Napa Planning Commission Regular Meeting – April 21, 2022

The Napa Planning Commission convened on April 21, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers. All five commissioners were present. The meeting covered routine consent items, a quarterly development report, a three-element draft General Plan discussion (Natural Resources Conservation, Safety & Noise, and Economic Development), and a presentation on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Public comment was taken on the General Plan and EIR.

Consent Calendar

• Approved the minutes from the March 28, 2022 City Council and Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting.
• Approved the minutes from the April 7, 2022 Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Chuck Shineman (Napa resident): Requested additional time for public review of the Draft EIR, noting it is an 800-page document. He questioned the dismissal of the higher density alternative, suggesting it could reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from long commutes. He also expressed concern about economic development language that seemed to encourage jobs at 75% of Area Median Income (AMI), which he felt was too low.
• Austin Hall (Napa resident, Napa County Landmarks): Urged the city to hire a qualified historic preservation specialist to review projects earlier, preventing delays. He noted that Napa has lost many historic buildings and features and that new construction should be compatible with historic resources.
• Jay Jacobson (Napa resident): Encouraged the Commission to use strong, directive language (e.g., "shall" instead of "encourage") in the General Plan to protect culture, economy, and land use. He emphasized the need to backstop planning decisions.
• Glenn Lovall (Napa-Solano Central Labor Council, Community Benefits Coalition): Expressed support for sustainable and equitable growth. He highlighted the importance of high labor standards, transit-oriented development, VMT reduction, and expanded housing options with clear metrics. He pledged continued engagement.
• Jorge Aviñar Romero (Cement Masons business agent, former Napa resident): Supported higher wages for union workers and encouraged the General Plan to address this.

Discussion Items

Quarterly Development Report (Q1 2022)

• Staff reported over 40 total project applications in Q1 2022. Notable: 7 parcel maps under SB9 (new housing law effective Jan 1, 2022), 90 residential building permits (mostly for SOCO Apartments/Pietro Place), 25 single-family permits (primarily in Vista Grove and Foothill Estate subdivisions), and 3 ADU permits. Commissioners asked about typical SB9 unit counts (1-2 units) and expressed satisfaction with the pace.

Draft General Plan – Natural Resources Conservation Element

• Commissioners reviewed goals/policies to protect water, vegetation, wildlife, open space, and air.
• Commissioner Hurtado questioned air quality impacts from the Sire Quarry (county jurisdiction, strict air permits). He also asked about NRC policies 6-1 and 6-2 (green building practices) and NRC 9-3 (water quality report accessibility).
• Commissioner Shotwell noted a typo (missing word "is") and asked about the status of the Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Plan (draft available in 2021, adoption anticipated early 2022). She questioned redundancy in goal language and who is responsible for educational outreach on climate risks.
• Commissioner Kelly suggested that more flexible use of the term "sustainable" could benefit the element, and noted potential for land exchanges with the county to optimize urban growth boundaries.
• Vice Chair Massaro proposed adding a definition of sustainability (e.g., “preserving the capability of the environment to support human life”). He criticized referencing an outdated Napa Green Building Code, noting it defaults to state minimums. He urged stronger language on air quality cooperation with the county and clarified “LID” (low impact development).
• Chair Huether found the element well-written and comprehensive. He questioned the distinction between parks and open space (e.g., Oxbow Preserve) and noted the map shows limited green space, suggesting opportunities for future riverfront parks.

Draft General Plan – Safety & Noise Element

• Commissioners discussed seismic hazards, flooding, wildfire, emergency preparedness, and noise.
• Commissioner Shotwell noted a timeline reference ("since construction began in 2000") should be more current. She pointed out a formatting/hyphen issue in "noise-sensitive land uses". She asked to remove policy SN 5-6 (extending Linda Vista Avenue) due to environmental/neighborhood concerns. Staff said they are evaluating public comments on that issue.
• Commissioner Kelly observed that Table 8-3 (noise exposure) appeared mislabeled as “solid waste information system facilities”. He recommended adopting higher fire-resistant construction (Wildland-Urban Interface codes) citywide. He suggested adding a section on pandemics/disease outbreak and urged continued mapping of seismic faults.
• Commissioner Hurtado emphasized the need for better community education on evacuation routes, especially for non-English speakers, noting that communication improvements only came after the 2017 fires.
• Vice Chair Massaro stressed that earthquake preparedness is the weakest area. He called for language on hardening existing buildings, especially unreinforced masonry (URM) structures downtown, and suggested revisiting the city's URM ordinance. He cited personal experience with earthquakes and the 2014 Napa quake.
• Chair Huether commented on noise, noting that I-29 and Silverado Trail noise affects quality of life. He wished the city could gain control over the state-owned fairgrounds for potential mixed-use development, but acknowledged no policy currently addresses this.

Draft General Plan – Economic Development Element

• Commissioners praised the element’s link to housing, transportation, and equity.
• Commissioner Hurtado acknowledged the GPAC’s work and highlighted the importance of preserving industrial uses and providing workforce housing. He noted ED 1-10 (accommodating workers with housing difficulties) is crucial.
• Commissioner Shotwell identified a few typos (e.g., “as new supply becomes available” should be “became”). She asked about the Syar/Synodome redevelopment site status (still in planning, mixed ownership). She supported streamlined permitting (ED 1-9) and family-friendly downtown amenities (e.g., ice skating rink on former Safeway lot).
• Vice Chair Massaro praised guiding principle #4 (diverse housing). He requested language consistency (use “Latinx” throughout) and suggested adding employer-sponsored housing. He noted that ED 1-4 mentions possible code amendments and asked for clarification on “portal” in ED 7-2 (web or physical). He supported workforce training for adults, not just youth.
• Chair Huether questioned whether the description of the city’s cultural diversity and thriving arts scene was more aspirational than current reality. He emphasized that economic development funds other priorities like parks and housing. He supported policies that commit funding to arts and culture.

Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for General Plan

• Staff presented the program EIR, which analyzes citywide impacts of the General Plan. Only air quality and greenhouse gas emissions are found to be significant and unavoidable. Two alternatives (no project, higher infill) were examined; the proposed update is environmentally superior.
• Public comment period originally ending April 25, 2022, has been extended to May 6, 2022. Staff will respond to all comments.
• Commissioner Kelly questioned how a program EIR’s “less than significant” conclusions apply to specific projects. Staff and legal counsel explained that future site-specific review (e.g., biological, cultural resources) will still occur, and the program EIR streamlines but does not eliminate project-level CEQA analysis. He expressed concern about water supply being labeled “less than significant” given potential population growth. Staff noted increased efficiency and potential future closed-loop water recycling.
• Vice Chair Massaro appreciated the 2-week extension and indicated he would submit written comments. Chair Huether praised the collaborative effort.

Key Outcomes

• Consent Calendar approved unanimously.
• Public comment closed on all items by vote.
• No formal votes taken on General Plan elements or EIR; the session was deliberative. Commissioners provided numerous specific suggestions for staff to consider in finalizing the draft General Plan and EIR.
• EIR comment period extended to Friday, May 6, 2022, announced at the meeting.
• Next regular Planning Commission meeting (May 5, 2022) cancelled. The next meeting will be May 19, 2022, focusing on the General Plan implementation plan (Appendix A).