[00:01] Speaker 1: Welcome to this meeting of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. To assure civility in public meetings, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, staff, and public agree to engage in respectful dialogue that supports freedom of speech and values diverse opinions. To achieve this, we collectively commit to creating a respectful atmosphere free of personal attacks, welcoming feedback on and criticism of county policies, programs, or board actions, following the designated speaking time, and using language and conduct that are not threatening, abusive, profane, or hostile. To make public comment, please form a line behind the podium at the designated time of the board item or agenda section. If your comment violates the commitment to civility and disrupts the meeting, attendees may lose their speaking time and may also be asked to leave the chambers. To make a public comment in Zoom, please raise your hand in the app at the designated time for the board item or agenda section. To do so, click the hand icon at the bottom of the screen. If you are joining the meeting via phone, press star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand. If your comment violates the commitment to civility and disrupts the meeting, attendees may lose their speaking time and may also be asked to leave the chambers or be removed from Zoom. Spanish interpretation is available in person and through Zoom. Attendees in chambers are invited to take a headset from the basket at the entrance of the chambers. To turn on the headset, press and hold the power button until the light turns red. If a commenter is speaking in Spanish, English-speaking attendees may also use the headsets to hear the interpretation in English. Before leaving the chambers, please return used headsets to the basket by the exit door. To use interpretation services in Zoom, click the globe icon at the bottom of your device's screen and select Spanish. If during any public comment a speaker is speaking in Spanish, English-speaking participants may click the interpretation globe and select English to hear the interpretation of the comment from Spanish to English. Thank you for helping us facilitate a respectful and constructive meeting. Bienvenidos a la reunión de la Junta de Supervisores del Condado de Sonoma. Para garantizar el respeto mutuo en las reuniones públicas, la Junta de Supervisores del Condado de Sonoma, el personal y el público se comprometen a mantener un diálogo respetuoso que apoye la libertad de expresión y valore la diversidad de opiniones. Para lograrlo, nos comprometemos colectivamente a crear un ambiente respetuoso, libre de ataques personales, abierto a comentarios y críticas sobre las políticas, los programas o las decisiones de los supervisores, respetando el tiempo asignado para el comentario y utilizando un lenguaje y una conducta que no sean amenazantes, abusivos, profanos u hostiles. Para comentar en persona, forme una fila detrás del podio cuando se llame el tema de la agenda. Para comentar por Zoom, levante la mano en la aplicación cuando se llame el tema de la agenda y haga clic en el icono de la mano al pie de la pantalla. Si participa en la reunión por teléfono, marque asterisco 9 en el teclado para levantar la mano. Si su comentario viola el compromiso de respeto mutuo y perturba la reunión, es posible que pierda su turno al micrófono, que se le pida retirarse de la sala o que sea expulsado de Zoom. Hay servicios de interpretación al español en persona y en la plataforma de Zoom. Los participantes en la cámara pueden tomar audífonos de la canasta en la entrada de la cámara. Para prender el audífono, mantenga presionado el botón hasta que la luz se ponga roja. Si un participante habla en español, los participantes que hablan inglés también pueden utilizar los audífonos para escuchar la interpretación en inglés. Antes de retirarse de la cámara, por favor devuelva los audífonos a la canasta al lado de la puerta de salida. Para usar los servicios de interpretación en Zoom, haga clic en el icono del globo al pie de la pantalla. Si no lo ve, haga clic en los 3 puntos dentro de un círculo y seleccione Spanish, español. Si alguien se dirige al público en español, los participantes que hablan en el inglés pueden hacer clic en el icono del globo y seleccionar English, inglés. Inglés, para escuchar la interpretación al inglés. Gracias por ayudarnos a facilitar una reunión respetuosa y constructiva.
[04:36] Speaker 2: Good morning. I'm calling this meeting to order for Tuesday, November 3rd, which also happens to be Election Day. Don't forget, the ballots close at 8, and be sure to have your vote counted. Uh, Clerk, would you like to do our roll call, please?
[07:14] Speaker 3: Yes. Supervisor Rabbit?
[07:19] Speaker 4: Here.
[07:20] Speaker 3: Supervisor Corsi?
[07:21] Speaker 5: Here.
[07:22] Speaker 3: Supervisor Gore?
[07:23] Speaker 6: Here.
[07:24] Speaker 3: Supervisor Hopkins?
[07:25] Speaker 2: Present.
[07:26] Speaker 3: Chair Hermosillo?
[07:27] Speaker 5: Here.
[07:28] Speaker 3: County Executive Guehen?
[07:29] Speaker 1: Here.
[07:30] Speaker 3: County Council Myers?
[07:32] Speaker 7: Here.
[07:32] Speaker 3: Thank you.
[07:34] Speaker 2: Thank you. And I want to remind our attendees about our commitment to civility, which played as part of a video before we came out to chambers. Any public comment that violates our commitment to civility or that falls outside of the board's jurisdiction will result in forfeiting your time and may limit your ability to comment for the rest of the meeting. I'm delegating to the clerk of the board the authority to mute commenters when their remarks do not comply with our commitment to civility. Due to an increase in discriminatory statements during public comment and our obligation to provide a discriminatory-free work environment under California law, your public comment will be forfeited at the first discretionary statement. Please consider this your only warning. I also want to note that the video provided information on how to access our meeting from— there's headsets in the back of the chambers from Spanish to English and English to Spanish. You can also pop in and say hi to Mr. Newman and thank him for being here. He could help with Those said headsets. Now we'll move on to public comment on items number 1 and 2. If you're in chambers and would like to provide comment— public comment on closed session items 1 or 2, please line up at the podium. Seeing no one race to the podium, is there anyone online?
[08:55] Speaker 3: Thank you, Chair. There are no hands raised.
[08:57] Speaker 8: Thank you.
[08:59] Speaker 2: We will now adjourn to closed session, and we will be back at 10 AM. Thank you.
[43:56] Speaker 9: Celebrating, but we also know there's work to do. Too many of us can't afford to stay. Our roads have seen better days. The climate is changing. The decisions we make now will determine where we go from here. That's why we've launched General Plan Sonoma, an update to the county's long-range plan for our economy. Communities grow and change over time. It shapes the things that touch your everyday life, whether you can find a home you can afford, how long your commute takes, where your kids can play, what happens to that farm down the road, and what Sonoma County looks and feels like for decades to come. Last year, thousands of community members helped get things started, sharing what they love about where they live, what's missing, and their hopes for the future. That input will help to shape what comes next. General Plan Sonoma brings together community input, data, and thoughtful planning so the decisions ahead reflect who we are and where we want to go. Sonoma County is what it is because of this landscape and everyone who has made a life here. General Plan Sonoma is a rare chance over the next 3 years to come together and decide where we go next.
[45:04] Speaker 1: Ah, nothing beats enjoying Sonoma County's regional parks with a good hike. Or a walk.
[45:17] Speaker 4: Or a run.
[45:18] Speaker 1: Or a ride. Or a ride. When you're out on the trail, always yield to those traveling uphill or in a wheelchair. Cyclists yield to foot traffic. And everyone yields to hoof traffic. And if you're out with your best friend, just keep them on a leash and under your control at all times. Our trails are designed to keep you safe and preserve the environment, so always stick to the path to avoid damaging native habitats.
[46:01] Speaker 9: Doran Regional Park is in the coastal community of Bodega Bay, about 90 minutes from both San Francisco and Sacramento. It's surrounded by Bodega Harbor on one side and Bodega Bay on the other. The wide sandy beach is about 2 miles long and faces south, so it's more protected than other Sonoma Coast beaches. That makes This makes it one of Sonoma County's most popular parks and a great destination for families. Some of the most common activities are simply to enjoy a walk on the beach or to play in the sand. It's also an ideal place for picnicking, kite flying, boogie boarding, kayaking, bird watching, and camping.
[46:43] Speaker 1: Hello.
[46:48] Speaker 9: There are over 100 tent and RV campsites available year-round. There are a lot of important things to know about camping here and reserving a site, so please visit our website for more information. The park also has a boat launch for ocean fishing, and you can fish or crab off the rock jetty. Doran is dog-friendly as long as dogs stay on leash. Pedestrians are welcome to ride designated sections of the beach. The park has an ADA-accessible kayak launch, and all-terrain wheelchairs are available at no charge. It's easy to visit adjacent parks from Doran. The Bird Walk Coastal Access Trail is connected to the park and offers a 1-mile loop around a biodiverse salt marsh that is a critical stopover on the Pacific Flyway bird migration route. Pinnacle and Short Tail Gulch Coastal Access Trails, and Bodega Head and Sonoma Coast State Park are also nearby. When planning your visit, remember that Bodega Bay weather can be very different from inland areas and can change throughout the day. Bring layers so you're prepared for warm or chilly conditions. Doran gets busy when inland temperatures rise and on holidays and weekends, On those days, plan to arrive by mid-morning or late afternoon for the best chance to get a parking spot. Rangers close the park entrance when the lot fills, so have an alternate destination in mind. Please help protect the beach and its wildlife by trashing your trash. That means putting any litter in trash cans or taking it out of the park with you. Trash left behind can harm birds and animals and pollute the ocean. Visit sonomacountyparks.org today to plan your trip. Become a parks member and receive a free night of camping, free parking, free boat launching, and other benefits.
[49:01] Speaker 1: The YES program started in 2017 as a response to seeing a need for young people aged 13 to 18 to get outside and connect to their natural environment. YES Coast takes our young people in the program all along our Stoma coastline from Bodega Bay all the way up to Wallala. We try to make sure that they have an opportunity to get up close to the ocean in a way that they might not have experienced before. YES River is predominantly focused on the Russian River watershed, so we have outings to explore how the larger watershed connects back to the Russian River. YES Mountain gives an opportunity for young people to explore the more inland areas of Sonoma They get to go hiking at a variety of different mountains. We also try to incorporate mountain biking or a ropes course challenge. Throughout each outing, we try to weave in a variety of themes, so there's environmental education, there is stewardship, there's career opportunities. We are really lucky here in regional parks to have an amazing We have an amazing staff of YES leaders who come with a background and a passion for helping young people navigate the world that we're living in right now.
[50:20] Speaker 3: From the beginning of the program, I like to talk to young people at orientation to be like, you know, I want to hear your voice, I want to hear what your interests are so we can incorporate that into this program. And that's something that's really rich and exciting for me because every year is completely I want to be the person that I needed when I was a young person.
[50:43] Speaker 1: We like to incorporate a stewardship component.
[50:45] Speaker 4: Sometimes it's cleaning up a park, sometimes it's just learning a little bit more and sharing with their family and friends.
[50:51] Speaker 1: We want to make sure that this isn't the last time that these young people come into these spaces. We want this to be a space that all of them feel welcome and they continue to engage with their families, Over the last few years, with all of the different stressors that we're seeing in the world, and especially post-pandemic, we were really needing to create a place where the youth could kind of take a step back and connect with their natural world kind of at a slower pace. And we found it's been really beneficial to give the young people this opportunity to not only connect with the outdoors, but also to connect with each other. I think that it's really awesome that they actually take into account what we want and what we want to do while also giving us structure and teaching us. I noticed that a lot of the rangers and people that are around here, they talk about their jobs, and when the people come in to like give interviews and stuff, it's almost like you can tell that they want to be doing it.
[51:50] Speaker 2: This is so much more than a camp, if you will.
[51:54] Speaker 4: This is a It's an opportunity for them to connect with one another, to have fun, and to practice joy, because joy is resilience.
[52:01] Speaker 1: I hope that they continue to incorporate this into their lives going forward. Something that I would love to see for the future of the YES program is the opportunity to reach as many young people as possible in our community. I'm hoping that the program continues to thrive and also has the opportunity to expand. And continue to connect kids to their outdoor spaces.
[52:24] Speaker 9: Hello, I'm Andrew Smith, and I am the Sealer of Weights and Measures for the County of Sonoma.
[52:57] Speaker 1: One of our most important programs is verifying price accuracy at retail establishments to protect consumers and businesses alike. By verifying the accuracy of pricing at retail locations, we ensure that the The consumer is offered the lowest advertised price.
[53:13] Speaker 3: Um, if a business charges more than is advertised, that would be considered an overcharge, and that is a violation of California Business and Professions Code 1202, which is unlawful computation of value. If a consumer gets overcharged, they should tell the manager about the overcharge, and the manager should take care of it and give them the advertised poster— posted price. If they're having a problem with that, they can always call our office.
[53:52] Speaker 1: They can reach us through our website, or they can call our office, 707-565-2371, and report a complaint.
[54:01] Speaker 8: Okay.
[54:08] Speaker 1: Did you know? Storm drain protection is year-round.
[54:12] Speaker 9: Potential pollutants can be transported by rain, irrigation, and even wind.
[54:16] Speaker 3: Clean streets mean clean creeks.
[54:19] Speaker 9: Local ordinances require you to keep your sidewalks and curb and gutter clean of any trash or debris, including leaves and yard waste. So make sure to place collected materials in the appropriate bin provided by your service provider.
[54:31] Speaker 3: The City supports residents and businesses with this lift by sweeping public streets at least once per month.
[54:37] Speaker 9: Park your vehicle in the driveway, garage, or another area on your sweep day. Keeping the path next to the curb and gutter clear is an easy way to prevent trash, debris, and other pollutants from entering your local creek.
[54:51] Speaker 4: Maintain the trees, shrubs, and other landscaping in front of your house. Sweepers are tall and wide, and they need all the room they can get in order to clean the curb properly. Providing a 13-foot-high clearance and preventing overgrowth into the public right-of-way is a requirement.
[55:05] Speaker 9: So knowing your street sweeping schedule can help keep our creeks clean. Check with your local service provider to find out your street sweeping schedule.
[55:14] Speaker 1: Storm drains connect streets to creeks, and your simple actions have You love getting outdoors in Sonoma County's regional parks, and so does your best friend. But even the goodest of good dogs can encounter unpredictable situations, and not all dogs are as friendly as yours. So keep Keep your pup on a leash and under your control at all times. This protects them, local habitats, and other animals. And we all know dogs are gonna do what they're gonna do, so always bring your doggy back. Do your duty and unload it properly on your way out. This keeps our trails clean and protects wildlife from microorganisms pet waste can carry. Thanks for keeping your dogs on a leash. Welcome to this meeting of the Sonoma County To assure civility in public meetings, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, staff, and public agree to engage in respectful dialogue that supports freedom of speech and values diverse opinions. To achieve this, we collectively commit to creating a respectful atmosphere free of personal attacks. Welcoming feedback on and criticism of county policies, programs, or board actions Following the designated speaking time, and using language and conduct that are not threatening, abusive, profane, or hostile. To make public comment, please form a line behind the podium at the designated time of the board item or agenda section. If your comment violates the commitment to civility and disrupts the meeting, attendees may lose their speaking time and may also be asked to leave the chambers. To make a public comment in Zoom, Please raise your hand in the app at the designated time for the board item or agenda section. To do so, click the hand icon at the bottom of the screen. If you are joining the meeting via phone, press star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand. If your comment violates the commitment to civility and disrupts the meeting, attendees may lose their speaking time and may also be asked to leave the chambers or be removed from Zoom. Spanish interpretation is available in person and through Zoom. Attendees in chambers are invited to take a headset from the basket at the entrance of the chambers. To turn on the headset, press and hold the power button until the light turns red. If a commenter is speaking in Spanish, English-speaking attendees may also use the headsets to hear the interpretation in English. Before leaving the chambers, please return used headsets to the basket by the exit door. To use interpretation services in Zoom, click the globe icon at the bottom of your device's screen and select Spanish. If during any public comment a speaker is speaking in Spanish, English-speaking participants may click the interpretation globe and select English to hear the interpretation of the comment from Spanish to English. Thank you for helping us facilitate a respectful and constructive meeting. Bienvenidos a la reunión de la Junta de Supervisores del Condado de Sonoma. Para garantizar el respeto mutuo en las reuniones públicas, La Junta de Supervisores del Condado de Sonoma, el personal y el público se comprometen a mantener un diálogo respetuoso que apoye la libertad de expresión y valore la diversidad de opiniones. Para lograrlo, nos comprometemos colectivamente a crear un ambiente respetuoso, libre de ataques personales, abierto a comentarios y críticas sobre las políticas, los programas o las decisiones de los supervisores, respetando el tiempo asignado para el comentario y utilizando un lenguaje y una conducta que no sean amenazantes, abusivos, profanos u hostiles. Para comentar en persona, forme una fila detrás del podio cuando se llame el tema de la agenda. Para comentar por Zoom, levante la mano en la aplicación cuando se llame el tema de la agenda. y haga clic en el icono de la mano al pie de la pantalla. Si participa en la reunión por teléfono, marque asterisco 9 en el teclado para levantar la mano. Si su comentario viola el compromiso de respeto mutuo y perturba la reunión, es posible que pierda su turno al micrófono, que se le pida retirarse de la sala o que sea expulsado de Zoom. Hay servicios de interpretación al español en persona y en la plataforma de Zoom. Los participantes en la cámara pueden tomar audífonos de la canasta en la entrada de la cámara. Para prender el audífono, mantenga presionado el botón hasta que la luz se ponga roja. Si un participante habla en español, los participantes que hablan inglés también pueden utilizar los audífonos para escuchar la interpretación en inglés. Antes de retirarse de la cámara, por favor devuelva los audífonos a la canasta al lado de la puerta de salida. Para usar los servicios de interpretación en Zoom, haga clic en el icono del globo al pie de la pantalla. Si no lo ve, haga clic en los 3 puntos dentro de un círculo y seleccione Spanish, español. Si alguien se dirige al público en español, los participantes que hablan en el inglés pueden hacer clic en el icono del globo y seleccionar English, inglés. Inglés, para escuchar la interpretación al inglés. Gracias por ayudarnos a facilitar una reunión respetuosa y constructiva.
[61:10] Speaker 2: Look at everyone got so quiet. They are ready for us to start this meeting. With that, um, uh, we are coming back from closed session. Happy Election Day. We're going to start out with the pledge, and if I can have our Deputy Director of Public Infrastructure, Vanessa Garrett, lead us in the pledge. 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. Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[67:53] Speaker 9: Well, now the meeting—
[68:02] Speaker 2: As a reminder, we watched a video. It reminds you about our commitment to civility. It also explains how you can access the headsets in the back of the chambers to translate the meeting from English to Spanish and Spanish to English. And again, Mr. Newman is available to distribute said headsets while on duty. He's very serviceable in that way. We'll now move on to approval of the agenda. Uh, Gold resolutions will be moved up now from 11:30— I'm sorry, from 1:30 to 11:30. And item number 34 was continued to November 17th by addendum. Are there any other changes? or feedback from my colleagues. If not, is there a motion?
[68:46] Speaker 9: So moved, rabbit.
[68:49] Speaker 6: Second.
[68:50] Speaker 2: Any opposition? Seeing none, that motion passes. Thank you. Now we're going to move on to take public comment on consent calendar items 3 through 31. This includes appointments, gold resolutions, board items. We'll hear first from folks in chambers, and then we'll go to online. And as a reminder, if you go a little sideways with your public comment, we have informed you about our commitment to civility, and your time can be removed if you do not adhere to our commitment to civility. So please adhere to our commitment to civility. If there's anyone that wishes to provide public comment in chambers, please line up at the podium. Everyone will have 2 minutes.
[69:38] Speaker 4: Thank you.
[69:44] Speaker 2: That is after. Thank you. Public comment on 3 through 31. No, that's the next agenda item. So consent is 31— 3 through 31. Are there agendas in the back of the Thank you so much. Is there any other public comment in chambers before we go online? Seeing none, are there any online?
[70:17] Speaker 3: Thank you, Chair.
[70:20] Speaker 4: There are no hands raised.
[70:21] Speaker 2: Thank you. And I'll bring it back to my colleagues, uh, if there is any questions, comments on consent calendar 3 through 31. If not, is there a motion?
[70:36] Speaker 3: I just had one question.
[70:36] Speaker 1: Yes.
[70:37] Speaker 3: Um, on item 7, I was just wondering if the boards were supportive of this. I'm seeing a thumbs up. Yeah, just anytime we're shutting down a board, I want to make sure that I'm not going to get, um, you know, calls from board members being like, why did you cancel my board? So just wanted to check in on what that process was like with the Creative Sonoma and Advisory Board.
[71:00] Speaker 5: So for the EDC advisory board, this actually came out of a retreat that we had with them and was an idea that they kind of came up with.
[71:08] Speaker 9: They saw what's described as sort of that duplicative level of leadership, especially as the CEO model started to flesh out. So that was actually a recommendation that they made.
[71:20] Speaker 5: And I think similarly with Creative Sonoma was, you know, they saw themselves as sort of a startup agent. And once Creative Sonoma was finally taken over by the county and, and became a, a county program, they saw that—
[71:39] Speaker 7: they—
[71:39] Speaker 9: a similar thing that the EDC board did.
[71:41] Speaker 4: Wonderful.
[71:43] Speaker 3: Thank you so much. I'm supportive. And then I just briefly wanted to say thank you so much to Pi for item 17 and also for Che from my office. We have solved for trash in downtown Greenville 100 different ways in the last 10 years that I've been on the board. and spent hundreds of hours really appreciate the latest solution. So thank you all for that. And, and then also a lot of great work from Sonoma Water on the consent calendar today. Thank you especially for item number 19, um, the West County Water Quality and Recycled Water Supply Feasibility Study. And also pretty cool to learn about the $6.6 million upgrade in the river diversion structure. Pretty impressive. So thanks to Sonoma Water, and I would be happy to move the consent calendar.
[72:18] Speaker 2: Great. Is there a second?
[72:21] Speaker 5: Second.
[72:21] Speaker 2: Thank you. Clerk, if you would like to please do our roll call.
[72:34] Speaker 3: Supervisor Rappaport?
[72:34] Speaker 8: Aye.
[72:34] Speaker 3: Supervisor Corsi?
[72:36] Speaker 7: Yes.
[72:37] Speaker 3: Supervisor Kaur?
[72:38] Speaker 6: Yes.
[72:38] Speaker 3: Supervisor Hopkins?
[72:40] Speaker 4: Yes.
[72:41] Speaker 3: Chair Hermosillo?
[72:42] Speaker 4: Yes.
[72:42] Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you so much. And now we're going to move on to our agenda item number 32. Which is the approval of professional consulting services agreement for the implementation of the Fly Quiet program and the new flight procedures review and design services at the Charles Schulz Airport. And for that, we have Director Hoverts participating virtually, John Stout in chamber, consultant Vinnie Iheira, and I think Liz Coleman out there.
[73:16] Speaker 4: Hi.
[73:16] Speaker 1: In front of me.
[73:18] Speaker 2: Good morning.
[73:18] Speaker 3: Go ahead and come and start if you want to talk.
[73:46] Speaker 9: Good morning, Chair. This is Johannes. Can I get a thumbs up that we're good and you can hear my audio?
[73:53] Speaker 2: Yes, we can hear you.
[73:55] Speaker 9: Okay, thank you, Supervisors and Chair. I'm Johannes with Public Infrastructure, and with me is John Stout and Elizabeth Coleman.
[74:04] Speaker 10: Today we're bringing forward 2 agreements to—
[74:06] Speaker 2: Director Hovitz, give us one second while we turn up the volume. It sounds like some folks in the back of the chambers can't hear you. Give it— give us a minute.
[74:13] Speaker 4: Yeah, no problem.
[74:15] Speaker 2: We're good now. Thank you.
[74:19] Speaker 10: Okay, today we're bringing forward 2 agreements to take the next steps in addressing aircraft noise around the Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport. We recognize that aircraft noise affects our neighbors, and we appreciate the community members and aviation commissioners who have shared their concerns and help inform this work. The first agreement would put a voluntary fly quiet program into action, working with airport users and the community to encourage quieter operations and track results.
[74:52] Speaker 9: The second would explore new arrival and departure options and develop concepts for the FAA to review.
[74:59] Speaker 10: Together, these agreements represent an investment of up to $360,000 in airport funds. While the FAA retains authority over our flight procedures, we can and will continue to develop solutions, advocate for improvements, and keep our community involved. With that, I'll turn it over to the airport team to walk us through the proposal and the recommended actions.
[75:23] Speaker 5: Good morning, Chair and members of the board. I'm John Stout, the airport manager, and— okay, now it's not Progressing. There we go. As Director Hoverts mentioned, we are here for approval today for 2 additional contracts with Cygnus Consulting Group, and this is a continuation of the effort with the initial feasibility study, which then resulted in a design of procedures for arrivals to the airport and for an alternate to the Redhead procedure, slight modifications. Uh, the Fly Quiet program is a $90,000 contract The Phase 2 would be standalone, brand new procedures independent of what's already existing at the airport for $270,000. And if you so direct today, the— it would authorize that implementation of the Fly Quiet program, the evaluation of the new procedures. It would produce an outcome of up to 8 procedures for 2 for each runway, 1 arrival, 1 departure, and community engagement on the way. It does not allow for a mandatory curfew, create access restrictions to the airport, and it does not create a new flight path without the FAA approvals or publication and their reviews. In the timeline of how we got here today, this started in 2022 based on noise concerns from Windsor and other communities around the airport on arrivals. And so the Phase 1 feasibility was to look at options to improve those arrival programs at the airport. There were recommendations that came out of that. We did not include the development of those procedures in that phase. We brought before you in 2025 the contract to refine those and get those ready for submittal to the FAA, as well as the framework for a Fly Quiet program. which was reviewed in 2026, the first half of the year, through the commission for further refinement. And we're here today with that recommendation, and now we're requesting for approval on 2— those 2 agreements. Um, sounded like I had a little bit more than I probably needed to, but the Phase 1 was approved in August of '22 for $278,000. I looked at those different procedures Phase 2 is approved in July of 2025 for $275,000, refining those and submitting those procedures. Those procedures are submitted and in the FAA for review. The Redhead 2 was submitted first, so that has the— they do a first in and review that way. So those additional procedures will be evaluated after the other procedures. In terms of the Fly Quiet and other feedback, we've had federal coordination. Cygnus did consult with the FAA on the likelihood of approval and get feedback to make some tweaks before those were submitted. They updated the flight tracks in April. We presented the framework of the Fly Quiet program to the Aviation Commission in June. They made their recommendations in August. They did recommend elements of the Fly Quiet program, not all of them, and they also recommended the full Phase 3 scope to look at new procedures for all runways. And an update on the noise complaint side, we still are having record numbers of complaints. So through July of this year, we're at over 46,000 compared to 10,700 last year, up 329%. We have seen some relief with the FAA using Charlie 8 after the Bohemian Grove, so there has been a slight decline in our monthly complaints. But there are still concerns of the residents based on Redhead and how the FAA is using those various procedures. Getting into the authority and who controls what, the FAA is the ultimate say on the airspace use and air traffic control procedures. The flight paths, the minimums, aviation safety, the aircraft noise certification, and what is published for the instrument flight procedures. We are tasked with operating and improving the airport evaluation noise mitigation efforts, advocating for procedure changes, supporting compatible land use, and engaging the operators and communities to try and minimize as much as we can. The main regulatory control on this is what is called the Airport Noise and Capacity Act that was passed in 1990, which established. Part 161, and any noise or capacity restrictions have to meet these requirements: that they're reasonable and non-discriminatory, safe and efficient use of the airspace, public notice and commitments or comments, no undue burden on the air traffic system, and consistent with federal law. Even though the FAA does allow for those types of restrictions since the law went into effect. There have been no restrictions approved by the FAA. They reviewed, but they did not approve a Stage 2 ban in Naples. The most nearby examples would be Burbank and Los Angeles. They worked on curfews and other restrictions under the 161 program, and ultimately they were not approved. On the timing of that, Regarding the county ordinance, there's 2 parts. There's the general plan, and then there was a follow-on noise ordinance that was drafted after 1990 to companion the general plan. In '92 and '93, the FAA questioned that noise control ordinance that followed the general plan and identified implications and difficulties with that. And at the time, the county said they would not enforce the ordinance. As part of the Sonoma County Airport's master plan, an update in 2011, we petitioned the FAA to formally opine, is that noise ordinance grandfathered under ANCA? They did respond in 2013 with their final answer that the county noise ordinance was not grandfathered under ANCA, and so therefore that was unenforceable. So we're here today to look at county voluntary measures to help mitigate noise efforts and control and make a better situation for all parties. And why the Fly Quiet is voluntary, again, it goes back to the ANCA restrictions and the federal preemptions. We cannot control that airspace, so we have to work with our partners to use voluntary measures to help support noise mitigation. And that is really where the cooperation and the use of a noise roundtable comes in. It will bring our operators together at the table along with an FAA representative, community representatives, and gives feedback to the operators, gets them to assist with the efforts, tell us what they can and can't do in the aircraft, what they can have their pilots work on. So it is really recommendations and being able to communicate back and forth and hear what the community has to say about it. And in terms of the FAA process and review, it's a multi-step part. We would request and do the feasibility, do the technical development. They would then do the FAA environmental review and public involvement. Since it's an FAA action, it would fall under the NEPA document as the lead agency would be the FAA. And they would determine which is the appropriate NEPA document. And then after that phase, then they would do the approval and validation and get to publication. In terms of what we're proposing, we would get the items submitted under item 1 based on feedback from the FAA as part of that development. And then this phase of the contract would end. We may need some assistance with the FAA to finalize and tweak those to get to, uh, final publication. As I mentioned, we have submitted the Redhead 2 departure concept, which was an improvement of the Redhead. It is a slight improvement. Again, we were not trying to change the systems already in place because that takes much longer, and the more you change within the Bay Area airspace, uh, less likelihood for approval from the FAA and a longer time to go through the process. The refinements of the arrival procedures for Runway 2, 14, and 32 have been submitted, and we're doing ongoing coordination with the FAA on Redhead and Charlie 8. The FAA is still continuing to use the Charlie 8 program, but they are still also using the Redhead procedures. The Phase 3, as I mentioned, are completely independent, would be standalone, so they would look at how best that that would fit with the community, the neighborhoods, while trying to build it within the framework of the Oakland Center airspace and not conflict with terrain or what is already moving out of the Bay Area. They will present up to 16 candidates for consideration by your board, and then making a recommendation which ones to move forward and get whether or not they'll have enough of an impact. And then 8 comp sets would be refined and then submitted to the FAA for processing And it would be one arrival and one departure per runway end. And there was an alternate departure procedure request that was submitted and an evaluation by resident Brad Alper that is also working through the FAA review process. Not sure where that's at at the moment, but they have acknowledged they have it and they're evaluating that. And we did have Cygnus prepare 2 videos to show the difference between Redhead 2 and Redhead 1. And because of the tech, I can't play it. So we're ready for that streaming of the 2 procedures, but it's about 40 minutes of— or 4 minutes. I scared everybody. 40 minutes. About 4 minutes.
[85:39] Speaker 2: I was going to say, no, sir.
[87:08] Speaker 5: So unfortunately, due to the scale, it's hard to show a real difference in the graphic. What this is showing is the blue line is the Redhead procedure that the FAA published in 2024. The pink or magenta line is what we submitted as the slight modifications where we raised the elevation on departures from 500 feet to, I believe, 2,000 feet. It does raise things up about 1,600 to 2,000 feet at various points along the pathway. And due to the scale, it's hard to show and represent those changes in the flight path, but it does raise the elevations of the aircraft, and it does reduce some of the noise impacts. It doesn't reduce noise impacts at all. They'll still be there, but it does lower the decibel levels at the surface. And then for the next video, This is for departures from Runway 32 departing to the north, and it's going to be the similar layout where it shows the current procedure for Redhead, because Redhead does do both north and south departures. And then it'll overlay the proposed amendments to the procedure. And again, it raised where the planes need to turn from a low 500 feet to a higher elevation before they start their turns to the west. So again, because of the scale, it's not showing a significant difference. And we were trying not to change the system, but provide some improvements and refinements. Raise the elevations of the aircraft, get the sound dispersal without changing the waypoint called Redhead, which is where the aircraft are going to, to get them out of the airspace of and deconflict with what's going on in San Francisco and the Bay Area. And Feeney Cahill is on, so if there— Feeney, is there anything you'd like to add to my description?
[89:29] Speaker 7: No.
[89:33] Speaker 5: I saw he was on.
[89:34] Speaker 10: Sorry, no, no, I am here, John. Sorry, I was muted. No, not necessarily. The biggest message that I can just repeat is, as you had mentioned, the idea is to not trigger a full-blown environmental evaluation by the FAA. So the minimum change that we could make at the moment is what you're seeing right now. which provides for at least a certain amount of reprieve to residents in the reduction of noise exposure based on what you're seeing right now. And so they— that basically would be what I would say in a nutshell, without affecting, again, the Northern California airspace at large.
[90:12] Speaker 4: Thank you.
[90:21] Speaker 1: Oh, that's—
[90:33] Speaker 2: I'm sorry, that was your power point. Supervisor Hopkins.
[90:41] Speaker 3: Just had a question. Do we have the decibel levels for Charlie 8 over those same communities for comparison?
[90:48] Speaker 5: We do not. Charlie 8 is a vectored system, and so the next slide will show that, and we can get— I'll provide a little more context on Charlie 8.
[90:56] Speaker 3: Okay, but is it possible to get decibel levels over the communities? Because I would just love to see sort of before and after and after, since we now have multiple phases, and that was the sort of pre-existing state.
[91:09] Speaker 5: With Charlie 8, so the— that departure system is not the RNP or GPS. It is a vectored system, so the aircraft are directed to depart runway headings, and then they're given vectors from air traffic control. So there's not a set pathway that the aircraft are using, so it's not as easy to get that historic noise footprint for those routes.
[91:34] Speaker 3: But we could get sort of an average or an estimate?
[91:37] Speaker 5: I'd have to ask Vinnie on that.
[91:40] Speaker 3: Okay.
[91:43] Speaker 5: You're on mute.
[91:44] Speaker 10: Yes, absolutely, we can get you an estimate on the Charlie 8. We can run it through the same exact process that we ran, um, the, uh, you know, the Redhead 1 and Redhead 2. Uh, we can run it through the same process. You'll be comparing apples to apples.
[91:58] Speaker 7: Absolutely.
[91:59] Speaker 5: Uh, Vinnie, is there anything else you'd like to explain on the Charlie 8? Because it's vectored, it's harder to describe that Each time it's, it's different.
[92:10] Speaker 10: Yes, it's, it's a conventional procedure. This is, uh, the way best I can describe it, new technology. The FAA is going away from these navigational-based procedures. They're going to RNAV RNP next-gen satellite-based navigation system procedures, so to say. Much more accurate, a lot more predictable. And so that's why you're seeing that FAA implemented REDHEAD in a rush, or REDHEAD 1, so to say. And that's why the impacts blew up as they did, even though the FAA did their environmental review, but they produced a CATX based on their own findings. No consultants were involved in that process. So at this point, the best I can tell you is that Charlie 8 is something that still exists, as you know, but it is going to be sunset very soon just because the airlines do not like using conventional procedures any longer. And the FAA doesn't want to maintain them either.
[93:05] Speaker 5: And then mentioned that we have also submitted new arrival procedures. Again, it was modification of the existing procedures to get a likely improvement over the existing ones. The current procedures do a little bit more step-downs and level-off, which there's a lot more variability in the power settings on the aircraft. These are designed more in the continuous descent with a higher altitude where they join the procedure. So they're coming into the airport at a higher descent angle. These are not exactly— they're not a direct overlay for these graphics, but these are more intended to show that there is a higher, steeper gradient into the airfield. The scales are different. The nautical miles from the airport are different. But they do raise the elevations that the aircraft are coming into the airport. And for Runway 14, there are 2 procedures, so we submitted one for each procedure, the GPS procedure and the RNAV procedure, to put them into that continuous descent format. And then we've submitted the similar continuous descent for Runway 2 GPS procedure and the An RNP, sorry, for Runway 2. So those are also working their way through the FAA. And going back to more detail on the contracts for your consideration today, one is the Fly Quiet program. We anticipate that there's going to— it's going to take 12 months to do the 6 different versions and elements of the contract: voluntary operator guidance, public reporting, and establishment of the roundtable. Whereas the Phase 3 of the procedures, it is working on those standalone procedures. It'll take about 12 to 15 months before we're at a point to have a submittal for the airport, and that would advance up to 8 procedures, and there'll be 2 decision points in that process for your board. On the Fly Quiet, it's setting up the governance and community roundtable. That would be one of the first elements that we'll be working on, what that looks like, what the makeup of the committee would look like, and then set that committee to assist on the later parts of the implementation. Work through the quiet hours, the carrier scoring and recognition as to what we can track, setting up the virtual noise and tracking and complaint process, integrating that into our noise complaint portal, doing engagement and outreach and pilot education, and then doing the program launch and reporting at roughly the end of the 12 months. So there'll be work and parts and pieces coming together over that 12-month period. It won't be implemented at the end of the 12 months, so there'll be pieces that will be visible during that process. And the budget breakdown, that information is in your packet, but $82,000 professional fees, We do have Cygnus programmed to come to the community for parts of those public engagements. That's why there's the $8,000 travel allowance in there. The virtual noise monitoring will be a separate contract for roughly $25,000 per year. On the Phase 3 procedure review, that'll take a little bit longer. We'll come up with the 16 candidate proposals building off of the information that Cygnus is built looking at our current procedures and comparing those because there will be trade-offs and looking at what will produce the best impact for the community. And then that we brought back to the board for concurrence on which 8 procedures to move to the FAA and decide where that works best. How do we spread that? Because the Redhead and these other procedures will still be in and available for use. These will be supplemental and separate from those, but they'll also do that evaluation of navigation terrain, how it would integrate with the Bay Area. So there'll be quite a bit of work in the back end. It'll take a bit before we'll have the public outreach on where that is looking. And the packet also has the budget breakdown for the separate elements. It's about $255,000 in professional fees with $15,000 in travel reimbursements there are a couple target points for that community engagement and reviewing those procedures before they come back to your body. Decision Point 1 is the approval of the objectives and the evaluation criteria. What are the hard stops of what not to consider so we can refine what Cygnus will be looking at? From that, then they'll take it and provide those 16 concepts. which then would come back to narrow that down to 8. And along that way is that public engagement component. And time, in terms of timing, fly quiet will be 12 months, and then that would go into a continual effort, and the roundtable would be authorized and implemented and operating after that point. Phase 3 is about 12 to 15 months to have something submit to the FAA. And once it's submitted to the FAA, it will take them about 12 or 24 to 36 months to do their full review for a project budget of $360,000. So we're requesting your board consider approval of the Fly Quiet contract and the Phase 3 procedural review contract with the funds coming from Airport Enterprise fund balance and will be included in the mid-year budget adjustments.
[98:50] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[98:51] Speaker 5: With that, we're available for any questions.
[98:53] Speaker 2: Thank you so much. And for that, we will go to public comment, um, first from, uh, in chambers, and then we'll do online. So if you would like to provide public comment on item number 32, please line up at the podium. Everyone will have 2 minutes.
[99:15] Speaker 7: Go ahead.
[99:15] Speaker 4: May I have my partner's 2 minutes also?
[99:18] Speaker 2: Because I have No, you can have 2 minutes and then he can have 2 minutes.
[99:21] Speaker 4: All right, that's fine because he's a witness to this. This is my backyard.
[99:25] Speaker 2: Do you want to talk into the microphone?
[99:26] Speaker 4: Really? Um, it seems to be that this is all about the money and not about the time or how they're torturing the people in West County, including Windsor. I stand at 11,161 feet north of the airport. This is my husband's memorial, and it also contains all of the well Pumps and filters because the water's crappy around there. The airplanes are coming in right beside here. They're landing there. They're coming in every 5 minutes. I would like to invite the Cygnus people to come stand up there in the tower, and they can measure the decimals, what we are getting firsthand, instead of counting on you guys and all your thousands of dollars just to line your stupid lazy-ass pockets.
[100:07] Speaker 2: Let's refrain from using that language.
[100:10] Speaker 4: You guys don't care about Terrorizing my property. Okay, I'll stay on task.
[100:15] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[100:15] Speaker 4: So anyway, if you hit this, you're going to bust out the well and drain all the well water for the people around it. The noise level is outrageous. Sometimes they have changed the departure flights to come out now through that way, maybe like alternating. But what they do is they come out of the airport and then they gun their engine over my house to turn west to go out to the coast or wherever they're turning to. This is deplorable. You guys need to not donate more money. You need to make decisions to make it go back to 2024 or before 2024 when it was like at least livable. We know we're living by an airport, but don't torture us anymore, please.
[100:52] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[100:53] Speaker 1: Thank you for giving us an opportunity to talk.
[101:05] Speaker 2: You're welcome. You can lower the podium if that's easier for you. There's a button on the right-hand side, a black button.
[101:11] Speaker 4: Is that better?
[101:17] Speaker 7: Okay.
[101:19] Speaker 1: Um, whatever your decision today, I implore you to ensure that you address the following issues. Focus on using county government resources to find solutions to this problem of of the sound.
[101:32] Speaker 4: We are pro—
[101:33] Speaker 1: be a proactive partner with the community groups who are affected. No deflection to the FAA is the unstoppable barrier. Measurement of sound impacts beyond a 1-mile radius of the airport.
[101:46] Speaker 4: I live 3 nautical miles from the airport with planes constantly passing overhead, both private and commercial, from 1,600 to 3,000 feet.
[101:57] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[101:58] Speaker 1: Above my head. With the current flight patterns, the repeated sound intrusion I experience inside my house with double-pane windows as well as outside is a nuisance. The ambient noise in our rural neighborhood is quiet with the sounds of birds when planes are not present. Rural areas and cities are affected differently by plane traffic. Create an accurate baseline for sound impact and impact sound monitoring and implement sound monitoring. I understand there's no baseline measurement for airport noise beyond the modeling of sound within the 1-mile radius of the airport. You need to understand what the current and the future impact of residents— on residents and taxpayers within and outside of the 1-mile radius will be in order to make prudent decisions about airport practices and expansion of airport traffic. Base it on 2023, prior to the Redhead experience. Budget funds for ongoing monitoring, sound monitoring, and impact analysis outside of the 1-mile radius. Make decisions regarding airport growth after thoroughly weighing both the costs, the costs on wildlife, the communities, the people, and the natural resources that are the responsibility of the Sonoma County government stewardship.
[103:25] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[103:26] Speaker 4: Have a coffee here. Hello, board. Thank you for making this space available. My name is Andrea Oric, and I'd like to respond to the to the Cygnus Fly Quiet Program and the Phase 3. There are— I am happy about the roundtable portion. I think that's very important. I also approve of the Phase 3, the 8 additional satellite navigation opportunities to spread the load. My concerns are in Task 4, the virtual noise modeling is significantly lacking. It only accounts for the jet model, the altitudes flown, and the weather conditions. It does not include the terrain or the ambient noise. So, and these are critical factors for determining the experience on the ground. So I advocate the inclusion of virtual terrain modeling.
[104:36] Speaker 8: Thank you.
[104:37] Speaker 4: and virtual ambient noise modeling. This is possible in our age of AI. The Cygnus proposes to establish a baseline against which to measure its deliverables of 3.3 decibels improvement. I question that that will significantly help us on the ground, but I think that the baseline should also include the levels that were before the 2024 enactment of Red One. I also am just curious about the Fly Quiet program. It's unclear what incentives there are for an airline to cooperate. An uncooperative airline who lowers ticket prices will be selected over high-scoring companies. So it's really a rather amorphous incentive.
[105:39] Speaker 9: So I—
[105:39] Speaker 6: Thank you.
[105:40] Speaker 4: Thank you.
[105:41] Speaker 2: Are you reading a statement?
[105:42] Speaker 4: I have submitted the statement.
[105:44] Speaker 2: Okay, got it. Thank you.
[105:45] Speaker 4: So yeah, thank you very much.
[105:47] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[105:51] Speaker 4: Good morning. My name is Kathy Differding. I'm an instructor at the junior college. I've lived in West Fargo—
[105:57] Speaker 2: Kathy, can you move the microphone? Microphone closer to you. There you go. Thank you.
[106:00] Speaker 4: I've lived in West County for over 50 years. I've seen many changes. What's happening with the airport now reminds me of the detention centers that are being built, and suddenly you happen to be a mile away from one. I'd like you all to imagine that the flights were going over your head at 6 in the morning on a Sunday and all through the week, and at 5,000 or less feet in the case of my house. Uh, as far as the Fly Quiet program, I see no incentives. I see no way of, uh, people, pilots suffering any consequences. It's just like asking them a favor, and it's not about that. I think you should be considering questions like how much the airport is allowed to expand. Is it unlimited? And Dispersion of flights, not having all the burden on one neighborhood. I actually feel like I'm a poor person now in neighborhoods that suffer a lot of things that we don't do anything about as a government. We're not poor where I live, but I feel like a poor person that, um, what I'm suffering is of little importance to anyone except the people around me.
[107:18] Speaker 10: Thank you.
[107:19] Speaker 4: So I'm watching the board, paying attention to my vote, and I think you should be considering things rather than asking the pilots out of some sort of kindness. I mean, if they had that, why aren't they doing it now? The flight this morning close to 7 o'clock was extremely loud, and pilots could try to quiet their planes right now. So just because you're asking them to, I don't see any reason why they would do it. It would It will be just random pilots that decide to cooperate. There's no teeth in it. There's no incentive. There's no accountability. And I think you were probably going to vote for the Cygnus report because you paid our taxpayer dollars to have it produced. And I object to that too.
[108:04] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[108:05] Speaker 8: Good morning.
[108:09] Speaker 9: Brad Alper. And I want to thank John for acknowledging me.
[108:11] Speaker 2: Brad, you can raise the podium too. Same black button on the right-hand side.
[108:15] Speaker 9: Is that going to count my 2 minutes?
[108:18] Speaker 7: Oh, good.
[108:19] Speaker 9: Thank you.
[108:19] Speaker 2: We'll restart it.
[108:20] Speaker 9: I appreciate the effort that you guys have put in and, and lifted this to this level. As John mentioned, I submitted a proposal to the FAA— not a proposal, actually a request for them to review the routes of flight that Oakland Center is issuing to airline departures every single And I've asked them to design a departure, and they've accepted that. Doesn't mean it's going to be approved, but it carries the same weight as the Cygnus proposal. So what the difference is, I'm not throwing things against the wall hoping something's going to stick. I've asked the FAA to review all the routes and codify those routes into an RNAV departure, and, and they have been doing that since the Bohemian Grove event. They're actually testing a modification of the Charlie and the Red. They're doing that right now. So the reality is the FAA is going to come up with 2 different outcomes. They're either going to accept my request and they're going to design the departure themselves, or they're going to deny it.
[109:19] Speaker 4: When they do—
[109:20] Speaker 9: if they deny it, they're going to have to, by law, let us know the reasons for that denial. So my point is, why would you pay Cygnus right now? I'm not suggesting that you don't Earmark the funds, but don't sign the contract until the FAA comes back and says, hey, Mr. Alper, we're going to go ahead and implement your procedure. Why would you pay twice? And if they come back and say they're not going to do it, well, you're going to have some valuable information to decide whether you're going to move forward, because if the FAA can't do it, Cygnus is not going to be able to do it. As far as the Fly Quiet program goes, I've been flying for 30 years for a major airline. I wasn't even aware of the Fly Quiet.
[109:56] Speaker 4: There was every—
[109:57] Speaker 9: almost every airport I flew in had a Fly Quiet program, but I had to stick to the procedures that were like the RED or the Charlie 8. If I was trained on the Fly Quiet, I would do it. So I would request that maybe you ask the airlines, every chief pilot or the director of flight, give them a list of what is expected of them and ask them to sign that said that, that they will actually abide by it. And I would love the opportunity to sit across from Cygnus for an hour because there's a lot of things I question. Thank you.
[110:24] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[110:27] Speaker 4: We're gonna have to go down here. All right.
[110:34] Speaker 1: Okay.
[110:36] Speaker 4: Hi, my name is Monique Parrish, and I'm a West Sonoma County resident. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the board and knowing and understanding that you have a complex array of priorities on your screen, so just thank you for listening to us. What a perfect day to talk about democracy. And when we talk about democracy, we talk about the right of citizens for the country, residents of California, to have their voices heard. The first thing I'd like to say very briefly is, before we commit more funds, to stop, take a timeout, really truly pause. What kinds of impact studies have you done on the airport expansion? expansion. We know there's jet fuel tank expansion, runways, parking lot expansion. What about the effect on communities? Really looking at that, doing the hard and messy work of democracy, engaging communities. I'd like to second Mr. Alper's request that you hold off on funding Cygnus for this phase 2 or 3 or 4. Sorry, I'm not an aviation expert, but really looking at these pathways, the procedures, letting that work of somebody who has expertise and has done this effectively without using, uh, county funds to see where that goes. But I want to end with this focus on community. We are the people of the community, and there isn't a single community that I've had a chance to interact with on this point that says we don't want equitable distribution of flights. So take that moment, listen to us, let us be part of that development of the Fly Quiet program before it even gets into place. Parking aside any voluntary part, I'd like to end with, this is the hard, hard work of democracy. Take a moment, really listen, look around. You have experts here, people with lived experience. And with that, I thank you so much for your time.
[112:28] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[112:39] Speaker 6: Good morning.
[112:40] Speaker 5: My name is Stephen Chatham. I live west of Occidental, uh, 40 years or so. Um, I want to lend my voice to those who have actually submitted complaints. I haven't done so, but the, um, the change in the flight patterns really did degrade the environment west of Occidental. Um, I'm not going to repeat the proposals that many people have said about this, but one of the things that I haven't heard very much about and would like to hear more about is the intention regarding expanding the airport further, because the number of flights coming over Sonoma County will have an impact. And I know that there's some— I have some confusion based on what I've heard about your authority to limit flights, but my understanding is, is that you are charging the fees that are charged for the airport, for the airplanes that land at the airport, and you are also in charge of the things that get done at the airport to make that possible.
[113:51] Speaker 7: So it would be—
[113:52] Speaker 5: I would like to endorse that this conversation be added to the existing conversation about the future of the airport and the impacts it have just because there's more airplanes coming in. Thank you.
[114:04] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[114:12] Speaker 1: Ditto on what he just said, the future of the airport and what it's going to mean expansion-wise. I'm Jan Tomaszoff, and my family has lived in Lower Dry Creek Valley for 50 years. And recently we have experienced a lot of noise, and that's why I'm here today. Um, we were out having a family picnic the other day and had to stop talking in the middle of it because we couldn't continue because of the noise. Um, and, uh, I just want you to take that into account with all these different studies. Please watch out for expansion of the airport. You have control.
[114:51] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[114:52] Speaker 1: And please control the increase, if any, of future flights there, with 4 major airlines now having access to the airport. Thank you.
[115:04] Speaker 2: Thank you. Any other public comment in chambers? Seeing none. Any online?
[115:20] Speaker 4: Thank you, Chair. One moment. Um, Chair, I do not see any hands raised.
[115:30] Speaker 2: Thank you. We'll bring it to my colleagues if there is anyone that has any questions or comments. Supervisor Hopkins.
[115:38] Speaker 3: All right, um, I, I just want to start by reiterating my request for the decibel levels for Charlie 8. I think it's really important to have an understanding of what baseline was in these communities and not sort of just before and after the, you know, kind of modest tweaks surrounding Redhead. And if it's possible to share that not only with members of the board but also with members of the public, so if we can post that information publicly online, I think that would be very helpful. I also just wanted to share that I would love to see a fixed map And just maybe some feedback for the consultant that the video is pretty and fancy, but I find less usable than just like lines on a map in colors so that I can actually see where it falls in the communities. You sort of got a brief moment where you're like, oh, okay, so that's a little bit closer to Sebastopol or Forestville. But with the 3D, I don't think it's actually that helpful. One question that I had, I assume that altitude is always measured compared to sea level. Is that correct?
[116:38] Speaker 5: That is correct.
[116:39] Speaker 3: So when you're talking about altitude, if you are over Pole Mountain and you're at 3,000 feet, um, you're at 3,000 feet above sea level, but you're only like 800 feet above the actual mountain, correct?
[116:51] Speaker 5: That is what is showing. However, over most of the county, the minimum safe altitude is 1,000 1,000 feet above terrain except in the landing or departing sequence of the event, the flight.
[117:10] Speaker 3: So I guess what I'm getting at is we have quite a few mountains in West County, and we're talking about, um, you know, sort of the, the topography which, which came up. Is the topography taken into account in the sound studies? So for instance, the fact that Oxnard sits around 600 feet of sea level, and actually most residents, because Oxnard kind of in a valley sit quite a bit higher than that.
[117:31] Speaker 5: Train is a calculation in the sound effects.
[117:35] Speaker 3: And does it also sort of take into account kind of like bowls and canyons that tend to sort of almost echo and trap sound?
[117:42] Speaker 5: I would have to ask Vinnie on that.
[117:44] Speaker 3: Okay.
[117:44] Speaker 10: Yes, ma'am, it does. When you've got these, especially when you're talking about virtual noise monitors or stationary noise monitors, yes, because as the sound Because of that bowl, as the sound gets echoed through, those monitors pick that up.
[118:00] Speaker 3: Okay, so that is true for the monitors, but is that true for the modeling?
[118:06] Speaker 10: Yes. Yeah, because the monitors feed into the modeling. So when we look at— if you're talking about virtual noise monitoring that we're talking about as part of the Flight Quiet Program, yes, that's taken into account. What we use for our modeling, yes, that would be factored into the average CNEL that we provide. Yes.
[118:22] Speaker 3: Okay, great. Thank you. Another question that I have is: Is it possible to see a map of what airplanes are doing right now, and how many of them are taking, say, the Charlie Eight versus the Redhead, and also any deviations that we're seeing? Like it would be great just to get a few 24-hour snapshots. I'll also share you know with residents that I've been interrupted a few times recently, like around the dinner table or in the morning, where you know suddenly there's a very low. loud airplane noise, and it's not regular, right? It's not every time. And so I think that that also— the lack of predictability— people are like, well, what's going on? And, you know, is— what, what is, what is happening? What is changing, right? But it definitely feels like there are patterns that are continuing to evolve and continuing to change in this moment. And any way that we can demystify that or kind of share that information— I know I have Flight Tracker too, but it would be great to get kind of like a map and You know, again, with the sort of lines for this was Charlie 8, this was Redhead, that kind of classification. Would that be possible to get and share with the public?
[119:23] Speaker 5: It is available through our CASPR noise system. So that is the data that's tracked in the system. We cannot track Charlie 8 because it's a vector system. So when the tower and air traffic control is assigning that departure, the system does not pick that up. Because it's not the RMP, the automated system. So it does pick up Redhead and any other RMP procedures, and our system does pick up those that have a defined procedure. But because of the vector nature of Charlie 8, we can't say for sure if they were given that procedure.
[120:00] Speaker 3: Is there any way of determining that? I mean, I think we kind of know what Charlie 8 looks like, so could we categorize certain trajectories as extremely likely to be Charlie 8? Can we listen in to the dispatch? I mean, it just, it just feels like this, this should be a solvable problem, right?
[120:18] Speaker 5: We can make assumptions, and you can see the concentration of traffic and assume that is related to that, because it's mostly the instrument aircraft. So corporate jets, the airliners, they're the ones that are going to be using the procedures. The smaller general aviation is not. And so you can filter by type of aircraft. And get those flight tracks.
[120:39] Speaker 3: That would be great. I just feel like it'd be really helpful to get a sense of, okay, on a given day, and sort of provide a few different samples, some on the weekend, some during the weekdays, um, you know, how many are we seeing of Charlie 8, how many are we seeing of Redhead, and then, you know, being able to again sort of track the noise complaints, right? We had sort of a bit of a data set during the encampment and that whole conversation we had before that, and, and so it would just be really helpful to track sort of where we are on a weekly basis, if that's possible. I also was looking at— so we're looking at 16 total candidate procedures, but each runway is considered a different procedure. And I think that for members of the public, honestly, they don't care which runway we're using. It's really what happens after leaving airport space. So does that really mean that we're actually looking at a fairly small number of departure trajectories? Because we're sort of looking at 8, right, and 4 runways. So that's really like 2 trajectories that are kind of substantially different once they leave airport space.
[121:41] Speaker 5: Not sure I'm sure the heart of your question, Supervisor.
[121:46] Speaker 3: Well, what I'm getting at is we're— they're getting credit for different runways being different departures, but are those departures from those runways then going to be the same once they leave airport space? in which case, to the community, that feels like just one, one candidate departure.
[122:04] Speaker 4: Yes.
[122:05] Speaker 3: Do you see what I'm saying?
[122:06] Speaker 5: So that would be a departure option that would— or an arrival option for that specific runway, uh, in addition to the ones that already exist. So we're going to be looking to supplement the other procedures. So that would give more opportunities for different procedures to be in use.
[122:21] Speaker 3: All right, let me ask it a different way, I guess. Are we looking at 8 different departures over Sonoma County once they leave airport space that look very different from one another, or are we looking at just a couple but they're technically different because they're leaving from different runways?
[122:39] Speaker 5: There would be one per runway, so there'd only be 4 at the end.
[122:44] Speaker 3: There's only 4 departure procedures?
[122:46] Speaker 5: Yes, and 4 arrival procedures.
[122:48] Speaker 3: Okay, I thought I saw 16 total candidate procedures.
[122:53] Speaker 5: 8 for each would be the total to consider for our 8 arrivals and 8 departures. So the initial review will generate 2 options for departures per runway, and then it would be a review of which one provides the best benefit for the community, and your board would determine which one to submit to the FAA.
[123:14] Speaker 3: And I guess what I'm trying to get at, is it possible to make sure that those departures are going in different places in Sonoma County, not just originating on different runways. Like, so we get 8 very different tracks that we can look at. And then maybe this is a question for the consultants. I don't know.
[123:29] Speaker 5: They have to be designed per runway.
[123:31] Speaker 3: I understand that, but I also am trying to sort of share that from the community perspective, they don't care which runway it leaves from. They care which town it flies over. So how many different towns are we looking at? How many different trajectories are we looking at? After we leave the airport space?
[123:47] Speaker 5: It would still be 4.
[123:49] Speaker 3: 8 or 4?
[123:53] Speaker 5: There would be 4 departures, 4 arrival trajectories.
[123:56] Speaker 10: John, can I jump in for a second?
[124:01] Speaker 5: Sure.
[124:02] Speaker 10: Sure. So, yes, ma'am. So to just clarify what John's saying, there will be initially, when you get the concepts, there will be 8 different trajectories 4 departures and 8 different trajectories for arrivals that will be given to you for consideration. Those will be condensed down to 4 departures and 4 arrivals, and they'll be completely separate trajectories that you're going to be looking at.
[124:25] Speaker 5: But it's—
[124:26] Speaker 10: so to answer your question, initially you'll get 16 concepts that'll be narrowed down to 8.
[124:30] Speaker 5: But that's not 16 per runway end?
[124:34] Speaker 10: No, not 16 per runway end. 2 Per runway end for departures and 2 per runway end for arrivals.
[124:41] Speaker 3: But with different trajectories?
[124:42] Speaker 2: Yes.
[124:43] Speaker 3: Okay, thank you. That was what I was getting at, because you could sort of look at where you're counting it as 8, but it's really sort of like 2 trajectories and then just different runways that they're starting on. That was my question. Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. Um, and then, uh, following up on that, can we have a refined Charlie 8 be one of those candidate departures, just so that again we can look at that sort of baseline analysis and compare it to the other options?
[125:08] Speaker 5: That is essentially what Brad's proposal is to the FAA, if I'm summarizing that correctly.
[125:13] Speaker 8: Um, not really, no.
[125:17] Speaker 9: It's a standalone departure, but it retains the flexibility of the Charlie 8 and the predictability of the red line.
[125:24] Speaker 8: It's essentially what Vinny is talking about.
[125:29] Speaker 5: The Charlie 8 procedures will be part of that analysis in determining what, what one of these, these 2 procedures for your consideration would be.
[125:37] Speaker 3: Okay, I just feel like it would be helpful to have sort of that looked at, you know, again, when we're sort of analyzing like baseline conditions and, and changing conditions. Um, then, you know, I recognize that there have been no approved curfews. Is that still something that we could consider Trying, um, to do, you know, with support from federal legislators and maybe lessons learned from other communities who were rejected?
[126:02] Speaker 4: Supervisor Hopkins, it is still something that exists in the Federal Register as a pathway by which local entities can control noise. So as a technical matter, the answer is yes, the board could direct staff to work in that direction. Um, it would have to be with sort of the eyes wide open in terms of the likelihood of success, but you can absolutely take that path.
[126:25] Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, to me, I feel like it's worth a try, and I definitely hear from the community that, you know, one of the biggest concerns— and I recently picked up my parents at the airport and their flight was late, actually it was my husband, I went to sleep, I'll be honest, because it was running late, it was like 11:30, you know, and that's, I think, very— it's different having a sort of 11:30 PM flight compared to an 11:30 AM flight, I think, for for many residents.
[126:49] Speaker 5: Supervisor, on that point though, that is that point that I made that the FAA has not approved any since the implementation of that law.
[126:55] Speaker 3: Right. Oh, I'm aware, and I'm just wondering if that— I mean, that's maybe something that we could consider adding to our legislative platform, um, you know, is sort of advocacy around the space, maybe looking at lessons learned. Why were the other jurisdictions rejected? I'm not the kind of— I mean, you don't know until you ask, right? I recognize that no one has gotten to a yes, but, um, we're creative and innovative in Sonoma County, and I, I believe in us. The other question that I have is, what caps the number of flights right now? Does anything cap the number of flights?
[127:26] Speaker 4: There is no cap on flights through any particular airspace. FAA makes their determinations on a safety airspace-wide basis. In terms of the airport itself, there are no enforceable caps, nor does the airport I.e., the county have the authority to set those caps.
[127:47] Speaker 3: So despite having sort of caps and projections in the general plan, that is completely irrelevant?
[127:52] Speaker 4: Unfortunately, yes.
[127:54] Speaker 3: What I guess, um, are there logistical caps to the airport in terms of physical limitations on infrastructure? We can only handle X number of planes coming through?
[128:06] Speaker 4: As a legal matter, the amount of traffic that an airport needs to take on— and now we're talking about facilities, not just airspace— is covered by the grant assurances, which are part of the federal funding packages that Sonoma County Airport and all the other airports take. And there is a grant assurance which requires economic nondiscrimination and full access amongst all aeronautical users. And so what that means is that on paper, having entered into the federal system Sonoma County does not have the ability to turn folks away, even where facilities don't allow for the kind of use that a new airline or increased traffic would, um, would require. And so technically, airlines or other users can complain under Part 16 of the Federal Register if airports don't expand or get creative in order to allow additional uses that are sustainable within the airspace. And John can talk more about what those logistically would look like. But technically, you don't really have the ability to limit based on infrastructure.
[129:18] Speaker 5: There's a couple different factors that also play in. When the FAA looks at an airfield, they look at the service volume on an annualized basis for the runways. Our annual service volume based on having the 2 runways with the 4 runway ends is about 235,000 total operations. That does not mean that's— that limit is set with knowledge that there's 15 to 20-minute delays in the system at that level of service. We also have the restriction that our secondary runway is not an airline runway. It can be used in limited durations. It's covered by our Part 139 airfield certification. Thank you. But most of the operators do not want to use it because it's smaller, narrower, and they prefer to use the primary runway. So that drops that service volume. We do have limitations in capacity through the throughput through the terminal. There is a guidance from the FAA. It has to be reasonable. Unfortunately, it's not our definition of reasonable. It's the FAA definition of reasonable with our current. Providers at the airport. All of our ticket counters and gate counters are leased to the current operators, so there are no open spaces within the terminal facility for new operators. The FAA may say it's reasonable to put in a common use system and require shared space, and then we have limitations on the airline apron with only so many parking spaces for the aircraft, and then they would have to hold elsewhere off of the So there's practical limits as to how much you can squeeze through the facility.
[130:54] Speaker 3: So essentially the limitations are really sort of practical limits surrounding the existing infrastructure. No legal limitations, but just practical ones. I guess one of the things that I would ask is that in the future when we bring back improvements to the airport, that we consider the extent to which this is going to increase flight traffic, because I know that there was a decision to extend the runway way back before I was on the board. I remember covering it as a journalist, and I think that not everyone was necessarily aware of the implications of that. We also, of course, completed a large terminal renovation. And so I just think that we need to go into this eyes wide open, recognizing that we have no other legal way of limiting. And then really appreciate the time, Chair Hermosillo. I have one last question, which is— I would assume that the sort of Redhead decision by the FAA is subject to NEPA. Is that, um, is that correct?
[131:47] Speaker 4: Yes, that's correct.
[131:48] Speaker 3: Do we have legal standing under the Administrative Procedures Act to litigate if we feel that they actually did not comply with NEPA in terms of addressing significant impacts?
[131:59] Speaker 4: Just like any other categorical exemption, there is a period during which either the county or other impacted folks can make a complaint about it. They did not seek input from the county prior to publication of their categorical exemption with respect to the redhead procedure, and that was completed in, I believe, was it early 2023 that it came out?
[132:21] Speaker 7: I believe so.
[132:22] Speaker 4: Yeah, I believe it was January 2023. So there, there is a period, but that period for this particular action has closed. But of course, future actions that are subject to NEPA would, would likely trigger new review periods.
[132:33] Speaker 3: I, I would just be curious if there is sort of any other possible understanding that might have an ability to extend that period, whether it's looking at the Administrative Procedures Act or whether it's looking at the fact that we didn't actually experience the impacts right away? Because I think that there are substantial impacts not only to the residents that we're hearing from, but also quite frankly to our workload, right? The fact that you have had to respond to a what, tenfold increase in complaints? I mean, it's massive. And so I just— I know that we can't sort of say yes, that's a possibility, but I'm just wondering if it might be possible to investigate if there is any possibility of, um, a file, even if it's honestly a strongly worded letter. But I, I would love to look into the legal possibilities because it feels like they made this decision in the dark, zero input and guidance. It happened, but then it was really sort of the full implementation of it that took some time that has caused really significant impacts to the community and also to our services and our ability to provide them. So.
[133:30] Speaker 4: As a general matter, timeframes run from the decision, but I'm happy to to speak with our CEQA and NEPA experts, of which we have several, um, and to discuss whether there are avenues for further review.
[133:41] Speaker 3: Thank you so much.
[133:41] Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Supervisor Gore.
[133:44] Speaker 6: Uh, thank you, Supervisor Hopkins, for leaning in. I'll do the same but in a little bit of a different approach, um, because I think the, the most resonant thing I heard from public comment and it also reflects my desire, not just from over the next couple months, but for the next couple— for the next years, is that request that came in that said, what we want is partnership and to be able to trust that even if the answer isn't always what we want to do, is how do we work together to push on different areas where— we need to do. This is going to have to be something more about how we approach it than what it is in this moment. Um, for example, these discussions about the FAA and where it's at— what it doesn't take into account is, as was mentioned before, is desires on our lobbying side. When we talk about a curfew program that hasn't been actualized or approved in any area, or even legal challenges per Santa Ana's flight path and other things like that. It doesn't mean that the way that it is right now and the dictation from FAA without, uh, without taking into aspect mitigations that should be required, it doesn't mean we can't get there. And so I also think about things we've done that have tried to improve the situation, which was, for example, with the Aviation Commission adding seats In this case, it was adding seats for also cities because there was huge concerns coming not only out of Windsor but also out of Santa Rosa, also out of Sebastopol, and we wanted to make sure the mayors and council members also as jurisdictions had not just a place for their complaints but a way to advocate and lean in on this. So for a couple different areas that I want to kind of dive into, number one is I want to start with acknowledging that there's a palpable level of exhaustion in this room. There's exhaustion from the side of neighbors and friends in areas that look at something and it just doesn't make sense. There's a difference between just complaining about airport noise versus a dramatic shift in the way that the flights move that has planes banking underneath 1,000 feet and blowing out our community, right? There's a difference between that and in the past when I used to do meetings either at the Windsor City Council— Town Council, excuse me— or with neighbors in residential neighborhoods where it was more about, hmm, I hate to say this, but the level of concern was more about nuisance versus true disruption of life, I would call it. And so You know, John, Johannes, everybody here. For me, there's exhaustion on the side of I see, and even from the consultant side and others of well, this is how the system works. This is what I need to do. I also want to push the FAA, but I don't want to piss them off so much that they don't help us in the future. But if the Aviation Commission isn't the right way to get a long-term partnership with neighbors. going forward that isn't just receiving complaints and notices going out, and then on the other side is citizen applications going in. I feel like there needs to be a portfolio which is not just responding to 30,000 complaints, but instead is like, what is achievable as under the current set of circumstances? What do you have to lobby to, to go I've dealt with, as a county supervisor covering this area, with neighbor meetings where we would notice, John, we would notice people within a mile of the airport. We'd get them together. Sometimes we were dealing with concerns or complaints about, hey, I'm ready for noise from flights, but I didn't know that you guys are going to be running SWAT exercises on Saturday and Sunday mornings at 4:00 in the morning. I think that's a great example. 6 AM all the time and dropping people off and throwing fake bombs around. I mean, we had a Porsche club out there that ultimately was another thing that ultimately, like, you worked on. We had a helicopter service that still is operating, but that there were contracts or consultation with the contractor, with you and I behind the scenes, just greatly encouraged that contractor to work with us instead of blowing people out once again. There's real ways to address this. And so for me, I see a lot of time spent in a reactive way on this portfolio that is an exhausted way, whether it's Johannes being brought in, council being brought in, John, you always being brought in, you being vilified in one degree by people who say you have no interest in solving for this problem. I'm not. On the other side, I've worked with you on, you know, we spent hundreds of hours trying to improve, right? So, so I just want to lay that out that there's a real real here. This is not just mere nuisance complaints of individuals. These are—I just want to let you all know that whether I've looked at the videos or whether I've been—I've been with people on sites and I've been at at people's homes. especially with this conversion over to Redhead. It's just outrageous. It's absolutely outrageous what, what the flights are doing. Yes, I want to see a, uh, a minimum ceiling of flights where they have— before they start banking, they have to get up and get the hell out of the area before they start turning and throwing the engines on and rattling everybody, knocking molars out. Yes, I would also like to, even if we don't see the curfew is being approved. I'd like to continue to push. I'd like also our neighbors to see us as advocates, that we don't just hear from them but we're partnering on short, medium, and long-term solutions. So I, you know, as I near the end of my service, I just know I'm passing this baton off to another supervisor who's going to have to get in and do the same learning and go in a deep dive with you. So I guess what I'm asking is for you all, and I know, uh, the CEO, um, and others, is I'm not going to propose the creation of another Citizens Advisory Council or other thing right now. But I do— this has to go somewhere other than notes from us back and forth, John with you and others. That's like, we want to see this on regular calendar, we want to see this here, we want you to be heard, we want to figure it out. There has to be a portfolio that moves this forward in a, in a, in a sustainable way. Um, I do have a, you know, a couple specific ones. Um, Mr. Alper, John, this discussion about would we dedicate the funding but wait until we see what the response is before— do you have any response to that? Like, why wouldn't we wait to see what their response is if we wanted to? I mean, it sounded rational, but I don't know if it sounds rational from a programmatic perspective with you and sickness.
[141:07] Speaker 5: Uh, there's a couple different options on that.
[141:11] Speaker 7: We can—
[141:11] Speaker 5: would follow your direction. If you direct us to wait on that, we will. But we also are looking at this as an airport-wide— Charlie 8 is only departures to the south, so we do want to look at ways to improve noise impacts around other areas of the airport. So this would also look at areas to Windsor, to the north, and so it's not just those south departures. So maybe it's a bifurcation of, uh-huh, we wait on that particular area. Uh, Vinnie, I don't know if you have any input on that.
[141:42] Speaker 10: So all I can say from that perspective is that if I, if I had to just put it into perspective, FAA deals with almost over 16,000 procedures across, right? And Brad Alper's proposal that that was put into the FAA portal. What I can assure you is Mr. Alper is not the only one from Sonoma County. These proposals go into the FAA from all over the United States, various communities, various airports. They go into what I— unfortunately, I have to use this term— they go into a black hole because there's nothing forcing the FAA to put that proposal to test. Basically, there's nobody pressuring the FAA to look at. Also, FAA is so resource constrained. This is at the moment I'm sharing something that there is talks about. The FAA at this moment is actually talking about privatizing procedure design entirely. They're literally willing to give up that one piece so that the airports hire private contractors to design procedures and then send them back to the FAA. That's how saturated the FAA is with requests at the moment. So I obviously it's the board's decision. But what I can tell you is at this moment there is no pressure on the FAA to design a procedure for any given airport that comes from a community. So if you give them a procedure that is designed, then they are forced to look at it because then pressure can be political pressure can be also applied and say we've given you designs to look at. If you want to refine them, go ahead and refine them. But you now have something that you can start with. So that's what I would state from my side and my experience with the FAA and the procedure requests that, you know, pretty much go to them on a regular basis without any lead-off, so to say. Hey, please go ahead and design it for us because we're under duress and there's a lot of noise exposure to our constituents, to our residents. That only goes so far.
[143:40] Speaker 7: I hear you.
[143:45] Speaker 6: I also acknowledge that the black hole, and we've dealt with this with Bureau of Indian Affairs and with others in so many different areas where, you know, we could wait hoping that we get a response in 2 months or 6 months, but it could be years. And at the same time, they could prioritize reviewing ours because we're from a formal agency if we put something together and applied it. We can't assume anything. But yet at the same time, To me, what that was, was that was a request for partnership. And there's— and that's what I'm interested in responding to. A request for coordination and partnership. If there is a lot of work that's been put in, and I will reference Mr. Alper, a private party, but if there's confidence from a group of constituents and neighbors about this and where it's at, then I want to give validity to And I'd rather you all do that rather than me having to create another appointee to the Aviation Commission and appointing him or somebody else or creating another ad hoc for you guys to make a series of meetings on. I'd rather know that there is a concerted series of sequential meetings and coordination. Now, I'm not assuming, once again, that everybody on the consultant side and our staff side also appreciates or supports what's being requested by people in the community, or if there isn't, I'm not, you can't assume that there's absolute coordination. Just as much as there's folks who think you don't care and we don't care, and we're just trying to make them, all this work is to try and just placate them and wag the, you know, wag the dog while we don't give a shit. Right? I don't believe that because I've been here with you trying to figure things out. But at the same time is I don't assume that everybody on the other side is— of the neighbor and, you know, citizen activist side— is just somebody who's cranky, who wants their perfect place in the countryside not to be interrupted. Okay? So I just— like, for me, leaving this board and setting this up and leaving this in the hands of another supervisor and the rest of this board still being here is we have to figure out some way that there's confidence that the things we're moving on are coordinated, that they're moving forward, that we are being— we are pushing the bar. We're not using the examples of either legal past approvals, whether it's curfew or other things from the FAA, are going to be what stop us. If we have to be the point of the spear on the lobbying side, that we do that. And so I want to kind of put that back maybe to John and our county exec because this kind of gets into another thing. This is like my biggest concern is that I come back here in 10 years even though I haven't been a supervisor and you're putting as much time, as much energy, and as much exhaustion from the community and from our team on something that still doesn't feel like it's achieving, activating, creating alignment, a strategic plan. So let's get some shit done. Let's like try and create some improvements. That's what I want. I want the community to see that we are pushing, that we aren't just kind of quietly placating what the FAA currently does. Because as we know, the federal government is in a total wishwash. Anything could happen in the next 2 to 4 years, right? Also at the same time. So I'm going to stop, John. I'm going to see if you have any responses to that. CEO Guewen, I don't know. I know you love to just spend time turning the crank on things that have required hundreds, if not thousands of hours over the course of decades and not repeating that same thing. I don't want to propose another damn working group or an ad hoc right now. I kind of want to look to you all and be like, where does— like, sure, I want to approve the amount of money. I want to get some things going. I want to see the coordination, even if we have to duly input with that while we wait, and then we subsequently co-submit. I just want to see—
[147:53] Speaker 7: God.
[147:54] Speaker 6: So, uh, Jerry Maguire, help me help you help me. Can you help me right now to help our community and get something that creates a glimmer of hope that we can build trust and positive movement together?
[148:07] Speaker 2: Do you have a response for that?
[148:11] Speaker 8: Sure.
[148:12] Speaker 9: I'll say that I have been working with the team, and I, I think what's being proposed here and the effort being proposed to identify these routes, work with the community to figure out what, what works, what will not. And I do agree that once we submit things, we have to put some political pressure on it to move things forward.
[148:27] Speaker 5: And so I think there does need to be a coordinated effort.
[148:30] Speaker 9: We agree completely with that.
[148:33] Speaker 4: The goal of this effort, I think both the development of the routes but also the Fly Quiet program, is to get people at the table and to hear those concerns and to incorporate those concerns.
[148:41] Speaker 3: and take it seriously.
[148:42] Speaker 9: So I agree with you completely.
[148:45] Speaker 5: Have a coordinated effort.
[148:46] Speaker 9: We're going to work together.
[148:47] Speaker 4: We're going to consolidate this. And we will call in the help from all of our federal partners to push, because it sounds like that's what we're going to have to do regardless.
[148:54] Speaker 6: Yeah, I just— I would just say, I think it— I don't get to set the agenda for next year, being a— as of tonight or tomorrow, uh, the lamest duck in the land. Um, but I, I can also say that if you're— if you don't schedule something, whether it's a series of discussions that are played out over months and even the potential year with the Aviation Commission or other kinds of things that give people a confidence level, I could anticipate you're going to be here in the spring asking for another board meeting for— and at that point, maybe if I can't lobby the board for a year, I'll be here on a year and 2 days to come back and say, Supervisor Hopkins, what the hell are you doing? Um, I would just say that I, I— the individuals who have submitted 35,000 complaints, that time is—
[149:51] Speaker 5: 45.
[149:52] Speaker 6: Is better used putting it into a productive solution and a place where the— it's not just waiting for a board, it's like a series of community forums, whatever the hell it is. I just would encourage a work plan that gives confidence that the submission from this private citizen, the submission and stuff we're going through, the Aviation Commission, it's all coming together. If it's the Aviation Commission, that's fine. If the supervisors need to come also, like my, you know, and, and get a briefing. But I think a work plan needs to be put together that's transparent for folks and talks about what we're going to advocate for and other things.
[150:29] Speaker 5: Okay.
[150:30] Speaker 2: Thank you. And with that, when you come back in a year and 2 days, you will have 2 minutes, and I'll remind you.
[150:40] Speaker 4: Just kidding.
[150:41] Speaker 1: Vice Chair Coursey.
[150:42] Speaker 6: You know, I, I threw 2 former supervisors from Linda's district out because they wouldn't stop at 2 minutes. So.
[150:49] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[150:51] Speaker 1: Vice Chair Coursey.
[150:52] Speaker 7: Thank you. Thanks, John. Elizabeth, lots of information here. Uh, I do have a request that may be similar or part of what Supervisor Hopkins was asking for, and that's a better idea of the number of flights per flight path before— and I'd like to see it before and after Bohemian Grove, because, uh, you know, while we talk about 46,000 complaints The number of complaints has gone down since Bohemian Grove. We only have July on here as an example of 5,000, about 5,400, but I know from reading Aviation Commission minutes that August had a similar number, and about half of those came from 5 households, I understand. So there's some busy, busy dialers out there. But I'd like to know what's going on since then. How many flights were using Charlie, and how many were using Redhead before Bohemian Grove, and how that looks afterward. You know, we get often the bowl of spaghetti lines on a map of— I'd like to see what that represents in numbers. And I'd also like to, to know if the pattern of complaints— and I, I know that you have the ability to, to analyze complaints from where, where they come from in the county— if, if that pattern has changed since Bohemian Grove also. Um, so those are 2 requests. So I've read through this staff report a couple times. I'm still not sure I understand what quiet means in the Fly Quiet program. Airplanes make noise. What are we actually talking about with, with Fly Quiet?
[152:52] Speaker 5: We're trying to find methods to have them fly quieter. To your point, aircraft make noise, but we want to find procedures that reduce that noise footprint as much as possible.
[153:05] Speaker 7: So are those the kind of procedures that we're talking about in departure paths?
[153:11] Speaker 5: Yes.
[153:11] Speaker 7: How does that differ when we're talking about FAA-approved departures versus good neighbor departures? I mean, we're asking people to voluntarily do things more quietly. But aren't they restricted by the FAA's requirements on how they, they leave the airport?
[153:36] Speaker 5: There's 2 parts to it. There's, as you point out, the FAA component of it with the procedures themselves. But with the working roundtable, other airports have been successful in working with the airlines that sit at the table with the community groups where they can get to the chief pilot, and the chief pilot can say, here's what we can include in our operational manuals for the crews where they can talk about power settings, or they can encourage— you know, again, it's depending on weather, ATC, and other issues— but they can encourage use of procedures over other procedures and try and help guide those pilots. It's still going to be up to the pilot in command what is safe for that operation, but right now we have nothing to give to the airlines to say do this. They want something that's been documented and vetted because they're about safety. They want to— if it's not reviewed through their safety teams, they won't do it. So—
[154:34] Speaker 7: The FAA doesn't get into those kind of details in their—
[154:37] Speaker 5: They do not.
[154:39] Speaker 7: Procedures. Okay, thank you. So moving on to a new submission for different routes in and out of the airport. Um, I have the same question as, uh, Mr. Alpert did. Is why, why are we talking about doing that now when we already have a submission, uh, in for Redhead 2? His submission is being reviewed, I understand. Um, are we just muddying the waters here with it, with another And what is the argument against waiting to see what the FAA does with, with those existing submissions?
[155:26] Speaker 5: Given that it's going to take approximately 15 or so months to come up with a procedure that we will submit, I'm hopeful that the FAA will make a decision one way or the other on his procedure on the Redhead 2. And with the new types of procedures, they're more precise. So the more procedures we can get into the pipeline and for FAA consideration, that gives more options of which one can be used, which helps with the dispersal. So it's not always that one procedure. So if they go with Brad Alper's suggestion, that is another procedure or multiple procedures to more mirror Charlie 8. If they approve Redhead 2, that's another one. And if we submit another procedure for— that could be up to 5 or 6 different procedures that could be used on that runway instead of one.
[156:17] Speaker 7: How many procedures are possible? We're talking about however many were submitted with Redhead 2. We're talking about another one with Mr. Alper. We're talking about 16 more with, with this potential submission. Is there an infinite number of procedures out there?
[156:37] Speaker 5: I would— it's not infinite because of the restrictions from the airspace coming out of San Francisco, and you want to have no conflict of traffic. But I would have to ask Vinny what he thinks would be a likelihood. But with that RNP and that precision, you need to provide other options to reduce and disperse the impacts.
[156:59] Speaker 7: The difference between these procedures, though, is, is, is it's not minute, but, you know, it may be what, 50, 100 feet, those, those types of, of differences in altitude, elevation?
[157:14] Speaker 5: Yes, 1,500 to 2,000 feet. But then it's also, to Supervisor Hopkins' point, it's the path. So maybe it's not immediately to the west, maybe it's more to the east, maybe it's more to the south. And so it creates more of that fan effect that Charlie 8 does.
[157:31] Speaker 7: Okay. Charlie 8 and Redhead are different paths, but they're also different procedures. They— it's like apples and oranges. Is that right? Trying to compare them is what I'm hearing. Is there a way for us to put them closer to being apples and apples so we understand them better?
[158:04] Speaker 5: I will have to look to Vinny for that answer.
[158:05] Speaker 10: So if I understand your question correctly, you're talking about existing Charlie 8. Can we depict it in such a way so you're looking at apples to apples? Or is the question, can we create a— can we develop standardized procedures That are all apples to apples?
[158:25] Speaker 7: I think both of those would be great. Right now, right now we're not able to, um, to look at Charlie 8 in the same way that we can the redhead. Um, and I get it that they're using different technology, but is there a way that we can get closer to, to being able to compare them In some kind of real-world way?
[158:50] Speaker 10: Sure, the answer to that is yes. That's what's called— basically, if we take radar tracks, I'll make this quick, 30 seconds. We can take radar historic track data for Charlie 8, bundle tracks based on direction, create a backbone off that track which will replicate as close as possible. It's not going to be apples to apples, but like you said, it will be closer. You'll be able to see a backbone which basically condenses that, that dispersion that you look at from Charlie 8, and it'll show a clear backbone, which is equivalent to those RNAV RNP procedures, um, that are in place as well.
[159:24] Speaker 7: I'd love to see something like that, and I'd also just again see the, see the numbers of Charlie 8 and Redhead over the past several months. And, um, also to the county executive, I'd request that future board items, um, uh, dealing with this issue be, um, evaluated with our, uh, racial equity tool— toolkit.
[159:50] Speaker 2: Supervisor Rabbit.
[159:54] Speaker 8: You know, thank you very much. Thank you for all the work. And, uh, I did have a question regarding, um, the difference in what you're submitting, because I thought I heard So what I see and what I understand— correct me if I'm wrong, John— the planes take off either north or south to a certain elevation, like 600— I think it's 629 feet, and then they turn either right or left depending on— to go out to Redhead. There's one waypoint before Redhead if from the northern sector. So what we're looking at is continuing going up, raising it from 629 to some other elevation, which puts you further away on a parallel track. But I thought I heard that there was a limit to how far you can go based upon not opening up a NEPA or something like that. Is that, is that true? And what do we feel that limit is?
[160:50] Speaker 5: Pushed it the wrong way. Um, so the Redhead 2 procedure was what Cygnus felt was getting to that limit of what we could push before we would change the waypoints and then change that drastically from the Redhead, which would then trigger a deeper NEPA review. Um, really it was about how do you get the planes to that Redhead, because that's a key point for the Bay Area Oakland Center traffic. And the farther we raise that altitude before they turn, the harder it is to get back to that without creating additional waypoints. There were some minor waypoints, but the The main fix is Redhead. And I believe, Vinny, correct me, but that was about as far as we could get it and still make the procedure work with the limitations.
[161:36] Speaker 10: Yes, absolutely. It also has to be— another thing that goes into that equation is also balancing out what the FAA is willing to accept in the near term and what the airlines are willing to accept in the near term. It is all a combination of factors that play into it. Inclusive of the environmental review, because as soon as you bring environmental review in play, you're looking at at least 24 months, at least, before the FAA would have any response back.
[162:05] Speaker 8: Yeah, I appreciate that. I figured no less. I can tell you, um, so commercial traffic, or commercial came back in 2007 with Horizon, correct? I remember, uh, being back in the FAA I think I mentioned this to you once, uh, with Mike McGuire, um, and I, I believe that there was some of this going on, uh, we were imitating the, uh, planes landing, uh, and it was really for the impact to Windsor at the time, Windsor High School. And I think we, um, through some lobbying and some, um, political pressure of some sort— not sure how that actually worked, uh, but we were doing, uh, what we were looking for was a continual descent as opposed opposed to a step down. And I think we were successful in that. And I bring that up only because I think, you know, obviously we're limited in our authority. The FAA really holds the cards. I appreciate the fact that someone submitted a, you know, an alternate flight path. I think it's important that we follow up and do the same. Um, and, you know, I, I know that, um, you know, people get very, uh, you know, angry about the noise, but at the end of the day, we're— we are so limited in what we can and can't do. All we can do is make sure that we go and ask, and I think this is actually being very proactive, pulling this together today, and I appreciate that. We're addressing this issue that has been percolating for some time now. When I was in Petaluma, we had the same thing for a smaller airport, but, you know, we dealt with it all the time with trying to make sure that we can minimize that. I think the— You know, I, I do worry about, you know, like the vectors, for instance. Uh, so each— the vectors can be very different based upon the controller who's going to be giving that, or they can be very much the same if they tell them to turn at a certain altitude to a different heading, which is probably kind of a rote, um, semi-rote kind of thing that they may do. So I'm not sure, uh, you know, the, the chief pilot— I know that the FAA And the airlines. Everything is a lot more direct than it used to be. I think you used to take more circuitous routes about arrivals, departures based upon these waypoints and navigation. Now it's all satellite GPS and saving fuel, saving emissions, and it's a straight shot in and out. So to the extent that we can lobby in a smart way with the FAA, who are undoubtedly being lobbied by thousands, if not tens of thousands, if not even more, uh, similar facilities across the U.S. And with their workload and everything else and the review processes that they have in place, I think, uh, you know, I agree with my colleagues in terms of let's present this, but let's do it in a smart way. I think this is a great first step, um, you know, and again, If the gentleman's, you know, if that can get some traction and they can start moving on that, I think that gives us another tool. Undoubtedly, I don't think it's going to be a panacea. I think the airport, you know, obviously is successful, here to stay, um, and, um, noise is going to be part of that. Um, you know, there's less noise overall than from the more modern planes than there have been in the past. And that's a benefit as well. So I appreciate the information and appreciate the, the work being done and the cooperation and collaboration that needs to take place at all levels of government to try to make a change for the positive here.
[165:46] Speaker 2: Thank you so much. And thank you for your work on this presentation. I agree with a lot of what my colleagues have said. I want to remind us all about our looping in our federal partners early in this process to make sure that they are helping us along and getting engaged with FAA. I would like a little bit more clarification, please, on what community engagement looks like and what we're going to do to make sure that all constituents from Sonoma County are able to participate in, um, in meetings, and, and then making sure that we're also working very closely with Office of Equity. So can you explain to me a little bit about what community engagement will actually look like?
[166:32] Speaker 5: Yeah, we haven't finished building out that— the community engagement plan. That'll be part of the first efforts. It'll be similar to what we did during the feasibility phases where we had community event meetings, and we would have our consultants there, and we would set it up to be able to present the information, get some feedback. I believe there were 4 planned in the Phase 3 elements and 2 in the Fly Quiet, but then partway through the Fly Quiet, we hope to get the roundtable established, which would then start meeting on the quarterly basis. And that would start leading its own effort on that community engagement. And there'll also be some additional discussions at the commission level. We would still need to make that final coordination with the Office of Equity as well.
[167:22] Speaker 2: Thank you. Can, um, I think this may be for Vinnie. Vinnie, can you explain to me what was done in Phase 1 and what was done in Phase 2 and what were the gaps that weren't finished in Phase 2 that would be met by this additional $90,000?
[167:44] Speaker 10: Sure, ma'am. So the additional $90,000— let me start backwards for a second. The additional $90,000 is a Fly Quiet program. So that's a completely separate program that stands on its own. The feasibility study, which was Phase 1, that's understanding the environment, understanding what the airport is dealing with, understanding the current procedure designs, reaching out to the public, understanding their concerns. To the extent we can accommodate their concerns, that's what Phase 1 was. Phase 2 was taking all the data we got from Phase 1. Now let's see what we can do to design procedures that the FAA in the near term will approve and implement so that the noise exposure on the constituents, the residents, decreases without, let's say, waiting for 3 or 4 years. That was phase 2. So we're still in a part of phase 2. It's not done yet. We're waiting for the FAA. We— I'm quite confident the FAA is going to come back to us. They have been. I've been going back and forth with the principal design team from the FAA and the validation team. They're working through our designs. What Fly Quiet does that the Phase 1 and Phase 2 does not do is it actually holds the airlines accountable for the way they fly and the way they operate in and out of the airport. So we give them certain guidelines, we educate them to the extent possible. Hey, there are residents that live below these flight paths. And as somebody said, the noise is going to be there, but there is a responsible way of flying. As I think it was, I believe it was Senator Hopkins that talked about, hey, can I see how is it that, how is it, can I, can you show me how compliant is Charlie 8? Are the pilots flying Charlie 8 the way they're being vectored or is there a lot of dispersion? That's what we're trying to educate the pilots on. Stay on the backbone of these flight tracks and reduce your power settings to the extent possible. And so that's what the Fly It Quiet program is about. Now the Phase 3 piece, which I believe that's what you were getting to, is now taking a clean slate look and saying, okay, now we've gotten Phase 2 to a place where the FAA is going to go ahead and make some of these minor modifications to procedures. Now look at a clean slate. How do we integrate complete airspace redesign into the Northern California airspace that the FAA will take seriously, hope to implement and reduce, basically disperse the noise across the constituents, the residents. Right now, everything goes to the west. Everything, whether you're going north, you're going to go west, whether you're going south, you're going to go west. Can we make sure that there's equitable distribution of that noise footprint across the Sonoma County airspace?
[170:42] Speaker 2: Thank you. Yes, I just— that's perfect. I want to make sure that we are not shifting the burden from one neighborhood to another and just really analyzing the data. I don't have additional questions, um, and I think we now have a direction, I believe, for staff to— our CEO to get more engaged and be more thoughtful on a path forward that is more comprehensive as a county instead of focusing on from neighborhood to neighborhood. I think that Those are all my questions. Oh no, we talked about, uh, flight— flight— more data on flights. It would be helpful to have the times of flights too. I know Supervisor Hopkins mentioned a flight that was delayed, it was 11:30. I think that's happened a couple times because of where we're located and fog, and if you can't land, you circle around or go back to Oakland or something. I think it would be helpful to have the flight times with that information. Um, and with that, is there any other questions or comments from my colleagues? If not, is there a motion? Uh, Congresswoman, what was it?
[171:50] Speaker 5: Senator?
[171:50] Speaker 3: Thank you, President Hermosillo. Um, I, you know, just in, in terms of the fly quiet, you sort of said that there's accountability, but what is really the accountability? Like, we don't really have a stick, right, at the end of the day that can kind of punish bad actors. So I've definitely heard a lot of questions from the community, and I honestly share those questions and concerns of like, is this a good investment of, you know, Duck County dollars, even though they're airport fund general, you know, enterprise special, special, not general county dollars? Um, it has— this been successful? Have we actually seen noise reductions through the implementation at other airports? And what was the leverage that those airports used to You know, hold the sort of bad actors to account?
[172:33] Speaker 5: We've been modeling this after the Jackson Hole Airport. Their program was very successful. It reduced the complaints by about 60%. Again, they don't have a stick in what they can beat the airlines with. Neither will we. But I think where it really helps is the airlines will be part of that roundtable. So now they're sitting at the table with the neighbors. They're sitting at the table table there, the FAA does include a representative because now there's a formalized process for this that is independent of procedures, and it's a discussion about the noise and impacts. So that having them at the table, they can hear from the neighbors. They can also have an opportunity to explain what they can and they can't do in the cockpit, and they can say, yes, we can try that, we can put that communication out to the pilots. and do that education. So they, they have been successful, and it's, it's— there is a degree of success across communities, but every community that has done a Fly Quiet program has seen a benefit in the noise profiles. Some are not significant. Jackson Hole was probably the most significant example.
[173:43] Speaker 4: Great.
[173:45] Speaker 3: And then it also seems to me like one of the main benefits actually is that roundtable. Um, so who from the county side will be participating, and is there access from, you know, community— concerned community members or, you know, like representatives from our office?
[173:58] Speaker 5: That'll be a decision for your body. We have not put together that recommendation. That'll be part of the framework that we'll build over the next 2 to 3 months with Cygnus and make a recommendation. But we anticipate it being about a 15-member body with community representatives, and you'll have a choice as to who want to put on that.
[174:16] Speaker 3: That would be great. I want to make sure that there are, um, you know, community representatives and, you know, some representative from the— representing the Board of Supervisors as well, because I think that's a process we want to track closely. Any opportunity to speak directly to the FAA, we should definitely, um, you know, capitalize on that.
[174:31] Speaker 4: Thank you.
[174:31] Speaker 2: Thank you. Any other comments from my colleagues? Supervisor Corsi?
[174:37] Speaker 7: Just want to keep the record straight here. There was a comment made that everything is going west right now. As someone who lives south of the airport, I can guarantee you that not everything is going west. Also, I really think that this— the additional $385,000 that we're being asked to spend, and the $360,000 plus $25,000 more for noise, is premature based on the information that we don't have. Complaints dropped by 35 to 40% in July and August. I don't know why that is. I want to know more about what happened, what the difference is, what we're looking at. You know, that's a significant amount. There's something going on here that we're not talking about sufficiently. for me to, to spend this money today?
[175:39] Speaker 5: Supervisor, on that, uh, it is really about the FAA using Charlie 8 more, and we are able to see that there's been a significant decrease in the complaints on Redhead and the tracks that are tracked to those complaints specific to Redhead. With Charlie 8 being the vectored, we do not It is clearly as Redhead. However, the uncorrelated to a departure procedure has grown significantly with more use of Redhead, and the heat map is showing more complaints in northwest Santa Rosa.
[176:16] Speaker 7: My concern is, is that if, if this is in fact what's happening, um, it's happening because, uh, Members of the Board of Supervisors, members of Congress, put pressure on moving the, the flight patterns out of the airport. If we can do it that way, why do we need to spend almost $400,000 on, on more studies?
[176:43] Speaker 5: The biggest reason is Charlie 8 will sunset at some point. They are moving away from those legacy departure procedures.
[176:57] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[176:58] Speaker 2: Supervisor Gore.
[176:59] Speaker 6: The work of the roundtable that we're talking about, the evaluation is predicated upon the request for funding to put in this, this effort, correct?
[177:12] Speaker 5: Correct.
[177:13] Speaker 6: Yeah, so I understand the, the question. I I can't see us going back and just doing everything from today based on the situation that— of what we've been doing. I feel like we have to have a vehicle that moves forward, even if the guidance is that's once again an approved earmark of dollars. The goal is an expenditure of those dollars. These are enterprise dollars. You're not asking the general fund for it. This is the county fund. For everybody who doesn't know, this is that the airport operates as its own enterprise. Even though we're the board, we're not giving county funding to do this. This is airport money that comes into the business operation that goes out. To me, steering this with a roundtable towards a solution set with neighbors and with this work and identifying what the scope is, is is, is a yes. Um, uh, I think the questions on when to— when and how to expend that money based upon if we can get responses to the citizen request for changes and other things has to be with you all, but also as the roundtable moves forward with appointees from the supervisors and members of the community. So I'm a yes on the allocation. I think we can't sit up here from the dais and tell you how to navigate details that we don't know how to. But I will vote for that. Thank you.
[178:45] Speaker 2: Any other questions, comments? Supervisor Rabbit?
[178:50] Speaker 5: I just—
[178:51] Speaker 8: I appreciate the comment and, um, thinking about it. For me, while I do think that the ultimate, um, any change is going to come out of that political Um, connection through our lobbyists in D.C. and, and our congressional delegation and whatnot. I think you also have to have something to— in your hands to sell. And that's, that's to me what this is really all about. Will it be exactly as it's drawn up? I don't know. FAA is going to go and take it and then adjust it accordingly. And but at least we're starting with something. And I can tell you as an architect that, you know, A or B, you have to have something to show. And you know, that's the price we're paying, uh, going forward, and that's why I'm going to be supportive at this particular point in time.
[179:35] Speaker 2: Thank you. Is there a motion from my colleagues?
[179:40] Speaker 6: Move the item as listed with the direction given to the county executive and to the staff to build out the program that we're talking about over the next 2 months with the roundtable and with the inclusion and, and the sequencing.
[179:58] Speaker 2: Is there a second?
[180:00] Speaker 4: Second.
[180:03] Speaker 2: Thank you. Clerk, would you like to do a roll call?
[180:06] Speaker 3: Supervisor Rabbit?
[180:10] Speaker 1: Aye.
[180:10] Speaker 3: Supervisor Corsi?
[180:12] Speaker 7: No.
[180:12] Speaker 3: Supervisor Gore?
[180:14] Speaker 6: Yes.
[180:15] Speaker 3: Supervisor Hopkins?
[180:17] Speaker 9: No.
[180:17] Speaker 3: Chair Hermosillo?
[180:19] Speaker 2: Yes.
[180:20] Speaker 10: Thank you.
[180:29] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[180:29] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[180:31] Speaker 2: Seeing that motion passes, we are now moving on to agenda item number 30.
[180:35] Speaker 7: Did you want to do gold?
[180:36] Speaker 2: Um, yes, we, we are going to transition to gold resolutions because that was a time certain 11:30, and for that we have Our fair board member Lisa Witke-Shaffner joining us to talk about the fair board, the Harvest Fair Gold resolutions. Give us one second while we get that in order.
[181:04] Speaker 4: Great, thank you very much. I guess this makes me redhead 3, so you're right. Yeah, good afternoon. We are We are thrilled to be here today. We have fair team. We appreciate you and your team having us today. I hope on this kind of crazy day that we can provide something very, very happy for you. We are going to acknowledge some of our finest leaders in this community. Thank you to Hugo Mata for appointing me chair of the Harvest Fair. We had a great Harvest Fair. We are proud of agriculture in this community. I know all of you embrace embraced and appreciated. And so I'm going to go through these, and I promise the sciences speak slowly— not sure that's going to happen. So we will have all of our awardees, after I introduce them, come up for a picture if that works. But I'm going to start with our Outstanding Young Person in Agriculture, Brooke Parsons, who is here with us today. And she spent her childhood on a 15-acre farm in Sonoma County's Russian River Valley. Her enterprising parents involved their children in all of their farming business. I think that's a prerequisite with farmers. All the kids have to be in too. They took their tomatoes to local market. They tended the family vineyard. And she grew up in the 4-H and FFA, went to El Molino High School.
[182:23] Speaker 5: Aww.
[182:24] Speaker 4: And Brooke moved to Ithaca, attended Cornell University, came back with a Bachelor of Science in Agriculture, and she was with Bevel Vineyard Management as a vineyard analyst, and now she has moved on and is in procurement at Traditional Medicinals Tea Company, another proud company here in Sonoma County. They are a tea company and wellness company, and she procures herbs domestically. And Brooke makes me feel like the future is bright around agriculture. So thank you, Brooke. Second is our lifetime— on the other end of the spectrum is our lifetime contribution to Sonoma County agriculture. And let's just say Lee Martinelli Sr., rocking it at 87 years old. That's amazing. I should be so lucky to look like Lee. And he comes from one of our most historic agriculture families. He is the owner and farmer at Martinelli Winery, and he has truly dedicated his life to preserving and expanding a century-old family legacy. He took over, um, he went to Chico State University, um, got his teaching credential, and spent 5 years at Santa Rosa High School, um, teaching, um, agriculture and raising cattle. But in '73, Lee Sr. took over his Uncle Tony Bondi's farm and retired from teaching to focus full-time on the 450 acres of grapes and apples while serving, um, many local ag and education boards I would never list for you because a lot The list is ridiculous and impressive. Lee Sr. received the Outstanding Farmer Award, which is similar to what we just gave Brooke, in 1978. We got to love that. So he has been here for decades. We are so grateful to him. Wife, children, grandchildren, um, he's passed all of his values along, and now the Martinelli family is set for the future. So we celebrate Lee Sr. So our, our outstanding leader in agriculture education, Marilock Padgett-Johnson, could not be here today, but we appreciate our teachers, especially agriculture teachers. And she has been 20 years, taught hundreds of students at Santa Rosa Junior College, and we will celebrate her. I know you got her bio, so I just wanted to say thank you to Marilock Padgett-Johnson. And, um, we will make sure that we share with her the picture and your grateful, um, words after about her getting this award. So next we have— and hold on, let me not get messed up here because I was moving quickly— so we have our Friend of Agriculture. Um, Sheila Quince has been a force— I know you know her— um, in Sonoma County's farm and fair fronts for 40 years channeling her can-do spirit. She's tried to retire from us lots of times, let's just put that out, but we don't ever seem to let her go. She grew up in Santa Rosa, FFA member, registered Angus cattle. She has done it all, but these experiences nurtured in her a sense to guide this agriculture path through Santa Rosa JC, Fresno, and then we were so lucky to get her back. She has served 30 years, um, as, um, with the Sonoma County Fair as a premium and exhibit supervisor, and then thought she was leaving. That didn't happen. So 10 years later, she is still the driving force behind our Harvest Fair. We are so grateful to her. Um, she continues to play the instrumental role in the Harvest Fair professional wine competition. We couldn't do it without her and her vast knowledge and experience Uh, makes me so proud to call her a friend and celebrate her today. And then even more fun, we have the Award of Excellence in Craft Beer, Cider, and Spirits, and Old Cask Beer is here. It was founded in 2018 by Tom Edwards and Brian Rangel. They met in 2017 while attending Sonoma State University. You have got to love that. The two started, um, they must not have loved all their business classes and wanted to go do something else, right? Make beer. The 2 started Old Caz, named for Old Cazadero Road, which is the overgrown path that connects Guerneville and Cazadero, with a small budget and a mission to create high-quality, exciting products, um, and bring people of all tastes together. While most of their original equipment was sourced from auctions and the free section on Craigslist, creative determination brought hard work together and they cobbled together a full operational brewery. Their resourcefulness and hands-on effort has shaped Old Cass into what it is today— a multi-location, award-winning brewing company with amazing people and supporters. They are a true business story in Sonoma County. So I know that they're here. Congratulations. And last but not least, I will just mention it is Clover Stornetta, and they are our Award of Excellence in Food Production. I was happy to find out today that Clo and I are the same age. She debuted in 1969, as was I, and she has been their mascot. And Clover Stornetta, as you know, Clover Stornetta, now Clover Sonoma, has given so much to this community. They rebranded in 2017, and they cannot be here today, but I wanted to say one thing that makes all of us very happy is ice cream is back. So we will celebrate Clover Sonoma today with our Award in Excellence in Food Production. And that is it.
[188:02] Speaker 2: Thank you, thank you. Great job, everyone. I really have concerns with you saying that ice cream is back. I didn't know it left.
[188:13] Speaker 4: Oh, it did, and it was quite controversial at the fair.
[188:17] Speaker 2: Oh, that's right. That's why there was the long lines.
[188:20] Speaker 4: We might have lost racing that year, so you might not have noticed the ice cream because we were just— we had other things to think about. So if we could get a picture, we would love that, and we celebrate these awardees.
[188:30] Speaker 2: We can, absolutely. I would like to say a few words, just, um, thank you. No, you can stand right there and just receive all the goodness. We need goodness today, hence also go vote. Oh yeah, um, Thank you for your work, the Fair Board and the Harvest Fair. You all, let me do the math. You guys have been around since '75, so that's 51 years in helping elevate our ag, our food, our wine, and you just do a really good job. And oftentimes when you see folks getting gold medals and like that is a staple, like, oh, that's made in Sonoma County. It really helps elevate all of the great things that are grown and made in Sonoma County. And so thank you for helping highlight that. Thank you for— congratulations for all of the, the winners and the gold, uh, gold medals. You are the best of Sonoma County. I also wonder why we're not having breakfast from Old Kaz.
[189:33] Speaker 4: We could do happy hour.
[189:36] Speaker 2: Fix that for next year.
[189:37] Speaker 4: It's Election Day.
[189:38] Speaker 2: Yeah, you can fix that for next year. But thank you all for helping elevate Sonoma County and, and share all of the goodness that we are with other counties. So thank you, congratulations. Let's do a group photo. Thank you.
[189:51] Speaker 9: All right, the Will Tiscione Show.
[192:55] Speaker 2: And now we're going to move on to agenda item number 33. the 2027 Sonoma County legislative platform. And for that, we will have Will Tesconi, our administrative analyst from the County Executive's Office, and Deputy— wait, Assistant County Administrator Jennifer Salido joining us.
[193:22] Speaker 4: You can just call me Salido.
[193:24] Speaker 6: I know that's what's going on in your mind.
[193:26] Speaker 2: I know, it's so weird to say that full Thank you all for being here. Mr. Tiscione, you very dapper.
[193:34] Speaker 9: Yes, I need it once a year to clean up.
[193:38] Speaker 4: So, good afternoon. Thank you for hearing this item. Um, we wanted to bring forward the 2027 legislative platform for the board's review and adoption and also take this time to kind of give you an update on how the overall legislative affairs program is operating in the CEO's office. under Mr. Tosconi. This item has been brought before your board every year, but the last couple years we've done it on consent, so you haven't really gotten an opportunity to hear how we've shifted the program in the last 2 to 3 years since Will came on board. So I'll pass it off to Will. He's going to share a platform and then again an update on how we've kind of changed the program in the last couple years.
[194:13] Speaker 9: Thank you. Good morning, board, CEO, County Council. Okay, so today's presentation discusses the proposed 2027 legislative platform and provides an update on the county's legislative affairs program, including a new approach and how we use contract lobbyists. Because that update proposes a change in direction, I'll start with a quick recap of how the program has evolved since 2023. So recommended actions. First, staff's first recommended action is to receive an update on the county's legislative affairs program. The second recommended action is to adopt the Sonoma County 2027 Legislative Platform. The update covers what the program has accomplished over the last 2 years and how staff plans to restructure contract advocacy through a request for qualifications for state and federal legislative advocacy services. Any agreements that come out of that process would return to the board for approval. So the Legislative Affairs Program since 2023. As a reminder, in May 2023, the Board approved the 2023 to 2024 state and federal legislative platform. It was adopted for a 2-year term, ran more than 100 pages, and listed separate state and federal priorities. In November 2024, the Board adopted the 2025 legislative platform, which represented a fairly significant retooling of our approach. That platform introduced the format we still use today. Today, where one, we review and adopt— review and adopt every year rather than every 2 years. A shorter platform. Number 2, a shorter platform built on foundational principles that staff can apply across a wide range of issues. 3, policy positions organized by issue area rather than separated into state and federal. And finally, 4, a state policy proposal section for the county's own bill ideas. In 2024, the board also approved the Legislative Affairs Program, which sets guidelines for all county staff conducting legislative advocacy in their official capacity. Last October, the board adopted the 2026 platform and confirmed the programmatic approach that position letters rather than board resolutions are the primary— are the board's primary tool for commenting on pending legislation. The board also funded signage for the Memorial Overcrossing named for sheriff's deputies who died in the line of duty. And in January of this year, the board consolidated all federal advocacy under one contract with Thorn Run Partners. Today's item continues that approach with the 2027 platform and proposes a new approach to contract advocacy. So strategic approach to advocacy. I know Supervisor Gore always likes these stats, so I share this slide slide to emphasize why we need to be strategic in our advocacy, largely from a resources standpoint. According to the California State Association of Counties, or CSAC, 2,232 bills and constitutional amendments were introduced in Sacramento this year. CSAC tracked 1,539 of them as related to county government, and CSAC took a position on 238 of those bills. The point here being that no county can engage on all of those bills And we really dilute our voice with policymakers when we comment on every single proposal with form letters with no individual context. We rely on CSAC, the Rural County Representatives of California, and our department statewide associations for broad, broad coverage of issues affecting the county. Staff focuses the county's own advocacy in two places: the board state policy proposals and issues that match the policy interests and committee assignments. Of our legislative delegation. That is where the county is most likely to influence the legislative outcome. Our delegation will change in 2027. Staff will build relationships with new members, adjust our focus as committee assignments are announced, and help departments understand how those assignments may affect their priorities. Legislative advocacy results. I want to highlight the state policy proposals we've accomplished since the board first adopted that new approach in 2025. All 3 of the following bills were enacted. Assembly Bill 1139, authored by Senator Rogers, extends CEQA exemptions to county park agencies, essentially allowing the public to access new park acquisitions more quickly where there are existing trails and roads. Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, authored by Senator McGuire, designates the overcrossing on Highway 101 at Airport Boulevard as the Detective Sergeant Ed Wilkinson Deputy Sheriff Brent Jamison and Deputy Sheriff Bliss Magley Memorial Overcrossing. With the funding the board approved last October, the signs are now up, as you can see on the slide, and staff is coordinating a dedication event. And finally, most recently, Assembly Bill 1601, also authored by Assemblymember Rogers, allows the county to provide pre-funded ad hoc cost of living adjustments to a subset of Sonoma County's employees' retirement Association retirees. The law takes effect January 1st, 2027, and the adjustments would still require board authorization and a funding source identified with the Board of Retirement. All 3 were carried by members of our state delegation and enacted without a state contract advocate, with legislative affairs staff working directly with the sponsoring departments. And thank you to our representatives in Sacramento. Senator McGuire and Assemblymember Rogers for authoring legislation sponsored by the county. And then bringing us to the update for this year, legislative platform updates for 2027. Proposed 2027 platform keeps the same structure as the last 2 years: foundational principles, issue area policy statements, and state policy proposals. It was developed through the year as staff tracked emerging issues and worked with board offices, departments, agencies, and districts. There are 3 notable updates: a new foundational principle regarding state mandates and reimbursements. For example, when the state adds a new requirement for the counties, this principle allows staff to oppose it unless it comes with fully funded, timely, and ongoing reimbursements and support our own internal county capacity to recover eligible costs. A new civil rights access and inclusion section. And finally, new and expanded statements responding to HR 1's changes to Medi-Cal, CalFresh, including indigent healthcare, health access, and safety net eligibility administration. We know HR 1 adds medical work requirements and more frequently eligible— requires eligibility renewals. These statements position staff to advocate for the funding counties will need to implement those changes against shifting program costs to counties. So, and finally, the proposals we're bringing this year as part of the 2027 platform are the state policy proposals. As we track policy conversations throughout the year, the following challenges presented an opportunity to work with our lawmakers in Sacramento. The first one would be the Fairgrounds property reuse and financial sustainability proposal coming from back in 2025 when the Sonoma County Fair Board discontinued live horse racing, leaving a significant portion of the fairgrounds underutilized. The county is seeking a nearly narrowly tailored property-specific flexibility under the Surplus Lands Act and access to state fundings to redevelop the racetrack property while keeping the land in public ownership and supporting the fair's long-term financial sustainability. The state has already supported a similar transition with the private Golden Gate Fields, and I think $112 million in state funds. Supporting that transition, so we're hopeful there. Number two would be remote public comment and access and meet remote public comment access and meeting safeguards. SB SB 707 requires boards like our own, as you know, to offer a remote public comment beginning July first, 2026. Remote participation is an important part of an open and accessible government, but this board and other local agencies have experienced. experienced repeated misuse of remote comment to broadcast racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, and other abusive language. This process— this proposal would preserve remote participation while giving local agencies clear authority to adopt reasonable viewpoint-neutral safeguards such as a brief audio delay and limited registration for remote speakers. And finally, the 3rd proposal will be the Veterans Memorial Building capital funding. The county owns 7 Veterans Memorial Buildings in Cloverdale, Hoddy, Guerneville, Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, and Sonoma. They serve veterans organizations and community activities, and during wildfires and floods, and evacuation centers and hubs for emergency services. This proposal seeks a statewide general obligation bond on future ballots or another dedicated state funding source to rehabilitate and modernize publicly owned veterans memorial buildings. Adopting the platform authorizes staff and the chair to sponsor these bills. Ideas or join a coalition supporting them. And finally, getting towards the end of the presentation, wanted to talk about our approach with contract advocacy. Is that the right— sorry, I've been ripping through. Next, I'd like to turn to how the state— how the county uses contract lobbyists. In early 2024, the county held 3 contract advocacy agreements: Shaw, Yoder, Antwi, Schmelzer, and Lang for state advocacy. Advocacy, and Thorn Run Partners and Vanskoiak Associates for federal advocacy. Together, they all cost $16,500 per month. In November 2024, the county executive terminated the state advocacy agreement, and in November— in December 2024, elected to not extend the Vanskoiak agreement, federal agreement, for 2025. In January of this year, the board consolidated all federal advocacy under Thordrun Partners for $2,500 per month less than the 2 prior federal agreements— federal advocacy agreements combined. Today, contract advocacy costs $7,500 per month or $90,000 a year, down from $198,000 annually in early 2024. Over that same period, staff led state advocacy directly in all 3 successful state policy policy proposals were enacted without a state contract advocate. So the approach we're thinking here would be state and federal advocacy RFQ in the spring. Last October, staff anticipated a request for proposals for state advocacy services to support the board's state policy proposals. Staff is now planning a single request for qualifications for both state and federal legislative advocacy services in spring 2027. Modeled on Sonoma Water's process. The RFQ would establish 3 groups of firms: one, a pool of qualified state advocacy firms; 2, one qualified federal firm to serve as the county's primary federal advocate, like we have now with Thorn Run Partners; and an additional pool of qualified federal— thirdly, an additional pool of qualified federal firms. Rather than relying on standing retainers cover every issue, staff could engage firms from the pools for targeted scopes of services, maybe like FAA lobbying we talked about today, or pursuing federal funding, other state policy proposals. The primary federal firm would maintain ongoing representation in Washington, D.C., and would be expected to support the county's requests for community project funding and congressionally directed spending AKA federal earmarks. The RFQ will also test current market pricing for both state and federal services. To avoid a gap in federal representation while the RFQ is completed, the purchasing agent approved a single-source waiver on October 6th to continue the Thorn Run Partners agreement through December 31st, 2027, or until a successor agreement is executed at the current rate of $7,500 per month. Staff would return to the board for approval of any agreements that come out of that RFQ advocacy process. And the final slide of next steps. So should the board adopt the 2027 legislative platform, staff would, one, seek authors for the 3 state policy proposals in the 2027-2028 legislative session, brief elected officials, including new members of our delegation on the platform, along with the county executive, Advocate for legislation aligned with the platform, especially in partnership with our national and statewide coalitions. Issue the RFQ in spring 2027 and return, return to the board with recommended agreements. Track issues and interests for the 2028 legislative platform. Thank you to the departments and districts and everyone who helps bring the legislative platform together. I appreciate hearing a quick recap, and I'm here for any questions. That's the end of the presentation.
[207:12] Speaker 2: Great job, Mr. Tiscione. We're going to go to public comment first in chambers. Seeing no one in chambers except for one person, would you like to make a public comment, sir? Thank you. Uh, is there anyone online?
[207:32] Speaker 3: Thank you, Chair.
[207:35] Speaker 4: There are no hands raised at this time.
[207:38] Speaker 2: Thank you. I'll bring it back to my colleagues if there's any questions or comments. Supervisor— President Hopkins, I lost track.
[207:45] Speaker 3: Um, I just want to say great work, and I really appreciate the, um, the approach. And it's wonderful to see the slide where we're actually saving money, right? We're spending less on consultants, we're doing more work in-house. Um, one question I have is, how do we select the sort of top 3 policies or, you know, bills that we want to introduce? Because We've been having a lot of conversations in the wake of the fire a few months ago on the North Coast around vegetation management, and I really do appreciate that that is on the policy platform. But I, I don't think that that's something that's going to happen unless we sort of take some initiative. I know there are other counties involved, but it kind of will, will take a catalyst. So I'm just wondering if it's possible to add that to this year, or if not, to look at that for a subsequent year. This is also— we're having some very intense conversations right now with Permit Sonoma and the Sea Ranch where they're also attempting to, you know, remove dead and dying trees. And it's not clear currently if it fits into an exemption. Permit Sonoma staff is really working on it, but it creates a lot of tension where folks are trying to do this, for instance, before it starts, you know, having major windstorms and want to get that removed. And yet we still don't have the streamlined pathways that we would like.
[208:53] Speaker 9: Yeah, for the vegetation management post fire up by Salt Point. We're definitely working on that. It didn't quite flesh out as one of the 3 proposals because frankly it wasn't fully baked yet. We were having conversations and didn't want to just throw something in there that said amend the Coastal Act. I know our legislators are hearing it. Assemblymember Rogers is meeting with County Executive Guewen next week and they've asked. And so we've sent the follow-up to them that Permit Sonoma It just felt a little more like we had to start with ledge counsel at the state legislative council and say, here's what we're thinking, how do we get there? We just— there was a lot of unknowns, so we didn't quite pitch it as a— with the 3 policy proposals, we try and say, hey, we've run these by our county counsel, this is the best bill pitch we have, we're going to start with this. We feel like we need to do more on the vegetation management piece. That doesn't mean it won't be a bill introduced this year. We can start right now. I try and get the bills introduced before the start of the year, but we really have till the spring, so it could still come together. And the— there is language in the platform that authorizes that action. It just wasn't like we didn't have the silver bullet yet.
[210:02] Speaker 3: Great, wonderful. I just want to make sure that that's still sort of— if it's not even the top tier, if it's the next one down, I'd really appreciate that. And let us know if there's anything that we can do to connect you to, you know, any of the folks on the North Coast who I'm sure would be happy to engage in advocacy. And also have really been through the wringer and can also provide, you know, substantive potential language and things like that. I know that one of our registered professional foresters who has a master's in sustainable forestry from Berkeley drafted quite a bit of language for Jim Wood, you know, and some of the bills that he introduced. Yes.
[210:33] Speaker 9: Yeah, I met with Matt and we got good covers, and I'm going to actually connect him with some of Rogers too because it's also reminding those folks that these are also their representative and we don't have to stand middle of that. So, 100%.
[210:43] Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Really appreciate it.
[210:45] Speaker 2: Any other comments? Vice Chair Corsi?
[210:49] Speaker 7: Just one other thing I want to put on everybody's radar, and it probably is on everybody's radar, and it certainly fits into the, into the, uh, the platform, but, uh, funding for state funding for Medi-Cal, um, for crisis response in response services ends at the end of this fiscal year. Without that, without that ability to bill Medi-Cal, which our staff has spent the last 2 years trying to get all of the service providers in the county to, to do that, and that now they finally are. But if that goes away, it not only threatens crisis response, but I believe it's an threat to Measure O as we try and get that renewed down the road. So I just want to put that out there.
[211:40] Speaker 10: Yeah, and we—
[211:41] Speaker 9: the previous platform authorized action because it's just broadly reducing services, but we called it out in the health and human section. And that's somewhere where folks like Director Sullivan did great work and Assemblymember Rogers, you know, with Director Sullivan's advocacy with the cities, You know, Senator Rogers ultimately sent a budget subcommittee letter, and that decision was reversed in the budget negotiations. So we'll, we'll hope that it's funded when the governor releases his budget, but we'll pursue the same type of advocacy this year if, if again it's on the chopping block.
[212:13] Speaker 7: Great. It's obviously not a Sonoma County-only issue, um, and hopefully we'll have plenty of partners on that.
[212:21] Speaker 3: Yeah.
[212:22] Speaker 2: Supervisor Rabbit.
[212:23] Speaker 8: Thank you very much, and I, I very much appreciate the approach that you've taken. in our advocacy. It wasn't that long ago we would toss, you know, that 100-page document across the desk and expect someone to pick something up. Um, and if everything's a priority, nothing's a priority. And, uh, I do think the difficulty going forward obviously will be to really hone in on that bill. And I would just add that it may not— uh, the circumstances in D.C. or in Sacramento will also dictate what we push and why, and we'll have to just be nimble. But we have been, and I think that you're ultimately— you're more successful if you can do that and just concentrate on getting a few nuggets, um, annually instead of kind of spreading things far and wide and not really benefiting the county as a whole. So thank you for that approach. I, I appreciate it, and thank you for saving the money. It's great.
[213:17] Speaker 10: Happy to.
[213:18] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[213:20] Speaker 2: Thank you. Seeing no other comments from my colleagues, I also agree with this mo— with my colleagues and the more strategic approach in saving money. And I think that even though we're saving money, we're still doing a lot more, and, and that's a testament to the relationships that you have built with our state and federal partners and continue to advocate for our priorities. So I just want to make sure that we keep them close. Things are shifting a little bit, but making sure that we are engaging all— either the state or federal partners early and making sure that they know our priorities and how we can work together on the front end before things get more serious, like with the FEMA funds and stuff like that. Just keeping them informed so that they can do their advocacy regardless of us Having to say this is super terrible. We're we're in a pickle, and I'm sure they're willing to help us in any way. With that, I'll bring it. Seeing no more questions, is there a motion from one of my colleagues?
[214:26] Speaker 3: So moved.
[214:27] Speaker 2: Is there a second?
[214:29] Speaker 1: Second.
[214:30] Speaker 2: Clerk, would you like to do a roll call?
[214:34] Speaker 5: Supervisor Rabbit.
[214:35] Speaker 9: Aye.
[214:36] Speaker 3: Supervisor Corsi.
[214:37] Speaker 7: Yes.
[214:38] Speaker 3: Supervisor Gore? Supervisor Hopkins?
[214:41] Speaker 6: Yes.
[214:41] Speaker 3: Chair Hermosillo?
[214:42] Speaker 4: Yes.
[214:43] Speaker 3: Great work.
[214:44] Speaker 2: Thank you all. And now we're going to go on to public comment on matters not listed on the agenda but within the subject matter of the board. If there's anybody— seeing no one in chambers, is there anyone online that would like to provide public comment on items not on the agenda and is willing to also adhere to our commitment to civility.
[215:07] Speaker 3: Thank you, Chair. There are no hands raised.
[215:12] Speaker 2: Thank you so much. We're going to move on to the closed session report out. County Counsel Myers.
[215:18] Speaker 9: Thank you, Chair. The report out from the November 3rd, 2026 closed session is as follows. Today, the Board of Supervisors met in closed session to consider the matters listed as items 1 and 2 on the agenda. On item 1, the Board of Supervisors met in closed session to confer with legal counsel on anticipated litigation, potential initiation of litigation in one matter.
[215:41] Speaker 5: No reportable action was taken.
[215:43] Speaker 9: The board gave direction to legal counsel and staff. On item 2, the Board of Supervisors met in closed session to confer with legal counsel on existing litigation in the matter of Ann Elizabeth Oldsbourg versus County of Sonoma. Again, no reportable action was taken. The board gave direction to legal counsel and staff. And that concludes the report out from the closed session held today on November 3rd, 2026.
[216:09] Speaker 2: Thank you so much. And we're going to next move on to board member report outs. Supervisor Rabbitt.
[216:15] Speaker 8: Thank you very much. Since we last met on Tuesday the 27th, on Wednesday the 28th, Sonoma Water hosted a full day of member— for members of the Association of California Water Agencies, or ACWA, of which I am chair of Region 1, which covers the coast from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Oregon border. I volunteered Stonewall Water to have this tour because each region does an event annually. But it's actually a great— if you could imagine the water agencies across California, many of them will get water from far-flung places delivered to them. Their tours are really looking at pipes, pumps and valves, whereas our tour is a holistic watershed approach, looking at the Russian River, the fish ladder. Unfortunately, there are no fish in the— I think when I retire, I'm gonna— I told them I'm gonna put a fish on a— a plastic fish on the end of a pole, and I'll make it swim upstream so the kids can actually see the fish when they come to the fish ladder. But it was a great day. taking a tour, and I think there's probably 30 or some odd people there. Um, on the 29th, we had a joint workshop for the ABAG Executive Board with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the kickoff of Plan Bay Area 2060, which I think is a— I don't know, 5th one now. There was legislation passed last year that makes those updates less than 5 years at a time, so there'll be more time in between to actually institute something and have it be implemented going forward. And then yesterday we did have an ACWA Region 1 board meeting, and that's it for me. Thank you.
[217:53] Speaker 2: Thank you. Vice Chair Corsi?
[217:55] Speaker 7: Short and sweet, uh, Homeless Coalition board meeting last Wednesday.
[218:00] Speaker 2: Thank you. Supervisor Hopkins?
[218:03] Speaker 3: On the 28th, I hosted a temporary urgency change petition, uh, meeting with Sonoma Water webinar. Had quite a few attendees, good questions. On the 29th, attended a Bay Area Air District CAC, the Community Advisory Council, special retreat meeting in Petaluma. On the 30th, had a Bay Area Air District special board of directors meeting to interview and hopefully hire general counsel candidates. And that brings us to present.
[218:28] Speaker 2: Thank you. Supervisor Gore?
[218:31] Speaker 6: Attended the Russian River Confluence in Hopland on last Thursday, and that's all I have to report.
[218:36] Speaker 2: Thank you so much. And, um, for me, I attended, um, a tribal meeting, a meeting with the tribal leaders from the federally recognized tribes in Sonoma County with Vice Chair Corsi to form a new different relationship moving forward with local county government. On the 29th as well, we— I had a joint Springs and North Valley MAT to talk about infrastructure in the valley. And with that, we are going to— our next board meeting is Tuesday, November 17th. And today we are going to be adjourned in honor of Bob Beach, who worked for Sonoma Water from 1980 to 1994. During his tenure, Bob provided leadership during one of the most consequential periods in Sonoma Water's history. And among his many accomplishments were— was guiding the completion and operation of the Warm Springs Dam, and the creation of Lake Sonoma, a project that fundamentally changed and strengthened our region's water supply and flood protection capabilities. He also advanced the development of the hydroelectric generation at Warm Springs Dam and oversaw the important environmental mitigation efforts associated with that project. His leadership goes beyond just infrastructure. He helped establish the first urban water management plan in 1985, and advance water conservation and public education, a position that Sonoma Water to take— and position Sonoma Water to take an expanding role in regional water and wastewater responsibilities. And we are adjourning our meeting in his honor. The meeting's adjourned.