Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owner accuses county staff of permitting stormwater discharge onto private lots in Circle Oaks
Summary
A Circle Oaks property owner told the Napa County Board of Supervisors that county staff approved and inspected work that allowed stormwater to be discharged onto neighboring private properties after a prior settlement, and asked the board to direct enforcement. The board heard the allegation and did not announce immediate enforcement actions.
Thomas Falcon, owner of property at 307 Circle Oaks Drive, told the Napa County Board of Supervisors during public comment that county staff had approved and inspected work that now discharges stormwater onto his and adjacent properties despite a prior board settlement intended to resolve slope and drainage problems.
"Staff approved inspection. Staff observed the work. Staff signed off on a permit knowing drainage plans were nonexistent," Falcon said, describing the issuance and inspection of a permit that he alleges lacked required drainage plans. He said the new work has already routed stormwater onto three additional private properties and warned that continued discharge could lead to further slope failures and litigation.
Falcon asked the board to "direct staff to enforce the code, correct their actions, and stop the illegal discharge immediately," saying he was not seeking special treatment but enforcement of county rules.
The board thanked Falcon for raising the matter but did not announce immediate enforcement action during the meeting. Chair Cottrell (reading the meeting record) said the board "received an update" during closed session on unrelated litigation but did not link that action to Falcon's allegation. Board members did not make a formal decision on enforcement in public session; the matter was left for staff follow-up.
Why it matters: Falcon's statement alleges that county permitting and inspection actions undermined a prior board decision to resolve slope and drainage problems in Circle Oaks. If substantiated, the claim would raise questions about county enforcement, permit review procedures and potential fiscal exposure for the county.
What the board directed: At the meeting the board did not adopt an immediate enforcement order on the record. Staff was expected to review the allegation and the permitting record and return with recommended next steps; the meeting record indicates the board will rely on staff to investigate and to report back.
What Falcon requested: Direct enforcement action, correction of the permitted work, and cessation of the discharge onto his property and neighboring lots.
What remains unresolved: Falcon's specific allegation that county staff "signed off on a permit knowing drainage plans were nonexistent" was not resolved at the meeting. The board did not announce any immediate corrective measures; the county's permitting and enforcement files will need to be checked to substantiate or refute his claim.
Next steps: Staff follow-up and documentation review requested by the board; any enforcement action would be subject to county code and the board's future direction.
