OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Napa Planning Commission Regular Meeting - August 7, 2025

Planning CommissionThursday, August 7, 2025
BodyNapa, California
SessionPlanning Commission
DateThursday, August 7, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:54:22

Transcript — Verbatim
0:03

Are we ready?

0:06

Good evening.

0:08

Is my mic on?

0:09

Yeah.

0:10

Good evening and welcome to the August 7th, 2025 City of Napa regular meeting for the Planning Commission.

0:17

Roll call, please.

0:18

Commissioner Ebach.

0:20

Present.

0:20

Commissioner Masaro.

0:22

Present.

0:22

Commissioner Myers.

0:24

Present.

0:24

Vice Chair Owen.

0:25

Present.

0:26

And Chair Shotwell.

0:27

Present.

0:27

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

0:31

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

0:36

And to the Republic for which it stands.

0:39

One nation under God with liberty and justice for all.

0:47

The Planning Commission conducts all meetings in accordance with the Ralph Milton Brown Act.

0:53

California Government Code Sections 54950 et SEC.

0:57

And pursuant to the city's rules of order for Planning Commission meetings, policy resolution 10.

1:03

Staff, any changes to this evening's agenda?

1:06

No changes.

1:07

Commissioners, any proposed changes?

1:10

Public comment.

1:12

Public comment provides an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the planning commission on items of interest not otherwise noted on the agenda.

1:21

Each speaker's comments will be limited to three minutes and will comply with the rules of order for planning commission meetings.

1:28

Do we have any members of the public who wish to provide public comments on non-agenda items?

1:34

I did receive one public comment information card, Mark Phillips.

1:38

Great.

1:46

Good evening.

1:48

I wasn't able to be at your last meeting but watched the video afterwards.

1:52

One of the items was a design review permit for a triplex and a duplex.

1:57

The plans showed two buildings that had, in my opinion, all the character of monopoly game buildings.

2:02

I'm not here to talk about the project itself, but your process.

2:16

Staff assured you that any plan discrepancies would be corrected and taken care of at a staff level review and building permit issuance.

2:24

You as commissioners are the ones responsible for making sure that the project can meet the standards and findings for design review.

2:31

The city code says that you should be assuring the new housing is high quality and well designed that respects the surrounding neighborhood character.

2:39

You're supposed to consider the site design, the architecture, including colors, building materials and design, and the project landscaping.

2:48

Some of you expressed a desire that the buildings include some additional architectural features, uh, like different kind of sightings rather than what was being proposed to enhance their appearance.

2:58

In response, staff told you, quote, the more complex the planning commission makes the plans, the harder it is to construct the project from a financial standpoint.

3:08

We rely on you to make sure projects are worthy of being being built in our neighborhoods.

3:13

Projects that require a use permit and design review are not used as allowed by right.

3:18

They need to be approved by you to enjoy the privilege of developing in the city of Napa.

3:22

If you want or need additional information to be comfortable voting for approval, then demand it.

3:29

All these people and the size of you work for you, and shouldn't you shouldn't have to defer your review to them at a later date.

3:36

If you want more information or want to see a redesigned project, then continue the hearing and direct staff to bring it back to you when it's complete to your satisfaction, not theirs.

3:46

And it is totally inappropriate for staff to suggest that anything you are requesting in order to be comfortable to approve a project is too expensive.

3:54

If a project requires a use permit and design review, the planning commission may require modifications to satisfy your ability to make the necessary findings to approve the project.

4:05

Any extra costs are ultimately a business decision for the developer.

4:09

If they are dissatisfied with your conditions, they can appeal to the council.

4:13

Thank you.

4:14

Thank you.

4:14

Much appreciated.

4:18

Do we have any other members of the public who wish to speak on non-agenda items?

4:25

Okay.

4:27

Do I have a motion to close public comment?

4:30

So move.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Affordable Housing█████████████████████████████29%
Public Engagement██████████████████████████26%
Procedural█████████████████17%
Zoning Ordinance Update█████████████13%
Parking Management████4%
Conflict of Interest███3%
Public Safety██2%
Active Transportation██2%
Technology and Innovation1%
Summary of Proceedings

Napa Planning Commission Regular Meeting - August 7, 2025

The Napa Planning Commission held a regular meeting on August 7, 2025, at City Hall in the Council Chambers. The commission approved the consent calendar, heard public comments on process concerns, and conducted public hearings on two major items: amendments to the Napa Yard use permit and a new mixed-use development at 1600 Yajome Street. An administrative report established an ad-hoc committee for First Street Napa Phase II design review.

Consent Calendar

  • Approved the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes for July 17, 2025, by unanimous vote (motion by Commissioner Myers, second by Commissioner Masaro, all ayes).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Mark Phillips (non-agenda comment) criticized the commission's reliance on staff to resolve design issues, urging commissioners to demand complete information before voting and noting that staff's suggestion that additional requirements make projects financially harder is inappropriate. He stated, "It is totally inappropriate for staff to suggest that anything you are requesting in order to be comfortable to approve a project is too expensive."

Discussion Items

Item 7A: Napa Yard Use Permit Amendment – 585 and 601 First Street

  • Proposal: Napa Yard LP requested a Use Permit Amendment and Design Review Permit to add four shipping containers, a mini golf course, amplified music (four ticketed events per year with up to 200 guests on Friday/Saturday until 10 p.m. and Sunday until 7 p.m., plus weekend amplified music as accessory to restaurant operations until 9 p.m.), expanded vendor fairs (up to 30 vendors, increased from 10), and pre-approval of the SF Giants FanFest annual event (approximately 2,000 guests, 10 a.m.–6 p.m., with overflow parking at the Napa Expo). The existing use permit expires June 3, 2026.
  • Applicant Testimony: Perry Clark, a Napa native, emphasized the project's family-friendly nature and community feedback. He noted the stone stage is designed to push noise into the yard. Chris Lehman added that the four ticketed events are small, not concerts.
  • Staff Report: Paul (Acting Planning Manager) presented. The site is in the Oxbow Commercial zoning district. Noise standards limit 67 decibels at adjacent property lines and 55 decibels at single-family residential areas across the river. Staff recommended approval, noting CEQA coverage under the 1997 Copia EIR.
  • Public Comment: Adam Bussman (Managing Director, Culinary Institute of America) expressed support for development but raised concerns about amplified music interfering with CIA events (e.g., weddings causing refunds and revenue loss). He questioned how noise limits would be monitored and enforced.
  • Commission Questions and Discussion: Commissioners asked about speaker placements, noise monitoring, and shipping container aesthetics. Chair Shotwell expressed support but noted the decision sets a precedent for amplified music in the Oxbow district. Staff clarified that the city is developing a decibel monitoring program, but no start date exists. Commissioner Masaro cautioned against tying a condition to the applicant that could create neighbor disputes. Commissioner Ebach suggested the applicant self-monitor. Commissioners praised the mini golf and community activation.
  • Outcome: Motion by Commissioner Myers to adopt the resolution approving the Use Permit Amendment and Design Review Permit (including additions and new conditions) and determine the project within the scope of the Copia EIR. Seconded by Commissioner Masaro. Motion passed unanimously (all ayes).

Item 7B: J&D Railroad Mixed-Use Development – 1600 Yajome Street

  • Proposal: Use Permit and Design Review Permit for a three-story, approximately 10,121 sq. ft. building with 14 single-room occupancy (SRO) units (424–448 sq. ft. each) and 1,716 sq. ft. commercial/retail space on a 0.29-acre parcel. Requires shared parking agreement for five spaces in an adjacent lot. SRO units will have independent kitchens and bathrooms. Applicant plans to rent units for approximately $1,800/month, targeting workforce housing.
  • Applicant Testimony: Dominic Rossi (developer, 50 years in Napa) emphasized the need for affordable housing for single workers. He clarified parking will not extend onto a neighbor's property. He requested a 10-foot ceiling height for the commercial space instead of the required 12-foot, but withdrew the request after staff explained it would require a variance not on the agenda.
  • Staff Report: Michael Allen (Planning Manager) presented. The site is in a transition zone between industrial and residential, with a Corridor Mixed-Use Low general plan designation. Interim zoning requires a best-fit determination. Parking: 9 tuck-under spaces on-site plus 5 off-site via shared agreement. Bicycle parking: 12 spaces provided (6 in lockers, 6 open racks), exceeding the code requirement of 3. CEQA exemption under Class 32 (infill). Staff recommended approval.
  • Public Comment:
    • Carlotta Sainato (Napa County Bicycle Coalition) requested more long-term secure bike parking, noting that the project relies on biking to justify reduced parking but only 6 lockers are provided for 14 units. She urged more capacity for e-bikes and theft prevention.
    • Colleen Moore (neighbor, 877 Vallejo Street) expressed concern about parking overflow, stating the current lot is often full and 14 apartments could add 28 vehicles. She also raised fire and police access concerns.
  • Commission Questions and Discussion: Commissioners discussed bicycle parking adequacy. Commissioner Owen suggested requiring covered bike parking for residents without car spaces. Applicant Dominic Rossi offered to explore adding two more covered bike spaces. Commissioner Masaro recommended upgrading from vinyl to fiberglass windows for durability and energy efficiency. Commissioner Ebach praised the parking reduction and proximity to amenities. Chair Shotwell emphasized the project's alignment with long-held housing goals. All commissioners commended the architecture and workforce housing focus.
  • Outcome: Motion by Vice Chair Owen to adopt the resolution approving the Use Permit and Design Review Permit (including shared parking agreement) and determining the project exempt from CEQA. Seconded by Commissioner Ebach. Motion passed unanimously (all ayes).

Administrative Report: First Street Napa Phase II Ad-Hoc Committee

  • Discussion: Staff (Michael Allen) presented on forming an ad-hoc committee, as authorized by City Council on July 15, 2025, for future Design Review Permits related to First Street Napa Phase II. The committee will consist of one design professional and one non-design professional from the Planning Commission. Meetings will likely occur during business hours but may be adjusted. The committee will operate under the Brown Act.
  • Decision: Commissioner Owen (design professional) volunteered, and Commissioner Myers was selected by random draw to serve on the committee. Commissioner Ebach will serve as a backup. Commissioner Masaro declined due to travel commitments. Motion to establish the committee was not required, but the commission concurred informally.

Key Outcomes

  • Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously.
  • Item 7A (Napa Yard): Use Permit Amendment and Design Review Permit approved unanimously. Applicant to self-monitor noise and explore artistic painting of shipping containers. The existing use permit expires June 2026, requiring a separate extension request.
  • Item 7B (J&D Railroad): Use Permit and Design Review Permit approved unanimously. Applicant agreed to consider additional covered bike parking and improved window materials.
  • Ad-Hoc Committee: Established with Commissioner Owen and Commissioner Myers. Commissioner Ebach as backup. Meetings to be scheduled upon application submittal.
  • Next Meeting: Scheduled for August 21, 2025.

Meeting Transcript

Are we ready? Good evening. Is my mic on? Yeah. Good evening and welcome to the August 7th, 2025 City of Napa regular meeting for the Planning Commission. Roll call, please. Commissioner Ebach. Present. Commissioner Masaro. Present. Commissioner Myers. Present. Vice Chair Owen. Present. And Chair Shotwell. Present. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God with liberty and justice for all. The Planning Commission conducts all meetings in accordance with the Ralph Milton Brown Act. California Government Code Sections 54950 et SEC. And pursuant to the city's rules of order for Planning Commission meetings, policy resolution 10. Staff, any changes to this evening's agenda? No changes. Commissioners, any proposed changes? Public comment. Public comment provides an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the planning commission on items of interest not otherwise noted on the agenda. Each speaker's comments will be limited to three minutes and will comply with the rules of order for planning commission meetings. Do we have any members of the public who wish to provide public comments on non-agenda items? I did receive one public comment information card, Mark Phillips. Great. Good evening. I wasn't able to be at your last meeting but watched the video afterwards. One of the items was a design review permit for a triplex and a duplex. The plans showed two buildings that had, in my opinion, all the character of monopoly game buildings. I'm not here to talk about the project itself, but your process. Staff assured you that any plan discrepancies would be corrected and taken care of at a staff level review and building permit issuance. You as commissioners are the ones responsible for making sure that the project can meet the standards and findings for design review. The city code says that you should be assuring the new housing is high quality and well designed that respects the surrounding neighborhood character. You're supposed to consider the site design, the architecture, including colors, building materials and design, and the project landscaping. Some of you expressed a desire that the buildings include some additional architectural features, uh, like different kind of sightings rather than what was being proposed to enhance their appearance. In response, staff told you, quote, the more complex the planning commission makes the plans, the harder it is to construct the project from a financial standpoint. We rely on you to make sure projects are worthy of being being built in our neighborhoods. Projects that require a use permit and design review are not used as allowed by right. They need to be approved by you to enjoy the privilege of developing in the city of Napa. If you want or need additional information to be comfortable voting for approval, then demand it. All these people and the size of you work for you, and shouldn't you shouldn't have to defer your review to them at a later date. If you want more information or want to see a redesigned project, then continue the hearing and direct staff to bring it back to you when it's complete to your satisfaction, not theirs. And it is totally inappropriate for staff to suggest that anything you are requesting in order to be comfortable to approve a project is too expensive.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com