Planning Commission Meeting on General Plan Land Use Designations - March 4, 2021
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Planning Commission Regular Meeting – March 4, 2021
The Napa Planning Commission held a regular meeting on March 4, 2021, at 5:30 PM via teleconference to discuss the draft Land Use Plan and designations for three key focus areas: Timber Hill/West Browns Valley, Napa Oaks, and the Gisletta/Napa Valley Horseman’s Association properties. The meeting was part of the General Plan Update process and included staff reports, presentations from community groups, public comment, and commission deliberation. No formal votes were taken; the commission provided considerations to be forwarded to the City Council. A special meeting was scheduled for March 8, 2021 to cover additional sites.
Consent Calendar
- Minutes of February 18, 2021 Regular Meeting – Approved unanimously by roll call vote (5-0).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Timber Hill/West Browns Valley: Andrew Healy (Browns Valley Action Group) presented a 10-minute overview opposing large‑scale development, citing steep slopes, wildfire risk, fault lines, and conservation easements. He proposed a greenbelt designation with one unit per parcel and requested removal of city‑owned parcels from very‑low‑density residential (VLDR) zoning. Several other speakers echoed concerns about fire hazards, seismic risk, and the need to preserve open space. One speaker (Ingrid) questioned the city’s housing allocation and urged prioritizing downtown affordable housing.
- Napa Oaks: Carol Bard (Napa Oaks Group) presented, emphasizing sustained community opposition over two decades, multiple environmental risks (single access road, wildfire, fault line), and a 2019 survey showing 85% support for protecting perimeter open space. She requested greenbelt designation. Randy Gallardi, who sold the property to current owners, advocated for continued residential designation and noted that previous project EIRs found 30+ buildable acres. A letter from Davidon (owner) argued the site is viable for housing and should not be designated greenbelt.
- Gisletta/Horseman’s Properties: Multiple speakers (David Campbell, Alisa Turner, Diane Benfield, and others) opposed development, citing floodplains, fault lines, wildfire interface, traffic congestion, and the historic value of the Napa Valley Horseman’s Association (oldest in California). Letters from Diane Fetzer, Victoria Lancaster, Christiane Robbins, and others urged retaining the properties as greenbelt or agriculture/open space and argued that infill sites should be prioritized before annexation.
Discussion Items
- Timber Hill/West Browns Valley: Staff recommended greenbelt designation with continuation of existing resource‑area density allowances (one unit per parcel or one unit per 20 acres). The commission generally agreed, with some members noting the slope and risk make development unlikely. Commissioner Oñate supported using a use permit for the 20‑acre option. Commissioners Hurtado and Massaro favored preserving existing development rights while clarifying city‑owned parcels should be parkland. The consensus was to recommend greenbelt with the density allowance carried forward.
- Napa Oaks: Staff presented the same approach – greenbelt with resource‑area density (approximately 10 units total). Commissioner Hurtado recalled GPAC’s unanimous support for greenbelt. Commissioners Massaro and Huether agreed, noting the site’s constraints and history. Commissioner Oñate suggested allowing estate‑type zoning on developable portions but ultimately supported the staff recommendation. The commission largely supported greenbelt with the 20‑acre density option.
- Gisletta/Horseman’s Properties: This item generated the most discussion. Staff explained that the properties have been designated for residential use since 1975 and remain inside the city’s Urban Limit Line (RUL). The draft plan proposes a mix of low‑density, medium‑density, and residential‑mixed‑use designations. Commissioners expressed diverse views:
- Commissioner Massaro proposed a “reserve” designation to allow future review if housing need is confirmed, while protecting the Horseman’s Association’s existing use and requiring affordable housing overlays.
- Vice Chair Oñate supported retaining existing designations but suggested creating clear policies through a master plan, possibly including a density swap to protect the Horseman’s property.
- Commissioner Huether acknowledged the properties’ history within the RUL but expressed reluctance, noting that development there seems inevitable yet poorly aligned with community preferences for infill. He urged a specific plan to guide future design.
- Commissioner Hurtado advocated for mixed‑use, master‑planned development with affordable housing, citing the need for diverse housing types.
- Chair Kelly queried whether a land‑swap with the county could shift development elsewhere, but staff noted the RUL is fixed by voter initiative and that the sites have long been part of the city’s growth area.
- Staff clarified that the general plan does not force annexation or immediate development; a master plan/specific plan would be required before any building permits.
Key Outcomes
- Timber Hill/West Browns Valley: The commission’s consideration is to redesignate the area as greenbelt, with the same density allowance as the former resource area (one unit per parcel or one unit per 20 acres, at city discretion). City‑owned parcels will be reclassified as parkland. The recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council.
- Napa Oaks: The commission’s consideration is to apply greenbelt designation with resource‑area density allowances (one unit per parcel or one unit per 20 acres). The recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council.
- Gisletta/Horseman’s Properties: The commission did not reach consensus. The primary considerations forwarded to the City Council include: a diversity of opinions – some commissioners favoring a “reserve” designation to defer development, others supporting the draft plan’s mix of uses, and all expressing strong support for protecting the Horseman’s Association’s continued operation. The need for a master plan/specific plan to address site constraints, traffic, and design quality was emphasized.
- Next Steps: The commission will continue discussion on March 8, 2021, focusing on the Big Ranch Road area, city corridors, and build‑out projections. The City Council will hold a similar public hearing in April. A draft general plan is expected in July 2021, with final adoption anticipated in early 2022.
Meeting Transcript
Just a few more seconds, Chair Kelly. Oh, we are now able to go live. Okay, very good. Um, good evening, everyone, and welcome to the March 4th, 2021 City of Napa regular meeting for the Planning Commission. Our first item is roll call. I would like to call this meeting to order and ask staff to conduct roll call, please. Thank you, Chair Kelly. Uh we'll start with Commissioner Hurtado. Present. Commissioner Masaro. Here. Commissioner Heuther. Present. Vice Chair Onate? Here. And Chair Kelly. Present. All commissioners present. Very good. Um our next item summary of meeting procedures. As described in the agenda and staff report, tonight's meeting will focus on the general plan update. At this evening's meeting, the commission will be focused on reviewing proposed draft land use designations and the densities for several key sites, including the Timberhill Browns Valley area, Napa Oaks, and the Gisleta Napa Valley Horseman's Association properties. A separate special meeting of the commission is planned for Monday, March 8th at 5 30 so that commissioners can review and discuss other important sites such as the Big Ranch Road area, the uh citywide, the city corridors, downtown Napa, and other sites citywide. So that's our agenda for this evening for our discussion. So staff, could you please explain to our viewers how the public will participate in the meeting tonight? Thank you, Chair Kelly. For each 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. And this appears as an on screen button for those who are here with the in the teleconference. For those who've called in on the phone, um they can push star nine, and that will raise their hand when they wish to speak. And if there are members of the public who submitted email comments with 500 words or less to us before the meeting and requested that the comments be read, we're going to read those items into the record when we get to those agenda items. And chair, because uh this evening will focus on um some sites that have generated a substantial public comment in the past. We believe it could take quite a bit of time this evening, and we're recommending the commission consider planning a break at around 7 15 or whenever you desire it. All right, very good. Um, our next item is agenda review. The planning commission conducts all meetings in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and pursuant to the city rules of the order for planning commission meetings. 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? No, there are not. All right, moving on. Um public comment. So our public comment provides an opportunity for members of the public to uh to address the planning commission on items of interest not otherwise on tonight's agenda. So if you're here to talk about the general plan, we will definitely get to that. But if not, then this will be your opportunity. Um I want to remind the the public that each member will have three minutes to speak during the public comment and the general plan public hearing, so please be concise with your thoughts and respectful of your time. Staff will time each speaker and make sure that comments don't exceed the allotted time limit. I will ask staff to alert the commission when your time is up so we can move on to the next speaker. Aaron, do we have any members of the public raising their hands or who wish to provide comment on any items this time not relative to the general plan discussion? Mr. Chair, um, I do not see any raised hands at this time.
openpublica.com