Napa Planning Commission Regular Meeting – June 17, 2021
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Napa Planning Commission Regular Meeting – June 17, 2021
The Napa Planning Commission met on Thursday, June 17, 2021, at 5:30 PM via Zoom to consider consent items, a major affordable housing development, and an appeal regarding a cannabis retailer clearance. The meeting lasted approximately three hours and resulted in approval of the affordable housing project with conditions and denial of the cannabis appeal.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of June 3, 2021, Planning Commission Minutes: Approved unanimously (5-0).
Consent Hearings
- Slarve Parcel Map (2095 West Park Avenue): Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review, and Use Permit to subdivide 0.45 acres into two residential parcels. Approved unanimously.
- West Pueblo Market Liquor Sales (2107 West Pueblo Avenue): Use Permit to allow beer and wine sales at an existing convenience store. Moved from Public Hearing to Consent Calendar at the request of Commissioner Huether after no public opposition appeared. Approved unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Chick-fil-A Concerns (General Public Comment): Several members of the public spoke and submitted letters opposing a potential Chick-fil-A restaurant in Napa, citing the company’s anti-LGBTQ record. Speakers urged the Commission to reject the proposal when it comes forward in August. Staff confirmed Chick-fil-A is part of the SoCo School Square project, tentatively scheduled for August 2021.
- Shetler Affordable Housing (Monarch Landing): Seven letters of support (Napa Climate Now, Providence Queen of the Valley, Granny Lindbergh, Renee Cazares, and others) and one letter with a question about rodent control were read. Two residents (Eric Dorico and Tamara, neighbors on Shetler Avenue) expressed concerns about existing parking congestion, traffic safety, and spillover from nearby apartments, but stated general support for affordable housing. Patrick Band (Napa County Bicycle Coalition) supported the project and requested wider sidewalks, improved visibility triangles, and more bike parking.
Discussion Items
- Shetler Affordable Housing (PL20-0191) – 1000 Shetler Avenue: Staff presented the Monarch Landing project, a 77-unit 100% affordable apartment complex on 3.31 acres with a 55% density bonus and one concession (front setback reduction from 20 ft to 15 ft). The applicant (Napa Valley Community Housing) highlighted the need for affordable housing, the site’s constraints (20+ ft grade difference from street to site), design features (modern farmhouse, all-electric with solar, community building, preserved oak trees), and property management protocols. Commissioners raised concerns about: insufficient renderings (no sections, no depiction of retaining walls), massive earth import (~8,000 cubic yards, 800 truck trips), loss of most trees (only 5 of ~150 oaks saved), the height of retaining walls (up to 9 ft), parking counts (143 spaces meets code but neighbors worry about spillover), lack of solar analysis, and potential value engineering. After debate, a motion was made to approve with six conditions: (1) increased bike parking, (2) vegetated screening or maintenance easement for the west retaining wall, (3) wall/fence height to meet building code with no variances, (4) full compliance with Title 24 solar requirements, (5) increased sight triangles to 20 ft and 6-ft wide sidewalks, (6) preservation of the 30-inch valley oak in the central courtyard, and (7) prohibition of value engineering that downgrades exterior finishes or landscaping. The motion passed 4-1 (Commissioner Huether dissenting, citing incomplete design and insufficient public review).
- Iroquois Cannabis Clearance Appeal (MMD21-0003) – 1921 Iroquois Street: Appeal of the Community Development Director’s denial of a medical cannabis retailer clearance due to the site being within 600 ft of New Tech High School (measured as the crow flies). The appellant argued that a 12‑ft concrete wall of an adjacent mini-storage facility constitutes an “impenetrable barrier” making the distance functionally equivalent to 600 ft via pedestrian travel. Staff and special counsel Dan advised that the ordinance defines impenetrable barriers as being similar to a highway or watercourse, and that the wall does not meet that standard. The Commission debated the interpretation. Commissioner Massaro supported the appeal conditioned on the wall remaining; others felt the straight-line measurement should apply. The motion to deny the appeal passed 4-1 (Commissioner Massaro dissenting). Chair Kelly encouraged the applicant to pursue an appeal to City Council.
Key Outcomes
- Shetler Affordable Housing (Monarch Landing): Approved 4-1 with conditions requiring additional design refinements, tree preservation, and environmental commitments. Applicant must provide proof of compliance during building permit review.
- Iroquois Cannabis Appeal: Denied 4-1, upholding the Community Development Director’s decision. The appellant may appeal to City Council.
- Consent Items: Approved unanimously.
- Procedural Note: Staff announced that City offices tentatively reopen July 6, 2021, with in-person meetings for Planning Commission likely resuming in late August or after Labor Day.
Commissioner Comments
- Commissioner Huether urged earlier staff involvement for large projects to improve design and reduce applicant costs, and emphasized the need for accurate renderings showing retaining walls.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, Chair Kelly, we're live, so we can begin. All right. Um, good evening, everyone. Welcome to the June 17th, 2021, City of Napa regular meeting for the Planning Commission. And our first item tonight is roll call. Um, can I have a roll call, please? Chair Kelly. Present. Vice Chair Onyate. Present. Commissioner Hewther. You're muted. I see you. You're muted. I'm sorry, I am here. Thank you. Commissioner Masaro. Chair. And Commissioner Hurtado. Okay, no big bonus check for Commissioner Hurtado. Yeah. Excellent. Thank you. All are accountable. Still trying to connect. Well done. All right. Thank you, Aaron. Item number two, summary of meeting procedures. Staff, can you please explain to our viewers how the public will participate in a meeting this evening? 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 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 of us who are here in the webinar. 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. And if members of the public submit email comments with 500 words or less to planning staff before the meeting starts and request the comments be read, staff will read the comments into the record when the specific item is called. Thank you. Thank you. Agenda review. Staff, are there any changes to this evening's agenda? No, there are not. Commissioner's any proposed changes to the agenda. None. Mr. Chair, um I don't know if I my colleagues would support me in this, but um I'd be interested in putting the West Pueblo Market Liquor Sales Project on consent. I would agree. Um I I recall there was uh a letter in opposition, and I don't know if members uh are here tonight to speak on that. So I'm wondering if because there is some opposition voice, we should hold a regular hearing on it. I wonder if um we simply acknowledge that we've all read the letter and understand it. Um it's just my thought, and if they are here in the public and they well they can ask it not be um put on consent, I suppose. Um Aaron, I'd like to go to the audience and see if there's anyone here tonight uh who wishes to speak on uh this particular West Public.
openpublica.com