Napa Planning Commission Meeting on Draft General Plan & EIR - March 17, 2022

The Napa Planning Commission convened on March 17, 2022, at 5:30 PM in the City Council Chambers to receive staff's introduction of the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR, and to solicit feedback from the Commission and public. The meeting began with a roll call, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a brief opening. The Commission approved the consent calendar, which included the minutes of the March 3, 2022 meeting. The primary focus was a workshop-style discussion on the draft plan, with particular attention to land use, transportation, and climate change/sustainability elements, as well as public comments. No formal action was taken on the Draft General Plan, but the Commission directed staff to consider incorporating more specific language, measurable goals, and timelines for climate action, transportation, and other elements. A joint session with the City Council and follow-up meetings were anticipated in April, with implementation strategies expected in May and adoption hearings in June.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes of March 3, 2022: Approved unanimously by a single vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Bayard Fox (Napa Climate Now): Urged the inclusion of specific language such as "achieve net zero greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants by 2030" and hiring a sustainability director. Expressed alarm at ambiguity in the draft.
• Celeste Murray: Called for precise language and measurable goals, such as a climate action plan by June 2023 and climate neutrality by 2030, noting the current draft's language is too limiting.
• Linda Brown: Emphasized the scientific urgency of 2030 as a critical deadline, urging more specific language in the climate element.
• Margaret Smatana (Napa Climate Now): Shared personal loss in the Atlas Fire and urged immediate focus on quantifiable emissions reductions and clear timelines.
• Maureen Tripp (Slow Down Napa): Requested inclusion of a traffic calming strategy, citing the strain on residential neighborhoods and suggesting language from the county's circulation element.
• Cara Verner (Napa County Bicycle Coalition): Requested stronger language for bike and pedestrian improvements, including time-bound metrics and goalposts, while acknowledging the plan's mention of these improvements in six of ten guiding principles.
• Marilyn Mendelson (Napa Climate Now): Echoed support for climate action considerations.
• Joseph Keibler: Raised a private property issue, noting that over-specificity in the 1999 General Plan prevented a land donation; advocated for designating 19.5 acres on his property as developable with very low density to allow park benefits.
• Jim Wilson: Supported 2030 net-zero deadline, noting his home was lost in the LNU fire; emphasized the need for ambitious targets.
• Carol Glazer (Napa Climate Now): Supported climate action urgency, mentioning her late husband was a GPAC member and advocating for precise language and commitments.
• Written Comments: Late letters from Laura Keller and Christina Robbins were received and noted; staff acknowledged they were submitted after the deadline but included in the record.

Discussion Items

• Draft General Plan & Draft EIR - Introduction: Michael Walker (staff) presented an overview of the plan's development since 2018, including community outreach, GPAC input (16 formal meetings), surveys, and over 100 newsletters. He explained the plan's statutory requirements (7 mandated elements plus additional for historic resources, economic development, climate change, and health), the need for internal consistency, and the 2040 horizon. He highlighted the implementation strategy (Appendix A) as a future deliverable and proposed focusing on land use, transportation, and climate sustainability elements.
• Commission Feedback and Deliberations:
  • Land Use and Community Design: Commissioner Kelley suggested including marijuana dispensaries in allowable uses, tracking second residences versus ADUs, studying parking flexibility for downtown housing, and promoting light rail connecting Napa Pipe, Kennedy Park, Napa College, and downtown. Vice Chair Massaro emphasized the need for "workforce" and "missing middle" housing language. Commissioner Shotwell noted an unincorporated pockets map numbering issue. Chair Huether questioned the balance of local and tourist needs and downtown services. Commissioner Hurtado (likely) raised concerns about gentrification of focus areas and requested support for repurposing buildings for low-income residents.
  • Climate Change and Sustainability: Vice Chair Massaro stressed incorporating specific climate recommendations and outlined a strategy to use the general plan, Appendix A, and a future climate action plan. He suggested renaming "sustainability" to "resiliency" to reflect the need for transformation. Commissioner Shotwell proposed green roofs and art on rooftops, and noted concerns about water supply and landfill issues. Commissioner Kelley called for adopting higher green building standards (beyond Title 24), reducing natural gas reliance, and exploring graywater utilities. Chair Huether and Commissioner Shotwell expressed support for a sustainability director position, though staff noted legal and staffing constraints.
  • Transportation: Commissioner Kelley advocated for a light rail corridor, multimodal micromobility management, and speed limits on streets with bike lanes. Commissioner Hurtado agreed on light rail and stressed regional partnerships and safe routes to school for all districts. Commissioner Shotwell endorsed the Napa County Bicycle Coalition's March 15th letter recommendations and called for clear target dates for bike and pedestrian improvements. Commissioner Massaro suggested using parking fees to fund transportation projects. Staff noted that a climate action plan cannot be a "specific plan" under government code, but general plan goals can reference it.
• Future Process: Staff indicated multiple meetings will review all elements, with a joint council-commission session in late March. The Commission will provide comments on the three highlighted elements, with staff compiling comments and returning with changes in a later meeting. Implementation strategies will be presented in May, and adoption hearings are expected in June.

Key Outcomes

• No formal action was taken on the Draft General Plan, as this was an introductory session.
• The Commission unanimously approved the consent calendar (minutes of March 3, 2022).
• Directed staff to consider incorporating more specific, measurable language in the Draft General Plan, especially for climate action (e.g., net-zero by 2030), transportation (light rail, bike/pedestrian improvements), and housing (missing middle).
• Requested staff to report back with a summary of comments and proposed changes at a future meeting.
• Scheduled additional Planning Commission meetings in April to continue element-by-element review, followed by implementation strategy discussions in May, aiming for adoption hearings in June.