Napa County Grand Jury
• 2017-2018
• Agency Response
Napa County Grand Jury 2018-2019
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 8 findings
F1
Page 6
All responses to the 2017-2018 Napa County Grand Jury reports were completed and returned within the required timeframe.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 7
The Planning Commission and the Planning Napa County This Recommendation will not be implemented. Department continue its community outreach efforts Director of PBES with more public hearings for a 60-day period starting in January 2019
F2
Page 6
With two small exceptions, all the responses complied with §933 and §933.05 of the Penal Code: a. No response was given to R3 of the Jail Report due to a mix-up in printing of the Consolidated Report. b. The Board of Education misunderstood R2 of the Jury’s “Financial Challenges Persist at NVUSD” report and therefore failed to properly respond to the recommendation to increase district recruitment efforts. REPORT: Climate Action Report THE 2017-2018 NAPA COUNTY REQUIRED/INVITED RESPONSES (for full responses go to: GRAND JURY FOUND: RESPONDENT http://www.napacourt.com/grand-jury/reports- response%202017-2018)
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 7
The CAP should consider including incentives Napa County This Recommendation has not been implemented, starting in 2019 for carbon sequestration and Director of PBES but will be implemented in the future. woodland preservation and/or restoration projects and BOS under the guidance of the Planning Department.
F3
Page 7
There is no effort to coordinate Climate Action Napa County The Director of PBES and the BOS disagree with Plans between each of the jurisdictional communities Director of Planning this Finding. within Napa County, which complicates the ability to and BOS identify, target, and reduce GHG emissions countywide in compliance with CEQA and BAAQMD regulations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 7
The Planning Department should consider Napa County This Recommendation has been implemented. including a proposal to quantify and mitigate winery Director of Planning 7 operations GHG emissions in the next CAP draft and BOS revision expected in January 2019.
F4
Page 7
The County delayed its timeline for completion of Napa County The Director of PBES and the BOS agree with the Plan because of the legal challenges that arose Director of Planning this Finding. from the court ruling in the Sonoma County CAP and BOS lawsuit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 8
The County finalize and adopt the Napa County Napa County BOS This Recommendation has not been implemented, CAP by June 30, 2019, executing under the terms of but will be implemented in the future. the current amendment to the professional services agreement.
F5
Page 7
The existing draft CAP does not take into Napa County The Director of PBES and the BOS disagree with consideration all sources of GHG emissions, most Director of Planning this Finding. notably winery operations emissions. and BOS
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 8
As follow-up upon completion of the CAP: In Napa County This Recommendation has not been implemented, February, 2019 the Planning Department take the lead Director of Planning but will be implemented by July, 2019. to bring all the County jurisdictions to the table to discuss ways to coordinate all the existing climate change mitigation efforts in the County geographical area. We suggest each jurisdiction furnish the department (as a clearinghouse) with emissions targets and reduction results for inclusion in countywide reporting. REPORT: Emergency Alerts Lacking During Fires THE 2017-2018 NAPA COUNTY REQUIRED/INVITED RESPONSES (for full responses go to: GRAND JURY FOUND: RESPONDENT http://www.napacourt.com/grand-jury/reports- response%202017-2018)
F6
Page 7
Tools exist to measure winery GHG emissions Napa County The Director of PBES and the BOS disagree with enabling the County to include winery emissions Director of Planning this Finding. reductions in its CAP. and BOS THE 2017-2018 NAPA COUNTY REQUIRED/INVITED RESPONSES (for full responses go to: GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: RESPONDENT http://www.napacourt.com/grand-jury/reports- response%202017-2018)
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 9
The professional, coordinated and extraordinary Napa County The Napa County Executive Officer and the Board response by Napa County OES, law enforcement and Executive Officer and of Supervisors agree with this finding fire personnel, focused on saving lives and livestock, BOS resulted in minimal loss of life despite what the Napa County Fire Chief described as a "once in a lifetime" fire. THE 2017-2018 NAPA COUNTY REQUIRED/INVITED RESPONSES (for full responses go to: GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: RESPONDENT http://www.napacourt.com/grand-jury/reports- response%202017-2018)
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Page 12
There is a high likelihood that Napa County NVUSD Board of The BOE disagrees with this finding. The BOE has taxpayers will be asked to fund yet another bond Education made no indication that another bond measure is measure in order to complete the many FMP projects being considered. The finding is speculative. that will not be completed under the Measure H bond issuance. THE 2017-2018 NAPA COUNTY REQUIRED/INVITED RESPONSES (for full responses go to: GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: RESPONDENT http://www.napacourt.com/grand-jury/reports- response%202017-2018)
No recommendations for this finding