Napa County Grand Jury
• 2002-2003
• Agency Response
Response to:
Napa County Conservation
County of Napa
⚠️ 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 2
The Grand Jury finds it repugnant that an entity of Napa County sued the County itself. The taxpayers of the County and of American Canyon funded this litigation; American Canyon residents were taxed twice, both as citizens of the City and citizens of the County. Both bodies should have instructed staff to meet and consult until the need for litigation was resolved. Individual personalities on both the Board and the Council should have given way to the common good. Response — County Director of Conservation, Development & Planning: The County Director of Conservation, Development & Planning agrees with this Finding. Response — County Executive Officer: The County Executive Officer concurs with the County Director of Conservation, Development & Planning’s response. Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the County Executive Officer’s response.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 2
Future litigation between the County and its cities or other governmental bodies should be avoided at almost any cost. In the future, staff should be directed to find a solution short of litigation. Mediation between the staff of the County and the staff of the City should be required before resorting to litigation. Response ~ County Director of Conservation, Development & Planning: The County Director of Conservation, Development & Planning agrees with this Recommendation. Response — County Executive Officer: The County Executive Officer concurs with the County Director of Conservation, Development & Planning’s response. Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the County Executive Officer’s response.
F2
Page 2
The Napa County Board of Supervisors seem to be content to operate on a "status quo" basis with an invalid Housing Element, an invalid General Plan, and an invalid 1998 Airport Specific Plan. Response to 2001-02 Grand Jury Report 1 September 10, 2002 Response — County Director of Conservation, Development & Planning: The County Director of Conservation, Development & Planning partially disagrees with this Finding. While it is true that the County has a Housing Element which was decertified by HCD and an invalid 1998 Airport Industrial Area Specific Plan, (1986 version remains valid), the County’s General Plan (including the Housing Element) is not otherwise invalid. There are no statutes at the State level that require periodic updates of any elements of the General Plan, with the exception of the Housing Element. However, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) does communicate with local jurisdictions to “remind” them that their General Plans haven’t been updated in ten or more years and that updating may be worth considering. Napa County’s General Plan is in this category. Furthermore, the status of these documents as such should not be taken as evidence that the Board is “content” with the situation. On the contrary, the Board made a commitment last Fall to participate in the convening of the Countywide Land Use and Housing Strategy Committee under the umbrella of NCLOM (Napa County League of Municipalities). The committee includes two elected officials from the County and each of the five cities. It was convened in October 2001 by Assemblywoman Patricia Wiggins in response to a request by the County to seek assistance from the cities with its Housing Element problems. This process is ongoing, with eight public meetings having taken place. Specifically, given the voter initiative (Measure A) that helps guide growth management in Napa County, the Board is compelled'to place a limit on the number of residential building permits issued annually. Since that number (109) is significantly lower than the “Regional Housing Needs Determination” (RHND) imposed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) on Napa County (263), it would be impossible to achieve the ABAG goal without undoing the will of the voters regarding the rate of growth in unincorporated Napa County. However, there is a statute in the State Government Code that allows a county to reduce its “RHND” number in the event that any or all of the cities in that county are willing to absorb some of that requirement above and beyond their own RHND. Although voters - with adoption of the Agricultural Lands Preservation Initiative (Measure J) - and officials alike in each of the County’s municipalities continue to support the County’s basic land use scheme which protects agricultural and open space land and guides growth into the five incorporated cities, the consequences of these policies leave the County in a ‘bureaucratic Catch 22’ where the County is being asked to develop housing in areas directly impacting agricultural and open space lands, in conflict with a) the County’s guiding growth philosophy where housing is located in cities, b) City General Plan policies prohibiting growth on the edge of cities, and c) with LAFCO policies which promote urban development within cities. Further, the County does not control the provision of needed municipal services required. to facilitate housing projects. Therefore, ongoing negotiations continue with the individual cities to determine what each of them may require in exchange for assisting the County with “its housing problem”. The County Director of Conservation, Development & Planning believes that a certified Housing Element is the prerequisite for the update of the General Plan and the Airport Specific Plan, both of which would likely follow such an occurrence (i.e. certification) in short order. Response to 2001-02 Grand Jury Report 2 September 10, 2002 Response — County Executive Officer: The County Executive Officer concurs with the County Director of Conservation, Development & Planning’s response. Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the County Executive Officer’s response
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 4
Napa County's Board of Supervisors and its responsible agencies need to urgently address the issues raised by the invalidity of the Housing Element, and the invalidity of the General Plan. The County has hard choices to make regarding growth, development and housing and it is up to the elected officials to take stands and make policy rather than maintain their current "wait and see" attitude. Response — County Director of Conservation, Development & Planning: The | Recommendation has been implemented. As described above, there are active efforts underway between the County and the cities to solve these problems, while avoiding — or at least minimizing — compromising the basic growth and development principles that have made Napa County a special place. Response — County Executive Officer: County Executive Officer concurs with the County Director of Conservation, Development & Planning’s response. Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the County Executive Officer’s response. AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES — NAPA COUNTY
F3
Page 5
Traditional agricultural practices involving the application of toxic chemicals to soil can lead to cumulative chemical effects that contaminate the environment, threaten human health and compromise ecosystems. There is a growing trend among some County farmers that is resulting in a movement away from traditional chemical pesticides and towards a safer pest management approach. This concept of “Sustainable Agriculture” can provide agricultural product in a profitable way without creating pollution or risks to human health or environment. Sustainable Agriculture is "an integrated system of plant production practices that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs" according to the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program at the University of California, Davis. This Program was created in 1986 by CA legislature in response to concern about: Protecting human health and wildlife in rural communities; The environmental impacts of traditional agricultural techniques; Profitability and success of small and family farming operations; and Ensuring abundant, affordable and healthy farming product. Response to 2001-02 Grand Jury Report 4 September 10, 2002 Response — Agricultural Commissioner: The County Agricultural Commissioner agrees with this Finding. Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the County Agriculture Commissioner’s response.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 6
The AC Office should take the lead in encouraging Napa County farmers to learn about and implement Sustainable Agricultural concepts and techniques. Research and data available suggest that Sustainable Agricultural techniques are an important means towards prevention of the adverse effects of traditional chemical pesticides and fertilizers, while still operating profitable and productive farms. Sustainable Agriculture should be one of the subjects for the Public Awareness Week in Recommendation #4. Response — Agricultural Commissioner: The Recommendation has been implemented. The Napa County Agricultural Commissioner is a founding member of the Napa Sustainable Winegrowing Group and remains active in the group’s mission to identify and promote sustainable winegrowing practices. The Napa County Agricultural Commissioner will work with the Director of Environmental Management and the Napa County Board of Supervisors on the Public Awareness Week concept. Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the County Agriculture Commissioner’s response.
F4
Page 6
Last year, more than 2,120,000 pounds of pesticide were used in Napa County, which ranked 22nd highest in pesticide use out of California's 58 counties. This represents a 10% decrease from the prior year. This is the third straight year that Napa County has experienced decreased conventional agricultural pesticide use. Three of the top five most-used pesticides or herbicides in Napa County: sulfur, glyphosate salt and copper hydroxide, are considered relatively safe to humans. The most commonly used chemical is elemental sulfur, which many believe is relatively safe for human contact and the environment. In fact, elemental sulfur is authorized for use by certified organic farmers. However, some observers still feel that there may be long-term health risks even with elemental sulfur use. Two others in the top five, methyl bromide and simazine, are among chemicals that most concern citizen activists: e Methyl bromide is a soil sterilant in gas form used prior to planting. It has been associated with human birth defects at low doses, and its use is closely regulated under the terms of Proposition 65: the State’s Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1984. Response to 2001-02 Grand Jury Report September 10, 2002 e Simazine is a common herbicide used on grapes. It is categorized as a possible human carcinogen and endocrine disrupting chemical. It is a frequent ground water contaminant throughout the U.S. a Some vineyard managers believe that most of the useful information on effective pesticide or herbicide choices comes from local dealers, marketing agents or word of mouth from other vineyard managers, rather than from our local government agencies. Response — Agricultural Commissioner: The Agricultural Commissioner agrees in part with this Finding. Specifically, for clarification purposes, the use statistics that have been cited (2,120,000 pounds) are for calendar year 2000. The use total for calendar year 1999 was 2,347,153 pounds, a decrease from year 2000 to year 1999 of 226,925 pounds or 9.67%. (In 1998 the total use was 2,693,004 pounds. Therefore the data reflects a decrease over the three- year period of 572,776 pounds of 21.3%). While these decreases in total pounds of pesticide use reported are significant and a definite move in the right direction, in an evaluation of pesticide use, one should not focus exclusively on total pounds used. It is important to look at the relative toxicity of the pesticides being used. An increase in the total pounds of pesticide used may reflect a move by users to a lower toxicity material that is applied at much higher rates per acre. It would also disagree about methyl bromide having “been associated with human birth defects at low doses”, and simazine “categorized as a...endocrine disrupting chemical”. In reviewing toxicological data from Extoxnet or Extension Toxicology Network, Pesticide Information Profiles, (http://ace.ace.orst.edu\info\extoxnet\) there is no data to support the above referenced claims about these two substances. Extoxnet is a reputable Pesticide Information Project of Cooperative Extension Offices in Cornell University, Oregon, State University, the University of Idaho and the University of California at Davis and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University. There is no dispute regarding the acute toxicity of methyl bromide and the categorization of simazine as a groundwater contaminant. As local pesticide regulators, both of these materials are well known to use, and in fact, continue to be a priority of our local regulatory program. Response — Director of Environmental Management: The County Environmental Management Director agrees in part with the Finding. Concerning the statement “It has been associated with human birth defects at low doses” made about methyl bromide, the Department is unable to verify that statement. Concerning the statement “It is categorized....and endocrine disrupting chemical.” Made about simazine, the Department is unable to verify that statement. A search of the scientific texts and Internet sites that the Department routinely uses did not verify these two statements. Both methyl bromide and simazine are chemicals that must be used appropriately and safely, and the Department supports the move by users of these materials to less toxic alternatives. Response ~ Public Health Officer: The County Public Health Officer supports the response of the Agricultural Commissioner. With respect to the conclusion being drawn in the last paragraph, as the County Public Health Officer has no contact with either vine managers or local pesticide dealers or marketing agents, he has no basis on which to formulate an opinion regarding its correctness. Response to 2001-02 Grand Jury Report 6 September 10, 2002 Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the responses of the County Agriculture Commissioner, Director of Environmental Management, and Public Health Officer.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 8
The Grand Jury acknowledges and applauds County farmers’ efforts at reducing traditional pesticide and herbicide use. The Department of Environmental Management and The Office of the Agriculture Commissioner should consider a “Public Awareness Week” for increased dissemination of information regarding pesticide, health and clean water issues in Napa County. The Napa Board of Supervisors needs to be kept abreast of recent changes in State and Federal laws regarding use and monitoring of pesticides in our county. Response — Agricultural Commissioner: The Recommendation has been implemented. The County Agricultural Commissioner will work with the Director of Environmental Management and the Board of Supervisors on the Public Awareness Week concept. When appropriate, the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner will report to the Napa County Board of Supervisors on changes in State and Federal laws affecting pesticide use in Napa County. Response — Director of Environmental Management: The Director of Environmental Management concurs with the County Agriculture Commissioner’s response. Response — Public Health Officer: The Public Health Officer concurs with the County Agriculture Commissioner’s response. Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the responses of the County Agriculture Commissioner, the Director of Environmental Management and the Public Health Officer.
F5
Page 8
Watershed testing for ground and surface water contamination in Napa County done by State agencies over the past twelve years has shown undetectable levels of pesticide or herbicide. These tests are done on a random, unscheduled basis throughout high-risk areas in the county. State requirements vary from one time testing, annual testing or every three-year testing, depending on the chemical. Water is also tested for other contaminants, including pathogens, nutrients and sediment by these random tests. Currently the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) receives State funds of $26,000 per year plus additional tax revenues from local water districts for implementing these environmental health and safety regulations. However, neither DEM nor any other local Napa County agency is testing ground or river water for pesticide contamination at this time. According to the Director, this is in part due to DEM staffing shortages over the past several years. The State may take over the required testing in Napa County if DEM does not comply, and DEM could lose State and water district revenues for this testing. Currently, neither Sonoma nor Solano County agencies are doing local ground water testing; it is being done by the State. _ Response to 2001-02 Grand Jury Report September 10, 2002 Response — Director of Environmental Management: The County Director of Environmental Management disagrees in part with the finding. The State Funds received are for monitoring small public water systems, not for general watershed testing as stated by the Finding. In addition, permit fees are received directly from those small public water systems, but no additional tax revenues are received. These funds are directly related to the small public water systems, which are required to complete testing and monitor for a wide variety of potential contaminants. While the Department was previously seriously under-staffed in this program, it is now fully staffed and the Department is completing the monitoring and inspection program for these facilities, and is no longer in danger of losing the program and its associated revenues. Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the County Environmental Management Director’s response.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 9
Napa County DEM should comply with State requirements for chemical contaminant testing in ground and surface water at this time, and make use of the funds received for this task. Napa County DEM needs to comply or the testing should be turned over to State regulators. Response — Director of Environmental Management: The recommendation has been implemented. The Department is already meeting the State requirements for the small water system program, as stated in recent evaluations from the State office of Drinking Water. Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the County Environmental Management Director’s response.
F6
Page 9
The Agriculture Commissioner, the Director of DEM and the Napa County Public Health Officer have investigated and found that there are no reports of any serious illnesses or injuries related to pesticide use in Napa County. There have been some mild eye and skin irritations or allergic reactions of a temporary nature in some pesticide workers. - The Grand Jury finds that there is no data or evidence to link pesticide exposure with any chronic or long-term illness or injury affecting Napa County residents. Specifically, the Grand Jury finds that there is no evidence to indicate a clustering of cancer or higher incidences of cancer among residents in agricultural areas of the county or among agricultural workers. Response — Agricultural Commissioner: The Agricultural Commissioner agrees with this Finding. Response - Director of Environmental Management: Director of Environmental Management concurs with the County Agriculture Commissioner’s response. Response — Public Health Officer: The Public Health Officer concurs with the County Agriculture Commissioner’s response. Response to 2001-02 Grand Jury Report 8 September 10, 2002 Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the responses of the County Agriculture Commissioner, the Director of Environmental Management and the Public Health Officer.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Page 10
The Public Health Officer, Agriculture Commissioner, and DEM should maintain public education programs which encourage reporting and detection of both acute and chronic illness related to pesticide exposure. All reasonable requests for investigation of illness or injury caused by pesticides should be fully investigated and tracked by a joint database and good communication between all three agencies. Property owners’ requests for no pesticide use on their property should be honored. No forced spraying should be considered for areas around schools, daycare centers, hospitals, retirement homes, parks, tourist areas, medical and vet facilities, creeks and other bodies of water. Chemically sensitive persons, such as cancer patients, AIDS patients, asthmatics, and others with compromised immune systems should be notified prior to any spraying. Response — Agricultural Commissioner: The Recommendation has been implemented. County Agricultural Commissioners, in conjunction with CalEPA, Department of Pesticide Regulation, have the responsibility and authority to investigate pesticide illnesses and exposure. Current State law requires physicians who suspect pesticide illness or exposure to report these occurrences to the County Health Officer who, in turn, forwards these reports to the Agricultural Commissioner for follow-up investigation. The decisions about acute and chronic illnesses related to pesticide exposures are appropriately made by medical doctors. The Napa County Agricultural Commissioner and the Napa County Health Officer have and continue to confer on ways to improve the reporting process. The Napa County Agricultural Commissioner in conjunction with the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), have authority and responsibility for the control and eradiction of pests of significance in Napa County. This includes the authority to use pesticides when appropriate. The recent discussions surrounding the control of the Glassy-winger Sharpshooter (GWSS) in other parts of the State, led to discussions about how the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner would handle control of this devastating pest should it be introduced into Napa County. The CDFA-approved Napa County workplan described in detail the plan that would be followed in the event of a GWSS find. Specifically, this locally developed plan includes “Item K: Protocol for Effective Abatement of the Glassy-winger Sharpshooter: An Attachment to the Napa County GWSS Workplan”. This protocol allows for full disclosure to property owners and residents prior to any pesticide treatments, most likely by door-to-door communication and through properly noticed public meetings held within the proposed treatment area. In addition, the plan allows for the use of alternative pest control measures when appropriate to protect sensitive individuals, land uses and environments. Response to 2001-02 Grand Jury Report September 10, 2002 Response — Director of Environmental Management: The Recommendation has been implemented. The Department will expand their existing public education programs to include information on reporting and detection of both acute and chronic illness related to pesticide exposure. We will coordinate new outreach efforts with other County Departments and continue to coordinate appropriate targeted outreach efforts. Currently the Department has an extensive outreach program and provides operation and coordination of hazardous wastes for both households and businesses. Response — Public Health Officer: The Recommendation has been implemented. The Public Health Officer does maintain and participates in a public education program centered on local physicians. This system involves and includes local physicians, local hospital emergency rooms, statewide regional poison control centers, the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the State Department of Industrial Relations and the State Department of Pesticide Regulation. Reports of incidents are forwarded to agencies charged with investigative ‘responsibilities for action and investigations are conducted as circumstances warrant. Information from this system is maintained in a database as it is further developed and reported back. The Public Health Office maintains good communication with both the Department of © Environmental Management and the Agricultural Commissioner’s office and cooperates with them on investigations whenever asked by them for participation. The Public Health Officer supports, in as much a manner as possible respecting the rights of all individuals and businesses involved, that requests by property owners of no pesticide use be honored and that forced spraying in and around the several sites and locations detailed above not be allowed. Additionally, the Public Health Officer supports in as much a manner as possible, respecting the rights of all individuals and businesses involved, notification of chemically sensitive persons, such as cancer patients, AIDS patients, asthmatics, and others prior to any spraying by the agencies having jurisdiction over the granting of use permits, etc. Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the responses from the County Agriculture Commissioner, County Director of Environmental Management, and County Public Health Officer. AUDITOR — COUNTY OF NAPA
F7
Page 25
In last year’s NCFD Budget, there was a large surplus of revenue available at the end of the fiscal year. This is money that was not disbursed, but was “rolled over” into this year’s budget and is kept in an interest bearing Fire Protection Fund (1080). The amount of money in this fund was $3,278,727 as of 1/31/2002 according to the County Auditor. Response — County Auditor-Controller: The Auditor-Controller disagrees with the Finding. The dollars identified by the Grand Jury are not “revenues” or “rolled over” funds but the cash balance in the County Treasury for the Fire Protection Fund (1080) at January 31, 2002. The actual fund balance rolls over at the close of each fiscal year and is then available for the budget process for the new year. For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2001 the fund balance available was $1,520,968. We are estimating that the fund balance available for June 30, 2002 is $2,083,394. Response — County Fire Department: The County Fire Chief disagrees with this Finding. Each year, under the direction of the County Executive Officer, the County Fire Department develops a spending plan which is both responsible and prudent. The policy of conservative estimation of revenue and generous funding of line items such as fuel, utilities, clothing, equipment and equipment repair assures there, will be funding to accomplish our mission. It also allows for the development of a fund balance which can be utilized to maintain the program in future fiscal years if there is a decrease in anticipated revenue, or an increase in expenditures. Future year expenditure levels do not necessarily increase in a steady linear progression given variables such as equipment procurement, staffing and station requirements. _NCFD’s main source of income is property taxes, the majority of which are collected in December. In addition to taxes, revenue is derived from Proposition 172 sales tax, contracts, inspection/plan fees, rental of fire apparatus, and interest. Also included in the revenue stream each year is then projected fund balance. The fund balance is a result of factors such as higher than projected tax revenue and savings on projected expenditures. The Fire Protection Fund is analogous to a checking account within the “bank” of the County Treasurer. All revenue is deposited in this account and all expenditures are paid from it. Funds for purchases, which have been ordered, but not yet received (including those from the prior fiscal year), are contained in the account balance. The Grand Jury’s finding that the Fire Response to 2001-02 Grand Jury Report 24 September 10, 2002 Protection Fund contained $3,278,727 at the end of January also reflects the large influx of cash from the December tax payments and is entirely in keeping with an annual budget of $5,594,222. This money is not surplus; it is the operating fund of the County Fire Department. Response -— County Executive Officer: The County Executive Officer concurs with the responses from the Auditor-Controller and County Fire Chief. Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the responses from the County Executive Officer, Auditor-Controller and County Fire Chief This Grand Jury does not have the resources to examine the reasons for this surplus or to recommend a resolution to the question of excess funding in Fund 1080. The Grand Jury — recommends that the Board of Supervisors appoint a team of County staff including an auditor to look into the issue and make recommendations to the Board including changes to the MOU if necessary. Response — County Auditor-Controller: The Recommendation will be implemented if the Board of Supervisors and the County Executive Officer find it necessary. Response — County Fire Department: The Recommendation will not be implemented due to the fact that the assumptions in Finding 7 are incorrect. Response — County Executive Officer: The County Executive Officer concurs with the County Fire Chiefs response and as such does not find it necessary to implement this Recommendation. Response ~ Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the responses from the County Executive Officer, the Auditor-Controller and the County Fire Chief. PLANNING — NAPA COUNTY
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Page 34
Health and Human Services should ensure that at least one employee has sufficient training and experience in grant-writing to be able to assist the various members of the Continuum of Care in order to facilitate the receipt of additional grant monies to fund the necessary projects. Response — Napa County Health and Human Services: This recommendation is not being implemented. HHSA has done its share in bringing resources to bear on the housing and homeless problems facing the County. Historically, HHSA has relied on existing staff and, in some cases, hired grant writers in an effort to garner additional funding for any and all of our services. In many ways, this strategy has produced a better track record in the agency for receiving ongoing funding for housing and homeless services than it has for other services. Since 1996, HHSA has been a direct applicant and received funding for two out of a total of six Continuum of Care projects. HHSA has provided support, matching dollars, and/or in-kind leveraging for two of the remaining four Continuum of Care projects that have been funded to date. HHSA has also been the direct applicant for two of four projects and provided other support and in-kind leveraging for one of the remaining two projects that were submitted for funding in this year’s Continuum of Care process. HHSA has also been active in working with Progress Foundation, which has been awarded Continuum of Care funds for Skyline Apartments — a permanent housing project for the mentally ill homeless. HHSA staff have been key participants in the Continuum of Care Committee and have provided support to a number of other agencies as part of this committee work. HHSA staff took a lead role in developing a survey methodology and tabulating survey results that were an important part of this year’s Continuum of Care Gaps Analysis process. These successes have been accomplished out of existing allocated hours. Whereas more hours dedicated for grant writing would be helpful in sharing this sometimes intensive work, committing new resources when we have demonstrated success within our existing resources would not be a justifiable strategy during these conservative budget times. Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the Napa County Health and Human Services’ response. Response to 2001-02 Grand Jury Report 33 September 10, 2002
F8
Page 35
There is an ongoing problem with the homeless which requires several man-hours of city police involvement each month. Private property owners are requiring police assistance in evicting mobile homes from their parking lots. Response — Napa County Health and Human Services: Napa County Health and Human Services agrees in whole|with the Finding that this is an increasing problem. Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the Napa County Health and Human Services’ response.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Page 35
County and City agencies should undertake an investigation into the possibility of setting aside some public land where |the homeless could legally park their vehicles overnight, together with the provision of rudimentary services such as bathroom facilities. Response — Napa County Health and Human Services: This recommendation is not being implemented. Napa County Health and Human Services disagrees with this Recommendation because we do not believe that this approach will effectively address the priority needs of the special needs homeless population identified in the current Continuum of Care. We also believe that this Recommendation runs counter to Recommendation No. 6 in this Report in that it clusters (and thereby magnifies) public safety issues in one area and runs counter to current ordinances that currently prohibit this type of public camping. It would be difficult to justify setting aside public land for this purpose in light of the current needs for land for emergency, transitional, and affordable permanent housing. It is also likely to perpetuate chronic homelessness by providing tacit approval for establishing a tent, a car, or a camper as a primary residence. Response — Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the Napa County Health and Human Services’ response. Response to 2001-02 Grand Jury Report 34 September 10, 2002