Good evening.

Welcome to the July 16, 2026 City of Napa regular meeting for the Planning Commission.

I would like to call this meeting to order and ask Myra to please conduct a roll call.

Commissioner Ebach.

Present.

Commissioner Masaro.

Present.

Commissioner Shotwell.

Present.

Chair Owen here.

And I have Vice Chair Myers noted as absent.

And we will now rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

The Planning Commission conducts all meetings in accordance with the Ralph M.

Brown Act and pursuant to the City's rules of order for Planning Commission meetings.

Policy resolution 10.

Staff, are there any changes to the evening's agenda or any supplemental reports?

Yes, so there have been three supplemental memos that have been conveyed to the planning commission and are available for physical copies in the back.

One to agenda item seven B.

And then two for the study session item later tonight.

Not to a day certain.

Okay.

Can I get a motion to continue item 7A?

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Public comment.

Public comment provides an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Planning Commission on items of interest not otherwise noted on the agenda.

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

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

Yes, sir, please come forward.

And I've held things in abeyance.

And I had 62.7 and one parcel and a pending application.

Like comments repeatedly to staff and to other planning people involved have been that one, it is unwise to have a large parcel of property in the city that is zoned for now under the proposal.

And that isn't logical.

If the city attempts to do any annexations, it is wise to have a better proposition to pose to those parcels to be annexed.

Mine is already in, but I've made the comment repeatedly that if you had a five-acre zone, you could probably encourage people to annex without having to force any issues.

And five acres is a very reasonable buffer zone that would help avoid problems with the public who does do not wish to have annexations, and with the public that do wish to have annexations, it would just be a wise policy.

So that's what I recommend.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does anybody else wish to speak on something not on tonight's agenda?

Can I get a motion to close public comment?

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

I think consent calendar.

These routine items may be approved by a single vote.

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

This evening we are reviewing the planning commission regular meeting minutes for July 2nd, 2026.

Is there a motion to approve the meeting meeting minutes for July 2nd, 2026?

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

We have no consent hearings.

So moving on to public hearings.

These are items that are formally presented to the planning commission and provide an opportunity for members of the public to comment.

Applicants or appellants are allowed 10 minutes to present testimony at the beginning of the public hearing.

And if needed, five minutes to present rebuttal at the end of the public hearing.

All other speakers will be limited to three minutes.

Tonight we have the following item.

Item 7b, 585 First Street skating rink use permit.

Can we start with commissioner disclosures?

No disclosures.

No, no disclosure.

No disclosures.

I'm familiar with the site, but I went on Sunday to check it out a little bit more.

All right.

And we'll now hear a report from staff.

Good evening, everybody.

I'll be presenting on the proposed skating rink at 585st Street.

Um the project applicant.

Rick Gajell is also here and will be speaking later.

Um applicant requests a use permit and a design review permit to construct and appro and operate in approximately 6,400 square foot roller skating rink at the site.

To start, uh just regarding the lake communication.

Um, following publication of the meeting agenda, some inconsistencies were identified between the project score footages across the plan submitted and the staff report and um notice materials as included in the memo, um, the proposed skating rink would be up to 6,400 square feet, and the proposed roof cover would be up to 7,200 square feet.

Um the project site is located on the south side of First Street between Vernon Street and the Napa River.

Um the applicant proposes the addition and operation of an approximately 6,400 square foot roller skating rink under a pre-manufactured metal roof cover.

Um the rink would operate in conjunction with Napa Yard and existing outdoor um restaurant and entertainment venue.

Um, but it is worth noting that the project applicant is separate from the operators of Napa Yard.

They would operate in conjunction at the site.

Um the proposed roller skating rink would um fall within the site's existing hours of operation, um, 10 a.m.

to 9 p.m.

Monday through Thursday, 10 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

on Friday and Saturday, and 10 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

on Sundays.

Um just a note on Napa Yard.

Um it's an existing outdoor restaurant and entertainment venue.

Um it's a temporary use.

Um the use permit for the project will expire on December 21st, 2029.

Um the use permit for this proposed project, if approved, would also expire on December 21st, 2029.

Um this is the proposed site plan.

In blue would be the location of the proposed skating rink.

And green is the existing mini golf course that was recently approved by the Planning Commission.

This is to the north of the dining area of the site and to the west of the Napa River.

The proposed rink would be buffered from First Street by the mini golf course and the site's existing gardens.

This is a rendering of the proposed roof cover.

It's a fairly simple building constructed of cruciform beams and would be open on three sides on all sides, excuse me.

These are the proposed details.

Skate rentals would occur from one of the site's existing shipping containers that were previously approved through prior entitlements.

Parking, bathroom, and other facilities would be shared with Napa Yard.

To approve the project, the commission must make the findings for a use permit, a design review permit, specific findings for the Saskale Corridor Overlay District, and the findings required by the interim zoning ordinance.

Staff has also determined that the project would be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, which exams the construction and location of new small facilities and structures.

This includes up to four commercial structures not exceeding 10,000 square feet.

And with that, staff recommends that the commission adopt a resolution approving a use permit and design review permit for the proposed skating rink and determining that the actions authorized by the resolution are exempt from CEQA.

Thank you.

Thank you, Paul.

Do any commissioners have any questions for staff at this time?

No.

Will the applicant be providing a presentation?

Yes.

Please come forward.

If you need it.

Hi, my name is Rick Gudgel.

This is my partner Logan Main.

So thank you for your time to consider our proposal.

My name is Rick Gudgel, and with me is my business partner Logan Bain.

Together, we are here asking for your support in bringing Will Life Napa to our community.

At its heart, it is it isn't simply a roller skating rink.

It's about creating a place where families can spend time together, where children have somewhere safe to go after school or on weekends.

Where on our community has another positive gathering place.

Today's young people face more challenges than ever before.

Many spend more time behind the screens and have fewer places where they can safely gather with friends.

We have an opportunity to change that.

A skating rink provides a safe, supervised environment where children and teenagers can be active, build confidence, develop friendships, and simply enjoy being kids.

Research has shown that participation in recreational activities can reduce youth involvement in risky behaviors by up to 30%.

While a skating rink isn't the solution to every challenge, it can absolutely be a part of the solution by giving young people a positive place where they feel welcome, valued, and connected.

And if that we build, if what we build helps even one child choose a better path, then every bit of our effort we've put into this project will have been worth it.

Roller skating is also one of the few recreational activities that truly brings generations together.

In a world where it's becoming harder to disconnect from technology and reconnect with one another.

We want to create a place where those moments happen naturally.

We also hope to partner with local schools, youth organizations, nonprofits, and community groups.

Even envision hosting school nights, fundraisers, educational programs, birthday parties, and community events that strengthen the connections throughout Napa.

This project will also support our local economy by creating jobs, attracting visitors, and encouraging families to spend more time supporting the businesses at Napa Yard and throughout our city.

But above all else, this project is about investing in the quality of life for the people who call Napa home.

Communities are remembered not only by the restaurants and businesses, but for the places where childhood memories are made.

We want Will Life Napa to become one of those places.

A place where child a child laces up skates for the very first time, where teenagers have a safe place to spend Friday nights where parents and grandparents laugh alongside their children, where birthdays are celebrated, friendships are formed, and families create memories that last a lifetime.

We aren't simply asking for approval to build a business.

It's children and its future.

We believe Napa deserves more opportunities for health recre healthy recreation, community connection, and family entertainment.

And we're committed to building something the city of Napa can be proud of for years to come.

If Will Life Napa helps hundreds of families make memories, we'll be grateful.

But if it helps even one child find a safe place to belong, make better choices, or simply know they have somewhere they are welcome, then that alone will make all of this worthwhile.

Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your service to our community.

We appreciate the opportunity to share our vision with you, and we'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Very well said.

Do any commissioners have any questions for the applicant at this time?

I I just have one question.

Uh will roller blades be allowed?

Yes.

Excellent.

Personal rollerblades and roller skates will be allowed.

We are planning we already have purchased quad skates, but we are planning on purchasing uh rollerblades also for rent.

Commissioner Masaru, did you have a question?

Oh just a staff.

Just a staff question, really.

Okay.

Um for the staff, um, how long can we keep renewing a temporary use permit?

Generally, you can there's not like a set limit to the amount of time.

Um being that there's an application currently under review for the further development of that site that that's kind of the intention behind the temporary use permit for for this site specifically.

When there's a consideration generally across the city for um a use that seeks to be more permanent, then we would push for a standard use permit where if they act upon their rights based on the conditions and satisfy the conditions, then it's um vested right in perpetuity.

Thank you.

That's good.

Thank you.

All right, you guys can have a seat.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm going to open public comment.

Myra, do we have any public comment cards for this item?

I did not receive any cards for this item.

Is there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item?

Please just state your name when you speak.

Chris Benz Napa.

I'd like to say I think this is a brilliant idea.

It brings a brand new type of attraction to Napa.

The nearest roller rink is in Roanert Park.

And it's a healthy activity, so I do hope you approve it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

Hello.

Um, I'm Jennifer Huffman.

I've lived in Napa for about 28 years.

And um I was really happy to see on the agenda that it looks like you've you're recommending that the planning commission adopt the resolution approving the use permit and design review permit for Rick's skating rink in Napa at Napa Yard.

Um I'm here to show my strong support for this project for three main reasons.

Um my husband and I raised three kids here in Napa.

Um, and of course, Napa has been hugely successful with drawing in visitors for wine-related adult kind of activities.

Um we are less successful when it comes to offering things for kids and younger families to do.

Um I think we can change that if we commit to new things like the roller skating rink.

Uh number two, Rick is a small business owner, and we need to support and nurture these entrepreneurs in our city, the people who are willing to put themselves out there, especially financially.

And three, I'm a quad skater.

Um skating is fun.

Almost any age can do it.

It's not very expensive.

You don't need a lot of equipment.

Um I want to say, let's support Rick and his rink.

And as the shirt says, don't hate roller skate.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commission members and city staff.

My name is Terrence Mulligan.

I'm a Napa resident, and I'm also the president and CEO of Napa Valley Community Foundation.

And I'm here in support of the roller rink for two reasons.

The first is professional and the second is personal.

Let me start with the second first.

I am I am the father of two kids, both now, well, teens and young adults.

And my daughter Claire, she played Rex soccer.

Thank you, City of Napa.

But then she moved to uh uh club soccer and then academy soccer.

And the difference between those last two is that it's like imported British coaches and it never ends.

And it's much more expensive.

So lucky us, we're mildly affluent enough to be to have been able to afford for a decade the frankly like car payment number that comes attend with getting your kid into enriching activities.

And I wish that when my kids were small, we'd had something like this in this community because it's super cool.

On the professional side, lucky me, we get to distribute about 10 million dollars a year to local charitable organizations, and a big part of our mission is to try to build a stronger, more cohesive, more connected community.

A big part of our work is about half a million dollars in scholarships every year to the most promising kids who come out of our high schools.

And at risk of telling you what you already know, there's just not enough for those young people to do.

There's not enough places for us to gather.

So I thank you for your consideration and uh thank Rick and his partner for what they're trying to do.

Thank you, Terrence.

Oh, that's not my thing.

Hi, good afternoon.

I'm Maria Messias, and I'm a NAFA resident and in support of the skating rink.

And why I just came, I saw it on the neighborhood app, and I just wanted to support.

And when I walked through the door, I didn't know Jennifer.

And we just I saw our skates and we just picked up a conversation.

And I just want to say it's for adults too.

I I mean, I skated my whole life, the quads, and it was a big part of my childhood, but I saw adults and it was just like community.

Like I said, I just met Jennifer outside there.

And what a wonderful thing, right?

For our community to bring skating to it, not just for children, but like Rick said, it's like a community thing, and you have the great memories growing up where you skated, and when you could go by yourself for the first time, your parents could drop you off at the rink and you could skate, and then they would pick you up.

And what a wonderful thing for our community.

So I just wanted to say that's why I came, and I just wanted to give my support and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Seeing that there are there are no more requests to speak.

Is there a motion to close public comment?

So moved.

Second, all those in favor.

Hi.

Public comment is closed.

Well, I'm just gonna echo a lot of what we've already heard.

Um I appreciate applicants who are willing to invest in experiences that strengthen our community.

Um the mini golf course has been amazing.

I'm excited to see this come, and I am in support of this project.

Uh isn't it nice to see some of the things from our youth coming back to Napa?

I would say I grew up here in town, and years ago, we had mini golf and um and a couple of skating rings, actually, in a couple of different places.

So it's nice to see it come back.

Um I'm in sort of the support of the project.

My only I think my only concern really is it's a shame that this building is open at this point and is not it really a year-round facility.

Yeah, someday, I hope.

Anyway, thank you.

Commissioner Shotwell, do you have any comments?

Oh, you bet I do.

Um this is so bittersweet.

Um, my husband and I, we moved here almost 24 years ago, and we moved here from Los Angeles, and we we didn't understand why there weren't any roller rinks anywhere nearby.

We I didn't even know about the Roanart Park one.

Um we thought that the former Montgomery Ward building that is now a target.

We thought that would be perfect.

And then when Safeway closed, we're like, there's there it is.

Let's do this.

And um we looked into actually what it would take, and we just didn't have the funds, we couldn't deal with the liability issues.

We couldn't deal with the liability issues.

It was a dream that never happened.

We wanted this the downstairs to be a roller rink, and then to have a plexiglass, that would be for another, like it would, I'm sorry, an ice skating rink on the bottom floor, and then a plexiglass roller skating rink on the upper floor.

Um with lots of other fun activities for kids.

Um we don't even have children.

We just didn't understand why this these things weren't available here.

So cut two.

Um we brought our roller blades here.

We my husband's still rollerblades.

Um you might see him with dogs pulling him from time to time.

Um I've tried rollerblading and quad skating at Kennedy Park, Napa River Trail, around my neighborhood, Oxpo Commons.

Umly, two years ago, I decided that I was too old for it.

So I gave away my roller blades and my roller skates.

I had already sold my skateboard many years ago, and now we're getting my dream.

So I am thrilled.

I will support it.

Um, but it's bittersweet.

Thank you.

Eboch.

I mean, I said this before when you came forward with the mini golf project, but any creative way to utilize the space um you know during the interim, I think is great.

Um applaud you for continuing to look for opportunities to utilize it while the other application is pending, and I support the project.

Thank you.

Can I get somebody who wants to make the recommendation move that the planning commission adopt a resolution approving a use permit and design review permit allowing the construction and operation of a new approximately 6400 square foot roller skating rink and determined that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from SQL.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Congratulations.

All right.

Administrative reports.

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

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

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

And seeing that this is a very big item that involves our community that the city has been working on for many years.

Um we will take some public comment after the applicant and the commission has deliberated.

Tonight we have item eight, a zoning ordinance update study session.

We will now hear the report from Lisa Wise consulting and staff.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Commissioners.

We are happy to be back here in beautiful Napa.

We were here, as you may recall, uh, last year for a couple study sessions.

So this is our third uh study session here before you today.

So happy to be back.

Um I I will say uh Commissioner Shotwell, please bear with me because this presentation is similar to the one that you heard uh a couple nights ago.

There's a little more detail in this one for the uh for the planning commissioners.

To the computer.

Is it this computer?

Excuse us for one moment, please.

Okay, we're we're back.

Um thank you.

So of course you all know uh city city staff, but just for the public to point out who the key players are on this this project.

Um Ryder Dilly, planning manager is also the project manager for this project.

Um over the last couple of years we have worked with closely with Mike Walker and Mike Allen as well on the Lisa Wise consulting side.

We have Catherine Slama who's in the audience here, who's the director and project manager for this project.

My name is Stefan O'Rikiki.

And then we also have Cal Kurtz here today next to Catherine.

Um she is our residential objective design standards expert.

Um, so she will be providing support as needed there.

Um tonight we're gonna go through a little bit of the background of the project, what we've been up to these these last couple years, and in the in the year since we last spoke.

Uh then we'll talk about what's actually in the public review draft zoning ordinance and the map and some some key changes there, and then talk about next steps.

In terms of objectives for this project, it should be the same as as what you saw last time about a year ago.

Uh the thrust of this, of course, is implementing the general plan and the housing element.

Um the IZO interim zoning ordinance is being implemented through this through the various mixed-use zones that the city had already developed.

We will be talking about the residential objective design standards today, as well as other uh modernization, legal consistency, and uh not only the zoning ordinance or the code, but the map as well.

So, in terms of past overview, um this project kicked off about two years ago, July 2024.

Since that time, we've had the community feedback survey that uh many people participated in.

That was early 2025.

We did speak with stakeholders and various uh city departments on their thoughts for uh potential improvements for the code.

As I mentioned, we had those two study sessions last last spring here with the planning commission.

Um, our second workshop, as you heard, was was Tuesday this this week.

And then we did talk to the residential objective design standards advisory group in developing those design standards.

So there's been a lot of outreach for this project uh thus far, and um, we are getting we're getting to the latter stages of of the project, but we are in the public review period now.

So prior to this meeting, common themes that uh we we've heard about and discussed with others have to do with uh reducing parking requirements, an issue that came up through various means and media had to do with uh stakeholders pointed out difficulties achieving maximum densities that are set forth in the general plan.

And so we did look at various development standards and how to modify those to accommodate those those densities set forth in the general plan.

Um was a big focus, wanting to avoid sprawl.

So where are you know those strategic locations uh that can densify here in NAPA, while also wanting to protect the small town feel, uh promoting outdoor dining as well.

In terms of uses, we heard that uh NAPA needs more housing.

Um I think economic development and others were specifically interested in maker uses.

Um a theme that came up was looking at ways to uh regulate fossil fuel stations in a more stringent manner, and then balancing the needs of tourists and residences and residents, excuse me.

Um another comment that came up several times was that the design review uh process through the city could could use a little bit of extra attention.

Um, and then what what were ways to empower staff to make decisions at the staff level as well when appropriate.

Um and then otherwise more general comments about making the code more user-friendly, uh updating graphics.

There were some really old graphics in the code, uh, and then simplifying and consolidating definitions.

As I mentioned, this project kicked off about two years ago.

Um we have moved from identifying issues and opportunities to recommendations, um, which is when we were here last.

Since that time, over the last year, we've been drafting the code.

So we have prepared an administrative draft that we work with with staff to uh to make appropriate edits to now prepare the public review draft zoning ordinance that's before you today.

Um and then, yes, now, and and I apologize that that we are here, actually should be one lower.

That was for the workshop.

But now we're in the public review and um getting close to adoption for this project.

So we are in the public review uh phase, so we are looking for forward to potential hearings over the next few months for adoption of this project.

In terms of deliverables that got us to where we are today with the public review draft zoning ordinance was the two-part technical consistency memo.

Um it looked at the general plan, uh state law, federal law, and compared the code to those for uh identifying consistencies and inconsistencies, but also we had uh a portion of the memo had to do with residential objective design standards as well.

And the findings you can see there, we found that yes, several of the zones needed work, there were opportunities for new zones, things to align the zones with the general plan.

We heard about uh the city's design guidelines that were subjective, right?

And then that there was some work to be done in regard to uses and um and permitting.

Also another deliverable that informed this zoning ordinance was the development standards testing approach memo.

So we looked at various residential zones, the development standards within them, and again, excuse me, and then also looked at average parcel sizes, residential parcel sizes within the city to see whether these maximum densities that the general plan puts forth could be attained, and we found that there did need to be a little bit of uh tweaking to the development standards, so things such as high lot coverage and setbacks were proposed to be or are proposed to be modified to allow for those maximum densities to be reached consistent with the general plan.

So that was a lot of the background that led up to where we are today.

In terms of the this is a table of contents for the code.

The structure now is organized into parts, and I think we talked about this uh last year when we were making our recommendations.

But this is to try to promote user friendliness.

We we find this works well for codes.

So we have five parts, 17A, B, C, D, E.

Um, that there's the general uh part that has introductory language for the code.

Uh part B is definitions, and we did break up definitions into various categories.

It's not just a running list of definitions, um, but again, trying to promote that user-friendliness and intuitiveness of the code.

So we do break the definitions up into uses terms, measurements, and sign terms as well.

The meat of the code really starts in part 17C, which are those zoning district regulations.

Uh similar to what you have today in terms of organization, where the zoning districts are grouped.

Um, so we'll talk about that.

Uh but then part 17D, these are citywide standards, so not zone-specific standards, but standards that apply throughout the whole city.

And then admin and procedures is all the all the permitting and and legislative actions within the code.

Just getting a little more fine-grained in terms of this the structure and the numbering syntax of the code.

Again, we introduced uh parts as an organizing principle.

But then instead of increments of two for the chapter, we included increments of 10.

This allows more space within the code for future amendments.

Um, so you don't get odder situations where you have to go chapter 17025, 026, you know, kind of thing.

We wanted to allow more room there for amendments.

Um, and then otherwise it's very similar to what you have now.

So you can see at the bottom of the table that the comparisons, but the sections are still increments of 10.

We swapped in a Roman numeral for uh uh an Arabic numeral there just to um differentiate a little bit more.

So that had to do more with structure in terms of the overall approach.

We were trying to hit all the objectives that I mentioned on the prior slide, right?

Implementing the general plan, um, legal consistency as well as incorporating best practices and being responsive to all the all the feedback that we've received to this point.

Um otherwise just wanting to modernize the code and and streamline things as as possible or where it made sense.

So getting into a little bit more of the meat of the code here, part 17 C zoning district regulations, as you can see.

Um we have the zones grouped by by zone type.

This these table and on the next slide show what the various land use designations are or land use categories are in the general plan and what the relationship is of those land use categories to both existing zones and and proposed zoning districts as well.

Um and the second column is uh some of these are like a kind of a best fit, right?

What's the closest existing zone that would implement the land use designation, but um we did find room for modifications, of course.

So what I guess a notable zone there is the multifamily residential medium.

That is a new zone, um implementing the medium density residential land use category.

Otherwise, we generally tried to keep a one-to-one relationship between the implementing zone and the general plan land use category.

That wasn't that wasn't possible or didn't make sense in all cases, but that's kind of a general general theme here.

For commercial, we did keep both the local commercial and community commercial zones, that general commercial land use category did have room, and it we thought it did make sense to keep two zones there.

Otherwise, we did look for opportunities for consolidation, such as the residential office and uh commercial office being consolidated into this new commercial business park zone.

Hospitality commercial was renamed, or excuse me, tourist commercial was renamed hospitality commercial.

So that was relatively minor there.

Otherwise, in terms of the mixed use zones, again, we part of this right was taking the interim zoning ordinance and incorporating it into the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

So we we pulled those IZO mixed use zones through here for industrial zones.

The flex industrial zone is new, consistent with that general plan land use category.

And then otherwise, we did consolidate some of the public serving zones in into one zone, and then other noteworthy changes.

The greenbelt land use category, we we did not see an implementing zone in the current zoning ordinance, and so have created the conservation open space zone for that as well.

Um the downtown districts, we we didn't really touch the downtown districts, those those carry forward.

So getting a little bit more into the details of what the zones are.

It's a gradation, of course, so the single family residential very low, these are larger lots with single-family residences.

Similarly, single family residential low is also lower density single family neighborhoods.

Traditional residential, you start to get uh more missing middle housing.

Um, so single family, but then also the various uh plexes, courtyard apartments, those kinds of things.

And as the densities and height continue to increase, we get to the multifamily residential medium uh zone, which also has suggested by the name, multifamily housing in addition to single family, and then multifamily residential high gets up to four stories, uh, does allow commercial uses as well.

Uh in terms of the actual commercial uses, again, we carried forward the local commercial and community commercial zoning districts.

Um, hospitality commercial as well continues to allow tourist oriented uses, um, and then around the hospital, medical office uh was was maintained, and as I mentioned, the new consolidated commercial business park zone was was included.

These are office related uses, but also allow residential.

And I will say another change, we we did um the medical office also allows uh health-related uh residential as well, things like uh assisted living and uh nursing homes, things like that.

Um and then mixed use zones again carry those forward from the interim zoning ordinance, the tannery bend mixed use zone also does does carry forward here.

In terms of industrial, that flex industrial zone is new.

Um, so that is more of the makers uh zone, uh smaller scale industrial producers, but also some some residential component there in the flex industrial zone.

Otherwise, the light industrial and industrial park zoning districts carry forward.

Um then as I mentioned, we did consolidate zones into the public zone.

Uh parks and open space does carry forward, as does agricultural resource, uh, but then this conservation open space zone is is a new zone that implements that green belt um land use category.

And then in terms of the overlays, the active frontage overlay, which is from the interim zoning ordinance, um does carry forward into the zoning ordinance here, as well as all the other overlays that exist in the municipal code today.

So that was zones in terms of land uses.

There are some new land uses that we added.

We also consolidated land uses.

I know about a year ago we had talked about food trucks, right?

So those that's the mobile food vending park use that was included.

Otherwise, several types of housing called for by state law and housing element, and then that makers use the artisan and small scale manufacturing use is a new use.

Um, and then you can see we just have a few examples of where we consolidated land uses as I'm sure you're familiar.

Zoning codes have a tendency to get very very long.

Um, and so anywhere we can uh be more succinct and consolidate things, we we take that opportunity.

So we we did so with the land uses as well.

Here we have just additional new or updated definitions for various types of uses.

And then we did modify where are certain types of commercial use, excuse me, that are allowed in both the uh residential uh multi-cloud residential high district as well as uh commercial uses such as small grocery stores in the hospitality commercial district as well.

And then regarding residential, I alluded to this a little bit uh beforehand, but we did add residential uses as allowed uses in the OM district if they're health or medical related, and that's consistent with the underlying land use category.

And then the commercial zones, the general plan sees those more as as strictly commercial zones, and so we removed residential use allowances there in in C L and C C local commercial and community commercial.

Uh last time we were here, we we spent a good amount of time or our uh study sessions were focused on the special uses that we wanted to talk about with you today as well.

Um so drive-throughs.

Uh the purpose here was to look to find ways to um add regulations on on drive-throughs to uh promote alternative uh typies, and there is that policy in the general plan that uh calls for just the discouraging of drive-throughs in the city.

So taking that into account, um the planning commission was interested in in all kinds of regulations that we had talked about last time, and so we've included those in the code.

So some of the regulations have to do with the location and not wanting to have an over concentration of drive-throughs.

So you see that 500 foot separation distance.

Also locational standards, um, wanting to have drive-throughs more limited in terms of where they're allowed.

So they need to be near on uh six hundred within 600 feet of an off ramp there.

We also have standards for um drive-thru windows where those should be located, and then took screening seriously uh as an important uh measure to prevent headlight glare from drive-throughs as well.

Um, in terms of food trucks, we understand that the city uh did want to allow food trucks on private property, but also regulate um regulate them.

And so uh as proposed in the draft code, mobile food vendors can operate in in the various zones you see there with a commercial use permit.

We have standards requiring them to be parked on a paved surface, and then we do have a minimum separation from existing restaurants that I believe we talked about um last time we were here as something that was important to the community.

Otherwise, um they do need to have their own access to a restroom, and they have uh hours of operations set forth as well.

Another topic that we discussed at uh our study sessions last time around had to do with amplified sound and live entertainment.

Um so again, it's it's a balancing act here in terms of um promoting live entertainment, but also thinking about potential impacts on on others in terms of uh uh amplified sound.

And so there is in addition to a noise ordinance, and and we did draw from the noise element in terms of um allowed our hours of operations, decibel levels, et cetera.

So, in addition to the more general noise ordinance, we included standards for uh live entertainment uses, so cannot be within 125 feet of a residence uh outside of 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

during the week, or 8 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

on weekends, uh, unless the planning commission authorizes a use permit.

So that's that's the standard that's applied to live entertainment there.

And then lastly, fossil fuel service stations.

Um there was interest.

We know there was the moratorium that the city had on fossil fuel service stations, um, and there was interest in uh regulating these more stringently as well.

So similar to drive-throughs, we do have the separation distance required for fossil fuel stations.

It's it's a thousand feet, is what we've proposed.

Um, and then otherwise have setbacks and uh curb cut distance setbacks that you have to have, landscaping standards, and uh a screening wall when abutting residential as well for fossil fuel service stations.

So that was a lot that had to do with with uses.

Now we're getting into the citywide standards.

So a lot of this has carried forward in terms of additional site regulations, standards for environmentally sensitive areas.

We did we did make moderate reductions to parking requirements, signs largely carried forward, but there are standards for uh the specific uses that we talked about.

And really the focus here is on the residential objective design standards.

Um so as you've heard, state law does not allow jurisdictions to deny residential projects based on subjective design standards.

So previously the city had all the various guidelines on the screen, and so we took those and turned the turn guidelines and we and we turned shoulds into shallows where it made sense.

Um so I was working with with city staff and the residential ODS advisory group through through several meetings, and we also did look at existing projects in the city in formulating the design standards.

This is the table of contents for the residential objective design standards.

We have standards uh that apply in all residential cases to all residential projects, and then we have standards that apply to single-family residences, duplexes, or two unit uh projects, and then another section with standards for multifamily residential projects as well.

Um, in terms of the general standards, one of the um uh themes that we wanted to address here was privacy.

Um so we have standards for um for windows, we have if you're near uh uh your neighbor's side property line, the window has to be set at a certain angle or or be frost use frosted glazing.

Um similarly, second stories that are near the side property line.

Uh there are our privacy fences that are required.

I mean, then we do have standards for for materials as well for single family and two unit projects and for multifamily projects as well, but we wanted to be cognizant of the massing of buildings and how that could impact surrounding properties.

Um so there are stepbacks required in certain cases, uh so stepbacks to the the upper story, and then in terms of visual interest, wanting to promote visual interest and high quality design, there are various um articulation features that that are required when the building elevations start to get longer.

So we you know we don't want um long blank kind of plane buildings, right?

We want we want visual interest, and and so um drawing from the guidelines uh these are some of the standards that that have been developed requiring our articulation as well.

And then uh we want and and the standards, the design guidelines called for garages to be clearly subordinate to the homes on properties, um and so that is included in in the standards as well.

Uh similarly for multifamily projects, they're different standards, but the considerations were similar in terms of of massing.

Um stepbacks are required when near single-family residential or traditional residential zones for the the beyond four stories.

And then again, wanting um high quality design and requiring articulation standards for um for multifamily uh residences as well.

Um those are things like balconies, bay windows, um, projections, recesses, et cetera, um, to add more more detail to buildings.

And then roofs as well, if if they start getting very long, need to include our articulation.

And then lastly, parking similar to garages, again, should be clearly subordinate to the building, and so needs to be located in the rear or side of the property.

Um, and then of course, private and common open spaces required, and structured parking needs, uh, some ground floor residential uses as well.

So that's an overview of the objective design standards and uh the issues and considerations we wanted to take into account as we're developing them.

And then the last part of the zoning ordinance is the administration and procedures, of course, all the various permit types.

I mean we've modified those, some added added new ones as appropriate.

And then the legislative actions are included here as well.

So the in this table you can see the zoning clearance.

That was not necessarily a new approval type for the city, but we really strengthened and added more detail to the zoning clearance in large part because of the objective design standards and the requirement that residential projects that comply with the ODS with the objective design standards be processed in a streamlined manner.

So we we added quite a bit there to the zoning clearance.

Otherwise, um there's an administrative design review that we've we've clearly called out to distinguish from design review.

So design review as opposed to administrative design review would still go to planning commission.

Uh hotels would still go to council.

For the use permits, we you had an administrative permit.

We've broken that up into into various permits, one of them being the administrative use permit as well as the conditional use permit.

So these administrative permits again can be approved at the staff level.

And then also, as you can see on the screen, we added a temporary use permit as well.

I think right now the city goes through a use permit process like we just saw for temporary uses.

Um so we took a lot of the standards that the city already had, and for temporary use projects, those are now subject to a temporary use permit, which is a little bit different from the conditional use permit as proposed in the public review draft.

We did also uh have additional uh things that an administrative exception would apply to.

So we'll we'll talk about those.

Um and then again the legislative actions and decisions are all codified there as well.

So as I mentioned, the administrative permit was separated into uh various types of permits.

So the administrative use permit, of course, having to do with uses, administrative exceptions with development standards, and that temporary use permit.

And we talked about the streamline ministerial review uh process, especially for projects that comply with the residential objective design standards.

Um then otherwise clarified applicability and review thresholds, um so that's clear and and and removed overlap between the various permit types and when they would apply.

So we want really clear, discrete um thresholds for when various various permits apply.

And now the text is starting to get small.

So uh we we did clarify the uh again the administrative design review, right?

That's a director level, clarifying thresholds there.

So smaller buildings, um non-residential buildings between 500 and 5,000 square feet as proposed.

Now those would be subject to an administrative uh design review permit, whereas the design review permit now would apply to, as proposed, would apply to non-residential structures, 5,000 square feet or larger.

Um so that those are the thresholds that that we've included here.

Um and then otherwise there are other things that the administrative design review can approve, including uh reductions in setbacks for mixed-use projects.

Um otherwise, the uh design review, which would still go to planning commission, um that would apply to projects that don't comply with the residential objective design standards.

And then for the administrative exceptions, we did add many things, many situations that that could apply to.

So uh additional deviations at that administrative exception level versus having to get a variance for things like um limited deviations to parking requirements, setbacks and the like there.

Okay, so we're getting close uh to the end of the presentation, so I appreciate everyone bearing with me.

Um the map on the left is the city's current zoning map today, as you can see.

It's you know, not the easiest thing to read.

So the public review draft, we've color-coded everything.

It includes the the new zones, the modified zones.

I mean, there are there are two maps.

There's the base zone map that's color-coded, and we have a color-coded, it's not shown on the screen, but a color-coded map for the overlays as well.

So, again, just basic modernization user friendliness there.

Um so again, we we are in the public review period.

Um comments have been coming in.

City staff has been has been sharing those with us.

Um of course we're looking forward to planning commissioner comments as well.

The public review period does close uh end of next week.

So uh Friday, July 24th.

Um of course, as required by state law, we are uh working with our subconsultant on secret compliance for the comprehensive zoning ordinance and zoning map, um, but largely drawing from the environmental review that was done for the general plan.

Um and then otherwise in terms of next steps, we're looking for public hearings here over the next few months, public hearings for adoption of this project.

The uh contact for this, you can submit comments or questions at zoning update at city of Napa.org.

And then for those that are interested in signing up for emails, um you can sign up for emails at the project at the uh city website for this project as well.

And that is it.

I I'm you know, of course, obviously I'm here, and then my colleagues are here as well, so we're available to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Does staff have anything in addition they want to report?

Yeah, maybe just a primer for the kind of set expectations for the intent behind the zoning ordinances.

Obviously, the general plan and the monumental effort that it was and the community input and the decisions ultimately made by council.

Um that cast a pretty wide net.

The the intent behind this adoption of a comprehensive zoning ordinance update is going to accomplish a lot of what the general plan asked for, but it won't accomplish everything.

Right.

There will be some targeted efforts, um, there's some countywide efforts, regional climate action and adaptation plan that will focus on more climate initiatives that then will look towards local adoption of that, um, local active transportation plan, which will fill in some of the holes related to transportation, among other programs, including housing element programs that will take a little bit more of a focused review towards housing programs.

Um the intent, even with the new zone districts, and a point of clarity because I know uh the conversation has come up in the supplemental comments.

Um the zone districts proposed if they're new and they have a different name, it's still the intention is to conform to that general plan designation.

So if a property is designated for a specific use, then the intent under this is to conform to the designation that was approved with that general plan does so it may come by a different name, but the intent with the development standards, the land uses generally are to conform to what that designation calls for.

So the notable one is like the greenbelt designation isn't isn't going under a green belt zoning district, it's going under conservation open space zone district.

But the intent is to still conform to the green belt designation.

Um so generally approach that with a kind of open mind if you will, because uh a lot of the decisions in the way that the draft was structured was to really feed into the general plan and not conflict with the general plan.

So looking at the policies, looking at the standards, looking at the types of land uses, feed into each individual designation.

That's kind of the intent of the why the land use table and the the selective the selective decision between the individual land uses, how the land uses were defined generally.

Uh there's a lot of effort that went into that.

There's a lot of discussion back and forth, even with like one land use in one zone district that may have been a very long conversation.

So that's just a a good primer.

I do want to just thank the crowd here tonight and appreciative of everyone that attended the workshop on Tuesday, everyone that's been conveying comments, and I would continue to recommend conveyance of public comment at that email address listed on the PowerPoint.

So zoning update at cityofnappa.org.

Other than that, just uh appreciate your time here today and open for any questions you have.

Thank you, writer.

And thank you for clarifying the greenbelt and open space.

All right.

Who wants to start?

Questions or comments for staff or the consulting team?

Commissioner Ebach.

Um I guess before we get started, what is most helpful in terms of providing questions and comments?

Is it easier if we kind of chunk it out and say we're going to talk about residential design standards and address all of those comments at once, or what works best for staff and consultant too?

I I don't have a preference.

Or we can structure it you know in a more focused manner.

Either way is is okay with would be.

Okay.

Um I mean I have a list, I just don't know if I should have to do that.

And if you have a page number, it's helpful to have the page number here if you're got it.

Okay.

Maybe as you go, and if we have comments on that topic, then we can add on to it.

Okay.

It's gonna be a while.

Um so starting off on page 57.

The definition for sorry, you have to give that 17 dot pages.

It's on the bottom.

The bottom right or left of the page will tell you.

Got it.

Okay, page 17 uh B33.

The definition for two unit dwelling.

Um in all the other definitions that rely on a California government code, they say such.

I imagine that this is pulling from the definition from SP9, but it says as defined by state law in this chapter, uh, just for staff's purposes, it would be helpful to have the government code there for them in the future if they're asked specifically.

Yes, that that is SB9, but we can make sure that's clear.

Um next I've got a few questions.

Well, so signage.

Um sorry, let me get to that section here.

Um I have a s a s slight concern with the call out of treating garage sale signs differently than other non-commercial message signs, and how potentially um that could create a non-content neutral sign regulation.

Um not necessarily something that we need to dive into too much right now, but um would encourage attorneys to weigh in on that piece.

Um the the commercial like the commercial definitions for the commercial content versus non-commercial are great.

Those look really good.

Um but this one specifically made me a little nervous.

What section is that that you're referring to?

Um that's in the sign code, and that is on page 17 D forty eight.

Thank you.

And and I think you you rightly point out that you know uh uh read versus Gilbert, right uh applies um in this case.

We we did work with the um the city attorney on on the sign ordinance.

Um our the conversations that we had is that um was to not make substantial uh content edits to the sign ordinance.

So that's just a little bit of the background there.

Um but I agree that that read versus Gilbert is um would apply in in this case.

And I think like for political signs, those are treated differently, and I think that there's an argument that those are okay under like the strict scrutiny doctrine, but garage sale signs don't necessarily have that same level of importance in terms of speech, so that's why I bring it up.

Thank you.

Okay.

And then residential district development standards, page 17 C5.

The residential low density district has a higher minimum number of dwelling units per acre than the residential traditional.

You're talking about the the three to eight DUA for residential low versus two to twelve for tr uh traditional residential.

Um can you explain maybe the intent of because in my mind the residential low should be a lower density district.

Um I think it'd be great if both of them had a minimum of of three dwelling unit per acre density.

Um but just now you're thinking.

Yeah, and it intuitively what you're saying definitely makes sense.

I I think we can look at the general plan uh thresholds for those underlying land use categories, but generally that's what we're we're relying upon.

So um I I believe that's what it says in the general plan, but we'll we'll confirm that.

I understand it it seems a little odd because it's not just a clean gradation the whole way through, right?

So we can look at that, but um uh I I believe that's how it's reflected in the general plan.

I can confirm that.

So it is two to twelve units per um acre in traditional residential designation.

Happy to give clarity to the intent of why the general plan was that.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

And then I don't know if anyone else had any uh anything on that section, but if not, I'm gonna talk about the use regulation table.

Is that okay?

Uh that is on page 17 C eight.

So this is just a comment um less of a question I guess but I think it would be nice now that we have the breakout between the um grocery store small and large and seeing that there's pretty substantial portion of the city covered in the RSL district I'm sorry the residential districts I would recommend that we look at adding conditional uses for small grocery stores in residential traditional and then the RMM district in order to support the general plan goals of walkability complete communities and uh seeing that in most cases the small grocery stores are really not going to have substantial no negative impacts on adjacent residential uses we can certainly look at that yes.

And then I had a similar question on the community garden land use.

So it looks like that is listed uh sorry on page 17 C11 and it's allowed as a conditional use only in the RMH.

I I feel that the potential negative impacts on adjacent properties for community garden are very low so um would recommend that that be a conditional um use in all of the residential districts um community gardens can be great if you have an empty site and you need temporary info before it's developed um just great use and it would be good to have the flexibility there I think one one thing there and we'll look into seeing if we can strike the right balance but sometimes the the the balancing act is also making sure that there's the preservation of meeting minimum density requirements.

So priority is still residential if it's the sake of meeting um RENA numbers and so generally so that I I will say that that was kind of the intent in a lot of the residential zones but something we can look into and I do have a question on that well I'll get to um in terms of replacement units later down just to comment on the setbacks um on page 17 C eighteen at the top really excited to see those I think those are great in terms of um you know promoting pedestrian friendly street standards and um keeping the garages set back from the sidewalk to allow for parking um and having the garage doors set back again great standards.

I comment on the parking standards on page 70 D 37 so the well backing up I was pleased to see that a lot of the parking requirements were decreased by this draft.

Great job everyone on that I do have a concern uh for single family dwellings and two unit dwellings the breakout um for you know only requ having two units required for dwellings that are less than 900 square feet.

Commissioner Ebach I'm sorry to interrupt could you repeat the page number your ones we got 17 D 37.

Thank you.

So the the differentiation between dwelling units uh that are less than 900 square feet or over 900 square feet the requirement for an additional parking stall for those uh dwellings over 900 square feet three dwelling units for one theoretic like one 1,000 square foot single family home is higher than um what I personally would like to see and I would be interested to hear what um other commissioners think but um I would love to see the two per unit standard applied across the board to all dwelling units I'm sorry all single family and two unit dwellings I understand explain yeah map that out a little bit sorry so um four dwelling units that are less than nine hundred square feet and this applies excuse me to single family and duplexes or um have three bedrooms or fewer they're required to provide two parking stalls per unit but for those that jump up when you go from nine under 900 square foot or three bedrooms or less to above 900 square foot and three bedrooms and greater they're then required to provide three parking stalls per unit.

So that threshold might want to be a little higher.

Yeah, I I don't know that that's that for footage necessitates an additional parking stall.

And and your your thought is to just have it be um two two you two spaces per unit across the board for single family dwellings and uh two unit dwellings.

That would be my recommendation.

Um but if this body wants to have a larger discussion about um having a larger square footage threshold or something, I'm open to discussing that as well.

But that's my two cents on that piece.

And then for the citywide design standards, page 17 D 140.

Under consistency number two A, it says on quarter buildings, materials must be consistent on both frontages facing the right-of-way.

Um never mind, scratch that one.

I answered my own question.

She was on D 140.

Okay.

She was on 2A.

Okay.

Yeah.

So on uh 17 D 142 at the bottom under building articulation.

The language talks about the maximum width of a front elevation.

And then also talks about the street-facing elevation.

Um there could be a scenario in which the um structure takes up like a corner and they have multiple street-facing elevations.

So I noticed that in a few areas where it refers to um structures only having the option to have one street-facing elevation.

I think it'll be helpful if the intent is to have articulation on all elevations that face a street to just add an S at the end there.

And then similarly in the residential design standards, page 17 D 145.

Um D building orientation and entry design.

I'm sorry, what was that one again?

Um 17 D 145.

Um under D building orientation and entry design.

Um says that the primary building entrance must face the primary street.

Um I think that's a great standard, but primary street is not defined in the definitions.

So in order to ensure that the intent of that regulation is met, you'd want to define that term.

And then on the same page, number two, building entrances must have a roofed projection, including but not limited to a porch.

Um, and then so on and so forth.

I would recommend talking to legal counsel about that as well.

Typically, for to be truly objective and airtight, um, it's best not to have um other options that are not stated.

So if there is the desire to allow a roof projection that is not a porch and is something else.

I think in order to be free.

Yeah, to be truly objective, um, I'd I'd recommend spelling those out.

Um or you know, simply leaving it as porch if that was the intent, but either way, um not leaving any gray area there.

I will say that the um including but not limited to you'll see that dozens of times or or more throughout the code.

And some of that was uh a stylistic choice to allow for greater flexibility.

Um but but I hear what you're saying in terms of giving kind of outlining the specific uh type types of projections that that would conform.

Yeah, and I realize it is a greater exercise, but uh you know, in listing all of those out, but just in a scenario where you do get put strong pushback on those standards.

A little more clarity.

Yeah, I think that's always helpful.

Um I just want to provide a little bit of clarity on that.

Because in the objective to Catherine Slama's uh director, at least the way I was consulting, um just a couple notes that as we're going through the objective design standards specifically.

In some cases, there's the objective standard, which is required, and then there's examples of how to meet that objective standard.

So that is where it's not not objective, because the objectivity is lies within the five feet and the 30 square feet, so how you meet that, it doesn't matter.

So we almost could strike that, including we're not limited to a porch, because it's uh it's almost an example, but um while maintaining that objectivity is really just the the numeric measurement.

That makes sense.

Um yeah, we could like if it if it's appearing too flexible or subjective, we could almost just strike the parentheses part because therein lies the kind of the root of the the standard is everything else.

Yeah.

Just to help with kind of the examples versus where the requirements kind of come in.

And maybe that's something as simple as calling out examples or you know, ways to meet the standard include exactly, yes.

Yes, yes.

And then um page 17 D 155, in terms of the screening and visibility standard for surface parking lots.

Um there is a section is says screening and visibility um and it states that there's a minimum five-foot landscaping buffer that must be provided um along the parking area and the adjacent property line.

Does the city have a standard in terms of um how translucent or like how a percentage in which the buffering or screening needs to cover the parking?

That may be written out somewhere else, and I'm just not seeing it.

I'd have to double check.

I think in some other zone districts where there are standards that apply, they're a little bit more prescriptive to what that screening is.

Um I can double check on that.

I don't maybe the intent there was to not be overly prescriptive, but just to give a general landscape offer, but we can look into it.

There are additional landscaping standards um within uh the the citywide section on um supplemental site regulations as well.

Okay.

17 D eight?

D 10?

Yeah, it's sure it's D8.

Okay.

Awesome.

Thank you.

And and then also 17 D20060.

So those would all kind of work in in concert with one another.

But but yes, we can look in the specifics uh for that particular one.

Okay.

And and that's the page number, thank you.

17 D 10.

I'm looking at we're trying to look at sections and we're talking page numbers.

So yes, thank you.

It's it's both.

Let me know if you need more clarity on that one.

No, that is that's very helpful.

Um then still um under the design standards, page 17 D 156.

Um sections that talk about direct and convenient access must be provided from residential areas to adjacent commercial and mixed use.

Um then safe and convenient pedestrian connections.

Again, I think all every reasonable person knows what safe and direct and convenient mean.

Doesn't sound as objective as it could.

Yeah.

Um just just for your consideration um to again prevent staff from getting in a bind later and finding about what safe or convenient really means.

Okay, and then last one here.

Um so on page 17 D 169, the section regarding um residential conversions.

So conversion or loss of residential uses to non-residential uses.

So hoping to get some clarification here.

So under D where it says housing impact fees, it says that the city shall impose housing impact fees for all conversions of residential uses to non-residential uses.

Like if it was a land use that already would typically require an impact fee for house.

Can you repeat the question because we were still finding the section?

Sorry.

Yeah.

I'm sorry.

So for the where it says multifamily residential conversions.

Number D housing impact fees.

So it says that the city shall impose housing impact fees pursuant to code da da da for all conversions of residential uses to non-residential uses.

So would that require the commercial use to pay an impact fee that the typical impact fee that that would be assessed and then the additional impact fee to cover the loss of units?

Okay.

Well, good question of the the double.

But yes, so like for the new use, generally the if there's a an impact fee more appropriate for that commercial use, generally, yes, because there's nexus in proportionality to that new use.

So in some cases, like some jurisdictions will have a policy where if you lose X number of units because you're transferring to a different use, you could require replacement.

So this is just stating that they would be required to pay an affordable housing impact fee.

It's not related to the number of lost units.

Correct.

They'd pay the affordable housing impact fee on the whatever the square footage value is, assuming that's still the calculation for whatever the new use is in its entirety.

They wouldn't the way I read this is they wouldn't receive credit.

So like if a commercial building adds on or tears down and then replaces, they get credit for what was there before.

In this case, there would be no credit, but they would be paying solely based on the new use.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

That's all I've got.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Ebach.

Do you want to go next?

Commissioner Masaro?

Sure.

Where do I want to start?

Okay.

So I did I did spend a lot of time with staff because I was actually concerned I wasn't going to make this meeting.

So we spent a little bit of time together, but I'll go over some of the highlights.

And just for the record, we do have all of your comments and we've shared uh we've provided our books to them to date, but we'll continue to do so.

Good thank you.

Thank you.

One thing that I saw in your presentation.

You taught you shown a slide and you talked about the parking.

Um would be behind.

I think this we were looking at it is in multifamily behind or at the side.

And do you can you do you think you can go back in your little presentation?

Yes.

Or your big presentation or whatever presentation that is.

For the record, is there a page number that you're finding?

There wasn't because it was up here, and I know that there was a picture, and I know there's a picture that matches it in here.

On the bottom on the bottom right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So maybe you guys can find that picture for me.

Are you talking about the one on the bottom right portion of this of the screen?

Um that one it well, that one is a structure.

So yeah, so structure parking.

So yes, so it says parking lots must be in the rear or side side of the parcel.

Do you know where that 17154?

Thank you.

And the surface parking lot is 17D153, just the page before it.

Thanks.

I do have that marked up.

Okay, good.

So when we're talking about the parking in the rear or the side, there are instances where we've seen multifamily parking where they have used the I would say some parking on the primary street to use it as a buffer from that primary street.

So for instance, if you go down Browns Valley or First Street, all the way into those neighborhoods there.

Um and even and even as we think about we're developing Saskell and you know those types of things.

Do we really want to have residential units on those streets sitting nearer traffic so they're hearing noise?

And the reason I say that is I just spent four nights camping right next to I-5.

And it was really loud.

So I just know that when we have constant traffic, like we can on those streets.

I mean, not obviously 24 hours a day, but we can.

They just um I'm just wondering if we don't want to create more of a buffer.

Uh uh the possibility of having a buffer.

That's something that we can look at.

Yeah, I lived on a major thoroughfare myself and the house was right right up against the road.

So I I know what you're talking.

I I knew when it was rush hour every day because uh you could hear it very loudly.

Yeah.

So I I hear what you're saying there.

And I don't know, and and maybe someone on my team knows, but you know, a lot of this was um drawn from the design guidelines, right?

And then we repurpose them into standards.

Um standards could use a little more objectivity as Commissioner Ebach pointed out.

But sorry th this may be, you know, one of the uh this may have been from one of the design guideline documents.

So we we we can look at that.

And not that we're wedded, you know, to to what the guidelines say necessarily.

Um but that that may be where where this comes from.

But we can take a look.

Well I know that a lot of the community spent time on those guidelines 20 years or so ago, I think.

Um but they do need to be updated and um and I'm appreciative that we're here doing this.

Um before we get too far on that, this won't answer your full question, but it is important to note that the general plan does define certain noise contours for specific street frontages.

Is it also important to take that step further until when look diving into building code requirements, there are maximum noise thresholds for interior and interior levels.

So when we have enough evidence to conclude that a certain street frontage um on average generates a specific amount of noise, even through the build out of the general plan, it there's enough evidence there to give direction to staff when analyzing noise to give direction to our building division team in making sure that the actual facilities, if it is residential, there's enough insulation there to where if you're sitting on the interior of it, there's not an impact to your general enjoyment of your unit.

Right.

Well one thing, sorry, I'll just add to that as well is just context-wise, right?

The the objective design standards that we've prepared in the the draft zoning ordinance here.

If if an applicant meets those, right, then they qualify for that zoning clearance process through county staff.

But if someone, you know, if an application does deviate from these things, it's not that it's a no-go completely, right?

It's it would go to planning commission or uh, you know, require discretionary approval.

So I think that's great.

You said that because actually I was gonna say that next.

Okay.

We're on the same page.

Yeah, we are on the same page.

So um so given that, and knowing that what we want to do is try and provide our developers out there with a good little roadmap where they can get they can take the easiest path forward or they can design something amazing and then bring it to Planning Commission, right?

Okay.

So um Correct.

On page, well, I would say in general, so I'm starting with the chapter 17 D70, which is a residential objective design standards.

That's where my focus is going to be primarily.

That's where I spent a lot of my time on this first iteration of it.

In general, I didn't see awnings or gutters or downspouts really discussed in our in these objective design standards.

And I think that those are important if we're going to.

I mean, I know some in many cases stormwater will dictate where those downspouts and things are.

But we want to make sure that we're giving some design standards around what types of materials maybe that we want to see or locations potentially of where those things should be.

And that awnings could be listed as an architectural feature.

So that was one of those.

I went over windows with the staff pretty well, but I think we could use some better graphics on 17D7030-1, which is your window trim and recess.

What page is that on?

It is on page D 17D 138.

138.

And in our description of that, we call for the SIL, but we don't really call for aprons.

And we have aprons in the in the picture.

But I also think the pictures could be simpler than what you have here to denote what these types of windows could look like.

And I went over that with the anyway.

So we'll make sure to get your your comments related through staff then.

I have some comments on that specific section as well.

Do you want to pick up and go on that before I move on?

Yeah.

Close the windows, those are windows.

One thing I have is requiring the overhang of the header, the lintel, and the apron.

So a lot of our historical homes and one that I'm working on right now, there is not an apron.

There's definitely a sill.

And a lot of times it's a picture frame around that window.

So there's not an overhang.

So I just get a little, I'm cautious about requiring that design element because sometimes it's specific to a certain architectural style.

The apron specifically.

Right.

Um then I also think of the buildability.

So on C double I, the minimum projection from wall surface of as a half inch.

Sometimes it's only a quarter inch based on the three-quarter inch wall surface material, your nominal one-inch framing, trim, whatever you use for your trim.

And so again, there, it's like I I like to have it sit proud of the wall surface.25 is just a con construction industry increment that you buy materials in.

So I would say a minimum of a quarter-inch projection.

Um C2.

On C2.

And this one doesn't talk about the recess.

Okay, so yeah, that's what I had on that figure.

Great.

Well, if we're getting into standards.

On the CI.

You're talking about a minimum height of the header is four inches.

But we never really buy a four-inch board either.

So it's kind of a you know, it's in it's an I don't know, it's kind of an interesting thing to put in there.

It's a little speci so I guess maybe what I'm saying is it's a little specific.

If we're trying to um I yeah, it's it's just a little specific.

Too specific, maybe.

I understand where they don't want it just framed, you know.

Right.

Yeah.

It's just something to look at.

Okay.

Um I think we had moves to come on that.

And we've moving very slowly, but I'm stepping up.

Um we we've we have we started to look at some of the comments that you provided staff.

So some of these more specific ones we definitely appreciate and we'll look into all of those.

But I I want to just preface, because I think this might continue to come up and we we'll we'll answer every single question that you have.

But in terms of the specificity, this is the this is the challenge that this is presented.

It's presented to the communities across the state.

It's been definitely been a uh, you know, uh presented a interesting conversation that the consultant team has had with stakeholders and staff and the commission and the advisory group throughout this process of the necessity of being specific, otherwise you can't regulate it.

And I think that's where we're happy to continue.

So the more options that you give, you can remain objective because you have them all listed.

And I think that goes to your uh comment earlier, Commissioner Ibaq, about like wanting to specifically list the things that are allowed.

Because the more that we can list, the more you're allowed to say, yep, your objective, yes, you met this.

Um so if if if four inches is not the right number, that's of course completely movable.

Um but I think if we say if we don't have any height measurement, then it's do you you know you kind of lose your ability to say yes or no.

So I just wanted to preface that because I think further down we start to see some longer lists of examples and longer lists of things that are allowed.

Um, because the the kind of the flip side of not allowing a lot of different options is that you don't have any, and then you really um are opening yourself to maybe some unintended consequences of not being able to then um work with stab, which you've done so successfully.

I think that's the problem in a community that has a has really great examples and really great structures and a really great development community is that you've worked so well together over the uh over the course of several years of gr producing great outcomes and un unknowingly so through a negotiated process.

So it's just wanting to kind of document those great outcomes in um objective standards.

So one of the one of the things that just as I as I read through this objective design standard, and then I've looked at other cities ejective design standards, and I think that there are other cities who have really dialed it in and they've said, here's an example of a craftsman, here's an example of a modern architecture, here's contemporary design.

And we're not doing that, right?

This is not that.

So this document, then we need to talk about some of the specific specificities that are in here because they're starting to lean into architectural styles that we really don't want to define in the first place.

So that I think is the hard part of this document because as I read through here, I was like, you know, this section, and I know you've seen my comments, so this sections when we're talking about architectural elements, it's like it's way too many of different architectural styles.

So we're just kind of like saying, hey, we're not telling you to build this way, but here's the style that goes with that.

Sure.

So that's kind of how it and what a lot of my comments are based on.

Absolutely.

No, I and I I understand that.

I just wanted to give a little bit of context of the some of the nature of some of the lists um wanting to you know either add more sp, you know, maybe the answer is more detail or you know, to further um define what we want to see.

If that, you know, if it if we're if we're maybe buff bordering the line of we're specific but not specific enough, you know, we can we can add more.

Um absolutely.

Okay.

Thank you.

Really quick, Commissioner Masaro, to close the loop on that minimum height is four inches.

Because if they want to use wood, it would be three and a half.

So would you be more comfortable with three and a half inches?

Oh, I think we'll we'll let that.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, we'll learn it.

Okay.

I think we have more notes.

About three and a half.

That's good.

Thank you.

Um, so then I'm just gonna hit some of my um other pieces here.

Um in the materials section, which is B section subsection B on page 17 D 139.

We talk about um pallets.

And um what I would like to see in the in the roof palette, it says here it says roofs may not use glazed ceramic tiles or reflective metal materials.

And maybe we change the wording on reflective medical metal metal materials.

Because there's oftentimes we have cool roofs, we have corrugated roofs, we have standing seam metal that are in all intents and purposes reflective, but they're not glaring.

So maybe we change that section to glaring if if we're worried about glare.

If that's why if that's why we don't have ceramic tiles.

I don't know, glazed ceramic tiles.

So and just to clarify that one then is the intent of what you're talking about being more stringent and and not allowing these other types of metal roofs as well, or is it the other thing?

No, it's it you by having that wording, you're telling people they shouldn't be designing with stand in my opinion, shouldn't be designing with standing sea metal roofs or coal roofs or anything like that.

Anything that would reflect.

This is B1A, correct?

Yeah, page which to ref just say reflective materials regardless of what the material type was.

So take out the word metal.

That's the note that I have, take out the word metal.

Um in Came palette, um, I would add to that header material uh metal and fiber cement.

Um and then in D when we call when we call it allowed materials, it looks like we're talking about siding.

So I'd add that word to it.

And in the siding section, I would add metal panel to be allowed.

And we talked a little bit about that metal panel.

Um I don't know if we would want a hundred percent metal paneled house, but if we're designing some multifamily, for instance, which we've seen come in the past, they've had uh metal panel corrugated to match you know farm housing, you know, those types of things.

So maybe looking at that in a way where we could have some metal allowed in the siding so that can go through rather than having it come through design review, so to speak.

So are you proposing to like because what we've done in the past is like a certain percentage or something?

I think we have that for the stecko, right?

Right.

Um to that kind of approach though.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

I would also be sensitive that it works great in wooey zones.

Well, I guess none of the city of Napa really is.

Oh, some somewhere.

Yeah.

Metal siding all around is great in the I I would love to just make a a comment about corrugated metal.

Um the house next door to us, um, my husband and I, we um they they put a metal roof on their outbuilding, and we have the tank house, and my office is on that second level.

And it was absolutely blinding.

And people, we have corrugated metal fencing that we painted and and it looks rusted and it's beautiful, Lisa.

You've you've seen it.

I feel that there I have I'm very hesitant to go for you know the corrugated metal on buildings because it is very reflective and it's blinding and it heats things up, it's not really doesn't seem um energy efficient to me.

That's just my comment.

I'm not a designer by trade.

That's okay.

I think the glaring, if we keep that wording in our materials, then that's important.

So there's a lot of different ways that metal can be um treated so that it is actually cool and reflecting the heat more so and not bothering people.

But anyway, that's just a design thing.

Um let's see.

Oh.

My question is on figure 17 D 70 zero four zero dash one.

It's on page D 142.

17 D 142.

Um It says upper story front setbacks.

And I I just kind of had a question about why we chose those architectural styles to be used.

If we're cleaning up graphics, wouldn't we want to use as generic, you know, as possible of looking things, since we don't want to be specific, but we I don't know.

Just it's just a suggestion.

That sounds good.

Yeah, I'm not sure if we have anything to add on on that one.

No, just a minor comment.

Yeah, we can we can look at the graphics.

Is there something s I guess my question would be is there something specific that you're not liking about them?

I think one of the reasons we do add detail is because uh a massing diagram, like a massing model that's really just blank 3D with no design gives the gives a poor impression.

So we do want to add a little bit of detail um so to make the look like the standards would actually make a better product rather than uh you know just a 3D um uh 3D box.

Are there other uh styles that you think would be more appropriate to use that could give us our give our team a little bit more guidance?

I can think about that one.

Um I just I just feel like these are poor examples of what I'd want to see built.

And um and I know that there's simple graphics and I know that that's you know kind of what you want to want to show on the massing and all of that.

I I do that.

But yeah, just could be I think it could be better.

Thank you.

Um getting into page 17D 143.

Um and this may be carry over from the last residential design guidelines.

But I just feel like um should we be talking about should we be using the word must include on these items A through D.

And having us talk about chimneys.

Do you guys have any other question any other comments about that?

I agree with the the talk of chimneys since they are faux.

Yeah.

So maybe figuring out a different design guideline we should be putting in there.

I think the intent um as Catherine had alluded to before is to outline those options, but but is that one that maybe should be should be removed or should be struck?

I would remove it.

I don't think we need to have a lot of so a chimney can be maybe out the side of a building.

Maybe one point of clarity is I mean there are there are time there are times within certain zone districts.

Well, one corner lots, this would generally be applicable, so it gives options of that.

So the traditional like traditional building form where chimpanzee were prominent of like giving options for people to resemble more traditional building form where they may have that.

But also in instances, I think where you increase maybe the number of units and it's not an ADU generally, of where you could have to focus on both the addition and the existing context of a structure.

So I I think I think receptive of receptive of the feedback, but maybe that's perspective, but um, but if they're okay, but if they wanted to have a chimney, they would just go through a design review process, right?

Or we're just saying that a chimney can be one of the articulations.

That's all we're saying, right?

Okay.

Well, I don't know.

I don't I don't know that I would want to.

Yeah.

Hi, I'm Cal Kurtz, uh lead associate with OpenSea, just to address uh some of that.

Um just um so completely okay with um removing chimneys if that's not an appropriate standard.

Um really the goal of the overall list of standards here is to break up, of course, um a wall that exceeds 35 feet in width.

So I just wanted to ask if there are any other design elements that you think would be more appropriate.

Um so if we removed chimney as an option, there would only be three.

And really we like to provide a whole number of options um that we feel are appropriate for the city of Napa.

So if you have any other suggestions, that would be very helpful.

Maybe it's a recess.

I don't, you know, just what about I mean I love uh like belly bands in in between like a stem wall and underneath uh window trim and things that literally run the length of the wall.

Um I think they're they're they are very craftsman or farmhouse-ish.

But um that is something that I like to see.

Um that so uh belly band is an option, I think, to break up some of the maybe the vertical monotony, and I think that is a standard in one of the sections as an option.

I think this generally would be to break up the large expanse of wall horizontally.

Um but I I do think the the belly band is a standard uh an option for that.

Yes, for the upper story elevation, actually that the next number right after number two, it's an option.

It it's called horizontal band, but Commissioner Masaro, I also have on here my notes from you that you had suggested that windows didn't necessarily have to be protruding and uh picture windows would be an option there as well.

Um or looking at other window types rather than just they're gonna do it.

Right.

Thank you.

Um I don't want to take up all the time because I know my notes have been communicated.

So um but I do want to just hit on, and I think I I talked a little bit about this um in the beginning when I started talking on the next page where we had 17D 144.

144, yeah.

Five articulate art architectural articulations for stucco buildings, and then it's repeated in here for other buildings with these with these same A through F's uh descriptions where we have iron window grille, Juliet balcony, decorative tile, arch window, classical and tablature, cornice arch door, et cetera.

That's what I was referring to as being very specific architectural styles, but we're not telling, we're not giving architectural styles as a full definition.

So it's either it's kind of like either take that away or go deeper is sort of how I feel.

So is your concern you don't like this list or you would like to add additional options to this list?

Um I I guess what what I'm trying to say is maybe I don't I don't like the list because it uh if we're trying if we if we're trying not to dictate style, but we're but now we're dictating style.

Sure.

I think that is just where I'm at.

What do you think?

What do you guys think up here?

What do my commissioners think?

Uh I think some input in it, because I think context is important.

Like generally when staff had received the draft um limiting the amount of stucco was generally the theme.

And staff had had conveyed comments that will well.

There is traditional styles that utilize primary primarily stucco.

So how is there an option to give that option to people but also still break up what could be large expanses of wall that provide stucco?

So I think the initial take of that is to give certain relief options that are generally typical for maybe architectural styles that utilize stucco.

So it's not to dictate it, but I think it's generally to acknowledge where there are certain architectural styles within the community to give options to.

Still receptive of feedback if there are alternative ways to give more relief to stucco.

Yeah, I agree with that.

The section does also say must provide a minimum of one.

And like Commissioner Masaro says said um, you know, stucco is now used more often because of its fire resistivity.

So it's and there's modern homes that have none of those on the home.

Um it's not you know not Spanish at all.

Um I I agree they don't have to have one of those.

Maybe the wording is something how you discussed the relief or breaking up the massing.

Um but I don't think it sh it has to have one of those A, B, C, D, E, F.

And maybe that's the the request is to maybe identify more options to that.

It's generally uh I do want to acknowledge where the commission has provided feedback in past projects where it has just been a stucco box.

So it's trying to strike the right balance of both.

Sure.

Sure.

Okay.

So then i maybe we should think about adding something to this list that meets the design standard of a uh contemporary or modern because the only must in here if you were to do a modern would be a Juliet balcony.

And while that may just work fine, because I think it works fine on the that modern um looking apartment complex on First Street.

Um maybe that's it, maybe that's fine, but maybe add an awning in here.

Because that would break up the monotony of a stucco something.

That's very helpful.

Thank you.

Maybe I'll just same thing repeated on page 17D 150.

It's the same.

So just the same note.

There was one note I had in here.

And I don't know if you can find it for me easier over there, Molly.

It was the one having to do with dormers.

Oh yeah, you were on that page 144.

Yes, I have looking at options that would allow for the placement of solar panels.

Yes.

Yes.

I love a long, big, beautiful roof plane.

Yes.

Not just stormers, but look at options for incentivizing or allowing for solar panels.

I do have that.

It's on page 17 D 144.

If I could just ask, um so we've certainly um had discussions about dormers, about um about the solar access.

So if you could just clarify, do you think it would be best to remove the standard that requires dormers when a roof plan exceeds 40 feet?

Yes.

That's what I would recommend.

I know I have.

Okay.

And I think that was it with my sp with my specifics and questions.

Did you right?

Um I have all of your notes.

Everything's kind of running together.

I should have color-coded it a little bit better, but um, so I do anything we spoke about when you came to meet with us.

We have and we'll make sure the consultants get a little bit we we had the opportunity to look through your comments.

I did have there might be other questions that we have, so hopefully we were able to ask staff to get any clarity.

But one thing does come to mind.

Um I believe, and and if it wasn't your comment, Commissioner, I apologize.

A question about roof venting.

Do you recall that?

Oh, yeah.

Could you provide a little more clarity about what you're looking for there?

Is it screening of roof venting or is it the regulation of uh venting methods?

Because we're well, I think it was the well it had more to do with is there as we're planning to as we're getting into providing more and more solar on our commercial buildings and on our multifamily buildings and our residential buildings.

There's an advantage to grouping your venting in a location that would then um keep it uh away from where the solar panels would normally be.

And it's a little bit more expensive to do it that way, but it gives whoever the homeowner is the opportunity to have the most space available.

Typically when you build construction, you're where you're where your bathroom is, your roof vent comes up right from the bathroom.

And then your bathroom might, you might have three bathrooms and so you have three different bathrooms, and then you have the washing machine vent, and you've got the water heater vent and kitchen kitchens and all those things.

Yeah.

So that was it.

But I don't know that that would be feasible.

I have a quick question because you are so knowledgeable about energy, like clean building, healthy buildings, all of it.

Very impressive.

Um will solar panels be smaller and less intrusive and why aren't there more building roof materials that are that have the solar capacity embedded in them?

Why are there not more building materials that can ref that can do the job of solar panels so that you don't see solar panels?

It's embedded in the in the building materials.

It's a longer conversation, but it has to do with building code and testing and getting your and getting the items tested to be approved standards.

Yeah.

So it's a bigger question.

If I may um ask Chair Owen, since we we do have public in the audience tonight and we are starting to lose members of the public, ask whether the chair might consider allowing the public to comment.

Sure, have we?

And then coming back to deliberation.

How many comment cards, Myra, do we have a question?

I received six.

Um before we open public comment, could I have an opportunity to actually because my my comments are very um very concise.

Okay.

Because I met with staff and I covered everything and only have a couple of items.

Sure.

Is that okay?

Sure.

Okay.

Um I just want to say that I've been very impressed with um when I signed up for to receive the email correspondence and getting the updates, it has been so incredibly helpful, so thank you.

And um I also wanted to say that um I appreciate the reduced parking standards to help increase density.

I thought that I believe that this updated draft, even though we we're still working on it, and I will have will submit more thoughts um through the if either through staff or through that amazing vehicle that we have with the portal.

Um but the the updated draft I just wanted to compliment you guys because it is much more user-friendly than the previous draft.

The zoning map is so much easier to navigate.

Um the correspondence throughout this project with those emails and updates have been really helpful, especially the executive summary.

If you just have time to read the executive summary, you learn so much, right?

Um I just wanted to mention that I I had a question, and this is something that you can just think about and staff may be able to get back to me on it.

Two things.

Number one, um artificial turf is mentioned in two areas, and I did meet with staff and I explained this, but I just thought it's worth repeating here.

Um 17 D11.

Uh we have a required landscaped area visible from the public right of way, must not utilize non-vegetative ground.

Um then we have another it's also mentioned back here and then on page 17 D 157, an open space design we have where you're designing an open space that artificial turf is prohibited.

This just made me extra extraordinarily happy because I feel that it would be great if we could somehow ban artist artificial turf unless it's perhaps mini golf courses or perhaps an area of a playground or um something of that sort.

I know other cities have done it, and I just had a question for the consultant team.

Have you worked with any cities that have banned artificial TERF?

And Catherine, maybe maybe Catherine can weigh in.

Um in my experience, it's it's all over the gamut, right?

Kind of thing.

So we've we've had we've had clients that kind of want the opposite and and right now they're starting to allow artificial turf.

I know there are always water you know concerns and and things like that.

Um I don't recall a client that's banned TRF, but maybe you all do.

I would just add um that this actually came up in a meeting I was in today with our parks and recreation director, and as we're looking at harvest, you know, sometimes there is a benefit in terms of the sport field perspective from artificial turf.

And so I think that that's a conversation that's going to be coming up uh as part of the harvest um project discussion and and you know what what and maybe And she also said that the technology is changing a little bit, so I'm not gonna get it right, but some sort of off-gassing that that comes from it, um many of the products are changing.

However, the downside being is the artificial turf isn't last as long.

So you oh there's so many problems with it, but I won't get into that.

That's my Waterloo.

Um and then the last thing, I just have this other question that I couldn't really and perhaps I've read 90% of this.

I just have a few more pages to go back on.

But is there a way to put more restrictions on extending entitlements or the the extensions of entitlements?

Is there is there anything in a zoning code that we can restrict like the extensions of permits and entitlements that have already been approved?

I would um I would recommend I as you just saw we did that for the first time.

This commission included a recommendation that goes to council next week on that in the zoning.

And actually, one of the um one of the points in the grand jury report that was written about the planning division was suggesting that we look at that.

So I would I would maybe pull that one out separately from from this, but look at maybe a citywide policy or an administrative regulation.

Okay, thank you.

That was it.

Thank you.

And I would I would actually say that Commissioner Owens, since you're the only one that hasn't gone, it probably makes sense for you to go now.

And sorry, to the public if you can hang on with us for just a few more minutes.

I looked through mine, they're very design specific, so I can just email them to you and you can communicate them.

Okay, up to you.

I just wanted to give you that option to say that you weren't the only one.

There's only like two more, so you want us to go to public comment?

We can go to public comment.

So we I received seven.

I don't know if everyone is still here, but I can just call them up in no particular order.

Linda Brown, Chris Benz, Marilyn at Knight Menson, Bruce Bruce Barge, Joseph Keebler, and Carlotta Sainato and Bayard Fox and Catherine Kelly.

And Myra, just to clarify, we'll stick with the typical three minutes.

Thank you.

Before my pre-minute middle.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

We haven't removed that yet.

Before my three minute start, I just want to say that Carol Barge and Bruce Barge, I think have left.

Okay.

So they were on your list, but I don't see them now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

First of all, Commissioner Shotwell, thank you for your comments on artificial turf.

I couldn't be in more agreement.

It's not sustainable.

It breaks down into microplastic pollution, no matter what they say.

It disturbs the agroecology, which kills off soil and also disturbs the microbiome and the organic material that sequesters carbon, and it heats up greatly, and it's a completely inappropriate for athletic fields where in a time when the world is heating up when we're having superheat days.

The last thing we need are athletic fields that are even hotter than they would be if they were grass.

Now, here are my prepared comments.

Remember Sinclair gas stations?

Maybe you don't, but if you do, you'll remember that they had a dinosaur that was their big emblem.

And that's how we should be looking at gas stations right now.

They're dinosaurs.

They perpetuate fossil fuel dependency culture that has imperiled our climate and our lives, not to mention future generations.

This is not Jurassic Park.

We do not want to encourage gas stations.

I have so much to say about it, and I know others will be commenting on it, but I will say a few words.

And the RCAP envisions phasing down our gas dependency over time.

We need alternative transportation.

That's where our effort should go.

We do not need new gas stations.

Please modify the draft zoning language to be in sync with these intents, the intentions.

Now to say a word about drive-throughs.

These are primarily all about convenience.

When I grew up, we didn't have drive-throughs.

We could get out of the car and go walk in to wherever.

It's not about community benefit.

It's all about convenience.

And as we've learned the hard way from fast food to fast fashion, convenience is bad for our health.

It is well established that vehicle idling emissions are dangerous to breathe, hurting nearby residents, especially and simultaneously contributing to climate change.

Our kids in Napa already have asthma rates that are higher than the California average, and there are numerous pulmonary pulmonary and other diseases associated with the emissions of idling vehicles.

The lines are obscene.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Marilyn Knight Mendelson, NAPA resident, member of Napa Climate now.

I'm also going to speak to the issue of new and existing gas stations.

None.

The draft zoning regulations that permit new and expended fossil fuel gas stations do not seem to align with key parts of the 2040 general plan.

The guiding principle number seven states to achieve a healthy and safe community for all.

The first one, goal PHE number one, states incorporate a health in all policies framework to center health considerations in policies, programs, and practices that affect all aspects of the civic decision-making process.

That's the first one.

The second one, goal PHE three states, promote clean air and water, a healthy natural environment, and pollution-free neighborhoods to reduce disparate health impacts resulting from environmental pollutants in vulnerable communities.

Very clear.

The public health and equity element of the general plan contains a map of pollution sources, including what are referred to as permitted water dischargers, and include the brown field sites at Formate gas stations.

The general plan describes this pollution as follows.

Leaks from tanks that can contaminate soil and groundwater.

Common soil and groundwater pollutants include gasoline and diesel fuels at gas stations.

Do you believe that permitting new gas stations will promote clean air and water, and natural healthy environment and pollution-free neighborhoods?

No.

A ban on new and expanded fossil fuel stations aligns the zoning regulations with the goals and guiding principles of the city's general plan.

We ask you to direct staff to amend the draft regulations to include a ban.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Bayard Fox.

I am tangentially involved in the agricultural industry, which is very much impacted by the climate crisis today.

So let me also allow me to thank you for your service to the community.

I'm well aware of considerable reading and workload involved in your responsibilities.

Your job is to implement land use policies specifically applied by parameters of the general plan.

The general plan has clear sustainability objectives as well as climate pollutant targets related to CO2 and other gases.

I have not seen convenience as a priority in the general plan.

Vehicle miles traveled are our largest single climate pollutant, and as such, all aspects related to VMT must be addressed in all aspects of land use.

Public review provided strong direction on a permanent moratorium of drive-throughs as well as fossil fuel stations.

Your direction to staff and the consulting group behind me are critical to implementing the overall lens of our climate initiatives.

The current suggested verbiage appears vague and equivocates on the importance of the climate agenda and general plan, especially in regards to drive-throughs and gas stations.

Other Napa Valley towns have a permanent moratorium on gas stations, and we should follow that precedent.

Likewise, drive-throughs should be completely abolished.

Idling accounts for 5% of our vehicle emissions.

Why are we continuing to contribute with that?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Carlo De Sainato, program manager with the Napa County Bicycle Coalition.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide and put on the draft zoning ordinance update.

We submitted a written letter earlier in the public comment period with our detailed comments, but I wanted to come and highlight some of our main points for the Planning Commission.

First, we want to thank the city and the consultant for exceeding state requirements for location of non-residential bike parking, requiring that the bike parking be within 50 feet of a building entrance.

This is a standard that's set by the association of pedestrian and bicycle professionals and recognized by the League of American Bicyclists bicycle-friendly communities program.

However, it's our understanding that the draft non-residential bike parking code is otherwise not in compliance with the mandatory 2025 Calgreen codes.

We outline the Calgrain codes regarding non-residential, short-term, and long-term bike parking in our written letter.

I know one of our team members has brought this up earlier and begun this conversation, so we hope to see that these is corrected prior to adoption.

Assuming that the codes are updated this way, we ask that NAPA's local ordinance also requires that short-term bike parking be compliant with the association for pedestrian and bicycle professional guidelines around bike rack styles and placement, as well as include language around accommodating cargo and child carrier bikes and coverage by building security cameras.

Doing so will help ensure that bike parking is secure, useful, and makes efficient use of space as well as help the city of Napa in maintaining and advancing its status as a bicycle-friendly community.

Additionally, in our written letter, we outlined recommendations for a May Include section for residential bike parking requirements to supplement the Cal Green requirements as AB 130 has placed a moratorium on the adoption of new or more restrictive residential building standards at both the state and local levels for the next five years.

The only way that these features can be included in Napa zoning code is as may include recommendations.

Including these recommendations will encourage builders to consider features that will support City of Napa's mode shift goals and that may not otherwise occur to builders who are unfamiliar with bike parking specific best practices.

Having safe and secure bike parking is one of the first things that people consider when they are weighing the decision to invest in things like e-bikes or e-cargo bikes that can really help shift that mode.

So having really strong bike parking guidelines is essential to helping people get out of their cars and get on bikes.

We are happy to answer any questions or provide further insight on our requests with the team, and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Jim Wilson, City of Napa resident.

I'm reading from a letter to the editor from our mayor, Scott Sedgley, published February 16, 2022, Protect Our Local Watershed.

In it, he says, quote, we need to find short and long-term solutions to housing, transportation, and climate change.

Climate change has brought us many uncertainties and will require monumental change to the way we conduct business, end quote.

This is an inspiration to me and many of the folks that I work with.

I teach climate responsibility in the schools.

I teach this letter to the community by our mayor.

I'm looking at a letter written in May of 2022 by planner Paul O'Neill.

And he's writing it to a gas station applicant on Zoskell Avenue.

It's about a pre-application.

It's in his preliminary review summary.

This this application has some problems.

But Mr.

O'Neill took pains to say the following, and this makes my heart race.

Since the use permit requires approval by the Planning Commission, an applicant should consider the previous meeting and discussions of the Commission and their opinions on drive-thru uses and other uses that are thought to increase greenhouse gas emissions.

If the project is appealed, it will be reviewed by the City Council, who are even more critical of greenhouse gas greenhouse gas generating uses.

The Council recently adopted a resolution declaring a climate emergency last month, April 5, 2022, and granted an appeal denying a dry-through facility on November 2, 2021.

A moratorium on new gas stations is also likely to be approved by the City Council in the near future, similar to the moratoriums passed by the City of Petaluma and other Sonoma County cities.

Thank you, Paul.

That moratorium went into effect in April of the following year and expired a year later in 2024.

Ultimately, the resolution Paul referred to led to the general plan, which was updated later in the year, and I want to quote from the goal, CCS1.

Further, the city's sustainability initiatives to reduce the community's greenhouse gas emissions and foster green development patterns, including buildings, sites, and landscapes.

And the first policy around climate change is from the resolution.

Implement immediate and sustained actions in support of achieving net zero climate pollutants from public and private operations within the city by 2030.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Sophie Wasiff, and I'm a recent graduate of Justin Sienna High School, incoming freshman at MIT, and co-president of the student-led environmental advocacy organization, NAPA Schools for Climate Action.

Today I speak behalf on behalf of my team to urge you to take the climate emergency seriously and uphold your commitment to addressing climate pollution in our beautiful valley.

It has come to our attention that the City of Napa's moratorium on new fossil fuel stations has expired, and a recently published zoning public zoning public review draft indicates that construction of new gas stations is indeed permitted.

This represents a big step back for Napa, a city that has committed to prioritizing urgent climate action to lay the groundwork for a safe future for its inhabitants.

Gas stations not only contribute to environmental harm through greenhouse gas emissions and the transportation sector, the sites themselves pose risks to human health.

To specify, gas stations release volatile organic compounds into the surrounding air, which are associated with respiratory issues as well as increased cancer risk.

Below grounds, leaks contaminate nearby soil and water sources.

Once their time is over, gas stations become brownfields that are costly to remediate.

I urge you to question whether continuing to build infrastructure that poses a threat to human and environmental health is what is right for our community.

As a city whose livelihood relies on a stable climate, we have to understand that building a sustainable NAPA means prohibiting additional outdated and harmful fossil-free and fossil fuel infrastructure and immediately shifting efforts to expand clean energy and its accessibility.

As the neighboring Yauntville, St.

Helena, American Canyon, and Calistoga have all worked to create permanent bans on new and expanded gas stations consistent with their climate emergency resolutions and 2030 net zero greenhouse gas emission commitments.

We hope the City of Napa will do the same.

During the May 15th and November 6th Planning Commission meetings last year, we made simil similar formal requests for action, as I'm sure you might remember.

We understand taking these actions are neither simple nor easy.

They require continuous attention, collaboration, and leadership centered on climate forward values.

At the same time, we see them as necessary to ensure a safe and livable future.

Thank you very much for your time and attention.

Thank you.

And congrats on MIT.

Sophie is also a winner of the NAPA Schools for Climate Action Scholarship this year.

I didn't mind waiting because to make the comments because it was fascinating to see you all use your expertise and go deep into the woods on these regulations.

Thank you for that.

I was very appreciative of all your comments.

Also wanted to say thank you to Ryder and the staff and the consultants for the public workshop on Tuesday night.

That was very informative, and it was great to see Commissioner Shotwell there.

We learned from staff that this draft does not contain a ban on new and expanded fossil fuel stations because staff did not receive formal direction from the Planning Commission.

The City Council has given clear direction when they established a moratorium on new stations pending the update of the zoning regulations.

If you think as we do that NAPA is adequately served by the 21 gas stations we have now, including 32 pumps at Costco, then we ask you to please give clear direction to the staff to have the zoning regulations include a ban on new and expanded fossil fuel stations, as has been done by the other jurisdictions in the county.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chris.

Hi, my name is Catherine Kelly.

I'm a newcomer to this because we recently purchased a piece of property in the industrial park.

And so, but I have some concerns about it.

For one, the map isn't right, so I'd like the new map to be updated for the industrial park, the map that showed the things.

So it's not right.

There's River Sound Way goes through it now, and it's not it's not indicated on that.

So maybe that could be updated.

And Nava Valley Commons is the name of that industrial park.

And Napa Valley Commons, I think, I think, but I'm not sure about this, that there is a commercial hospitality or commercial tourism zoning designation on top of the industrial park A.

So you might want to look at that, because I don't think the industrial park C C and Rs allow it.

So they I think on the map that I saw, but I can't really tell because I'm not really sure of the colors.

But I think on the map that I saw, the Industrial Park A has been painted like orange colored, and that's actually supposed to be industrial park colored.

So that was another thing.

And one of my concerns about that is that a lot of the industrial park uses got eliminated or are proposed to be eliminated that were acceptable before.

And I think this might be an issue because if we're trying, I know that most of the focus of this is on residential and design and things like that, but my dog in the fight is industrial park because that's where I have these property.

Um I'm interested in trying to find out if those industrial uses that were there before in the industrial park could remain there and why they were taken out.

So I don't know why the uses that were allowed before were taken out.

A lot of them seem to have been grouped into flex industrial.

And I'm not really sure, but I think from my experience, whenever you sit an industrial use next to a residential or mix with a residential, you're going to get a lot of complaints.

Because somebody who's a little glass blower and has a little glass blowing furnace or has a kiln or something like that is trying to be an artisan, and they've got their little thousand-degree kiln sitting in their backyard, and the neighbor doesn't like it because they're trying to live there.

I think that's a possible mix that might cause problems down the road.

The industrial park doesn't have any added residential uses in this draft that I see.

And so I would say that maybe some of those smaller artisan things should be included in the industrial park, which doesn't have that kind of issue.

Another thing to consider, I'm pushing my pushing my agenda here, but another thing to consider is that a lot of the uses that were now that this proposed draft allows in the industrial park are uses that this draft disallows are uses that are allowed in the county.

So what's happening is you're taking stuff that the county can, the county will take the businesses.

The county will take those business uses.

Whoops.

Okay, gotta stop.

You can finish your sentence.

Oh, the county will take the business uses and that's the revenue for the city because the county allows those uses right outside, you know, where airport, the airport business park is.

They will allow those uses and this draft disallows them within the city.

So I think that that might be a conflict there.

So I'd kind of like those perhaps consider a review of what's the wording, perhaps consider a review of the draft uses, land uses in the industrial park.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yep.

Is that all of the public comments for tonight?

I just want to make sure these um Joseph Keebler and Bruce Spock.

Writer, shall I get a motion to close public comment since we did have a public comment?

Yeah, it's safe too.

Okay.

Okay, get a motion to close public comment.

Um motion to close public comment.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye, thank you.

Wow, that was very interesting.

Great to hear from you guys.

Um I didn't realize we are the reason that gas stations are still in there.

I didn't realize anything.

I won't be able to sleep tonight, honestly.

I'm I'm fine not being the reason that they are in there.

I uh so let's campaign or can we talk about uh fossil fuel stations for a second?

Um public comment was actually excellent in that and I and I feel a little remiss too about missing the fact that when we talked about the last time we didn't really make a uh clarification in that.

So I would be very happy to um include a moratorium on new fossil fuel stations and new expanded stations or expanded uh stations.

Um put that moratorium back recommend that I put that back in fact.

Can I clarify?

So moratorium is temporary.

Right.

That's the same thing.

That's an important nuance tonight.

Uh yeah.

So a ban is ban.

That's what I mean.

I mean let's let's ban it.

That would be the we can say the planning commission would recommend that.

Uh along that line, I know um I at the last meeting we talked about this.

I'm in strong support of similarly banning drive-throughs.

What are our thoughts on that?

Yeah, repla like you have to replace what or do we not allow we discussed that there are some drive-throughs like pharmacies have drive through.

Remember, we have it goes you have to really consider what drive-throughs we would want to ban.

So to clarify the code does break them out, so it does have retail drive-throughs separate.

Um I would be speaking specifically about the restaurant category of drive-throughs.

So like a pharmacy or something of that nature would still be okay.

Right.

Um just talking about the restaurant use.

Right.

So restaurants, coffee shops.

Yeah.

Everything that falls under that uh food service.

Food service.

Food and beverage.

Okay.

I mean, I think that's part of the problem with Americans that people just don't want to get out of their car.

Car wash.

And a car let's okay, let's talk about that for a second.

So yeah, anything that we could talk about stackable uh car stacking, right?

I think we I remember back at tour meeting.

And um, so we were talking about how do we avoid the car stacking or the emissions.

And I think we have I do think we have enough car washes in town already.

And what's I understand is that a if a car wash is there, its uses there, then it's permanent until they stop operating for what, a year?

Is that what we said earlier, writer?

He said that earlier, but I didn't know if it applies to everything.

If if a business stops operating, for instance, if a car wash stops operating for a year, there's no new owner that can come in there and buy it a year and a half later and start it.

So it it technically depends and Dan should still be online, but it technically depends on how that that use was authorized.

Okay.

So there's the section for legal nonconforming uses otherwise, and if they act upon those rights, not granted under use permit, but like generally allowed.

Um that absence of that, and if the zone district does not allow for that use to continue, they cannot continue it unless through like a non-conforming use permit.

Okay.

So the there's nuance to that.

There's not a a straight answer, unfortunately, um because there are the vested rights and technically it's like like the use permit example is you need a formal action to revoke it unless it was prescriptive of a certain sunset date.

Okay.

So but basically what we're talking about right now is uh not allowing any new drive-thru.

So is the the direction to not allow new to not like to hear from the other commissioners.

Expansion I would say new and or expansion of existing and yeah.

New and expansion existing.

Exactly.

That's what was also provided to us from the MIT student.

New and expansive.

Yeah, I mean um we are happy to take that direction.

And I think the most straightforward way to do that would be to just prohibit it in the districts, um, in which case rather than allowing it with any sort of conditions and that that would open up as writers noting the um the applicability and the duration of that use permit um in perpetuity.

But if it's um simply not allowed, it would be allowed any any existing use, it would oper under its existing use permit, it would operate under its existing allowances until at one point it becomes obsolete and the business were to close, in which case, Commissioner, it would then fall under the non-conforming provisions, at which point, yes, after a certain period of time you've you've no longer you've lost your ability to be a legal non-conforming use and you wouldn't be able to resume that.

You know, temporary, temporary short-term, you know, ceases of operation, you can usually continue and pick those back up, but after a certain period of time, um they would be gone.

So and that would be any existing and then the expansion of those would also fall under that prohibition because if it's a prohibited use, you can't um enlarge your nonconforming use.

So you don't even you would be able to remain more silent on that, because if it's not allowed, you can't expand a use that's not allowed.

Could they could the business owner or building owner who let's say has the current drive-thru and they aren't expanding the footprint, but they need to remodel it.

They could still do that, correct?

We would need to look at your uh non-conforming, and maybe Roger and Rolly could speak to that.

But typically there's some ongoing maintenance that's allowed, so you don't fall into complete disrepair during that operation of that nonconforming.

Usually it's the the argument of expansion of or intensification of that use.

So generally a remodel in itself that does not expand that area is not that.

And if they're continuing that use effectively, you can come in for a remodel, it won't.

But the argument of like intensification is generally tied to the the floor area or the usable area.

So in some other uses, it could also be outdoor area if it's like active.

But the maintenance, you should be able to maintain the exterior and make minor facade you know improvements that don't expand the the square footage.

So I I I guess an example of that is um where there have been other tenants that have come in, generally that extends to like signage as well.

Um but looking at the the current configuration of the site, most of the time in the way it's been applied generally is that that configuration remains the same, even if inefficient.

You know, that's interesting because the reason I met my husband was in 2010 or around that time period, maybe it was Yeah, 2010.

McDonald's was up for um improving their facility on Jefferson Street to what we have now.

And they had the most ridiculous uh stacking for cars at that place.

And so it's I think it's kind of funny that one of the reasons I'm got together with Bob was over a drive-thru.

He would be very proud.

Can I just clarify the ban on new and expansion?

Yeah.

We said food service.

We said car wash.

I think we want a carve out for pharmacy.

I'm just thinking like we have a drive-thru dry cleaner and other services.

So I just are we look services are okay or just pharmacies are okay and everything else.

I just and who knows what else someone will try to make into a drive-thru one day.

So what other land uses specifically have in the use chart a section for drive-throughs?

So there are three.

Yeah.

There are three types.

There are three types of drive-throughs currently proposed in the code.

Um it's uh retail with drive-thru facility.

So that's relatively broad.

Yeah.

Uh so that would include pharmacies as as currently as proposed to be defined.

Then there's restaurant with drive-thru, which is the fast food.

And then and then bank or credit union with drive-thru.

So right now, as proposed, there are there are the three types.

So my interpretation of that then would be that like a personal service drive-thru would currently going forward be a legal non-conforming use, right?

Unless we just say for food.

Well, like I like as it's even written now that personal services are not permitted to have drive-throughs under this new version.

What's the definition of retail?

Yeah.

So the definition of retail with the drive-thru facility is on page 17 B 34.

And it's a general retail use with the motor vehicle drive-thru, which is designed and are used to provide prepurchase items, including prescriptions.

But I think the question here is right, um if uh dry cleaners would fall under retail or if that's under service, in which case that might be I would I don't I don't think under the broad definition of retail it includes those personal services like a dry cleaner.

So in my mind, it would already be non-conforming.

Correct me if I'm if the rest of the commission was differently, but I'm okay with not allowing new drive through dry cleaners.

I agree completely.

Pharmacies are I was thinking about dry cleaning.

I would I would love to ban um future dry cleaners.

We but that's because again, I I think that they're toxic.

Um the other thing that I just that just occurred to me when we're thinking about this is that now with so many stores and whether they're retail establishments, cafes, uh what have you, um you have the option to order online and then could to have the curb side pickup and people literally come to your car.

So I think because we're replacing drive-throughs with that type of convenience, and it's human interaction.

Someone's literally greeting you.

If you can't get out of your car, if you've got four kids, you know, just got finished with soccer, you are still can stay in the car and and get your groceries and things of that sort.

So I think that the that hopefully this will help encourage um people to just you know socialize more too, because drive-thru is just like waiting and you you're dealing with an intercom and there's not a lot of human reaction.

I agree.

I actually I think one of the public speakers used this term mode shift goals.

And I think that's really where we're where we're moving towards is where you know I think about my my mom is 83 and she now orders her groceries and she drives and she parks in one of the stalls, and the person comes out and they'll even deliver her pharmacy to her.

Um then there's also delivery service too.

So I think we're just shifting the way that we use retail now in in actually a much more uh much better, more sustainable way.

Yes, and it's more one-stop shopping as well.

So you can pick up your food and your medicine and um a t-shirt or pajamas at the same time.

And I would note to the commission that um from similar conversations that we had with the commission uh previously, the code does include some provisions for uh encouraging those types of pickup spaces to think about how parking has shifted because there are more of those types of uses.

So uh the parking uh part of the draft code does talk about those reserved and dedicated spaces for just online order pickup because of your direction previously.

So thank you for for that.

Do you need anything else from us on this topic?

No.

Okay.

Can we clarify fossil fuel stations if that's also within the commission's recommendation?

Or maybe you're moving there right, or I think we maybe close the book on the drive-thru direction.

Yes, I I had heard that you wanted a ban for new or expanded facilities generally, so that that would assume the same provisions apply.

And so for the existing fossil fuel stations, generally that equipment has a limited lifespan.

So you you have to see every so often tanks being replaced, and then um generally the safety equipment apply all the valves and then the pumps generally.

Well, I think that I think that it right.

I think that it applies actually for both uses, right?

So for fossil fuel, you want to make sure that you are able to keep those fossil fuel that we do have who do want to stay in business and as they go through, they're not expanding their tank, but they've got to fix it, right?

Or may and I think at some point they may have to expand their tank.

So uh and in generally the the the size of the tank not that it doesn't matter as much as the number of pumps.

Right.

So generally the way it's been enforced is the number of existing pumps.

Okay.

And if it's being replaced matching the same number and then the types of fuel generally provided.

Um sometimes the equipment does drastically change.

Um most of the time it's in an inf in a very efficient footprint kind of manner, but I'm not an expert on fossil fuel stations generally and the equipment used.

Um so there's wiggle room there in the the equipment itself may fluctuate in size if needs to be replaced.

But generally the way it's enforced is number of pumps.

So how would we deal?

Just trying to future think.

How would we deal with this type of thing if pumps decreased and electrical charging increased?

And that caused an expansion of the fossil fuel station.

Well, not fossil fuel.

It wouldn't be fossil fuel.

Um generally EVs are different topic.

Right.

Maybe a topic for another point in time and obviously there are considerations.

Yeah, so that's what I mean.

It's like what how do we then look at this zoning again in the future when that happens?

You can replace like I think it's a fossil fuel tank pumps, the pumps number of pumps.

So if you remove if you have ten fossil fuel pumps and you remove two and replace them with electric, you can never put those two back, is what I'm hearing.

That's what I meant.

But um you can replace them with something different.

Uh right, like biodiesel.

You could add five.

Yes.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

So we're specifically talking about fossil fuel.

Okay.

Perfect.

Um Mike Allen in the back reminded car washes.

So we heard drive-throughs car washes banned.

Is that okay?

I think, yeah, no new car washes.

Okay.

Does any commissioners have any other further comments?

I I do have one more comment.

Sorry.

Um the hospitality commercial land use.

Did the name change for that on the map?

Yes.

Is that the same thing?

Yeah, so it went from tourist commercial to hospitality commercial.

Okay.

Which actually matches the designation, I believe, yeah.

I the only question I have, oh, did you have anything else, Commissioner Ebok?

Um will the public comments from this evening, because it was in the workshop you guys addressed 90% of them.

And if people left, then I know that you would follow up.

So how will you respond to the members of the public who spoke tonight who are no longer here?

How will they know that their comments were taken into account and addressed?

Yeah, so I'll defer to staff on on that one.

So is the question about a comment that wasn't conveyed?

Well, the industrial flex b versus we'll look into the topics that are conveyed.

Well so if if they're emailing the zoning update at City of Napa.org or otherwise conveying um information to a body, and sometimes that's been planning commission city council.

Staff has generally been responding also to those individuals that have reached out.

But generally for the workshop, for comments received through the email, through the comments received here tonight, we're creating a log of comments received.

Now, will we outline in in future efforts outline each individual comment?

Probably not, but we will probably combine and I get it.

Divide and conquer a little bit.

Yes, that's what I was going to say.

Awesome.

Okay, thank you.

And from the consultant side of things too, our next deliverable is an errata.

So similar to the list that um staff's putting together of comments received from various members of the public.

We'll we'll take Planning Commission's direction here tonight and identify um edits, future edits to the draft in in an errata sheet.

So it'll be a separate document.

Um it won't be a revised code that'll come before you next time for public hearings.

It'll be an erotic document that clearly identifies proposed edits to to the code as a next step.

Great.

Commissioner Masaro, did you have anything else to add?

No.

Well, a big thank you to staff and the consultants at Lisa Wise.

This was quite the undertaking the last few years in a big heavy lift.

So we thank you for all of your hard work.

And thanks to staff for printing these for us.

It will hold something down at my house in the future.

I'm not sure what yet.

But and thank you for being open and transparent with the public throughout this process.

It has been a very thoughtful and transparent process to work with you guys on.

So thank you.

No formal action is required.

So that is that.

I guess we we end with any other comments for Commissioners or staff after the last three hours.

No.

None?

None?

Writer?

We do have an associate planner starting on Monday.

So the way the the forecast is tracking, we won't have a planning commission hearing.

And maybe that's maybe that's a relief to some, or you are looking forward to a planning commission hearing beginning of August.

So we're tracking for the second hearing in August.

So we'll look to introduce you to her as she comes on board.

So excited about that.

Again, appreciative of the public for tonight and through the process, appreciative of each and every one of the staff members that has contributed to that document.

It's taken a lot of time.

All the planners have had input, multiple divisions, departments have had input, multiple meetings with the consultants.

Just to reiterate, public comment period ends on the 24th.

Not to say that that is the ending of public comment generally, because we will have hearings.

Hearings generally, but it does put certain significance into the comments conveyed of the public draft, gives staff and our consultant direction to where that that draft is generally headed.

So appreciative of the time and attention there.

Thank you.

All right.

And with that, the next regularly scheduled meeting of the planning commission of the City of Napa is on August 20th, 2026.

Meeting is adjourned.

Thanks, John.