Agenda packet — Yountville City Council, August 2, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

EXHIBIT B
2019 Envision Yountville General Plan Consistency Findings Applicable General Plan Implementing Goals
and Policies Consistency of Proposed Project
283738.v6 V8 – KS comments 07.1.22
Presented to Town Council 07/19/2022 Ord. 2022

Page 9 of 11 ends

Applicable General Plan Implementing Goals
and Policies Consistency of Proposed Project

LAND USE ELEMENT
Goal LU-1: Manage
community character.
growth and maintain Consistent. The Zoning Map Amendment (“Zoning Amendment”) imposes development standards on future
development to manage the housing type, lot size,
maximum floor area ratio, minimum setbacks, height limits, minimum open space requirements, and parking
requirements mirroring the existing Mixed Residential (RM) land use designation. The change in the number of dwelling units allowed per acre results in a higher density of dwelling units permitted on the Subject Parcel, in response with the regional housing needs allocation and will continue to be consistent with the design and development standards.

With the propose Mixed- Residential-2 (RM-2) land use
designation, the density of dwelling units allows a minimum density of 10 and a maximum density of 20 units, unless a state density bonus is applied. The requested Zoning
Amendment is found to be consistent with Goal LU-1;
therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Goal LU-5: Residential development shall be
compatible with and integrated into the
surrounding neighborhood and respectful of its
natural surroundings.

Consistent. The Subject Parcel is surrounded by mobile
home, planned development, and park and playfield land
use designations, which are residential uses or commonly assigned in close proximity to residential land use. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent
with Goal LU-5; therefore, the requested Zoning
Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Goal LU-9: Continue to support the agricultural
uses adjacent to town and in the Napa Valley.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment will not impede on the adjacent agricultural land use property outside of the Town boundary. The Subject Parcel is currently zoned mixed
residential, which allows the development of 8 to 10
dwellings, up to 25 dwelling units per acre because of the Affordable Housing Overlay. The Zoning Amendment will
permit the number of dwelling units allowed to be a
minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20 units per acre, unless a state density bonus is applied. The increased mixed
residential density will not impact the adjacent agricultural property. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent with Goal LU-9; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
283738.v6 V8 – KS comments 07.1.22
Presented to Town Council 07/19/2022 Ord. 2022

Page 10 of 11 ends

Policy LU-1.1: Implementation of Land Use
Map. Implement the Land Use Map by approving
new development and conservation projects
consistent with the adopted land use definitions,
densities, and intensities. Ensure consistency
between the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance,
and other land use regulations.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment imposes
development standards on future development to manage
the housing type, lot size, maximum floor area ratio,
minimum setbacks, height limits, minimum open space
requirements, and parking requirements mirroring the
existing Mixed Residential land use designation. The
change in the number of dwelling units allowed per acre up to 20 units per acre results in a density that is
consistent with the current land use General Plan Mixed Residential land use designation permits 25 dwelling units per acre with the development of 100% affordable
housing. With the propose Mixed-Residential-2 land use
designation, the density of dwelling units is increased from a maximum permitted density of d20 units per acre, unless a state density bonus is applied. The requested Zoning
Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy LU-1.1; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent 283738.v6 V8 – KS comments 07.1.22
Presented to Town Council 07/19/2022 Ord. 2022

Page 11 of 11 ends

Applicable General Plan Implementing Goals
and Policies Consistency of Proposed Project
with the General Plan.

Policy LU-1.1a: Land Use. Use the Zoning
Ordinance to specify uses allowed in each zoning
district.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment allows future
development of dwellings with the following uses in the RM2 land use designation: (1) single-family dwellings; (2) accessory dwelling units; (3) duplexes; (4) multifamily dwellings; (5) residential auxiliary structure; (6) residential care facility; (7) minor home occupations; (8) moderation home occupations; (9) small or large family day care
homes; (10) keeping of chickens, (11) keeping of bees;
(12) supportive housing; (13) transitional housing; and (14) accessory residential uses. The requested Zoning
Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy LU-1.1a; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy LU-1.1b: Density an Intensity of
Development. Allow development at any density
or intensity within the range shown by the Land
Use Map and Land Use Designations provided
applicable objectives, policies, and programs of
all chapters of the General Plan are met.

Consistent. The Subject Parcel is currently zoned mixed residential, which allows the development of 8 to 10
dwellings, up to 25 dwelling units per acre if a project develops 100% affordable associated with the Affordable Housing Overlay. The Zoning Amendment will permit the
allowed number of dwelling units to be 20 units per acre, unless a state density bonus is applied. The General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed Residential allows up to 25 dwelling units per acre. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be within the density of the General Plan land use designations and therefore consistent with Policy LU1.1b; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy LU-1.1c: Zoning Amendment. Amend
the Zoning Code to simplify and consolidate
development standards and design guidelines
and to ensure consistency with General Plan
policies.

Consistent. This Zoning Amendment is presented with a
separate ordinance creating a Zoning Code for RM-2 use.

The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be
consistent with Policy LU-1.1c; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy LU-2.1: Compatibility of Development.

Require that new development, remodels, and
additions be of a scale, intensity, and design that
integrates with the immediate neighborhood, the
town as a whole, and the natural surroundings.

Consistent. The Subject Parcel is currently zoned mixed residential, which allows the development of 8 to 10
dwellings, up to 25 dwelling units per acre with the
Affordable Housing Overlay. The Zoning Amendment will
restrict the allowed number of dwelling units permitted to be developed to 20 units, unless a state density bonus is applied. The Subject Parcel is surrounded by mobile
home, planned development, and park and playfield land
use designations, which are residential uses or are uses commonly assigned in close proximity to residential land use. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be
consistent with Policy LU-2.1; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy LU-2.2: Variety of Buildings Heights
and Sizes. Encourage a variety of building
heights and sizes in new developments.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment allows the future
development of one- or two-story dwellings, and requires maximum floor area ratios and lot sizes, which allow a
future developer to vary the height and size of the dwelling units. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be
consistent with Policy LU-2.2; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
283738.v6 V8 – KS comments 07.1.22
Presented to Town Council 07/19/2022 Ord. 2022

Page 12 of 11 ends

Policy LU-2.3: Setbacks. Provide building
setbacks along streets, pedestrian and bike
paths, and easements for proposed new
development and additions.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment restricts future
dwellings to minimum setbacks of: (1) front setback of at least 20-feet; (2) side setback of at least 5-feet; (3) street facing side setback of at least 10-feet; and (4) rear setback of at least 20-feet. The requested Zoning
283738.v6 V8 – KS comments 07.1.22
Presented to Town Council 07/19/2022 Ord. 2022

Page 13 of 11 ends

Applicable General Plan Implementing Goals
and Policies Consistency of Proposed Project
Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy LU-2.3; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy LU-2.5: Maximum building Height.

Permit two-story buildings. All buildings shall
adhere to the requirements for massing in Policy
LU-2.4.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment allows future dwellings with a maximum of one or two stories. Areas with singlefamily dwellings may allow 50% of the units to exceed onestory. Duplexes and multifamily dwellings allow one-story buildings to have a maximum of 15-feet to the plate and 20- feet to the peak, or two-story buildings with a maximum of 20-feet to the plate and 28-feet to the peak. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy
LU-2.5; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is
consistent with the General Plan.

Policy LU-5.1: Scale of Development. Require
new residential development, remodels, and
additions to avoid a design approach that
exaggerates height, bulk, or mass or results in
design that is not compatible with neighboring
properties.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment imposes development
standards on future development that avoids exaggerated heights, bulk, or mass building. The requested Zoning
Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy LU-5.1; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy LU-5.2: Residential Development.

Encourage new residential developments that
are designed to serve the needs of all income
levels and the residents of the town.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment will encourage the
development of a variety of housing types which would
provide opportunities to a wider range of household
incomes. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be
consistent with Policy LU-5.2; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy LU-5.5: Multifamily Massing. Support
multifamily development that is integrated and
visually compatible with single-family houses
Consistent. The Zoning Amendment allows future
development of duplexes and multifamily housing with
development standards mirroring the existing RM land use designation. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy LU-5.5; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy LU-9.4: Agricultural Uses. Foster the
protection and preservation of agricultural uses
on lands adjacent to the town.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment will not impact on the adjacent agricultural land use property south of the Town boundary as the Subject Parcel is currently zoned to allow up to 25 dwelling units per acre on the Parcel if developed with 100% affordable housing opportunities. The change in dwelling density to a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre will continue to protect the agricultural uses on the adjacent property. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy LU-9.4; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Goal OS-4: Support the preservation and
protection of agricultural land.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment will not impact
agricultural land, and as discussed in Policy LU-9.4, the future development of up to 20 dwelling units per acre will continue to protect the adjacent agricultural parcel. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent
with Goal OS-4; therefore, the requested Zoning
Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
283738.v6 V8 – KS comments 07.1.22
Presented to Town Council 07/19/2022 Ord. 2022

Page 14 of 11 ends

Policy OS-2.3a: Hopper Creek. Maintain the
existing watercourse of Hopper Creek and native
vegetation within its bank and along its frontage.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment does not approve a
specific development project. Any future development
project must be independently reviewed by the Town and
likely obtain a separate CEQA analysis, which can provide for the protection of Hopper Creek and native vegetation. 283738.v6 V8 – KS comments 07.1.22
Presented to Town Council 07/19/2022 Ord. 2022

Page 15 of 11 ends

Applicable General Plan Implementing Goals
and Policies Consistency of Proposed Project
The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be
consistent with Policy OS-2.3a; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy OS-4.1a: Agricultural Land Boundary.

Maintain the existing relationship and boundary
between the Town and Napa County for prime
farmland (prime agricultural land) and land
planted with existing vineyards with the
exception of the commercial component of the
Domaine Chandon property since it neither
contains prime farmland nor is planted as
vineyard.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment will not impact on the adjacent agricultural land use property south of the Town boundary as the Subject Parcel is currently zoned to allow up to 25 dwelling units per acre on the Parcel. The change in dwelling density to a maximum of 20 dwelling units will likely benefit the southernly adjacent property. The
requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent
with Policy OS-4.1a; therefore, the requested Zoning
Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

SAFETY AND HAZARDS ELEMENT
Policy SH-1.2b: Hopper Creek. Maintain
Hopper Creek as a natural creek. Preserve and
enhance the riparian habitat and flood control
attributes of the creek by requiring development
setbacks and regulating the planting and removal
of Creekside vegetation.

The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be
consistent with Policy SH-1.2b; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy SH-1.2f: Extension of Flood Wall.

Evaluate whether to extend the flood wall to the
church-owned property at the far southeast
corner of town.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment does not approve a
specific development project. Thus, the Town may still
evaluate whether to extend the flood wall to the Subject Parcel. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be
consistent with Policy SH-1.2f; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan

MOBILITY ELEMENT
Policy MO-2.1c: Project Review. As part of the
development review and planning process,
review general plan Zoning Amendments, zone
change requests, specific plans, and
development projects to ensure that adequate
circulation improvements are included, that the
project addresses its proportional share of
impacts to the Town’s circulation network, and
that the project provides for complete streets to
the extent feasible.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment does not approve a
specific development project. Any future development
project must be independently reviewed by the Town and
obtain a separate traffic analysis, which can ensure that adequate circulation improvements are included and the
development addresses its proportional share of impacts to the Town’s circulation network. The requested Zoning
Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy MO-2.1c; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy MO-5.3: Driveways on Washington
Street. Improve traffic circulation along
Washington Street by minimizing the number of
driveways serving development.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment does not approve a
specific development project. A future development project must be independently reviewed by the Town and seek
approval of proposed driveways for each dwelling unit. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent
with Policy MO-5.3; therefore, the requested Zoning
Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

NOISE ELEMENT
283738.v6 V8 – KS comments 07.1.22
Presented to Town Council 07/19/2022 Ord. 2022

Page 16 of 11 ends

Policy NS-1.2: Noise Impacts of
Development. Prevent land uses and new
development that increase noise levels above
acceptable standards as feasible.

Consistent. The Subject Parcel is currently zoned mixed residential, which allows the development of 8 to 10
dwellings, up to 25 dwelling units per gross acre with the Affordable Housing Overlay. The Zoning Amendment will
allow by right the allowed number of dwelling units
permitted to be developed to 20 units, unless a state density bonus is applied., thus reducing the potential noise impact of developing 25 units. The requested Zoning Amendment
is found to be consistent with Policy NS-1.2; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent
283738.v6 V8 – KS comments 07.1.22
Presented to Town Council 07/19/2022 Ord. 2022

Page 17 of 11 ends

Applicable General Plan Implementing Goals
and Policies Consistency of Proposed Project
with the General Plan.

HOUSING ELEMENT
Goal HO-2: Promote the development of
infrastructure and regulations that accommodate
increased residential
development of all housing types..

Consistent. The RM-2 land use designation allows
development of single-family dwellings, duplexes, and
multifamily housing. The requested Zoning Amendment is
found to be consistent with Goal HO-2; therefore, the
requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the
General Plan.

Goal HO-3: Promote the development of a
variety of housing types.

Consistent. The RM-2 land use designation allows
development of single-family dwellings, duplexes, and
multifamily housing. The requested Zoning Amendment is
found to be consistent with Goal HO-3; therefore, the
requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the
General Plan.

Goal HO-4: Provide increased opportunities for
multifamily and affordable workforce housing and
maintain affordability for all income groups.

Consistent. The RM-2 land use designation allows
development of duplexes and multifamily housing. The
requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent
with Goal HO-4; therefore, the requested Zoning
Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy HO-1.1: Residential Densities for
Single-family Homes. Establish residential
densities that continue to allow the development
of single-family detached houses.

Consistent. The RM-2 land use designation creates a
minimum of 10 units per acre and maximum of 20 units per gross acre. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to
be consistent with Policy HO-1.1; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy HO-1.2: Single-family Lot and Unit
Size. Continue to limit maximum lot sizes and
unit sizes in single-family residential areas.

Consistent. The RM-2 land use designation includes
maximum floor ratio area (FAR) for single-family dwellings of a 0.25 FAR. The requested Zoning Amendment is found
to be consistent with Policy HO-1.2; therefore, the
requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the
General Plan.

Policy HO-1.2a: Zoning Ordinance Standards.

Retain Zoning Ordinance provisions limiting
single-family lot sizes and residence sizes.

Consistent. The RM-2 land use designation includes
maximum floor area ratios for a proposed dwelling unit. The Town’s maximum lot size regulation of 8,000 square feet will apply to the RM-2 land use. The requested Zoning
Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy HO-1.2a; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy HO-1.3: Multifamily Design. Encourage
the design of multifamily units to integrate with
the Town’s character.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment does not approve a
specific development project. A future development project must be independently reviewed by the Town and seek
approval of proposed dwelling designs and must be
consistent with the design and development standards for residential development. The requested Zoning
Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy HO-1.3; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
283738.v6 V8 – KS comments 07.1.22
Presented to Town Council 07/19/2022 Ord. 2022

Page 18 of 11 ends

Policy HO-1.3a: Mixed Residential Uses.

Continue to create a range of use types in the
mixed residential (RM) zoning district.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment allows future
development of dwellings with the following uses in the RM2 land use designation: (1) single-family dwellings; (2) accessory dwelling units; (3) duplexes; (4) multifamily dwellings; (5) residential auxiliary structure; (6) residential care facility; (7) minor home occupations; (8) moderation home occupations; (9) small or large family day care
homes; (10) keeping of chickens, (11) keeping of bees;
(12) supportive housing; (13) transitional housing; and 283738.v6 V8 – KS comments 07.1.22
Presented to Town Council 07/19/2022 Ord. 2022

Page 19 of 11 ends

Applicable General Plan Implementing Goals
and Policies Consistency of Proposed Project
(14) accessory residential uses.

The design standards applicable to RM use are applicable to the RM-2 use, except for the density of 10-20 dwelling units per gross acre. Therefore, the requested Zoning
Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy HO-1.3b: Multifamily Design Review.

Continue to review the design of proposed
multifamily development and, when feasible,
streamline the process to approve affordable
housing projects.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment does not approve a
specific development proposal. A future development
project must be independently reviewed and approved by
the Town. Additionally, the Parcel will be required to provide affordable housing and therefore will be subject to a
streamlined review process. The requested Zoning
Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy HO-1.3b; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy HO-1.4a: Inclusionary Housing.

Continue to implement the Town’s inclusionary
housing program and consider modifications to
the program to provide greater flexibility in the
payment of in-lieu fees and add a minimum
length of term requirement on the affordable
units.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment will remove the
Affordable Housing Overlay from the Subject Parcel zoning.

However, the Zoning Amendment will not reduce the
requirement of inclusionary affordable housing.

Furthermore, the Zoning Amendment does not approve a
specific development proposal. A future development
project will be independently reviewed and approved by the Town, thus ensuring the project is consistent with this policy. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be
consistent with Policy HO-1.4a; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy HO-2.2: Minimum Residential
Densities. Require new development to build at
no less than the minimum number of dwelling
units prescribed by the Land Use chapter of the
General Plan.

Consistent. This Zoning Amendment does not approve a
specific development project, but the RM-2 land use
designation requires a minimum of 10 and a maximum of
20 dwelling units per gross acre. The Town’s independent review of a future development project will ensure the
project is consistent with this policy. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy HO-2.2; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy HO-2.2a: Available Sites. The Town will
maintain an inventory of sites available and
appropriate for residential development for
households at all income levels.

Consistent. This Zoning Amendment rezones the Subject
Parcel to a higher density which allows for potentially more lower income housing to accommodate the Town’s
Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy HO-2.2a; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy HO-3.1: Variety of Design. Require new
developments of 10 or more units to provide a
variety of house sizes and designs.

Consistent. This Zoning Amendment does not approve a
specific development project but will allow for a future project to develop between 10 and20 dwelling units per
gross acre. Any future development will obtain the Town’s independent review and approval at which point the Town can confirm the future project is consistent with this policy.

The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be
consistent with Policy HO-3.1; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
283738.v6 V8 – KS comments 07.1.22
Presented to Town Council 07/19/2022 Ord. 2022

Page 20 of 11 ends

Policy HO-3.1a: Design Ordinance. Continue
to allow design flexibility and encourage a variety
of home designs in the Town’s Design
Ordinance. Description: The Town’s Design
Ordinance provides guidelines for the design of
housing that allows flexibility in the building
Consistent. The Zoning Amendment will rezone the Subject Parcel from RM-AHO to RM-2, with specific development
standards, and the Parcel will still be subject to the Town’s design, objective and building Standards. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be
consistent with Policy HO-3.1a; therefore, the requested 283738.v6 V8 – KS comments 07.1.22
Presented to Town Council 07/19/2022 Ord. 2022

Page 21 of 11 ends

Applicable General Plan Implementing Goals
and Policies Consistency of Proposed Project
envelope while limiting floor area ratio. Specific
design standards are suggested for building
materials, orientation to the street, and building
elements to encourage a variety of designs.

Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan
Policy HO-3.2a: Minimum Lot Size. Continue
to allow the construction of single-family
dwellings on lots as small as 4,000 square feet.

Description: The Town’s Zoning Ordinance
permits construction of single-family dwelling on
lots as small as 4,000 square feet in the singlefamily residential (RS) and mixed residential (RM) zoning districts.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment will rezone the Subject Parcel from RM-AHO to RM-2 which requires a minimum
lot size of 4,000 square feet for single-family dwellings. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent
with Policy HO-3.2a; therefore, the requested Zoning
Amendment is consistent with the General Plan
Policy HO-3.3: Promote Multifamily Housing.

Promote the development of multifamily housing.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment will rezone the Subject Parcel from RM-AHO to RM-2 which allows the
development of a variety of housing types including
duplexes and multifamily dwellings. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy HO-3.3; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan
Policy HO-4.1: Housing for a Variety of
Income Levels. Require that a percentage of all
new housing be designated for housing
affordable to very low-, low- and moderateincome households.

Consistent. This Zoning Amendment will require any
proposed housing development to include at least 15%
affordable units, more if a state density bonus is requested.

The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be
consistent with Policy HO-4.1; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy HO-4.2: Density Bonuses. Provide
density bonuses in accordance with State law to
further encourage construction of affordable
housing units.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment will rezone the Subject Parcel from RM-AHO to RM-2 which still allows for state density bonuses for affordable housing. The requested
Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy
HO-4.2; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is
consistent with the General Plan
Policy HO-4.3: Density Increases for
Multifamily Affordable Housing. Provide for
higher density multifamily affordable workforce
housing, subject to appropriate standards and
design.

Consistent. The RM-2 use allows for 10-20 dwelling units per gross acre, unless a state density bonus is applied in which more dwelling units may be possible. The RM-2
includes development and design standards to ensure
appropriate design. The requested Zoning Amendment is
found to be consistent with Policy HO-4.3; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the
General Plan.

Policy HO-4.3a: State and Local Density
Bonuses and Incentives. Continue to offer a
density bonus of up to 35 percent, in keeping with
State density bonus law (Government Code
Section 65915), as well as a Town density bonus
of up to 150 percent to encourage construction of
affordable housing units.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment will rezone the Subject Parcel from RM-AHO to RM-2 which still allows for density bonuses. The Zoning Amendment removed the Affordable
Housing Overlay from the Subject Parcel which allows the future development to meet a higher density without
concessions and may still request the state density bonus.

The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be
consistent with Policy HO-4.3a; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the
General Plan
283738.v6 V8 – KS comments 07.1.22
Presented to Town Council 07/19/2022 Ord. 2022

Page 22 of 11 ends

Policy HO-4.3b: Affordable Housing Overlay.

Continue to implement the Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone as a way to provide affordable
housing.

Consistent. Although the Zoning Amendment will remove
the Affordable Housing Overlay from the Subject Parcel, indirectly it will still meet the same objective with permitted by right density afforded by the RM-2 Zoning designation.

The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy HO-4.3b; therefore, the requested Zoning
Amendment is consistent with the General Plan
283738.v6 V8 – KS comments 07.1.22
Presented to Town Council 07/19/2022 Ord. 2022

Page 23 of 11 ends

Applicable General Plan Implementing Goals
and Policies Consistency of Proposed Project
Policy HO-4.4: Second Units. Encourage
second dwelling units on single-family lots.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment will allow for the
development of accessory dwelling units, as regulated by Chapter 17.156 of Title 17 of the Yountville Municipal Code, on the Subject Parcel. The requested Zoning Amendment
is found to be consistent with Policy HO-4.4; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the
General Plan.

Policy HO-9.2: Affordable Housing for
Seniors. Maintain affordable housing options for
seniors.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment will allow the
development of residential care facilities on the Subject Parcel. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be
consistent with Policy HO-9.2; therefore, the requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy HO-9.3: Regional Efforts for Homeless
Shelter and Transitional Housing. Continue to
Contribute to regional efforts to provide
homeless shelters and transitional housing and
support Community Action Napa Valley, and
other similar housing and service providers.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment will allow the
development of supportive and transitional housing on the Subject Parcel. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy HO-9.3; therefore, the
requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the
General Plan.

Policy HO-9.4: Zoning for Emergency
Shelters and Transitional, Supportive, and
Employee Housing. Permit emergency
shelters, transitional housing, supportive
housing, and employee housing in keeping with
State law.

Consistent. The Zoning Amendment will allow the
development of supportive and transitional housing on the Subject Parcel. The requested Zoning Amendment is found to be consistent with Policy HO-9.4; therefore, the
requested Zoning Amendment is consistent with the
General Plan.

Outer Alemeda
California Dr
Mission St
Forrester Ln
Vin Rose Cir
Heather St
California Dr
California Dr
Grant Ln
Sauterne Cir
Holly St
Oak Cir
Mission Ct
Adams St
Yountville Cross Rd
The Crossroads
Claret Cir
Jefferson St
San Antonio St
Tallent Ln
Webber Ave
Finnell Rd
Grant Ln
Yount St
Sherry Cir
Jasmine St
Champagne Dr
Lande Way
Heritage Ct
Riesling Cir
Ivy Ct
Vista Ct
Oak Cir
Burgundy Cir
Chablis Cir
Port Cir
Gamay Cir
Lincoln Ave
Harvest Ct
Mount Ave
Mesa Ct
Creek St
Yount Mill Rd
Hopper Way
Presidents Cir
California Dr
Madison St
Starkey Ave
Pedroni St Washington St
Monroe St
The Crossroads
Humboldt St
Ghirardi Pl
San Francisco St
San Juan Capistrano St
Vista Dr
Santa Barbara St
San Domingo St
Carignan Way
San Diego St
Jackson St
Santa Cruz St
San Fernando St
Vintner Ct
Foxglove Ln
Solano Ave
Redwood Dr
Vineyard Cir
Mulberry St
Burgundy Way
Washington St
Colombard Way
Presidents Cir
Stags View Ln
Heritage Way
Oak Leaf Ct
San Miguel St
San Carlos St
On Ramp California Dr to CA-29 northbound
Off Ramp CA-29
southbound to California Dr
On Ramp California Dr to CA-29
southbound
Off Ramp CA-29 northbound to California Dr
Larkspur St
Presidents Cir
Inner Alemeda
Land Ln
Hopper Creek
/0 135 270 540 810 1,080
Feet
California Dr
Mission
St
Forrester Ln
Heather St
California Dr
Presidents Cir
Holly St
Adams St
Yountville Cross Rd
Claret Cir
San Antonio St
Presidents Cir
Tallent Ln
Finnell Rd
Yount St
Lande Way
Champagne Dr
RieslingCir
IvyCt
California Dr
Oak Cir
Gamay Cir
Lincoln Ave
Presidents Cir
Yount Mill Rd
Presidents Cir
Madison
St
Starkey Ave
Pedroni
St
California Dr
Washington
St
MonroeSt
Carignan Way
VistaDr
Jackson
St
Cruz St
Santa
Oak Cir
Solano Ave
Vineyard
Cir
Mulberry
Washington St
St
Outer Alemeda
Heritage Way
Stags View Ln
San Miguel St
Larkspur St
Imperial Rd
Inner Alemeda
Land Ln
Napa River
Hopper Creek
Area Mapped
Text Zoning Districts
Land Use Zoning
Agricultural (A)
Master Planned Residential (MPR)
Mixed Residential (RM)
Mixed Residential 2 (RM2)
Mobile Home Park (MHP)
Old Town Commercial (OTC)
Old Town Historic (H)
Parks and Playfields (PP)
Planned Development (PD)
Primary Commercial (PC)
Public Facilities (PF)
Residential Scaled Commercial (RSC)
Retained Commercial (RC)
Single Family Residential (RS)
Overlays
Senior Mobile Home Overlay (-S)
Affordable Housing Overlay (-AHO)
Gateway Overlay (-G)
Mixed Use Overlay (-MU)
Retail Overlays (-R0)
Approved 06/03/2022
Town of Yountville
Staff Report
6550 Yount Street
Yountville, CA 94599
Agenda Item #: 7O
Yountville Town Council Staff Report
DATE: August 2, 2022
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Steve Rogers, Town Manager
PREPARED BY: Eddy Gomez, Town Clerk
SUBJECT:

Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance Number 22-508 of the Town Council of the Town of Yountville Adding Chapter 8.26 to Title 8 of the Yountville Municipal Code Regarding Expressive Activities and Expressive Events.

DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
At the June 21, 2022 meeting, the Town Council introduced and held the first reading of this Ordinance that authorizes Staff to add a formal process and to add clarifying language regarding which Expressive Activities are permitted and only in very limited situations and circumstance is a permit necessary. At the second reading on July 19, 2022, the Council directed staff to modify section 8.26.040-C to state the following:
“Application Processing Fee. The Town shall not charge a fee for processing applications under this chapter.” The Town Council then re-introduced and held the first reading of this Ordinance at the July 19, 2022 meeting with the aforementioned change and approved it for a second reading and adoption at the August 2, 2022 Town Council meeting. If adopted, the Ordinance will take effect in 30 days.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable

FISCAL IMPACT
Is there a Fiscal Impact? No
Is it Currently Budgeted? N/A
Where is it Budgeted? N/A
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? Mandatory
Is there a Staff Resource Impact? Nominal

STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL
Is item Identified in Strategic Plan? Yes
If yes, Identify Strategic Goal and Objective. Engaged Residents: The Town embraces our residents' commitment to community as seen through volunteerism, civic engagement, and public participation that enhances the quality of life in Yountville.

Briefly Explain Relationship to Strategic Plan Goal and Objective. The proposed policy provides support for protected expressive activities by our residents and visitors and provides for a limited permit process under certain situations.

RECOMMENDATION
Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance Number 22-508 Adding Chapter 8.26 to Title 8 of the Yountville Municipal Code Regarding Expressive Activities and Expressive Events.

Town of Yountville
Ordinance Number 22-508

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE ADDING CHAPTER 8.26 TO TITLE 8 OF THE YOUNTVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITIES AND EXPRESSIVE EVENTS
Now, therefore, the Town Council of the Town of Yountville does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. CODE ADDITION: Chapter 8.26 of Title 8 of the Yountville Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:

Chapter 8.26 –EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITY AND EXPRESSIVE EVENTS

8.26.010 Expressive Activity and Expressive Events
A. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate expressive activities and expressive events in the Town as distinct from solicitation, other special events, and encroachments, to allow the free and safe flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and to protect First Amendment rights. It is the intent of this chapter to respect the rights of free expression guaranteed by the California and United States Constitutions; to constitute reasonable, content-neutral, time, place and manner restrictions; and to impose the smallest burden on expressive activity necessary to accomplish the objectives of this chapter. This chapter shall be construed in light of this intent. A further purpose of this chapter is to promote the Town’s interest in regulating competing uses of public fora, in regulating the streets to protect the safety, comfort, and convenience of the public, and in ensuring adequate public safety and other Town services.

B. It is the legal responsibility of the Town to ensure the free and safe passage of pedestrians and vehicles on the public right-of-way, to ensure free access to public areas, to otherwise regulate and control the time, place and manner of activities that would otherwise threaten the public health, safety, and welfare, while also encouraging the exercise of rights under the United States Constitution and/or Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution.

C. As used in this chapter, "expressive activity(ies)" shall mean conduct, the sole or principal object of which is the expression, dissemination, or communication by verbal, visual, literary, or auditory means of opinion, views, or ideas. Expressive activity includes, but is not limited to, public oratory and the distribution of literature.

Ordinance Number 22-508
E. As used in this chapter, “spontaneous event” shall mean any expressive activity and/or expressive event for which preplanning was/is not possible.

F. As used in this chapter, “Town Manager” shall mean the Town Manager or his or her designee.

G. Persons engaged in expressive activities and/or expressive events are not subject to Yountville Municipal Code Chapters 5.20 (Peddlers and Solicitors), 8.24 (Special Events), 12.04 (Street and Sidewalk Excavations and Encroachments), or other provisions of this code in conflict with this chapter.

H. The Town Manager may issue rules and regulations regarding the time, place, and manner of persons engaging in expressive activities and expressive events. These rules and regulations must be posted in a public place and may not be enforced otherwise.

I. The Town Manager may impose reasonable conditions on any permit issued under this chapter.

J. Unless a permit is not required under this chapter, it is unlawful and a violation of this chapter for any person to organize, hold, manage, conduct, aid, participate in, form, start or carry on, any expressive activity or expressive event unless there has first been obtained from the Town Manager a permit to do so. The permit shall be carried by a person heading or leading the expressive activity or expressive event.

8.26.020 Expressive Activities and Expressive Events Requiring a Permit A. A permit shall be required if the proposed expressive activity or expressive event may impede, obstruct, impair, or interfere with the free use of any public street, highway, alley, sidewalk, or other public right-of-way, or with ingress or egress to the same.

B. A permit shall be required if the proposed expressive activity or expressive event is likely to have, or planned to have, twenty (20) or more persons in attendance.

8.26.030 Expressive Activities and Expressive Events Not Requiring a Permit A. A permit is not required for an expressive activity or expressive event not meeting the requirements in Section 8.26.020.

B. A permit is not required for a spontaneous event.

8.26.040 Application for Expressive Activities and Expressive Events A. Application. Any person desiring to conduct or manage an expressive activity or expressive event for which a permit is required under this chapter shall file with the Town Manager a verified application, on a form furnished by the Town Manager, setting forth the following information:

1. The name of the person or organization wishing to conduct the expressive Ordinance Number 22-508
activity or expressive event;

2. If the expressive activity or expressive event is proposed to be conducted for, on behalf of, or by an organization, the name, address and telephone number of the headquarters of the organization and the name of the authorized and responsible head of such organization;

3. The name, address and telephone number of the person who will be the expressive activity or expressive event chair and will be responsible for its conduct;

4. The name, address and telephone number of the person or organization to whom the permit is desired to be issued;

5. The location of the expressive activity or expressive event including, but not limited to, areas to be utilized in connection therewith;

6. The manner in which public property will be utilized;

7. The nature of the expressive activity or expressive event;

8. The date(s) of which the expressive activity or expressive event will be conducted;

9. If applicable, the route to be traveled, the starting point and the termination point;

10.The approximate number of persons, vehicles, and other things that will constitute or attend the expressive activity or expressive event;

11.The hour when the expressive activity or expressive event will start and terminate;

12.A description of any temporary structure(s);

13.A description of the intended parking facilities.

B. Time for Submitting Application. An initial application for an expressive activity or expressive event shall be submitted at least five business days prior to the planned date of the activity or event and no more than one year prior to the date thereof, except that applications must be submitted at least seven business days prior to the planned date of the activity or event if:

1. The expressive activity or expressive event is likely to be, or planned to be, in, upon, or along any portion of any Town street, sidewalk, alley, or other public right-of-way; or
The expressive activity or expressive event is likely to have, or planned to have, twenty (20) or more persons in attendance.

Ordinance Number 22-508
C. Application Processing Fee. The Town shall not charge a fee for processing applications under this chapter.

D. Refundable Deposit Required. As a permit condition, an applicant shall be required to provide a refundable security deposit in an amount set by the Town Manager and sufficient to ensure recovery of Town costs and resources, including, but not limited to, staff time in preparing for and monitoring the expressive activity or expressive event and cleaning and restoring Town property necessitated thereby.

An applicant who fails to abide by permit conditions may be subject to loss of security deposit. The Town shall prepare an invoice outlining expenses incurred and refund (or charge) the applicant the balance remaining (or owed). If an applicant owes the Town additional reimbursement, such reimbursement shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice. Applicants with outstanding balances owed to the Town shall not be granted further permits until all balances owed are resolved.

E. Meeting. After submitting an application, the applicant shall schedule at least one meeting with the Town Manager, either in person or via telephone, to coordinate with the Town on the conduct of the activity or event and to review the requirements for processing the application.

F. Time for Action on Application. A final decision regarding the authorization of the activity or event shall be made within three (3) business days of the Town Manager's receipt of a complete application.

G. Notice of Decision. Applicants shall be notified of the Town Manager’s decision within one (1) business day after the decision is made.

H. Basis for Decision. In determining whether to authorize an expressive activity or expressive event, or any terms or conditions imposed thereon, the Town Manager shall not, under any circumstances, consider the message of the activity or event, the content of speech, the identity or associational relationships of the applicant, or make any assumptions or predictions as to reaction of the public to the content of speech or message conveyed by the activity or event.

8.26.050 Permit—Issuance.

The Town Manager shall issue a permit under this chapter if, from consideration of the application and such other information as may be obtained, he or she finds that:

A. The conduct of the expressive activity or expressive event will not substantially interrupt the safe and orderly movement of other traffic contiguous to its location; B. The conduct of the expressive activity or expressive event is not reasonably likely to cause injury to persons or property;
C. If held on public grounds, the expressive activity or expressive event is not held for the sole purpose of advertising any product, goods, wares, merchandise, or event and is not designed to be held for private profit.

Ordinance Number 22-508

8.26.060 Permit—Revocation
The Town Manager shall have the authority to revoke a permit for any of the following reasons:

A. An applicant knowingly provided false, misleading, or fraudulent information; B. The Town Manager receives new information after a permit has been approved that materially changes the activity or event; or
C. A violation of the conditions or standards for issuance of the permit has occurred, provided the applicant has first been provided reasonable notice and an opportunity to cure the violation.

SECTION 2. CEQA: This Ordinance is exempt from CEQA under 14 CCR section 15061, subdivision (b)(3) known as the ‘common sense exemption’ because CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Town Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrases or portions might be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after final adoption.

SECTION 5. CERTIFICATION: The Town Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Within 15 days from the date of passage of this ordinance, the Town Clerk shall post a copy of the ordinance in accordance with California Government Code in at least three public places in the Town.

Ordinance Number 22-508
INTRODUCED by the Town Council at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of July, 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council at a regular meeting held on the 2nd day of August, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
John F. Dunbar, Mayor
ATTEST:

Eddy Gomez
Town Clerk
Gary B. Bell
Town Attorney
278355.1
287371.v1
Town of Yountville
Ordinance Number 22-508XXXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE ADDING CHAPTER 8.26 TO TITLE 8 OF THE YOUNTVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITIES AND EXPRESSIVE EVENTS
Now, therefore, the Town Council of the Town of Yountville does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. CODE ADDITION: Chapter 8.26 of Title 8 of the Yountville Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:

Chapter 8.26 –EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITY AND EXPRESSIVE EVENTS

D. As used in this chapter, "expressive event(s)" shall mean any special event organized or conducted solely or primarily for the purpose of engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution.
278355.1
287371.v1
E. As used in this chapter, “spontaneous event” shall mean any expressive activity and/or expressive event for which preplanning was/is not possible.

F. As used in this chapter, “Town Manager” shall mean the Town Manager or his or her designee.

I. The Town Manager may impose reasonable conditions on any permit issued under this chapter.

B. A permit shall be required if the proposed expressive activity or expressive event is likely to have, or planned to have, twenty (20) or more persons in attendance.

B. A permit is not required for a spontaneous event.

1. The name of the person or organization wishing to conduct the expressive activity or expressive event;

3. The name, address and telephone number of the person who will be the expressive activity or expressive event chair and will be responsible for its conduct;

4. The name, address and telephone number of the person or organization to whom the permit is desired to be issued;

5. The location of the expressive activity or expressive event including, but not limited to, areas to be utilized in connection therewith;

6. The manner in which public property will be utilized;

7. The nature of the expressive activity or expressive event;

8. The date(s) of which the expressive activity or expressive event will be conducted;

9. If applicable, the route to be traveled, the starting point and the termination point;

10.The approximate number of persons, vehicles, and other things that will constitute or attend the expressive activity or expressive event;

11.The hour when the expressive activity or expressive event will start and terminate;

12.A description of any temporary structure(s);

13.A description of the intended parking facilities.

C. Application Processing Fee. The Town Council may establish by resolution an application processing fee, which shall be paid by applicants under this chapter. The Town Manager may waive the application processing fee based on a showing of economic hardship and for reasons unrelated to the content or viewpoint associated with the expressive activity or expressive event.shall not charge a fee for processing applications under this chapter.

G. Notice of Decision. Applicants shall be notified of the Town Manager’s decision within one (1) business day after the decision is made.

8.26.050 Permit—Issuance.

The Town Manager shall issue a permit under this chapter if, from consideration of the application and such other information as may be obtained, he or she finds that:

A. The conduct of the expressive activity or expressive event will not substantially interrupt the safe and orderly movement of other traffic contiguous to its location; 278355.1
287371.v1
B. The conduct of the expressive activity or expressive event is not reasonably likely to cause injury to persons or property;
C. If held on public grounds, the expressive activity or expressive event is not held for the sole purpose of advertising any product, goods, wares, merchandise, or event and is not designed to be held for private profit.

8.26.060 Permit—Revocation
The Town Manager shall have the authority to revoke a permit for any of the following reasons:

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after final adoption.

INTRODUCED by the Town Council at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of June, 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council at a regular meeting held on the __ day of June, 2022, by the following vote:
278355.1
287371.v1
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
John F. Dunbar, Mayor
ATTEST:

Eddy Gomez
Town Clerk
Gary B. Bell
Town Attorney
Napa County Sheriff's Department
2022 Second Quarter Information Report

Oscar Ortiz, Sheriff-Coroner
Presented by
Sergeant Ryan McWilliams
 Calls for service: We responded to 917 calls in
the Town of Yountville. That is up 76 calls from
this quarter last year, and up 26 from last
quarter.
 Reports: We took 27 written investigative reports.
 Arrests: We made 9 arrests this quarter, on par
with this same quarter last year.

Second Quarter 2022 Trends
& Our Response
 Crimes against persons- We had 1 simple assault this
quarter & 1 domestic violence incident
 Crimes against property- We had 1 petty theft and 1
grand theft this quarter. There were no residential or
commercial burglaries reported.
 We had 1 auto theft this quarter. The vehicle was
recovered that night.

Second Quarter 2022 Trends
& Our Response
 Traffic Collisions- 2 non-injury / 1 injury
 Traffic Stops- 39 stops this quarter
 Traffic Citations-9 traffic citations
 Vehicle Checks – 12 vehicle checks
 Parking Citations- 39 parking citations
Second Quarter 2022 Trends
& Our Response

Yountville Sheriff’s Training and Engagement

• Rock the Ride
• Art, Sip & Stroll
• LE Memorial Week Trip
• LE Special Olympics Torch Run
• Pursuit Intervention Technique (PIT) Training
• Force Options / Use of Force / De-Escalation Course
• Domestic Violence Update
• Limousine Enforcement Training

Sheriff’s Business Watch Program
WHAT IS IT?
• A way to develop a deeper relationship between Law Enforcement and the business community in the Town of Yountville
• A direct line of communication between the businesses and the local Deputies • An avenue for businesses to reach out to LE about concerns affecting their businesses • Help us identify important points-of-contact in the business community • A starting point to schedule meetings, express concerns, share information and report on-going or quality of life issues that may not be of a criminal nature

Sheriff’s Business Watch Program
WHAT IS IT NOT?
• Business Watch is NOT on-line crime reporting
• Checked daily, but NOT monitored “24/7“
• NOT intended to report emergencies or crimes “in-progress” • NOT intended to take the place of Napa Central Dispatch GOAL: Increase communication with the local business community and return to the more personal, “small town” level of service enjoyed prior to the pandemic Yountville Sheriff’s Follow-Up
• North Block Hotel vehicle burglary, February 10th, 2022 • Semi-auto pistol, laptop, jewelry, cash
• Vehicle and foot pursuit into American Canyon
• All stolen property recovered
• 29 Officers/Deputies, four K9’s, two drones, CHP airplane • Lamar Crawford: convicted of 2nd degree Burglary and Felon in Possession of a Firearm—16 months State Prison
• Jamari Robinson: convicted of Felony Evading and Felon in Possession of a Firearm—4 years State Prison
Thank You
Dispatch Non-Emergency: (707) 257-9223
Yountville Sub-Station: (707) 944-9228
Town Of Yountville
QUARTERLY REPORT APRIL MAY JUNE 2022
Prepared By Engineer Kyle Black
Town Of Yountville
Quarterly Report 2nd Quarter 2021
92 149
154
10 Requests For Service Second
Quarter 2022
Town of Yountville County Areas
Veterans Home City of Napa
113
150
151
3 Requests For Service
Second Quarter 2021
Town of Yountville County Areas
Veterans Home City of Napa
83 144
215
3 Requests For Service 5 Year
Average Q2
Town of Yountville County Areas
Veterans Home City of Napa
Medical Aids
53%
Public Assists
26%
Traffic Collisions
5%
Vehicle Fire
1%
Alarm Sounding
10%
Structure Fire
0%
Vegetation Fire
1%
Misc Fire
1% Smoke Checks
0%
Hazardous Conditions
3%
Town of Yountville Statistical Analysis
Medical Aids Public Assists Traffic Collisions Vehicle Fire Alarm Sounding Structure Fire Vegetation Fire Misc Fire Smoke Checks Hazardous Conditions Medical Aids
92%
Public Assists
3%
Alarm Sounding
4% Misc Fire
1%
Veterans Home Statistical Analysis
Medical Aids Public Assists Traffic Collisions Vehicle Fire Alarm Sounding Structure Fire Vegetation Fire Misc Fire Rescue Hazardous Conditions Quarter
in
Photos

PAPER SHREDDING

TRUCK FIRE
Quarter
in
Photos

INTERAGENCY

TRAINING
Quarter
in Photos

TRENCH RESCUE

TECHNICIAN CLASS
Quarter in
Photos

TRAINING
Quarter in Photos

BASEBALL AT THE VETERANS HOME

Page 1 of 4 ends

CAL FIRE / Napa County Fire

YOUNTVILLE FIRE STATION
7401 SOLANO AVE.

April, May, June

QUARTERLY REPORT
2022
July 15, 2022
Prepared by
Fire Apparatus Engineer Kyle Black

Page 2 of 4 ends

TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE
Fire Department Summary
April, May, June
2022
Statistical Analysis
The attached spreadsheet shows a total of 405 calls for the three-month period. This includes the total number of calls responded to by Yountville Station personnel. The breakdown of emergency calls for Station 12:

Medical Aids: 247
Public Assists: 33
Traffic Collisions: 37
Vehicle Fires: 1
Alarm Soundings: 32
Structure Fires: 17
Vegetation Fires: 7
Misc. Fires: 4
Smoke Checks: 5
Rescues: 2
Hazardous Conditions: 20

Of the total 405 calls, the breakdown according to response area is as follows:

Town of Yountville: 92 Calls
Veterans Home: 154 Calls
County Areas: 149 Calls
Napa City: 10 Calls
Calls for the Veterans Home this quarter:

Medical Aids: 146 Calls
Alarm Soundings: 6 Calls
Public Assists: 2 Calls
This data is consistent with history and call analysis. As is typical with virtually all Fire Departments today, our largest call volume continues to be medical emergencies.

Page 3 of 4 ends

Major Events
Paper Shredding Truck Fire
In April, Yountville Station units responded to a commercial vehicle fire at the Community Center. Units arrived at scene to find smoke coming from the paper shredding truck being used during the Town paper shredding event. Crews made quick action and were able to contain the fire to the shredding unit and shredded paper. Crews remained at scene for a couple of hours removing all the shredded paper and placing it in a dumpster.

Special Events
Movie Night in the Park
The end of June brought us the first Movie Night in the Park of summer. The on-duty personnel always love attending and getting a chance to interact with the kids in the community.

Baseball at the Vets Home
For the first time since the beginning of Covid the veterans at the Veterans Home played baseball. We are lucky enough to be able to participate whenever they have practice or a game. It’s always a ton of fun to get out there and interact with the residents and play some baseball.

Training
Technical Rescue Team
The Napa County Interagency Rescue Team and Hazardous Materials Team participated in a multi-agency training exercise. It’s a great opportunity to work with other agencies on scenarios that mimic large scale incidents that would require multiple teams to accomplish our objectives.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Trench Rescue Class
In May, Yountville Station personnel assisted with instructing a Trench Rescue Technician class at the Napa County Fire Training Grounds.

Students learn the process of shoring up the sides of a trench in order to safely extricate a trapped victim from a trench that has collapsed. Rescue 12 housed at Yountville is equipped with all the equipment necessary to perform this type of rescue operation.

Safety Message
Now that we are in the heart of another dry summer, CAL FIRE would like to remind homeowners of defensible space. We encourage removing dead and dry vegetation within 100 feet of your home. For more information on preparing for wildfire and defensible space please visit www.ReadyForWildfire.org. Or you can stop by Yountville station and talk to station personnel and pick up the pamphlets on defensible space. 7/26/2022
Steve Rogers
Manager
Town of Yountville, California
Dear Mr. Rogers:

We are pleased to notify you that your annual comprehensive financial report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021 qualifies for GFOA's Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting.

The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management.

When a Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government, an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement (AFRA) is also presented to the individual(s) or department designated by the government as primarily responsible for its having earned the Certificate. This award has been sent to the submitter as designated on the application.

We hope that you will arrange for a formal presentation of the Certificate and Award of Financial Reporting Achievement, and give appropriate publicity to this notable achievement. A sample news release is included to assist with this effort.

We hope that your example will encourage other government officials in their efforts to achieve and maintain an appropriate standard of excellence in financial reporting.

Sincerely,
Michele Mark Levine
Director, Technical Services

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
7/26/2022 For more information contact:

Michele Mark Levine, Director/TSC
Phone: (312) 977-9700
Fax: (312) 977-4806
Email: [email protected]
(Chicago, Illinois)—Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) has awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to Town of Yountville for its annual comprehensive financial report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. The report has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program, which includes demonstrating a constructive "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential users and user groups to read the report.

The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management.

Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) advances excellence in government finance by providing best practices, professional development, resources, and practical research for more than 21,000 members and the communities they serve.

Town of Yountville
Staff Report
6550 Yount Street
Yountville, CA 94599
Agenda Item #: 10A
Yountville Town Council Staff Report
DATE: August 2, 2022
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Steve Rogers, Town Manager
PREPARED BY: Steve Rogers, Town Manager
SUBJECT:

Response to 2021-22 Napa County Civil Grand Jury Report Discussion and Authorization to submit required Grand Jury response letter for the 2021-22 Napa County's Climate Action Committee: Where's the Action.

DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2022 the Napa County Civil Grand Jury issued its Final Investigative Report “Napa County’s Climate Action Committee: Where’s the Action”. The Town participates in the County of Napa Climate Action Committee and has appointed two (2) elected officials from the Town Council, Mayor John Dunbar and Vice-Mayor Marita Dorenbecher, as it’s representatives to this regional body. The Town has allocated funding per the Joint Powers Agreement to fund its pro-rata share of the costs of the Climate Action Committee (CAC). The CAC is staffed by representatives from the County of Napa and consultants contracted to support its objectives. David Morrison, Napa County Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services who provides staff support to the CAC has provided a framework response to the Grand Jury report.

Under Penal Code section 933(c), the Town has 90 days from the date of the report to submit its responses to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The report was submitted on June 13, 2022 and the Town has until September 11, 2022 to respond. The response must come from the Town Council. For each finding, the Town Council must state that it agrees, disagrees in whole, or disagrees in part. If the Town Council disagrees, it must provide an explanation for the disagreement.

For each recommendation, the Town Council must state: (1) that is has been implemented, with a summary of the implementation action, (2) that it has not yet been implemented, with a timeframe for future implementation, (3) that further analysis is needed, with an explanation, parameters for analysis, and a timeframe for completion, or (4) that it will not be implemented because it is unwarranted or unreasonable, with an explanation why.

The Town of Yountville has carefully reviewed and considered the findings and recommendations of the Napa County Grand Jury in its report dated June 13, 2022 entitled: “Napa County’s Climate Action Committee: Where’s the Action?” The Grand Jury requested the Town Council’s responses to the findings and recommendations in the report. This letter provides those responses pursuant to California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a) and (b).

FINDINGS:

F1: The CAC has not been effective in developing and implementing actions for county-wide programs to combat climate change.

The Town Council respectfully disagrees with this Finding. The Grand Jury does not define by what standard the Climate Action Committee (“CAC” or “Committee”) would be considered effective, or how the Committee has performed compared to that standard. The comment is unsubstantiated opinion, rather than a reasoned finding.

Developing countywide programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a process. The Committee is following the same process as that taken by the Sonoma Regional Climate Protection Authority, which is cited several times by the Grand Jury as the model that should be followed. The Authority prepared an updated greenhouse gas emission, considered a range of action items to achieve the target goals, and assisted member agencies in implementing those action items. The Committee is at an earlier stage than the Authority, which was formed in 2009. In contrast, the Committee only began meeting less than three years ago.

Within the short time of the Committee’s operation, much has been done to lay down the foundation for effective climate action. The individual members of the Committee have all adopted Climate Emergency Resolutions, and all members have adopted or are in the process of preparing Climate Action Plans. The municipalities participating in the Committee have adopted a Joint Powers Agreement, establishing the composition and operations for the Committee, as well as an ongoing funding commitment. The Committee has secured a grant and is in the final process of updating the 2009 regional greenhouse gas emission inventory, which will include specific actions that can be taken by member agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Committee has also directed staff to begin work on an Electric Vehicle Charging Station plan, to determine how the member agencies will meet the goals established by the California Energy Commission Assembly Bill 2127 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Assessment.

The Committee has been meeting for a total of 33 months. During that time, Napa has experienced two major wildfires, a pandemic, and a continuing severe drought. A great deal has been accomplished in a short time, despite numerous challenges.

The Town has independently adopted a Climate Emergency proclamation along with adoption of its Climate Action Plan in 2016 and Envision Yountville General Plan in 2019, which includes specific sustainability elements.

F2: Interviews of Napa CAC members confirmed that the Napa County CAC has decided not to take any major steps toward greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction until the GHG study is released.

The Town Council agrees with this Finding. The Committee will consider a range of potential climate change actions as a part of the regional greenhouse gas inventory update. Once the Committee has determined the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions (both regionally and by individual jurisdiction as well as source sector) and the targets needed to comply with future milestones, then it will have the information needed to consider actions tailored to address the specific sources and where they occur. To take action absent this information would be regulating based on anecdote. Any implementation of actions developed without this scientific framework would be subject to legal challenge and would not be accepted as adequate evidence if used in environmental analysis by member agencies.

The Grand Jury suggests in their report that “Models of well-developed countywide plans that have implemented such methods are available from nearby counties such as Sonoma County. Napa does not have to reinvent the wheel. It can and should take cues from these other neighboring jurisdictions.” This is hardly a reasonable comparison. Sonoma County is 125% larger than Napa County and has a population 3.5 times the size of Napa County. Despite this size difference, Napa has more cultivated farmland than Sonoma, accounting for 8% of total land area, compared to only 3% in Sonoma.

The Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority adopted its Climate Mobilization Strategy in 2021, three years after updating its regional greenhouse gas emission inventory in 2018. The Strategy did not borrow from other neighboring jurisdictions, but studied and utilized the best available science in determining its status and how best to reach the adopted goals over a 10-year timeframe. The Authority coordinates with member agencies to assist them in developing and implementing those measures that will have the greatest impact in reducing greenhouse gas emissions within their respective jurisdictions. The Committee is following the same path as that taken by the Authority: prepare an updated greenhouse gas emission, consider a range of action items to achieve the target goals, and assist member agencies in implementing those action items.

F3: Interviews revealed that the CAC was generally unfamiliar with the EV charging station subsidy programs currently available through the California Energy Commission and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

The Town Council respectfully disagrees with this Finding. Over the past two years, the Committee has reviewed and discussed electric vehicle charging station grant programs on numerous occasions. At the April 24, 2020, meeting the Committee reviewed several potential electric vehicle charging station grant programs, including the Marin Clean Energy Charging program, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Charge! program, and the California Energy Commission Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project program. On May 22, 2020, the Committee reviewed a list or programs offering incentives for residents and businesses to purchase electric vehicles. On February 26, 2021, the Committee received a presentation from the California Hydrogen Business Council, on hydrogen vehicles and fueling stations. On July 23, 2021, the Committee reviewed the number of existing electric vehicle charging stations, the goals of the California Energy Commission Assembly Bill 2127 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Assessment, and available incentives including the Marin Clean Energy grant program. The July discussion continued into the meetings of October 22 and November 19, providing a summary of available grant programs, including the California Energy Commission Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project program.

The Grand Jury is not specific regarding which subsidy programs are not being considered by the Committee and did not go into detail regarding the cost or eligibility of recent grant programs. For instance, the Charge! program offered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District offered earlier this year, provides $7 million to offset a portion of the cost of new public charging stations at qualifying facilities. However, the Charge! program only funds 50% to 80% of the cost of installation. Applicants must pay all up-front costs and at least 15% of the total project costs. With a minimum grant aware of $1 million, local jurisdictions would have to pay between $150,000 and up to $500,000 to participate in the subsidy. Environmental review, administrative costs, and maintenance are not eligible for funding. In addition, 60% of all funds awarded by this program are required to be spent within Environmental Justice communities, which excludes several of the Climate Action Committee members.

The Rural Electric Vehicle Charging grant provided by the California Energy Commission offers $4.8 million to local jurisdictions to install charging stations in rural areas. However, Napa County and other Bay Area jurisdictions are ineligible for the program due to high number of existing charging stations in those areas.

The California Energy Commission also recently awarded a grant program of $6 million for the Charging Access for Reliable On-Demand Transportation Services (CARTS) program. The grant supports electric vehicle charging stations for high mileage on-demand transportation services including services such as ride-hailing, taxis, and meal and grocery delivery. Each region was allotted one project up to $2 million, with a 50% match required from the applicant, again requiring significant funding from local jurisdictions.

The California Energy Commission is in the process of developing the application process for Block Grants for Electric Vehicle Charging Incentive Projects. The qualification criteria, amount of subsidy, and other details are still being developed. It is expected that the application period will open late in 2022. The County applied for and was awarded $20,000 in 2020 under this program to install additional charging stations at the Third Street Parking Garage, but was unable to meet the accelerate timelines required by the Commission.

The California Capital Access Program Electric Vehicle Charging Station Financing Program offered by the State Treasurer closed earlier this year. It provided $2 million to fund a 10-15% rebate on the cost of installing charging stations for small businesses, and would not have applied to the Committee or its members.

The Town has independently approved ten (10) public EV charging stations, which were funded using two (2) different grant programs and received a tentative notice of award from the TFCA program in partnership with Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) for EV charging stations. The Town did not move forward with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Charge! Program given that the grant funded less than 50% of actual project cost.

F4: The CAC struggles with a lack of county-wide GHG mitigation funding. However, it has not placed a priority on having an experienced, effective grant and funding pursuit individual on staff to seek and secure GHG reduction grants, even though grant subsidies for programs like EV charging stations currently exist.

The Town Council respectfully disagrees with this Finding. The member agencies of the Committee have allocated and reserved collectively $168,000 for the Committee over the past two years. These funds are in addition to the $50,000 in grant funding secured from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. These monies have paid for staff to support the operations of the Committee, including the successful pursuit of one grant and ongoing monitoring of other available grant programs. Of course, this is all supplementary to the expenditures made by each jurisdiction in developing and implementing their individual climate action plans.

As stated in the response to F3 above, grant subsidies for electric vehicle charging stations are expensive and member agencies do not always qualify. Moreover, the Committee relies on funding provided by the member agencies; it does not have a separate revenue source. Participation in grant programs require match funds and/or administrative costs, as well as long-term continuation of effort. This funding depends on budgetary decisions by City and Town councils, as well as the Board of Supervisors, balanced against other competing social needs and interests.

The Town has independently allocated funds in its 2022/2023 budget to fund the Committee and the Green House Gas (GHG) Inventory Project.

F5: Past studies have stated that the two largest GHG emission categories are Transportation and Buildings. The Grand Jury’s interviews confirm that these two categories are expected to remain the top two items in the GHG study currently underway. The CAC in its three years of existence has not defined and proposed any action items to address the top two categories of emissions.

The Town Council respectfully disagrees with this Finding. The Grand Jury report is correct in that staff anticipates that Building Energy Use and On-Road Transportation will likely be the two largest categories of greenhouse gas emissions in the upcoming regional inventory. Both issues are largely regulated by the State of California, through the Uniform Building Code and the Vehicle Emission Standards. While there are additional actions that can supplement the State’s efforts, the Grand Jury is asking the Climate Action Committee and its member jurisdictions to take action without knowing the extent of the problem or the goal that is to be achieved.

More importantly, taking regulatory action always involves the potential for litigation, and it is the duty of the jurisdiction taking action to make its case as to why any new regulations are required, whether they are proportional to the impact, whether they are effective, and what standard will be achieved. In the absence of an updated greenhouse gas emission inventory, the Committee and its members would be acting in the absence of any context, and if the resulting regulations are overly burdensome or inequitably fall on some members of the community more than others, they would be exposing themselves and the general public to the potential for lengthy and expensive litigation.

As a part of the scope of work for the updated regional greenhouse gas emission inventory, the Committee has directed the consultant to identify and evaluate specific greenhouse gas reduction actions for the following sectors: transportation, building and other energy use, waste reduction and material consumption, carbon sequestration, water conservation, and food consumption. These actions will be evaluated by the Committee later this year and forwarded to the individual member agencies for consideration and implementation.

The Town has independently adopted a Climate Action Plan in 2016 and will review that plan in conjunction with the Green House Gas (GHG) Inventory Project once complete.

Recommendations
R1: The CAC should increase the sense of urgency in implementing GHG emission reduction actions.

This recommendation will not be implemented by the Town, as it is not warranted or reasonable. The recommendation does not indicate what timeline should be used for implementation, nor does it define what steps should be taken to “increase the sense of urgency.” The State has established specific milestones for local jurisdictions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: a 90% reduction below 1990 levels by 2035, and net zero emissions by 2045. These goals are more immediate than the 2050 net zero goal established by Federal agencies, the United Nations, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In addition, there is much being done already to achieve these goals. The individual member agencies of the Committee have all adopted Climate Emergency Resolutions, and all members have adopted or are in the process of preparing Climate Action Plans. The municipalities participating in the Committee have adopted a Joint Powers Agreement, establishing the composition and operations for the Committee, as well as an ongoing funding commitment. The Committee has secured a grant and is in the final process of updating the 2009 regional greenhouse gas emission inventory, which will include specific actions that can be taken by member agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Committee has also directed staff to begin work on an Electric Vehicle Charging Station plan, to determine how the member agencies will meet the goals established by the California Energy Commission Assembly Bill 2127 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Assessment.

R2: The CAC should create monitoring protocols that seek to identify what its individual members have set as goals and to identify whether they have met meaningful standards consistent with those goals. These should be formalized and reported to the CAC on a quarterly basis.

This recommendation will not be implemented by the Town, as it is not warranted or reasonable. Using individual climate action plans as the basis for monitoring progress towards greenhouse gas reduction goals would require a significant level of effort due to the different timelines and methodologies used by each jurisdiction. For example, both American Canyon’s 2012 Climate Action Plan and Calistoga’s 2014 Climate Action Plan have a greenhouse reduction goal of 2020, but no goals beyond that date. The City of Napa’s 2012 Sustainability Plan has goals for 2030, 2040, and 2050, but it looks only at municipal operations and not at community sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Yountville’s 2016 Climate Action Plan has a goal of 2030, St. Helena’s 2019 General Plan has goals of 2030 and 2040, and the draft County 2019 Climate Action Plan has goals of 2030 and 2050. Beyond the lack of common timelines used, how each jurisdiction calculates emissions also varies. Different methodologies, definitions, and data sources have been used, as climate modeling has changed greatly over the past 10 years. Lastly, not all jurisdictions have action items that have quantitative reductions in emissions associated with them. Several of the plans have qualitative action items and are not clear as to how reduction goals will be achieved. The value of a single integrated inventory is that all jurisdictions can be analyzed using the same information and modeling to create a basis for comparison, as well as the opportunity to determine how collaborative actions can gain greater reduction through effective collaboration.

The Committee is established as a collaborative effort that allows each member agency to retain local control within its jurisdiction. Consequently, the City and Town Councils and Board of Supervisors are held accountable by their respective constituents for meeting greenhouse gas reduction goals. Staff is not aware of any regional climate action committee (including the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority) that monitors member agencies for progress towards meeting each jurisdiction’s climate action goals. It is unclear what added value monitoring by the Committee would provide, or what steps (if any) would be taken by the Committee for any member that was not meeting “meaningful standards” as established by the Committee.

R3: The CAC should provide a detailed prioritized list of potential projects for possible grant funding and either retain or designate a current staff person as a grant researcher and writer to identify and seek grants from any possible source.

This recommendation has been implemented, as it pertains to the Town. Staff to the Committee have already secured one $50,000 grant and continue to search for other appropriate potential funding opportunities, where local agencies qualify and where funding to support and implement the grant has been allocated at the direction of the member agencies of the Committee.

The Town has independently allocated funds in its 2022/2023 budget to fund the Committee and has pursued a number of grant opportunities related to sustainability and, in the case of the Town gas-powered leaf blower ban, actively provided grants to help implement that effort.

R4: The CAC should restructure itself to provide authority over and accountability of its member jurisdictions.

This recommendation will not be implemented by the Town, as it is not warranted or reasonable. The Committee is established as a collaborative effort that allows each member agency to retain local control within its jurisdiction. The Grand Jury is proposing a restructuring of the Committee to convert it into a regional climate agency, with the ability to enforce and regulate within member jurisdictions.

The Grand Jury describes “…the problem of each jurisdiction going its own way and operating on a noncollaborative course.” They advocate for the creation of a new bureaucracy, where power over climate change can be centralized and enforced. Certainly, such an approach can lead to greater and faster action. However, the Grand Jury does not discuss the disadvantages of such an approach. A regional agency would be able to enforce actions against a member agency, regardless of the fiscal or economic impact on the jurisdiction. Solutions that work in a City of 75,000 may be equally applied in a Town of less than 4,000, or a rural community where they may not be effective or relevant. Residents and businesses who may be disproportionately and adversely affected by new regulations would not have a place to appeal any decision and would not be able to directly vote for the decision makers. If this model were the most effective approach, it seems that the State would have created a centralized regulatory agency to administer climate change requirements throughout California, but that has not occurred. The sources of greenhouse gas emissions, patterns of community development, demographics, and lifestyles of communities in Napa County are very diverse. A uniform, top-down strategy to expedite action on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can lead to oversimplification and may instead impede progress by focusing scarce resources enforcing a “one-sizefits-all” solution.

Moreover, Town staff are unaware of any region within the State of California that has adopted such a model. The Sonoma County process referred to in the Grand Jury report is not binding on member jurisdictions. The countywide plan is made available for each municipality to consider on its own. It should be noted that an appeal of the Superior Court decision regarding the California Environmental Quality Act document for the Sonoma countywide climate action plan was not pursued because member agencies did not unanimously support continued action. As a result, an Environmental Impact Report for the Sonoma countywide climate plan was never certified. The other examples of regional climate agencies that staff are familiar with are also advisory; none have legal authority over the participating jurisdictions. The Grand Jury is advocating for a new agency with powers over climate action planning and implementation that has not been attempted anywhere in California. At a minimum, a great deal more thought and consideration should be applied to the question, rather the casual support given to such a radical idea by the Grand Jury.

R5: To benefit its work, the CAC should consider the following actions: (A) Reducing the number of CAC members, currently from 12 (2 per jurisdiction), to 6 (1 per jurisdiction) to facilitate faster action, use of advisors and plan development; and (B) Utilize county citizens familiar with GHG emission reduction strategies to assist the CAC in the preparation of recommended actions.

This recommendation will not be implemented by the Town, as it is not warranted or reasonable. The Grand Jury does not point to any evidence in their report to demonstrate that a smaller Committee would be more effective. The two examples cited in their report do not support this conclusion. The Sonoma County Climate Action Committee is similar to Napa County and has two representatives from each jurisdiction for a total of 24 members (compared to Napa’s 12 members). It should be noted that the Sonoma Regional Climate Authority, which the Sonoma Climate Action Committee advises, also has 12 members. There is no reference to a Contra Costa Climate Action Committee. It is assumed the reference in the Grand Jury report is to the Contra Costa County Sustainability Commission, which has 17 members. In addition, the Mendocino County Climate Action Advisory Committee has 15 members. Other than a passing reference by the Grand Jury to “…an ungainly body of mostly elected officials…,” the report offers no constructive criticism or facts to support their unsubstantiated recommendation.

The Committee has an extensive history of considering input from county residents and interested parties regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies. On August 28, 2020, the Committee heard a presentation from Napa Climate Now! regarding budget conscious climate actions. On February 26, 2021, the Committee heard a presentation from the California Hydrogen Business Council, on hydrogen vehicles and fueling stations for local governments. On March 26, 2021, the Committee heard a presentation on the Napa Green program. On April 23, 2021, the Committee heard a presentation on forest health from the Napa County Resource Conservation District. On May 28, 2021, the California Land Stewardship Institute gave a presentation to the Committee on the Climate Adaptation Certification, a comprehensive science and winegrower collaboration to benefit agriculture and the environment. On June 25, 2021, the Committee heard a presentation from the Napa County Bicycle Coalition regarding Safe Routes to School: Parent Perception Research. On July 23, 2021, Napa Climate Now! made a second presentation to the Committee on a Reusable Foodware and Waste Reduction Ordinance. On October 22, 2021, Napa Schools gave a presentation to the Committee. On April 22, 2022, the Committee heard from City of Napa staff regarding solid waste and recycling programs and potential projects. On July 26, 2022, Community Climate Solutions gave a presentation on the Napa County Climate Challenge website.

The Committee will continue to seek out and encourage ideas from local residents and organizations, and will welcome public comment on the proposed greenhouse gas reduction action items that will be included with the updated regional inventory.

The Town welcomes and appreciates the Grand Jury’s interest in the Town’s operations, as well as the opportunity to respond to the findings and recommendations contained in the report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable

FISCAL IMPACT
Is there a Fiscal Impact? No
Is it Currently Budgeted? N/A
Where is it Budgeted? N/A
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? Mandatory
Is there a Staff Resource Impact? Nominal

STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL
Is item Identified in Strategic Plan? Indirectly
If yes, Identify Strategic Goal and Objective. Visionary Leadership: The Town's leadership maintains an openminded, forward-thinking decision-making process. We value engagement and participation from all members of the community as we work together to create policies and plan for the future.

Briefly Explain Relationship to Strategic Plan Goal and Objective. The Town Council has elected to participate in the Napa County Climate Action Committee which is a regional body to discuss and development meaningful regional approaches to deal with climate change.

RECOMMENDATION
Receive staff report and direct questions to staff.

Receive public comment.

Conduct Council discussion on proposed Grand Jury response.

Council discussion and direction authorizing the Mayor to sign and submit response letter for the 2021-22 Napa County Civil Grand Jury Report for the 2021-22 Napa County's Climate Action Committee: Where's the Action.
1 NAPA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY
2021-2022

FINAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
June 13, 2022
NAPA COUNTY’S CLIMATE ACTION COMMITTEE:

WHERE’S THE ACTION?
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary 3
Background 3
Methodology 3
Discussion 4
Findings 7
Recommendations 7
Responses 8
3 SUMMARY
The 2021-2022 Napa Grand Jury undertook to examine the workings and accomplishments of the Napa County “Climate Action Committee,” now functioning under a formal cooperative Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). The Grand Jury concluded that the committee in its present form is not fulfilling the goals and responsibilities set forth in either its origin document or the JPA that currently governs its operation. While potentially well intentioned, it has failed to provide timely measurable goals and action plans to its constituent jurisdictions. It has accomplished little since its first public meeting in November 2019, notwithstanding that its members frequently express the need for concerted, coordinated efforts to address the climate emergency confronting the world.

BACKGROUND
After examining the status of Napa County’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), the previous 2017-2018 Napa County Grand Jury concluded that it remained a “work in progress,” notwithstanding that it had been proposed ten years previously. At the time of that investigation, climate change was described as an immediate and significant health, environmental, economic, and national security danger that would likely have planetary consequences.1 Since the date of that Grand Jury report, the potential consequences of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), in the estimation of the majority of the scientific community, has risen to the level of a planetary emergency.2 One of the findings of the previous Grand Jury was that there was the lack of climate action planning coordination existent between the jurisdictional communities within Napa County.

Whether or not related to that finding and the recommendation that such a collaborative structure be created, the six Napa County governmental jurisdictions subsequently passed resolutions to form a Climate Action Committee (CAC) in June 2019. After much debate, the jurisdictions agreed to create a Joint Powers Agreement structure that was described in some meetings as a “middle of the road” solution which left the committee in an advisory capacity only. The 2021- 2022 Grand Jury undertook an evaluation of that committee’s workings seeking to determine whether it has lived up to the modest goals it set for itself and, further, to determine whether the Climate Action Committee in its present iteration provides the Napa Valley community with the leadership necessary to effectively address the climate emergency which is upon us.

METHODOLOGY
In preparing this report about the Napa Climate Action Committee CAC), the Grand Jury interviewed seven CAC members and several county and local jurisdiction staff members. The 1 2017-2018 Napa Grand Jury Final Report: Napa County Climate Action Plan – A Work in Progress. 2 UN News, April 2022: “UN climate report: It’s ‘now or never’ to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees;” Scientific American, April 12, 2021: “We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So.” 4 Grand Jury also interviewed various Napa County community members active and knowledgeable in the promotion of Green House Gas (GHG) reduction efforts.

Monthly CAC meetings, mostly through the CAC video recordings were reviewed, along with articles in the Napa Register and Saint Helena Star about local climate action activities. Finally, the Grand Jury also reviewed websites of the following Agencies to better understand and follow their actions:
• California Air Resources Board (CARB)
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
• California Energy Commission
• Upper Valley Waste Management District
• California Building Standards Commission
• Napa County 2018 Draft Climate Action Plan
• Charge Point Website
• EVGO Website
• State of California Public Utilities Commission
• Contra Costa County Climate Action Committee
• Sonoma County Climate Action Committee

DISCUSSION
This investigation sought to determine how effective Napa’s Climate Action Committee had been in coordinating and implementing county-wide programs seeking to address the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and to determine whether it provided meaningful assistance to the various member entities in their individual efforts to do so. As the investigation proceeded, the Grand Jury expanded its inquiry to consider whether the current CAC structure and charter can be effective in accomplishing its stated mission.

The CAC is the only body focused on county-wide climate change mitigation activities. The original resolutions upon which the Committee was formed proposed that the Committee would identify countywide goals and strategies for addressing climate change, including an updated greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory, countywide goals and timelines, and common GHG reduction standards for each jurisdiction to adopt independently and that it would “develop cost estimates and funding opportunities for shared projects ….”3 The Committee held its first public meeting in November 2019. In the January 2020 meeting, much discussion occurred about what the Committee should be and what it could be. The prevailing sentiment from the Committee members was that climate change was an emergent situation that required action rather than promises. One person suggested that the Committee might more accurately be identified as the “Emergency Climate Action Committee.” As another member pointed out, people come together best when they are confronted with an emergency that requires co-dependent conduct and that such an 3 Proclamation: “Countywide Commitment to Address Climate Change,” June 2019; Napa County Board of Supervisors Board Agenda Letter, April 20, 2021; Recitals in Cooperative Joint Powers Agreement to Fund and Administer The Napa Countywide Climate Action Program, adopted April 20, 2021 5 emergency is now in front of us. Unfortunately, that cooperative action-based spirit, to which Committee members have repeatedly given lip service, has not been backed with concrete action.

Nowhere is the lack of action, as opposed to rhetoric, better demonstrated than by the committee’s path to organizing itself. Notwithstanding the fact that there was general agreement at the Committee’s first public meeting in November 2019 that there was a need for an integrated plan within the County that would provide real, rather than aspirational, goals and a system to monitor the progress toward those goals, the Committee spent the next fifteen months developing an agreed upon Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). In the end, this JPA essentially preserved the independence of each jurisdiction within it and dictated that the organization would be advisory only. Although the Committee received presentations on various subjects during those intervening months and entertained public comment urging it to take action on the subject of GHG reduction, its only actual accomplishment was eventually to agree on funding an updated GHG inventory, a project that had been on the books for the County for many years.4
Similarly, the Committee initially identified the potential need for a collaborative approach to developing an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station infrastructure in Napa Valley. It sought and was provided an inventory of the number, location and type of existing EV charging stations at its April 24, 2020 meeting. Even so, development of plans and budgets for EV charging expansion and procurement did not proceed. Moreover, CAC members as a group did not appear to be aware of the details and extent of EV charging station subsidy programs currently available through the California Energy Commission and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. It was not until its most recent meeting (April 2022) that the Committee reached a general agreement on retaining a consultant to create an EV charging plan, a process estimated to take an additional six to nine months. Even so, that recommendation needs to return to each jurisdiction for its approval of funding before the RFP (Request for Proposal) process to retain such a consultant can begin.

In the course of its interviews, the Grand Jury was repeatedly told that much of the delay in completing action items was due to the lack of a current GHG inventory (now due in August/September 2022). All interviewees agreed, however, that percentage-wise, the new inventory will likely mirror the results of the 2009 inventory. By far the largest contributors to GHG in Napa Valley are transportation (including agricultural vehicles) and buildings.

Essentially, the targets for GHG reduction have not and will not change. Nonetheless, the CAC has made no significant attempts to promote programs that would address these sectors since its inception in 2019. Neither has it sought out cooperation from, or the significant expertise existent in, the agricultural sector. It has thus failed to consider vineyard-related hydrocarbon emissions that might be addressed on a collaborative basis.

Further, the Grand Jury observed that, although most of the cities and towns within Napa County have some sort of Climate Action Plan or a commitment to complete one in the near future, there is absolutely no mechanism in place to determine whether such plans are current with technology and science, nor is there any monitoring to determine if the goals and actions to be taken have been actually accomplished. There is thus no plan underway to determine what potential efficiencies and cost savings might be accomplished by county-wide cooperation on various potential GHG mitigations. Models of well-developed county-wide plans that have implemented such methods 4 The County’s existent GHG inventory was completed in 2009 and is based on data from 2005. 6 are available from nearby counties such as Sonoma County. Napa does not have to “reinvent the wheel.” It can and should take cues from these other neighboring jurisdictions.5 The attitude of each jurisdiction in Napa County is dominated by a tendency of wanting to ‘go their own way,’ examining and adopting programs that only make sense for each of them. The Grand Jury concluded that the CAC is not living up to its charter of “identifying mutually agreed upon climate goals and action items for consideration by the individual Member Agencies.” It has failed to recommend intelligent county-wide programs to address the climate change impact of transportation and buildings, and ways of measuring them, the only way of making progress towards realistic targets.

In its previous report of the still incomplete Napa County Climate Action Plan, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury observed:
“Almost to a person, there is agreement that a collaborative effort by all the County jurisdictions is the preferred method of dealing with climate change issues, yet, presently all are “going it alone.” They point to unaligned interests making consensus difficult to achieve as the reason. Many say their individual efforts are too far down the road now to make a joint project a reality, and don’t want the possible recriminations of being thought to be the one(s) that put the brakes on ongoing efforts”.6 Apparently, little has changed in the past four years. The various jurisdictions continue to have cooperation issues when action, rather than rhetoric is called for.

The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the CAC’s structure contributes to its lack of success.

It is an ungainly body of mostly elected officials, limited by its advisory status. It lacks vision and county-wide leadership to bring the different jurisdictions together to adopt and address a set of common goals and to monitor the member jurisdictions’ progress The individual CAC members express the intent to address climate change with new programs but their inability to agree on a structure that would elevate this body to something more than an “advisory only” status has blunted the committee’s impact and prevented it from addressing GHG issues on a timely county-wide basis.

In fairness, the Grand Jury observed that the CAC has provided a single point of contact with the public on the issue of GHG reduction. Potentially, individuals and group representatives no longer need to attend meetings at six different jurisdictions to make themselves heard on the subject. Yet this is blunted to some extent by the problem of each jurisdiction going its own way and operating on a non-collaborative course. The latter would be minimized if authority for GHG mitigation actions was centralized in the CAC.
5 See for example: Regional Climate Protection Authority (Sonoma County) at https://rcpa.ca.gov/what-wedo/climate-action-2020/ Imbedded link to “Regional Climate Action Plan” 6 2017-2018Napa County Grand Jury Final Report, p. 9. 7 FINDINGS
F1. The CAC has not been effective in developing and implementing actions for county-wide programs to combat climate change.

F2. Interviews of Napa CAC members confirmed that the Napa County CAC has decided not to take any major steps toward greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction until the GHG study is released.

F3 Interviews revealed that the CAC was generally unfamiliar with the EV charging station subsidy programs currently available through the California Energy Commission and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

F4. The CAC struggles with a lack of county-wide GHG mitigation funding. However, it has not placed a priority on having an experienced, effective grant and funding pursuit individual on staff to seek and secure GHG reduction grants, even though grant subsidies for programs like EV charging stations currently exist.

F5. Past studies have stated that the two largest GHG emission categories are Transportation and Buildings. The Grand Jury’s interviews confirm that these two categories are expected to remain the top two items in the GHG study currently underway. The CAC in its three years of existence has not defined and proposed any action items to address the top two categories of emissions.

RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. The CAC should increase the sense of urgency in implementing GHG emission reduction actions.

R2. The CAC should create monitoring protocols that seek to identify what its individual members have set as goals and to identify whether they have met meaningful standards consistent with those goals. These should be formalized and reported to the CAC on a quarterly basis.

R.3 The CAC should provide a detailed prioritized list of potential projects for possible grant funding and either retain or designate a current staff person as a grant researcher and writer to identify and seek grants from any possible source.

R.4. The CAC should restructure itself to provide authority over and accountability of its member jurisdictions.
8 R5. To benefit its work, the CAC should consider the following actions:
• Reducing the number of CAC members, currently from 12 (2 per jurisdiction), to 6 (1 per jurisdiction) to facilitate faster action, use of advisors and plan development. • Utilize county citizens familiar with GHG emission reduction strategies to assist the CAC in the preparation of recommended actions.

RESPONSES
The following responses under Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 are requested from the following elected city officials:

REQUIRED RESPONSES
§ Town Council of Yountville
§ City Councils of Napa, American Canyon, St. Helena and Calistoga § The Napa County Board of Supervisors
§ The Climate Action Committee, a Joint Powers Agreement Authority under California law
Town of Yountville • 6550 Yount Street • Yountville • California • 94599 Telephone (707) 944-8851 • FAX (707) 944-9619
August 2, 2022
The Honorable Cynthia P. Smith Napa County Civil Grand Jury Presiding Judge of the Civil Grand Jury c/o Foreperson
The Superior Court of California, County of Napa 1754 Second Street, Suite D 825 Brown Street Napa, CA 94559
Napa, CA 94559
Re: Response to Napa County Grand Jury Report Dated June 13, 2022 Entitled:
“Napa County’s Climate Action Committee: Where’s the Action?” Dear Judge Smith and Foreperson:

FINDINGS:

F1: The CAC has not been effective in developing and implementing actions for county-wide programs to combat climate change.

The Authority prepared an updated greenhouse gas emission, considered a range of action items to achieve the target goals, and assisted member agencies in implementing those action items. The Committee is at an earlier stage than the Authority, which was formed in 2009. In contrast, the Committee only began meeting less than three years ago.

Page 2 ends

Committee have adopted a Joint Powers Agreement, establishing the composition and operations for the Committee, as well as an ongoing funding commitment. The Committee has secured a grant and is in the final process of updating the 2009 regional greenhouse gas emission inventory, which will include specific actions that can be taken by member agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Committee has also directed staff to begin work on an Electric Vehicle Charging Station plan, to determine how the member agencies will meet the goals established by the California Energy Commission Assembly Bill 2127 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Assessment.

F2: Interviews of Napa CAC members confirmed that the Napa County CAC has decided not to take any major steps toward greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction until the GHG study is released.

The Grand Jury suggests in their report that “Models of well-developed countywide plans that have implemented such methods are available from nearby counties such as Sonoma County.

Napa does not have to reinvent the wheel. It can and should take cues from these other neighboring jurisdictions.” This is hardly a reasonable comparison. Sonoma County is 125% larger than Napa County and has a population 3.5 times the size of Napa County. Despite this size difference, Napa has more cultivated farmland than Sonoma, accounting for 8% of total land area, compared to only 3% in Sonoma.

The Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority adopted its Climate Mobilization Strategy in 2021, three years after updating its regional greenhouse gas emission inventory in 2018.

The Strategy did not borrow from other neighboring jurisdictions, but studied and utilized the best available science in determining its status and how best to reach the adopted goals over a 10-year timeframe. The Authority coordinates with member agencies to assist them in developing and implementing those measures that will have the greatest impact in reducing greenhouse gas emissions within their respective jurisdictions. The Committee is following the same path as that

Page 3 ends

taken by the Authority: prepare an updated greenhouse gas emission, consider a range of action items to achieve the target goals, and assist member agencies in implementing those action items.

Page 4 ends

The California Capital Access Program Electric Vehicle Charging Station Financing Program offered by the State Treasurer closed earlier this year. It provided $2 million to fund a 10-15% rebate on the cost of installing charging stations for small businesses and would not have applied to the Committee or its members.

Participation in grant programs require match funds and/or administrative costs, as well as longterm continuation of effort. This funding depends on budgetary decisions by City and Town councils, as well as the Board of Supervisors, balanced against other competing social needs and interests.

The Town has independently allocated funds in its 2022/2023 budget to fund the Committee and the Green House Gas (GHG) Inventory Project.

Page 5 ends

These actions will be evaluated by the Committee later this year and forwarded to the individual member agencies for consideration and implementation.

The Town has independently adopted a Climate Action Plan in 2016 and will review that plan in conjunction with the Green House Gas (GHG) Inventory Project once complete.

Recommendations
R1: The CAC should increase the sense of urgency in implementing GHG emission reduction actions.

This recommendation will not be implemented by the Town, as it is not warranted or reasonable.

The recommendation does not indicate what timeline should be used for implementation, nor does it define what steps should be taken to “increase the sense of urgency.” The State has established specific milestones for local jurisdictions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: a 90% reduction below 1990 levels by 2035, and net zero emissions by 2045. These goals are more immediate than the 2050 net zero goal established by Federal agencies, the United Nations, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Page 6 ends

gas emission inventory, which will include specific actions that can be taken by member agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Committee has also directed staff to begin work on an Electric Vehicle Charging Station plan, to determine how the member agencies will meet the goals established by the California Energy Commission Assembly Bill 2127 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Assessment.

This recommendation will not be implemented by the Town, as it is not warranted or reasonable.

Using individual climate action plans as the basis for monitoring progress towards greenhouse gas reduction goals would require a significant level of effort due to the different timelines and methodologies used by each jurisdiction. For example, both American Canyon’s 2012 Climate Action Plan and Calistoga’s 2014 Climate Action Plan have a greenhouse reduction goal of 2020, but no goals beyond that date. The City of Napa’s 2012 Sustainability Plan has goals for 2030, 2040, and 2050, but it looks only at municipal operations and not at community sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Yountville’s 2016 Climate Action Plan has a goal of 2030, St. Helena’s 2019 General Plan has goals of 2030 and 2040, and the draft County 2019 Climate Action Plan has goals of 2030 and 2050. Beyond the lack of common timelines used, how each jurisdiction calculates emissions also varies. Different methodologies, definitions, and data sources have been used, as climate modeling has changed greatly over the past 10 years. Lastly, not all jurisdictions have action items that have quantitative reductions in emissions associated with them. Several of the plans have qualitative action items and are not clear as to how reduction goals will be achieved.

The value of a single integrated inventory is that all jurisdictions can be analyzed using the same information and modeling to create a basis for comparison, as well as the opportunity to determine how collaborative actions can gain greater reduction through effective collaboration.

Page 7 ends

R4: The CAC should restructure itself to provide authority over and accountability of its member jurisdictions.

This recommendation will not be implemented by the Town, as it is not warranted or reasonable.

The Committee is established as a collaborative effort that allows each member agency to retain local control within its jurisdiction. The Grand Jury is proposing a restructuring of the Committee to convert it into a regional climate agency, with the ability to enforce and regulate within member jurisdictions.

The Grand Jury describes “…the problem of each jurisdiction going its own way and operating on a non-collaborative course.” They advocate for the creation of a new bureaucracy, where power over climate change can be centralized and enforced. Certainly, such an approach can lead to greater and faster action. However, the Grand Jury does not discuss the disadvantages of such an approach. A regional agency would be able to enforce actions against a member agency, regardless of the fiscal or economic impact on the jurisdiction. Solutions that work in a City of 75,000 may be equally applied in a Town of less than 4,000, or a rural community where they may not be effective or relevant. Residents and businesses who may be disproportionately and adversely affected by new regulations would not have a place to appeal any decision and would not be able to directly vote for the decision makers. If this model were the most effective approach, it seems that the State would have created a centralized regulatory agency to administer climate change requirements throughout California, but that has not occurred. The sources of greenhouse gas emissions, patterns of community development, demographics, and lifestyles of communities in Napa County are very diverse. A uniform, top-down strategy to expedite action on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can lead to oversimplification and may instead impede progress by focusing scarce resources enforcing a “one-size-fits-all” solution.

Page 8 ends

has not been attempted anywhere in California. At a minimum, a great deal more thought and consideration should be applied to the question, rather the casual support given to such a radical idea by the Grand Jury.

This recommendation will not be implemented by the Town, as it is not warranted or reasonable.

The Grand Jury does not point to any evidence in their report to demonstrate that a smaller Committee would be more effective. The two examples cited in their report do not support this conclusion. The Sonoma County Climate Action Committee is similar to Napa County and has two representatives from each jurisdiction for a total of 24 members (compared to Napa’s 12 members). It should be noted that the Sonoma Regional Climate Authority, which the Sonoma Climate Action Committee advises, also has 12 members. There is no reference to a Contra Costa Climate Action Committee. It is assumed the reference in the Grand Jury report is to the Contra Costa County Sustainability Commission, which has 17 members. In addition, the Mendocino County Climate Action Advisory Committee has 15 members. Other than a passing reference by the Grand Jury to “…an ungainly body of mostly elected officials…,” the report offers no constructive criticism or facts to support their unsubstantiated recommendation.

Page 9 ends

The Town welcomes and appreciates the Grand Jury’s interest in the Town’s operations, as well as the opportunity to respond to the findings and recommendations contained in the report.

Sincerely,
________________________________
John F. Dunbar, Mayor
On Behalf of the Town Council
Town of Yountville
Town of Yountville
Staff Report
6550 Yount Street
Yountville, CA 94599
Agenda Item #: 11A
Yountville Town Council Staff Report
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Kyle Batista, Financial Analyst; Celia King, Finance Director PREPARED BY: Kyle Batista, Financial Analyst
SUBJECT:

OpenGov Online Budget Book Demonstration.

DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
The Town is now in its second year of producing an Online Budget Book using OpenGov Inc. Budgeting and Planning software.

OpenGov software is a powerful tool that:
 Streamlines the budgeting process,
 Creates an online budget book, which is becoming industry standard and highly encouraged by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA),
 Promotes transparency via citizen engagement elements that the Town can utilize to tell the story of how revenues are generated and how they are used to provide services and complete projects,
 Creates visual, customized Dashboards for staff and Town Council that deliver real-time financial information by simply logging into the portal, and  Supports the finance department when performing financial analysis and reports.

Now that both our Fiscal Year 2022/2023 online budget book and transparency portal are live, the purpose of this staff informational report and presentation is to:
 Demonstrate how Town Council, Town residents, and all other users can access and interact with the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Online Budget Book.
 Demonstrate the use of the Transparency Portal which allows Town Council, Town residents, and all other users to view real-time Town financial information simply by visiting our website.

Finance Staff firmly believes that the use of OpenGov is in-line with the Town’s Strategic Plan as it will promote transparency between the Town and its residents, public engagement, as well as ensure fiscal responsibility.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Exempt per California Environmental Act (CEQA) Guideline, Section 15061(b)(3)

FISCAL IMPACT
Is there a Fiscal Impact? No
Is it Currently Budgeted? N/A
Where is it Budgeted? N/A
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? Discretionary
Is there a Staff Resource Impact? Yes

STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL
Is item Identified in Strategic Plan? Yes
If yes, Identify Strategic Goal and Objective. Responsible Fiscal Policy: The Town maintains its fiscal health through policies designed to maximize economic opportunities, manage expenses, and ensure prudent reserves. Visionary Leadership: The Town's leadership maintains an open-minded, forward-thinking decisionmaking process. We value engagement and participation from all members of the community as we work together to create policies and plan for the future.

Briefly Explain Relationship to Strategic Plan Goal and Objective. Providing guidance to the Town Council and the community regarding how to utilize the new OpenGov software helps to encourage its use and promotes transparency.

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and File.

Town of Yountville
Staff Report
6550 Yount Street
Yountville, CA 94599
Agenda Item #: 11B
Yountville Town Council Staff Report
DATE: August 2, 2022
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: John Ferons, Public Works Director
PREPARED BY: Rosalba Ramirez, Deputy Public Works Director SUBJECT:

Project Status Update for the Joint Treatment Plant Office Modernization Project No. WW-0011

DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
The Town’s Joint Wastewater Treatment Plant Office/Control Building has been in service in its current configuration since 1977. Over time staffing levels have increased, technology has advanced and as such an office modernization project was incorporated into the Capital Improvement Program to create ADA compliant workspaces, restrooms, and locker rooms intended to modernize the space, improve workflow, and meet modern staffing needs. This CIP Project dates back to FY 19-20 and had made progress over time. This staff report will give a brief update on the project status.

Building Design and Building Permit
The Town executed a professional services agreement with Greg LeDoux & Associates Inc. to provide architectural and sub-consultant electrical engineering services for the design of the project. As of June 2022, the contract with Greg LeDoux & Associates Inc. is complete and the Town has received final architectural plans for this project. Town Public Works Staff is now preparing a building permit submittal to acquire building permits from the Town’s Planning/Building Department.

Building Construction and Bidding Documents
The construction of the project is estimated to begin, at a minimum, in summer 2023 or later. In the meantime there are numerous components of the construction & bidding documents that are actively being included the final construction estimates, project specifications, and securing additional funds for construction.

Electrical Construction Underway
The new building design requires that the existing PG&E Service get relocated. The Town discovered that the cost to relocate the electrical service is 100-percent Town responsibility, however if we were to relocate and upgrade the service, the cost is shared 50%-50% with PG&E. For either scenario the Town applied for and endured the +/- 18-month PG&E Design Application Process and finally received approval from PG&E to proceed.

The Town work to complete the increased power service is actively in construction. On March 18, 2022, the Town hired Schaefer Engineering Inc. to construct the civil site improvements required to facilitate the new electrical upgrade service. These improvements include installing electrical trenches and conduit, setting the PGE transformer concrete pad, two pull boxes, and relocating the parking lot drainage to meet the clearance requirements for the PGE facilities. The original scope also included the purchase and installation of the required electrical panel. However, due to the shipping schedule for the materials involved with the electrical panel, the Town removed this form Schaefer’s scope of work and purchased the equipment separately. The electrical panel was reviewed and approved by PGE prior to purchase and is scheduled to be delivered in December 2022. The electrical work must pass PGE inspection. PGE is scheduled to do a final inspection on the transformer pad in August 2022 and will return after December to inspect various components after the installation of the control panel.

Completing the electrical work and the PGE inspection approval is the first step required to proceed to construction for this project. While the electrical site work is in progress, we are actively completing the architectural plans in preparation for the building permit submittal and seeking alternate funding sources to cover the costs of the construction.

Funding Opportunity
The Town is actively pursuing available grant opportunities for this work that would require a potential funding match. Grants are competitive and, at times, are not available for this specific work. For this reason, the Town is also working through a low interest loan application with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that would fund the construction of the project. In order to complete the low interest loan application, we first need to complete the architectural plans and project estimate. We are currently working on both completing the loan application and completing the architectural plans.

The project is currently budgeted under the capital improvement program project number WW-0011 in the amount of $803,00. The Town anticipates having a funding source secured in 2022 and the project plans ready for construction in 2023. The construction is anticipated to be completed in 2025.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Categorically Exempt per California Environmental Act (CEQA) Guideline; Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects

FISCAL IMPACT
Is there a Fiscal Impact? Yes
Is it Currently Budgeted? Yes
Where is it Budgeted? WW-0011 Joint Treatment Plant Office Modernization Project Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? Discretionary
Is there a Staff Resource Impact? Nominal

STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL
Is item Identified in Strategic Plan? Yes
If yes, Identify Strategic Goal and Objective. Exceptional Town Services and Staff: The Town supports its talented staff who deliver high quality municipal programs and services while maintaining public infrastructure for the benefit of the community. Responsible Fiscal Policy: The Town maintains its fiscal health through policies designed to maximize economic opportunities, manage expenses, and ensure prudent reserves.

Briefly Explain Relationship to Strategic Plan Goal and Objective. Upgrading the Joint Treatment Plant Office is critical to maintaining public infrastructure for the benefit of the community and preparing the design to serve the occupants for the projected lifespan of the improvements is fiscally responsible.

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and File.

Town of Yountville
Staff Report
6550 Yount Street
Yountville, CA 94599
Agenda Item #: 11C
Yountville Town Council Staff Report
DATE: August 2, 2022
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: John Ferons, Public Works Director
PREPARED BY: John Ferons, Public Works Director
SUBJECT:

Water Conservation Update.

DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
Droughtlook
Not much time has passed since the last Town Council Meeting and the recent Phase II Water Shortage Emergency discussion. Now, as the near future will bring the hottest months of the year, the following drought conditions are currently present in Napa County and the forecast is less than optimistic:
 All of Napa County is in a D2 Severe Drought.
 This is the driest year to date over the past 128 years. Down 15.89 inches of rainfall from normal.  The National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center’s August, September & October 2022 temperature outlook predicts elevated probabilities of above-normal seasonal mean temperatures across most of the western U.S.
 A La Niña advisory remains in effect and equatorial sea surface temperatures are below average across the central and eastern Pacific Ocean. La Niña is favored to continue through the Northern Hemisphere summer, with a 62% chance in August, September & October, and probabilities from 56 to 66% chance through the Northern Hemisphere through autumn and winter, dragging the drought with it.

Conservation Report
At the time of the writing of this Staff Report the July 2022 water usage numbers were not available however they will be available and reported during the Town Council meeting August 2nd.

New Phase II Water Regulation Reminder
The newly revised rules for single-family residential customers eliminate the 450 gallons per day maximum and the two-day a week irrigation restriction requirement and now allow a simple weekly maximum water allocation of 2,350 gallons of water per week. This will allow each homeowner to manage their water use on a weekly basis.

The change is specific to residential customers and those specific items. All of the other prior Phase II Water regulations remain in place and the two-day a week irrigation rule still applies to commercial and other water customers.

As a general reminder that we are in a historic drought and to always please be ever mindful of your water use

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable

FISCAL IMPACT
Is there a Fiscal Impact? No
Is it Currently Budgeted? N/A
Where is it Budgeted? N/A
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? Discretionary
Is there a Staff Resource Impact? Nominal

STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL
Is item Identified in Strategic Plan? Yes
If yes, Identify Strategic Goal and Objective. Exceptional Town Services and Staff: The Town supports its talented staff who deliver high quality municipal programs and services while maintaining public infrastructure for the benefit of the community. Visionary Leadership: The Town's leadership maintains an open-minded, forward-thinking decision-making process. We value engagement and participation from all members of the community as we work together to create policies and plan for the future.

Briefly Explain Relationship to Strategic Plan Goal and Objective. Water conservation is a collective effort by town staff, our residents, and our business partners. The Town is seeking to maintain our quality water delivery via the public infrastructure while engaging the Town’s water customers as we work together to save our collective water resource.

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and File.

Ask questions to staff.
2022

ELECTIONS
Staff Preparing
Since the approval, the Town has:
• Launched the official Town Elections page on July 1, 2022 • Posted the Notice of Election in English and Spanish in the Town’s posting locations • Posted an add in the Yountville Sun (July 28, 2022)
• Attended training from FPPC and Netfile to prepare for distribution and collection of Nomination Papers • Held meetings with County of Napa Assessor and County Clerk John Tuteur IMPORTANT DATES REMINDER:
• August 17, 2022 – Deadline for Mayor Nomination
Papers
• August 12 (potentially 17), 2022 – Deadline for
Councilmember seats
• August 26, 2022 – Candidate Orientation in Council
Chambers
• October 10, 2022 - Vote by Mail Ballots will be
mailed to registered voters
Seats for the Election
★ Two Council Members for a
four-year term
★ One Mayor for a four-year
term – Two candidates have
submitted Nomination Papers
★ Three more residents have
pulled Nomination Papers
Other Important
Information
• CA Elections Code Sections 10220-10230 state individuals officially receive, circulate and file nomination papers for candidacy starting July 18, 2022 and closes at 5:00 p.m. on August 12, 2022
• If an incumbent fails to submit Nomination Papers by this deadline, non-incumbent candidates have until 5:00 p.m. on August 17, 2022 to file Nomination Papers
• Town Clerk staff will issue Nomination Papers during regular business hours
Staff is Here to Help
• Town Clerk staff will verify eligibility to run with the County prior to releasing Nomination Papers
• Potential candidates are encouraged to contact the Town Clerk’s Office to schedule an appointment to take out and/or file Nomination Papers • Appointments can be made by email the Town Clerk’s Office at [email protected]
• More info on the Town’s 2022 Election website:
www.townofyountville.com/elections
Any
Questions?
Town of Yountville
Staff Report
6550 Yount Street
Yountville, CA 94599
Agenda Item #: 11E
Yountville Town Council Staff Report
DATE: August 2, 2022
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Gary Bell, Town Attorney
PREPARED BY: Gary Bell, Town Attorney
SUBJECT:

Update and Discussion Regarding Fractional and Co-Ownership of Residential Real Property.

DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
At its regular meeting on July 19, 2022, the Town Council requested an update regarding business ventures promoting fractional and co-ownership of residential real property. Information was previously provided by staff at the Town Council’s April 6, 2021 meeting. This staff report provides additional background and information as requested.

Business ventures promoting fractional and co-ownership sell shares of the interest in residential real property (the interest is commonly divided into two to eight shares and the shares are sold to different owners). Coowners occupy the residential real property in a similar manner to a timeshare by booking stays in advance for predetermined time periods. For example, person(s) purchasing a one-eighth share are entitled to six, sevennight stays throughout the year, whereas person(s) purchasing a one-half share are entitled to 24, seven-night stays.

At the end of the buying process, the business venture forms an individual Limited Liability Company (LLC). The co-owners are subject to the LLC Operating Agreement, which controls the relationship between them including obligations and limitations on use, maintenance, and expenses of the residential real property. Generally, coowners have no connection with one another, and will likely not have the need to come into contact with their co-owners as the business venture manages operation of the residential real property. The business venture typically charges a fee for coordinating these efforts between co-owners.

This hybrid arrangement contains elements of ownership and tenancy, in which a co-owner acts much like a landlord when not occupying the residential real property and much like a tenant when occupying the residential real property. And occupancy may occur for periods less than 30 consecutive days.

The Yountville Municipal Code already prohibits short-term rentals for periods of less than 30 consecutive days (YMC § 17.12.010(C)(1)) and requires registration for long-term rentals (YMC § 8.08.010 et seq). The shortterm rental ordinance requires “payment” including “any form of compensation, monetary or trade of goods or services” and also prohibits “allowing the use of a private dwelling or portion thereof for less than 30 consecutive days in connection with or incidental to any other agreement, contract, or commercial transaction … .” (YMC §

17.236.010). The rental registration ordinance requires “rent or consideration” including “any form of compensation, monetary exchange, or trade of good or services, under any form of agreement, contract, or commercial transaction…” (YMC § 8.08.030.)
During the recent Zoning Code update, the Town Council added Yountville Municipal Code section 17.168.010, which states:

Vacation time-share projects are hereby prohibited within all designated land use areas in the Town of Yountville.

In this chapter, the term “vacation time-share project” shall refer to any arrangement where the use, occupancy, or possession of real property circulates among purchasers of intervals of ownership according to a fixed or floating time schedule on a periodic basis for a specific period of time during any given year, regardless of the name used to describe this method of use, occupancy, or possession.

Some jurisdictions have codified similar ordinances to expressly prohibit or regulate fractional and co-ownership of residential real property. For example, the City of St. Helena (St. Helena) recently adopted an ordinance restricting fractional or co-owned properties to specific land use zones and prohibiting these properties from all other zoning districts. The St. Helena ordinance added sections to the municipal code describing the restriction and requiring all properties sought to operate via co-ownership to obtain a conditional use permit, subject to certain requirements, a process for approval, and penalties for noncompliance. Many similar ordinances treat the use as a commercial use. In general, zoning ordinances regulate use rather than ownership of land and there are restrictions on ordinances regulating who may live together.

Legal challenges tend to focus on whether the ordinance regulates use, which is permissible, and whether the ordinance impermissibly regulates who may live together. A use involving multiple owners with shorter stays has a different impact on the home, neighborhood, Town services, and other matters properly subject to land use regulation than a use involving a single owner. There appears to be consensus, for example, that regulation or prohibition of short-term rentals is a permissible exercise of land use authority based on the impacts of shortterm use. Fractional and co-ownership of residential real property have similar impacts and are a similar use.

Regulation or prohibition of fractional and co-ownership of residential real property is a proper exercise of the Town’s land use authority. The purpose of this staff report is to provide an update to the Town Council and to provide an opportunity for discussion if the Town Council wishes to provide different or additional direction to Town staff.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Exempt per California Environmental Act (CEQA) Guideline, Section 15061(b)(3)

FISCAL IMPACT
Is there a Fiscal Impact? No
Is it Currently Budgeted? N/A
Where is it Budgeted? N/A
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? Discretionary
Is there a Staff Resource Impact? No

STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL
Is item Identified in Strategic Plan? No
If yes, Identify Strategic Goal and Objective. N/A
Briefly Explain Relationship to Strategic Plan Goal and Objective. N/A

RECOMMENDATION
Receive staff report and direct questions to staff.

Receive public comment.

Conduct Council discussion on possibly provide direction to staff.

Yountville City CouncilAugust 2, 2022

Yountville City Council
August 2, 2022