Napa Planning Commission Hears Public Comment on General Plan Land Use Designations – February 18, 2021
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Napa Planning Commission Hears Public Comment on General Plan Land Use Designations – February 18, 2021
The Napa Planning Commission held a regular meeting on February 18, 2021, at 5:30 PM via teleconference. The primary agenda item was an administrative report on the Revised Draft Land Use Plan and proposed Land Use Designations for the Napa 2040 General Plan update. The Commission received presentations from staff and the consultant team, heard from the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) chair, and took extensive public comment. No formal action was taken; the Commission will share feedback with staff and continue discussions at the March 4, 2021 meeting, focusing on specific land use map details.
Consent Calendar
- The Commission unanimously approved the Planning Commission meeting minutes from February 4, 2021.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Staff read 19 written comments into the record, plus additional live comments from the public. Most comments focused on specific properties and areas, including:
- Big Ranch Road area: Multiple speakers (Marie Reese, Teresa Van Winden, Anne Martin, Artie and Lori Van Winden) opposed the proposed medium density (8–18 units/acre), arguing it is incompatible with surrounding neighborhoods and infrastructure. They requested low density (3–8 units/acre) or very low density designations.
- Gazletta and Napa Valley Horsemen's Association (NVHA) properties: Speakers (Catherine Lambert, Julie Cooper, Christiane Robbins, Diane Fetzer, Ronald Bushby, Lori Rich, Cheryl Hayworth, Kathleen Summers) expressed strong opposition to development, citing concerns about an active fault line, floodplain, infrastructure costs, wildfire evacuation, loss of agricultural/open space, and the gateway character of the area. They requested a greenbelt or resource area designation.
- Browns Valley/Timberhill: Andrew Healy (Browns Valley Action Group) requested the very low density designation remain at 0–2 units/acre (not 1–2) and supported the revised greenbelt designation.
- Mixed-use density: Jeff Dodd (Sawyer Tannery) argued the proposed mixed-use FARs (1.0–2.0) decrease density from current allowances, reducing flexibility for redevelopment. He urged increasing FAR for mixed-use designations.
- Hotel zoning: Vikas (Elmhouse Inn and Belle A Bree Inn) requested a parcel at 2466 Third Street be changed from light industrial to hotel commercial to match adjacent parcels.
- Other comments: Patrick Band (Napa County Bicycle Coalition) emphasized the need for active transportation infrastructure to support increased density. Lynn Posner urged preserving Napa’s small-town character. The Keeblers opposed the greenbelt designation for their property on Leaning Oak Drive, preferring very low density residential.
Discussion Items
- Staff (Mike Walker) and consultant Rajiv (Dyett & Bhatia) presented the proposed land use designations, including five residential categories (very low density, traditional residential, low, medium, high), four mixed-use categories, three commercial, two industrial, plus public, conservation, and greenbelt designations. Key points: new designations simplify the existing system, focus density changes on corridors (Jefferson, Trancas, Soscol), and avoid upzoning existing neighborhoods. Residential densities are measured in units per net acre; non-residential uses use floor area ratio (FAR).
- GPAC Chair Chuck Shannon reported that the 15-member committee held 16 meetings, emphasizing flexibility, diverse housing types, corridor-focused development, and sensitivity to neighborhoods. He noted strong community input on housing affordability, school enrollment declines, and the need for a living document that adapts to changes like COVID-19.
- Commission discussion addressed:
- Community outreach: Commissioner Huether questioned the representativeness of input from ~100–150 participants out of 75,000 residents. Staff and consultant noted additional surveys (500–600 responses), stakeholder meetings, and radio outreach, and acknowledged that participation may increase as element frameworks are released.
- Land use definitions: Clarification sought on net vs. gross acreage, rounding of density numbers, and the term “traditional residential” vs. “historic residential.” Staff will revisit definitions.
- FAR and density: Commissioners discussed whether the proposed FARs (up to 2.0 for mixed-use high) reduce flexibility compared to current allowances. Some urged increasing FARs to encourage housing, while others noted that FARs are maximums, not minimums.
- ADUs and housing production: Staff clarified that ADUs count toward housing element obligations but are not included in density calculations. The existing residential neighborhoods are not currently proposed for upzoning, but the Commission may consider changes at the next meeting.
- Population projections: Commissioner Massaro questioned the 21% projected population increase (from 2020 to 2040) based on California Department of Finance data, given recent flat growth. Consultant noted that projections will be detailed at the March 4 meeting, along with regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) numbers.
- Greenbelt designation: Staff recommended modifying the greenbelt to allow limited residential uses (similar to current resource area) to avoid reducing property rights. Commission supported preserving existing density allowances.
- Study areas vs. specific designations: Commissioner Huether suggested designating the Gazletta property as a study area to allow for master planning, similar to the Napa Pipe project. Staff noted that a master planning process is already anticipated.
Key Outcomes
- No formal action was taken. The Commission will provide feedback to staff on the land use designations and plan to be forwarded to the City Council.
- The Commission directed staff to:
- Clarify definitions for net vs. gross acreage, rounding, and “traditional residential.”
- Explore allowing live-work and artist studios in appropriate designations.
- Review the commercial designations to consider whether some should allow residential uses.
- Prepare a summary of public comments and provide answers to unanswered questions for the March 4 meeting.
- The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for March 4, 2021, where the Commission will focus on the specific land use map, key corridors, and individual properties. A virtual tour of completed commission projects is planned for April 1, 2021.
Meeting Transcript
They are all right. Everybody else ready. So here we go. Um evening everyone and welcome to the February 18th, 2021 City of Napa regular meeting for the Planning Commission. Our first item tonight is roll call. And I would like to call this meeting to order and ask staff to conduct the roll call, please. Thank you, Chair Kelly. Uh Chair Kelly? Present. Vice Chair Oñate. Present. Commissioner Heuther. Here. Commissioner Masaro? President. And Commissioner Hurtado. Present. Thank you. We're all here. Great. Um item number two, summary of meeting procedures. Um, as described in the agenda and the staff report, tonight's meeting will focus on the general plan update, the proposed draft and land use designations and densities. A separate meeting is planned for March 4th, where the commission will focus on proposed and specific land use and the land use diagram. Staff, can you please explain to our viewers how the public will participate in the meeting this evening? Thank you, Chair Kelly. For every section of the agenda, when public comment is asked for, members of the public who wish to speak on the item should use Zoom's raise your hand button to indicate that they would like to speak. This appears as an on-screen button for those who have joined the teleconference online. For those members of the public who have joined the meeting by calling into the teleconference from their phone, they should push star nine to indicate that they wish to speak when the item of interest comes up. If there are members of the public who submitted email comments with 500 words or less to planning staff before the start of the meeting and requested that their comments be read at the meeting, staff will read those comments into the record when the item is called. And just as a note on meeting procedures, chair, it's been staff's experience with all the previous general plan meetings that a lot of the public comment is going to focus on the topics that the commission is going to be discussing at the subsequent planning commission meeting. We received 19 please reads that are mostly focused on what you're going to be talking about next time. Uh so you may bear with us a bit as we read all these public comments. Okay, very good. So moving on, item number three is agenda review. 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. And due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the commission will conduct this meeting as a teleconference in accordance with the governor's executive orders. Staff, are there any changes to this evening's agenda? I'm sorry. No changes. I did want to note that staff recommends the commission plan on taking a break around 7 15 p.m. for stretch and basic human needs. So putting it out there if that's the wish of the commission when you call for that. We'll go ahead and put up the commission. We'll be back soon screen and let you do that. Very good. Um commissioners, do we have any proposed changes to the means agenda? Seeing none. Um moving on. Item number four is public comment.
openpublica.com