Agenda — Calistoga City Council, October 6, 2026 (part 1 of 12)

Mayor
Donald Williams
Vice Mayor
Lisa Gift
Councilmembers
Irais Lopez-Ortega
Scott Cooper
Kevin Eisenberg
AGENDA
City Council - Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 6, 2026 - 6:00 PM
1307 Washington St., Calistoga
Hybrid
Please participate in the meeting by observing or listening to the meeting in one of the following ways:

1. Watch on your TV – Napa Valley TV Channel 28

2. Listen or participate via your phone – dial 1-669-900-6833, enter webinar ID: 869-7536-9274

3. Watch or participate online via Zoom - click this link

4. Watch online via YouTube Live at youtube.com/cityofcalistoga COMMENT ON THIS MATTER DURING THE MEETING: Please participate in the meeting by providing public comment on any item on the agenda or any item of municipal concern. To comment during a virtual meeting (Zoom), click the "Raise Your Hand" button to request to speak when Public Comment is being taken on the Agenda item. You will be unmuted when it is your turn to make your comment for up to 3 minutes. After the allotted time, you will be re-muted.

WRITTEN COMMENTS: Alternatively, you may provide public comment on any item on the agenda or any item of municipal concern via email. Please submit your comment, limited to 350 words or less, via email to [email protected]. Written public comments submitted by email should clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Oral Communications” in the Subject Line for items not on the agenda and are requested to include the submitter’s full name. Comments must be submitted at least four hours prior to the meeting start time to be included in the agenda and posted online. Comments received thereafter, will be made part of the official record and given to the Committee after the meeting. Note: The methods of observing or listening to the meeting or providing public comments may be altered or the meeting may be cancelled, if needed, due to certain technical disruptions.

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND OPTIONAL PATRIOTIC

ACTIVITY

2. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSIONS

3. ORAL COMMUNICATION ON CONSENT ITEMS OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS This time is set aside to receive comments from the public regarding matters on the Consent Calendar or matters of municipal concern not on the agenda. Pursuant to Government Code section 54954.3 (the Brown Act), however, the Council cannot consider any issues or take action on any requests not on the agenda during this comment period. Speakers are encouraged to limit their comments to 3 minutes maximum so that all speakers have an opportunity to address the City Council.

3.1. Public Comment (Page 4)

4. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

5. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS/ AWARDS

5.1. Council Will Consider Making a Proclamation that October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

Recommended Action: - Consider Making the Proclamation
Staff Report - Proclamation in Honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month - Pdf (Page 5 - 6)

5.2. Council will consider making a proclamation honoring Rotary International and the Calistoga Rotary Club for their enduring commitment to service, humanitarian efforts, and the global fight to eradicate polio.

Recommended Action: - Consider Making the Proclamation
Staff Report - Proclamation in Honor of Rotary International Polio Relay - Pdf (Page 7 - 8)

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

6.1. Adoption of Consent Calendar
Recommended Action: To adopt consent calendar as presented / with the exception of

6.2. Adopting the minutes of a prior meeting.

Recommended Action: Consider adopting the Minutes
City Council - Regular Meeting - Sep 15 2026 - Minutes - Pdf (Page 9 - 11)

6.3. Council Will Consider the Reclassification of Executive Assistant to Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager
Recommended Action: Consider Adopting the Resolution Approving the Reclassification
Staff Report - Reclassification of Executive Assistant to Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager - Pdf (Page 12 - 35)

6.4. Consideration of a resolution authorizing the execution of the required State Designation of Applicant's Agent resolution for purposes of obtaining State and Federal financial/grant assistance for emergencies/disasters.

Recommended Action: - Consider Adopting the Resolution
Staff Report - Execution of the Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution - Pdf (Page 36 - 40)

6.5. Consider adopting a Resolution to adopt the Napa County 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, including Volume 1 and the Volume 2 City of Calistoga Annex.

Recommended Action: - Consider Adopting the Resolution
Staff Report - Adoption of the Napa County 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update - Pdf (Page 41 - 1539)

6.6. Council will consider authorizing the reclassification of the Recreation Coordinator position to Recreation Supervisor.

Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving the Recreation Supervisor classification and authorize the reclassification of the Recreation Coordinator position to Recreation Supervisor.

Staff Report - Reclassification of the Recreation Coordinator position to Recreation Supervisor. - Pdf (Page 1540 - 1547)

7. PUBLIC HEARING

7.1. Consideration of a Resolution establishing an ADU Fee Assistance Program to implement ADU incentives called for in Housing Element Action Item A1.2-2.

Recommended Action: - Consider Adopting the Resolution
Staff Report - Consideration of a Resolution establishing an ADU Fee Assistance Program - Pdf (Page 1548 - 1555)

7.2. The City Council will consider the introduction and waiving of the first reading of adding Chapter 6.05 of the Calistoga Municipal Code regarding Potentially Dangerous

Page 2 of 1606 ends

and Vicious Dogs, which will establish an administrative process for the investigation and regulation of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs, including procedures for hearings, appeals, and enforcement actions.

Recommended Action: - Consider Approving the Ordinance Amendment Staff Report - Introduction and Waiving the First Reading of an Ordinance of the City of Calistoga Adding Chapter 6.5 to the Municipal Code Regarding - Pdf (Page 1556 - 1565)

8. GENERAL GOVERNMENT

8.1. Consideration of a Recommendation from the Calistoga Green Committee to direct staff to evaluate and propose the adoption of the Bee City Resolution.

Recommended Action:

The Calistoga Green Committee recommends that the City Council direct staff to evaluate and propose the adoption of the Bee City Resolution to allow the City of Calistoga to become a Bee City affiliate.

Staff Report - Consideration of a Recommendation from the Calistoga Green Committee to direct staff to evaluate and propose the adoption of the Bee Ci - Pdf (Page 1566 - 1606)
Public Comment (Page 1566 - 1606)

9. COUNCIL REPORTS

10. ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE: If you challenge a city’s zoning, planning, or other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Judicial review of any City administrative decision may be had only if a petition is filed with the court not later than the 90th day following the date upon which the decision becomes final. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a shorter time period for Litigation, in certain cases 30 days following the date of final decision.

Pursuant to GC §54957.5: any writings/documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection on the City website at www.calistogaca.gov SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL RECEIVED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA:

Any supplemental writings or documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, such writings or documents will be made available on the City’s website and will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office located at 1232 Washington Street, Calistoga, California, during normal business hours and by appointment.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: The City can provide special assistance for persons with disabilities to participate in public meetings. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation please contact the City Clerk at [email protected] or (707) 942-2807. If you need assistance or accommodation, please provide notice at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. For TTY/ Speech-to-Speech users, dial 7-1-1 for the California Relay Service, offering free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

ACTA DE AMERICANOS CON DISCAPACIDADES Se les pide por favor que avise con 48 horas de anticipacion cuando necesita hacer un pedido de assistencia. Esto nos da suficiente tiempo antes de la junta para que la ciudad tome medidas razonables.

POSTING: I declare a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall, 1232 Washington Street, Calistoga, among other locations in the city limits of Calistoga, on September 30, 2026.

Yudiana Galvan, City Clerk

Page 3 of 1606 ends

1 Yudiana Galvan
From: Lana Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 2:17 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fairgrounds revitalization
Mayor, City Council members - Williams, Eisenberg, Cooper, Gift, Lopez-Ortega City Manager - M. Celaya
Planning Building Dept Dir - G. Desmond
I have attended every Fairgrounds Advisory Meeting (FAC) and followed all reports given by FAC, comments made by public and staff. As I stated in my previous public comment(s), there was a detailed work-plan prepared by FAC. The work plan was submitted to City Council and unanimously approved Jan 27, 2026. However, now 9 months later, there’s still been no action taken towards implementing the council approved plan or any version thereof. This is completely counter productive and does not align with what Council approved to support the goals for revitalizing the fairgrounds, make it profitable and an asset for generations to come.

At the Aug 27 FAC meeting, chair Pavitt presented a very comprehensive report supporting implementation of the council approved work plan. However, there was no discussion of or vote on the report. At the Sept 24 FAC meeting, there was a variation of the committee report presented with multiple options. Again, there was limited discussion and no vote on the report. FAC has unnecessarily protracted this item and is NOT following the council approved plan. This is a total waste of resources, time and no progress is being made.

More importantly, it seems the revitalization of the fairgrounds is intentionally being deferred by not taking any action to move forward with the approved plan. For the close to 3 decades that I’ve lived in Calistoga, in my opinion, this is absolutely the most important project I’ve seen presented to Council. To be successful without unnecessary expenses and delays, this project requires significant planning and development knowledge. Therefore, in my opinion this project should be redirected and be overseen under the umbrella and guidance of the planning and building department (PBD). Without that depth of knowledge, the Fairgrounds project will continue to stall, most likely be more expensive than necessary and possibly not achieve optimal results.

Lana Richardson
Calistoga
Item #3.1.

Page 4 of 1606 ends

City of Calistoga

STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Yudiana Galvan, City of Calistoga | City Clerk
Meeting: City Council - Regular Meeting - Oct 06 2026
Subject: Proclamation in Honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month DESCRIPTION:

Council Will Consider Making a Proclamation that October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider Making the Proclamation
SUMMARY:

In FY 2025/2026, NEWS assisted nearly 1,700 survivors who were experiencing domestic violence and sexual assault, and served 41 clients from the City of Calistoga, including children. The NEWS Help Line received 24 calls for assistance from Calistoga residents. Clients from Calistoga received emergency assistance and crisis intervention services, including food, clothing and financial assistance; court advocacy and accompaniment, including help preparing and filing restraining orders; and support from our Domestic Violence Response Team for after-hours crisis response FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None
CEQA STATUS:

None
ATTACHMENT(S):

Proclamation in Honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month APPROVAL(S):

Hide Miyamoto, Administrative Services Director Approved - Sep 25 2026 Mitch Celaya, City Manager Approved - Sep 26 2026
Yudiana Galvan, City of Calistoga | City Clerk Approved - Sep 29 2026 Item #5.1.

Page 5 of 1606 ends

CITY OF CALISTOGA PROCLAMATION
in Honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month
WHEREAS, NEWS, Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse Services is commemorating 45 years of service to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault in Napa County, having opened its first confidential safe house on October 5, 1981, and providing safety to those escaping abuse; and WHEREAS, Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October raises awareness and uplifts the needs, voices, and experiences of survivors. Domestic violence is a public health concern that impacts individuals, families, and the community as a whole, causing lasting physical, emotional, and economic harm.

WHEREAS, domestic violence and sexual violence affect people throughout our community.

National data show that many women and men experience intimate partner violence or sexual violence during their lifetimes. Nearly 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men in the U.S. report experiencing severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime.

WHEREAS, by observing Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we affirm our community’s commitment to supporting survivors, honoring those who serve them, and working toward the prevention of domestic and sexual violence for future generations.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCALIMED that the City Council of the City of Calistoga does hereby proclaim October 2026 as “Domestic Violence Awareness Month” and encourage all residents of Calistoga to honor survivors and those who support them during this month and throughout the year.

Signed and Sealed this 6th Day of October,
__________________________
Donald Williams, Mayor
Item #5.1.

Page 6 of 1606 ends

City of Calistoga

Council will consider making a proclamation honoring Rotary International and the Calistoga Rotary Club for their enduring commitment to service, humanitarian efforts, and the global fight to eradicate polio.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider Making the Proclamation
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None
CEQA STATUS:

None
ATTACHMENT(S):

Proclamation in Honor of Rotary International Polio Relay APPROVAL(S):

Hide Miyamoto, Administrative Services Director Approved - Sep 29 2026 Mitch Celaya, City Manager Approved - Sep 29 2026
Yudiana Galvan, City of Calistoga | City Clerk Approved - Sep 30 2026 Item #5.2.

Page 7 of 1606 ends

CITY OF CALISTOGA PROCLAMATION
in Proclamation of Honor for Rotary International Polio Relay WHEREAS, Rotary International was founded on February 23, 1905, in Chicago, Illinois, and has grown into one of the world’s largest service organizations, with more than 1.2 million members in over 32,000 clubs across approximately 200 countries and geographic areas; and WHEREAS, guided by the motto “Service Above Self,” Rotary members are dedicated to humanitarian service, high ethical standards, goodwill, and peace, supporting communities through projects that address critical needs including health care, clean water, hunger, education, job training, and poverty; and
WHEREAS, in 1985, Rotary launched PolioPlus and became a leading partner in the global effort to eradicate polio, working alongside the World Health Organization, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and UNICEF. Through these collective efforts, polio cases have decreased by more than 99 percent since 1988, bringing the world closer to the eradication of this devastating disease; and
WHEREAS, the Rotary Club of Calistoga was chartered in 1924 and currently has 58 active members who demonstrate “Service Above Self” through projects addressing poverty, health, hunger, literacy, and environmental concerns locally and around the world. On October 15, 2026, the Club will celebrate PolioPlus by honoring Calistoga citizens and families whose lives were touched by polio and participating in the End Polio Now Torch Relay; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City of Calistoga City Council honors Rotary International and the Rotary Club of Calistoga for their enduring commitment to service, humanitarian efforts, and the global fight to eradicate polio.

Signed and Sealed this 6th Day of October,
__________________________
Donald Williams, Mayor
Item #5.2.

Page 8 of 1606 ends

MINUTES

CALISTOGA CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, September 15, 2026 - 6:00 PM
Calistoga Community Center | 1307 Washington Street Calistoga, CA 94515

1. Call to Order/Roll Call/Pledge of Allegiance and Optional Patriotic Activity Mayor Williams called the regular session to order at 6:00 p.m.

Present: Mayor Williams, Vice Mayor Gift, Councilmember Lopez-Ortega, Councilmember Cooper, Councilmember Eisenberg

Absent:

2. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSIONS
No reportable action from closed sessions.

3. ORAL COMMUNICATION ON CONSENT ITEMS OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS Oral communication was not received. For oral communication and public comment content, for any item on the agenda, view the video of the meeting available on the City’s YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCalistoga.

3.1. Public comment was received from: Doug Allen, Ric Jeffries, Deborah Jeffries, David Ross, Lisa Rudell, Cindy Yant, Laurie Poggi and Tom Poggi.

4. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Celaya reported:

1. Welcome to new public works employee Jason Dedrick and new police officer Adrian Cortez.

2. Public Works and Rotary held a Coastal clean-up day this weekend.

3. The vintage revival rodeo will be postponed until April 30th.

4. The race weekend had over 10,000 visitors and businesses reported increased sales.

5. The Lincoln Avenue main replacement project will be completed the first week of October, followed by some overlay night work.

6. Cedar Street may be closed for a week during the day in front of Pioneer Park for tree maintenance.

7. The water meter work will be complete in the next 2-3 weeks and instructions will be on our website and in with the water bills.

5. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS/ AWARDS
The Council proclaimed September 17-23 American Constitution Week, celebrating the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. Mayor Williams presented the proclamation to Carli Ramos, Chapter Regent of the Daughters of the American Revolution.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

6.1. Adoption of Consent Calendar
Motion by Mayor Williams and seconded by Vice Mayor Gift to adopt the consent calendar with the exception of items 6.6 and 6.7. Motion Carried AYES: Mayor Williams, Vice Mayor Gift, Councilmember LopezOrtega, Councilmember Cooper, and Councilmember Eisenberg
Item #6.2.

Page 9 of 1606 ends

City Council - Regular Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

6.2. Council adopted the 8/25 Meeting Minutes.

6.3. *This Item Has Been Continued to a Future Meeting* Council will consider authorizing the reclassification of the Recreation Coordinator position to Recreation Supervisor.

6.4. Adoption of Resolution No. 2026-65 - Approving a reimbursement agreement for the subdivision located at 2400 Grant Street.

6.5. Adoption of Resolution No. 2026-66 - Formal adoption of the Napa Countywide Active Transportation Plan, which includes a jurisdiction-specific chapter for Calistoga.

6.6. Adoption of Resolution No. 2026-67 - Awarding of a construction contract to Allard General Engineering for modular office utility infrastructure and site preparation work and authorization of a construction contingency. This item was pulled for discussion and presented by Deputy City Manager Stepp.

Public Comment was received from Cindy Yant and Lisa Rudell.

Motion by Mayor Williams and seconded by Councilmember Lopez-Ortega to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to adopt the resolution. Motion Carried AYES: Mayor Williams, Councilmember Lopez-Ortega,
Councilmember Cooper, and Councilmember Eisenberg
NOES: Vice Mayor Gift
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

6.7. Adoption of Resolution No. 2026-68 - Approving the Managed Services Agreement with SDI Presence LLC to continue Virtual Chief Information Officer services through June 30, 2028. This item was pulled for discussion and presented by Deputy City Manager Stepp.

Council directed staff to get a cost analysis report for the City bringing in its own IT consultant to be reviewed by Council at the budget workshop in February.

Motion by Vice Mayor Gift and seconded by Councilmember Eisenberg to adopt the resolution Motion Carried
AYES: Mayor Williams, Vice Mayor Gift, Councilmember LopezOrtega, Councilmember Cooper, and Councilmember Eisenberg
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

Page 2 of 3 ends

Item #6.2.

Page 10 of 1606 ends

City Council - Regular Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026

7. PUBLIC HEARING

8. GENERAL GOVERNMENT

9. COUNCIL REPORTS
Vice Mayor Gift asked that Council consider holding off on the Fairgrounds' requests for proposals and encourage the Fairgrounds Advisory Committee to begin working on a master plan for the Calistoga Fairgrounds, as is in their work plan.

Councilmember Lopez-Ortega recalls that in the past an employee of the month was recognized during Council Meetings and she requested staff begin doing that again. City Manager Celaya advised that the HR manager heads a recognition team that "spotlights" employees internally and suggested a presentation on the existing program. Council supported this as a future agenda item.

10. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Williams adjourned the meeting at 7:16 p.m.

Prepared by: Approved by:
______________________ ______________________
Yudiana Galvan, City Clerk Donald Williams, Mayor

Page 3 of 3 ends

Item #6.2.

Page 11 of 1606 ends

City of Calistoga

STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Rena Lariz, Human Resources Manager
Meeting: City Council - Regular Meeting - Oct 06 2026
Subject: Reclassification of Executive Assistant to Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager
DESCRIPTION:

Council will Consider Approving the Reclassification of Executive Assistant to Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:
-
SUMMARY:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the reclassification of the existing Executive Assistant position to Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager.

The proposed reclassification reflects the higher-level analytical, project coordination, and executive support now needed within the City Manager’s Office. It also provides additional trained backup for essential City Clerk functions, improving continuity during absences and periods of increased workload.

The reclassification does not add an additional full-time equivalent position.

ANALYSIS:

The responsibilities needed within the City Manager’s Office have expanded beyond the traditional scope of an Executive Assistant. The position is increasingly expected to perform professional-level work, including research and analysis, preparation of City Council materials, coordination of Citywide projects, budget and contract support, legislative research, and special assignments.

The proposed Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager classification better reflects this level of responsibility and the independent judgment required to perform the work.

The reclassification also provides an opportunity to strengthen backup support for the City Clerk.

Many City Clerk responsibilities are time-sensitive and must continue during absences or periods of increased workload. The position would be cross-trained to assist with City Council agendas and meetings, public notices, official records, resolutions and ordinances, Public Records Act requests, and other essential City Clerk functions as needed.

This structure provides the City with greater flexibility and continuity while making better use of an existing position. It increases professional capacity within the City Manager’s Office and provides an Item #6.3.

Page 12 of 1606 ends

additional trained resource to support critical City Clerk responsibilities without increasing the City’s authorized staffing level.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The proposed reclassification of the existing Executive Assistant position to Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager is estimated to result in an annual financial impact of approximately $6,579.76.

Because the action reclassifies an existing authorized position rather than adding an additional position, the financial impact is limited to the increased compensation and associated costs resulting from the reclassification.

CEQA STATUS:

N/A
ATTACHMENT(S):

Executive_Analyst_Resolution_2026_
10-06 2026 Salary Schedule - Final
Authorized Position List for FY 2026-27 Updated 10-06-2026 Unrepresented Mid-Management - Update 10-06-2026
APPROVAL(S):

Connie Cardenas, Admin. Services Director Approved - Sep 03 2026 Mitch Celaya, City Manager Approved - Sep 04 2026
Yudiana Galvan, City of Calistoga | City Clerk Approved - Sep 08 2026 Item #6.3.

Page 13 of 1606 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-___
ADOPTED OCTOBER ___, 2026

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALISTOGA, COUNTY OF

NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE EXECUTIVE

ANALYST/ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER CLASSIFICATION AND

RECLASSIFYING THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT POSITION
WHEREAS, the City periodically reviews its classifications to ensure staffing resources appropriately reflect current operational needs and responsibilities; and WHEREAS, the responsibilities needed within the City Manager’s Office have expanded beyond traditional executive administrative support to include professional-level analytical work, project coordination, research, preparation of City Council materials, budget and contract support, legislative research, and special assignments; and WHEREAS, the proposed Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager classification more accurately reflects the level of responsibility and independent judgment required to perform this work; and
WHEREAS, the City also has a need for additional trained backup capacity for essential City Clerk functions to ensure continuity during absences and periods of increased workload; and
WHEREAS, the Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager will be cross-trained to provide backup support for City Council agendas and meetings, public notices, official records, resolutions and ordinances, Public Records Act requests, and other City Clerk functions as needed; and
WHEREAS, reclassifying the existing Executive Assistant position provides the City with greater organizational flexibility and continuity without increasing the number of authorized full-time equivalent positions; and
WHEREAS, the Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager classification shall be designated as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and included in the City’s Unrepresented Mid-Management (UMM) employee group; and
WHEREAS, the proposed reclassification is estimated to result in an annual financial impact of approximately $6,579.76.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALISTOGA DOES HEREBY FIND THE FOLLOWING:

1. The City Council hereby approves and establishes the classification of Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager.

2. The Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager classification shall be designated as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and shall be included in the City’s Unrepresented Mid-Management (UMM) employee group.

3. The salary schedule for the Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager classification is established as follows:

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Hourly $45.1300 $47.3958 $49.7695 $52.2484 $54.8633
Monthly $7,822.53 $8,215.27 $8,626.71 $9,056.39 $9,509.64 Item #6.3.

Page 14 of 1606 ends

4. The existing Executive Assistant position is hereby reclassified to Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager. This action does not increase the number of authorized full-time equivalent positions.

5. The Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager shall provide professional analytical, project coordination, and executive support and shall be cross-trained to provide backup support for essential City Clerk functions as needed.

6. The City Manager is authorized to make non-substantive technical, clerical, or administrative corrections to the classification specification, salary schedule, or related City documents as necessary to implement this Resolution.

7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of October, 2026. I, ____________________, City Clerk of the City of Calistoga, hereby certify the foregoing resolution was introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the Calistoga City Council by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor
Item #6.3.

Page 15 of 1606 ends

Classification Unit Monthly-1 Monthly-2 Monthly-3 Monthly-4 Monthly-5 Hourly-1 Hourly-2 Hourly-3 Hourly-4 Hourly-5 FLSA City Manager UCM $24,166.67 $139.4231 Exempt
Councilmember Elected $950.00 Exempt
Mayor Elected $1,500.00 Exempt
Classification Unit Monthly-1 Monthly-2 Monthly-3 Monthly-4 Monthly-5 Hourly-1 Hourly-2 Hourly-3 Hourly-4 Hourly-5 FLSA Administrative Services Director UEM $16,275.15 $19,782.20 $93.8951 $114.1281 Exempt Assistant City Manager UEM $17,526.67 $21,303.75 $101.1154 $122.9062 Exempt Deputy City Manager UEM $16,275.15 $19,782.20 $93.8951 $114.1281 Exempt Fairgrounds Revitalization Director UEM $16,275.15 $19,782.20 $93.8951 $114.1281 Exempt Fire Chief UEM $17,526.67 $21,303.75 $101.1154 $122.9062 Exempt Parks & Recreation Director UEM $16,275.15 $19,782.20 $93.8951 $114.1281 Exempt Planning & Building Director UEM $16,275.15 $19,782.20 $93.8951 $114.1281 Exempt Police Chief UEM $17,526.67 $21,303.75 $101.1154 $122.9062 Exempt Public Works Director/City Engineer UEM $17,526.67 $21,303.74 $101.1154 $122.9062 Exempt Classification Unit Monthly-1 Monthly-2 Monthly-3 Monthly-4 Monthly-5 Hourly-1 Hourly-2 Hourly-3 Hourly-4 Hourly-5 FLSA Associate Civil Engineer UMM $9,278.18 $9,742.16 $10,228.64 $10,740.81 $11,277.64 $53.5280 $56.2048 $59.0114 $61.9662 $65.0633 Exempt Building Official UMM $10,740.81 $11,277.63 $11,842.32 $12,433.78 $13,055.27 $61.9662 $65.0633 $68.3211 $71.7334 $75.3189 Exempt City Clerk UMM $9,986.47 $10,484.73 $11,009.75 $11,560.51 $12,136.99 $57.6142 $60.4888 $63.5178 $66.6952 $70.0211 Exempt Code Enforcement Officer UMM $6,924.09 $7,271.26 $7,635.58 $8,013.81 $8,416.70 $39.9467 $41.9496 $44.0514 $46.2335 $48.5579 Non-Exempt Deputy Finance Director UMM $12,321.56 $12,937.64 $13,584.52 $14,263.74 $14,976.93 $71.0859 $74.6402 $78.3722 $82.2908 $86.4054 Exempt Deputy Public Works Director UMM $12,198.76 $12,808.70 $13,449.14 $14,121.59 $14,827.67 $70.3775 $73.8963 $77.5912 $81.4707 $85.5443 Exempt Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager UMM $7,824.15 $8,215.26 $8,626.72 $9,056.40 $9,509.65 $45.1393 $47.3958 $49.7695 $52.2484 $54.8633 Exempt Executive Assistant to the City Manager UMM $6,131.18 $6,435.48 $6,759.08 $7,096.60 $7,451.27 $35.3722 $37.1278 $38.9947 $40.9419 $42.9881 Non-Exempt Human Resources/Finance Specialist UMM $7,865.40 $8,258.67 $8,671.60 $9,105.18 $9,560.44 $45.3773 $47.6462 $50.0285 $52.5299 $55.1564 Non-Exempt Human Resources Manager UMM $10,536.06 $11,062.86 $11,616.00 $12,196.80 $12,806.64 $60.7849 $63.8242 $67.0154 $70.3662 $73.8845 Exempt Maintenance Superintendent UMM $10,246.20 $10,758.51 $11,296.44 $11,861.26 $12,454.32 $59.1127 $62.0683 $65.1717 $68.4303 $71.8518 Exempt Management Analyst I UMM $7,824.15 $8,215.26 $8,626.72 $9,056.40 $9,509.65 $45.1393 $47.3958 $49.7695 $52.2484 $54.8633 Exempt Management Analyst II UMM $9,056.40 $9,509.65 $9,986.46 $10,484.72 $11,009.75 $52.2484 $54.8633 $57.6142 $60.4888 $63.5178 Exempt Police Lieutenant UMM $12,433.78 $13,055.26 $13,707.81 $14,393.58 $15,112.56 $71.7334 $75.3188 $79.0835 $83.0399 $87.1878 Exempt Principal Engineer UMM $11,341.39 $11,908.46 $12,503.89 $13,129.08 $13,785.53 $65.4311 $68.7027 $72.1378 $75.7447 $79.5319 Exempt Public Safety Communications Manager UMM $8,391.18 $8,843.28 $9,295.39 $9,747.50 $10,199.61 $48.4107 $51.0189 $53.6273 $56.2356 $58.8439 Exempt Recreation Manager UMM $10,228.20 $10,739.61 $11,276.59 $11,840.42 $12,432.44 $59.0088 $61.9593 $65.0572 $68.3101 $71.7256 Exempt Recreation Supervisor UMM $7,598.93 $7,978.88 $8,377.82 $8,796.72 $9,236.55 $43.8400 $46.0320 $48.3336 $50.7503 $53.2878 Exempt Senior Civil Engineer UMM $10,484.73 $11,008.96 $11,560.51 $12,136.99 $12,744.52 $60.4888 $63.5132 $66.6952 $70.0211 $73.5261 Exempt Senior Planner UMM $9,742.16 $10,228.64 $10,740.81 $11,277.64 $11,842.31 $56.2048 $59.0114 $61.9662 $65.0633 $68.3210 Exempt Senior Planner/Assistant to the City Manager UMM $10,740.81 $11,277.64 $11,842.31 $12,433.78 $13,055.26 $61.9662 $65.0633 $68.3210 $71.7333 $75.3188 Exempt Utilities Systems Superintendent UMM $11,132.98 $11,689.08 $12,274.13 $12,887.02 $13,532.09 $64.2287 $67.4370 $70.8123 $74.3482 $78.0698 Exempt Classification Unit Monthly-1 Monthly-2 Monthly-3 Monthly-4 Monthly-5 Hourly-1 Hourly-2 Hourly-3 Hourly-4 Hourly-5 FLSA Accountant CPEA $7,286.45 $7,650.78 $8,033.32 $8,434.98 $8,856.73 $42.0372 $44.1391 $46.3461 $48.6634 $51.0965 Non-Exempt Accounting Assistant CPEA $5,225.87 $5,487.31 $5,761.18 $6,049.68 $6,351.73 $30.1492 $31.6576 $33.2376 $34.9020 $36.6446 Non-Exempt Accounting Technician CPEA $6,109.57 $6,414.62 $6,735.57 $7,072.46 $7,426.43 $35.2475 $37.0074 $38.8590 $40.8027 $42.8448 Non-Exempt Administrative Assistant CPEA $5,624.81 $5,905.42 $6,200.71 $6,510.63 $6,836.32 $32.4508 $34.0697 $35.7733 $37.5613 $39.4403 Non-Exempt Administrative Services Technician CPEA $6,231.76 $6,542.91 $6,870.28 $7,213.91 $7,574.96 $35.9525 $37.7476 $39.6362 $41.6187 $43.7017 Non-Exempt Assistant Engineer CPEA $8,107.56 $8,512.16 $8,938.15 $9,385.59 $9,854.42 $46.7744 $49.1086 $51.5663 $54.1476 $56.8524 Non-Exempt Assistant Planner CPEA $8,029.80 $8,431.02 $8,852.53 $9,295.41 $9,760.88 $46.3258 $48.6405 $51.0723 $53.6274 $56.3128 Non-Exempt Associate Planner CPEA $8,852.53 $9,295.41 $9,760.88 $10,248.86 $10,760.51 $51.0723 $53.6274 $56.3128 $59.1280 $62.0799 Non-Exempt Building Inspector CPEA $7,178.92 $7,537.32 $7,913.73 $8,309.29 $8,725.17 $41.4169 $43.4845 $45.6561 $47.9382 $50.3375 Non-Exempt Chief Plant Operator CPEA $9,112.17 $9,568.50 $10,046.22 $10,548.87 $11,076.50 $52.5702 $55.2029 $57.9590 $60.8589 $63.9029 Non-Exempt Maintenance Technician I CPEA $5,382.85 $5,651.99 $5,934.59 $6,231.78 $6,542.91 $31.0549 $32.6076 $34.2380 $35.9526 $37.7476 Non-Exempt Maintenance Technician II CPEA $5,934.59 $6,231.76 $6,542.91 $6,870.28 $7,213.91 $34.2380 $35.9525 $37.7476 $39.6362 $41.6187 Non-Exempt Permit Technician CPEA $6,032.94 $6,335.05 $6,651.34 $6,984.13 $7,333.46 $34.8054 $36.5484 $38.3731 $40.2930 $42.3084 Non-Exempt Item #6.3.

Page 16 of 1606 ends

Classification Unit Monthly-1 Monthly-2 Monthly-3 Monthly-4 Monthly-5 Hourly-1 Hourly-2 Hourly-3 Hourly-4 Hourly-5 FLSA Plant Operator I CPEA $6,658.38 $6,990.69 $7,340.11 $7,707.84 $8,092.68 $38.4137 $40.3309 $42.3468 $44.4683 $46.6886 Non-Exempt Plant Operator II CPEA $7,519.69 $7,880.24 $8,290.60 $8,704.79 $9,139.71 $43.3828 $45.4629 $47.8304 $50.2199 $52.7291 Non-Exempt Recreation Coordinator CPEA $5,434.82 $5,706.32 $5,991.15 $6,290.53 $6,605.63 $31.3547 $32.9211 $34.5643 $36.2915 $38.1094 Non-Exempt Senior Accounting Assistant CPEA $5,905.42 $6,200.70 $6,510.62 $6,836.32 $7,178.92 $34.0697 $35.7733 $37.5613 $39.4403 $41.4169 Non-Exempt Senior Maintenance Technician CPEA $6,817.73 $7,158.79 $7,517.56 $7,892.85 $8,287.01 $39.3330 $41.3007 $43.3705 $45.5356 $47.8097 Non-Exempt Senior Plant Operator CPEA $8,246.97 $8,656.08 $9,091.09 $9,545.51 $10,023.23 $47.5787 $49.9389 $52.4486 $55.0703 $57.8263 Non-Exempt Water Conservation Technician CPEA $5,225.86 $5,487.31 $5,761.18 $6,049.67 $6,351.73 $30.1492 $31.6575 $33.2376 $34.9020 $36.6446 Non-Exempt Classification Unit Monthly-1 Monthly-2 Monthly-3 Monthly-4 Monthly-5 Hourly-1 Hourly-2 Hourly-3 Hourly-4 Hourly-5 FLSA Fire Captain CPFA $9,348.83 $9,816.27 $10,307.08 $10,822.44 $11,363.56 $38.5254 $40.4517 $42.4742 $44.5980 $46.8278 Non-Exempt Fire Engineer CPFA $8,478.13 $8,902.04 $9,347.14 $9,814.50 $10,305.22 $34.9374 $36.6842 $38.5184 $40.4444 $42.4666 Non-Exempt Fire Fighter CPFA $7,689.89 $8,074.39 $8,478.11 $8,902.01 $9,347.12 $31.6891 $33.2736 $34.9373 $36.6841 $38.5183 Non-Exempt Classification Unit Monthly-1 Monthly-2 Monthly-3 Monthly-4 Monthly-5 Hourly-1 Hourly-2 Hourly-3 Hourly-4 Hourly-5 FLSA Police Officer CPOA $7,917.66 $8,313.55 $8,729.22 $9,165.69 $9,623.97 $45.6788 $47.9628 $50.3609 $52.8790 $55.5229 Non-Exempt Police Sergeant CPOA $9,393.62 $9,863.30 $10,356.46 $10,874.29 $11,418.00 $54.1939 $56.9036 $59.7488 $62.7363 $65.8731 Non-Exempt Public Safety Community Services Officer CPOA $5,473.07 $5,746.72 $6,034.06 $6,335.76 $6,652.55 $31.5754 $33.1542 $34.8119 $36.5525 $38.3801 Non-Exempt Public Safety Dispatch Supervisor CPOA $6,978.40 $7,327.32 $7,693.69 $8,078.38 $8,482.29 $40.2600 $42.2730 $44.3867 $46.6060 $48.9363 Non-Exempt Public Safety Dispatcher CPOA $6,192.13 $6,499.52 $6,825.54 $7,167.87 $7,524.17 $35.7238 $37.4972 $39.3781 $41.3531 $43.4087 Non-Exempt Classification Unit Monthly-1 Monthly-2 Monthly-3 Monthly-4 Monthly-5 Hourly-1 Hourly-2 Hourly-3 Hourly-4 Hourly-5 FLSA Administrative Aide UTE $17.0000 $17.8500 $18.7425 $19.6796 $20.6636 Non-Exempt Fire Captain UTE $38.5254 $40.4517 $42.4742 $44.5980 $46.8278 Non-Exempt Fire Engineer UTE $34.9374 $36.6842 $38.5184 $40.4444 $42.4666 Non-Exempt Fire Fighter UTE $31.6891 $33.2736 $34.9373 $36.6841 $38.5183 Non-Exempt Head Lifeguard UTE $19.8450 $20.8373 $21.8791 $22.9731 $24.1217 Non-Exempt Lifeguard I UTE $18.0000 $18.9000 $19.8450 $20.8373 $21.8791 Non-Exempt Non-Classified Employee-Professional/Technical UTE $17.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $150.0000 See Note 3 Office Assistant I UTE $17.0000 $17.8500 $18.7425 $19.6796 $20.6636 Non-Exempt Office Assistant II UTE $18.7425 $19.6796 $20.6636 $21.6968 $22.7816 Non-Exempt Operator-in-Training UTE step 5 is set at 20% below a Plant Operator I step 1 Non-Exempt Police Officer UTE $45.6788 $47.9628 $50.3609 $52.8790 $55.5229 Non-Exempt Police Officer Trainee UTE step 5 is set at 20% below a Police Officer step 1 Non-Exempt Police Technician UTE $17.0000 $17.8500 $18.7425 $19.6796 $20.6636 Non-Exempt Public Safety Dispatcher UTE $35.7238 $37.4972 $39.3781 $41.3531 $43.4087 Non-Exempt Recreation Leader UTE $17.0000 $17.8500 $18.7425 $19.6796 $20.6636 Non-Exempt Recreation Program Assistant UTE $20.6636 $21.6968 $22.7816 $23.9207 $25.1167 Non-Exempt Water Conservation Manager UTE $27.4200 $28.7910 $30.2306 $31.7421 $33.3292 Non-Exempt Water Conservation Specialist UTE $17.2600 $18.1230 $19.0292 $19.9806 $20.9796 Non-Exempt Legend Notes
CPEA - Calistoga Public Employees Association 1 - Hourly, except FLSA Non-Exempt fire safety, is the Yearly (Monthly x 12) divided by 2,080 hours, rounded to 4 decimal places CPFA - Calistoga Professional Firefighters Association 2 - Hourly FLSA Non-Exempt fire safety is the Yearly (Monthly x 12) divided by 2,912 hours (2,756 regular hours + 156 overtime hours) CPOA - Calistoga Police Officers Association 3 - Exempt or non-exempt status under the FLSA is to be reviewed based on the assigned duties and pay; pay is at any value from the minimum to the maximum.

Elected - Mayor & Councilmembers 4 - A Temporary Employee working in a classification which not listed in Group UTE receives the same wage/salary schedule as the represented classification UCM - City Manager 5 - UEM classifications have a minimum and maximum rate; an employee may be at any value from the minimum to the maximum.

UEM - Unrepresented Executive Management
UMM - Unrepresented Mid-Management
UTE - Unrepresented Temporary Employee
Salary schedule as of 10/06/2026
Item #6.3.

Page 17 of 1606 ends

Total Full Time Funded Personnel by Position
City of Calistoga
Personnel and Staffing
Full Time Personnel by Position
Position
Adopted Proposed
FY 25-26 FY 26-27

75.00 79.00
Accountant
Accounting Assistant
Accounting Technician
Administrative Analyst
Administrative Assistant
Administrative Secretary
Administrative Services Technician
Aquatics/Recreation Manager
Assistant/Associate Planner
Assistant/Associate Engineer
Assistant City Manager
Building Official
Chief of Police
Chief Water Plant Operator
City Clerk
City Manager
Code Enforcement Officer
Community Services Officer
Deputy City Manager
Deputy Finance Director
Deputy Public Works Director
Director of Administrative Services
Director of Planning and Building
Director of Public Works
Dispatcher
Dispatcher Supervisor
Dispatcher Manager
Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager
Executive Assistant to the City Manager
Fairgrounds Revitalization Director
Fire Chief
Fire Captain
Fire Engineer
Fire Fighter
HR/Finance Specialist
Human Resources Manager
Maintenance Superintendent
Maintenance Technician I/II
Maintenance Technician III
Management Analyst I/ II
Permit Technician
Plant Operator I / II
Plant Superintendent
Police Lieutenant
Police Officer
Police Sergeant
Principal Engineer
Recreation Services Manager
Recreation Coordinator
Recreation Supervisor
Senior Account Clerk
Senior Accounting Assistant
Senior Civil Engineer
Senior Maintenance Technician
Senior Planner
Senior Planner/Assistant to the City Manager
Senior Plant Operator
Senior Police Officer

0.00 0.00

0.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

3.00 2.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

6.00 6.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

3.00 3.00

3.00 6.00

1.00 1.00

7.00 8.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

5.00 5.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 0.00

10.00 10.00

2.00 3.00

1.00 1.00

2.00 1.00

0.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

2.00 2.00

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00
Item #6.3.

Page 18 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management
January 1, 2026
Table of Contents Page

1. Covered Positions..................................................................................................................2

2. Salaries..................................................................................................................................2

2.1 Salary Ranges....................................................................................................................................2

2.2 Pay Dates...........................................................................................................................................2

2.3 Pay for New or Rehired Employees...................................................................................................2

2.4 Pay Upon Promotion.........................................................................................................................3

2.5 Pay Upon Demotion..........................................................................................................................3

2.6 Pay Upon Reclassification..................................................................................................................3

2.7 Merit Increases..................................................................................................................................3

2.8 Service Longevity Pay........................................................................................................................4

2.9 Working Out of Class.........................................................................................................................4

3. Benefits.................................................................................................................................5

3.1 Medical Benefits................................................................................................................................5

3.2 Flexible Benefits Plan........................................................................................................................5

3.3 Share the Savings / Alternate Health Insurance................................................................................5

3.4 Supplemental Retiree Health Insurance Reimbursement.................................................................5

3.5 Dental Insurance ...............................................................................................................................7

3.6 Vision Insurance................................................................................................................................7

3.7 Life Insurance....................................................................................................................................7

3.8 Disability Insurance ...........................................................................................................................7

3.9 CalPERS Retirement ..........................................................................................................................8

3.10 Deferred Compensation – 457 Plan ..................................................................................................8

3.11 Deferred Compensation – 401(a) Plan..............................................................................................9

3.12 Social Security and Medicare ............................................................................................................9

3.13 Uniform Allowance ...........................................................................................................................9

4. Incentives and Differentials..................................................................................................11

4.1 Bilingual Pay ....................................................................................................................................11

4.2 Technology Allowance ....................................................................................................................11

4.3 Educational Reimbursement...........................................................................................................11

5. Vacation ..............................................................................................................................12

6. Sick Leave............................................................................................................................12

7. Management Administrative Leave ......................................................................................13

8. Bereavement Leave and Other Leaves..................................................................................14

8.1 Bereavement Leave ........................................................................................................................14

8.2 Other Leaves...................................................................................................................................14 Item #6.3.

Page 19 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 2

9. Holidays...............................................................................................................................14 Appendix A –Management Wage Scale .................................................................................16

1. Covered Positions
This Salary and Benefits Resolution for Management positions covers the following classifications:
• Associate Civil Engineer
• Building Official
• City Clerk
• Code Enforcement Officer
• Deputy City Clerk
• Deputy Finance Director
• Deputy Public Works Director
• Executive Analyst/Assistant to the City Manager
• Executive Assistant to the City Manager
• Human Resources/Finance Specialist
• Human Resources Manager
• Maintenance Superintendent
• Management Analyst I/II
• Police Lieutenant
• Principal Engineer
• Public Safety Communications Manager
• Recreation Manager
• Recreation Supervisor
• Senior Civil Engineer
• Senior Planner
• Senior Planner/Assistant to the City Manager
• Utilities Systems Superintendent
Employees in a temporary position are excluded.

2. Salaries

2.1 Salary Ranges
Salary ranges and effective dates for Covered Positions are listed in Appendix A.

2.2 Pay Dates
Timesheets and paychecks will be on a biweekly basis. Employees will be paid on the Friday following the close of the pay period (i.e., first paycheck will be October 20, 2023 and then every two weeks thereafter).

2.3 Pay for New or Rehired Employees
An Appointing Authority may appoint a new employee in a Covered Position at any salary step within the employee’s classification; however, any placement above the second salary step Item #6.3.

Page 20 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 3
requires the City Manager’s approval.

2.4 Pay Upon Promotion
An employee promoted to a Covered Position receives the closest salary step within the employee’s (new) classification which provides at least a five percent (5%) over his/her current (pre-promotion) classification but not exceeding the maximum amount of the promoted classification. The City Manager may, however, grant a promotion salary step that is greater than which is prescribed in this section.

2.5 Pay Upon Demotion
An employee demoted to a Covered Position having a salary range lower than the class or position from which he/she was demoted from shall receive the highest salary step in the new classification which provides a minimum five percent (5%) reduction, but not less than the minimum nor exceeding the maximum of the demoted classification.

2.6 Pay Upon Reclassification
A. If the position is reclassified to a classification with the same salary range, the salary and merit increase eligibility date will not change.

B. If the position is reclassified to a classification with a higher salary range, the reclassification will be considered to be a promotion.

C. If the position is reclassified to a classification with a lower salary range, the reclassification will be considered to be a demotion.

2.7 Merit Increases
A Covered Position shall be considered for a merit increases annually, to be effective, initially, effective the beginning of the pay period closest to the employee’s hire date, and then annually thereafter.

Advancement within the salary range is not automatic for merely completing a specific period of service, but rather based on merit as documented on a performance evaluation form, with said performance evaluation form in a manner prescribed by the City Manager. A merit increase is to the next higher step within the limits of the employee’s classification’s salary range.

A performance evaluation must be submitted within three (3) months following the employee’s last merit increase. If the performance evaluation is not submitted, then performance is deemed to be satisfactory, and the employee will receive a merit increase effective on the scheduled date.
[balance of this page is blank]
Item #6.3.

Page 21 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 4

2.8 Service Longevity Pay
A. Effective the later of the beginning of the first full pay period following the City Council’s adoption of this Salary and Benefits schedule or the beginning of the pay period which includes January 1, 2026, Section 2.8, Longevity Pay, paragraph A is deleted in its entirety and the City will provide a full-time employee with specified years of continuous City employment with Longevity Pay based on the individual employee’s current Appendix A pay period wage step each pay period as follows:

Years of Continuous full-time City employment Longevity Pay Less than 5 years 0%
5 through 9 years 1.5%
10 through 14 years 1.5%
15 or more years 1.5%
B. Effective the later of the beginning of the first full pay period following the City Council’s adoption of this Salary and Benefits schedule or the beginning of the pay period which includes January 1, 2027, Section 2.8, Longevity Pay, paragraph B is deleted in its entirety and the City will provide a full-time employee with specified years of continuous City employment with Longevity Pay based on the individual employee’s current Appendix A pay period wage step each pay period as follows:

Years of Continuous full-time City employment Longevity Pay Less than 5 years 0%
5 through 9 years 1.5%
10 through 14 years 3%
15 or more years 3%
C. Effective the later of the beginning of the first full pay period following the City Council’s adoption of this Salary and Benefits schedule or the beginning of the pay period which includes December 31, 2027, Section 2.8, Longevity Pay, paragraph C is deleted in its entirety and the City will provide a full-time employee with specified years of continuous City employment with Longevity Pay based on the individual employee’s current Appendix A pay period wage step each pay period as follows:

Years of Continuous full-time City employment Longevity Pay Less than 5 years 0%
5 through 9 years 1.5%
10 through 14 years 3%
15 or more years 4.5%

2.9 Working Out of Class
An employee in a Covered Position working in an out-of-class assignment for more than three (3) consecutive days receives an increase of five percent (5%) within the employee’s current salary range or be placed on a new salary range that provides for a one-step adjustment.

Benefits of the higher classification are not available, and the employee will continue to receive the benefits of the employee’s assigned (i.e., not working out of class) classification.

Item #6.3.

Page 22 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 5

3. Benefits

3.1 Medical Benefits
Employees in a Covered Position are members of the Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act (“PEMHCA” or “PERS Health”) insurance program. The City’s monthly contribution to provide health insurance benefits for the individual employee and the employee’s eligible dependents shall be the minimum payment required by the PEMHCA.

3.2 Flexible Benefits Plan
Employees in a Covered Position may participate in the flexible benefits plan. The City offers an Internal Revenue Code Section 125 Plan, which contains the components of premium conversion, health care reimbursement account, and dependent care reimbursement account.

A. The City’s contributes the below-listed amounts per month toward each employee’s Section 125 Plan components:

1. 100% of the Dental Plan monthly premium amount, less the 10% employee contribution, paid through a payroll deduction.

2. 100% of the Medical Plan monthly premium amount for any eligible PEMHA plan, less the minimum premium payment required by CalPERS (see Section 5, Medical Benefits) and less the 10% employee contribution, paid through a payroll deduction.

3. 100% of the Vision Plan monthly premium amount, less the 10% employee contribution amount, paid through a payroll deduction.

B. An employee may use any and all City contributions to the Section 125 Plan toward the cost of employer provided PEMHCA medical insurance and dental insurance for the employee and eligible dependents. An employee may not use funds for other reasons.

3.3 Share the Savings / Alternate Health Insurance
An employee in a Covered Position who waives health insurance because the employee demonstrates to the City that he/she has alternate health insurance coverage shall receive three hundred dollars ($300) per month. Annually, the employee who participates in this Share the Savings program will need to recertify eligibility by documenting to the City the employee’s alternate health insurance coverage. Effective with payments beginning in January 2023, the Share the Savings amount shall increase from three hundred dollars ($300) to four hundred dollars ($400) per month.

3.4 Supplemental Retiree Health Insurance Reimbursement A. Eligibility

1. The City offers a Supplemental Retiree Health Insurance Reimbursement for eligible unrepresented employees of:
• City Clerk
• Deputy City Clerk
• Maintenance Superintendent
• Utilities Systems Superintendent
• Police Lieutenant
Item #6.3.

Page 23 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 6
• Deputy Public Works Director
• Principal Engineer
• Senior Civil Engineer
• Associate Civil Engineer

2. An eligible employee must have a minimum of ten (10) years of continuous service with the City and has been continuous employed since April 21, 2015 or earlier.

B. Benefit

1. The City’s reimbursement is calculated at the rate of three percent (3%) per City service years to a rate of three and one-half percent (3.5%) per City service years after twenty years of continuous City service.

Years of Continuous
Service with City
Total Percent of Combined
Required CalPERS Retiree
Contribution and City Supplemental
Reimbursement for Single Kaiser
Premium for 3% per year
Total Percent of Combined
Required CalPERS Retiree
Contribution and City Supplemental
Reimbursement for Single Kaiser
Premium for 3.5% per year
10 30.0%
11 33.0%
12 36.0%
13 39.0%
14 42.0%
15 45.0%
16 48.0%
17 51.0%
18 54.0%
19 57.0%
20 70.0%
21 73.5%
22 77.0%
23 80.5%
24 84.0%
25 87.5%
26 91.0%
27 94.5%
28 98.0%
29 100%
30 and greater 100%

2. Retirees must be eligible for CalPERS Retiree Medical Coverage and required City retiree premium payment. This means that the retiree must retiree from the City of Calistoga, be vested in CalPERS, and continue participation in CalPERS PEMHCA within one hundred twenty (120) days of retirement.

3. Supplemental Retiree Health Insurance Reimbursement amount based on difference of the required CalPERS Retiree premium payment as a percentage to the Kaiser single premium (of the plan offered within Napa County) and the percentage in the table above based on years of continuous City service at time of retirement.

In no event will the combined CalPERS premium payment and City Supplemental Reimbursement be greater than 100% of the Kaiser single premium (of the plan offered within Napa County).

4. Continuous City employment means from initial hire date to date of retirement. If the retiree left City employment and then returned, the subsequent date of hire will begin a new period of employment for the determination of continuous City Item #6.3.

Page 24 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 7
employment. This would not include statutory leaves for military, industrial disability, extended sick of Family Medical.

5. Supplemental payments will continue as long as the retiree in participating in CalPERS PEMHCA to when eligible for Medicare coverage.

6. Eligibility for the Supplemental Retiree Health Insurance Reimbursement will be authorized by the City Manager upon notification that the retiree is continuing to participate in the CalPERS PEMHCA.

7. Supplemental Retiree Health Insurance Reimbursement will be made on a monthly basis, in arrears, as a direct deposit or check to the retiree based on information provided by CalPERS on retiree participation in CalPERS PEMHCA.

3.5 Dental Insurance
An employee in a Covered Position is eligible for dental insurance coverage for the employee and eligible dependents beginning the first of the monthly following appointment with the City.

3.6 Vision Insurance
An employee in a Covered Position is eligible for vision insurance coverage for the employee and eligible dependents beginning the first of the month following appointment with the City.

3.7 Life Insurance
An employee in a Covered Position is eligible for life/accidental death and dismemberment insurance coverage for the employee beginning the first of the month following appointment with the City. The City pays 100% of the monthly premium for the life insurance. The life insurance policy is valued at 1x the employee’s annual salary.

The City may offer supplemental life insurance policies, at the employee’s cost, for additional life insurance coverage for the employee and/or the employee’s eligible dependents.

3.8 Disability Insurance
An employee in a Covered Position is eligible for disability insurance for the employee beginning the first of the month following appointment with the City. The City pays 100% of the monthly premium for the disability insurance. The policy provides a benefit equal to 66-2/3% of the employee’s first $1,500 of salary, less deductible income, if the employee is unable to work due to injury/illness lasting seven (7) days or longer.
[balance of this page is blank]
Item #6.3.

Page 25 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 8

3.9 CalPERS Retirement
A. Employees Hired Before May 1, 2012
For employees hired before May 1, 2012 only, the City shall provide employees with retirement coverage through the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) including the following:
• Government Code §20965, Sick Leave Service Credit, and • Either:
o Government Code §21354.4 – 2.5% @ 55 formula for PERS “miscellaneous” members (i.e., non-safety employees), or
o Government Code §21354.3 – 3% @ 55 formula for PERS fire safety members, or
o Government Code §21354.3 – 3% @ 55 formula for PERS police safety members B. Employees Hired on or after May 1, 2012 and Before January 1, 2013, or Employees who qualify for PERS Reciprocity
For employees hired on or after May 1, 2012 and before January 1, 2013, as well as for employees who qualify for pension reciprocity pursuant to Government Code §7522.02(c) and any related reciprocity requirements established by PERS, the City shall provide retirement coverage of:
• Government Code §20965, Sick Leave Service Credit, and • Either:
o Government Code §21353 – 2% @ 60 formula for PERS “miscellaneous” members (i.e., non-safety employees),or
o Government Code §21369 – 2% @ 55 formula for PERS fire safety members, or o Government Code §21369 – 2% @ 55 formula for PERS police safety members C. Employees Hired on or After January 1, 2013
For employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 who do not qualify for pension reciprocity pursuant to Government Code §7522.02(c) and any related reciprocity requirements established by PERS, the City shall provide retirement coverage of:
• Government Code §20965, Sick Leave Service Credit, and • Either:
o Government Code §7522.20 – 2% @ 62 formula for PERS “miscellaneous” members (i.e., non-safety employees), or
o Government Code §755.25 – 2% @ 57 formula for PERS fire safety members, or o Government Code §755.25 – 2% @ 57 formula for PERS police safety members D. Employee Contributions
All employees shall pay the full employee’s share of PERS employee contribution as determined by PERS; the City shall not pick up any portion of the required employee contribution.

3.10 Deferred Compensation – 457 Plan
An employee in a Covered Position may make a voluntary payroll deduction into the Internal Revenue Code 457 deferred compensation plan, subject to the contribution limits established by the Internal Revenue Service.

Item #6.3.

Page 26 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 9

3.11 Deferred Compensation – 401(a) Plan
A fire safety employee and a police safety employee in a Covered Position who is either a) a PEPRA tier participant in the City’s CalPERS Retirement Plan or b) a Class Tier II participant in the City’s CalPERS Retirement Plan receives a five percent (5%) of pre-tax base salary contribution to the Calistoga 401(a) Monney Purchase Plan account, up to the annual limit under IRC §415(c), which is equal to the lesser of (i) one hundred percent (100%) of each said PEPRA employee’s IRC 415 compensation or (ii) the dollar limit in effect for the year.

These contribution limits are inclusive of the contributions of City, which also includes any other 401(a) accounts said PEPRA employees hold with the City or any other entities related to the City that meets the controlled group rules under IRC §414(b), the common control rules under IRC §414(c), or the affiliated service group rules under IRC §414(m) as set forth in the Internal Revenue Code.

Because the City’s contribution is derived from base salary, the City’s dollar contribution 401(a) Money Purchase Plan account shall increase with any increase to the employee’s base salary, subject to the contribution limits set forth above.

In no event will the City contribution exceed five percent (5%) of the employee’s pre-tax base salary.

No employee contribution is permitted to the employee’s Calistoga 401(a) Money Purchase Plan account.

3.12 Social Security and Medicare
Each employee in a Covered Position has coverage under Federal Social Security in accordance with the provisions of law. The system requires contributions by both the employee and City in accordance with schedules provided by the federal government.

Each employee in a Covered Position has coverage under Medicare in accordance with the provisions of law. The system requires contributions by both the employee and City in accordance with schedules provided by the federal government.

3.13 Uniform Allowance
A. Fire Safety Management

1. The CITY shall provide, with prior City Manager concurrence, and maintain all uniforms prescribed by law or specified by the Fire Chief, for the performance of the services, functions, and duties assigned on an annual basis.
[continued on next page]
Item #6.3.

Page 27 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 10

2. All full-time fire safety management employees shall be issued, at the City’s expense, with prior City Manager concurrence, the following items 5 fire retardant shirts/tops and applicable accessories 5 pairs of fire retardant pants
1 basket weave belt
1 duty jacket including applicable patches
1 pair 8” black leather safety boots
1 Fire Department issued badge
1 name tag
1 set workout attire (Logo T-shirt and Shorts)

3. The City shall provide, with prior City Manager concurrence, all personal protective equipment (P.P.E.) as required by C.C.R. regulations. This includes all equipment specific to wild land firefighting, structural firefighting and EMS responses.

4. The City will establish accounts at local cleaners and uniform supply stores for Fire Employees. The City will bear all costs of cleaning uniforms. The City will bear all reasonable repair and replacement costs of uniforms subject to authorization by the Fire Chief and with prior City Manager concurrence.

B. Police Safety Management

1. Uniform and Equipment Issuance:

At initial full-time employment employees in recognized classifications shall be issued, at the CITY's expense, with prior City Manager concurrence, the following items:
3 shirts with patches
3 trousers/skirts
1 tie
1 tie bar
1 pair uniform shoes
1 belt, trouser type
The City, with prior City Manager concurrence, will pay each year a stipend for cleaning and purchase (replacement) of the uniform and equipment items listed above to employees in each of the listed positions by the first pay period in July, as follows: sworn peace officers: one thousand dollars ($1,000). However, new employees shall only receive the July stipend on a pro rata basis from the date of hire to the end of the fiscal year.

Subsequently, they are entitled to the same stipend on a full annual basis as other employees.

The City shall report the value of uniform cleaning and replacement per CalPERS regulations for those individual employees to be considered to be CalPERS “Classic” retirement members.

Item #6.3.

Page 28 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 11

2. All full-time sworn peace officers shall be issued, at CITY’s expense, the following:
2” police utility belt
4 Keeper straps
Baton
Baton holder
2 Handcuffs with case
Duty handgun with holster
Magazine holder
Rain/Cold weather jacket1
Full face chemical agent respirator (within 6 months of hire) Ballistic helmet (within 6 months of hire)
Custom fitted ballistic panels (employee may choose either an external or internal carrier, or at the City’s discretion an external carrier purchase which also includes an internal carrier) *
* will be considered having a service life of five (5) years, or less if designated by the manufacturer.

4. Incentives and Differentials

4.1 Bilingual Pay
Each employee in a Covered Position who qualified shall receive five percent (5%) of base salary as bilingual differential at the discretion of the City Manager. Generally, bilingual skills should be relevant to the provision of City services in the City of Calistoga. An employee shall be deemed qualified who is determined by the City to be fluent in an appropriate language as determined by the City Manager.

4.2 Technology Allowance
Each employee in a Covered Position receives one hundred dollars ($100) per month technology allowance for use of the employee’s personal internet, laptop and cellphone services to conduct City business.

4.3 Educational Reimbursement
An employee in a Covered Position is eligible to receive up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) per fiscal year for reimbursement of expenditures on tuition, books, travel and any other costs associated with the employee’s successful completion of any professional or educational program approved by the City Manager. This benefit is funded at the maximum “pooled” total of five thousand dollars ($5,000) per fiscal year and is available beyond employees in a Covered Position (see other employees’ collective bargaining agreements and/or other salary/benefit documents for other employees’ eligibility for pooled dollars) on a first-come, first-served basis.

Once the total annual benefit amount is reached, the benefit is no longer available to any employee until the next fiscal year.
1 The parties believe this is not a pensionable item; in the event, however, CalPERS decides otherwise, the parties will meet and confer on the reportable value based on cost and expected service life of the item.

Item #6.3.

Page 29 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 12

5. Vacation
A. The City believes that its employees and the City benefit when employees have scheduled time away from work for relaxation and recreation. In order to provide for such absence without concern for continuation of pay, the City has adopted the following paid vacation leave plan for employees in Covered Position:

Continuous
Employment
Earned Per Pay Period Approx. Annual Hours Maximum Accrued Hours
Year 1 – Year 3 3.077 Hours 80 hours 240 Hours
Beginning Year 4 – 6 4.615 Hours 120 Hours 360 Hours
Year 7 and Thereafter 6.154 Hours 160 Hours 480 Hours
The City Manager may place an employee in a Covered Position on the vacation accrual schedule based on the employee’s total years of public service experience.

An employee shall not accrue vacation once the accrued vacation hours have been reached (i.e., three times the annual accrual rate). An employee who had exceed the maximum begins to accrue vacation when the employee’s balance is reduced below his/her maximum.

Vacation leave shall be taken with the employee’s Appointing Authority’s approval.

Vacation shall not include any official City holidays when occurring during the scheduled vacation period.

Upon employment separation from the City, an employee receives pay for his/her current vacation leave balance at the employee’s equivalent hour rate of base pay.

B. Prior to the beginning of next calendar year, an employee wishing to cash out up to eighty (80) hours of vacation accruals may make such a request before the end of the current calendar year. The election is irrevocable. Payment will be made upon the employee’s request, before December 31 of the next calendar year, but no sooner than at the time the employee has accrued the number of vacation hours requested to be cashed out.

6. Sick Leave
A. The City provides a sick leave program for the purpose of minimizing the economic hardships that may result from unexpected personal or dependent illness or injury. It is not intended for incidents of minor discomfort.

B. Accrual. Sick leave shall be accrued at the rate of 3.69 hours for each pay period of service (which approximates 96 hours per calendar year).

C. Use. Sick leave may be used for personal illness or injury, emergency, or routine medical or dental appointments, and for reasonable travel time to and from health care facilities.

D. Family Care. Up to twenty-four (24) hours of sick leave may be used per calendar year to care for members of the Employee’s immediate family who are ill or injured. Immediate family means: parent, step-parent, and any other family member living in the same household as the Employee.

Item #6.3.

Page 30 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 13
E. Personal Leave. Employees have the option of taking a maximum of up to three (3) days sick leave each year as personal leave days. An Employee may take personal leave if the Employee has a current sick leave balance that is at least equal to the number of personal leave days the Employee opts to take. Employees are required to obtain approval from the City Manager prior to taking personal leave.

F. Buy-Out. On completion of the fifth (5th) year of service, based on the anniversary date of initial hire, City may purchase from each Employee covered hereunder all but fifteen (15) of the accumulated sick leave days for non-safety Employees and twenty (20) of the accumulated sick leave days for safety Employees, at the rate of twenty-five percent (25%) of the covered Employee’s then existing wage. At each Employees’ option, said buy-out may occur earlier than set forth hereinabove, so long as the buy-out occurs on or about the anniversary date of initial hire and there remains a minimum sick leave bank of fifteen (15) accumulated days. Employees who are absent without pay for any reason for more than ten (10) working days during a calendar month shall not accumulate sick leave for that month. If an Employee’s employment is terminated for any reason, there will be deducted from the final check the amount of sick leave taken during employment with City in excess of the amount accrued.

7. Management Administrative Leave
A. In recognition that their responsibilities occasionally require work in excess of the normal forty (40) hour work week, FLSA-exempt employees receive an Administrative Leave benefit.

This is in lieu of any payment or compensatory time off for work performed in excess of forty (40) hours per week.

B. Eighty (80) hours of Administrative Leave shall be granted annually to an employee in a Covered Position effective January 1 of each calendar year.

A new employee receives a pro-rata lump sum number of Administrative Leave hours based on the number of full pay periods remaining in the calendar year.

An employee who works less than full-time receives Administrative Leave on a pro rata basis.

An employee who promotes into a Covered Position and has unused accrued compensatory time off will be paid off for all accrued compensatory time off (CTO) hours based on the equivalent hourly rate of pay of the classification last held. A management employee who receives Administrative Leave and who is promoted into a Covered Position receives the full calendar year allotment of Management Administrative Leave less the non-Management Administrative Leave the employee already received for that calendar year.

C. Subject to advance approval by the employee’s Appointing Authority, Administrative Leave may be taken at any time during the calendar year and must be taken within the calendar year in which it is given.

D. No employee shall carry over Administrative Leave from one calendar year to another.

E. There is no cash out of Administrative Leave.

Item #6.3.

Page 31 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 14

8. Bereavement Leave and Other Leaves

8.1 Bereavement Leave
Employees may have five (5) work days leave of absence for each death in their immediate family for the purpose of bereavement and for the arranging of, and attendance at, the funeral.

Immediate family means:
• Father • Spouse
• Mother • Domestic Partner
• Father in-law • Child
• Mother in-law • Employee is a parent in a child
rearing relationship
• Stepparent where there is a child
rearing relationship
• Stepchild where there is a child
rearing relationship
• Grandparent • Grandchild
• Brother
• Sister
• Brother in-law
• Sister in-law
If an Employee must attend a funeral more than five hundred (500) miles from the City, or if the death is to a member of the Employee’s extended family, then the Employee has the option to use up to three (3) days of sick leave from his/her current sick leave balance in addition to any leave provided above.

The Employee may be required to submit proof of the relative’s death before final approval of leave with pay is granted.

8.2 Other Leaves
Consult the City’s Personnel Rules for leaves that apply to employees in Covered Positions:
• Jury Duty
• Witness Duty
• Maternity Leave
• Unpaid Leave of Absence
• Military Leave
• Medical Leave – Non-Occupational
• Medical Leave – Work-Related
• Time Off to Vote

9. Holidays
A. The City recognizes the following days as official City holidays and employees in a Covered Position normally scheduled to work on these days will be given the day off with pay:
• New Year’s Day January 1
• Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday 3
rd Monday in January
• Presidents’ Day 3
rd Monday in February
• Memorial Day Last Monday in May
• Juneteenth June 19
Item #6.3.

Page 32 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 15
• Independence Day July 4
• Labor Day 1
st Monday in September
• Veterans’ Day November 11
• Thanksgiving Day 4
th Thursday in November
• Day after Thanksgiving
• Christmas Eve December 24
• Christmas Day December 25
B. If one of the holidays listed above falls on a Sunday, then it shall be observed on the following Monday. If one of the holidays listed above falls on a Saturday, then it shall be observed on the previous Friday.

C. When a day is proclaimed by the Mayor of the City for a day of mourning, or holiday, then each employee in a Covered Position is granted time off with pay from his/her scheduled hours.

D. An employee in a Covered Position receives two (2) floating holidays (total 16 hours) per calendar year, which may be taken at a time mutually agreeable to the employee and the City Manager. Unused floating holiday time is not carried over into the following calendar year. Employees hired between May 1 and August 31 are credited with twelve (12) hours of floating holiday time for that calendar year, and employees hired between September 1 and December 31 are credited with eight (8) hours of floating holiday. Unused floating holiday hours have no cash value upon an employee’s separation from City employment.

Item #6.3.

Page 33 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 16
Appendix A
Management Wage Scale

1. The present monthly pay rate for classifications are:

Classification Monthly-1 Monthly-2 Monthly-3 Monthly-4 Monthly-5 FLSA Associate Civil Engineer $9,186.33 $9,645.70 $10,127.35 $10,634.46 $11,165.97 Exempt Building Official 10,634.4+6 11,165.97 11,725.07 12,310.68 12,926.01 Exempt City Clerk 9,887.59 10,380.91 10,900.75 11,446.05 12,016.81 Exempt Code Enforcement Officer 6,855.54 7,199.27 7,559.97 7,934.47 8,333.37 Non-Exempt Deputy City Clerk 7,935.53 8,332.31 8,749.24 9,186.33 9,645.70 Exempt Deputy Finance Director 11,843.10 12,435.25 13,057.01 13,709.87 14,395.35 Exempt Deputy Public Works Director 11,725.07 12,310.68 12,926.01 13,572.09 14,251.07 Exempt Executive Assistant to the City Manager 6,070.47 6,371.77 6,692.16 7,026.34 7,377.50 Non-Exempt Human Resources/Finance Specialist 7,559.97 7,934.47 8,330.1 8,747.12 9,187.39 Non-Exempt Human Resources Manager 10,126.93 10,633.28 11,164.93 11,723.18 12,309.33 Exempt Maintenance Superintendent 9,848.33 10,340.59 10,857.25 11,400.43 11,970.13 Exempt Management Analyst I 7,746.69 8,133.92 8,541.31 8,966.73 9,415.49 Exempt Management Analyst II 8,966.73 9,415.49 9,887.59 10,380.91 10,900.75 Exempt Police Lieutenant 12,310.68 12,926.01 13,572.09 14,251.07 14,962.93 Exempt Principal Engineer 10,692.93 11,227.58 11,788.96 12,378.41 12,997.33 Exempt Public Safety Communications Manager 8,308.09 8,755.72 9,203.36 9,651.00 10,098.64 Exempt Recreation Manager 10,126.93 10,633.28 11,164.93 11,723.18 12,309.33 Exempt Senior Civil Engineer 10,380.91 10,899.95 11,446.05 12,016.81 12,618.34 Exempt Senior Planner 9,645.70 10,127.35 10,634.46 11,165.97 11,725.07 Exempt Senior Planner/Assistant to the City Manager 10,634.46 11,165.97 11,725.07 12,310.68 12,926.01 Exempt Utilities Systems Superintendent 11,022.75 11,573.36 12,152.61 12,759.44 13,398.11 Exempt

2. Effective the later of the beginning of the first full pay period following the City Council’s adoption of this Salary and Benefits schedule or the beginning of the pay period which includes January 1, 2026, the base wages set forth in this Appendix A, paragraph 1, above, will be increased by one percent (1%).

3. Effective the later of the beginning of the first full pay period following the City Council’s adoption of the collective bargaining agreement or the beginning of the pay period which includes January 1, 2026, the base wages set forth in this Appendix A, paragraph 2, above, will be increased by one percent (1%) for Deputy Finance Director, one percent (1%) for Deputy Public Works Director, one percent (1%) for Human Resources/Finance Specialist, one percent (1%) for Human Resources Manager, one percent (1%) for Maintenance Superintendent, and one percent (1%) for Principal Engineer, with all remaining classification wages unchanged.

4. Effective the later of the beginning of the first full pay period following the City Council’s adoption of the collective bargaining agreement or the beginning of the pay period which includes July 1, 2026, the base wages set forth in this Appendix A, paragraph 3, above, will be increased by two percent (2%) for Item #6.3.

Page 34 of 1606 ends

Salary and Benefits – Management Page 17
Deputy Finance Director, two percent (2%) for Deputy Public Works Director, two percent (2%) for Human Resources/Finance Specialist, two percent (2%) for Human Resources Manager, two percent (2%) for Maintenance Superintendent, and two percent (2%) for Principal Engineer, with all remaining classification wages unchanged.

5. Effective the later of the beginning of the first full pay period following the City Council’s adoption of this Salary and Benefits schedule or the beginning of the pay period which includes January 1, 2027, the base wages set forth in this Appendix A, paragraph 4, above, will be increased by one percent (1%).

6. Effective the later of the beginning of the first pay period following the City Council’s adoption of this Salary and Benefits schedule or the beginning of the pay period which includes January 1, 2027, the base wages set forth in this Appendix A, paragraph 5, above, will be increased by seventy-three hundredths of one percent (0.73%) for Deputy Finance Director, two percent (2%) for Deputy Public Works Director, thirty-eight hundredths of one percent (0.38%) for Human Resources/Finance Specialist, two percent (2%) for Human Resources Manager, two percent (2%) for Maintenance Superintendent, and one and sixty-six hundredths percent (1.66%) for Principal Engineer, with all remaining classification wages unchanged.

7. Effective the later of the beginning of the first pay period following the City Council adoption of this Salary and Benefits schedule or the beginning of the pay period which includes January 1, 2027, the base wages set forth in this Appendix A, paragraph 6, above, will be increased by eighty-six hundredths of one percent (0.86%) for Deputy Public Works Director, by seventy-five hundredths of one percent (0.75%) for Human Resources Manager, and by twenty-four hundredths of one percent (0.24%) for Maintenance Superintendent, with all remaining classification wages unchanged.

8. If multiple wage increases for any classification occur on the same date, then such increases are additive (e.g., 1% + 1% = 2%) and are not compounded.

9. The hourly rate is calculated by multiplying the monthly pay rate by twelve (12) months and dividing that value by two thousand eighty (2,080) hours.

Item #6.3.

Page 35 of 1606 ends

City of Calistoga

STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Derek Rayner, Public Works Director/City Engineer Meeting: City Council - Regular Meeting - Oct 06 2026
Subject: Execution of the Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution DESCRIPTION:

Consideration of a resolution authorizing the execution of the required State Designation of Applicant's Agent resolution for purposes of obtaining State and Federal financial/grant assistance for emergencies/disasters.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider Adopting the Resolution
SUMMARY:

The Governor’s State Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), provides assistance to local governments for the development and execution of emergency management programs and for disaster relief funding following emergencies/disasters. To be eligible for disaster relief funding, an agency must have an Emergency Management Program and designate agents authorized to execute applications and agreements on behalf of the City.

The City of Calistoga has maintained an Emergency Management Program since 1985 and on November 7, 2023, adopted Resolution No. 2023-75 designating the City Manager, Fire Chief and Director of Public Works as Agents for the City of Calistoga. The State Office of Emergency Services requires that the resolution designating Agent’s Applicants be revised every three years in order for the City to submit State and Federal financial/grant assistance applications for natural disasters and emergencies.

The recommended Resolution authorizes the execution of an updated Designation of Agent’s Applicant’s Resolution, which designates, for the next three years, the City Manager, the Fire Chief and the Director of Public Works as authorized agents for the City of Calistoga for the purposes of securing financial assistance for disasters and emergencies.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to the adoption of the recommended resolution. The City may be eligible to be reimbursed for expenses incurred during natural disasters/emergencies through State or Federal financial assistance programs.

CEQA STATUS:

The adoption of this workplan is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) Item #6.4.

Page 36 of 1606 ends

because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this workplan in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Draft Resolution

2. Cal OES Form 130 Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution (Exhibit A) APPROVAL(S):

Derek Rayner, Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved - Sep 24 2026 Hide Miyamoto, Administrative Services Director Approved - Sep 24 2026 Mitch Celaya, City Manager Approved - Sep 26 2026
Yudiana Galvan, City of Calistoga | City Clerk Approved - Sep 29 2026 Item #6.4.

Page 37 of 1606 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

ADOPTED XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALISTOGA, COUNTY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE "DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION" AS REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (Cal OES)
WHEREAS, the City of Calistoga has maintained an Emergency Management Program since 1985; and
WHEREAS, the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides assistance to local governments for the development and execution of emergency management programs and disaster relief funding following natural disasters and emergencies; and WHEREAS, Cal OES requires the City to designate authorized agents who may execute applications and other documents, including contracts and reimbursement requests, for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance on behalf of the City; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-75 designating the City Manager, Fire Chief and Director of Public Works as Designated Agents for the City of Calistoga; and
WHEREAS, the State requires that the “Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution” be updated every three years and in order for the City to submit Federal and State financial assistance applications the City needs to update its Authorized Agent’s Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALISTOGA DOES HEREBY find the following:

1.) The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager on behalf of the City of Calistoga to authorize the execution of a new/updated Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution (Exhibit A) and directs staff to submit the executed Resolutions to Cal OES and FEMA as needed for disaster relief funding and other programs administered by Cal OES and FEMA.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6
th day of OCTOBER, 2026. I,

YUDIANA GALVAN, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CALISTOGA, HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing resolution was introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the Calistoga City Council by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________________ __________________________ Yudiana Galvan, City Clerk Donald Williams, Mayor
Item #6.4.

Page 38 of 1606 ends

STATEOF CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT 2 RECOVERYDIRECTORATE @CALIFORNIAGOVERNOR'SOFFICEOF EMERGENCYSERVICES FINANCIALPROCESSINGDIVISION DESIGNATIONor APPLICANT'SAGENTRESOLUTION
NON-STATEAGENCIES Ca, 055 ID No. 055-09892
OES-FPD-ISO(Rev. 10—2022) EXHIBITA

DESIGNATIONOF APPLICANT'SAGENT RESOLUTIONFOR NON-STATEAGENCIES BEITRESOLVEDBYTHE City Council OF THECity OfCalistoga
(Governing Body) (Name of Applicant)
THAT City Manager 10R
(Titleof Authorized Agent)
Fire Chief ,OR
(Title of Authorized Agent)
Director of Public Works
(Title of Authorized Agent)
is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the Guy 0f caIIStOQa (Name of Applicant)
a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, this application and to file itwith the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of obtaining federal financial assistance for any existing or future grant program, including, but not limited to any Ofthe following:

Federally declared Disaster (DR), Fire Mitigation Assistance Grant (FMAG), California state Only Dlsaster (CDAA), Immediate Services Program (ISP), Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), Legislative Pre-Dlsaster Mitigation Program (LPDM),under Public Law 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of I988, and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act.
- Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA), under Section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act of I968.
- National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) 42 U.S. Code 7704 (b) ((2) (A) (ix) and 42 U.S.Code 7704 (b) (2) (B) National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, and also The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Div. E, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L.No. I 15—14] - California Early Earthquake Warning (CEEW) under CA Gov Code — Gov, Title 2, Div. 1, Chapter 7, Article 5, Sections 8587.8, 8587.I I, 8587.12 That the Guy OfGal'StOQa , a public entity established under the (Name of Applicant)
laws of the State of California, hereby authorizes its agent(s) to provide to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for all matters pertaining to such state disaster assistance the assurances and agreements required.

Rev. 10—2022 Page I OH OES-FPD—ISO
Item #6.4.

Page 39 of 1606 ends

DESIGNATIONOF APPLICANT'SAGENTRESOLUTION

NON-STATEAGENCIES
OES-FPD—l30(Rev. 10-2022)
- STATEOF CALIFORNIA RECOVERYDIRECTORATE

CALIFORNIAGOVERNOR'SOFFICEOF EMERGENCYSERVICES FINANCIALPROCESSINGDIVISION Please check the appropriate box below
Thisis a universal resolution and is effective for all open and future disasters/grants declared up to three (3) years following the date of approval.

I:I Thisis a disaster/grant specific resolution and is effective for only disaster/grant number(s):

Passed and approved this?day of October
, 2O 26
Mayor Donald Williams
(Name and Title of Governing Body Representative)
Vice Mayor Lisa Gift
(Name and Titleof Governing Body Representative)
Councilmember Irais Lopez-Ortega
(Name and Title of Governing Body Representative)

CERTIFICATION
I'YudlanaGalvan , duly Oppoimed and City Clerk of
(Name) (Title)
City OfCalistoga , do hereby certify that the above is a true and (Name of Applicant)
correct copy ofa resolution passed and approved by the Clty COUI'ICII . . (Governing Body)
of the Clty OfCallstoga on the 6‘“ day of October JOE,
(Name of Applicant)
City Clerk
(Signature) (Title)
Rev. 10-2022 Page 2 of 4 OES-FPD—i30
Item #6.4.

Page 40 of 1606 ends

City of Calistoga

STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jed Matcham, Fire Chief
Meeting: City Council - Regular Meeting - Oct 06 2026
Subject: Adoption of the Napa County 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
DESCRIPTION:

Consider adopting a Resolution to adopt the Napa County 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, including Volume 1 and the Volume 2 City of Calistoga Annex.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider Adopting the Resolution
SUMMARY:

The Napa County 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) Update (the “Plan”) provides a comprehensive strategy to reduce the impacts of natural hazards such as earthquakes, wildfires, flooding, drought, and severe weather events. The Plan serves as a five-year roadmap for coordinated hazard mitigation actions among the City of Calistoga, Napa County, and other planning partners.

Adoption of this Plan ensures that Calistoga and participating jurisdictions remain eligible for federal hazard mitigation grant funding administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), including programs such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA). Adoption also fulfills the planning requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000).

The Plan includes a countywide risk assessment and mitigation strategy and identifies 136 mitigation actions to reduce hazard risks across the Napa County planning area.

The City of Calistoga Annex (Volume 2) identifies 14 jurisdiction-specific mitigation actions addressing the City's most significant hazards, including wildfire, earthquake, flood, drought, and severe weather. Key actions include expanding the City's backup power capacity at critical facilities; seismic retrofits of critical facilities; a new Emergency Operations Center; expansion of the emergency sheltering network; and stormwater drainage and flood mitigation improvements citywide. The annex also advances wildfire risk reduction through a WUI code enforcement program and continued defensible space and fuel break projects in coordination with the CWPP and Fire Safe Council, along with water supply contingency and storage expansion at Kimball Reservoir to improve drought resilience. Together, these locally prioritized actions complement the countywide mitigation strategy and directly support the City's ongoing General Plan Safety Element update.

ANALYSIS:

Item #6.5.

Page 41 of 1606 ends

BACKGROUND
Hazard Mitigation Planning
Hazard mitigation refers to sustained actions taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risks to people and property from natural hazards. Examples include infrastructure improvements, regulatory updates, natural resource protection projects, and community preparedness initiatives.

Federal regulations require local governments to maintain an approved hazard mitigation plan to remain eligible for FEMA mitigation funding. The DMA 2000 established this requirement and directs FEMA to support mitigation planning as a means of reducing disaster losses nationwide.

Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Effort
The Plan was developed through a collaborative planning effort led by the Napa County Sheriff’s Office. The planning process included participation from a total of 13 jurisdictions, including:

1. Napa County

2. City of American Canyon

3. City of Calistoga

4. City of Napa

5. City of St. Helena

6. Town of Yountville

7. American Canyon Fire Protection District

8. Howell Mountain Mutual Water Company

9. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

10. Napa County Office of Education

11. Napa Valley College

12. Napa Valley Transportation Authority

13. Napa Sanitation District
Participating jurisdictions worked together to identify hazards, assess vulnerabilities, collect public and stakeholder input, and develop mitigation strategies across their jurisdictions and the region.

PLAN STRUCTURE
The Plan is organized into two volumes.
 Volume 1 – Base Plan: Provides the countywide framework for hazard mitigation planning, including hazard identification and risk assessment, community vulnerability analysis, countywide mitigation goals and strategies, and an implementation framework with monitoring procedures.
 Volume 2 – Jurisdictional Annexes: Includes annexes for each participating jurisdiction that identify locally-relevant hazards, jurisdiction-specific vulnerabilities, and local mitigation actions and implementation strategies.

Each participating jurisdiction is responsible for adopting and implementing its respective annex.

PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Plan was developed through an extensive planning and outreach process that included a community survey on hazard risks, stakeholder workshops, public outreach events, review and comment opportunities on draft materials, and coordination with local agencies and planning partners. This outreach ensured compliance with FEMA requirements for public involvement in Item #6.5.

Page 42 of 1606 ends

hazard mitigation planning and was integral to identifying local hazard priorities and realistic mitigation actions.

FEMA REVIEW AND APPROVAL
The Plan has undergone review by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and has been forwarded to FEMA Region IX for final approval. Following adoption by participating jurisdictions, FEMA will issue a formal approval letter, allowing the plan to take effect and enabling jurisdictions to remain eligible for FEMA mitigation funding.

GENERAL PLAN INTEGRATION (AB 2140)
Adoption of the Plan also enables the City of Calistoga to integrate the plan into the Safety Element of the General Plan pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65302, 65302.6, and 8685.9. This integration improves eligibility for post-disaster hazard mitigation funding and strengthens coordination between hazard mitigation planning and local land-use policies.

An update of theGeneral Plan Safety Element is currently underway.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with plan adoption. However, adoption of the Plan maintains eligibility for FEMA hazard mitigation funding, which may support future infrastructure improvements and resilience projects across participating jurisdictions.

CEQA STATUS:

Adoption of the Plan is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), Common Sense Exemption, and Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies. The Plan establishes policy guidance and mitigation strategies but does not authorize specific construction projects. Environmental review will occur for individual projects as required.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Draft MJHMP Resolution
03 Cal OES Draft Napa County MJHMP 20260625
APPROVAL(S):

Hide Miyamoto, Administrative Services Director Approved - Sep 23 2026 Mitch Celaya, City Manager Approved - Sep 26 2026
Yudiana Galvan, City of Calistoga | City Clerk Approved - Sep 29 2026 Item #6.5.

Page 43 of 1606 ends

RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX

ADOPTED XXXXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CALISTOGA ADOPTING THE NAPA COUNTY 2026

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
WHEREAS, Napa County 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (“the Plan”) recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people, property, infrastructure and natural resources within our community; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of hazard mitigation actions can significantly reduce the risk of injury, loss of life, property damage, and disruption caused by future natural hazard events; and
WHEREAS, the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) requires all cities, counties, and special districts to have adopted a Hazard Mitigation Plan to receive pre-and post-disaster mitigation funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and
WHEREAS, the City of Calistoga fully participated in the FEMA-prescribed mitigation planning process to prepare the Plan; and
WHEREAS, a coalition of Napa County local governments and special districts embarked on a planning process to prepare for and lessen the impacts of specified hazards by updating the Plan; and
WHEREAS, each participating jurisdiction, including the City of Calistoga, has been responsible for reviewing and approving its respective Jurisdictional Annex within the Plan, and the Plan compiles individual annexes into a unified framework to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated hazard mitigation strategy for the entire Napa County planning area, aligned with the goals, objectives, and priorities of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Napa County 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update is comprised of two volumes, including Volume 1: Base Plan, which contains the countywide hazard mitigation framework and risk assessment, and Volume 2: Jurisdictional Annexes, which document the hazard profiles, vulnerabilities, and mitigation actions of participating jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, a public involvement process consistent with the requirements of DMA 2000 was conducted to develop the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) has reviewed and approved the Plan and has forwarded the plan to FEMA Region IX for final review and approval; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Calistoga hereby adopts the Napa County 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update as an official plan of the jurisdiction. City of Calistoga adopts Volume 1 of the Plan in its entirety and acknowledges that the City of Calistoga Jurisdictional Annex contained in Volume 2 represents the jurisdiction’s specific hazard mitigation strategies and responsibilities.

Item #6.5.

Page 44 of 1606 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

Resolution No. XXXXX
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council authorizes staff to make minor technical edits or administrative corrections to the Plan, as necessary to address FEMA review comments, prior to final adoption; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, per Assembly Bill 2140, resolves to integrate the Plan by reference into the Public Safety Element of the General Plan in accordance with the requirements of Government Code sections 65302, 65302.6, and 8685.9; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Calistoga further encourages the respective departments identified in the implementation strategy of the plan to carry out the recommended mitigation actions assigned to them; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines pursuant to the Provisions of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code, Section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption), and Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Adoption Resolution will be submitted to Cal OES on behalf of the City of Calistoga by Napa County Staff to enable the Plan’s final approval by Cal OES and FEMA.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6
th day of October, 2026. I,

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

Yudiana Galvan, City Clerk Donald Williams, Mayor
Item #6.5.

Page 45 of 1606 ends

Napa County
2026
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan Update
CLICK BELOW TO JUMP TO:

VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
Item #6.5.

Page 46 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2025 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2025 UPDATE

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 47 of 1606 ends

Napa County
2026
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan Update
VOLUME 1

BACK TO MAIN TABLE OF CONTENTS
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 48 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2025 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2025 UPDATE

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 49 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
i
Napa County
2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 1: County-Wide Elements ..

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................. ix Adoption Records ...............................................................................................................................xxi Volume 1................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Section 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.1 Participating Jurisdictions .................................................................................................................................................1-2

1.2 Purpose & Scope ......................................................................................................................................................................1-3

1.3 How to Use This Plan ............................................................................................................................................................1-7

1.4 What’s New................................................................................................................................................................................1-8

1.4.1 Background: 2020 vs. 2026 ........................................................................................................................................1-9

1.4.2 Mitigation Activities .................................................................................................................................................. 1-11

1.4.3 New Analysis & Risk Assessment Methodology............................................................................................1-13

1.5 Community Profile...............................................................................................................................................................1-14

1.5.1 Planning Area & Geography....................................................................................................................................1-14

1.5.2 Climate ............................................................................................................................................................................1-18

1.5.3 Demographics & Vulnerable Populations..........................................................................................................1-19

1.5.4 Economy........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-43

1.5.5 Development History & Growth Trends ............................................................................................................ 1-46 Section 2. Planning Process ...................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Organizing Resources..........................................................................................................................................................2-4

2.1.1 People & Expertise .......................................................................................................................................................2-4

2.1.2 Public & Stakeholder Engagement...................................................................................................................... 2-16

2.1.3 Planning Process Library........................................................................................................................................2-24

2.2 Assessing Risk......................................................................................................................................................................2-29

2.2.1 RAMP (Risk Assessment Mapping Platform).................................................................................................2-30

2.2.2 Vulnerability Assessment Methodology .......................................................................................................... 2-31

2.3 Developing a Mitigation Strategy..................................................................................................................................2-38 CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 50 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
ii

2.3.1 Identify the Problem .................................................................................................................................................2-38

2.3.2 Identify Mitigation Goals ........................................................................................................................................2-39

2.3.3 Conduct Capabilities Assessment...................................................................................................................... 2-40

2.3.4 Develop Mitigation Actions .................................................................................................................................. 2-40

2.3.5 MAST (Mitigation Action Support Tool)............................................................................................................2-47

2.4 Adopting & Implementing the Plan..............................................................................................................................2-47

2.4.1 Monitoring, Evaluating & Updating ....................................................................................................................2-48

2.4.2 Plan Integration.......................................................................................................................................................... 2-51 Section 3. Risk Assessment........................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Hazard Identification & Screening ..................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Potential Hazards..........................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Past Major Hazard Events.........................................................................................................................................3-3

3.2 Hazard Prioritization............................................................................................................................................................3-5

3.2.1 Climate Change Impacts...........................................................................................................................................3-7

3.2.2 Disproportionately Impacted Populations.........................................................................................................3-8

3.2.3 County-Wide Priority Hazards................................................................................................................................3-9

3.3 Vulnerability to Specific Hazards ................................................................................................................................. 3-10

3.3.1 Wildfire Hazard Profile............................................................................................................................................. 3-12

3.3.2 Flood Hazard Profile .................................................................................................................................................3-46

3.3.3 Dam Failure Hazard Profile..................................................................................................................................3-102

3.3.4 Earthquake Hazard Profile ...................................................................................................................................3-130

3.3.5 Slope Failure Hazard Profile ................................................................................................................................3-166

3.3.6 Drought Hazard Profile ..........................................................................................................................................3-188

3.3.7 Severe Weather Hazard Profile...........................................................................................................................3-210

3.3.8 Extreme Heat Hazard Profile.............................................................................................................................. 3-234

3.3.9 Climate Change Hazard Profile ......................................................................................................................... 3-252 Section 4. Mitigation Strategy................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Mitigation Goals ......................................................................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Capabilities & Opportunities..............................................................................................................................................4-2

4.2.1 Planning for Hazards & Growth..............................................................................................................................4-2

4.2.2 Napa County Capabilities & Opportunities Assessment..............................................................................4-6

4.2.3 Funding Opportunities.............................................................................................................................................4-13 CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 51 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
iii

4.3 Translating Strategy to Action.......................................................................................................................................4-17

4.4 County-Wide Mitigation Strategy .................................................................................................................................4-21

4.5 Mitigation Action Plan...................................................................................................................................................... 4-24

4.6 Status of Previous Mitigation Actions ...........................................................................................................................4-1 Section 5. Works Cited .................................................................................................................5-1 Appendix A. Analysis Methodology..............................................................................................A-1 A.1. Natural Hazard Exposure......................................................................................................................................................... A-2 A.2. Analysis Data ............................................................................................................................................................................... A-3 A.2.1. Assets, Value, and Population ...................................................................................................................................... A-3 A.2.2. Natural Hazard Data ........................................................................................................................................................A-4 A.2.3. Methodology Overview...................................................................................................................................................A-9 A.2.4. Data Dictionary................................................................................................................................................................ A-10 Appendix B. Process Documentation............................................................................................B-1 List of Figures
Figure ES-1: Napa County Agricultural Preserve..................................................................................................................... xi Figure ES-2: Geographic Overview of Participating Jurisdictions..................................................................................xii Figure ES-3: Sea Level Rise Mapping in the Risk Assessment Mapping Platform (RAMP).................................. xv Figure ES-4: County-Wide Mitigation Strategy Development Exercise.......................................................................xix Figure 1-1: Napa Firewise Fuel Reduction Project, April 2024.........................................................................................1-12 Figure 1-2: Geographic Overview of Planning Area and Participating Jurisdictions............................................1-17 Figure 1-3: Napa County 30-Year Monthly Climate Normals (1991-2020)...................................................................1-18 Figure 1-4: Napa County Median Household Income ........................................................................................................1-24 Figure 1-5: Napa County Poverty Status.................................................................................................................................. 1-25 Figure 1-6: Building Stock Ages .................................................................................................................................................. 1-27 Figure 1-7: Napa County Housing Occupancy ...................................................................................................................... 1-28 Figure 1-8: Napa County Dependent Age Groups................................................................................................................. 1-32 Figure 1-9: Napa County Disabled Elderly............................................................................................................................... 1-33 Figure 1-10: Napa County Race and Ethnicity....................................................................................................................... 1-36 Figure 1-11: Napa County Spanish-Speaking Households................................................................................................ 1-37 Figure 1-12: Napa Valley Vineyard............................................................................................................................................. 1-38 Figure 1-13: Napa County CDC Social Vulnerability Index...............................................................................................1-42 Figure 1-14: Napa County Population 2011-2022...................................................................................................................1-47 Figure 1-15: Parcel Development Density Since 2010.........................................................................................................1-49 Figure 2-1: Planning Process Breakdown.................................................................................................................................2-2 CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 52 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
iv
Figure 2-2: Overview of Public and Stakeholder Engagement Timeline...................................................................2-18 Figure 2-3: April 2025 Napa Farmers' Market Outreach Event......................................................................................2-21 Figure 2-4: Online Public Survey Advertisement in Spanish.........................................................................................2-23 Figure 2-5: Napa County Planning Team Breakout Meeting #1.5 (Hazard Prioritization)...................................2-25 Figure 2-6: County-Wide HMPT Meeting #4 (Strategy Development) ....................................................................... 2-27 Figure 2-7: RAMP User Interface................................................................................................................................................2-31 Figure 2-8: Critical Facilities Point Locations...................................................................................................................... 2-36 Figure 2-9: Data Inputs and Outputs.........................................................................................................................................2-37 Figure 2-10: Hazard Exposure Explanation Graphic.......................................................................................................... 2-38 Figure 2-11: HMGP Timeline........................................................................................................................................................ 2-50 Figure 3-1: Napa County Federal Disaster Declarations by Hazard Type 1964 to Present....................................3-4 Figure 3-2: Napa County Hazard Risk Matrix..........................................................................................................................3-6 Figure 3-3: Historic Large Fires Map.........................................................................................................................................3-27 Figure 3-4: Mean Fire Return Interval (MFRI) Map............................................................................................................ 3-29 Figure 3-5: Fire Hazard Severity Zones ...................................................................................................................................3-31 Figure 3-6: Exposure Summary – Napa County Wildfire Risk...................................................................................... 3-34 Figure 3-7: Napa County Population Exposure to Wildfire..............................................................................................3-35 Figure 3-8: Areas Providing Natural Floodplain Functions in Napa County........................................................... 3-49 Figure 3-9: Napa County FEMA Flood Risk Exposure Map..............................................................................................3-63 Figure 3-10: DWR Awareness Zones (Dry Creek and Surrounding Area).................................................................. 3-64 Figure 3-11: DWR 200-YR Awareness Zones (South Napa)...............................................................................................3-65 Figure 3-12: Southern Napa County Levee System............................................................................................................ 3-67 Figure 3-13: Napa County Repetitive Loss Areas ................................................................................................................ 3-70 Figure 3-14 Howell Mountain Rd. Repetitive Loss Area....................................................................................................3-72 Figure 3-15 Zinfandel Ln Repetitive Loss Area.................................................................................................................... 3-74 Figure 3-16 Yount Mill Rd. Repetitive Loss Area................................................................................................................. 3-76 Figure 3-17 Ragatz Ln. Repetitive Loss Area ........................................................................................................................ 3-78 Figure 3-18 Petra Dr. Repetitive Loss Area ............................................................................................................................ 3-80 Figure 3-19 Milliken Creek Repetitive Loss Area................................................................................................................ 3-82 Figure 3-20 Milton Rd. Repetitive Loss Area........................................................................................................................ 3-84 Figure 3-21: Exposure Summary – Napa County Flood Risk (FEMA)......................................................................... 3-90 Figure 3-22: Napa County Population Exposed to Flood Risk........................................................................................3-91 Figure 3-23: Napa County Dam Failure Risk Map.............................................................................................................. 3-113 Figure 3-24. Oroville Dam Spillway after 2017 failure. .................................................................................................... 3-114 Figure 3-25: Exposure Summary – Napa County Dam Failure Risk.......................................................................... 3-118 Figure 3-26: Earthquake Faulting.............................................................................................................................................3-130 Figure 3-27: Regional Fault Lines ............................................................................................................................................3-140 Figure 3-28: Napa County Liquefaction Risk....................................................................................................................... 3-141 Figure 3-29: Fault Probability Map for Napa County Area .............................................................................................3-143 Figure 3-30: Napa County Earthquake Risk (M 7.1 Hunting Creek Berryessa Scenario)....................................3-145 CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 53 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
v
Figure 3-31: Napa County Earthquake Risk (M6.7 West Napa Scenario)..................................................................3-146 Figure 3-32: Exposure Summary – Napa County Earthquake Risk (M7.1 Hunting Creek Berryessa Scenario) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................3-149 Figure 3-33: Exposure Summary – Napa County Earthquake Risk (M6.7 West Napa Scenario)....................3-150 Figure 3-34: Napa County Population Exposure to Earthquake (M6.7 West Napa Scenario)........................... 3-151 Figure 3-35: Napa County Population Exposure to Earthquake (M7.1 Hunting Creek-Berryessa Scenario) ... 3- 152
Figure 3-36: Napa County Landslide Susceptibility..........................................................................................................3-173 Figure 3-37: Exposure Summary – Napa County Slope Failure Risk........................................................................3-177 Figure 3-38: Napa County Population Exposure to Slope Failure ...............................................................................3-178 Figure 3-39: Napa County Drought History and Severity Chart...................................................................................3-197 Figure 3-40: Napa County Annual Average Wind Speed (Power Class)...................................................................3-221 Figure 3-41: Napa County Average Annual Precipitation .............................................................................................3-223 Figure 3-42: Napa County 30-Year Normal Minimum Temperature for January............................................... 3-225 Figure 3-43: Day and Night Urban Heat Island Effect Across Natural and Built Landscapes ........................3-236 Figure 3-44: Napa County 30-Year Normal Maximum Temperature for July......................................................3-242 Figure 3-45: Head Index Classification and Calculation ..............................................................................................3-244 Figure 3-46: Predicted Sea Level Rise Map.........................................................................................................................3-263 Figure 3-47: Exposure Summary – Napa County Sea Level Rise Risk.....................................................................3-270 Figure 3-48: Napa County Population Exposure to Sea Level Rise.............................................................................3-271 Figure 4-1: FEMA’s Six Mitigation Action Categories ........................................................................................................4-17 Figure 4-2: Public Survey Summary .........................................................................................................................................4-19 Figure 4-3: County-Wide Mitigation Strategy Diagram ....................................................................................................4-21 Figure 4-4: Mitigation Action Number Key........................................................................................................................... 4-25 Figure A- 1: Hazard Exposure.............................................................................................................................................................2 Figure A- 2: Data Analysis Methodology.......................................................................................................................................9 List of Tables
Table ES-1: Adoption Records........................................................................................................................................................xxi Table 1-1: Participating Jurisdictions ..........................................................................................................................................1-3 Table 1-2: Participating Jurisdiction Tracker.........................................................................................................................1-10 Table 1-3: Napa County Population and Households ..........................................................................................................1-19 Table 1-4: Napa County Income and Poverty ........................................................................................................................ 1-23 Table 1-5: Napa County Renter- and Owner-Occupied Housing.................................................................................... 1-26 Table 1-6: Napa County Households with Seniors...............................................................................................................1-30 Table 1-7: Napa County Households with Children ............................................................................................................1-30 Table 1-8: Napa County Population with Disabilities and Access to Transportation.............................................1-31 Table 1-9: Napa County Household Languages .................................................................................................................... 1-35 CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 54 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
vi
Table 1-10: Napa County Jobs by Top Industry Sector, 2022 ...........................................................................................1-44 Table 1-11: Napa County Household Growth Projections...................................................................................................1-51 Table 2-1: County-Wide Steering Group and Planning Team Meetings.......................................................................2-7 Table 2-2: Napa County Breakout Meetings.............................................................................................................................2-8 Table 2-3: Members of Steering Group and All Planning Teams ....................................................................................2-9 Table 2-4: Key Stakeholders.........................................................................................................................................................2-15 Table 2-5: Consultant Team Members .....................................................................................................................................2-16 Table 2-6: Summary of Community Outreach Media Tools........................................................................................... 2-20 Table 2-7: Planning Process Library ........................................................................................................................................ 2-28 Table 2-8: Napa County Parcel Counts and Values.............................................................................................................2-33 Table 3-1: Document Review Crosswalk of Potential County-Wide Hazards.............................................................3-2 Table 3-2: Napa County Federal Disaster Declarations 1995 to Present.......................................................................3-4 Table 3-3: Climate Change Impacts on Hazards....................................................................................................................3-8 Table 3-4: County-Wide Hazards Prioritization Summary................................................................................................3-9 Table 3-5: Wildfires in Napa County 1,000 Acres or Greater, 2015-2025..................................................................... 3-24 Table 3-6: Napa County Population Exposure to Wildfire................................................................................................3-35 Table 3-7: Napa County Property Exposure to Wildfire.....................................................................................................3-37 Table 3-8: Napa County Critical Facilities Exposure to Wildfire .................................................................................. 3-39 Table 3-9: Napa County Lifeline Infrastructure Exposure to Wildfire........................................................................ 3-40 Table 3-10: Napa County Wildfire Hazard Problem Statements................................................................................... 3-43 Table 3-11: Flood Hazard Terms................................................................................................................................................. 3-47 Table 3-12: Napa County NFIP Status and Flood Insurance Statistics....................................................................... 3-54 Table 3-13: Napa County FEMA Declared Flood Disasters Since 1995.........................................................................3-59 Table 3-14: Napa County NOAA Recorded Flood Events Since 1995........................................................................... 3-60 Table 3-15: Flood Probability Annually and Over 30-Year Period.................................................................................3-85 Table 3-16: Summary of Discharges in Napa County........................................................................................................ 3-87 Table 3-17: Napa County Population Exposed to Flood Risk.......................................................................................... 3-92 Table 3-18: Napa County Parcels Exposed to Flood Risk................................................................................................. 3-93 Table 3-19: Napa County Critical Facilities Exposed to Flood Risk............................................................................. 3-94 Table 3-20:Napa County Lifeline Infrastructure Exposed to Flood Risk................................................................... 3-96 Table 3-21: Napa County Flood Hazard Problem Statements ........................................................................................ 3-99 Table 3-22: Dam Hazard Potential Classifications............................................................................................................3-108 Table 3-23: Dams in or Adjacent to Napa County..............................................................................................................3-108 Table 3-24: Napa County Population Exposure to Dam Failure................................................................................... 3-119 Table 3-25: Napa County Unincorporated Parcels Exposed to Dam Inundation Zones..................................... 3-121 Table 3-26: Napa County Critical Facilities Exposure to Dam Failure ......................................................................3-123 Table 3-27: Napa County Critical Infrastructure Exposure to Dam Failure ............................................................3-124 Table 3-28: Napa County Dam Failure Hazard Problem Statements.........................................................................3-128 Table 3-29: Moment Magnitude (Mw) Scale ........................................................................................................................ 3-131 Table 3-30: Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale........................................................................................................3-132 CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 55 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
vii
Table 3-31: Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)............................3-133 Table 3-32: Seismic Benchmark Years ..................................................................................................................................3-137 Table 3-33: Earthquakes near Napa County M4.0 or Greater Since 2000.................................................................3-139 Table 3-34: 30-Year Probability of Earthquakes in the San Francisco Region ......................................................3-142 Table 3-35: Napa County Population Exposure to Earthquake (M6.7 West Napa Scenario)............................. 3-151 Table 3-36: Napa County Population Exposure to Earthquake (M7.1 Hunting Creek-Berryessa Scenario)3-152 Table 3-37: Parcel Exposure to M6.7 West Napa Earthquake Shake Scenarios.....................................................3-154 Table 3-38: Parcel Exposure to M7.1 Hunting Creek-Berryessa Earthquake Shake Scenarios .......................3-154 Table 3-39: Building Stock Ages and Benchmark Years.................................................................................................3-155 Table 3-40: Critical Facilities Exposure to Earthquake (M6.7 West Napa Scenario) ...........................................3-159 Table 3-41: Napa County Critical Facilities Exposure to Earthquake (M7.1 Hunting Creek Berryessa Scenario) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................3-160 Table 3-42: Napa County Infrastructure Exposure to Earthquake (M6.7 West Napa Scenario)...................... 3-161 Table 3-43: Napa County Infrastructure Exposure to Earthquake (M7.1 Hunting Creek Berryessa Scenario) 3- 161
Table 3-44: Napa County Earthquake Hazard Problem Statements..........................................................................3-164 Table 3-45: Slope Failure and Storm Records for Napa County Since 2015 ............................................................ 3-171 Table 3-46: Slope Failure Susceptibility Classifications.................................................................................................3-172 Table 3-47: Napa County Population Exposure to Slope Failure.................................................................................3-178 Table 3-48: Napa County Property Exposure to Slope Failure......................................................................................3-180 Table 3-49: Napa County Critical Facilities Exposure to Slope Failure .................................................................... 3-181 Table 3-50: Napa County Critical Infrastructure Exposure to Slope Failure...........................................................3-183 Table 3-51: Napa County Slope Failure Hazard Problem Statements........................................................................3-186 Table 3-52: Drought Classifications and Impacts for California..................................................................................3-197 Table 3-53: Napa County Drought Hazard Problem Statements.................................................................................3-207 Table 3-54. Severe Weather Events in Napa County, 2015-present............................................................................3-215 Table 3-55: Classes of Wind Power ..........................................................................................................................................3-219 Table 3-56: Napa County Severe Weather Hazard Problem Statements..................................................................3-231 Table 3-57: Cal-Adapt Extreme Heat Terms and Thresholds .......................................................................................3-241 Table 3-58: Heat-Related Illnesses..........................................................................................................................................3-245 Table 3-59: NWS HeatRisk Categories and Related Impacts........................................................................................3-246 Table 3-60: NWS Heat Forecast Terms and Definition...................................................................................................3-246 Table 3-61: Napa County Extreme Heat Hazard Problem Statements .....................................................................3-250 Table 3-62: California Agriculture Pests and Diseases................................................................................................... 3-255 Table 3-63: Summary of Cal-Adapt Climate Projections for the Bay Area Region .............................................3-267 Table 3-64: Napa County Population Exposure to Sea Level Rise...............................................................................3-271 Table 3-65: Napa County Parcel Exposure to Sea Level Rise .......................................................................................3-274 Table 3-66: Napa County Critical Facility Exposure to Sea Level Rise .................................................................... 3-275 Table 3-67: Napa County Lifeline Infrastructure Exposure to Sea Level Rise.......................................................3-276 Table 3-68: Napa County Climate Change Hazard Problem Statements ................................................................3-278 CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 56 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
viii
Table 4-1: Napa County Capabilities and Opportunities Assessment...........................................................................4-9 Table 4-2: Federal, State, and Local Funding Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-13 Table 4-3: County-Wide Mitigation Action Plan................................................................................................................. 4-22 Table 4-4: Napa County Mitigation Action Plan ................................................................................................................. 4-27 Table 4-5: Status of Previous Napa County Mitigation Actions....................................................................................... 4-1 Table A-1: Data Dictionary................................................................................................................................................................. 10 CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 57 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
ix
Executive Summary
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 58 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
x
Planning Partners
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 59 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
xi
Napa County along with the Cities of Napa, American Canyon, Calistoga, and St. Helena, Town of Yountville, and several special districts and local agencies, together, prepared this Napa County 2026 MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) update to guide officials in protecting the people and property within these jurisdictions’ planning areas from the effects of natural disasters and hazard events.

This plan demonstrates the participating jurisdictions’ commitments to reducing risk from natural hazards through mitigation and serves as a tool to direct decision-makers and available administrative, technical, and financial resources to achieve optimum results. Hazard mitigation planning in Napa County is intended to break the disaster cycle of damage and reactive restoration to baseline by reducing vulnerability to hazards through smart reconstruction and, before a disaster hits, proper planning of future development and critical infrastructure.

The purpose of this MJHMP is twofold. First, it provides resources for the participating jurisdictions and their residents wishing to conduct hazard mitigation efforts by identifying areas of extreme risk and providing financial and technical mitigation resources based on current gaps. Second, it provides these jurisdictions with continued access to grant funding from the state and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to conduct hazard mitigation activities.

See Volume 1, Section 1 for a detailed introduction to hazard mitigation planning, an overview of the planning area and participating jurisdictions (Figure ES-2), and the county-wide planning area, community profile, and regulatory environment. Also, see Section 1 for what is new in this updated plan and see Section 2 for planning process details.

Figure ES-1: Napa County Agricultural Preserve
Source: Napa County
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 60 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
xii
Figure ES-2: Geographic Overview of Participating Jurisdictions Note: The Napa County Office of Education, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and Napa Valley Transportation Authority are county-wide jurisdictions.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 61 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
xiii
Risk Assessment
The risk assessment measures the potential for loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property or infrastructure damage resulting from natural hazards to determine vulnerability. For this MJHMP, the risk assessment used new data and technologies that have become available since the previous update in 2020. The participating jurisdictions then used the assessment to rank hazard risks and gauge potential impacts of concern in their planning areas. The risk assessments, located in 0 of Volume 1 and the participating jurisdiction annexes in Volume 2, included hazard identification and profiling; assessment of the impact of hazards on physical, social, and economic assets; identification of areas of vulnerability; additional impacts of each hazard due to climate change; and estimates of the cost of potential damage. As a result, nine natural hazard threats were identified and profiled as county-wide priority hazards.

Natural hazards with spatial boundaries can be analyzed to demonstrate the total population, assets, and properties within each hazard’s footprint. At-risk populations, critical facilities and infrastructure, improved parcels of land, and estimated losses for each hazard category are provided in bar chart summary tables throughout this plan to evaluate the percentage of assets exposed to different types of hazards. The sideby-side comparison allows officials to evaluate the impacts of potential hazards to prioritize which hazards and exposed areas to direct energy and financial resources toward mitigation activities.

Each of the hazard-specific profiles includes a vulnerability assessment, as presented in Section 3.3 of Volume 1, with more specific supplemental assessments provided in each jurisdiction’s annex in Volume 2.

For a more detailed explanation on the risk assessment methods and analysis, see Appendix A. This Executive Summary also provides county-wide exposure summaries on the following pages.

Wildfire
SECTION 3.3.1
Flood
SECTION 3.3.2
Dam Failure
SECTION 3.3.3
Earthquake
SECTION 3.3.4
Slope Failure
SECTION 3.3.5
Drought
SECTION 3.3.6
Severe Weather
SECTION 3.3.7
Extreme Heat
SECTION 3.3.8
Climate Change
SECTION 3.3.9
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 62 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
xiv

WILDFIRE EXPOSURE
Exposure to the high and very high fire hazard severity zones 17,058
People
8,916
Parcels
$6.7b
Parcel Structure
Value
567
Critical Facilities
1,300mi.

Linear
Infrastructure

FLOOD EXPOSURE
Exposure to the 100-year and 500-year FEMA flood zones
20,141
People
6,802
Parcels
$2.7b
Parcel Structure
Value
437
Critical Facilities
544mi.

Linear
Infrastructure

DAM INUNDATION EXPOSURE
Exposure to the California DWR EAP statewide dam inundation zones 20,654
People
8,400
Parcels
$3.4b
Parcel Structure
Value
440
Critical Facilities
458mi.

Linear
Infrastructure
EARTHQUAKE EXPOSURE (M6.7 West Napa)
Exposure to the USGS shaking scenario – very strong & severe 118,919
People
53,637
Parcels
$32.6b
Parcel Structure
Value
1,561
Critical Facilities
2,400mi.

Linear
Infrastructure
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 63 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
xv
EARTHQUAKE EXPOSURE (M7.1 Hunting Creek Berryessa)
Exposure to the USGS shaking scenario – very strong & severe 71,194
People
35,972
Parcels
$17.3b
Parcel Structure
Value
1,060
Critical Facilities
1,700mi.

Linear
Infrastructure

SLOPE FAILURE EXPOSURE
Exposure to high CGS landslide susceptibility
9,224
People
2,616
Parcels
$2.2b
Parcel Structure
Value
93 Critical Facilities
368mi.

Linear
Infrastructure

SEA LEVEL RISE EXPOSURE
Exposure to the NOAA 0-6 foot sea level rise zones
3,593
People
195
Parcels
$97m
Parcel Structure
Value
30 Critical Facilities
147mi.

Linear
Infrastructure
Figure ES-3: Sea Level Rise Mapping in the Risk Assessment Mapping Platform (RAMP) CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 64 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
xvi
Mitigation Goals & Strategy
The county-wide Hazard Mitigation Planning Team that worked on this 2026 MJHMP update created a set of goals for the plan based on review of the 2020 Napa County MJHMP, 2017 Napa County General Plan, 2023 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, and other more current plans of participating, neighboring, and similar jurisdictions. The Planning Team elected to update the goals from the County’s 2020 plan based on the previously mentioned documents and in-depth engagement with each participating jurisdiction. The four revised goals serve as the framework for identifying the mitigation strategies included in this plan.

Goal 1: Protect people from loss of life,
injury, and economic damage from
hazards.

Goal 2: Protect critical facilities,
infrastructure, property, and the
continuity of essential services from
hazards.

Goal 3: Preserve natural resources and
ecological functions as hazard
mitigation.

Goal 4: Promote community resilience
through planning, policies, capital
improvements, education, and interjurisdictional collaboration.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 65 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
xvii
The centerpieces of the mitigation planning process are the mitigation strategy and associated actions designed to reduce or eliminate losses resulting from natural hazards. Mitigation actions are designed to address identified exposure and vulnerabilities and to confer community benefits, including both indirect governmental benefits to protect the overall community and public benefits that will directly support residents, landowners, business owners, and other community members.

By implementing the mitigation actions identified and described herein, Napa County will become more resilient to disasters. These actions may or may not be geared toward grant funding under FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs; rather, the focus was on the effectiveness in achieving plan goals within the participating jurisdictions’ capabilities. The Planning Team identified several new county-wide mitigation actions with far-reaching benefits alongside new and ongoing jurisdiction-specific mitigation actions from previous hazard mitigation plans.

County-Wide Collaboration
In Napa County’s mitigation planning
framework, the assorted roles of different
jurisdiction types—the county,
municipalities, and special districts—are
structured to reflect their operational
scopes and legal authorities. Counties are
primarily responsible for coordinating
regional strategies and managing risks
across large, often rural areas. This
includes protecting people in hazard prone
unincorporated areas, overseeing lifeline
infrastructure like roads and emergency
services, and aligning mitigation
resources with regional and state goals.

Municipalities, by contrast, manage denser
urban environments and wield direct
authority over land use and development.

Their role centers on reducing risks in the
built environment, enforcing urban codes,
and engaging residents in neighborhood
level resilience strategies. Special districts operate independently from counties and municipalities but play a critical role in maintaining essential services such as water, sanitation, fire protection, and education.

Their mitigation responsibilities are system specific and focused on service continuity, infrastructure resilience, and user-centered risk reduction.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 66 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
xviii
All three types of jurisdictions share core responsibilities: collaborating on cross jurisdictional mitigation projects, aligning strategies with public priorities and risk data, and supporting integrated planning and implementation. This operational differentiation ensures a whole community approach that is both targeted and collaborative, in alignment with FEMA’s Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide (2022). The mitigation strategy framework directly informed the structure and diversity of mitigation actions developed since the 2020 MJHMP. The actions identified reflect a balanced approach aligned with each jurisdiction’s role and capacity.
2026 Napa County Mitigation Action Plan
Of these, many focus on public education and awareness—critical for engaging residents across urban, rural, and system-specific contexts—and many others target prevention strategies, such as land use policies and regulatory efforts, often led by cities and the county due to their authority over planning and zoning.

Structural and property protection actions address vulnerabilities in the built environment and are frequently implemented by cities and special districts managing infrastructure and essential services.

Finally, some emphasize natural resource protection, supporting resilience through ecological systems and often led by regional partners and special districts. This distribution demonstrates a whole community mitigation strategy tailored to the roles and responsibilities of each jurisdiction type.

See Volume 1, Section 4 and individual jurisdiction annexes in Volume 2 for details on the individual mitigation strategies in this plan. The county-wide mitigation strategy is presented in Section 4.3.

Mitigation Actions by the Numbers
136
mitigation actions
have been developed to advance community resilience across Napa County. These actions reflect a comprehensive strategy, addressing a wide range of hazard risks through a variety of projects and programs.
36 are focused on Public Education
and Awareness to increase
community understanding of
hazard risks and preparedness
36 are focused on Prevention to
reduce risk through planning
and regulatory efforts
75 are focused on Property Protection
and Structural Projects that reduce
vulnerability through the built
environment
43 are focused on Natural
Resource Protection to support
mitigation through ecological
functions.
31 are focused on Emergency Services
to maintain essential government
functions during a disaster
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 67 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
xix
Plan Implementation
No amount of planning or mitigation can prevent disasters from occurring or eliminate all risks and impacts from such events. Natural hazards will continue to occur, and Napa County and other participating jurisdictions will continue to take actions to reduce the risks these hazards pose to life, property, the environment, and economic prosperity. While this MJHMP identifies opportunities for reasonable mitigation actions by the participating jurisdictions and allied agencies, individuals also have responsibilities to be aware of the potential hazards where they live and to reduce vulnerability within their own household.

Each participating jurisdiction’s ability to carry out mitigation is limited to those facilities and areas over which it has authority; they do not have direct authority over neighboring jurisdictions and tribes, other special districts, private utilities and hospitals, or state and federal facilities or infrastructure. Each jurisdiction will focus on actions within its authority while seeking to cooperatively work with other entities in addressing areas of mutual vulnerability and interdependence.

Full implementation and the success of this plan’s recommendations will take time and resources; the measure of success will be the coordination and pooling of resources within and among individual jurisdictions and maintaining these successes over time. Teaming together to seek financial assistance at the state and federal level will be a priority to initiate projects that are dependent on alternative funding sources. This plan was built upon the effective leadership of a multi-disciplined Steering Group and a process that relied heavily on public input and support. The plan will succeed for the same reasons.

See Volume 1, Section 2 for details on the implementation and maintenance of this plan.

CAL OES Figure ES SUBMITTAL -4- : County JUNE 2026-Wide Mitigation Strategy Development Exercise Item #6.5.

Page 68 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
xx

INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 69 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
xxi
Adoption Records
To comply with the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), the Napa County Board of Supervisors and officials for other participating jurisdictions have officially adopted this Napa County 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, including Volume 1 in its entirety as well as their respective jurisdictional annex in Volume 2. The adoption of the MJHMP recognizes the jurisdictions’ commitment to reducing the impacts of natural hazards within Napa County.

Adoption records for all jurisdictions are summarized in Table ES-1. A copy of Napa County’s adoption record is provided on the following pages; other jurisdictions’ adoption records are provided in their individual annex in Volume 2.

Table ES-1: Adoption Records
Jurisdiction Adoption Record Date of Adoption Document Reference Napa County Resolution No. XXXXX XX/XX/2026 Volume 1, Page X City of Napa Resolution No. XXXXX XX/XX/2026 Volume 2, Section 1 City of American Canyon Resolution No. XXXXX XX/XX/2026 Volume 2, Section 2 City of Calistoga Resolution No. XXXXX XX/XX/2026 Volume 2, Section 3 City of St. Helena Resolution No. XXXXX XX/XX/2026 Volume 2, Section 4 Town of Yountville Resolution No. XXXXX XX/XX/2026 Volume 2, Section 5 Napa County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District Resolution No. XXXXX XX/XX/2026 Volume 2, Section 6 Napa County Office of Education Resolution No. XXXXX XX/XX/2026 Volume 2, Section 7 Napa Valley Transportation
Authority Resolution No. XXXXX XX/XX/2026 Volume 2, Section 8 Napa Valley College Resolution No. XXXXX XX/XX/2026 Volume 2, Section 9 Napa Sanitation District Resolution No. XXXXX XX/XX/2026 Volume 2, Section 10 American Canyon Fire Protection
District Resolution No. XXXXX XX/XX/2026 Volume 2, Section 11 Howell Mountain Mutual Water
Company
Resolution No. XXXXX XX/XX/2026 Volume 2, Section 12
INSERT Napa County adoption record
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 70 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
xxii
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 71 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-1
Volume 1
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 72 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-2
Section 1.Introduction
The Napa County 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) involves the participation of multiple local planning partners and geographically covers the entire area within Napa County’s boundaries (the “planning area”). This MJHMP was prepared to guide officials in protecting the people and property within Napa County from the effects of natural disasters and hazard events. This plan demonstrates a commitment to reducing risk from natural hazards through mitigation and serves as a tool to direct decision-makers and available administrative, technical, and financial resources to achieve optimum results.

The term “hazard mitigation” refers to actions or strategies that can reduce or eliminate long-term risks caused by natural hazards.

Mitigation activities can be developed, planned, and implemented before or after a disaster occurs. After disasters, repairs and reconstruction often are completed in such a way as to simply restore damaged property to pre-disaster conditions. These efforts may return property and infrastructure to “the norm,” but the replication of pre-disaster conditions may result in a repetitive cycle of damage and reconstruction. Hazard mitigation planning in Napa County can break this repetitive cycle by reducing vulnerability to hazards through smart construction and proper planning of future development and critical infrastructure.

A planning partnership was formed to develop and steer content in this MJHMP. This partnership consists of Napa County, local city and town governments, special districts, and other agencies who worked together to create the goals, objectives, mitigation strategies and implementation methods to reduce risk to natural hazards that may affect the planning area.

1.1 Participating Jurisdictions
The 2026 Napa County MJHMP encompasses Napa County, all its municipalities, and several other special districts and agencies, collectively referred to as "participating jurisdictions.” Any local government or agency with the authority to regulate building or infrastructure development can participate in the hazard mitigation planning process; however, to receive Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approval, participating jurisdictions must also meet FEMA's planning requirements detailed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). (44 CFR § 201.6 et seq.) Throughout the development of this plan, all participating jurisdictions adhered to FEMA's recommended process and fulfilled the necessary requirements for FEMA approval, as outlined in Volume 1 and in the individual jurisdiction annexes of Volume 2.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 73 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-3
These participating jurisdictions collaborated to establish goals, objectives, mitigation strategies, and implementation actions aimed at reducing hazard risks across the planning area. The jurisdictions listed in Table 1-1 chose to participate in and complete this plan update process.

Table 1-1: Participating Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction Name Approximate Population
Local Governments
Napa County 138,007
City of Napa 78,130
City of American Canyon 21,837
City of Calistoga 5,266
City of St. Helena 5,430
Town of Yountville 3,064
Special Districts and Agencies
Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 138,007 Napa County Office of Education 18,572
Napa Valley College 4,213
Howell Mountain Mutual Water Company 1,617
Napa Valley Transportation Authority 487,000 trips
Napa Sanitation District 83,300
American Canyon Fire Protection District 21,605

1.2 Purpose & Scope
Each year in the United States, natural disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure thousands more. Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disasters. These monies only partially reflect the true cost of disasters because additional expenses incurred by insurance companies and non-governmental organizations are not reimbursed by tax dollars. Many natural disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused by these events can be reduced or even eliminated.

The primary purpose of this 2026 MJHMP is to guide hazard mitigation planning to better protect the people, property, and assets of Napa County from the effects of natural hazard events, but this MJHMP was also developed to ensure continued eligibility for certain federal disaster assistance. More specifically, the plan meets eligibility requirements for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grants, including the Hazard Mitigation Grant (HMGP), Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) programs.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 74 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-4
Planning Objectives
This plan documents the hazard mitigation planning process the participating jurisdictions used to increase natural hazard resiliency in Napa County, and the effort was initiated for several key purposes. The planning area has significant exposure to numerous natural hazards that have caused millions of dollars in past damages, and the participating jurisdictions want to be proactive in preparing for the probable impacts of future hazard events. Limited local resources make it difficult to implement proactive risk-reduction measures; thus, federal and state financial assistance is paramount to successful hazard mitigation.

The elements and strategies outlined in this plan were carefully selected to best address the participating jurisdictions’ specific needs. The following planning objectives collectively aim to enhance resilience, reduce vulnerability, and safeguard the wellbeing of Napa County and its communities against the impacts of natural hazards.
▪ Meet or exceed Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), California Senate Bill (SB) 379, and other state and federal requirements for hazard mitigation planning. ▪ Incorporate climate adaptation strategies into hazard mitigation planning. ▪ Maintain eligibility for funding, enabling the county and participating jurisdictions to continue accessing state and federal grants aimed at mitigating risks. ▪ Meet the planning requirements of FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) program, allowing those jurisdictions that participate in CRS to maintain or enhance their classifications. ▪ Fulfill local, state, and federal requirements by ensuring the plan meets the needs and complies with the regulations of participating jurisdictions, as well as state and federal authorities. ▪ Coordinate existing plans and programs to ensure synergy among various existing initiatives and programs to prioritize high-impact mitigation projects. ▪ Conduct a comprehensive risk assessment that focuses on identifying and evaluating the hazards most relevant to the planning area.
▪ Incorporate and address additional goals and priorities identified through the involvement of community members and other stakeholders.

What is Hazard Mitigation?
Hazard mitigation is a way to reduce or alleviate the loss of life, personal injury, and property damage that can result from a disaster through long- and short-term strategies and is defined by FEMA as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from a hazard event.” Hazard mitigation activities can be conducted through a wide variety of mitigation strategies such as planning, policy changes, programs, projects, and other activities that can mitigate the impacts of hazards. These activities can be planned and implemented either before or after a disaster occurs. Often, post-disaster repairs and reconstruction restore properties to their pre-disaster state, which may lead to repeated cycles of damage and rebuilding. Studies, including a congressionally mandated independent review, highlight the cost-effectiveness of mitigation activities. On average, every dollar invested in mitigation saves society six dollars in future losses, alongside preventing casualties and injuries. (NIBS, 2019) CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 75 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-5
Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards are identified, likely impacts determined, mitigation goals set, and appropriate mitigation strategies identified. This MJHMP provides a detailed description of hazards which have the potential to affect the Napa County planning area and also describes the different impacts those hazards may have based on various relationships. The vulnerabilities of both people and property within the planning area are identified based on social and geographic relationships to different hazards, which are referred to as “problem statements” or “areas of concern.” Most importantly, the mitigation strategy presented in this MJHMP responds to those identified vulnerabilities and provides prescriptive activities or “mitigation actions” to achieve the greatest risk reduction based on available resources. The county and other participating jurisdictions intend to save lives, reduce injuries, reduce property damage, and protect natural resources for future generations through the mitigation actions identified and described herein.

In Napa County, effective hazard mitigation planning can break this cycle by creating less vulnerable conditions through smart construction, careful planning of future developments, and strengthening critical infrastructure. Additionally, hazard mitigation activities can enhance the safety of residents and infrastructure using various strategies, such as constructing regional flood control projects or reducing fuels around buildings in high wildfire risk areas.

Why Have a Hazard Mitigation Plan?
Enshrined in Public Law No. 106-390 of the United States Code (USC), DMA 2000 mandates that state and local governments develop hazard mitigation plans to qualify for federal disaster grant assistance. (42 USC § 5121 et seq.) Before DMA 2000, federal disaster funding primarily focused on post-disaster relief and recovery under the Robert T. Stafford Act, with limited support for proactive hazard mitigation planning.

DMA 2000 shifted its focus by prioritizing pre-disaster planning and preparedness.

DMA 2000 encourages collaboration among state and local authorities in pre-disaster planning efforts, emphasizing sustainability in hazard mitigation. Sustainable mitigation involves the responsible management of natural resources and recognizes that hazards and their mitigation strategies must be considered within broad social and economic contexts. By fostering enhanced collaboration and planning networks, DMA 2000 enables local jurisdictions to accurately identify mitigation needs, leading to quicker allocation of funds and more cost-effective projects aimed at reducing risks.

This MJHMP outlines the prevalent hazards in Napa County and examines how these hazards may impact the population and property differently across the planning area. It includes detailed information on natural hazard threats, identifying risks to vulnerable people, property, and assets. The plan’s mitigation strategy addresses specific vulnerabilities and prescribes actions aimed at achieving the greatest reduction in these vulnerabilities. This approach ultimately leads to saving lives, minimizing injuries, reducing property damage, and protecting the environment during natural hazard events. Furthermore, the MJHMP ensures participating jurisdictions’ ongoing eligibility for federal disaster assistance, specifically FEMA's HMA grants, including programs like the HMGP, BRIC, and FMA.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 76 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-6
Why Update the Plan?
Local jurisdictions must maintain an active, approved hazard mitigation plan to pursue funding under the Robert T. Stafford Act. This requirement, established by DMA 2000, mandates that the plan be updated every five years to comply with federal mitigation grant conditions. Federal regulations stipulate that hazard mitigation plans must include a process for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan. This update process enables the reassessment of recommendations, the evaluation of completed actions' impacts, and the identification of necessary adjustments to mitigation strategies over time. Compliance with grant requirements hinges on meeting the plan update criteria specified in the CFR.

Napa County's previous MJHMP was last updated and
approved by FEMA in 2020. This current plan,
comprehensively updated in 2026 to include additional
participating jurisdictions, reflects extensive data
analysis, public input, and guidance from a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders. Throughout the planning process, all participating jurisdictions adhered to FEMA's recommended four-step process to develop this 2026 plan update. This comprehensive update includes:
▪ A complete overhaul and inclusive planning process
▪ Clear delineation of jurisdictional information
▪ Development of a new risk assessment
▪ Reevaluation of goals and objectives
▪ Creation of new mitigation actions
▪ New enhancements for implementing mitigation actions
▪ Updates to all sections of the 2020 plan
▪ A new project website (mitigatehazards.com/napacountymjhmp) for stakeholder involvement and public information
This thorough approach ensures that the updated plan addresses current risks and mitigation needs effectively.

Who Benefits from this Plan?
The responsibility for hazard mitigation lies with many, including private property owners, businesses and industries, and local, state, and federal governments. Sustainable hazard mitigation includes the sound management of natural resources and recognition that hazards and mitigation must be understood in the broadest possible social and economic context. The enhanced and collaborative planning network called for by DMA 2000 helps local governments articulate accurate mitigation needs, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more cost-effective risk reduction projects.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 77 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-7
One benefit of multi-jurisdictional planning is the ability to pool resources and eliminate redundant activities within a planning area that has common risk exposures and vulnerabilities. This plan will help guide and coordinate mitigation activities throughout Napa County.

The 2026 Napa County MJHMP is a cornerstone for enhancing safety and resilience among residents, businesses, and visitors alike; all the community members in Napa County are the ultimate beneficiaries of this plan. By addressing a spectrum of potential hazards, the plan provides a robust framework tailored to the planning area's unique challenges. Public input and stakeholder engagement have been pivotal in shaping the MJHMP, ensuring its relevance and benefit across all sectors. Volume 1 offers comprehensive resources and background information that apply county-wide, while Volume 2 provides tailored specifics for individual jurisdictions within Napa County.

The plan's objectives lay the groundwork for local mitigation activities and partnerships, fostering collaboration and strategic planning. By consolidating resources and coordinating efforts, the MJHMP optimizes the allocation of resources to Napa County's most vulnerable areas. This approach not only enhances efficiency but also amplifies the effectiveness of mitigation efforts, ultimately fortifying community resilience and minimizing the overall impact of natural hazards.

1.3 How to Use This Plan
The Napa County 2026 MJHMP is structured into two volumes to effectively manage elements that apply broadly across the planning area (Volume 1) and those specific to individual jurisdictions (Volume 2). All participating jurisdictions within Napa County adopted Volume 1 in its entirety. Additionally, each jurisdiction has its own specific annex within Volume 2, ensuring that both county-wide and local needs are addressed comprehensively. This structured approach facilitates effective coordination, resource allocation, and implementation of hazard mitigation strategies across the entire planning area.

Napa County VOLUME 1
(County-Wide Elements)
City of Napa Napa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
VOLUME 2
(Jurisdiction-Specific
Annexes)
City of American Canyon Napa County Office of Education City of Calistoga Napa County Transportation Authority
City of St. Helena Napa Sanitation District
Town of Yountville American Canyon Fire Protection District Napa Valley College Howell Mountain Mutual Water Company CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 78 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-8
Volume 1 Contents
County-Wide Elements: Volume 1 covers all federally required elements of a hazard mitigation plan that apply to the entire planning area. This includes:
▪ Section 1 – Introduction: Describes the overall purpose of the MJHMP, its structure, updates since the last plan, and characteristics of the county-wide planning area. ▪ Section 2 – Planning Process: Details how the plan was developed according to FEMA's four-step process, including stakeholder engagement and public involvement strategies, and outlines procedures for updating and maintaining the plan over time. ▪ Section 3 – Hazard Risk Assessment: Provides an assessment of the natural hazards affecting the entire planning area, including their characteristics and potential impacts. ▪ Section 4 – Mitigation Strategy: Presents mitigation goals, the county-wide and Napa County strategies, and actions aimed at reducing risks and enhancing resilience across the planning area, matched with local capabilities.
▪ Section 5 – Works Cited
▪ Appendix A – Analysis Methodology: Details the methodologies used for hazard and risk assessments.
▪ Appendix B – Planning Process Documentation: Provides documentation of the planning process, including meeting summaries and stakeholder input.

Volume 2 Contents
Jurisdiction-Specific Annexes: Each annex contains detailed information specific to that participating jurisdiction within the planning area, including elements mandated by state and federal regulations for each jurisdiction such as tailored hazard profiles and risk assessments; relevant supporting documentation and maps; jurisdiction-specific mitigation strategies and actions; and implementation schedules and responsibilities.

1.4 What’s New
This section offers an overview of the previous hazard mitigation planning efforts for the planning area and highlights the updates made in this 2026 MJHMP. Mitigation actions from the county's 2020 plan, as well as earlier plans from other jurisdictions, were carefully reviewed, updated, and revised to reflect the new priorities established in this update. Only relevant information and accurate data from the earlier plans were incorporated into the current version.

The following sections describe the comprehensive review and update processes undertaken. The 2026 Napa County MJHMP profiles nine county-wide hazards, which are the same as those profiled in the 2020 MJHMP except for pandemic disease.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 79 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-9
Wildfire
SECTION 3.3.1
Flood
SECTION 3.3.2
Dam Failure
SECTION 3.3.3
Earthquake
SECTION 3.3.4
Slope Failure
SECTION 3.3.5
Drought
SECTION 3.3.6
Severe Weather
SECTION 3.3.7
Extreme Heat
SECTION 3.3.8
Climate Change
SECTION 3.3.9

1.4.1 Background: 2020 vs. 2026
In 2020, Napa County successfully met all approval requirements outlined in DMA 2000, Title 44 CFR § 201.6, and California SB 379 before officially adopted its 2020 MJHMP. This plan has been updated from the earlier plan and incorporated elements from Napa County’s 2023 General Plan and other long-range planning mechanisms, as well as those of other participating jurisdictions. Guided by input from hazard mitigation stakeholders, several improvements were implemented for the 2026 update, including:
▪ Focused on Priority Hazards: The hazard mitigation plan stakeholders decided to prioritize natural hazards over human-caused ones for the 2026 update. In particular, pandemic disease was identified as better suited for inclusion in other plans like the Emergency Operations Plan. In addition, this update recognizes recent shifts in severe weather hazard concerns, focusing on heavy rain, high wind, and winter weather as subhazards and increasing emphasis on extreme heat by profiling it separately.
▪ Assessed Local Mitigation Progress: The 2026 update included a review of progress made in local mitigation efforts since the 2020 MJHMP, ensuring continuity and identifying areas for improvement.
▪ Enhanced Partnerships: Strong partnerships among the county, municipalities, and special district and agency partners were reinforced, emphasizing a collaborative approach and county-wide mitigation efforts.
▪ Climate Change and FEMA Planning Guidance: The 2026 MJHMP update has been aligned with the latest California and FEMA guidelines, which emphasize the integration of climate change considerations into hazard mitigation planning. Given the increasing impact of climate change on Napa County and associated hazard risks, the updated plan includes comprehensive strategies to address evolving concerns, ensuring that climate adaptation and resilience measures are equitably prioritized.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 80 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-10
These updates reflect a strategic approach to focus resources on the most critical natural hazards facing Napa County while leveraging collaborative efforts and monitoring progress to enhance community resilience and hazard preparedness.

Changes in Participating Jurisdictions
Since adoption of the 2020 MJHMP, the eligibility status of planning partnerships has been monitored throughout the five-year update process by the Napa County point of contact (POC). The determination of partner compliance with participation requirements was based on several criteria:
▪ Annual submission of progress reports within specified time frames; ▪ Notification to the POC of any changes in designated points of contact; ▪ Active participation in group meetings and responsiveness to team needs; and ▪ Continued support in accordance with expectations outlined in the planning partner expectations package provided at the outset of the process.

Table 1-2 tracks the jurisdictions that participated in the 2020 MJHMP compared to this 2026 update.

Table 1-2: Participating Jurisdiction Tracker
Jurisdiction Name 2020 Participation 2026 Participation Local Governments
Napa County Yes Yes
City of Napa No Yes
City of American Canyon Yes Yes
City of Calistoga Yes Yes
City of St. Helena Yes Yes
Town of Yountville Yes Yes
Special Districts and Agencies
Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Yes Yes Napa County Office of Education Yes Yes
Napa Valley College Yes Yes
Howell Mountain Mutual Water Company Yes Yes
Napa Valley Transportation Authority No Yes
Napa Sanitation District No Yes
American Canyon Fire Protection District No Yes
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 81 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-11

1.4.2 Mitigation Activities
During the 2026 update process, all mitigation actions from jurisdictions’ previous hazard mitigation plans underwent a thorough review to assess their relevance and potential for future implementation. Each action was evaluated based on its feasibility and alignment with current priorities. Some actions were deemed integral to the MJHMP update process or lacked sufficient detail for local implementation, resulting in their exclusion from this update. Additionally, significant changes were made to other mitigation actions based on updated risk assessments, expanded detail, or adjustments to implementation strategies reflecting current practices.

Table 4-5 provides a detailed record of Napa County mitigation actions from the 2020 MJHMP that have been completed, cancelled, or revised, along with explanations for how they were completed, why they are no longer considered relevant, or how they were revised. County mitigation actions that are ongoing or pending from previous MJHMPs and remain pertinent are included alongside newly identified actions in the Mitigation Action Plan (Section 4). Information regarding the status of previous mitigation actions specific to other participating jurisdictions can be found in the relevant Volume 2 annexes.

Successes Since 2020
The guiding principles, goals, objectives, and many of the mitigation actions outlined in previous hazard mitigation plans have been effectively implemented through ongoing projects, programs, and planning efforts. These successful mitigation activities have resulted in substantial improvements in reducing hazard risks to life and property, significantly enhancing overall emergency response capacity. This section highlights exemplary policies, programs, and projects specific to Napa County that have achieved notable risk reduction.

Completed county mitigation actions from the 2020 MJHMP are summarized in Table 4-5, providing an overview of the milestones achieved through these efforts. Information regarding completed mitigation actions and successes specific to individual participating jurisdictions can be found in each jurisdiction's annex within Volume 2 of this plan.

Napa Firewise Programs Expansion
Over the past five years, Napa Firewise has led and conducted numerous fuel reduction projects across the county. These projects were often collaborative efforts among multiple public and private agencies, including Napa Firewise, the Napa County Fire Department, the CAL FIRE Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit, neighborhood associations, and private property owners. The 2021 update of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), which incorporated the risk assessment and mitigation strategy from the 2020 MJHMP, provided new momentum to this work and helped prioritize high-risk areas, leading to historic county investments in community resilience.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 82 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-12
Working with funders such as the County, CAL FIRE, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Napa Firewise has created strategic fuel breaks, protected critical infrastructure, and implemented largescale forest health projects. More recent wildfire events have proved these fuel mitigation strategies in the county to be effective. Further, investments from the Napa Valley Vintners are being used in firefighter response and tactical strategy to re-establish old fire roads.

Napa Firewise uses a treatment-agnostic approach to wildfire mitigation, selecting the right tools for each landscape and long-term goal, ranging from goat grazing to establishing dozer lines (Figure 1-1). This flexibility ensures the greatest ecological benefit and cost-effectiveness while reducing wildfire risk. The Firewise website offers an interactive project dashboard for a transparent view of what projects have been completed, those that are underway, and what is planned for the next two to five years.

Figure 1-1: Napa Firewise Fuel Reduction Project,
April 2024
Source: Napa County
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 83 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-13
2020 Plan Integration
Over the past several years, previous hazard mitigation plans were incorporated into other planning mechanisms as a demonstration of progress in local hazard mitigation efforts. Various aspects of the 2020 MJHMP have been used to inform, develop, and update planning mechanisms used by the county and other jurisdictions, such as capabilities assessments and hazard background information, peculiarities, risk mapping, and exposure data. These planning integration efforts are reflected in each participating jurisdiction’s capabilities and opportunities assessment.

For Napa County, the following are examples of planning mechanisms into which the 2020 MJHMP was incorporated and of what plan components were used:
▪ 2021 Napa County Community Wildfire Protection Plan: The wildfire hazard risk assessment, vulnerabilities, potential impacts, and mitigation actions were incorporated. ▪ 2023 Napa County General Plan Safey Element: The 2020 MJHMP risk assessment and mitigation strategy were incorporated by reference, summarized, and used to develop the goals, policies, and implementation measures in the element.
▪ 2024 Napa County Emergency Operations Plan: The hazard risk assessment, vulnerabilities, potential impacts, and mitigation strategy were incorporated.

This 2026 MJHMP will be similarly incorporated into local and regional planning documents, such as the general and capital improvement plans for participating jurisdictions. For example, the plan will be referenced in and used to help update the Napa County General Plan Safety Element as well as the Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

Section 4.2 in Volume 1 outlines county planning mechanisms that have been and will be integrated with the MJHMP and the process for such integration in more detail. Each jurisdictional annex in Volume 2 also describes which planning mechanisms that jurisdiction has been integrating and will integrate with the updated plan, as part of its capabilities and opportunities assessment.

1.4.3 New Analysis & Risk Assessment Methodology
Napa County strengthened this plan by using new research methods and web-based information systems.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping and analysis provided participating jurisdictions with the tools to develop more comprehensive data sets than those used in previous planning efforts. A web-based mapping tool, called the Risk Assessment Mapping Platform (RAMP), was used to assist and engage the planning teams in this analysis through a highly interactive approach. In addition, an application called the Mitigation Action Support Tool (MAST) was also used to record, update, and track described vulnerabilities (referred to herein as “problem statements” or “areas of concern”) and to create associated mitigation actions. See Sections 2.2 and 2.3 for more information about the new analysis and risk assessment methodology used in developing the mitigation strategy, including RAMP and MAST.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 84 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-14

1.5 Community Profile
The community profile for Napa County establishes the foundation for assessing risks and vulnerabilities across the planning area. By pairing the hazard-specific vulnerability assessments (Section 3.3) with local geography, demographic characteristics, and economic conditions, mitigation strategies and actions can be more effectively directed toward key populations and areas. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team reviewed geographic and demographic data as part of the risk prioritization and assessment process. This comprehensive approach ensures that mitigation efforts are tailored to address the most critical vulnerabilities and enhance the resilience of the community.

1.5.1 Planning Area & Geography
The 2026 Napa County MJHMP geographically covers the entire 788-square-mile area within the county’s boundaries (the “planning area”) and includes all municipalities within the county as well as several special districts and governmental agencies. Napa County is located in the Governor's Office of Emergency Services Coastal Region and Mutual Aid Region II. Nearly 60% of the county's population resides within the City of Napa, the county seat and largest municipality which lies in the Napa Valley, while remaining reside in other incorporated cities or towns or in unincorporated areas. Figure 1-2 provides an overview of the planning area and participating jurisdictions.

Napa County is located in the North Bay Area of California, north of San Pablo Bay and 50 miles north of San Francisco. It is one of the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties and one of four North Bay counties.

Contiguous counties include Solano, Sonoma, Lake, and Yolo. The county is nestled among the Mayacamas Mountains to the north, the Vaca Mountains to the east, and the Napa River Delta to the south and west. The county features a varied geography composed of fertile valley floors, rolling hills, and rugged uplands.

The southern part of the county, which includes the City of Napa and American Canyon, lies at lower elevations and experiences a milder Mediterranean climate. In contrast, the northern and eastern areas— including Angwin, Calistoga, and Lake Berryessa—are more mountainous, with cooler temperatures, dense woodlands, and higher elevations.

Napa County is home to a mix of land ownership types. While much of the county is privately owned— dominated by vineyards, rangelands, and rural residential properties—significant areas are managed by public agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), California Department of Parks and Recreation, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which oversees Lake Berryessa and surrounding lands. The county encompasses several incorporated communities, including the cities of Napa, American Canyon, Calistoga, St. Helena, and the Town of Yountville, along with unincorporated areas such as Angwin, Pope Valley, and Berryessa Highlands. These diverse landscapes and communities form the foundation of Napa County’s unique character and planning area.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 85 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-15
Major Transportation Routes
Understanding transportation routes in the planning area is crucial for hazard mitigation planning. Several key roads in Napa County provide important linkages and access during a hazard event, including functioning as critical evacuation routes.

State Route 29 (SR-29) is the primary state highway running north/south through the Napa Valley. SR-29 is four-lane divided expressway through American Canyon before transitioning to a freeway in the City of Napa and then returning to a four-lane divided expressway between northern Napa and Yountville. SR-29 is a two-lane undivided highway from Yountville to the Napa County-Lake County boundary. SR-29 is also a vital regional connector between Napa and Lake County in the north and Solano County in the south. State Route 12 (SR-12), State Route 121 (SR-121), State Route 128 (SR-128), and State Route 221 (SR-221) provide some redundancy with SR-29.

SR-12 serves as a regional east/west connection between Interstate 80 in Solano County and U.S. 101 in Sonoma County. SR-12 is a four-lane divided expressway from the Napa County/Solano County boundary to west of the City of Napa, where it transitions to a two-lane undivided highway. SR-12 runs coterminous with SR-29 from the Napa County Airport to the Stanly Ranch.

SR-121 begins at SR-128 near Lake Berryessa and continues southwest through the Wooden Valley to the City of Napa. In the City of Napa, SR-121 connects to SR-221 and continues west to SR-29. SR-121 runs coterminous with SR-29 to the Stanly Ranch, where it then joins SR-12 and continues west into Sonoma County. SR-121 is primarily a two-lane undivided highway; however, it does have four-lane divided sections within the City of Napa.

SR-128 enters Napa County at Lake Berryessa and the two-lane undivided highway meanders through the Capell Valley and Sage Canyon before reaching the Napa Valley. SR-128 joins SR-29 at Rutherford and continues north to Calistoga, where they diverge. SR-128 continues north into the Knights Valley where it enters Sonoma County.

SR-221 is a short two-lane divided expressway that links Soscol Junction (SR-12/SR-29) with SR-121 in the City of Napa.

In addition, Napa County contains an extensive network of city- and county-maintained roads that are critical for intra-county travel and emergency response. These roadways connect residential neighborhoods, agricultural areas, businesses, and essential infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, and public safety facilities.

Rail transportation consists of freight service provided by the California Northern Railroad. The short line railroad is based at Lombard Yard in American Canyon and serves local industries in southern Napa County and Solano County. The California Northern interchanges freight cars with the Union Pacific Railroad in Suisun City. The Napa Valley Wine Train offers roundtrip excursion passenger rail service between Napa and St. Helena. There is no scheduled passenger commuter rail service in Napa County.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 86 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-16
Napa County Airport (APC) is the only general aviation airport in Napa County. Located in unincorporated Napa County between the City of American Canyon and the City of Napa, APC occupies 824 acres and features three runways ranging from 2,510 to 5,931 feet in length. The airport’s facilities include a control tower, approximately 200 hangars, approximately 160 aircraft tie down spaces, and a helicopter pad. There is no scheduled commercial passenger service at APC.

Angwin Airport, or the Angwin-Parrett Field, is a single runaway airport owned and operated by the Pacific Union College. The airport is primarily used by students of the university aviation program, but is also available to members of the community. In 2006, the university sought to sell the airport to Napa County, but the plan never went through.

These transportation modes and routes are pivotal for emergency response, evacuation planning, and general transportation needs outlined in this MJHMP. Figure 1-2 provides a geographic overview of the planning area and highlights major transportation routes.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 87 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-17
Figure 1-2: Geographic Overview of Planning Area and Participating Jurisdictions Note: The Napa County Office of Education, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and Napa Valley Transportation Authority are county-wide jurisdictions.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 88 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-18

1.5.2 Climate
The general climate of Napa County can be described as Mediterranean, with cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. It varies slightly across the county due to terrain and geography. For example, the southern end of the valley, where American Canyon and the City of Napa are located, is cooler than the northern part of the county due to its location near San Pablo Bay (the northern tip of the San Francisco Bay). Winds from the bay cool southern Napa County as far north as Yountville. The St. Helena and Calistoga areas do not encounter those cooling winds and thus tend to be much warmer.

Average annual precipitation in Napa County is around 30 inches, with over half occurring in the winter months between December and March. The western side of the valley, in the Mayacamas Mountains, gets more rain and supports redwood and fir forests and numerous water bodies and features. The eastern side of the valley, in the Vacas Mountains, receives much less rain and has desert-like characteristics with scrub brush and cactus. Temperatures in Napa County typically range from a winter low of around 39 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to a summer high approaching 90°F.

Figure 1-3 presents the county-wide 30-year monthly climate normals from 1991 to 2020 for precipitation and minimum and maximum temperatures.

Figure 1-3: Napa County 30-Year Monthly Climate Normals (1991-2020) Source: gridMET (UC Merced)
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 89 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-19

1.5.3 Demographics & Vulnerable Populations
This section describes the demographic characteristics of Napa County to guide hazard mitigation planning efforts. Natural disasters affect communities both physically and socially, with demographic composition playing a central role in determining how impacts are distributed, particularly among vulnerable groups facing greater challenges in preparedness, response, and recovery. Understanding the planning area's social and economic landscape also helps assess potential social costs from infrastructure damage, including housing, industry, public facilities, essential services, and transportation.

The demographic data for Napa County and the other participating jurisdictions discussed in this MJHMP is derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) spanning from 2017 to 2022. It may differ from figures in other regional studies or plans due to inherent data variability, especially in rural areas and at the block group level, which is available as spatial data files but not in standard Census tabulations. The figures presented are intended to highlight broader regional trends relevant to hazard mitigation planning efforts rather than inform specific decision-making or administrative actions.

According to the ACS, Napa County had a total estimated population of 252,300 in 2022, representing a slight decrease overall since 2020 according to the Demographic Research Unit (DRU) of the California Department of Finance. (DRU, 2026) Based on the most recent Census data, approximately 54% of Napa County’s residents live in unincorporated areas. The largest incorporated jurisdiction is the City of Napa, with about 31% of the population. However, the fastest growing area of the county is in and around the City of American Canyon, at a rate of almost 3% between 2024 and 2025. (Id.) Average household sizes vary across the county, with the smallest in the Town of Yountville and largest in the City of American Canyon. This trend generally follows the gradient of population densities, with household sizes decreasing as one moves north up the Napa Valley, away from the Bay Area and toward more rural areas of the county.

Table 1-3 summarizes populations and household sizes for Napa Count, including the unincorporated county and participating incorporated municipalities.

Table 1-3: Napa County Population and Households
Area Population Households Avg. HH Size
Napa County (Unincorporated) 137,384 55,588 2.40
American Canyon 21,669 5,924 3.64
Calistoga 5,191 2,330 2.20
Napa (City) 79,233 31,666 2.47
St. Helena 5,426 2,963 1.81
Yountville 3,397 1,824 1.45
Source: ACS 5-Year, 2017-2022
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 90 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-20
Introduction to Vulnerable Populations
Exploring local demographic data is crucial for identifying groups and geographic areas vulnerable to hazard events. Certain populations face heightened risks following disasters due to factors such as age, economic status, mobility limitations, physical or mental disabilities, and geographic location. Vulnerability is not static; individuals may be more at risk from some hazards than others. For instance, a low-income family without transportation may struggle during rapid evacuations for wildfires or floods but could be adequately prepared for an earthquake event. Mitigation efforts can reduce personal vulnerability for some but not all individuals, especially those reliant on caregiving networks like children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Further, environmental risk often disproportionately burdens lower-income and marginalized communities, who typically reside in hazard-prone areas with fewer mitigation resources. (National Center for Disaster Preparedness, 2020)
In all-hazards preparedness and response planning, at-risk individuals, often synonymous with vulnerable populations, are federally defined as "children, pregnant women, senior citizens, and others with access or functional needs during public health emergencies." (42 USC § 2802(b)(4)(B)) These include those who are economically disadvantaged, have chronic medical conditions, belong to historically marginalized groups, face language barriers, lack transportation, or experience homelessness. Prioritizing resources where they are most effective, such as cost-sharing for wildfire or flood mitigation measures and translating emergency information into languages needed by the local community, are prime examples of planning for vulnerable populations in hazard mitigation.

At-Risk Individuals with Access & Functional Needs
Access and functional needs may interfere with the ability for an at-risk individual to access or receive medical care before, during, or after a disaster or emergency event. Irrespective of a specific diagnosis, status, or label, the term “access and functional needs” (AFN) refers to a broad set of cross-cutting accessbased or function-based needs, generally distinguished according to the following:
▪ Access-based needs require that resources are accessible to all individuals to maintain health, such as social services, accommodations, information, transportation, and medications. ▪ Function-based needs refer to restrictions or limitations an individual may have that requires assistance before, during, and after a disaster or public health emergency.

At-risk individuals may have additional needs that must be considered in planning for, responding to, and recovering from a disaster or emergency. An approach recommended by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for integrating the access and functional needs of at-risk individuals is to consider elements based on the “CMIST” framework:
▪ C = Communication: Individuals with communication needs may have limitations that interfere with the receipt of and response to information, requiring information to be provided in an appropriate and accessible format. This can include individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, speak American CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 91 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-21
Sign Language, have limited or no English proficiency, are blind or have low vision, or have cognitive or physiological disabilities.
▪ M = Maintaining Health: Individuals may require specific services, supplies, equipment, medication, or nutrition to reduce negative impacts of a disaster or emergency and maintain activities of daily living, such as breathing, eating, dressing, grooming, transferring, and toileting. ▪ I = Independence: Continuity of access to necessary assistive devices, such as wheelchairs, or other aids, like service animals, is crucial to maintaining independence for individuals who rely on these support tools to function autonomously.
▪ S = Support: Tailored, person-centered support may be necessary for individuals who have lost caregiver assistance, find it difficult to cope in a new or strange environment, have difficulty remembering or understanding, or have past trauma experiences. This includes support for victims of abuse, individuals with behavioral health needs, or those who have psychiatric conditions (e.g., Alzheimer's disease, Schizophrenia).
▪ T = Transportation: Individuals may lack access to personal transportation due to a variety of factors, including economic status, age, physical or mental disability, temporary condition or injury, or legal restriction. This requires coordination with mass transit and accessible transportation service providers to ensure access to support and necessary services. (HHS, 2020) While most individuals with access and functional needs do not have acute medical conditions requiring the support of trained medical professionals, many require additional assistance to maintain health and minimize preventable negative outcomes, especially during a disaster event. These at-risk individuals may also require more time or personnel to assist during an evacuation. Therefore, special attention from planners and emergency managers is crucial for this highly vulnerable population.

Environmental Justice
Environmental justice issues can often exacerbate public health impacts from hazard events, and vice versa. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines environmental justice as the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (EPA, 2021).

As previously discussed, hazard events can disproportionately impact low-income and vulnerable populations. Lower-income populations, for instance, are more likely to live in neighborhoods susceptible to flooding or near industrial areas or hazardous waste sites, increasing their risk to toxic leaks associated with flood and storm damage (Sherwin, 2019). With the increased frequency of wildfires in recent years, populations already living in air quality-impacted areas can be further affected by wildfire smoke. These populations often include agricultural and outdoor workers, children, seniors, and low-income residents who experience disproportionate health impacts from wildfire smoke, as well as other impacts from wildfires such as physical and psychological stress from evacuation, property loss, physical injury, or death (Shahir Masri et al., 2021)
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 92 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-22
Certain locations within Napa County are known to be at higher risk of hazard-related impacts to vulnerable populations. For example, communities near the Napa River, including parts of the City of Napa and surrounding unincorporated areas, are at elevated risk of flooding. Low-income households in these floodprone zones may lack the financial resources necessary for effective mitigation and post-disaster recovery.

The hilly and mountainous regions in the eastern and northern parts of the county—particularly those with dense vegetation and limited road access—face significant wildfire risk. This includes areas near Lake Berryessa, Angwin, and the surrounding wildland-urban interface. Vulnerable populations, such as older adults, individuals with disabilities, and those with limited access to transportation, may experience greater difficulty evacuating and recovering from wildfire events. Additionally, areas where urban development borders undeveloped or agricultural land are susceptible to multiple hazards, including wildfire, flooding, and severe weather. Residents in these transitional zones may represent a range of socioeconomic backgrounds, with some lacking the means or support systems needed for adequate disaster preparedness.

It is vital that environmental laws and regulations, as well as hazard mitigation planning, meaningfully include these communities in their efforts to account for public health and safety. This approach ensures that vulnerable populations are not overlooked and that their specific needs and risks are addressed comprehensively.

Mental Health Impacts of Hazard Events
Hazard events are associated with many physical impacts on people and property, but they can also have mental health impacts. Specifically, hazards can precipitate anxiety, depression, shock, extreme stress, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). (Makwana, 2019) Mental health challenges can also result from ongoing impacts after a disaster event, such as socioeconomic losses from damage to housing resulting in displacement. And, of course, the death or injury of a loved one can lead to substantial psychological stress as well. (Id.)
Napa has also experienced the trauma impacts in major disaster recovery, especially in the aftermath of the LNU Complex fires in August 2020 that burned almost half of the county and were followed by the devastating Glass Fire in September of the same year. (Napa Firewise, 2021) There is a clear need to ensure that the County and other participating jurisdictions provide trauma informed training for staff in support of disaster recovery victims in the future.

Income & Housing
Economic status and mobility strongly predict hazard vulnerability. Low-income households and communities bear disproportionate financial burdens from the costs associated with disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. In the United States, households are expected to rely on private resources to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters, placing those in poverty at a distinct disadvantage. Moreover, economically disadvantaged households are more likely not to own their homes and frequently inhabit poorly constructed or inadequately maintained housing.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 93 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-23
Disasters often result in unexpected expenses that can push families and individuals living on the brink of poverty or homelessness over the edge. Low-income residents are at significantly higher risk of injury and face greater challenges securing food and shelter during and after an event. Further, those lacking transportation may find it impossible to evacuate during an emergency, while recovery costs can be prohibitively high for households unable to afford hazard mitigation measures in advance. (Krause & Reeves, 2017) Renters and low-income residents are also less likely to purchase insurance, leaving them particularly vulnerable to significant losses during hazard events.

According to ACS data, the median household income in unincorporated Napa County was near $106,000 in 2022, with incorporated areas ranging from about $75,000 in Yountville to almost $136,000 in St. Helena.

Similarly, the county poverty rate is just under 8% while Yountville’s rate exceeds 10% and St. Helena and Calistoga are less than 6%. These distributions generally follow a pattern of rural and urban areas being lower income and suburban areas being higher income. The lowest incomes and highest concentrations of poverty are located in southern City of Napa, northern City of American Canyon, and the unincorporated county in between, as well as in the Yountville area and Census Tract surrounding Lake Berryessa in the northeast corner of the county.

Table 1-4, Figure 1-4, and Figure 1-5 illustrate the distributions of median household income and poverty rates across the county. While income is a key economic indicator, it may not fully capture household wealth or financial resilience, particularly in areas with high housing costs as seen throughout Napa County and limited access to resources.

Table 1-4: Napa County Income and Poverty
Area Median Income Poverty Rate
Napa County (Unincorporated) $105,809 7.9%
American Canyon $122,694 7.4%
Calistoga $96,667 5.4%
Napa (City) $100,273 8.1%
St. Helena $135,781 5.7%
Yountville $75,134 10.6%
Source: ACS 5-Year, 2017-2022
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 94 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-24
Figure 1-4: Napa County Median Household Income
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 95 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-25
Figure 1-5: Napa County Poverty Status
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 96 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-26
Renters face additional challenges beyond being less likely to have personal property insurance. Decisions about major structural improvements typically rest with property owners, not tenants, and low-income renters may inhabit older, less resilient homes located in areas with greater exposure to hazards. For instance, mobile homes are more susceptible to damage from severe weather and floods compared to other types of residences, while aged homes may lack air conditioning or cooling units needed during heatwaves.

Federal disaster recovery services can widen disparities between renters and homeowners, as homeowners generally receive higher payouts through FEMA’s Individual Assistance (IA) program. Research spanning 1999 to 2013 indicates that homeowners' wealth tends to increase after local hazard events, while renters' wealth typically decreases. (Howell & Elliot, 2019)
In 2022, Napa County had an overall homeownership rate of approximately 67% according to ACS data, which is higher than the state and national averages. Approximately 35% of occupied housing units in the unincorporated county are renters, which is similar to the percentage of renters in most other jurisdictions except for the City of Napa, which has a slightly higher rate as the largest population center, and the City of American Canyon which has a much lower rate of renters at just over 20% (Table 1-5).

Table 1-5: Napa County Renter- and Owner-Occupied Housing Area Total Occupied Housing Units Renter Rent % Owner Own % Napa County (Unincorporated) 49,218 17,142 35% 32,076 65% American Canyon 5,725 1,205 21% 4,520 79%
Calistoga 2,116 776 37% 1,340 63%
Napa (City) 29,443 12,052 41% 17,391 59%
St. Helena 2,466 792 32% 1,674 68%
Yountville 1,516 514 34% 1,002 66%
Source: ACS 5-Year, 2017-2022
Age of Building Stock
The age of buildings in Napa County has direct implications for hazard vulnerability and resilience. Data from the County Assessor’s Office (Figure 1-6) shows that a significant portion of building stock across the county was built before the 1980s, prior to many of California’s modern building code requirements for seismic safety, energy efficiency, and wildfire resilience. The City of American Canyon is the exception, with approximately 45% of its building stock constructed after 1990.

Overall, this distribution means that many homes were constructed before the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) overhaul, which introduced strength-based seismic design, soil amplification factors, and nearsource effects. California had already unified its building standards under Title 24 (1978), but homes built in the late 1970s and 1980s still predate the most rigorous seismic provisions later adopted into the California Building Code (CBC) from the International Building Code (IBC). Similarly, widespread requirements for fireresistant materials and defensible space did not emerge until after major wildfire losses in the 1990s and 2000s.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 97 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-27
The condition and age of buildings, and especially housing stock, highlight the importance of encouraging voluntary retrofits for older structures, maintaining critical lifelines in aging neighborhoods, and ensuring rental housing—which is often concentrated in older buildings—receives adequate investment to remain safe and habitable after disasters.
24%
5%
14%
11% 13%
11% 11%
9%
1% 0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1939 or
earlier
1950 to
1959
1970 to
1979
1990 to
1999
2010 to
2019
Unincorporated County
35%
5%
11% 10%
15%
10% 8% 7%
1% 0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1939 or
earlier
1950 to
1959
1970 to
1979
1990 to
1999
2010 to
2019
City of Napa
28%
0%
9%
4% 3%
10%
6%
37%
2% 0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1939 or
earlier
1950 to
1959
1970 to
1979
1990 to
1999
2010 to
2019
City of American Canyon
35%
5%
8%
11% 12% 11% 11%
5%
1% 0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1939 or
earlier
1950 to
1959
1970 to
1979
1990 to
1999
2010 to
2019
City of St Helena
49%
4% 7% 9% 10% 9% 7% 4% 1% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1939 or
earlier
1950 to
1959
1970 to
1979
1990 to
1999
2010 to
2019
City of Calistoga
47%
1% 2% 1%
11%
16% 15%
6%
1% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1939 or
earlier
1950 to
1959
1970 to
1979
1990 to
1999
2010 to
2019
Town of Yountville
Figure 1-6: Building Stock Ages
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 98 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-28
Figure 1-7: Napa County Housing Occupancy
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 99 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-29
Dependent & Disabled Populations
Age and disability status play significant roles in vulnerability to natural hazards, as seniors, children, and many who experience disabilities are dependent populations who rely on caregiver networks for support and protection. Seniors and disabled persons may have mobility challenges and increased health concerns, necessitating additional assistance during evacuations and recovery. Similarly, children have limited ability to protect themselves and depend on caregivers to ensure their safety and well-being during emergencies. When combined with factors such as poverty, these vulnerabilities can be further compounded, highlighting the importance of targeted interventions to address the unique needs of dependent and disabled populations.

Although vulnerability among persons in the same age cohort varies significantly based on health and socioeconomic security, seniors as a group have a higher prevalence of physical and financial barriers to response and recovery, both during and after an emergency, and are more prone to health-related consequences, making recovery slower. They are more likely to experience vision, hearing, or mobility impairments, as well as mental impairments. Additionally, many elderly individuals reside in assistedliving facilities where emergency preparedness depends on the facility operators. These facilities are typically identified as “critical facilities” by emergency managers because they require extra notice and resources to implement evacuations. Further, seniors living alone may have difficulty evacuating their homes and could be stranded in dangerous situations. This population often needs special medical attention, which may not be readily available during a disaster event due to isolation. Given the current aging of the American population, specific planning for the elderly is warranted.

According to ACS data, approximately 34% of households in unincorporated Napa County in 2022 included at least one senior individual (over 65 years of age), which is much higher than the statewide average of around 22%. Further, the Napa County Baseline Data Report identifies 10% of the total unincorporated county population as over 75 years old, compared to approximately 9% of the county-wide population. (Napa County, 2026)
Almost 9% of seniors in the county live alone, and approximately 2% live in poverty (Table 1-6). The highest concentrations of seniors are located in and around Yountville (48%), Calistoga (39%), and St. Helena (33%), all of which also have more seniors living alone.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 100 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-30
Table 1-6: Napa County Households with Seniors
Households with 65+
Area Households 65+ %
65+
Alone %
65+
Poverty %
Napa County (Unincorporated) 55,588 18,777 33.8% 4,816 8.7% 1,271 2.3% American Canyon 5,924 1,772 29.9% 184 3.1% 111 1.9%
Calistoga 2,330 1,003 43.0% 419 18.0% 101 4.3%
Napa (City) 31,666 10,299 32.5% 2,674 8.4% 703 2.2%
St. Helena 2,963 1,153 38.9% 296 10.0% 42 1.4%
Yountville 1,824 873 47.9% 351 19.2% 77 4.2%
Source: ACS 5-Year, 2017-2022
People under the age of 18 have little control over their living situation or household actions for hazard preparedness, response, or recovery. Disasters may have detrimental long-term effects on children, both mentally and physically and especially when living in poverty. Those children living in households with a single caregiver may also be more vulnerable due to compounding factors, such as reduced financial resources.

An estimated 26% of households in the unincorporated county include children under the age of 18 years as of 2022, making up a little over 21% of the total unincorporated county population compared to less than 20% of the county-wide population. About 6% of households with children are run by a single caregiver. The City of American Canyon has the highest rate of households with children at almost 45%, while Yountville has the lowest at less than 9%.

Table 1-7: Napa County Households with Children
Households with Children <18
Area Households <18 %
<18 Single
Caregiver %
Napa County (Unincorporated) 55,588 14,596 26.3% 3,109 5.6% American Canyon 5,924 2,633 44.4% 417 7.0%
Calistoga 2,330 471 20.2% 33 1.4%
Napa (City) 31,666 8,934 28.2% 2,315 7.3%
St. Helena 2,963 619 20.9% 168 5.7%
Yountville 1,824 160 8.8% 0 0.0%
Source: ACS 5-Year, 2017-2022
The overall distribution of dependent age groups (seniors and children) in Napa County is illustrated in Figure 1-8. The highest concentrations of these groups are located in and around incorporated areas where CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 101 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-31
more schools, healthcare, and other services are available. The map also shows a higher percentage of dependent age groups located in the Lake Berryessa area, where over 40% of the population is in one or the other age category. However, as one of the most rural portions of the county, the total population within this Census County Division (CCD) is very low—approximately 1,300 people—with around five people per square mile. (ACS 5-Year, 2022)
As discussed in Section 1.5.3.1, those with access and functional needs may experience more difficulties in preparing for, responding to, or recovering from a disaster or emergency event. This includes persons living with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities such as hearing or vision impairment, reliance on mobility or other medical devices, mental disorders or neurodivergence, and chronic health conditions that increase susceptibility to hazard impacts like wildfire smoke. As such, these at-risk individuals may require additional time or personnel to assist during an evacuation or other emergency and special attention is warranted from planners and emergency managers this highly vulnerable population.

According to the ACS, 12% of the unincorporated county’s non-institutionalized population has some form of disability, and the percentage of people with disabilities in most municipalities is between 10% and 13% (Table 1-8). However, the Town of Yountville’s population tends to be much older (48% over age 65) and, consequently, has a much higher percentage of persons with a disability (over 20%). Elderly populations with a disability are mostly concentrated in and around the Cities of Napa and American Canyon and the Town of Yountville, as shown in Figure 1-9, but a significant portion of the population over 65 in the Lake Berryessa CCD experiences disabilities.

Yountville is also home to more households without a personal vehicle (near 12%) compared to the rest of the county, aligning with its older demographic characteristics. The Cities of Napa St. Helena also have higher portions of households without a vehicle, at around 5% and 7% respectively. Overall, the number of persons reliant on public transit is less than 1%, except in American Canyon and St. Helena.

Table 1-8: Napa County Population with Disabilities and Access to Transportation Area Population
Persons w
Disability %
Persons
Reliant
on Public
Trans. % Households
HH w
No
Vehicle %
Napa County 137,384 16,544 12.0% 890 0.6% 55,588 2,421 4.4% American Canyon 21,669 2,201 10.2% 287 1.3% 5,924 138 2.3% Calistoga 5,191 573 11.0% 36 0.7% 2,330 83 3.6%
Napa (City) 79,233 9,837 12.4% 291 0.4% 31,666 1,554 4.9% St. Helena 5,426 683 12.6% 121 2.2% 2,963 219 7.4%
Yountville 3,397 683 20.1% 15 0.4% 1,824 210 11.5%
Source: ACS 5-Year, 2017-2022
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 102 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-32
Figure 1-8: Napa County Dependent Age Groups
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 103 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-33
Figure 1-9: Napa County Disabled Elderly
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 104 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-34
Race, Ethnicity & Language
Natural disasters compound racial disparities; non-white individuals and communities receive less recovery aid from FEMA than their white counterparts, even when the extent of damage is the same. (Howell & Elliot, 2019) (National Advisory Council, 2020) Research indicates that minorities are less likely to participate in pre-disaster planning and experience higher mortality rates during disaster events. Postdisaster recovery for these groups is also often ineffective and can sometimes be culturally insensitive.

Since a higher proportion of ethnic minorities live below the poverty line compared to white populations, poverty exacerbates their vulnerability. (Fothergill, 1999) These disparities illustrate the complex relationship between disaster recovery and overlapping social vulnerabilities such as race, income, language, and health. Black and Latino residents are more likely to be low-income renters, which creates barriers to navigating FEMA’s IA programs. Communities with higher proportions of non-white residents may have lower tax revenue and property values, resulting in less investment in mitigation and rebuilding efforts both before and after emergencies. The recent COVID-19 pandemic highlighted these disparities, with non-white persons facing significantly higher morbidity rates from infections—ranging from 70% to 350%—than those of white, non-Hispanic individuals. (CDC, 2020) It is important to note that some minority households may avoid participating in Census surveys due to mistrust of government agencies or concerns about immigration status. This can lead to underreporting, further obscuring the true extent of racial, ethnic, language-related vulnerabilities.

Non-English speaking or limited English proficiency individuals may struggle to understand emergency information due to language and literacy barriers, often resulting in confusion about who to trust for accurate information. These individuals may be unable to access up-to-date emergency information and may have difficulty navigating recovery programs. Local governments can take steps to increase equity in disaster preparedness and recovery outcomes by translating preparedness materials and emergency notifications in a timely manner and partnering with local community groups to target outreach more effectively to at-risk populations.

The unincorporated and rural areas of Napa County are predominately White, but the southern most portion of the county closer to the bay have significant Hispanic, Latino, and Asian populations (Figure 1-10). Further, in the Cities of Napa, American Canyon, and Calistoga about one-fifth (18 to 20%) of housholds speak Spanish, compared to approxiamtely 16% of households in the unincorporated county (Table 1-9). Although the overall number of limited English speakers in the county is low, between 1% and 5%, these numbers are significant for mitigation and emergency planning purposes.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 105 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-35
Table 1-9: Napa County Household Languages
Area Households (HH) Spanish Speaking % Limited English % Napa County 55,588 8,738 15.7% 2,141 3.9%
American Canyon 5,924 1,069 18.0% 177 3.0%
Calistoga 2,330 474 20.3% 63 2.7%
Napa (City) 31,666 5,800 18.3% 1,653 5.2%
St. Helena 2,963 370 12.5% 88 3.0%
Yountville 1,824 49 2.7% 21 1.2%
Source: ACS 5-Year, 2017-2022
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 106 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-36
Figure 1-10: Napa County Race and Ethnicity
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 107 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-37
Figure 1-11: Napa County Spanish-Speaking Households
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 108 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-38
Agricultural Workers
The agricultural industry in Napa County, predominantly consisting of viticulture, is supported by a fluctuating population of year-round and annually/seasonally returning agricultural workers. Agricultural workers account for about 5% of Napa County’s total workforce, peaking around 11,000 workers during harvest season. Agriculture accounts for nearly 10% of the total land area in the county, with farmworkers playing a vital role in the community and its agricultural production. About 40% of farmworkers in the Napa Valley work year-round, with about 67% living in Napa County. The other 60% of workers return seasonally, with about 33% living in Napa County. These two groups face distinct challenges when it comes to accessing housing and healthcare, overcoming linguistic isolation, and accessing social services. (Napa County, 2024) Finding safe, healthy, and affordable housing within the county is a major challenge for most farmworkers who must secure accommodations on the open market and often live in overcrowded conditions, leveraging three to four paychecks to make rent. (Id.) Farmworkers typically fall between extremely low and very low income levels ($40,050 to $66,750), compared to Napa County’s area median income (AMI) of $129,600 for a household of four. As a result, finding adequate housing in Napa County, where the median home price is around $1 million according to Zillow and Redfin, is a challenge along with paying for other essential needs like utilities, food, and medical care.

Agricultural workers may be particularly vulnerable during a hazard event, especially those who are nonEnglish speaking or living in temporary worker housing. In addition, some farmworkers may not have proper documentation to be working in the U.S. and may be more hesitant to seek aid or ask questions to properly prepare for a hazard event because of their immigration status. As a result, agricultural workers are a highly vulnerable population, especially when exposed to a hazard event such as extreme heat or wildfire smoke.

Figure 1-12: Napa Valley Vineyard
Source: Photo by Jeff Tangen, 2021
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 109 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-39
Social Vulnerability Index (SVI)
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) developed the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to quantify social vulnerability. The SVI ranks Census Tracts, Census County Divisions (CCD), or other appropriate statistical divisions based on sixteen variables across four key themes: socioeconomic status, housing and transportation, racial and ethnic minority status, and household characteristics. The SVI measures a community’s ability to prepare for and recover from hazardous events. This composite index provides a percentile ranking, with those statistical divisions in the 90th percentile or above identified as having the highest social vulnerability to public health emergencies and natural hazard events.

A map of Napa County’s SVI ratings are shown in Figure 1-13.

Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic status is a strong predicter of hazard vulnerability, as lower-income households bear disproportionate financial burdens from the costs associated with disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. Socioeconomic conditions in Napa County play a significant role in shaping vulnerability to natural hazards, particularly for lower-income households and workers in the agricultural sector.

Median household income varies widely across the county, with lower incomes and higher poverty rates concentrated in the southern portion of the City of Napa, northern American Canyon, the Yountville area, and rural communities near Lake Berryessa. Households with limited financial resources often face greater difficulty preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters because they may lack savings, insurance coverage, or the ability to retrofit homes against hazards. These conditions can lead to disproportionate impacts from flooding, wildfire, and extreme heat, especially where vulnerable populations live in hazard-prone locations. In addition, the 2024 Farmworker Housing Needs and Impacts Assessment notes that many agricultural workers fall within extremely low to very low income levels and often rely on multiple incomes to afford rent, making them particularly vulnerable to displacement following disasters and less able to invest in mitigation measures such as defensible space, insurance, or home hardening.

The SVI map in Figure 1-13 shows higher vulnerability scores in the southern portion of the county, including areas in and around the City of Napa, American Canyon, and adjacent unincorporated communities, where Census divisions rank in the upper percentiles. These higher scores reflect concentrations of lower-income households, renters, and workers in service and agricultural industries who may have fewer financial resources available for preparedness, mitigation, and recovery.

Housing & Transportation
Napa County's SVI highlights disparities in housing and transportation that disproportionately impact lower-income populations, rural residents, and agricultural worker communities. In Napa County, these vulnerabilities are shaped by geographic isolation, limited affordable housing, and reliance on personal vehicles for mobility in some areas.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 110 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-40
Housing affordability remains a significant concern, with median home prices and rental costs rising faster than income levels, pushing lower-income residents toward more vulnerable housing conditions. Many individuals, particularly in rural areas, live in older or substandard housing that may be more susceptible to extreme weather events, wildfires, and infrastructure failures. The lack of affordable rental options forces some residents into mobile homes or shared housing arrangements, which can present additional risks in terms of structural integrity and emergency response challenges.

A significant portion of the housing stock in the county was constructed prior to modern seismic, wildfire, and energy efficiency standards, increasing the likelihood of damage during earthquakes, wildfires, or severe weather events. Renters, who make up a substantial share of households in the City of Napa and parts of the unincorporated county, often live in older or more densely occupied units and have limited ability to make structural improvements, leaving them more exposed to hazard impacts. The 2024 Farmworker Housing Needs and Impacts Assessment also indicates that many agricultural workers live in overcrowded or temporary accommodations due to high housing costs, which can complicate evacuation, sheltering, and recovery efforts.

Transportation barriers also contribute to social vulnerability, as some parts of Napa County lack public transit infrastructure. Families and individuals without personal transportation, including many lowerincome households and older adults, face challenges in rapidly evacuating and difficulties accessing essential or medical services due to limited transportation options. Rural communities, in particular, may experience longer travel times to economic centers where most healthcare facilities and emergency shelters are located, further exacerbating disparities in access. In the event of natural disasters or road closures due to earthquake, wildfire, flood, or another disaster, these transportation challenges can hinder evacuation efforts and access to relief services.

Transportation access is a concern particularly for seniors, low-income households, and rural residents.

Although overall transit reliance is low, some areas—especially Yountville, St. Helena, and portions of the City of Napa—have higher percentages of households without vehicles, which may limit evacuation ability during wildfires or floods and increase reliance on public assistance during emergencies.

Areas with higher SVI scores correspond to areas with higher renter occupancy, older housing stock, and more limited access to personal vehicles. The SVI map shows moderate to high vulnerability in the City of Napa and the Napa Valley corridor, where a larger share of multi-family housing and rental units are located.

Race, Ethnicity & Language
Natural disasters compound racial disparities. While much of Napa County’s rural population is White, the southern part of the county, including the City of Napa and American Canyon, has larger Hispanic/Latino and Asian populations. Overlaid with socioeconomic data, these communities tend to include lower-income households and renters, which are more vulnerable during disaster events.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 111 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-41
Language barriers can also limit access to emergency warnings, preparedness information, and recovery programs. Approximately one-fifth of households in several jurisdictions speak Spanish at home, and a smaller but meaningful percentage of residents have limited English proficiency, which can delay evacuation, reduce awareness of available resources, and make it more difficult to navigate disaster assistance programs. Outreach, translation of emergency information, and coordination with community organizations are therefore critical components of equitable hazard mitigation planning in Napa County.

The SVI map in Figure 1-13 highlights the relationship between social vulnerability and racial, ethnic, and language characteristics in Napa County. Higher SVI rankings are concentrated in the southern and central valley areas where there are larger non-White populations. These communities often experience overlapping vulnerabilities related to income, housing, and language barriers. Census divisions with higher SVI scores correspond to areas where a greater percentage of households speak Spanish at home or have limited English proficiency, which can reduce access to emergency warnings, preparedness information, and recovery programs if outreach is not provided in multiple languages.

The SVI results underscore the importance of culturally appropriate communication, translation of alerts, and coordination with community-based organizations to ensure that all residents can understand and respond to hazard warnings and recovery assistance opportunities.

Household Characteristics & Dependent Populations
The specific makeup of different households can influence their level of vulnerability and ability to prepare for and recover from hazard events. This is especially true for households with children under a single caregiver, persons with a disability, or seniors living alone. When any of the former are living in poverty, these vulnerabilities are compounded.

Napa County has a relatively high proportion of seniors compared to statewide averages, with some communities such as Yountville, Calistoga, and St. Helena having particularly large elderly populations.

Many seniors live alone or have mobility, medical, or cognitive limitations that require additional assistance during evacuations and recovery. Households with children, especially those headed by a single caregiver, may also face increased challenges due to limited financial resources and dependence on schools or childcare services that may be disrupted during disasters.

Areas with higher SVI scores often coincide with communities that have larger proportions of seniors, persons with disabilities, or single-parent households (Figure 1-13). Higher concentrations of seniors are found in Yountville, Calistoga, St. Helena, and parts of the unincorporated county where the SVI map shows moderate vulnerability. Rural areas in the eastern and northern portions of the county also show elevated vulnerability scores, reflecting a significant age-dependent, but sparse, population which also faces isolation, limited transportation options, and reduced access to medical and emergency services. These characteristics can significantly increase the time and resources required for evacuation and recovery. As such, the needs of dependent and access-and-functional-needs populations must be accounted for to ensure equitable preparedness, response, and recovery outcomes.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 112 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-42
Figure 1-13: Napa County CDC Social Vulnerability Index CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 113 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-43

1.5.4 Economy
Hazard events can have a significant impact on the economy of a region, including lost jobs and unemployment following the disaster. Loss of agricultural production and tourism impacts are particularly significant in Napa County, given that three out of every four jobs in the county exist because of the local wine industry.

Napa County is the center of California’s wine industry and is particularly susceptible to economic losses from hazard events that impact local agriculture and viticulture, such as from wildfire, flooding, or drought.

The Napa Valley wine industry accounts for $11.7 billion in economic impact in Napa County, while the wine industry accounts for $21.6 billion in California and $36.7 billion nationwide. (Napa Valley Vintners, 2025) That means Napa County accounts for 54% of California economic impact from the wine industry and almost 32% nationwide. In 2022, all wine produced in Napa County, whether grown in the Napa Valley or grown elsewhere and processed in the valley, represented 6.7% of all the wine produced in California and

5.3% of all the wine produced in the United States. (Id.) Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Napa County had approximately 75,200 total jobs in 2022, around 28,700 of which were estimated to be in the unincorporated county. The City of Napa is the jurisdiction with the largest concentration of jobs (about 33,700), with significantly fewer jobs in the smaller municipalities. (Napa County, 2026)
At the industry level, the largest single sector is Manufacturing, which represents about 13,400 jobs and 18% of total employment county-wide. Wine making dominates this sector, and more than two-thirds of the winemaking jobs are located outside incorporated areas, accounting for almost one-third of the unincorporated county’s total jobs. Health Care and Social Assistance accounts for the next largest proportion of jobs at almost 15%, followed closely by Accommodation and Food Services at about 14%. No other sectors account for more than 8% of the county-wide jobs total.

For Napa County as a whole, Health Care and Social Assistance and Accommodation and Food Services are the number two and three job sectors. Not surprisingly, given the emphasis on grape growing in the county, Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting represent over 11% of total jobs in the unincorporated areas.

Although Napa County’s agricultural activities dominate the landscape, they only represent about 7% of county-wide jobs, with over 60% of these jobs in the unincorporated county.

Jobs within the top industry sectors are summarized by jurisdiction and compared to total jobs county-wide in Table 1-10.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 114 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-44
Table 1-10: Napa County Jobs by Top Industry Sector, 2022 Employment Sector Number of Jobs % of Jobs
Napa County (Total) 75,212 100.0%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 5,381 7.2%
Construction 4,676 6.2%
Manufacturing 13,370 17.8%
Retail Trade 5,820 7.7%
Admin/Support, Waste Management and Remediation 4,195 5.6% Educational Services 4,208 5.6%
Health Care and Social Assistance 11,100 14.8%
Accommodation and Food Services 10,442 13.9%
Napa County (Unincorporated) 25,830 34.3%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 3,255 12.6%
Construction 2,000 7.7%
Manufacturing 8,881 34.4%
Health Care and Social Assistance 3,104 12.0%
Accommodation and Food Services 1,878 7.3%
City of Napa 33,749 44.9%
Construction 1,986 5.9%
Manufacturing 1,789 5.3%
Retail Trade 3,941 11.7%
Admin/Support, Waste Management and Remediation 2,524 7.5% Educational Services 2,286 6.8%
Health Care and Social Assistance 5,941 17.6%
Accommodation and Food Services 5,002 14.8%
Public Administration 2,245 6.7%
City of American Canyon 5,021 6.7%
Construction 395 7.9%
Manufacturing 887 17.7%
Retail Trade 735 14.6%
Transportation and Warehousing 521 10.4%
Admin/Support, Waste Management and Remediation 413 8.2% Health Care and Social Assistance 795 15.8%
Accommodation and Food Services 419 8.3%
City of St. Helena 5,515 7.3%
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 115 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-45
Employment Sector Number of Jobs % of Jobs
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 636 11.5%
Manufacturing 1,385 25.1%
Retail Trade 470 8.5%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 368 6.7% Educational Services 383 6.9%
Accommodation and Food Services 897 16.3%
City of Calistoga 2,267 3.0%
Manufacturing 148 6.5%
Retail Trade 154 6.8%
Admin/Support, Waste Management and Remediation 154 6.8% Educational Services 174 7.7%
Accommodation and Food Services 1,107 48.8%
Town of Yountville 2,830 3.8%
Manufacturing 280 9.9%
Retail Trade 216 7.6%
Health Care and Social Assistance 928 32.8%
Accommodation and Food Services 1,139 40.2%
Source: Napa County Baseline Data Report, 2026
Notes: Only those sectors accounting for more than 5% of jobs were listed.

Housing was one of the greatest losses tracked during the 2017 Sonoma Complex fires, which primarily affected neighboring Sonoma County but also westerly portions of Napa County. Sonoma County lost 5,300 home or 2.5% of its housing stock in the fire, while already facing growth constraints due to the high cost of housing. After the fires, this put Sonoma County on track to need 26,000 new homes constructed by 2020 to meet growth and employment needs; a daunting number considering Sonoma County permitted 730 units in 2016. (Beacon Economics, 2018)
Loss of tourism in the aftermath of a hazard event is another economic impact of particular concern for Napa County. After wildfire events in 2017 and 2018 which affected Napa County but focused considerably more damage in Sonoma County, the region cited public perception of wildfires in a downtick in tourism.

The region is focusing on diversifying the season of tourism travel away from the fire-prone fall harvest season as one way to reduce those economic impacts. (Lenhard, 2019) CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 116 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-46

1.5.5 Development History & Growth Trends
Napa County has long been on the forefront of planning for the preservation of agricultural lands and intends to remain leaders in planning for a sustainable future. Napa County has retained its prime vineyard lands in production, even while vast tracts of farmland in other parts of the Bay Area have been urbanized.

The county established the first Agricultural Preserve in California in 1968, and this urban-centered growth, with homes and businesses concentrated in incorporated areas to preserve farmland, has characterized the Napa Valley ever since and well before “smart growth” movement. The county continues to apply these same principles to reducing hazard risks to its residences and its critical resources into the future.

The past development that most increased the risk of hazards in the county happened many decades or more than a century ago. The county and other participating jurisdictions are well aware of areas of increased hazard risk through older development and have worked toward mitigating identified vulnerabilities induced by it. More recently, in the last few decades, development has occurred with minimized hazard risk because of existing overlay of federal, state, and local regulations. These current efforts to plan for hazards and growth are detailed in Section 4.2.1.

Historical Development Patterns
Around the time the population of California was growing exponentially, the City of Napa was laid out by Nathan Coombs in 1848. As one of a handful of established communities north of the Delta/Bay Area at the time of the gold rush with convenient access via trail and river, the Napa Valley drew in many of the miners disillusioned by the gold fields and severe winters in the Sierra Nevada. Timber harvesting, sawmills, and cattle ranches provided employment. The burgeoning population helped build the City of Napa from a tent city along Main Street to the primary business and economic center for the Napa Valley it is today. (Napa County, 2026)
In the 19th century, before Napa Valley became the home of a thriving wine industry, the region’s natural geothermal resources produced an emergent wellness industry around the hot springs—originally used by the Wappo people—extending from the Mayacamas Mountains to the Vaca range. The springs attracted a growing number of tourists and White Sulphur Springs, located near current St. Helena, became the first mineral springs resort in 1852. Its rapid popularity led to a proliferation of similar enterprises and, by the 1920s, hundreds of resorts and hotels were established throughout the valley. (Id.) George Yount planted the first grapes in the Napa Valley in 1839, followed soon after by other pioneers. In St. Helena, Charles Krug is credited with establishing Napa Valley's first commercial winery in 1861, sparking a wave of new growth in the wine industry until a devastating aphid infestation in the early 1900s killed off most of the vineyards and the Volstead Act outlawed the sale of most alcohol from 1920 to 1933. Many landowners gave up on wine grapes and replanted crops, primarily fruit and nut trees. (Id.) Since then, the valley’s wind industry has become one of the most prominent wine producing regions in the United States.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 117 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-47
One factor that made Napa Valley a prime wine grape growing region is its unique soil composition from the Napa River, which has changed alignments over time and flooded the area on a regular basis. While good for soil development, flooding is not good for growing grapes or for the communities in the reach of the river’s floodplain. Since settlers began keeping track of notable hazard events, more than 20 serious floods have been recorded since 1862. (Id.) However, due to the early adoption of strict land use and agricultural preservation policies in the 1960s and 70s, Napa County has remained sparsely developed except along the Napa River corridor.

Recent Growth & Development
According to the ACS, unincorporated Napa County’s population has grown very little over the past decade and was approximately 137,000 in 2022 (Figure 1-14). Most of the development in Napa County since 2010 has occurred in and around the incorporated areas, especially the two largest cities of Napa and American Canyon. Development in the past decade has also occurred, to a lesser extent, in and around St. Helena and Calistoga, with the Town of Yountville and unincorporated county areas seeing the least development activity.

Figure 1-14: Napa County Population 2011-2022
Source: ACS 5-Year, 2017-2022
135,000
136,000
137,000
138,000
139,000
140,000
141,000
142,000
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024
Napa County Population 2011-2022
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 118 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-48
Figure 1-15 provides an overview of parcel development density since 2010, as measured by structure year built codes within the Napa County Assessor’s data. This “heat map” of development identifies areas of more (yellow) or less (blue or no color) growth.

Recent development patterns reflect Napa County’s longstanding commitment to agricultural preservation, focusing growth into incorporated areas where utilities and services are more available, as discussed further in Section 4.2.1. There is very little development activity that has occurred since the 1980s outside of the Napa Valley corridor, in unincorporated areas that are mostly reserved for viticulture or other farming activities or natural resource protection. Population densities are increasing the most in the southern portions of the county, in the Cities of Napa and American Canyon. These areas are attracting development due to their proximity to employment and other opportunities in the Bay Area, built out infrastructure, extensive services, transportation routes, and more affordable housing.

While all areas of the county experience a variety of natural hazards, incorporated areas in the Napa Valley generally are less exposed to hazards such as wildfire and slope failure but are more exposed to those such as flooding and extreme heat. The Cities of Napa and American Canyon are also exposed to climate change impacts such as sea level rise as compared to areas in mid and north Napa County.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 119 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-49
Figure 1-15: Parcel Development Density Since 2010
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 120 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-50
Projected Growth
Understanding population, housing, and employment growth is essential for assessing hazard vulnerability and planning for long-term resilience in Napa County. Growth patterns influence where people live, how infrastructure is developed, and the extent to which new or existing development may be exposed to hazards such as flooding, wildfires, and earthquakes. Looking to the future, there are a number of demographic trends and land use issues that the county and municipalities will face, not the least of which is the expected growth in population.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) provides official long-range growth projections for the county and municipalities, which are used by local jurisdictions to guide land use and hazard mitigation planning. Importantly, these trends must be considered within the framework of the county’s General Plan and growth management policies (Measures A and J), which shape where and how new development can occur. These planning mechanisms are discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.1.1.

The overall population in Napa County has declined slightly since 2010, with the decrease driven by the unincorporated area and up valley cities while the cities of Napa and American Canyon added population. (Napa County, 2026) The Plan Bay Area 2050+ projections, prepared by ABAG and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, indicate that the number of households in Napa County will increase by 40% in the next few decades, as shown in Table 1-11, largely driven by growth in the southern portion of the county. South Napa County—which encompasses the Cities of American Canyon and Napa and associated unincorporated areas—is projected to grow by 13,000 households (36%) by the year 2050. North Napa County—Calistoga, St. Helena, Yountville, and surrounding areas—is projected to grow by 8,000 households, which is a 50% over the number of households in 2022. (Id.) The Plan Bay Area 2050+ projections also indicate a slight overall decline in county-wide jobs by 2050, driven by nearly a 10% loss in the north while jobs in the south remain flat. But it should be noted that the projections reflect policy-driven goals to concentrate housing and employment near transit, highlighting one potential long-term outcome out of many possibilities. On the other hand, the market-driven California Employment Development Department’s projection anticipates Napa County employment will grow by about 17,200 jobs (22%) between 2020 and 2030, mostly in the grape-growing, winemaking, and tourismrelated industries. However, growth concentrated in these industries could increase economic risks and exacerbate housing affordability challenges, as many new workers will likely face difficulty securing housing in the high-cost Napa County market. (Id.)
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 121 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
1-51
Table 1-11: Napa County Household Growth Projections
2023 2050 2023 2050 2023 2050
South Napa County North Napa County Napa County Total
Households 36,000 49,000 16,000 24,000 52,000 73,000
% Growth 36.1% 50.0% 40.4%
Source: Plan Bay Area 2050+, 2025
Notes: South Napa County encompasses the Cities of American Canyon and Napa and associated unincorporated areas. North Napa County encompasses the Cities of Calistoga and St. Helena, the Town of Yountville, and associated unincorporated areas.

Development Impacts on Hazards
As the population grows, there is likely to be heightened demand for housing, infrastructure, and services, driving new construction and expansion within the city. This development, while essential for accommodating growth, must be carefully managed to ensure compliance with zoning regulations, environmental standards, and hazard mitigation strategies. Understanding the growth projected by ABAG for the Napa Valley region, there is a need for proactive planning to address the potential impacts of future growth, such as increased strain on resources and exposure to natural hazards.

Without careful planning, population growth and increased development could exacerbate impacts from wildfire, flood, earthquake, drought, extreme weather, and climate change hazards. However, under the established local and state planning mechanisms and regulations discussed in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, the impacts of new development on hazard exposure and risk can be successfully mitigated.

For each of the profiled hazards in Section 3.3 which has been impacted by development trends in the past— or which could be impacted by future growth—a discussion of those trends and impacts if provided.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 122 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
1-52

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 123 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
2-1
Section 2.Planning Process
This section outlines each stage of the
planning process used in the
development of this MJHMP. The
planning process serves as the
framework for document creation and
adheres to FEMA's recommended fourstep hazard mitigation planning approach.

It is essential to recognize that the
MJHMP is a dynamic, living document
shaped by community engagement. The
participatory planning process holds
equal importance to the finalized plan
itself, fostering community awareness
and ensuring that mitigation efforts are
integrated into everyday decisionmaking processes.

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, as
amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) (42 USC § 5165), mandates the development of hazard mitigation plans to mitigate the impact of natural disasters. These plans are prerequisites for certain non-emergency disaster assistance through FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs, with regulatory guidance provided in 44 CFR § 201.6 et seq. FEMA outlines the following four major planning steps:
▪ Step 1: Organize Resources
▪ Step 2: Assess Risk
▪ Step 3: Develop a Mitigation Strategy
▪ Step 4: Adopt and Implement the Plan
Napa County and all other participating jurisdictions adhered to this FEMA four-step planning process. and added two additional steps, modeling the process on FEMA’s HMP guidelines. The resulting six-phase planning process shown in Figure 2-1 was followed for the development of the 2026 MJHMP. In conjunction with and supplementary to the four-step process, Napa County and the City of Napa conducted the 10-step planning process pursuant to Community Rating System (CRS) program requirements. These additional steps are further described in the county’s Flood Hazard Profile (Section 3.3.2) and the city’s jurisdictional annex in Volume 2 of this plan.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 124 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
2-2
Figure 2-1: Planning Process Breakdown
Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Process
Multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation planning offers many benefits, such as increased coordination and efficiency in planning and implementation efforts. At the same time, each jurisdiction has specific hazards and specific mitigation actions that must be individually addressed. This MJHMP balances the benefits of a comprehensive, coordinated approach to hazard mitigation with the specific realities of individual participating jurisdictions. Multi-jurisdictional plans are contemplated under FEMA regulations at 44 C.F.R. § 201.6(4).

While Volume 1 of this MJHMP documents the overall planning process, county-wide elements of the plan, and Napa County-specific information, Volume 2 documents each participating jurisdiction’s unique hazards, assessment of vulnerabilities and capabilities, and mitigation strategy in a stand-alone annex.

Each jurisdictional annex was created following the same planning process Napa County followed, as detailed in this section.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 125 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
2-3
STEP 1: Organize Resources
The first step of the MJHMP planning process was organizing resources, consisting of engaging a wide range of stakeholders with local expertise, conducting extensive community outreach and engagement, reviewing relevant existing documents, and gathering and organizing information. Napa County and the other participating jurisdictions, assisted by the Consultant Team, used a highly interactive and comprehensive approach in organizing their available resources to ensure that this MJHMP is a living document and will evolve with community needs and priorities. Being flexible in this way will enhance the plan’s effectiveness in mitigating local hazards and building resilience in communities across the county.

These various resources are summarized and organized in the following sections of the plan:
▪ People and Expertise: Section 2.1.1
▪ Public and Stakeholder Engagement: Section 2.1.2 and Appendix B ▪ Planning Process Library: Section 2.1.3
STEP 2: Assess the Risk
In accordance with FEMA requirements, the county-wide Hazard Mitigation Planning Team and each of the jurisdictional planning teams identified and prioritized the natural hazards affecting Napa County as a whole and each participating jurisdiction individually and assessed the vulnerabilities to those identified hazards. Results from the risk assessment aided subsequent identification of appropriate mitigation actions. The substance of the risk assessment is found in 0.

The process and support tools used, and the results of the risk assessment, are described in the following sections:
▪ Community Profile: Section 1.5
▪ Hazard Screening and Prioritization: Section 3.1
▪ Vulnerability to Specific Hazards (Hazard Profiles): Section 3.3 ▪ RAMP (Risk Assessment Mapping Platform): Section 2.2.1 ▪ Vulnerability Assessment Methodology: Section 2.2.2
STEP 3: Develop a Mitigation Strategy
The MJHMP was prepared in accordance with DMA 2000 plan update requirements, the California Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI), and FEMA’s mitigation planning guidance. This document provides an explicit strategy and blueprint for reducing potential losses identified in the risk assessment based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and participating jurisdictions’ abilities to expand on and improve these existing tools. MJHMP development included identifying goals, assessing existing capabilities, reviewing the 2020 MJHMP goals, and identifying new mitigation actions. The substance of the mitigation strategy is detailed in Section 4 of Volume 1 for Napa County and in the Volume 2 annexes for all other participating jurisdictions.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 126 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
2-4
This process, the tools used to support it, and the county results are found in the following sections of Volume 1:
▪ Hazard Problem Statements: Sections 2.3.1, 3.3 (within each Hazard Profile), and Section 4.5 ▪ Mitigation Goals: Sections 2.3.2 and 4.1
▪ Capabilities and Opportunities Assessment: Sections 2.3.3 and 4.2 ▪ Identify and Prioritize Mitigation Actions: Sections 2.3.4 and 4.3 ▪ Mitigation Action Plan: Sections 4.4 (County-Wide) and 4.5 (Napa County) ▪ Mitigation Action Support Tool (MAST): Section 2.3.4.3 STEP 4: Adopt & Implement the Plan
Once the risk assessment and mitigation strategy were completed, information, data, and associated narratives were compiled into the MJHMP. The following sections describe the finalization, adoption, implementation, and update processes for the plan:
▪ Adoption Proceedings and Records: Section 2.4 and Executive Summary ▪ Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating: Section 2.4.1
▪ Plan Integration: Sections 2.4.2 and 4.2 (Capabilities and Opportunities)

2.1 Organizing Resources
Napa County and other participating jurisdictions organized local people and expertise into four main levels and engaged stakeholders throughout the planning process. At the forefront of this effort was the Steering Group, with support from a Consultant Team and county-wide Hazard Mitigation Planning Team (HMPT), as well as the individual jurisdictions’ planning teams. In addition, Napa County engaged with a wide variety of stakeholders and members of communities across the county to inform the development of this 2026 MJHMP. Some participating jurisdictions delegated most outreach efforts to the county while others chose to conduct additional public and stakeholder engagement activities on their own. A summary of the county’s public and stakeholder engagement strategy and the results thereof are provided in Section 2.1.2 and documented in Appendix B.

2.1.1 People & Expertise
Organizing the people and expertise needed to develop this MJHMP was implemented by the Steering Group for this plan, which consisted of at least one lead contact for each participating jurisdiction. A six-step stakeholder engagement strategy was used to conduct this complex process within the larger organization task, as detailed in Section 2.1.2. Part of this engagement strategy included inviting neighboring jurisdictions and other regulatory agencies to share information and to discuss public safety and hazard mitigation concerns and priorities in a variety of capacities. Non-governmental stakeholders within the community, such as business leaders, civic groups, academia, non-profit organizations, major employers, and other interested parties, were also invited to participate. While engagement with some of these CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 127 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
2-5
stakeholders and the general public is described and documented in Section 2.1.2 and Appendix B, this section discusses those stakeholders who took an active and vital role in shaping this MJHMP from beginning to end.

In addition to the Steering Group, the development of this plan involved a county-wide Hazard Mitigation Planning Team, 13 smaller planning teams (one for each participating jurisdiction), many Key Stakeholders, and a Consultant Team that facilitated and documented the process. All the members of these groups are listed in Table 2-3 through Table 2-5 at the end of this section.

Steering Group
The Steering Group was at the core of the MJHMP planning process and was integral to ensuring its success.

This group consisted of staff-level leadership and decisionmakers from each participating jurisdiction and worked closely with the Consultant Team throughout the development of this MJHMP, providing direction on the process and major plan components, including public and stakeholder engagement and the plan’s future implementation and maintenance. Members of the Steering Group are listed in Table 2-3 and also doubled as members of the planning teams, which are discussed below and in the individual annexes of Volume 2.

Planning Teams
The development of this MJHMP was heavily influenced by the county-wide Hazard Mitigation Planning Team (HMPT or “Planning Team”) as well as the smaller, internal planning teams of individual jurisdictions (e.g., County Planning Team). These teams consisted of members of the Steering Group, jurisdictional staff, and other stakeholders with specific local expertise to contribute to the planning process from each CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 128 of 1606 ends

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
2-6
participating jurisdiction. Planning team members represented public and private organizations within and adjacent to Napa County that possess knowledge about and regulatory authority over local public safety, development, and hazard conditions, issues, and priorities. They also served as data stewards and liaisons to the greater community.

Planning team members were chosen for their relevant expertise to develop a deeper understanding of hazard vulnerabilities, vulnerable and special needs populations, jurisdictional capabilities, and overall hazard perceptions across the planning area. Each planning team member was responsible for communicating the direction and status of the planning effort to respective departments and constituents of each jurisdiction and was expected to represent the perspectives of their jurisdiction on the county-wide HMPT. Table 2-3 provides a list of all the members of planning teams, many of which also participated in the county-wide HMPT. The planning team members for each participating jurisdiction are provided in their respective Volume 2 annex. The responsibilities of the HMPT and jurisdictional planning team members generally included:
▪ Participation in four structured HMPT meetings
▪ Participating in two jurisdiction-specific breakout meetings ▪ Contribution of detailed information and assisting in fulfilling data requests, when appropriate ▪ Input during the hazard selection and prioritization process ▪ Development of mitigation actions, progress, and priorities ▪ Review and comment on administrative drafts of the plan ▪ Coordination and promotion of community and stakeholder engagement efforts Steering Group & Planning Team Meetings
The Steering Group, HMPT, and individual jurisdictional planning teams met throughout the development of the 2026 MJHMP, including a kickoff meeting, four county-wide HMPT meetings, and two series of jurisdictional breakout meetings, facilitated by the Consultant Team. Table 2-1 provides details of the county-wide Steering Group and HMPT meetings, including dates, topics discussed, and input goals.

County breakout meetings are summarized in Table 2-2, and details of other jurisdictional breakout meetings are located in the annexes of Volume 2. In addition to the two breakout meetings facilitated by the Consultant Team, some jurisdictions (including the Napa County) conducted additional breakout meetings, building upon Breakout Meetings #1 and #2 to better understand their risks, discuss and validate priorities, and further refine their mitigation strategy.

Meeting documentation, including agendas, sign-in sheets, hazard maps, PowerPoint presentations, minutes, and other relevant handouts, are provided in Appendix B. It is important to note that not all HMPT members necessarily attended all group meetings; some participated by reviewing draft documents or assisting in individual jurisdictional vulnerability assessments, with public outreach, or at other stages of the process.

CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 129 of 1606 ends

NAPA COUNTY | HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026 UPDATE

NAPA COUNTY
2-7
Table 2-1: County-Wide Steering Group and Planning Team Meetings Meeting & Date Agenda / Topics Goals / Key Inputs
County-Wide Steering
Group Kickoff Meeting
February 28, 2024
▪ Welcome and introductions
▪ Review roles and responsibilities
▪ Review project schedule and scope of work
▪ Review expectations of Steering Group, county-wide
HMPT, and jurisdictional planning teams
▪ Shared project understanding
▪ Confirm roles and
responsibilities
County-Wide HMPT
Meeting #1
May 7, 2024
▪ Welcome and introductions
▪ Hazard mitigation background and basic
information
▪ Overview of funding opportunities
▪ Review of previous plan and changes
▪ Mitigation successes in past 5 years
▪ Community engagement strategy
▪ Project schedule and expectations
▪ Shared project understanding
▪ Confirm roles and
responsibilities
▪ Success stories
▪ Data requests
County-Wide HMPT
Meeting #2
July 18, 2024
▪ Meeting #1 recap
▪ Community engagement progress and results
▪ Risk assessment and community vulnerability
▪ Demographics and vulnerable populations
▪ Overview of county-wide hazard risks and exposure
▪ Introduction to Risk Assessment Mapping Platform
(RAMP)
▪ County-wide hazard risk ranking exercise
▪ Project schedule, updates, and breakout meetings
series #1
▪ Identify county-wide hazard
problems and areas of concern
▪ Identify and prioritize countywide hazards
▪ Community engagement
volunteers
Jurisdictional Planning Team Breakout Meetings Series #1 August 2024 – April 2025
County-Wide HMPT
Meeting #3
March 25, 2025
▪ Meeting #2 recap
▪ Breakout meetings series #1 summary
▪ Community engagement progress and results
▪ Previous plan mitigation goals and strategy review
▪ County-wide mitigation goals discussion
▪ Mitigation strategy design principles
▪ Project schedule, updates, and breakout meetings
series #2
▪ Consensus on plan goals
▪ Understand mitigation strategy
design principles
▪ Community engagement
volunteers
Jurisdictional Planning Team Breakout Meetings Series #2 May – June 2025
County-Wide HMPT
Meeting #4
December 10, 2025
▪ Planning process recap
▪ Project schedule, updates, and draft review
Community engagement progress and results
▪ Discussion of county-wide hazard problems
▪ Discussion of county-wide mitigation actions
▪ Plan implementation and maintenance
▪ Consensus on county-wide
mitigation strategy
▪ Understand implementation
and maintenance
responsibilities
CAL OES SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2026
Item #6.5.

Page 130 of 1606 ends

Calistoga City CouncilOctober 6, 2026

Calistoga City Council
October 6, 2026