New one.

Your hair looks great, Aaron.

It really does.

Okay, we can get started.

Excellent.

Good evening.

And are we ready?

Right.

Great.

Good evening and welcome to the February 5th, 2026 City of Napa regular meeting for the Planning Commission.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Ebach.

Here.

Commissioner Masaro.

Here.

Commissioner Myers.

Present.

Vice Chair Owen.

Present.

And Chair Shotwell.

Present.

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God.

Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

The Planning Commission conducts all meetings in accordance with the Ralph Milton Brown Act.

California government codes sections 549-50 et sec and pursuant to the city's rules of order for planning commission meetings.

Policy resolution 10.

Staff, any changes to this evening's agenda or any supplemental reports?

No changes.

Commissioners, any proposed changes to this evening's agenda.

Tonight, we will vote on the Planning Commission chair and vice chair.

And I just wanted to say before doing so, it has really been an interesting ride, and I've really enjoyed it.

My tenure here is in two years of being chair.

It was daunting but um rewarding, and it would be my honor to nominate vice chair Owen as chair and vice and commissioner as vice chair.

Um, but I am open to other nominations if needed.

Do we have any other nominations?

No, second.

All in favor.

I great, thank you.

Thank you.

Enjoy.

I just want to do this one last time.

But we're not adjourned.

Do we switch?

We switch now.

Yeah, so you'll immediately switch and then we might need a lesson on this a little bit.

This should be the script.

Oh, yes, I'll give it to you.

So we're right.

We just finished this.

So we'll start.

We'll start with public comment.

Okay.

Oh great.

Do we have anybody here from the public that wishes to say anything?

Okay, public comment provides an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the planning commission on items of interest not otherwise noted on the agenda.

Each speaker's comments will be limited to three minutes and will comply with the rules of order for planning commission meetings.

Do we have any members of the public who wish to provide public comments on non-agenda items?

Oh, I thought, I'm sorry, I said we do because I thought she was here to provide comment.

That's okay.

Do I need to even open comment or do we just close comment?

Alright, the consent calendar.

These routine items may be approved by a single vote.

However, any member of the public or commissioner may remove an item for consideration during the public hearing portion of the agenda.

This evening we are reviewing the planning commission regular meeting minutes for December 18th, 2025 and December 15th, 2026.

Do I have a motion to approve the minutes for December 18th, 2025?

So moved.

All those in favor?

Second.

Did I have a second first?

Second.

Second.

Um I will abstain from January 15th, but I approve December 18th.

Wait, we're sorry, we're doing both of them at the same time.

Sure, we could do both at the same time.

No, we'll have to have two separate motions.

I was doing just December 18th.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

So I abstained from December 18th.

Perfect.

All right.

So all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Approved.

And now a motion to approve the meeting minutes for January 15th, 2026.

Do I have a motion?

So moved.

And do I have a second?

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Abstain.

Abstain.

All right.

Bear with me.

This is new.

Um consent hearings.

We have no consent hearings.

Public hearings appeals, none of those.

Administrative reports.

Administrative report items include reports and recommendations from city staff that do not require a public hearing prior to action by the commission.

The commission may take action if the agenda description provides for it.

Only the planning commission may authorize public input for these items.

It is within the discretion of the chair and commission to allow public testimony.

Tonight we have item 8A, annual review of policy resolution number 10, Ralph M.

Brown Act, and conflict of interest laws.

We will now hear a report from staff.

That would be me, Dan Deporto.

I've uh I've taken the uh reports from the past and tried to summarize them and make them a little shorter.

Um the review is on policy resolution number 10, uh the Brown Act and the applicable conflict of interest laws.

Let's see, I have a little device here.

There we go.

So uh it seems to me appropriate to point out that the goal of all these things is to foster public trust and confidence because as we get into um what the rules are, there are so many rules, we couldn't go over them all here.

But it helps me when I think about trying to make sense of all the laws and rules things to understand if I excuse me, if I need to decide what the appropriate rule is, it always helps me to understand what the goal is, the underlying goal.

And for all three of these uh items that we're gonna review, uh the underlying goal is to foster public trust and confidence in government, right?

So as you go through your uh you know your practice as a commissioner, if you're thinking what do I need to do here, what's the right uh approach, is this consistent with the Brown Act, or or do I have a conflict?

It always helps to think, well, you know, what's the underlying purpose here?

And that usually helps me find the right answer.

So in this case, uh the way that these three items achieve that goal is uh with respect to policy resolution number ten.

Uh it uh it requires government officials in this case the commissioners to follow certain rules and procedures.

The uh it applies to you as individuals, right?

Uh with respect to the Brown Act, it requires that government be conducted in the open.

That's the underlying thing.

And uh I hope that as we go through this and we'll go through it as quickly as I possibly can, uh, that you'll see that you know the uh everything is about making sure that government is not done in secret.

And the same and with respect to conflict of interest laws, uh, it applies to individual government officials to make sure that they're acting in the public interest and not out of their own self-interest, so starting with policy resolution number 10.

By the way, um, does everyone have a copy of policy resolution 10?

Uh I've read it uh several times, and I've been asked many questions from commissioners and staff, and most of the time when I go to look for the answer, I find it in there somewhere, right?

So uh I mean for example, Alex, I think you asked uh me a couple of meetings ago about whether a motion was necessary to open and close public hearing.

Uh I think so.

Yeah, do you recall that?

And I never got back to you.

Here I am getting back to you.

I'm wondering.

Yeah, I'm sure it was keeping you up at night.

Um, a motion is not required.

The chair can open public hearing, but a motion is supposed to be required to close the public hearing.

Uh so uh the chair has broad authority to govern the meeting, the new chair.

But when it comes to closing public hearing, that should be done by uh, you know, a motion second and a vote.

Uh other questions come up about how to make motions, how to recuse, things like that.

Pretty much everything is in policy resolution number 10.

Uh so anyway, uh policy resolution number 10 applies to rules for conduct, uh individual conduct as well as group conduct.

Uh as commissioners, the the two primary sort of rules are to conduct yourself with professional respect and civility, and to attend each meeting and be prepared to fully discuss all the items on the agenda.

And you know, there are various aspects of that that go into a lot more detail that's in that policy resolution.

So uh, one thing that I'd like to mention just as kind of tearing from what Dan has to say is it's really important from staff as far as expectations for attendance, um, relates to conflict of interest to be notified early in advance because when we prepare agenda forecasts, put projects on agendas and comply with all noticing requirements.

Some of those, especially as it pertains to residential projects, we have very tight timelines that we have to meet.

And so if we're not aware of maybe a conflict or an absence until soon before the meeting, it it kind of puts us in a predicament, and at times can't we can run into legal implications if we don't have the ability to process it.

So if anything to reiterate what he said, um when we're doing agenda forecast, they have any questions about projects, tentative timelines or projects kind of on the horizon, feel free to reach out to staff if you have a question about conflicts.

So again, uh individual conduct, group conduct, which are the procedures for meetings, uh order of business for meetings is described in detail.

Uh how the how the meetings are conducted, the uh uh authority of the chair is set forth in some detail.

Uh everything you need is pretty much in sections eight, nine, and ten of policy resolution number ten.

If you have any questions about that, I'm gonna move on to the Brown Act, but if you have questions, you know, feel free to interrupt me and ask.

I don't want to try to go into detail about everything that you can open policy resolution number 10 and look at.

Uh the Ralph M.

Brown Act, and I have to credit Beverly for telling me that it's the Ralph M.

Brown Act.

I always called it the Brown Act before she uh she enlightened me as to that.

So uh again, these are rules to ensure uh that government is conducted in the open.

Uh and the primary way that's done is to require government officials to deliberate and to act in the open before the public and not in secret.

Uh and so all commission deliberations and actions have to occur in the context of a duly noticed public meeting.

And except in a duly noticed public meeting, commissioners are prohibited from communicating with one another in a way that would cause them to deliberate or discuss items that are within the commission's jurisdiction.

So that is in a nutshell what is required, and then there, of course, are a thousand variations on how to comply or not comply with that.

Many of which, again, are in policy resolution number 10.

Uh the but the rules are basically that you know you're not allowed to meet for lunch, and three of at least three of you I should say, you know, it applies the rule is that a majority of the commission cannot meet.

So uh I think just as a matter of perception, it it's good practice not to meet even if it's not a majority of the commission and to meet and discuss, you know, too informally these kinds of things because that could lead to what is called a serial meeting.

Um does everyone understand the concept of a serial meeting?

Okay, so I don't need to go into that.

But uh those are basically the the two big rules, right?

Everything has to be done in a meeting, and you can't have serial meetings, and serial meetings can occur when you know Beverly talks to Alex and then Alex talks to Lindsay, and suddenly you've decided on some action at the commission that you haven't acted on in public.

They could also happen if you're talking to someone who's not a commission member, you know, an applicant or someone some member of the public who's playing a game of telephone, basically, right?

And you're talking about commission actions.

So, you know, no informal meetings.

There are, you know, civil and criminal penalties for these sorts of things.

You're probably aware of that, and nobody wants to be faced with those sorts of things.

So uh there are some exceptions to the rule of to the sort of informal meeting rule where three commissioners, you know, uh are not supposed to be meeting.

Uh these exceptions again are in the uh policy resolution, but uh I'll run through them quickly.

Um if you're attending a conference and three or four members of the commission there uh are there and it it's uh of general interest, you know, then you're not prohibited from talking about uh topics that are relevant to the conference, but you don't want to wind up having the conversation lead into items that the commission is gonna come before the commission.

That would be a violation of the Brown Act.

Uh commissioners are uh allowed to attend meetings of the city council and things like that.

You know, you could of course all attend meetings and discuss those items there.

Uh social events, you know, you're not told you can't all attend the same social event.

Uh I'm guessing there may be one tomorrow night that will uh, you know, be attended by more than three commissioners, no violation of the Brown Act there, as long as we don't see you in the corner, you know, whispering and talking about items that are gonna come before the commission.

Uh there were a number of, you may have heard that there were there was a big piece of legislation that uh had to do with reform of the Brown Act this year.

Uh and all those reforms, none of them apply to these fundamental Brown Act restrictions on your conduct, you know.

They relate to things like how to conduct teleconferences, um a lot of it was updating to bring these meeting laws into the 21st century, you know.

Uh but I've looked at it and I don't see anything that relates to the fundamental prohibition on uh, you know, restriction to meetings and prohibition on informal meetings and serial meetings, so there's nothing there as far as I can tell that uh needs to be updated with respect to those kinds of violations, and I'd be happy to look at it further if you have questions about it, but uh I don't think it relates to your conduct really, so uh any questions on Brown Act because I'm going to leave that topic to now.

I I just have oh I have a couple unless someone would like to ask something first.

Uh so a couple of things.

Uh do you know whether the revisions have um I I'm not on social media by the way I'm but I know it came up that um that there may be a big conflict if if people are on social media and they like tag something that is related to an agenda item either past or future.

Yeah I don't think that the reforms uh address that specifically but the risk of using social media is related to the risk of having a serial meeting right where you've communicated with someone uh on the commission and you use social media back and forth and two or three of you have talked and suddenly you have a serial meeting where um you're not conducting you know the commission's business in the context of a public duly noticed meeting that's how that um problem typically arises the other question I had is I've always been apprehensive to uh talk too much about items that we've already voted on and have moved to city council until they've been voted on by city council because I've I've always wondered could could something come back to us um before it was the whatever agenda item that may be in question or up for the vote on city council could anything ever come back to us.

Uh make sure I understand it's the question whether if something that the commission has approved and approved and recommended um you know to forward a recommendation to city council and then we start we so we voted let's say we voted and it was majority and then we're all like celebrating that was you know I'm so glad wow great conversation you know after the fact and then it goes to city council and is there ever a possibility of it coming back to us.

After the council has acted the count council has acted on sure I'm so is that I mean so that it that would that would just it makes me think that well then should we ever talk about anything at after we've already voted.

The way the I mean the most common way and I'm not sure I can think of another way that it would come back is if the council acted in a way that sent it back to the planning commission you know maybe they if there was some sort of action like say a development agreement was presented uh and commission recommended approval it went to the city council and they modified their approval or they wanted to approve but wanted to make changes to the DA in a way that weren't considered by the planning commission.

Right.

Well in that case since it's a DA it has to go to planning the it has you know has to go to planning commission and then council and if they change it then it's not the same DA that was not the same got it will be right okay that makes complete sense because if it comes back to us there will it it comes back with some type of re like revision.

Yeah yeah and that would apply to like a general plan or specific plan.

Any approval that is required to go to Planning commission and city council uh can't be changed in the meantime without having to go back I'm I shouldn't say it can't be, but can't be substantially changed in a way that uh you know otherwise it has to go back to planning commission.

Okay, thank you.

I mean, there can be revisions, but it would minor.

Right.

So we wouldn't we I totally I'm clear.

Crystal clear, thank you.

Yeah, of course.

Uh other Brown Act stuff or no?

Uh conflict of interest, everybody's favorite topic, I'm sure.

Um so there's basically two kinds.

There are lots of different laws again that prohibit conflicts of interest.

There's basically two kinds financial conflicts and non-financial conflicts, right?

And there are government code provisions that uh prohibit financial conflicts of interest.

The three kinds you probably or the two kinds I should say, relating to financial interest that you probably heard about, or government code 1090, which prohibits uh someone interested in a contract from influencing or voting on that contract, uh and then there's political reform act uh prohibitions that are broader than that, and actually Political Reform Act kind of encompasses the uh government code 1090, but uh political reform act uh addresses not only contracts but uh conflicts of interest that may arise from relationships with sources of gifts or income, you know, uh you can't vote on something from an applicant who is your employer, for example, as a source of income, or someone who has given you gifts uh of a certain value, uh I think it's still around $500 a year, um uh or if the uh decision relates to real property that you own uh it has to be specifically related, and uh Commissioner Ebach, I uh Ryder told me that you may have a question about this.

Um also uh you business investments of yours, if uh if you have an investment in a company and the company is an applicant before you, then you know that would be a financial interest.

Uh the other thing to keep in mind about financial interests is it could be a financial interest of your spouse or dependent, that could be attributed to you and give rise to a conflict that could be disqualifying, right?

Um so uh with respect to the real property, uh writer correct me if I'm wrong, or actually, Commissioner Ebach, you could.

Um my understanding was you have property that may be within 500 feet of certain applications that will be coming to the commission.

Uh no, so I I'm looking for clarification on um the definition of how how it is interpreted, um like financial interest in a property, because I rent where I live, and I've seen different interpretations of this in some cases.

Um I think it relates in part to the length of the lease from what I've seen.

Uh yeah, the unfortunately uh poor use of languages, laws are not always well written, as I'm sure we all know.

Um the law itself uses the term leasehold interest can give rise to that kind of conflict, but um month-to-month leases are have been determined not to count, not to like your your monthly residence if you have a month-to-month lease, that's not a disqualifying uh conflict of interest.

Now, having said that, if you had a month-to-month lease, uh, and the applicant, the property was within 500 feet, you know, that wouldn't necessarily be a disqualifying conflict, but you could have a non-financial interest, the other type that uh, you know, I mentioned, right?

So uh if for some reason you were opposed to the project because you believe it was inappropriate in the neighborhood, you know, or there were other effects of the project that you were opposed to, and you didn't think that you could be impartial, then you would be prudent to consider or to recuse yourself from that.

And you know, these conflict determinations they're on you guys to make, right?

And it uh it's up to you to determine whether the conflict that you feel like you may have is a disqualifying conflict or not.

Uh and there are lots of sources where you can go to talk to, you know, uh le the city attorney's office, obviously, but FPPC, uh, other places that um provide guidance on this, but in the end, you know, you're the one who has to determine for yourself whether that's uh disqualifying conflict of interest, and fair or unfair, if you get it wrong, you could be subject to civil or criminal liability, right?

So um uh it it makes sense to reach out and investigate these things if you feel like you may have a problem.

Um, can you clarify what you mean by month-to-month lease?

Uh do you mean like the a lease where you pay the rent on a monthly basis and uh where the well it I will tell you this is my interpretation, right?

Uh and I haven't seen anything in the cases or in the law that spells it out with great clarity, but in my view, if you have like a a three-year lease requires payment on a month-to-month basis, and you have like a 30-day right to to get out, or they have a right to give you a 30-day notice, excuse me.

That's month-to-month lease.

Okay, so it's not okay, got it.

I was thinking like the term of the lease agreement.

That's not what you're talking about.

No, no.

Got it.

Thank you.

And again, I mean, that's my interpretation.

If you had a 25-year lease, you know, that had rights of uh termination in the middle, uh that would be um I guess a factor in determining whether you had a conflict, I think that that would still not, you know, change.

I think that when they had when they put the word leasehold interest in the law, they were talking about more commercial kinds of leases and things like that that really almost are like, you know, the equivalent of fee title in the property, right?

You know, that give you a you know, because you see 100 year leases, 50 year leases.

My interpretation is that those are the kinds of leases, leasehold interests that were intended to give rise to the kinds of conflicts that could give rise to criminal liability, right?

Um and in this case, I I likely will still recuse myself because of like the the perception that I could have um impacts on me based on the impact of the development, but that's helpful clarification.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I uh and I'm glad you said that actually, because that relates to the the next point about the non-financial interest, uh that extends even to like an appearance of impropriety, right?

If if the public believes that uh or or if it would be reasonable for someone in the public to think, you know, well, you you could have a bias here, even though you know in your heart and in your head that you know whatever this the the factor is that's giving rise to this potential conflict is not present for you, um if it's reasonable for someone in the public to think that you may have a bias, then you should probably think about whether you know it makes sense to recuse or abstain um so lots to think about for you guys there but uh okay so uh let's see what to do if you have a conflict you recuse right uh you recuse yourself from uh the m the item on the agenda and you make no attempt to influence the decision at all right um and recusal process is pretty simple again it's laid out very clearly in policy resolution number 10 um you uh after the chair has introduced the item you identify your you know your uh interest that gives rise to the conflict uh if the item is not on the consent calendar then you have to leave the room if it's on the consent calendar you just leave the dais and uh but you don't have to leave the room and then again you don't participate in the vote or to try to influence the vote at all and as usual there are exceptions to the rule about influencing the vote uh limited exceptions if uh if you're a design professional I know there are design professionals here and you have a client and you've been retained to prepare designs uh then you can do that and you can talk to staff you know and you can uh appear at a hearing and you know explain and discuss the designs and answer questions right in in the capacity of your uh professional work uh and representing your client uh you of course you're not going to vote on the you know the matter right uh the other exception to the rule is you can appear at a public hearing as a member just in your own capacity as a citizen right as just as a member of the general public you can't represent anyone else but you know if there's a matter that you've been conflicted out of but you have you want to appear and voice your interests in your capacity as a citizen then you're allowed to do that First Amendment right basically so Dan just to clarify on number one behalf and if you're in the design profession you can talk as it says up there you can talk to the city staff regarding all your documents and things like that but when it actually comes to your presentation in front of the commission you're not allowed to present to the commission no you can't excuse me.

You can appear as the applicants or design professional but yeah I'm you know these are squishy right yeah you know so you have to be careful what you're saying right you know uh but of course if you're the engineer or the designer or whatever the commission may have questions for you about it you know and uh I think you know one of the well did you know Bob was on the commission.

And um when our projects came through we typically go and we meet with each of the commissioners we meet with city council and whatnot.

But he would never do those meetings.

Right?

And so that's something I would never do.

I would send someone else to do those meetings.

Yeah uh the the rules explicitly say that partners, business colleagues are not prevented from doing that.

You know.

And so I mean, I understand that that.

That's the prudent thing to do, right?

I think.

But but there is a tension with, you know, uh I don't want to say it's I mean, there's a tension with the First Amendment, actually, you know, and so I I would follow I think yours and Bob's practice.

But um, I think that's the right way to tell you that.

To do that, right, yeah.

But I think that's the right way to do that.

Yeah.

Yeah, okay.

Very good.

Thank you.

I think that's clear.

Question to others.

Oh, okay.

Well, uh, I think I said this already, but if you do have questions, I mean, it I can't urge you strongly enough to, you know, talk to someone if you feel like you have a conflict, because frankly the repercussions could be serious, right?

So I mean, in most cases, they're probably not, but you never know, and politics can be a dirty business, you know.

So um, you know, you've got the city attorney's office that you can talk to uh the FPPC uh has two avenues for advice.

You can get informal advice and you can log on to their website and they will communicate with you and answer questions and things like that.

Uh and you can get an informal opinion from them that can be very helpful.

But if you want formal advice, there is a separate process that you need to go through.

Again, it's on the website, and if you get a formal FPPC opinion, that will immunize you against criminal or civil life.

I think it's both liability.

So if the you know if you had a serious issue and you were worried about it, it would probably be worth getting a formal FPPC opinion.

But it it takes a while.

It does take a while, yes.

Have you been through that process?

Just once.

Really?

Yeah, okay.

I have not, so uh, real pain.

How long?

I think it was I mean around a month.

Which is tough if you don't have enough.

Yeah, right.

No, because it always comes up at the last minute, right?

Um it's actually not as long as I thought, but it was a while, it could have been longer, but that's my recollection.

Uh uh anyway, the also the institute for local government uh the website is up there, uh, is a pretty useful place.

They have a lot of information about conflicts of interest, so uh that could be very helpful.

Uh I think oh I was gonna say I think I've come to the end, but I haven't, so um, there are two uh a couple of other things I wanted to mention.

Uh the city charter has a prohibition that uh on accepting gifts.

Uh it's section 103.

Uh you can't accept gifts from a single source that exceed 460 dollars in a year.

I'm not sure whether that's gone up or not, but um that was the last uh publication of the charter.

And of course, you can't accept gifts from a person who's doing business with or seeking to do business with the city.

Uh I you know, these again are kind of common sense, you know.

I learned everything in kindergarten.

I need to know, you know, if you think hard enough.

Uh the uh the government code requires that you undergo by annual ethics training.

Every two years you have to certify to the city clerk that you've done this.

I this was actually news to me, but um not having been a commissioner, I didn't know that.

So you're supposed to certify to the city clerk every uh what is it within 60 days of becoming a commissioner and then every two years, and then within 60 days of departing as a commissioner.

You know, quizzical look is make me.

I don't know what the penalty is, but uh uh I said it and there it is.

So uh and then every I don't know if you fill out form 700s, okay.

Everyone knows about that, so uh anyway.

I think that brings me to the end.

So any questions?

Any questions for staff?

No, thank you.

Thanks for sitting through it.

The planning commission requires no formal action.

Are there any additional questions or comments for staff?

Is this number nine?

No, that was number four for eight.

Oh, now moving on to number nine.

Are there any comments by commissioners and or staff?

Beverly, thank you for two exceptional years as the chair, really wonderful job, and I think we all enjoyed your chairperson ship very much.

Wow, thank you.

That's very kind.

And I um as I had mentioned, it it really is daunting, but and it literally took six to eight months for me to understand my take on it and what I can contribute, you know.

So it's individual.

In my opinion, it's individual for each chair.

Everyone does it differently, and um I couldn't be happier with our band.

We've rocking it.

Well, it was a pleasure sitting next to you the last year and learning what I could, but bear with me as I get my footing.

Um I do truly appreciate your confidence and support in nominating me for chair, and I'm grateful to work alongside such thoughtful commissioners.

Um, and I look forward to continuing our work together in serving our community here in EPA.

So thank you.

Any other comments?

Well, just um I echo as Alex thanked you, Beverly, for your service the last year.

Um, it's been really good for me to be up here with this group of people, and um you especially, and you also and the rest of you guys too.

So I appreciate that.

I look forward to this coming year.

Thank you.

All right.

With that, oh, the next regularly scheduled meeting for the I do have oh, you have one update actually.

A planning manager, staff response, tentative agenda schedule projects.

Yes, I do have uh quick update to go through, but I'll echo what the fellow commissioners have said, and congratulations on your two years as chair, now commissioner shotwell.

Also, congratulations to Chair Owen and Vice Chair Myers.

I look forward to the the growth within those roles and the the confidence that you build over time of it making decisions within your roles.

But yes, um, we've heard an interest from the commission just to provide kind of a tentative schedule of projects on the horizon just to kind of gauge the pulse.

Sometimes it's an interest of planning out your year.

Um, and so with the agenda forecasts on the horizon next planning commission meeting tentatively scheduled.

We have the general plan annual progress report and housing element annual progress report.

Um Angela, planner in our office is working very diligently on those numbers and it's taking a lot of time for her to work on that.

So we should have that to present to you as admin reports for next planning commission meeting.

As far as the March, um, beginning of March, we don't have anything scheduled for that planning commission meeting, but we do have a relatively busy schedule um tentatively for the second meeting in March.

Um if it helps at all, a lot of the times the the project files are the address for the project, and I know that's helpful.

Um what we can commit to is if we don't have the address listed on the files to list the address as well.

If it helps in any way determining whether there's a conflict or not, and um as you plan kind of your individual schedules.

Um one thing I'd like to mention too on Tuesday this week, Zinfotel subdivision was approved by City Council unanimously.

Um so if you haven't watched that yet and go back and watch the recording for Zinfantel subdivision, well received.

Um definitely was not the most popular project of the night.

There was a Lincoln Avenue discussion that um filled the council chambers.

As far as April, we don't have anything tentatively scheduled yet, but that was subject to change.

Um, one other update to provide as far as comprehensive zoning update, we're likely check kind of tracking to have a screen check draft of the zoning ordinance update for public review around spring.

We don't have a set date for that yet.

Um so no set dates for um workshops or subsequent hearings.

Ultimately, overall timeline still tracking for the fall for for full adoption.

So um, you know, if you have any questions, always available.

I want to just say thank you because getting the responses uh uh in terms of how things went with city council is so helpful because oftentimes I have every intention of watching it or at least following up, and so thank you for that.

And um, this advanced forecast of what's ahead is is also so very helpful.

Thank you.

And always open to feedback too if you're looking for any regular updates.

Okay, I do have a question about next month's uh training.

Has any decisions been made about which commissioners are gonna be able to go?

Not yet, but we'll we'll keep you updated on that.

All right, the next regularly scheduled meeting for the planning commission of the city of Napa is February 19th, 2026.

This meeting is adjourned.