer so people could see it. And we posted those documents about 10 days ago before the hearing. And then based on those responses, they were used for revisions and to the documents. Today, we are asking the board to conduct a public hearing to introduce an ordinance that would amend the Napa County Code to address chapter 5.36 on temporary events. We also ask that we amend section 18.10 or 10.020 duties of the zoning administrator and also section 18.120.010, exceptions to use limitations of the chapter of exceptions. We also ask the board to adopt a resolution approving the temporary events manual and directing that the manual and application be maintained by the Napa County PBS Department. And then after adoption, or actually notice of intent to adopt, we will come back on the 15th for a final ordinance adoption by the board. And then after that, staff is proposing to train, to provide training with event planners and reviewing agencies on new ordinance and manual provisions and processing of applications. And then the effective date that staff is recommending of the ordinance is January 1st, 2027. We'll have the new application and manual effective for the 2027 events. And we'll be working with the event organizers in a transition plan that will help them because if we get an event in January, they need to submit prior to January, so we'll be providing that transition plan effort and help assistance for the reviewing agencies and along with the applicants. In conclusion, I'd like to thank the supporting departments and agencies that assisted Michaela and I. It was a lot of effort, a lot of work. They came forward and helped us specifically from the PBS department, planning, building, environmental health, and natural resources, county council help, the fire marshal's office, the emergency medical services office, public works staff, risk management, the sheriff's office, and the California Highway Patrol. All of them, while they were processing temporary event permits, they were assisting us in putting together the program. And with that, I'd like to share that they have attended this meeting to answer any specific questions that you have regarding the manual and any specific requirements. from their agency. With that, thank you very much and we're available to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you for that informative presentation. I would just like to mention that the public hearing has been opened. I think I did not say those exact words when I started this, so my apologies. And at this time, I welcome any public comment on this item. If there's anyone in the room who'd like to comment, please come forward to the podium and you'll have three minutes to speak.

Welcome. Thank you. Michelle Newby with the Napa Valley Vintners. Today's proposal reflects a very significant update from the manual and the ordinance of 2006 with many significant changes. i will say that this version before you today has been significantly improved from the draft that was made available in 2025 and includes a lot more flexibility based on a lot of the comments provided and so i want to acknowledge staff's work to do that and to field those comments and have that those discussions it's very much appreciated I don't know that I'm specifically asking for a change, but I do want to flag for you that when I look at submitting for our large annual philanthropic event, I am now estimating that we will need to set aside approximately 10 to $15,000 for the permitting fees for at least a few years associated with that. And I've let our OUR INTERNAL TEAM KNOW THAT. BECAUSE THE NONPROFIT FEE WAIVER PROGRAM IS NOW NONOPERATIONAL, THERE WILL BE IMPACTS TO THE NONPROFIT COMMUNITY AND WHILE SOME OF THE SMALLER EVENTS ARE LIKELY TO STAY UNDER THE $2000 DEPOSIT AMOUNT, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY GUARANTEED. So I would recommend that an email to all applicants from the last 36 months, all nonprofit applicants in the last 36 months is sent as soon as everything is adopted with three clear messages. The updated submission timeline, the new online system, and the fact that fee waivers are no longer available. And because there is a lag between adoption and implementation, I think it's wonderful to treat the manual as a living document, but to also bring this subject back to the board within 12 to 18 months, just to discuss if further refinements are needed. Thank you again to the supervisors, to the CEO's office, to county staff for all of your hard work on looking at this. And I appreciate the opportunity to share comments with you today. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Novy.

Welcome. Kelly Anderson from Angwin. I had a couple of questions, and I wonder, Chair Manfrey, if you could get an answer from Ms. Cayena or Mr. Bardona. Are all of the events under this new program philanthropic or fundraising? Or can they just be activities that you're selling tickets to a concert and they keep the money? So that is a question I had. I read in there, I looked at the voluminous report. I saw somewhere in there where it said certain activities could go till 2 a.m., And I wanted to get verification on that. And I know that's probably not a subject for this change right now. But I was curious to find out if, in fact, events can go till 2 AM. And I'd like to reference my husband when he says, nothing good happens after midnight. So I'm just kind of curious why we do permit activities to go that late. That's more suitable for a bar in town. And then lastly, I am curious, has any application ever been denied? Those are my questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Anderson. I am not seeing anyone else lining up here in the room. Is there anyone on the phones? We don't have anyone on the phones. Okay. So, um, a lot of good work by staff on this. I just want to acknowledge how lengthy and thorough this process has been. Um, at this time, I welcome any comments or discussion from my colleagues on the board. I see vice chair Alessio.

Thank you. Um, again, I, I definitely want to thank staff for your work on this, um, your collaboration, um, which really starts with listening and inviting people to come in is really to be commended. So thank you for that. Um, I would, if it is possible, let's start with, if we can provide some, uh, responses to the public comment questions we just had from Ms. Anderson.

Good morning. Mikaela McMahon, Deputy County Council. And I'm going to tag team these three questions with Charlene. The first question regarding nonprofits and fundraising, because it is First Amendment activity, anyone can apply. So both nonprofits, private orgs, anyone can apply for a temporary event license. To the second question as to 2 AM, there's provisions in our ordinance that allow events on New Year's Day to go to 2 AM. And that has been in our ordinance since 2006. And there are no proposed changes to those ordinance provisions as a result of today's staff recommendations.

And if we did have a proposal for a 2 a.m. New Year's Eve party, we would welcome the public and they would have the opportunity to request a hearing and we can look at that proposal at 2 a.m. or scale back the timeline. to what the normal timeline is midnight. As for denying an application, yes, we did have an application that was denied, and that was a winery that wanted a temp event, and the neighbors did come out. It was denied, and it didn't have time to go to the Board of Supervisors, so they canceled the event, and moved it to Sonoma County so they could have it. Let me see what else. So that was the only one that was really denied that caused for change in our process.

Thank you. Just a couple of comments. I really appreciate the efficiency that's been created in streamlining to help not just the PBS department, but to get the actual source experts, getting them directly involved to be able to answer those questions. I think that makes lot of sense. I know where we are reducing the time in which somebody can turn in their application from 60 days to 90 days. I will tell you that that gave me initial pause just because I know there's folks out there that been worried about being too late to get their application in at the 60 day mark. And we're not talking about professionals. The professional event makers, they understand, they're prepared, they know the system. Talking about more the lay person out there trying to do community good, community benefit, that they're gonna get caught and they're gonna feel like we can't do something really good for our community, for our neighborhood or whatever because of that 90 day the 90 days out. They may not even think about it until three months, and then it's already too late. And that's just the reality of what happens out there. So I'm pausing on that. I do know that, and I appreciate that there is discretion with the PBS director, that he has discretion in terms of accepting applications. beyond the 90 days. So I'm glad there's some kind of flexibility there. So I'm just gonna keep thinking about that. But I would personally, I'd prefer based just on practical, you know, boots on the ground, the reality out there is that 60 days can be challenging in itself, let alone 90 days. In terms of the the zoning administrator, very smart decision. That makes total sense because it just wasn't time well used or resources used. So that makes great sense that if it's requested, then we have a Z8 meeting. So thank you for doing that. It's also good that folks can actually promote their events, though it is at their risk. But that shows, again, additional listening and flexibility here, so I appreciate that. Late fees is mentioned here. How's that determined? Are late fees based on a sliding scale, a percentage of what the general fee would be? How does that work?

It's a flat fee. So it's a one-time fee. So they would have to pay for processing the application. as well as a late fee.

Okay.

So do you know what the late fee is?

It's about $425, I think it is, for something. I can't remember off the top of my head.

So $400 and something? Yes. Okay. And I'm going to end my comments with something regarding the fee exemptions that we once had for nonprofits. But I want to go through this really quick. I'm almost done. Let's see. I really, really appreciate the fact that for those annual fundraisers, that they can use the prior year's information and use that. That'll also save time for the applicant and for the county, so that makes a lot of sense doing that. In terms of the actual, we're approving the manual, but we're not looking at the application. so we don't have that before us because i guess the portal or the application that we have the manual that'll be built out later and um i did share with with staff and i i say this with uh with with respect that in some ways i'm i'm buying a car by having the manual but not being able to test drive the vehicle so But the manual looks great. So what I'm gonna ask is that when the actual application is formed and it's available, that you bring that back to the board and give us a presentation so we can actually kind of test drive the vehicle and have an opportunity for the public to provide comments and for us to provide comments. So I guess that would be a referral, a request in doing that. The other, let me just finish on, I think I've got everything except for the, in the future, I know we're not discussing fees and I know that this board. Based on the fee study was either earlier this year or is last year on based on a fee study was recommended that we are 100%. Um, recovery of staff time through phase. Did I said it correctly? Does that make sense? So yeah, cost recovery. Thank you. Cost recovery. 100% cost recovery of staff time. And that was what was recommended by an in-depth fee study. With that said, I would like this to come back to the board at some point to look at where and how we can offset those fees for the nonprofits that are creating and developing philanthropy funds that really identify addressing our local health needs here in Napa County. There's an entire process of having a community health assessment that's very in-depth with nonprofits and local organizations through public health. And then it goes through identifying those priorities and a strategic plan. And we have nonprofits and those who are for-profit, but the intent is to raise money to address the local needs and the health and safety of our community. And not only are they putting their time and money in doing that, but a lot of people donate items of any kind that can be auctioned, can be sponsored, and there's a lot of giving in terms of creating these nonprofit events that'll be going through this process. And the only folks I don't see that have skin in the game at this point is the county. meaning we're not doing anything to say this is our part when before we had a fee exemption that said we see the value of multi-millions we're talking hundreds of millions to hundreds of thousands hundreds of millions I don't know it's a lot especially over time in terms of what's generated of funding that really would have to be covered by local government to address these needs, most of them within HHSA. So again, if we can bring this back in the future for us to have this discussion, I think it's worthy and I think it's our ability to be a partner with the local nonprofits and folks who are working in addressing the needs of our community through fundraising.

And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you Super Vice Chair Alessio. I see Supervisor Gallagher and after that Cottrell.

Actually, I'm just going to hold because I did have a lot of questions answered by staff over the past few weeks and I was just going to suggest that we take public comment because I think that... Oh, that was it? We did public comment, yeah. Michelle Novi, remember? Okay, sorry. Just thought there would be more. So are we to the point of actually talking about what, not just questions, okay. All right, I'll go then. Okay, thank you. So I did want to thank staff. I know that we have talked about this a lot. I've had an opportunity to go through the whole draft and ask questions for many months. And one really, really quick question. is we don't really have anything special around the category one, one A and one B around complaints and enforcement. So I'm gonna make the assumption, you can tell me if I'm wrong or not, that those are complaint driven and if there's a complaint about anything in the category ones, that that's just turned over to code enforcement.

Yeah, that's correct. In the event we receive a complaint about an activity that is in the realm of a temp event that's at the category one, 50 or less, we would handle that as part of a normal code enforcement investigation and let the facts take us where they go. In the event I suppose somebody does a temp event that didn't get a permit, that would affect the processing of that temp event the next year.

Okay. All right. That answers that.

Thank you.

Also, just want to, I guess, say again, we're not discussing fees today and fee waivers. And I think that when we do, we're going to have to look at the lawfulness of that. There's legal implications and what we are able to do and not. So we need to be cognizant of that needs to be part of the discussion. In terms of the 90 days, I didn't see much in the public comments about having a problem with 90 days. I think I saw one comment. The others I saw were regarding the originally proposed 120 days, which was changed based on stakeholder feedback to 90. So it's across the board 90. And that seemed to be acceptable to those who participated in public outreach over the last few years, which has been just about everyone, it seems like. I now understand what unreasonable restriction of expressive activity is, so I don't need to ask that question. I'm a little concerned that there seems to be comments from Ms. Novy about this costing more. I'm confused by that because there aren't any new regulations. This is just process change. And I'd like, Uh, director to comment on that and I'd like to you to comment on. If we didn't have a process and we didn't have a manual and we weren't providing all this guidance and streamlining, what would it look like for somebody who wants to hold an event?

Sure. Yeah, the manual itself is a roadmap or a guidebook that contains regulations. The manual itself is not regulations. So absent the manual, those regulations would still exist. Absent a manual, an event coordinator would have to, I guess, interact individually with departments about a road closure permit. They would have to go to fire about whatever fire's requirements are, building, environmental health, CHP for road closures, public works. So what the manual does is it provides somewhat of a one-stop shop to where all the requirements are consolidated. Guidance is provided as to how to comply with all those requirements. So it's, in effect, a service, and it's a vast improvement from the 06 version. And in terms of the costs that Ms. Novy mentioned, I don't, like you said, yeah, there's no new regulation, so the temp events cost, there's no changes to the ordinance that would drive or affect costs, so I'm not clear on that part. But lost my train of thought. Yeah, I'll just leave it there.

Did I miss anything? Director, if I can just jump in. I think it's regarding the design professional that's going to be required. That wasn't a requirement before.

Yeah, so one more thing. I found my thought. So the manual, in a sense, in my view, particularly with the improvements to it, the net of that is a cost savings relative to the 06 version. The common or concerns about the design professional, this relates to the occupancy of a structure that was not designed and built for assembly. which is people occupying and staying in a space. Barrel rooms are a classic example. The current ordinance and manual does not allow for the use of those at all. So it's just a no. The new manual does in fact allow for those spaces to be used so long as a design professional assesses the structure, identifies evacuation plans and other measures to ensure public safety, but it's now an option, whereas before it wasn't. And the whole point of that is to make sure spaces are occupied in a safe way and that are concurrent or congruent with the design of the building that was originally designed and approved by a qualified professional. So I view that as an improvement. And yes, if someone chooses to occupy one of those spaces, it may cost them some money to hire a design professional to evaluate the space and make sure they're safe in grassy grass and all those types of things. And I believe Jason Downs is here along with our CBO. If there's more detailed questions about the fire and building code, I'm beginning to get way over my skis on that topic.

Can I take it back?

Oh, sorry.

Thank you for that. That is great. That's very clarifying and makes absolute sense. And. It's it's a point of flexibility. You're you're saying this is a space that could not be used before. Now we are saying it can be used, but it has to be used safely and that has to be. You know, well, thought out planned for approved, right? Correct.

That makes sense. It's an option now, whereas in the 06 manual, it's not.

Yeah, so thank you for that. You know, I think it needs because we're, we are updating this and we are making this process. Um, we're streamlining it. There aren't any new regulations. I think it's going to be really, really important to get this information out. It's. however we can to everybody that has held events, that could hold events. I mean, I understand. There's only so much we can do. But we can maybe try to come up with some ways, and I'm sure we all could help you through our different channels as well, to make sure people get the information. Because we know there are events happening where people do not get permits. And it's not because they're a category one. It's because they aren't getting the permits. Because they either don't know to get the permit, They don't understand how to get the permit. They don't. They don't maybe just want to go through the process of getting the permit. You know, there could be myriad reasons, but this is an opportunity to educate everyone that if you're having an event, you're, you're falling under 1 of these categories and you need to go look and figure out which category you follow fall under and what the regulations are. For the, you know, for that, and then. What is the process? Do you need a permit? Do you not? And if you do, what is it you have to do? And I think the fact that we have a manual that helps guide people through that process, and we're going to have an online form, if I'm reading this correct, where you can apply and you can go step by step. I think that we're doing everything that we can to make it as easy for people as possible. And the fact that it's a living document that will be updated annually is you know, our our promise really to communities, they will take your feedback. You know, we're we're attempting to make this a better process. But give us your comments as you go, as you plan your events over the year, and then we can look at it again. And if we see that there are gaps or there are unintended consequences or places where we need to make changes, we can come back and look at that. So I appreciate the work you've done. I know it's been a really, really long time and I think you've done a great job. And I also thank you for all of the outreach that you've done over the last since 2023 to bring in stakeholders and others to really hammer this through and get it right.

Yeah, I appreciate that. And I just want to maybe take the opportunity to expand on what we do plan to do in terms of outreach. So if the decision is made today, we will be conducting outreach, making folks aware and frankly touting the benefits of these improvements, identifying those benefits and how this process is now more streamlined. I was writing down, and I appreciate the comments from Ms. Novy, some of the suggestions that she had included. Those were already on my list, so great minds think alike. We'll be working with our PIO to get the word out as well. We've also discussed putting together a survey to receive feedback on how the manual and the ordinance is working. And like was discussed, that's a living document, so we'll have the ability to modify as we go as opposed to bringing something back before the board to do so.

Thank you, Supervisor Gallagher, Supervisor Cottrell, and after that, Supervisor Ramos.

Thank you chair. And thanks to my colleagues. This has been a great discussion and to the public comment that we've received, um, echo just have to echo. Thank you. Thanks staff for all the work here and the engagement. Um, I, um, uh, will be supportive of this, um. Of what's before us today I do have a couple of questions. Um, I think I think this is a real improvement over what has been existing. I think it's important also to restate that this is not creating a new program. This is streamlining and clarifying. what has been existing. So it's not like there's suddenly a new, um, suite of events that are being approved here. It's, it's improving a process. Um, so, uh, a few things, uh, one of the questions I had, uh, and thank you for, um, attaching the draft manual. I think that's really helpful. Um, we have mapped out there a 3 types of events. Um, 1 of the things I think it might be helpful to add is the AB 720 category, because that's not a winery event. It's not, it's not any of the other things. And so just to have that. Um, clarified there, we know we still need to do more education on those type of events too, but just to make that, uh, spell that out to to say, this is not what this manual is. If you need information on that go elsewhere. Um, so that's 1 item. Um, and then let's see. I would love we thank you to both miss Novi and miss Anderson for the questions. Um, and I think, um, just to be responsive to miss Anderson again, she mentioned a new program and we know this is a continuing continuing program, but she also had a question about, um. philanthropic events. And if because I know there was one section that was taken out that was that kind of a definition of nonprofits, but that's not because these type of events are specific to or only for nonprofits. So can you tell us a little bit about that?

That is struck out in the ordinance because that word is no longer used in the ordinance so doesn't need to be defined. Nonprofits can still apply for a temporary event license.

Right and but also you don't have to be a nonprofit correct?

Anyone can apply for a temporary event.

And even if we wanted to go down that path, that would probably be an infringement of 1st amendment rights. So we wouldn't. That's not something that we could do. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. And then, um, I think the other piece about, um. You know what I see here, and I think it came up with supervisor Gallagher's points that really this adding in flexibility than 90 days. 1st of all, these the review of these take a lot of staff time. So it's important that staff has the time to do the work. Um, and so I understand, uh, the ninety day, um, timeframe, and I appreciate the built in flexibility with that. And also the design professional piece, because we know that without that. That would just remove several kinds of spaces from a potential use in these kinds of events. So I, I see that as an added piece of flexibility. 1 thing I will like to see from staff is, I like that. There's some discretion built into that 90 day deadline. I think it will be really helpful for staff to have guidelines about. what we mean by that. And Ms. Galina, you'd walked through a set like an emergency event in response to a wildfire, for example, right? And because humans are humans, we will see people walking in to say, well, this event is really important and critical and Time-sensitive so I think in order to give people an expectation of what that discretion means I'd love to see some sort of bullet point some some other way that you're framing what those parameters are but that I'm also I appreciate miss Novi's point of maybe a coming back to us in a year and a half sort of saying how how this has Rolled out thus far and what we've learned. I think that would be really helpful for the board as well And then my final point, I also like the idea that at another time we can talk about the waiver. Well, it makes sense to me that we're removing the waiver for nonprofit fees, because that's what our fee study. That's what we approved under the fee study. And I think I've heard from staff that the cost is about. Well, maybe I'll ask you what is the cost of. of our waiver program at this point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Charlene. Last I asked, it was around $1,800. I don't have the exact number, but that's what I recall.

Yeah. My question was more what the total cost is to the county of the staff time that we don't recover because of the nonprofit fee program. Cause at the end of the day, that is, we should, as a board look at that, like, is that an investment we want to make it's taxpayer dollars and supervisor Alessio made a great point about all the value that our nonprofit community brings back. Um, so I think there's a good discussion to have there, but that should happen in a, a budget context.

Yes, we're planning to bring forward a matching of the fees associated with the temp event categories in September. So that's just that fee discussion for processing applications. And then there'll be another discussion with the budget regarding fee waivers. At that time, we would be able to have a full-blown analysis on how much the county is losing in terms of processing fees.

Got it and then we're really having the conversation about it as an investment, right? Yes. And what is returned and I will also point out that we do have nonprofits who do events here in the county that perhaps are going to support things outside of the county. So that will be an interesting discussion to talk about local nonprofits versus ones that are serving an audience outside. So, those are all my comments at this point. Thank you.

thank you so much supervisor gallagher supervisor ramos thank you so much and um let me start off my question supervisor cattrall alluded to it and i i believe that when we had our ab720 um conversation we matched up ab720 to be in line with what is now category one less than 50 is that not correct so we essentially do have it acknowledged in here because it's a category one no review less than 50. Is that correct? Who gave me correct? Okay, cool. peanut gallery in the back thank you okay so I just wanted to see I see that point but I I I don't believe we need to make a reference because those AB 720 events are less than than 50 next you know when it comes to let me go to okay let me start with on the application. I appreciate Supervisor Alessio's request in trying to see an application. However, I just I want to caution this board. We don't ever review applications. It would seem very out of the ordinary for us to get into a space where we are approving forms and contacts. We have The enabling resolutions attached, we have the manual and we give direction. You know, we, we certainly have the ability as as time goes on to provide feedback to staff. Should that should there be a problem? But. These applications are pretty simple in nature and everything seems to be an attachment. So I would really, I would really caution us to not go down that path and to let staff lead the way in this space with with our direction. I want to spend a little bit of time and. I wanted to spend a little bit of time and talk about this. Indoor space is not for assembly. And in particular, for my colleagues, I'm on pages, I think it's eight, nine, and 10 of the, eight and nine, sorry, of the manual. At the bottom, it says indoor event space is assembly occupancy that is governed by the building code in chapter 10. Events are limited to buildings or portions of buildings currently permitted for assembly occupancy. And this includes restrictions on events using production areas, fermentation rooms, barrel rooms, warehouses, caves. And if you want to... have assembly in these areas, that is where the detailed plan prepared by a licensed design professional comes into play. So my question, we've talked about this and I know in meeting with staff I asked this question before and I don't see a timeframe on this. So let's take for example, um, uh, location. I have been to many events, uh, is, uh, Louis Martini. Um, when one of these, um, detailed plans per the manual comes in is approved, is it only applicable to that event?

Yes, it would be, it would be applicable to that event. Um, so when Louie Martini came in and when a winery comes in, if they want to have identify where they want to have their marketing events, because we would have to go through this same, occupancy classification for any space in a winery so if we do get something that comes in and they say in the future we'd like to have marketing events or temporary events in this area then staff would look at that through the building permit review process or the major modification process or modification as we process a use permit for the winery but it would be and I could bring up David do to see if he's here in the audience but he's here yeah and he's eager to join yes yes please come up but it would be for that temporary event so I guess what I what I'm getting out here is a I

I think that there is an opportunity for us to be supportive, but I, I do not understand the limitations of the building code and perhaps maybe you can help me. I'll think this through, but when I think about. Some of these spaces, so let's take the barrel room at Louis Martini. They have events there. how do we get something on file that is, and I use on file very liberally here, how do we get something on file that allows that venue to be able to do a copy paste on these detailed plans signed off by a licensed design professional that we can utilize. So to say, hey, if nonprofit ABC had this event and now DEF wants to come in and have this event, they could just say, same plan as ABC. is that an option here for because in my head i'm not going to go ahead and live and list all these venues but in my mind i can think about five or six of these venues that are repeat hosts that would benefit from us to be able to keep something on file and and maybe that is a separate category Uh, that we can include in here at a later time, or maybe there's a way for us to incorporate a slide amendment that say that, uh, that. Uh, detailed plan if it is substantially similar. That it could stay on file for 2 years, assuming no large building code changes. I now let's discuss.

Am I on? So OK, I like to use this room as a good example. This is a room that is considered assembly. And you'll see that there's an occupancy load. So every building's different. If we choose to make this assembly, it triggers other things like exiting. So because of the 99 people that are allowed in here, we have to have two exits. And that means if someone, like say Brian's laptop catches on fire and we've got over 120 people in here, people might panic and run for the doors. So we want to make sure that that load capacity to get out is here. So we have that designed for 99 people in this room. When you take a fermentation processing warehouse, those are usually like a F occupancy, which is fermentation. And they're designed for production. And those are designed to maybe only have five people in them. And they have maybe just one exit, because there's only five people in the building at any one time. And then you've got other factors in there. It's designed, it has drainage troughs, there's walking surfaces that are issues, there's all sorts of things that go along with the designing for a production facility. So that's the challenge. What I have seen is we've tried to encourage people when they're designing their winery is to look at maybe a mixed use of that winery. So for things like that where they plan to have repeat events, they could do that they could look at the building to have the proper exiting that they can sort of make that conversion if they wanted to have events in there haven't seen a lot of it yet but it's very challenging when you have production and assembly so i know everybody wants to have their events in the barrel room amongst the production facilities kind of cool cool looking but It presents a lot of hazards. So what we've also looked at is we do basically a temporary occupancy change for an event. And then we ask that a design professional, just like they would if they were designing the building, come in and actually design it to make sure, or at least look at the existing exiting and see if they can make it work. Because they may be in a situation where they don't have enough room, maybe it's subterranean and they only have one stairway out of there, that can be a huge challenge to try to convert those spaces temporarily. So that's the big challenge. We need to see that because we don't want to have an event in the valley result in some fire, earthquake, panic situation, active shooter, you name it. People need to be able to get out of the building in a serious and panic situation. So there's those avenues, but that's why we have to have a design professional come in and evaluate that building and see if it works. They may have huge roll-up doors that they can pull up for the day while they have their event. So there's a lot of options out there, but it just depends on the building, and it varies from event to event.

Sorry.

Thank you. That's great background. But to get, I think, to your question more specifically, it sounds like you're suggesting that there be some form of a blanket plan that can be applied over and over and over again. I think to some extent, yes, it's going to depend on to what extent the event changes. The plan is specific to the event. If it's a 100-person event, there's going to be a plan. If it's a 1,000-person event in that same building, it's a different plan. If they rearrange tables and barrels and whatnot, that also could be a different plan. To the extent the plan is still applicable in subsequent years or events, yeah, it could apply. One of the things, and this is another improvement that is going to occur with this new manual and application process is we will now be retaining on file previous submittals. So let's say Martini comes in and they submitted a plan for the barrel room. It's there on file, and if you're just needing to make some small little tweaks to it, you can. You don't have to start from scratch. And so that's particularly helpful when folks do subsequent events. They essentially can reapply with nearly the same material that they did in previous years, which cuts down, of course, the review on their part and ours as well. So I don't know if we need to include a provision necessarily in the resolution or the manual. I think the CBO has discretion and authority to take those into consideration. But we, of course, would be happy to consider any language changes along those lines if you have them.

Thank you. I appreciate that. You know, I guess certainly I understand a 100% event. It's very different from a 1000 person event. What I, I guess the 1 thing is making sure that. Through the chief building officer that we're compliant with the building code, you know. I'm not sure how long those plans could be on file and still be relevant for your purposes. So I guess I would just refer that over to staff's discretion as if there needs to be some sort of language that says that those designs on file can be utilized for X number of times or years unless there is a substantive change to the building code.

Yeah, we can include a note in the manual that they may become outdated in the event the building code is updated. How often that happens? Every two or three years? Every three years. Yeah, so there's a three-year cycle, but we can include some clarifying language to let folks know that it could change.

I think that would be incredibly helpful if we have that expressly included in there. Then the next question that I have, and this is more of a... I am unaware, who is the applicant here? Is it the person having the event or is it the venue?

It's the person having the event is the applicant.

So then that is I think probably more at the central to my question is how do we, is the new system that's allowing for these documents Is it allowing shared information between applicants that are relevant to the same site? So if nonprofit ABC is having a 100 person event at Martini has done the detailed plan signed off by licensed professional, how do we make sure that nonprofit DEF can benefit from that same

from that same plan? I think they would have to have an internal discussion with one another to see if they can benefit. Or if the winery itself, the venue, does the analysis for temp events, different ranges of sizes, they and that stays with the winery then when the vendor or when the event coordinator comes in they can say oh you can use this that we had as a starting point for meeting the building codes or the fire codes regarding occupancy so i guess this is where um i see

more so than even looking at fee waivers and deviation of that, I see that there is an opportunity for us to be supportive in that space of those venues that are repeat hosts to be able to say, we wanna work with you and your support of the nonprofit community here's a specific toolkit for you and how you design up these 100 to, you know, the category ones, twos, threes, and to have that on file. That's, I guess, that's more of where I'm going at that I see a little disconnect of, we're saying here's the manual and that's great. I think it has really great suggestions and great guidance, but if there's a way for us to facilitate not reinventing the wheel, every single time, I think that that's where we have some space that we can be supportive in.

However, there is a caveat here. So if the venue space wants to or the venue wants to make changes to their production area, we still have to abide by the winery definition ordinance when it comes to the production to hospitality ratio. So there's that fine line that they may not be able to do permanent changes. to that, but at least we could have it in our system that they can use that analysis for the next event.

Oh, I am not at all suggesting the permanent changes. I'm suggesting those temporary changes that facilitate these indoor assemblies for temporary events. Yes. OK. That's it.

I see Vice Chair Alessio, do you have further comments?

Thank you. Just after listening to my colleagues and the response back, I appreciate that. What Supervisor Ramos kind of reminds me of, and I really like her idea, trying to think about how to problem solve something that could cost $7,000 to $15,000 for a design professional, depending what they need. And again, this may not work because of what your response was, but it reminds me a little bit of the Napa ADU program where there's pre-designed, approved pre-designed designs for ADUs and if there was approved pre-designs for some of these indoor spaces, based on previous use, that would be helpful. I think that could meet their criteria without adding additional cost. But I know there's a variable change, there's a variable change, but maybe still they could use that original concept, that original design, and they can have their design professional just amend it so it's not starting from scratch. So just trying to be practical and also thoughtful here.

I just wanted to mention, so the tricky thing about hiring an architect or a design professional is they have a copyright on those designs. So that's just something to consider. If they do one for a particular event and then six months later someone else wants to use those plans, we aren't able to just give those over. That would be something that you have to go back to that design. Just something to keep in mind. That's sort of the copyright infringement of design by architects.

So, and I was going to ask you, I think you were mentioning that because I was going to say, who qualifies as a design professional? Because architects are very expensive. Is there any other profession that qualifies as a design professional for this purpose?

Well, you can have, so there's architects which are trained in the building code. They go through their education for that and then they get licensed through the state. So that right there qualifies them. Then you also have others, fire protection engineers that can provide exiting. They can also be someone who you could use for that sort of analysis. There's some design professionals, they're usually licensed and are particularly familiar with exiting and life safety for buildings.

But still, it is a cost burden that may or may not allow, and I'm gonna go back to nonprofits, because it's the community good that they're doing that may or may not allow somebody to have an event indoors when there is no, maybe it's a seasonal issue and it's raining and they have no option. And so they need to do indoors, and their budget, they just cannot. They just don't have it in their budget. Right. Um, but, um, so I really liked what supervisor Ramos was trying to think of a problem solving solution. Um, it would be nice if we could expand. What the design professional, um, category look like, um, to allow more people to be able to do this, be qualified. Um, but. I'll let that one, I'll let that go at this point, because I kind of heard staff response on that. Going back to what I said before regarding the 60 days to the 90 days, I hear everybody. I do think that the outreach and the education is going to be really important. So I'm not going to push back on that. I'm just going to say, you know, it's a living document as it's reported here. We're going to learn more. I really appreciate what director said about surveys and getting feedback and we can make changes. So, again, I'm just trying to prevent. any barriers for people to you know provide goodwill and and you know funding for our community where we need it most let's see I think I have one more follow-up Oh, it's it's regarding, you know, my request of bringing back the application once it's formed and once it's ready on our next item today, we're going to be looking at that application. It's part of our presentation. It's my recollection. We've looked at applications before. It's an online portal. It shows the process. And so again, it's not just for this board to have an opportunity and for, but also the public to have an opportunity to see how the manual actually actualizes in the product of the application for. You know, even the lay person to be able to be able to use this community, not just the event professionals to use would be very helpful. And so, again, I still going to extend that request. And then the other request is already standing in terms of looking at and you said something's coming back in September. because we're not talking about fees today. Though when I saw the nonprofit kind of red line through, because the definition I understood why, because that's what it tied to. That's where I started that discussion, but we'll discuss that more in September. And that's all I have, but just a lot of gratitude, thank you.

Okay, thank you. I see Supervisors Gallagher and after that Cottrell. Thank you.

Something that Supervisor Ramos brought up when she asked the question, who's the applicant? We need to be really clear who the applicant is. I'm looking at the manual and in the verbiage at the top, it really doesn't say who. Who is the applicant? Like, am I an applicant? I see, you know, the question does my event require and qualify for a temporary event license? But I think that there is a lot of confusion out there when a winery, for example, is hosting or providing the venue for. somebody doing a fundraiser or whatever, I don't know that it's completely clear who is responsible for applying. Is there a way to make that really clear on all the documents?

So the current application that's located on the website has, and this will be an application, we'll take that application and that will be used to develop the online application. It allows for, The applicant who's hosting who's coordinating the event to apply, but we also require the property owner, which would be the winery to sign acknowledging that they're going to use that venue, so we have to have. the property owner and the applicant sign the application form. And that'll be put in the online application, because they'll have to provide some sort of documentation showing that they have authorization to use that venue.

Okay. I think that's super important and maybe it's a reason why sometimes these applications don't come in because nobody knows who's supposed to do it.

And a property owner can apply too for a temp event.

Right, right. So just making sure people understand that if they're involved in the event, they are most likely, if it's something that needs a permit, they are going to have to be part of the application. Yes. Like if you're holding it, you're part of it. If you're the winery, you're part of it. Like you aren't There's no waiving of accountability. Yes, that's correct. The other thing was the Supervisor Alessio's request about looking at the application. I don't have a problem looking at the application. I don't want to approve applications. I don't want to approve your forms. I don't want to approve any department's forms. unless there is a legal reason why we have to. So I just don't want to get in the habit of approving the forms that you need to create based on our policy direction. So just want to make that clear that we're not setting any kind of precedent or that you would be bringing something for us for approval.

It's prerogative of the board. It's not something that we've typically been asked to do. But if it is, we will. In my view, I'm looking at the application now, the manual is the heart and soul of the process. And I'm looking at some of these old things on this checklist and this application that are going to go away because they're becoming obsolete. The application should be a one-pager. Your name as the applicant, your name as the property owner, the parcel number, the type of event you're applying for, and everything else lives in the submittal documents that are dictated by the manual. There's no sense in requiring 10-page applications anymore, particularly as we're moving to online submittals. We don't need folks filling out all these blanks here anymore. This is a lot of obsolete information. But that said, want to be completely respectful of the board and if there's a desire to see the new application we would be more than happy if we're coming back as a check-in in six months or a year or i can't remember the interval to present that to the board if they wish we will be presenting that to the public and offering workshops as to how to submit applications targeted at those that submit temp event applications i suppose all members of the public if they're interested are welcome to attend those whether they do or don't submit template applications. But again, the idea is to streamline and reduce down this 10-page application to one, maybe two pages. And in fact, it won't be a page anymore. It's gonna live inside the system.

Thank you. I think I just wanted to note that looking at something is fine, but I don't wanna have any role in approval of something like that.

Yeah, and given it's not something that we had anticipated, I do want to caution the board that if we are asked to bring something before we can launch this, it could jeopardize launching this in time for submittals on January 1, particularly if we're going to receive feedback and tweaks on it. A lot of this is going to be interacting with our IT department and our internal IT department and helping create the system through our online permitting system, which hasn't been built yet.

Thank you for pointing that out. It's important. Thanks.

Supervisor Cottrell. Thank you. I wanted to first go back. I like where Supervisor Ramos and Supervisor Alessio were going in thinking about an applicant not having to recreate the wheel with the space analysis. I also think there's only so much the county can do on that because as Mr. Giudice pointed out, first of all, there's copyright limitations. And there's just what, uh, 2 different applicants working with a venue will interact about. So maybe my suggestion is maybe we can have some language out there that says something like. You know, if a venue has had an approved event in this space, and there has been an approved space analysis, like. You know, you may want to use that, or you can, you may be able to use that subject to time limitations or just putting applicants on notice that that's an, that's an option that the county, because I think that gets to supervisor Ramos's point that we want to be able to say the county's okay with you using a previously approved space plan.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea because there could be multiple applicants for various events, and they may not be aware of the previous event organizer having submitted a plan. So we can include some language in there that makes them aware if they did or ways to find it or otherwise kind of get at your suggestion.

Great. Thank you. Okay, great suggestion. I was going to say something very similar to what supervisor control just suggested. And that's along the lines of, um, as our staff pointed out, uh, you know, the tables could be moved around or. You know, certain things could change, but, um, you know, if there's a, if there's something already on file and the plans were seen in the 1st iteration, I don't see why you'd want to see the same plans again at. You know, at an extra expense to whoever's coming after that, because presumably if you've. Uh, permitted a situation in a certain configuration once. Um, I, I can't see why it would be denied for the same situation a 2nd time around. Um, so I think I think that's a great suggestion. Thank you. Supervisor control. Um, let's see, I have, I have a couple of things here. Um. I do also want to thank everyone on the board for a very lively discussion here and everyone in the public for participating in this through the last couple of years. There's been a lot of conversation and staff has taken a lot of different perspectives into consideration getting to where we are today. okay um i think my only outstanding item is the great thing about going last is everything's already been discussed um the only outstanding item is that i read through this and i correct me if i'm wrong please point me to the language if i am wrong but um for for the categories of events that we have there's limitations on the number of each type of event you can have over the course of a year so for Type 2A, there can be six events. Type 2B, six events. Type 3, six events. Type 4, three events. Type 5, two events. Type 6, one event. And they have to be separated from any other event, typically by four days, right? But I don't actually see any language addressing additive events. And so if a entity, if a location wanted to be doing Um, each type of event to the max with the maximum number of people, this would be actually be a terrific amount of events potentially going on every other week across the year. So, um, yeah, so please let me know if I've missed something. Um, if there's a place in here where it says, you know, additively no more than X. Um, that's that's my question.

There is not and that is what's currently existing in our ordinance right now as well.

so it is per parcel and they could have the max 2a 2b 3. okay and i can see where that's something that i mean an event facility would pretty much have to be designed around functioning at that incredibly high level of capacity um My concern is that we're looking at the entire county jurisdiction and this includes places that are very accessible as well as places that are very remote. Um, and, um, and this is, this is what I'm struggling with. Like, if it's not, um, if there's no. i mean i guess we can you know readdress it at a board at a future date if there's an ongoing concern somewhere in the community but um but i do feel like that's an area of potential oversight in terms of the the impact that could exist um particularly in a place that is where people have a reasonable expectation that they're they're living in a quiet part of the community and all of a sudden something really changes So I don't know if there's anything more anyone on staff has to say about that or if I'm just kind of putting that out there as a, yeah.

Yes, I think this is where the reviewing agencies come into play. You know, we had an event out in Pope Valley and emergency management services required that an ambulance be put on site because of the distance to, to such services. Um, and we look at traffic control, we look at music, even though the ordinance says that you can have an event that goes till midnight. Most of the events are till 10 o'clock. We have the noise ordinance that plays into how loud the music can play and the noise and everything, not to disturb the neighbors. the surrounding area and this is where those neighbors will get notified and if there are some concerns and say it's a notice of intent that doesn't require a hearing we would work with the applicant and the party that made comments to make sure that those issues would be addressed during the hearing or during the the review of the application if there's a hearing then they can come and testify but either way we would have them work directly with the applicant to try to resolve any of those issues that may come up.

Okay, thank you. I guess I can just close this with a little bit of an admonishment to people to be neighborly. And we'd all prefer to not be hearing complaints. And so just take into consideration and communicate well with your neighbors as this rolls out. I hope we have no problems, but I do see that as a potential problem area if people are not neighborly. So thank you so much for considering that. Okay, we are here. So seeing no further comments from the board, I will close the public hearing and I will ask for a motion of intent to adopt the ordinance.

I will go ahead and move and I'm going to first of all ask for County Council. We, I know that this is, um, we, we make the motion with an intent to adopt the ordinance and then the final adoption would be at our next board meeting.

Correct.

Okay. So I will move that the board intend to adopt the ordinance of the Napa County Board of Supervisors amending chapter 5.36 of the Napa County code. And then I will also make a motion that we adopt the resolution approving the temporary events manual. Second.

Second, Ramos.

Thank you. Thank you. A motion by Cutrella, second by Supervisor Ramos. All those in favor? Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you. okay um we are moving on to administrative administrative item 10a and i do recognize that we are hitting the lunch hour and um i will uh let's take item 10a because i know there are people from out of the area here specifically to speak to it and then after that we will see where we're at and we may take a lunch break um depending on how long this takes or we may power through if it's quick

We'll take a lot.

So, Supervisor Gallagher, I'm sure will rejoin us in just a moment. Let's go ahead with item 10A, the adoption or consideration of adoption of a resolution updating the Napa County left turn lane warrant slash screening continued from June 23rd, 2026. I welcome a staff report from our Public Works Director, Steve Lutterer and affiliates.

Thank you, Chair, ma'am, free members of the board. I am here with Essin Cosme, our county's traffic engineer, and Jeff Rubendall of Farron Pierce, and they will both have roles here shortly. for background um as you mentioned we were here on june 23rd there was one public comment um when we came on june 23rd from michelle benvenuto of grape growers we did meet with michelle and she was so satisfied

I think she left.

And we've not received any additional public comments since June 23rd. So by background, our current left turn lane process, basically the process whereby we determine whether a private development requires a left turn lane or not, Was originally established in the 1980s And it had actually been working reasonably well, but it was old and a lot of the history behind its original establishment was Lost a time if you will Council had recommended that it would be a good idea to update the standard to today's current standard technology, if you will, and also, of course, have the background available to defend it. So that was the process we went through. We also went through a significant public outreach process where we contacted a number of our local practitioners to get their input. The goal was to make the current process easier to use and more clear, obviously defensible. There was no desire to make it harder. In fact, it actually is probably a little slightly easier in a couple of cases. Harder or easier, I mean, we're not expected that going to get a whole bunch more left turn lanes that we would have otherwise or a whole bunch less that was that was not the goal um so we are here today and we're going to ask you to adopt a resolution updating the left turn lane warrant screening process we did include some of our process type items in the agenda item our left turn lane analysis the screening and user guide the fillable form that we'll be using and we included it largely because i think it's kind of cool but we're not asking you to adopt that just the just the resolution so i'm going to stop here i'm going to turn this over to jeff from farron pierce we did want to get expert outside analysis and jeff's going to talk for about eight minutes and no more and we'll get you guys to lunch

Thank you. Jeff Rubin with Ferron Piers. We just had a couple slides to walk through the process, some of the key findings, and answer any questions you all might have. Just to echo what Steve mentioned, is really the goal was to find an objective and defensible process, make it as streamlined and as easy to apply as possible, that's consistent and transparent. The current process that was established in the 80s, like Steve mentioned, is a curve, a graph like this that somebody would apply data to and with a little bit of details in how you would apply it. It's a pretty simple way to do it, it's just the underlying research and basis was hard to track down. Established but not necessarily as documented. So we kind of identified, we researched what the typical best practices are for left turn screening criteria, what kind of inputs are easy to collect in terms of the methods as well as the cost to do so, and other traffic engineering basics that are pretty common to when you're evaluating a new site in an area like Napa County. We did a fair amount of research going back many decades. There's been a lot of research about left turn warrants and when you should have one, when you shouldn't necessarily need to have one. The most recent one being in 2013, which is the National Cooperative Highway Research Program or NCHRP report, which is a federally recognized research based a series of traffic engineering fundamental reports and documents that kind of help set the standards for typical traffic engineering, civil engineering, geometric roadway design elements. What we found as part of this is that the previous, because the most recent one was established in 2013, everything that preceded that is actually based off the underlying research from the 60s with very little update over time other than just applying that same data set in slightly different contexts. So what we found is that there's actually an opportunity to leverage the most current research associated with that. This is a snapshot of that old 1967 research. As you can tell, it's very grainy, where the application of it is a little harder to apply. So it does kind of track that the older research does sort of correlate to the established Napa County curved graph. It wasn't necessarily a one-to-one comparison. So what we found was using the most current NCHRP process, which is actually seems like weird, but it's the straight lines make it very easy to plot data points and you don't have to interpret whether it's you rounding up or down or any things like that. And it's very common in the specific context of Napa County. So comparing the old graph with what we are seeing is what the current research supports, just a slightly, it's very, yes, it's a graph and you can plot numbers on it, but really the underlying research and the thresholds with which to apply a left turn lane is very easily applied with the current research. So in summary, the proposed process itself offers safety-based, research-based approach that uses peak hour traffic, existing traffic, and proposed traffic projections, relying on industry best practices related to traffic engineering and safety interventions. The quick summary of the things that change, it is based off of the Federal Highway Safety Manual. It uses definitive collectible data such as peak hour volumes, turning movements, both existing and proposed or calculated very distinct linear lines to make it easier to plot, and it's consistent with current best practices, and we actually used a fair amount of previous data as part of other applications to make sure how that different approach may have changed whether left-term lane would be needed or not, and found some interesting correlations very similar to the results that Steve alluded to, with a few exceptions. The process itself streamlined. It's very similar to the type of data that would be collected as part of a traffic impact analysis. Even if a traffic impact analysis screened out, there's still that process that we are suggesting followed to collect data of the surrounding area. There's very established volume warrants that you would apply during in that NCHRB document. We did include a site distance assessment, which is kind of separate from a volume-based approach to make sure that the roadway geometry itself allows for safe movement of people and cars, as well as allowing the ultimate result, allowing county to weigh in on the specific context of a particular application to make sure that it's as concrete as possible, but also gives the county the ultimate decision based on other external factors. Steve mentioned the form. This is a little snapshot of it. It's basically an Excel document that you can fill out, and it populates the results using a series of formulas that are underneath it. We also developed a user guide that is geared towards the applicants themselves and their consultants or whoever they're using to support the development of their potential project. And it really walks through how to fill out the form, some of the underlying research, but really just alluding to the appropriate federal documents so a design professional or a professional can kind of track and document the basis of the analysis. So in summary, the new process that we're proposing is defendable, compatible with the current county TIS guidelines. There's very little room for interpretation or argument, and it still ultimately provides the decision-making authority to staff through the best practices and the context of a particular application. With that, happy to answer any questions you all might have.

Okay, thank you so much for that presentation. Um, I see supervisor control.

Yeah, thank you for this presentation and this work. It makes a lot of sense. It's going to again provide more clarity for applicants and staff. So my question is, um, so, uh, it sounds like there's these will result in similar. Um, you know, we're not changing what the, um. Well, not that we are changing the standard, but it's not, the volumes aren't going to be significantly different. Can you help us understand for current applications, you know, or that maybe already had their analyses accepted, are we going to go back and do anything? And when's the kind of changeover date?

Yeah, thank you. I was actually going to cover that. So great question. So if an application is already considered complete and they've done the old process, we're not going to ask them to do that again. They can do the result from the preview. So let me just make clear. So an application is already in, it's complete, they did the old process, and they don't require a left turn lane. We're not going to make them do this new process to see if so they're good the flip side of that is if they already have an application and and the old way did require a left turn lane if they want to do the new process and see if they can get a different result they're welcome to do that if their data is really old they'll need to get current data but we're we're not we're not trying to jeopardize anyone who's already done uh who's already completed the work So, I don't think I said that really well, but I hopefully you said it well enough.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Okay, I did not take public comment. So is there anyone wishing to speak up? Yeah, go ahead and come up to the podium. You'll have 3 minutes.

Afternoon, Josh, Devorah, Dickinson, Peatman and Fogarty not here for any particular client since I've been. credited and or blamed for this. I figured it was only fair for me to show up. This has been a long-running discussion with Public Works on this. I do appreciate all the effort that went into this. Director Lederer, Austin, the team that came up with the new warrant that is now an engineered warrant that replaces the old graph that I... We'll leave for another day whether or not there was any basis for that or not. But so I'm glad to see that we've got something new. On our specific comments about it, I will note that there was only one option presented to the board, which was frankly a very restrictive warrant. There weren't other options for the board to consider. It is not consistent with the Caltrans warrant. So there will still be two different warrants in place in Napa County with two different results. Projects that are on state highway will be subject to a different standard than this. And that is a looser standard, just so everybody is aware of that. The other thing that hasn't been talked about at all is the cost benefit of left-turn lanes in general. All of the cost right now is put on the applicant in the event of left-turn lane is required. But the applicant gets very little of the benefit from a left turn lane. One of the big benefits of a left turn lane is reducing backups behind left turn vehicles. That's a public benefit, right? And so for this board, and you don't have to consider this now, but for the future, you should think about who should really be bearing the cost of these public improvements that are designed to speed traffic for the public. but you have minimal benefits for the actual applicant that's charged with putting them in because these are very expensive installations right million dollars to put in a left turn lane it could be and the other thing for the board to think about is uh the perception that uh wineries are being required to put these in and the county is not putting them in, right? If you ride up Silverado Trail, you know, north of Deer Park, there's a dozen left turn lanes to wineries. There's not a single one at any public intersection. All right, so keep that in mind when, you know, a winery shows up and says, why do I have to put in a left turn lane when the county's not doing it? But with that all said, I'm glad to see a little bit of progress. I'm a little concerned about the language in the site distance. that seems to mandate changes rather than make them discretionary. The new language is that changes will be made to infrastructure as opposed to may be required to infrastructure. I think that could be clarified a bit, because otherwise you're going to end up seeing a lot of exception requests. But with that, thank you to Steve and the team for seeing this process through.

Okay. Thank you for those comments. Is there anyone on the phones? Okay. No. So no one on the phones. I don't see anyone else in the room. Um, is there anyone else? Oh, I see on the board wishing to comment. I see vice chair Alessio.

Thank you. Thank you for the public comment. That was interesting and helpful. Does staff have any response in terms of any of the comments and questions that were brought up, especially the two different standards between Caltrans and our own, that site distance?

Yeah, a couple things. Thank you. One is I will credit, not blame, Josh for kind of driving the, kind of be the original impetus of this program. We probably wouldn't have done it otherwise, but I think we ultimately benefit from doing it. So actually, not blame, credit. So thank you on that. So a couple things. One, in terms of the value of left turn lanes, and I do disagree in that a winery does benefit very much from a left turn lane. Absolutely, a left turn lane helps with flow of traffic. There's no question about that. But there are also safety elements. associated with it we all know on Silverado Trail for instance if there is not a left turn lane to a winery the tendency first off again a safety element in terms of rear-end accidents and whatnot secondly in terms of cars diving to the right essentially into the bike lane to go around someone to make a left turn lane so so there are definitely safety benefits that accrue Um, to the people making that left turn lane and the people around the person trying to make that left turn. So I believe it is a joint. Uh, benefit, um, in terms of the cost of a left turn lane, obviously everyone, everyone's different. Um, we did do a partnership. deal with a winery Recently we were doing a paving project. They needed a left turn lane. So we partnered on it and even using government Expenses if you will, you know all of our rules and prevailing wage and all that the project was I think about four hundred and thirty thousand dollars Which I think is way more typical than the million and a million and a half numbers that I often hear Throw it around. So I'm not that 400,000 is an insignificant amount of money, but it's not not a $1,000,000. Josh is correct that there are some some intersections on Silverado Trail that are public intersections that don't have left turn lanes. I mean, generally what happens. With a left turn lane is a is a project triggers the need for it for instance when the county built our new jail we put in the traffic signal that was required so what generally trigger triggers. I suppose if the county wants to build a winery next to Dunneville Lane, then the county will probably be required to put in a left turn lane. That being said, when we do a paving project, we do look at safety, and we do look at, you know, and it oftentimes depends on simply whether there's enough space there, and we definitely add those sort of safety improvements when we can in the context of, The last thing, the Caltrans standards versus the county standards. Josh is correct. Caltrans does have their own standard. When we started this process some time ago, we actually talked to a number of local traffic engineers and said, well, why don't we just go use the Caltrans standards, and they were horrified. They're like, oh, we do not want. Basically, the Caltrans standard is really, really difficult to use. They did not want to go that way. It is also true the Caltrans standard is somewhat less restrictive than the county standard. Our new standard is essentially the same as the old county standard. We did not try and change that. I'll just say that Caltrans roads are different than ours in a lot of different ways. And, um, um, our standard is what, uh, effectively what it's been and it served us pretty well. Um, That being said, if the board wanted a different standard, we could go back and create a different standard.

Yeah. Can you explain some of those in terms of not the process? It sounds like the process, Caltrans process is complicated, but there's more flexibility or ease to it. What could some of those benefits be that Caltrans has that actually could benefit us here at the county?

Yeah, the process is really complicated, but just separate from that. The short answer is that there are projects under the Caltrans standards that won't require a left turn lane, where some under the county standard will. So they end up with fewer left turn lanes than we do. But again, their processes are very different for a lot of reasons. For instance, if you look at State Route 29 as we go up the valley, Caltrans has invested a tremendous amount of money with doing a center dual left turn lane in a lot of different places. So a lot of wineries end up, or I say wineries, it could be anybody, it could be restaurants, other businesses along there, end up not having to do the left turn lane simply because Caltrans has already built that infrastructure. If you look at Silverado Trail, there are areas of the trail that are over time have significantly been built out with wider shoulders and whatnot that are closer to 29, but there are areas of the trail that are not. So I hope that answers your question.

Yeah, it's my recollection if I'm visualizing. If I'm remembering correctly, there is a left-hand turn lane going northbound on Sovereign Trail turning on Yonkville Crossroad. So I recall there one being there. I don't recall if there's one at Oak Knoll or not. I know that's a high-hazard area. We've had a lot of accidents at Oak Knoll, but I think there's one at Oak Knoll. There is. Okay. So we do have some. Were those built by Caltrans or us? well the ones on the trailer built by us okay that's what i thought okay well that's good to know there's a couple additional slides that i received that weren't in this presentation um maybe we cut the presentation short i don't know at least or maybe i wasn't looking at your entire presentation but um i believe that right after the slide which is like walking through the form itself yeah if if you if we can do that if we if there's a question about that No, I was just going to compliment the form improvement just because it's Excel-based, which is going to help people to automated calculations. So I think that's great. It looks really simple. It looks very streamlined. So I was just going to compliment on that. And your one slide, the new process, it's defendable, compatible, minimal wiggle room, which I think we were talking about there, which can be a plus or not, and the decision-making authority. So I just thought it was worthwhile just to mention that you did add these slides for more clarity and information on the form and the application process.

Yeah, I will say when we were plotting against the old graph, particularly if you got close to the line, this was a graph that was drawn 30 years ago. So it was drawn with a pencil. And as you got close to the graph, it was very easy to try and decide whether your dot was on the line or above the line. And with the new form, we just get a yes or a no. Yeah. You know, so it's clearer.

All right. Well, thank you very much. Thanks for your time.

Just to add to it, it also does plot the actual dot above or below that line, so you actually can visualize it as well.

Great, great. Thank you all.

Okay, thanks. Great. Great input there from everyone all around. I just want to just want to call out that from the perspective of the general public or the county that when an applicant comes forward with a process, they're asking for a change to existing conditions. And there's, you know, that's their prerogative to ask for the change. And for me, it's hard to understand why it would be the public's duty to then. Uh, pay for the change they're requesting. So, um, just from from that public perspective, just call out kind of the, uh, the difference in how that looks from a different angle. Um, and I will also call out that we have recently prioritized the turn lane at Oak Knoll. Um, which I'm, you know, looking for, you know, that's that's an important project for us and that vision 0, which is a goal of 0 serious injuries and 0 fatalities on our roads is a priority for this entire board. And anything that moves us in that direction is welcome. So, thank you for that. And for our entire community, helping us work toward that goal. I don't see any further comments from my colleagues. So where are we? So I will ask for a motion to adopt the resolution. Thank you. I have a motion from Supervisor Gallagher. I'll second that. Second from Supervisor Cottrell. All those in, are there any deliberations? No. All those in favor? Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you so much. Okay. And we have two more items and also closed session on our agenda. How hungry slash hangry are my colleagues? Let's go. Okay. So we're going to go to closed session and we'll return to return to complete the meeting after closed session.

Amen. Right. See? we are ready to go live Chair, we are ready to go live.

All right, we are returning from closed session and I welcome a report out from County Council.

Thank you, Chair. So the board met in closed session this afternoon on items 12A through 12C. Item 12A, conference with real property negotiator involving the Calistoga Fairgrounds. Direction was given to the county's negotiator. No reportable action was taken. On item 12b conference with legal counsel existing litigation in the case of Rogers Vaughn versus County of Napa by unanimous vote of the board the board authorized county council to file an appeal of the court's denial of summary judgment. on item 12c existing litigation in the case of alexander perry versus napa county no reportable action thank you very much

Thank you. Thank you for that report out. That brings us to item 12B, which is the appointment of Solano County Supervisor Cassandra James or Sonoma County Supervisor Chris Corsi to serve on the County Medical Services Program Governing Board with a term effective immediately following the election and which will expire on December 31st, 2027. I welcome a staff report from Ms. Hoskins, our Clerk of the Board.

Thank you, Chair. Right now, there's currently a vacancy in the group three county supervisor position following the resignation of Solano County. Excuse me, Supervisor John Vasquez and the CMSP governing board have asked the group three counties to submit the ballot attached to this item to vote for a supervisor to fill that seat. So just for information purposes, Napa County is part of the group three county supervisor seat along with Solano, Marin, and Sonoma counties. The candidates for the designated seat are Solano County Supervisor Cassandra James and Sonoma County Supervisor Chris Corsi. The term for this seat will take effective immediately following the election and expires December 31st, 2027. So I ask the board to please vote on one of those members listed.

Okay. Thank you. Um, I welcome any public comment on this item. I'm not seeing anyone in the room, but is there anyone on the phones? No. Okay. Then I will ask the board if there are any comments or questions about this item. Do you see Supervisor Gallagher here, but I don't know if it's from?

No, it's from now.

Oh, it's from now, okay, then go ahead. Are you ready?

All right, thank you. I think it makes sense to go ahead and appoint Supervisor Cassandra James. I believe the retiring, seat is from Solano County so staying with Solano County makes sense and I know she's well qualified for the position based on her her experience prior to her role as the supervisor so I would go ahead and make the motion to appoint supervisor Cassandra Jane I'll second that thank you for those same reasons

Okay I have a first and a second on the floor and I would also extend our our our well wishes to John Vasquez who is leaving his seat and for unfortunate circumstances so so I have a first and a second on the floor all those in favor? Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you. And our next item is 11, 11A, adopting a resolution establishing recorder notification program pursuant to the California government code section 27297.7 requiring an assessor parcel number on certain documents and establishing a notification fee of $11 for recording each deed, quit claim deed or deed of trust slash mortgage. And I will open the public hearing on this item. I invite John Tudor, our county recorder or county clerk on his behalf. I'm not seeing.

It looks like Mr. Tudor is in presence. So Deputy County Council Fitzgerald will take over.

Yes, I would appreciate that very much. Go ahead when you're ready.

John's on his way. Okay. Um, is my understanding.

I know this has gone longer, I think than he was here all morning.

So, um, so I'm Ryan Fitzgerald deputy county council representing the recorder clerk and, um, the John can tell you a little bit more about it when he gets here, but the purpose of uh government code 27 297.7 is to make sure that all property owners receive notice if there's a deed quit claim deed mortgage or deed of trust recorded against their property so beginning on january 1st of 2027 the recorder is required to notify uh the uh

required to send notice to the John can tell you a little bit more maybe thank you for joining us mr. Tudor thank you I've been here all morning but I know it was my own fault I should have read the agenda so having read it for eight years I skipped this one so let me give you a little bit of background Have any of you had phone calls from constituents about protecting their property from fraud? I get them all the time. I just want to say that it's really not an issue. I mean, it is for somebody whose property is taken. But in my 29 years as recorder, we've had two cases of real estate fraud. Neither person lost their property. One of them went to jail. And we have a great cooperation with our district attorney. And so it's out there in the public. There's been lots of infomercials about title lock and life lock. Give us $19.98 a month and we'll take care of it. That's why you have me and they have me. That's our job. And along with the notary system and the Secretary of State. But given that, the legislature still feels it's important that every property owner who has a deed recorded against their property get a notice that a deed was recorded against their property. So there are two categories, deeds and deeds of trust mortgages, they're also known as. So effective January 1, 2027, all counties must, it's a shall, adopt a resolution which is before you today and adopt a fee if required not all counties are charging a fee some are or some aren't our fee analysis has been sent through the ceo's office and approved and i'll go briefly through what that is and then once that takes place we have set up between our two vendors megabyte which is our property tax system See, you don't send the notice to the person who gets the deed back, because that's the grantee. We're sending it to the grantor. And the recorder doesn't know who the current grantor is. I mean, we see their name, but we don't have their name and address. So Liz Alessio grants to John Tudor. I'm not sending it to John Tudor. I'm sending it to Liz Alessio. But Liz's name and address is in the assessor system, not in the recorder system. So there's a connection between the two. We're spending $5,000 with our vendor one time forever to set up the system on the megabyte on the property tax side to take a list from the recorder, a file which gives them the document number, the name of the grantor, et cetera, megabyte overnight. will generate letters addressed to those people that will be sent back to the recorder for printing and mailing the next day we have 30 days to do that the problem is some counties are way behind on changing ownership when they get deeds other counties are caught up we're in we're pretty caught up So I want to get it done immediately. So the person, Liz, gets the message about the deed she did. I do want to point out that 99% of these documents are going to be ones they did. I sold my house. Duh, I just got a notice I sold my house. Or I just refinanced. I'm going to get a notice that I just refinanced. But that's the system, because there's one in a million, maybe, maybe more in the large counties where they didn't know that somebody was trying to deed away their property, or they didn't know that somebody had taken out a mortgage against their property without their knowledge. So that's what it's for. and we're ready to get going january 1st 2027 the reason i'm here before you today in august is the code section that the legislature passed says there's 120 day notice before you can collect the fee so that 120 days starts september 1st so that's why i'm here with you today and all of the publications have been done let me just explain about the fee there are really three components to the fee The first is this $5,000, which we're amortizing over five or ten years. I forget how many. The second is the printing and mailing of the actual notices. And I should mention, along with the notice, there will be the first two pages of the document. The reason it's two pages is they're sometime cover pages. So the person who gets this courtesy notice will get the first two pages of the document that we're telling them about so they know what they're getting. It's not just the deed was recorded and then come down and look at it. We're actually gonna send it to them. So that's the second component. And then the third component is all the traffic this is going to generate for our office on the recorder side. When people get these notices, I've made it as clear. And I think I've sent it to you all. And if I haven't, I will after this meeting. I've made it as clear as possible. You probably should disregard this notice. But just in case, we're sending it to you. It's in English and Spanish. It's one page. And it directs them to call me. because i don't want our staff being overwhelmed with calls these first few months when this goes out or maybe a few years i don't know how this is going to work so i put myself in as the contact that way i can track how many i get and what kind of answers i get and then i'll be aware if there is a fraud immediately so that i can then operate with the district attorney and get going if something is fraudulent so those are the three components of the fee and it the fee is only charged against those documents so somebody doesn't pay a fee for a easement they don't pay a fee for something unrelated to a deed or a deed of trust we expect that there's seven or eight thousand of these documents a year in our county and that's what we based the fee on and amortized it over those seven or 8,000. That's not gonna change. Our number of documents are down at the moment because of the economy, but even at our height, seven or 8,000 should be probably the number. We picked an average that looks back over several years. So about 33 documents a day, or letters a day, we'll be sending out. So that's the background. I'd be happy to answer any questions if there are any.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Assessor Tudor, for that thorough background information. I don't think I took public comment on this yet, so I'm gonna go ahead and take public comment before we bring it back to the board for questions. I don't see anyone in the room on public comment. Is there anyone on the phones? No, okay, then I will bring it back to the board for any questions. comments. I see Supervisor, Vice Chair Alessio.

Thank you for the information the background history. So our what we have in terms of what we're approving is the $11 fee but you also mentioned a $5,000 fee.

No, that was a one-time expense.

Oh, that was a one-time expense. So that's not, okay.

That's one time, not every year. The megabyte vendor who supports our assessors. That's for the vendor, the one-time vendor. I see, okay. Just to set up this program.

I understand. Okay, great. Yeah, that's fine. I'm happy to move this forward.

Okay. Was that a motion or...

That is a motion.

Okay, I'll second that. Okay, I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Thank you, that passes unanimously.

Thank you, Chair Manfrey and board members.

Have a great afternoon.

I will.

Okay, and I believe that brings us to item 13 on our agenda. And I would just like to note that I think at this point all of us have gotten the unfortunate news that Dolly Parton passed away. recently and so i would like to adjourn this meeting in dolly parton's honor and i would like to note that she was one of country music's most singular talents her imagination library served children and continues to serve children here in napa county and across the entire united states it's an amazing resource what an incredible thing for one individual to have worked to establish with i'm sure the help and support of many of her and I will also know that her kindness touched all generations. She was an ambassador for good. She brought joy and kindness and asked all of us to reflect on how we might contribute to a world with more equity for people who are less fortunate uh, resource wise for women, for children, for people of color and for the LGBTQ I a community. She was, um, she was just incredible in that respect. And her family statement said that she was a rhinestone light that shown bright enough for the world to see, which is so true. So thank you. And that adjourns our meeting today.

Thank you.