Good evening, welcome to the July 16th, 2026 City of Napa Regular Meeting for the Planning
Commission.
I would like to call this meeting to order and ask my RIT to please conduct a roll call.
Commissioner Yibok?
Present.
Commissioner Massaro.
Present.
Commissioner Shotwell.
Present.
Chair Owen here, and I have Vice Chair Myers noted as absent.
And we will now 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, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
The Planning Commission conducts all meetings in accordance with the Ralph Brown Act
and pursuant to the City's Rules of Order for Planning Commission meetings policy resolution
10.
Staff are there any changes to the evening's agenda or any supplemental reports?
Yes, so there have been three supplemental memos that have been conveyed to the Planning
Commission and are available for physical copies in the back.
One, two, agenda item seven B, and then two, four, the study session item later tonight.
And then we staff is recommending to continue item seven A just generally to not to a date
uncertain, not to a day certain.
Okay, can I get a motion to continue item seven A, so moved.
Second, all those in favor, I motion passes.
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?
Yes, sir, please can board.
I'll be very brief on customary for a lawyer and I had discussions with staff before I have a pending
application for Division of my 62 point four acre parcel on leaning oak drive in Napa,
off of a human avenue, and I've held things in the Bayons, there's an application to divide
into three parcels, which was allowed under the existing zoning, and I held in the Bayonsville
all this general plan, and other conforming work was an order.
The, that is still pending and if not, I will resuscitate it.
But my comments are directed to the lack of consideration of the fact that there are only two significant
parcels that David Don, parcel on Old Sonoma Road, Porter Biles on Old Sonoma Road, and my
parcel, and both of those were large, and David Don had three or four parcels already in their
40 plus acre parcel, and I had 62 point seven and one parcel and a pending application.
Like comments repeatedly to staff and other planning people involved, I have been that one,
it is unwise to have a large parcel of property in the city that is zoned for now under the
proposal of a go to one unit of housing on 62 point four acres, not even the three that I applied for.
And that isn't logical if the city attempts to do any annexations,
it is wise to have a better proposition to pose to those parcels to be a next.
Mine's already in, but I've made the comment repeatedly that if you had a five acre zone,
you could probably encourage people to annex without having to force any issues.
And five acres is a very reasonable buffer zone that would help avoid problems with the public who
does do not wish to have annexations, and with the public that do wish to have annexations,
it would just be a wise policy, so that's what I recommend.
Thank you. Thank you.
Does anybody else wish to speak on something not on tonight's agenda?
Can I get a motion to close public comment?
So moved. Second, all those in favor?
Hi.
Consent calendar, these routine items may be approved by a single vote, however, any member of the public or a
commissioner may remove an item for discussion during the public hearing portion of the agenda.
This evening we are reviewing the planning commission regular meeting minutes for July 2nd,
2020-26. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes for July 2nd, 2020-26?
So moved.
Second, all those in favor? Hi. Motion passes.
We have no consent hearings, so moving on to public hearings. These are items that are formally presented
to the planning commission and provide an opportunity for members of the public to comment.
Applicants or Appellants are allowed 10 minutes to present testimony at the beginning of the public hearing,
and if needed, five minutes to present rebuttal at the end of the public hearing,
all other speakers will be limited to three minutes. Tonight we have the following item,
item 7b, 585 First Street Skating Rink Use Permit.
Can we start with commissioner disclosures?
No disclosures? No disclosures? No disclosures? No disclosures.
I'm familiar with the site but I went on Sunday to check it out a little bit more.
All right. And we'll now hear a report from staff.
Good evening everybody. I'll be presenting on the proposed skating ring at 585 First Street on the
project applicant Rick Gajel is also here and we'll be speaking later.
The applicant requires a use permit and a design review permit to construct an
operate in approximately 6,400 square foot rollers getting ring at the site.
To start, just regarding the late communication, following publication of the meeting agenda,
some inconsistencies were identified between the project square footages across the plan
submitted and the staff report and noticed materials. As included in the memo,
the proposed skating ring would be up to 6,400 square feet and the proposed roof cover would be up to 7,200 square feet.
The project site is located on the south side of First Street between Bernanstreet and the Napa River.
The applicant proposes the addition and operation of an approximately 6,400 square foot rollers
getting ring under a pre-manufactured metal roof cover. The ring would operate in conjunction with Napa
Yard and existing outdoor restaurant and entertainment venue. But it is worth noting that the project
applicant is separate from the operators of Napa Yard they would operate in conjunction at the site.
The proposed roller skating ring would fall within the site's existing hours of operation.
10 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Thursday 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Friday and Saturday and 10 a.m.
to 8 p.m. on Sundays. I'm just a note on Napa Yard. It's an existing outdoor restaurant and entertainment
venue. It's a temporary use. The use permit for the project will expire on December 21,
29. The use permit for this proposed project if approved would also expire on December 21, 29.
This is the proposed site plan in blue would be the location of the proposed skating ring.
And green is the existing mini golf course that was recently approved by the planning commission.
This is to the north of the dining area of the site into the west of Napa River. The proposed
ring would be buffered from first street by the mini golf course and the site's existing gardens.
This is a rendering of the proposed roof cover. It's a fairly simple building
constructed of cruciform beams and would be open on three sides on all sides excuse me.
These are the proposed details. The applicant wouldn't install clear acrylic railing.
String lights would be hung above the ring.
Skate rentals would occur from one of the site's existing shipping containers that were previously approved
through prior entitlements. Parking bathroom and other facilities would be shared with Napa Yard.
To approve the project, the commission must make the findings for our use permit,
a design review permit, specific findings for the South School Quarter overlay district
and the findings required by the interim zoning ordinance.
Staff has also determined that the project would be exempt from sequa pursuant to section 15303,
which exempts the construction and location of new small facilities and structures. This includes
up to four commercial structures not exceeding 10,000 square feet.
And with that staff recommends that the commission adopt a resolution of proving a use permit
and a designer view permit for the proposed skating ring and are determined that the actions
authorized by the resolution are exempt from sequa. Thank you.
Thank you Paul. Do any commissioners have any questions for staff at this time?
No. Will the applicant be providing a presentation?
Yes.
Please come forward.
Hi. My name is Rick Gajola. This is my part during Logan Mayn.
So thank you for your time considering our proposal. My name is Rick Gajola and with me is my
business partner in Logan Mayn. Together we are here asking for your support in bringing
will like Napa to our community. At its heart, it isn't simply a roller skating ring.
It's about creating a place where families can spend time together. We're children have
somewhere safe to go after school or on weekends. We're on our community has another positive
gathering place. Today's young people face more challenges than ever before. Many spend more time
behind the screens and have fewer places where they can safely gather with friends.
We have an opportunity to change that. A skating ring provides a safe, supervised environment where
children and teenagers can be active, build confidence, develop friendships, and simply enjoy being kids.
Even every evening a child chooses to spend at our skating ring is an evening there in a safe,
supervised environment surrounded by friends, families, and positive role models. Research has shown
the participation in recreational activities can reduce youth and involvement in risky behaviors
by up to 30%. While a skating ring isn't the solution to every challenge, it can absolutely
be a part of the solution by giving young people a positive place where they feel welcome, valued, and connected.
And if that, we build, if what we build helps even one child choose a better path,
then every bit of our effort we put into this project will have been worth it.
Roller skating is also one of the few recreational activities that truly brings generations together.
In a world where it's becoming harder to disconnect from technology and reconnect with one another.
We want to create a place where those moments happen naturally. We also hope to partner with local
schools, youth organizations, nonprofits, and community groups. Even envision hosting school nights,
fundraisers, educational programs, birthday parties, and community events that strengthen the connections
throughout Napa. This project will also support our local economy by creating jobs, attracting visitors,
and encouraging families to spend more time supporting the businesses at Napa Yard and throughout our city.
But above all else, this project is about investing in the quality of life for the people who call Napa home.
These are remembered not only by the restaurants and businesses, but for the places where childhood memories are made.
We want, we'll like, not that to become one of those places.
A place where a child laces up skates for the very first time, where teenagers have a safe place to spend,
Friday nights, where parents and grandparents laugh alongside their children,
where birthdays are celebrated, friendships are formed, and families create memories that last a lifetime.
We aren't simply asking for approval to build a business.
We are asking for the opportunity to invest in Napa families.
It's children and its future.
We believe Napa deserves more opportunities for health recreation, community connection, and family entertainment.
And we're committed to building something the city of Napa can be proud of for years to come.
If we'll life Napa helps hundreds of families make memories, we'll be grateful.
But if it helps even one child find a safe place to be long, make better choices or simply know they have somewhere they are welcome.
Then that alone will make all of this worthwhile.
Thank you for your time, your consideration and your service to our community.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our vision with you, and we'd be happy to answer your questions.
Thank you.
Very well said.
Do any commissioners have any questions for the applicant at this time?
I just have one question.
Will roller blades be allowed?
Yes.
Excellent.
Personal roller blades and roller skates will be allowed.
We already have purchased quad skates, but we are planning on purchasing roller blades also for rent.
Commissioner Rosario, did you have a question?
Just a staff question, really.
For the staff, how long can we keep renewing a temporary use permit?
Generally, there's not like a set limit to the amount of time.
Being that there's an application currently under review for the further development of that site that's kind of the intention behind the temporary use permit for this site specifically.
When there's a consideration, generally across the city, for a use that seeks to be more permanent, then we would push for a standard use permit.
Where if they act upon their rights based on the conditions and satisfy the conditions, then it's invested right in perpetuity.
Thank you.
All right, you guys can have a seat.
Thank you.
I'm going to open public comment.
Myra, do we have any public comment cards for this item?
I did not receive any cards for this item.
Does there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item?
Please just state your name when you speak.
Chris Ben's Napa.
I'd like to say, I think this is a brilliant idea.
It brings a brand new type of attraction to Napa.
The nearest roller rink is in Bruner Park.
And it's a healthy activity, so I do hope you approve it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chris.
Hello.
I'm Jennifer Huffman.
I've lived in Napa for about 28 years.
And I was really happy to see on the agenda that it looks like you're recommending that the planning commission adopt the resolution,
approving use permit and design review permit for rick skating rink in Napa at Napa yard.
I'm here to show my strong support for this project for three main reasons.
My husband and I raised three kids here in Napa.
And of course, Napa has been hugely successful with drawing in visitors for wine-related adult kind of activities.
We are less successful when it comes to offering things for kids and younger families to do.
I think we can change that if we commit to new things like the roller skating rink.
Number two, Rick is a small business owner and we need to support and nurture these entrepreneurs in our city.
The people who are willing to put themselves out there, especially financially.
And three, I'm a quad skater.
And skating is fun.
Almost any age can do it.
It's not very expensive.
You don't need to live equipment.
So I want to say let's support Rick and his rink.
And as the shirt says, don't hate roller skate.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Commission members and city staff.
My name is Terrence Mulligan.
I'm a resident and I'm also the president and CEO of Napa Valley Community Foundation.
And I'm here in support of the roller rink for two reasons.
The first is professional and the second is personal.
Let me start with the second first.
I am the father of two kids.
Both, well, teens and young adults.
And my daughter Claire.
She played Rex soccer.
Thank you city of Napa.
But then she moved to a club soccer.
And then a academy soccer.
And the difference between those last two is that it's like imported British coaches and it never ends.
And it's much more expensive.
So lucky us were mildly affluent enough to have been able to afford for a decade.
The frankly, like car payment number that comes attend with getting your kid into enriching activities.
And I wish that when my kids were small, we had something like this in this community because it's super cool.
On the professional side.
Lucky me, we get to distribute about ten million dollars a year to local charitable organizations.
And a big part of our mission is to try to build a stronger, more cohesive, more connected community.
A big part of our work is about half a million dollars in scholarships every year.
To the most promising kids who come out of our high schools.
And at risk of telling you what you already know, there's just not enough for those young people to do.
There's not enough places for us to gather.
So I thank you for your consideration.
And I thank Rick and a partner for what they're trying to do.
Thank you, Terence.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
I'm Maria Macias.
And I'm an upper resident.
And in the port of the skating rink.
And why I just came.
I saw that in the neighborhood app.
And I just wanted to support.
And when I walked through the door.
I didn't know.
And we just, I saw our escape.
And we just picked up a conversation.
And I just want to say it's where adults too.
I mean, I skated my whole life.
The quads.
And it was a big part of my childhood.
But I saw adults.
And it was just like community.
Like I said, I just met Jennifer outside there.
And what a wonderful thing.
Right for our community to bring skating to it.
Not just for children.
But like Rick said, it's like a community thing.
And you have the great memories growing up where you skated.
And when you could go by yourself for the first time.
Your parents could drop you off at the rink.
And you could skate.
And then they would pick you up.
And what a wonderful thing for our community.
So I just wanted to say that's why it came.
And I just wanted to give my support.
And thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Seeing that there are no more requests to speak.
Is there a motion to close public comment?
So moved.
Second, all those in favor?
Hi.
I'm just going to echo a lot of what we've already heard.
I appreciate applicants who are willing to invest in experiences that strengthen our community.
The mini golf course has been amazing.
I'm excited to see this come.
And I am in support of this project.
Isn't it nice to see some of the things from our youth coming back to know that?
I would say I grew up here in town.
And years ago, we had mini golf.
And a couple of skating rinks actually in a couple different places.
So it's nice to see it come back.
I'm going to sort of support of the project.
My only.
I think my only concern really is.
It's a shame that this building is open.
At this point and is not really a year-round facility.
Yeah.
Someday.
I hope.
Anyway.
Thank you.
I wish I shot well.
Do you have any comments?
Oh, you bet I do.
This is so bitter sweet.
My husband and I, we moved here almost 24 years ago.
And we moved here from Los Angeles.
And we.
We didn't understand why there weren't any roller rinks anywhere near by.
I didn't even know about the runner park.
One.
We thought that the former Montgomery Ward building that is now a target.
We thought that would be perfect.
And then when safely closed, we're like, there's, there it is.
Let's do this and we looked into actually what it would take.
And we just didn't have the funds.
We couldn't deal with the liability issues.
It was a dream that never happened.
We wanted the downstairs to be a roller rink.
And then to have a plexiglass upper level.
That would be.
For another, like it would, I'm sorry, in ice skating rink on the bottom floor and then a plexiglass roller skating rink on the upper floor.
With lots of other fun activities for kids.
We don't even have children.
We just didn't understand why this, these things weren't available here.
So cut to.
We brought our roller blades here.
My husband still roller blades.
You might see him with dogs pulling him from time to time.
I've tried rollerblading and quad skating at Kennedy Park.
And not a river trail around my neighborhood.
Oxbow commons.
Sadly two years ago.
I decided that I was too old for it.
So I gave away my roller blades and my roller skates.
I had already sold my skateboard many years ago.
And now we're getting my dream.
So I am thrilled.
I will support it.
But it's better sweet.
Thank you.
You buck.
I said this before when you came forward with the Mitting Golf project.
But any creative way to utilize the space during the interim.
I think it's great.
I applaud you for continuing to look for opportunities to utilize it.
Well, the other application is pending and I support the project.
Thank you.
Can I get somebody who wants to make the recommendation?
I move that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution.
Approving a use permit and designer be permit allowing the construction.
An operation of a new approximately 6,400 square foot roller skating rink.
And determined that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from sequel.
Second.
All those in favor?
Hi.
Motion passes.
Congratulations.
All right.
Administrative reports.
Administrative report items include reports and recommendations from city staff that do not require a public hearing prior to action by the Commission.
The Commission may take action if the agenda description provides for it.
Only the Planning Commission may authorize public input for these items.
And seeing that this is a very big item that involves our community that the city has been working on for many years.
We will take some public comment after the applicant and the Commission has deliberated.
Tonight we have item 8A zoning ordinance update study session.
We will now hear the report from Lisa Wise consulting and staff.
Thank you very much chair.
Thank you commissioners.
We are happy to be back here in beautiful Napa.
We were here as you may recall last year for a couple of city sessions.
So this is our third study session here before you today.
So happy to be back.
I will say commissioner shot well.
Please bear with me because this presentation is similar to the one that you heard.
A couple nights ago there's a little more detail in this one for the for the Planning Commissioners.
To the computer.
Is it this computer.
Excuse this for one moment please.
Okay.
We're back.
Thank you.
So of course you all know city city staff, but just for the public to point out who the key players are on on this project.
I'm right right or daily playing managers also the project manager for this project.
I'm over the last couple years we have worked with closely with Mike Walker and Mike Allen as well.
On the Lisa Wise consulting side we have Katherine Slump.
who's in the audience here, who's the director and project manager for this project. My name is
Stephanie Rikiki. And then we also have Cal Courts here today next to Katherine. She is our residential
objective design standards expert. So she will be providing support as needed there. Tonight we're
going to go through a little bit of the background of the project, what we've been up to these last
couple years and in the year since we last spoke, then we'll talk about what's actually in the public
review draft zoning ordinance and the math and some key changes there and then talk about next steps.
In terms of objectives for this project, it should be the same as what you saw last time
about a year ago. The thrust of this of course is implementing the general plan and the housing
element, the ICO, in terms of zoning ordinances being implemented through this to the various
mixed use zones that the city had already developed. We will be talking about the residential
objective design standards today as well as other modernization, legal consistency and
not only the zoning ordinance for the code but the map as well. So in terms of past overview
this project kicked off about two years ago, July 2024. Since that time we've had the community feedback
survey that many people participated in that was early 2025. We did speak with stakeholders and various
city departments on their thoughts for potential improvements for the code. As I mentioned we had those two
steady sessions last last spring here with the Planning Commission. Our second workshop as you heard was
was Tuesday this this week and then we did talk to the residential objective design standards advisory group
in developing those design standards. So there's been a lot about reach for this project thus far
and then we are getting to the latter stages of the project but we are in the public review period now.
So prior to this meeting common themes that we've heard about and discussed with others have to do with
reducing parking requirements. An issue that came up through various means and media had to do with
stakeholders pointed out difficulties achieving maximum densities that are set forth in the general
plan and so we did look at various development standards and how to modify those to accommodate those
those densities set forth in the general plan. In fill was it was a big focus wanting to to avoid
sprawl so where are you know those strategic locations that can densify here in Napa. Well also wanted to protect
the small town feel. I'm running out toward dining as well in terms of uses we heard that
Napa needs more housing. Economic development and others were specifically interested in maker uses.
Also a theme that came up was looking at ways to regulate fossil fuel stations in a more stringent manner
and then balancing the needs of tourists and residences in residence. He's me. Another
comment that came up several times was that the design review process through the city could use a
little bit of extra attention and then what were ways to empower staff to make decisions at
the staff level as well when appropriate and then otherwise more general comments about making the code
more user friendly updating graphics there were some really old graphics in the code and then simplifying
and consolidating definitions. As I mentioned this project kicked off about two years ago
we have moved from identifying issues and opportunities to recommendations which is
over here last since that time over the last year we've been drafting the code so we have prepared the
administrative draft that we work with staff to make appropriate edits to now prepare the public review
draft zoning ordinance that's before you today and then yes now and I apologize that that we are here
actually should be one lower that was for the workshop but now we're in the public review and
getting close to adoption for this project so we are in the public review phase so we are looking for
forward to potential hearings over the next few months for adoption of this project.
In terms of deliverables that got us to where we are today with the public review draft zoning
ordinance was the two-part technical consistency memo it looked at the general plan state law,
federal law and compared the code to those for identifying inconsistencies and inconsistencies but also
we had a portion of the memo had to do with residential objective design standards as well and the
findings you can see there we found that yes several of the zones needed work there opportunities for
new zones things to align the zones with the general plan we heard about the city's design guidelines
that were subjective right and then that there was some work to be done in regard to uses and and permitting
also another deliverable that informed this zoning ordinance was the development standard testing
approach memo so we looked at various residential zones the development standards within them and again
excuse me and then also looked at average parcel sizes residential parcel sizes within the city
to see whether these maximum densities of the general plan puts forth could be attained and we found
that there did need to be a little bit of tweaking to the development standard so things such as high
light coverage and setbacks were proposed to be or are proposed to be modified to allow for
for those maximum densities to be reached consistent with the general plan so that was a lot of the
background that led up to where we are today in terms of the this is the table of contents for the code
the structure now is organized into parts and I think we talked about this last year we're making our
recommendations but this is to try to promote user-friendlyness we find this works well for codes so we have five
parts 17 ABCDE that there's the general part that has introductory language for the code part B is definitions and we did
break up definitions into various categories it's not just a running list of definitions but again trying to
promote that user-friendlyness and intuitiveness of the code so we do break the definitions up into uses terms
measurements and sign terms as well the meat of the code really starts in part 17C which are those
zoning district regulations similar to what you have today in terms of organization where the zoning
districts are grouped so we'll talk about that but then part 17D these are city-wide standards are not
zones specific standards but standards that apply throughout the whole city and then admin procedures
is all the all the permitting and legislative actions within the code just getting a little more
fine grain in terms of this the structure and the the numbering syntax of the code
again we introduced parts as organizing principle but then instead of increments of two for the chapter we
included increments of 10 this allows more space within the code for future amendments so you don't get
other situations where you have to go chapter 1725-06 you know kind of the thing we wanted to
allow more room there for amendments and otherwise it's very similar to what you have now so you can
see at the bottom of the table that the comparisons but the sections are so increments of 10 we swapped
in a room in numeral for an error-bake numeral there just to differentiate a little bit more
so that had to do more with structure in terms of the overall approach we were trying to
hit all the objectives I mentioned on the prior slide right implementing the general plan
legal consistency as well as incorporating best practices and being responsive to all the all the
feedback that we've received to this point otherwise just wanting to modernize the code
and and streamline things as as possible or where it made sense so getting into a little bit more
of the the meat of the code here part 17c zone just at regulations as you can see we have the zones grouped
by by zone type this these this table on on the next slide show what the various land use
designations are or land use categories are in the general plan and what the relationship is
of those land use categories to both existing zones and and proposed zoning districts as well
and and the second column is some of these are like a kind of a best fit right what's the closest
existing zone that would implement the land use designation but we did find room for for modifications
of course so what I guess a notable zone there is the multi-family residential medium that is a
a new zone implementing the medium density residential land use category otherwise we generally
tried to keep a one to one relationship between the implementing zone and the general plan land use
category that wasn't that wasn't possible I didn't make sense in all cases but that's kind of a general
general theme here for commercial we did keep both the local commercial and community
commercial zones that that general commercial land use category did have room and it we thought it
did make sense to keep two zones there otherwise we did look for opportunities for consolidation
such as the residential office and commercial office being consolidated into this new commercial
business park zone hospitality commercial was renamed or excuse me tourists commercial was
renamed hospitality commercial so that was relatively minor there otherwise in terms of the mixed
use zones again we part of this right was taking the in terms of any ordinance and incorporating it into
the comprehensive zoning ordinance so we pulled those ICO mixed use zones through here for industrial
zones the flex industrial zone is is new consistent with that general plan land use category
and then otherwise we did consolidate some of the public serving zones into one zone and then
other note where they changes the green belt land use category we did not see an implementing zone in
the current zoning ordinance and so have created the conservation open space zone for that as well
the downtown districts we didn't really touch the downtown districts those those carry forward
so getting a little bit more into the details of of what the zones are it's a gradation of course so
the single family residential very low these are larger lots with single family residences
similarly single family residential low is also lower density single family neighborhoods
traditional residential you start to get more missing mental housing so single family but
then also the various plexus court yard apartments those kinds of things and as the densities and
height continued increase we get to the multifamily residential medium zone which also has
suggests right the name multifamily housing in addition to single family and then multifamily residential
high gets up to four stories does allow commercial uses as well in terms of the
the actual commercial uses again we carried forward the local commercial and community
commercial zoning districts hospitality commercial as well continues to allow tourist oriented uses
and then around the hospital medical office was maintained and as I mentioned the new
consolidated commercial business parks zone was was included these are office-related uses but also
allow residential and I will say another change we did medical office also allows
health-related residential as well things like assisted living and nursing homes things like that
and then mixed use zones again carry those forward from the in terms of zoning ordinance the
tannery bend mixed use zone also does does carry forward here in terms of industrial that flex
industrial zone is new so that is more of the makers zone so smaller scale industrial producers but
also some some residential component there in the flex industrial zone otherwise the light industrial
and industrial park zoning districts carry forward and then as I mentioned we did consolidate zones into
the public zone parks and open space does carry forward as the agricultural resource but then this
conservation open space zone is is a new zone that implements that green belt land use category and then
in terms of the overlays the active frontage overlay which is from the in terms of zoning
ordinance does carry forward into the zoning ordinance here as well as all the other
overlays that exist in the municipal code today so that was zones in terms of land uses there are
some new land uses that we added we also consolidated land uses I know about a year ago we had talked
about food trucks right so that's the mobile food bending park use that was included otherwise several
types of housing called for by state law and housing element and then that makers use the artisan
in small scale manufacturing uses is a new use and then you can see we just have a few examples of where
we consolidated land uses as I'm sure you're familiar zoning codes have a tendency to get very long
and so anywhere we can be more succinct and
consolidate things we take that opportunity. So we did so with the land uses as well.
Here we have just additional new or updated definitions for various types of uses.
And then we did modify where certain types of commercial uses, excuse me that are allowed in
both the residential high district, as well as commercial uses such as small grocery stores in the
hospitality commercial district as well. And then regarding residential, I to
look to this a little bit beforehand, but we did add residential uses as allowed uses in the OEM district
if they're health or medical related and that's consistent with the underlying land use category.
And then the commercial zones, the general plan sees those more as as strictly commercial zones. And so we
removed residential use allowances there in in CL and CC local commercial and we need to
commercial. Last time we were here, we spent a good amount of time or our state sessions were
focused on the special uses that we wanted to talk about with you today as well.
So drive throughs. The purpose here was to look to find ways to add regulations on drive throughs to
promote alternative typologies. And there is that policy in the general plan that calls for the
discouraging of drive throughs in the city. So taking that into account, the planning commission
was interested in all kinds of regulations that we had talked about last time. And so we've included those
in the code. So some of the regulations have to do with the location and not wanting to have an overconcentration
of drive throughs. So you see that 500 foot separation distance, also location standard wanting to have
drive throughs more limited in terms of where they're allowed. So they need to be near on six
hundred within six hundred feet of an off ramp there. We also have standards for drive through windows where
those should be located. And then took, excuse me, to screening seriously as an important
measure to prevent headlight glare from drive throughs as well. In terms of food tracks, we understand that
the city did want to allow food trucks on private property, but also regulate, regulate them. And so
as proposed in the draft code, mobile food vendors can operate in the various zones. You see there with
a commercial use permit. We have standards requiring them to be parked on a paved surface.
And then we do have a minimum separation from existing restaurants that I believe we talked about
on last time we were here as something that was important to the community. Otherwise,
they do need to have their own access to a restroom and they have hours of operations set forth as well.
Another topic that we discussed at our our city sessions last time around had to do with
emphightsound and live entertainment. And so again, it's it's a balancing act here in terms of
promoting live entertainment, but also thinking about potential impacts on others in terms of
amplified sound. And so there is an addition to a noise ordinance and we did draw from the noise
element in terms of hours of operations, decibel levels, et cetera. So in addition to the more general
noise ordinance, we included standards for live entertainment uses. So cannot be within 125 feet of
a residence outside of 8 a.m. to 8 a.m. to 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekends, unless the planning commission
authorizes a use permit. So that's that's the standard that's applied to live entertainment there.
And then lastly, fossil fuel service stations. There was interest. We know there was the more
tournament that the city had on fossil fuel service stations. And there was interest in regulating these
more stringently as well. So similarly, drive throughs we do have the separation distance required for fossil
fuel stations. It's a thousand feet is what we proposed. And then otherwise have setbacks and curb cut distance
setbacks that you have to have landscaping standards and a screening wall when a button residential
I'm as well for fossil fuel service stations. And so that that was a lot that had to do with with uses
now we're getting into the city wide standards. So a lot of this has carried forward in terms of
additional site regulations, standards for environmental sensitive areas. We did we did make
moderate reductions to parking requirements, signs largely carried forward, but there are standards for
the specific uses that we talked about. And really the focus here is on the residential objective
design standards. So as as you've heard state law does not allow jurisdictions to
deny residential projects based on on subjective design standards. So previously the city had
all the various guidelines on the screen. And so we took those and turned the turn guidelines and when
we turned sheds into shells where it made sense. So I was working with city staff and the residential
ODS advisory group through several meetings. And we also did look at existing projects in the city
informulating the design standards. This is the table of contents for the residential objective design
standards. We have standards that apply an all residential cases to all residential projects. And then we
have standards that apply to single-family residences due places or to unit projects. And then
another section with standards for multi-family residential projects as well.
I'm in terms of the general standards. One of the themes that we wanted to address here was privacy.
And so we have standards for windows. We have if you're near your neighbor's side property line,
the window has to be set at a certain angle or be frosted glazing. Similarly, second stories that are near
the side property line. There are privacy fences that are required. And then we do have standards
for materials as well. For single-family and two-unit projects, and for multi-family
projects as well. But we wanted to be cognizant of the massing of buildings and how that could
impact surrounding properties. And so there are step-backs required in certain cases. So step-backs to the
upper story. And then in terms of visual interest, we wanted to promote visual interest and high-quality
design. There are various articulation features that are required when the building elevations
start to get longer. So we don't want long-blank kind of plain buildings. We want visual interest.
And so drawing from the guidelines, these are some of the standards that have been developed
requiring articulation as well. And then we want, and the standards, the design guidelines used
me called for garages to be clearly subordinate to the homes on properties. And so that is included in
the standards as well. Similarly, for multi-family projects, there are different
standards, but the considerations were similar in terms of massing step-backs are required when
near single-family residential or traditional residential zones for the beyond four stories. And then
again, wanting high-quality design and requiring articulation standards for multi-family
residences as well. So those are things like balconies, bay windows, projections, recesses, etc.
I'm to add more detail to buildings. And then roofs as well, if they start getting very long,
you to include articulation. And then lastly, parking similar to garages, again, should be clearly
subordinate to the building and so needs to be located in the rear or side of the property.
And then of course, private and common open spaces required. And structured parking needs,
some ground floor residential uses as well. So that's an overview of the objective design
standards and the issues and considerations you wanted to take into account as we're developing them.
And the last part of the zoning ordinance is the administration of procedures. Of course,
all the various permit types. And we've modified those. And I'm adding new ones as appropriate.
And the legislative actions are included here as well. So in this table, you can see the zoning
clearance. That was not necessarily a new approval type for the city, but we really
strengthened and added more detail to the zoning clearance in large bar because of the objective
design standards and the requirement that residential projects that comply with the ODS with the
objective design standards be processed in a streamlined manner. So we added quite a bit there to the zoning
clearance. Otherwise, there's an administrative design review that we've clearly called out to
distinguish from design review. So design review, as opposed to administrative design review,
would still go to a planning commission. Hotels would still go to a council.
For the use permits, we you had an administrative permit. We've broken that up into into various
permits. One of them being the administrative use permit as well as the conditional use permit.
These administrative permits, again, can be approved at the staff level.
And then also, as you can see on the screen, we added a temporary use permit as well.
I think right now the city goes to a use permit process, like we just saw for temporary uses.
We took a lot of the standards that the city already had. And for temporary use projects, those are
now subject to a temporary use permit, which is a little bit different from the conditional use permit
as proposed in the other review draft. We did also have additional things that an administrative
exception would apply to. So we'll talk about those. And then again, the legislative actions and decisions
are all codified there as well. So as I mentioned, the administrative permit was separated into various
types of permits. So the administrative use permit, of course, having to do with uses,
administrative exceptions with development standards and that temporary use permit. And we talked
about the streamline minister review process, especially for projects that comply with the residential
objective design standards. And then otherwise, clarify applicability and review thresholds.
So that's clear and removed overlap between the various permit types. And when they would apply,
so we won't really clear discrete thresholds for when various permits apply.
And now the text is starting to get small.
So we did clarify the, again, the administrative design review that that's a
director-level clarifying thresholds there. So smaller buildings, non-residential buildings,
between 500 to 5000 square feet, as proposed. Now those would be subject to an administrative
design review permit, whereas the design review permit now would apply to, as proposed,
would apply to non-residential structures, 5000 square feet or larger. So those are the thresholds
that that we've included here. And then otherwise there are other things that the administrative
design review can kind of prove, including reductions in setbacks for mixed use projects.
Otherwise, the design review, which would still go to planning commission,
that would apply to projects that don't comply with the residential objective design standards.
And then for the administrative exceptions, we did add many things, many situations that that could
apply to. So additional deviations at that administrative exception level versus having to get a
variance for things like limited deviations to parking requirements, setbacks, and the like there.
Okay, so we're getting close to the end. So other presentations I appreciate everyone
bearing with me. The map on the left is the city's current zoning map today. As you can see,
it's, you know, not the easiest thing to read. So the public review draft we've color coded everything
and includes the new zones, the modified zones. I mean, there are two maps. There's the
base zone map. It's color coded and we have a color coded. It's not shown on the screen, but a color
coded map for the overlays as well. So again, just basic modernization user friendly.
So, again, we are in the public review period, comments have been coming in, city staff has been sharing those with us.
Of course, we're looking forward to planning commissioner comments as well.
The public review period does close end of next week.
So, a Friday, July 24th.
Of course, as required by state law, we are working with our subconsultant on secret compliance
for the comprehensive zoning ordinance and zoning map.
But largely, drawing from the environment I reviewed that was done for the general plan.
And then, otherwise, in terms of next steps, we're looking for public hearings here over the next few months,
public hearings for adoption of this project.
The contact for this.
You can submit comments or questions at zoning.
Update at cityofnapa.org.
And then, for those that are interested in signing out for emails,
you can sign up for emails at the city website for this project as well.
And that is it.
I'm, you know, of course, obviously I'm here and my colleagues are here as well.
So, we're available to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
To staff have anything in addition, they want to report?
Yeah, maybe just a primer for that kind of expectations for the intent behind the zoning ordinance.
This is obviously the general plan and the monumental effort that it was in the community input and the decisions ultimately made by council.
That cast a pretty wide net.
The intent behind this adoption of a comprehensive zoning ordinance update is going to accomplish a lot of what the general plan asked for.
But it won't accomplish everything, right?
There will be some targeted efforts.
There's some county wide efforts.
Regional climate action and adaptation plan that will focus on more climate initiatives that then will look towards local adoption of that.
Local active transportation plan, which will fill in some of the holes related to transportation.
Among other programs including housing element programs that will take a little bit more of a focus review towards housing programs.
Also, the intent even with the new zone districts and appointed clarity because I know the conversation has come up in the supplemental comments.
The zone districts propose that they're new and they have a different name.
It's still the intention is to conform to that general plan designation.
So, if a property is designated for a specific use, then the intent under this is to conform to the designation.
That was approved with that general plan.
So, it may come by a different name.
But the intent with the development standards, the land use is generally art to conform to what that designation calls for.
So, the notable one is like, the green belt designation isn't going under a green belt zoning district.
It's going under a conservation open space zone district.
But the intent is to still conform to the green belt designation.
So, generally approach that with an open mind if you look is a lot of the decisions in the way that the draft was structured was to really feed into the general plan and not conflict with the general plan.
So, looking at the policies, looking at the standards, looking at the types of land uses feed into each individual designation.
That's kind of the intent of the why the land use table and the selective, the selective decision between the individual land uses, how the land uses were defined generally.
There's a lot of effort that went into that.
There's a lot of discussion back and forth even with one land use in one zone district that may have been a very long conversation.
So, that's just a good primer.
I do want to just thank the crowd here tonight in appreciative of everyone that attended the workshop on Tuesday.
Everyone that's been conveying comments and would continue to recommend conveyance of public comment at that email address listed on the PowerPoint.
So, zoning update at cityofnapa.org.
Other than that, just appreciate your time here today and open for any questions you have.
Thank you, writer and thank you for clarifying the green belt and open space.
All right, who wants to start?
Questions or comments for staff or the consulting team?
Commissioner Ibac?
I guess before we get started, what is most helpful in terms of providing questions and comments is it easier if we kind of chunk it out and say we're going to talk about residential design standards and address all of those comments at once.
Or what works best for staff and consulting team?
I don't have a preference. I'm happy to take them.
If you just have things at the front of your mind that you want to talk about, we can do that or we can structure it.
You know, in a more focused manner, either way is okay with would be.
I mean, I have a list. I just don't know if I should have a page number.
It's helpful to have the page number.
Maybe as you go and if we have comments on that topic, then we can add on to it.
Okay.
So starting off on page 57, the definition for sorry you have to give a 17 dot pages.
It's on the bottom of the bottom.
The bottom writer left of the page will tell you.
Page 17 B33.
The definition for two unit dwelling.
In all of the other definitions that rely on a California government code, they say such.
I imagine that this is pulling from the definition from SB 9, but it says as defined by state law and the structure.
Just for staff's purposes, it would be helpful to have the government code there for them in the future if they're asked.
Yes, that is SB 9, but we can make sure that's clear.
Okay, next I've got a few questions.
Oh, it's a signage.
Sorry, let me get to that section here.
I have a second turn with the call out of treating garage sales signs differently than other non-commercial message signs and how potentially that could.
Create a non-content neutral sign.
Regulation, not necessarily something that we need to dive into too much right now, but would encourage attorneys to weigh in on that piece.
The commercial definitions for the commercial content versus non-commercial are great.
Those look really good, but this one specifically.
Maybe a little nervous.
What section is that that you refer on?
That's in the sign code and that is on page 17 D48.
Thank you.
And I think you rightly point out that, you know, read versus Gilbert right, applies.
In this case, we did work with the city attorney on on the sign ordinance on our the conversations that we had is that was to not make substantial content edits to the sign ordinance.
So that's just a little bit of the background there, but I agree that read versus Gilbert is what apply in this case.
And I think like for political science, those are treated differently.
And I think that there's an argument that those are okay under like the strict scrutiny doctrine, but garage sales signs don't necessarily have that same level of importance in terms of speech.
So that's why I read that.
Thank you.
Okay, and then residential district development standards, page 17 C5.
The residential load density district has a higher minimum number of dwelling units per acre than the residential traditional.
So the three to eight DUA for residential low versus 2 to 12 for traditional residential.
Can you explain maybe the intent of, because in my mind, the residential low should be a lower density district.
I think it'd be great if most of them had a minimum of three dwelling units per acre density.
Yeah, and you're thinking.
Yeah, intuitively what you're saying definitely makes sense.
I think we can look at the general plan thresholds for those underlying land use categories, but generally that's what we're relying upon.
So I believe that's what it says in the general plan, but we'll confirm that.
I understand it.
It seems a little odd because it's not just a clean gradation the whole way through, right?
So we can look at that, but I believe that's how it's reflected in the general plan.
Yeah, I can confirm that. So it is two to 12 units per acre in traditional residential designation.
Happy to give clarity to the intent of whether general plan was that.
Great. Thank you.
Okay, and then I don't know if anyone else had anything on that section, but if not, I'm going to talk about the use regulation table.
Is that okay?
Sure.
That is on page 17C8.
This is just a comment, less of a question, I guess, but I think it would be nice now that we have the breakout between the grocery store small and large and seeing that there's pretty substantial portion of the city covered in the RSL district.
I'm sorry, the residential districts, I would recommend that we look at adding conditional uses for small grocery stores in residential traditional and then the RMM district.
And in order to support the general plan goals of walkability, complete communities and seeing that in most cases, these small grocery stores are really not going to have substantial negative impacts on adjacent residential uses.
We can certainly look at that. Yes.
And then I'd still more question on the community garden land use.
So it looks like that is listed, sorry, on page 17C11 and it's a lot as a conditional use only in the RMH.
I feel that the potential negative impacts on adjacent properties for community garden are very low.
So would recommend that that be a conditional use in all the residential districts.
Community gardens can be great if you have an empty site and you need temporary info before it's developed.
Great use and we're going to have that flexibility there I think.
One, one thing there and we'll look into seeing if we can strike the right balance but sometimes that the balancing act is also making sure that there's the preservation of meeting minimum density requirement.
Priority is still residential if it's the sake of meeting number numbers and so generally so that I will say that that was kind of the intent in a lot of the residential zones but something we can look into.
And I do have a question on that well get to in terms of replacement units later.
Just a comment on the setbacks on page 17C18 at the top.
I'm really excited to see those I think those are great in terms of promoting pedestrian friendly street standards and.
Keeping the garage is back from the sidewalk to a lot for parking.
And having the garage door set back again great standards.
I comment on the parking standards on page 70d 37.
So the.
Well backing up I was pleased to see that a lot of the parking requirements were decreased by this draft.
Great job everyone on that I do have a concern for single family dwellings and two unit dwellings.
The breakout for you know only we're having two units required for dwellings that are less than 900 square feet.
I'm sorry I'm sorry could you repeat the page number here.
Yes we got 17.
The 37.
Thank you.
So the differentiation between dwelling units that are less than 900 square feet or over 900 square feet the requirement for an additional.
Parking stall for those dwellings over 900 square feet.
Three dwelling units for one.
Like one one 1000 square foot single family home is high or then.
What I personally would like to see and be interested to hear what other commissioners think but.
I would love to see the two per unit standard applied across the board to all dwell units.
I'm sorry all.
Single family and two unit dwellings.
Yeah.
Sorry so for dwelling units that are less than 900 square feet and this applies.
Excuse me to single family and doplexes or have three bedrooms or fewer they're required to provide two parking stalls per unit.
But for those that jump up when you go from 900 under 900 square foot or three bedrooms or less to above 900 square foot and.
and greater, they're then required to provide three parking stalls for unit.
So, yeah, that threshold might want to be a little higher.
Yeah, I don't know that that's, that's where footage necessitates an additional parking
soul.
And your thought is to just have it be two spaces.
Excuse me, per unit across the board for single family dwellings and two unit dwellings.
That would be my recommendation.
But if this body wants to have a larger discussion about having a larger,
square footage threshold or something, I'm open to discussing that as well.
That's my two cents on that piece.
For the citywide design standards, page 17D 140, under consistency number two,
A, it says on quarter buildings materials must be consistent on both frontages facing the right of way.
So, I can never mind scratch that one.
I answered my own question.
She was on D 140.
Okay, she was on today.
Okay.
So on 17D 142 at the bottom under building articulation.
The language talks about the maximum width of a front elevation.
And then also talks about the street facing elevation.
There could be a scenario in which the structure takes up like a corner and they have multiple street facing elevations.
So I noticed that in a few areas where it refers to structures only having the option to have one street facing elevation.
I think it'd be helpful if the intent is to have articulation on all elevations of face a street to just add an SLP in there.
And then similarly in the residential design standards page 17D 145.
Under D building orientation and entry design.
I'm sorry.
What was that when I get 17D 145?
So under D building orientation and entry design.
Number one says that the primary building entrance must face the primary street.
I think that's a great standard, but primary street is not defined in the definitions.
So in order to ensure the intent of that regulation is met, you'd want to define that term.
And then the same page number two building entrances must have a roofed projection including but not limited to a porch.
And so on and so forth.
I would recommend talking to legal counsel about that as well typically for to be truly objective and airtight.
It's best not to have other options that are not stated.
There is the desire to allow a roofed projection that is not a porch and is something else.
I think in order to be for the roofed covers.
Yeah, to be truly objective.
I'd recommend spelling those out.
Or simply leaving it as porch if that was the intent.
But either way, not leaving any gray area there.
I will say that the including been not limited to you'll see that dozens of times or more throughout the code.
And some of that was a stylistic choice to allow for greater flexibility.
But I hear what you're saying in terms of giving kind of outlining this specific type types of projections that would conform.
And I realize it is a greater exercise but in listing all of those out but just in a scenario where you do get strong push back on those standards.
But yeah, I think that's always helpful.
I just want to write a little bit of clarity on that because in the objective just Catherine slum as director at least way as consulting.
Just a couple notes that as we're going through the objective design centered specifically.
In some cases, there's the objective standard, which is required.
And then there's examples of how to meet that objective standard.
So that is where it's not not objective because the objectivity lies within the five feet in the three square feet.
So how you meet that it doesn't matter.
So we almost could strike that, including when I'm not limited to a porch because it's almost an example.
While maintaining that objectivity is really just the numeric measurement.
That makes sense.
So yeah, if it's appearing too flexible or subjective, we could almost just strike the parentheses part because they're in lies the kind of the root of the standard is everything else.
Just to help with kind of the examples versus where the requirements kind of come in.
And maybe that's something I simple as calling out examples exactly or ways to meet the standard include exactly yes yes yes.
And then page 17d155.
In terms of screening and visibility standard for surface parking lots.
There is a section that says screen and visibility.
And it states that there's a minimum five foot landscaping buffer that must be provided along the parking area in the adjacent property.
And the adjacent property line does the city have a standard in terms of how.
Translucent or like how uppercentage in which the buffering or screening needs to cover the parking.
That may be written out somewhere else and I'm just not seeing it.
I have to double check I think in some other zone districts where there are standards that apply there are a little bit more prescriptive to what that screening is.
I can double check on that.
I don't maybe the intent there was to not be overly prescriptive but just you have a general landscape buffer but we can look into it.
There there are additional landscaping standards.
Within the city wide section on supplemental site regulations as well as.
Okay.
Detain.
Okay.
Awesome.
Thank you.
And then also 17d206.
So so those were all kind of working in concert with one another but yes we can look into specifics for that particular one.
And that's the page number thank you 17d10.
I'm looking at.
We're trying to look at sections and we're talking page number so yes thank you it's both let me know if you need more clarity on that one.
No that is that's very helpful.
Okay.
And then still under the design standard page 17d156.
Sections that talk about.
Direct and convenient access must be provided from residential areas to adjacent commercial and mixed use.
And then safe and convenient pedestrian connections again.
I think all every reasonable person knows what safe and direct and convenient mean.
Does it sound as objective as it could.
Yeah.
Just just for your consideration.
To again prevent staff from getting in a bind later and fighting about what safe or convenient really means.
Okay.
And then last one here.
On page 17d169.
The section regarding residential conversions.
So conversion or loss of residential uses two non residential uses.
So hoping to get some clarification here so under d where it says housing impact fees says the city shall impose housing impact fees.
That's it for all all conversions of residential uses to non residential uses.
In the case that.
A conversion was approved.
Would they for commercial use with a commercial use be required to pay the impact fees related to both the housing units that were lost as well as any additional impact fee.
I think if it was a land use that already would typically require impact fee.
We repeat the question because we were still finding the section.
Sorry.
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
So.
For the.
And where it says multifamily residential conversions.
Number D housing impact fees.
So it says that the city shall impose housing impact fees.
Um, pursuant to code that the stuff for all conversions of residential uses to non residential uses.
So with that require.
The commercial use to pay an impact fee that the typical impact fee that that would be assessed and then the additional impact fee to cover the loss of units.
Well, good question of the double the main.
But yes, so like for the new use generally that if there's a.
An impact fee more appropriate for that commercial use generally.
Yes, is there's nexus and proportionality to that new use.
Now your question is also if they'd be required to pay for the loss of the unit.
So in some case, like some jurisdictions will have a policy where if you lose X number of units because you're transferring to a different use, you can acquire a placement is so this is just stating that they would be required to pay an affordable housing impact fee.
It's not related to the number of lost units correct paid the affordable housing impact fee on the whatever the square footage value is assuming that's still the calculation for whatever the new use is and it's entirety.
Wouldn't the way I read this is they wouldn't receive credits so like if a commercial building adds on or tears down and then replaces they get credit for what was there before in this case there would be no credit.
But they would be paying solely based on the new use got it.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, that's all I've got. Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thank you commissioner a buck.
Do you want to go next commissioner on the sorrow?
Sure.
Where do I want to start?
So I did I did spend a lot of time with staff because I was actually concerned I wasn't going to make this meeting.
So we spent a little bit of time together, but I'll go over some of the highlights.
I'm sorry get your feedback from them and just for the record we do have all of your comments and we shared we've provided our books to them to date but we'll continue to do so.
Thank you.
To the right section.
One thing that I saw in your presentation.
You've shown a slide you talked about the parking.
Would be behind.
I think this we're looking at it as in multifamily behind or at the side.
And do you can you think you can go back in your little presentation?
Yes.
Are you a big presentation or whatever presentation that is.
For the record is there a page number.
There wasn't because it was up here and I know that there was a picture and I know there's a picture that matches it in here.
Yeah.
So maybe you guys can find that picture for me.
Are you talking about the one on the bottom right portion of the screen?
That one is a structure.
So yeah.
So it's as parking lots must be in the rear or side of the parcel.
Do you know where that?
Yeah.
One by four.
Thank you.
And the service parking lot.
is 17D 153, just a page before it.
Thanks.
There we go.
I do have that worked up again.
So when we're talking about the parking in the rear or the side,
there are instances where we've seen multifamily parking
where they have used the,
I would say,
some parking on the primary street
to use it as a buffer from that primary street.
So, for instance, if you go down
in the front of the street,
you can see the front of the street
or the front of the street.
And even as we think about,
we're developing saucechool and those types of things.
Do we really want to have residential units
on those streets,
sitting near traffic
so they're hearing noise?
And the reason I say that
is I just spent four nights camping
right next to I5
and it was really loud.
So I just know that when we have constant traffic
like we can on those streets,
I mean, not obviously 20 hours a day,
but we can.
They just,
I just wondering if we don't want to create
more of a buffer,
the possibility of having a buffer.
That's something that we can look at.
Yeah, I lived on a major thoroughfare
myself and the house was right up against the road.
I know what you're talking.
I knew when it was rush hour every day
because you could hear it very loudly.
Yeah, sorry.
I hear what you're saying there.
And I don't know.
And maybe some of my team knows
but a lot of this was drawn
from the design guidelines.
And then we repurposed them into standards.
And you know,
some standards could use a little more objectivity
as I can assure you about pointed out.
But this may be,
you know,
one of the,
this may have been from one of the design guidelines
document.
So we can look at that.
And not that we're wedded to what the guidelines
have been necessarily.
But that may be where this comes from.
Yeah.
But we can take a look.
We know that a lot of the communities
have been at time on those guidelines.
28 years.
So we'll go.
I think.
But they do need to be updated.
And.
And I'm appreciative that we're here doing this.
Before we get too far in that.
This won't answer your full question.
But it's important to note that the general plan
does define certain noise contours
specific street frontages.
It's also important to take this up further
until when diving into building code requirements.
They're maximum right noise thresholds for
interior interior levels.
So when we have enough evidence to conclude that a certain
street frontage.
On average generates a specific amount of noise,
even through the build out of the general plan.
There's enough evidence there to give direction to staff.
When analyzing noise to give direction to our building
division team in making sure that the actual facilities.
If it is residential, there's enough insulation there to where
if you're sitting on the interior of it.
There's not an impact to your general.
Enjoyment of your unit.
Right.
One thing.
So I'll just add to that as well is just context.
The objective design standards that we've prepared in the
draft zoning ordinance here.
If an applicant meets those,
then they qualify for that zoning clearance process
through county staff.
But if someone, if an application does
deviate from these things,
it's not that it's a no-go completely right.
It's able to go to planning commission or,
you know, require discretionary approval.
So.
I think that's great.
You said that because actually I was going to say that next.
We're on the same page.
Yeah, we are on the same page.
So.
So given that and knowing that what we want to do is.
Trying to provide.
Our developers out there with a good little road map where they can get.
They can.
Take the easiest path forward or they can design something amazing
and then bring it to planning commission.
Right.
Okay.
So.
On page.
Well, I would say in general.
So I'm starting with the chapter 17D 70,
which is a residential objective design standards.
That's where my focus is going to be.
Primarily.
That's where I spend a lot of my time on this first iteration of it.
Um.
In general.
I didn't see onings.
Farncutters or downspouts.
Really discussed in our.
In these objective design standards.
And I think that those are important.
If we're going to.
I mean, I know some in some many cases stormwater will dictate where those.
Downspouts and things are.
But we want to make sure that we're giving some design standards around.
What types of materials may be that we want to see.
Or.
Um.
Locations.
Potentially aware those things should be.
And that onings could be listed as an architectural feature.
So that was one of those.
I went over windows with the staff pretty well,
but I think we could use some better graphics on 17D 70 30
dash one.
Which is your window trim and recess.
It is on page D 17 D 138.
In our description and that we call for the sill that we don't really.
Call for aprons and we have aprons in the.
In the picture.
But I also think the pictures could be.
Simpler.
Then what you have here to to know what these types of windows could look like.
And then we know we're that with the.
Anyway.
So we'll make sure to get your.
Your comments.
Yeah.
Really through staff then.
I have some comments on that specific section as well.
Do you want to pick up and go on that before.
Go on that before I move on.
Yeah.
Okay.
Kind of close this window area.
Close the windows.
Um.
One thing I have is requiring the overhang of the header, the lintel.
And the apron.
So a lot of our historical homes and one that I'm working on right now.
There is not an apron.
There's definitely a sill.
And a lot of times it's a picture frame around that window.
So there's not an overhang.
So I just get a little.
I'm cautious about requiring that design element because sometimes it's.
It's specific to a certain architectural style.
The apron and then the overhang of the lintel on the on the jam trim.
Right.
Um.
And then I also think of the buildability.
So on C.
Double eye.
The minimum projection from wall surface of as a half inch.
Sometimes it's only a quarter inch based on the three quarter inch wall surface material.
Your nominal one inch framing trim whatever use for your trim.
And so again there.
It's like I like to have it sit proud of the wall surface.
Point two five is just a construction industry increment that you buy materials in.
So I would say a minimum of a quarter inch projection.
Um.
On C to on C to.
And.
This one doesn't talk about the recess.
Okay. So yeah.
That's what I had on.
That figure.
Great.
We're forgetting to standards.
On the CI.
You're talking about it.
Minimum height of the header is four inches.
But we never really buy a four inch board.
So it's kind of a.
You know, it's in.
I don't know.
It's kind of an interesting thing to put in there.
It's a little specific.
I guess maybe what I'm saying is it's a little specific.
If we're trying to.
Um.
I.
It's just it's just a little specific to specific.
Maybe.
I understand where they don't want to just frame.
You know.
Right.
Yeah.
Okay.
Um.
I think we had.
You merged to come on that moving very slowly.
But I'm.
We've we've we've we started to look at some of the comments that you provided staff.
So somebody's more specific ones.
We definitely appreciate.
We'll look into all of those.
But I.
I want to just.
I think this might continue to come up and we will answer every single question that you have.
The.
This is the.
The challenge that this is presented.
It's presented to the.
Community is across the state.
It's been definitely been a.
You know, presented a.
Interesting conversation that they can.
So team has had with stakeholders and staff and the commission and the advisory group.
Throughout this process of.
The necessity of being specific.
Otherwise, you can't regulate it.
And I think that's where we're happy to continue.
I think one of the things that you'll see is that some of these lists get very long.
Because we want to provide the objective flexibility.
So the more options that you give.
You can remain objective because you have them all listed.
And I think that goes to your comment earlier commissioner.
You're about like wanting to specifically list the things that are allowed.
Because the more that we can list.
The more you're allowed to say, yep, you're objective.
Yes, you met this.
So if it for inches that is not the right number.
That's of course completely movable.
But I think if we say.
If we don't have any height measurement then it's.
You know, you kind of lose your ability to to say yes or no.
So I just wanted to process that because I think further down we start to see some longer lists of examples and longer lists of things that are allowed.
Because the the kind of the flip side of not allowing a lot of different options is that you don't have any.
And then you really are opening yourself to maybe some unintended consequences of not being able to then.
Work with staff, which you've done so successfully.
I think that's the problem in a community that has has really great examples and really great structures.
And a really great development community is that you've worked so well together over the over the course of several years of producing great outcomes.
And knowingly so through a negotiated process so it's just wanting to kind of document those great outcomes in.
Objective standards.
So one of the things that just as I read through this objective design standard and then.
I've looked at other cities ejected design standards and I think that.
There are other cities who have really dialed it in and they've said here's an example of a craftsman here's an example of.
A modern architecture here's contemporary design.
And we're not doing that right this is not that so.
This document then we need to talk about some of the specific specifics that are in here because they're starting to lean into.
Architectural styles that we really don't want to define in the first place so that I think is the hard part of this document.
Because as I read through here I was like you know this section and I know you've seen my comments so the sections when we're talking about architectural elements it's like it's way too many.
Of different architectural styles so we're just kind of like saying hey.
We're not telling you to build this way but here's the style that goes with that sure.
So that's kind of how it and put a lot of my comments for me.
Absolutely.
No I understand that I just wanted to give a little bit of context of some of the nature of some of the lists.
Wanting to you know either add more but you know maybe the answer is more detail or you know to to further.
The fine what we want to see if that you know if I think if we're if we're maybe buff bordering the line of we're specific and not specific enough you know we can we can add more.
Absolutely.
Okay.
Thank you.
Really quick.
Commissioner Massara to close the loop on that minimum height is four inches because if they want to use wood it would be three and a half so would you be more comfortable with three and a half inches.
Oh I think we're not going to be okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
So then I'm just going to hit some of my other pieces here.
In the material section which is B section subsection B on page 17 d 139 we talk about pallets and what I would like to see.
In the roof pallet it says here it says roofs may not use glazed ceramic tiles or reflected metal materials and maybe we changed the wording on reflective medical metal materials because there's oftentimes we have cool roofs.
We have corrugated roofs we have standing sea metal that are in all intensive purposes reflected but they're not glaring so maybe we change that section to glaring if we're worried about.
Glare if that's why if that's why we don't have ceramic tiles I know glaze ceramic tiles so and just to clarify that one then.
Is is the intent of what you're talking about.
Being more stringent and not allowing these other types of metal roofs as well or is it.
No it's it by having that wording you're telling people they.
If you're designing with.
Stant in my opinion should be designing me standing sea metal roofs or cool roofs or anything like that anything that we reflect.
There's the note that we have.
From earlier was to remove, this is B1A correct page, which to just say reflective materials, regardless of what the material type was.
So take out the word metal.
Take out that's the note that I have to take out the word metal.
And see, same palette, I would add to that header material, metal and fiber cement.
And then indeed, when we call it a loud materials, it looks like we're talking about siding.
So I'd add that word to it.
And in the siding section I would add metal panel to be allowed.
And we talked a little bit about that metal panel.
I didn't know if we would want to 100% metal paneled house, but if we're designing some multifamily, for instance, which we've seen come in the past,
they've had metal panel coordinated to match, you know, farm housing, you know, those types of things.
So maybe looking at that in a way where we could have some metal allowed in the siding so that can go through rather than having it come through design review, so to speak.
So are you proposing to, like, because what we've done in the past is like a certain percentage or anything, we have that for the stecco, right?
Right.
Are you open to that kind of approach then?
Yes.
Yeah.
I would also be sensitive that it works great in Louisiana.
So I guess none of the city of Nevada really is.
Well, I'm somewhere.
Yeah, because the siding around is great.
I would love to just make a comment about corrugated metal.
The house next door to us, my husband and I, we, they put a metal roof on their out building and we have the tank house and my office is on that second level.
And it was absolutely blinding.
And people, we have corrugated metal fencing that we painted and it looks rusted and it's beautiful.
Lisa, you've, you've seen it.
I feel that there, I have, I'm very hesitant to go for, you know, the corrugated metal on buildings because it is very reflective and it's blinding.
It's eats things up.
It's not really, doesn't seem, um, energy efficient to me.
That's just my comment.
I'm not a designer by trade.
That's okay.
I think declaring, if we keep that word wording in our materials, then that's important.
There's a lot of different ways that metal can be treated so that it is actually cool and reflecting the heat more so and not bothering people, but anyway, that's just a design thing.
Let's see.
My question is on figure 17d7040-1.
It's on page d142.
17d142.
It's his upper story front step, and I, I just kind of had a question about why we chose those architectural styles to be used if we're cleaning up graphics.
When we want to use this generic, you know, as possible of looking things since we don't want to be specific that we, I don't know, just, it is a suggestion.
That sounds good.
Yeah, I'm not sure if we have anything to add on on that one.
No, just a minor comment.
Yeah, we can, we can look at the graphics.
Is there something, I guess my question, is there something specific that you're not liking about them?
I think one of the reasons we do add detail is because a, a massing diagram, like a massing model that's really just blank 3d with no design gives it gives a poor impression.
So we do want to add a little bit of detail.
So to make the look like the standards would actually make a better product rather than, you know, just a 3d3 box.
Other other styles that you think would be more appropriate to use that could give us, give our team a little bit more guidance.
I think about that one.
I just, I just feel like these are poor examples of what I'd want to see built.
And, um, and I know that there's simple graphics and I know that that's, you know, kind of what you want to want to show in the massing and all of that.
I do that, but yeah, just could be, I think it could be better.
Thank you.
Um, getting into page 17d143.
And this may be carry over from the last residential design guidelines, but I just feel like, um, should we be talking about.
Should we be using the word must include on these items a through d.
And having us talk about chimneys.
Do you guys have any other questions, any other comments about that?
I agree with the talk of chimneys since they are so.
Yeah.
So maybe figuring out a different design guidelines we should be putting in there.
I think the intent, um, as Katherine had alluded to before, is to outline those options.
But is that one that maybe should be, should be removed?
Yes, correct.
I would remember that.
I don't think we need to have.
I love it.
So a chimney can be.
Maybe outside of a build out the side of a wall.
Maybe one point of clarity.
I mean, there are, there are times within certain zone districts.
Well, one corner lots.
This would generally be applicable.
So it gives options that.
So it's also the traditional building form where chimneys were prominent of, like, giving options for people.
To resemble more traditional building form where they may have that.
But also, in instances, I think, where you increase maybe the number of units.
And it's not an ADU generally aware.
You could have to focus on both the addition and the existing context of the structure.
So I.
I think we'receptive of, receptive of the feedback, but maybe that's perspective.
But, um, I don't think.
Okay.
But if they wanted to have a chimney, they would just go through a design review process, right?
Or we're just saying that a chimney can be one of the articulations.
That's what all we're saying, right?
Okay.
Well, I don't know.
I don't know that I ever want to.
Yeah.
Hi.
I'm Cal Courts.
I lead us as it would be.
Oh, thank you.
Just to address some of that.
Um, just.
Um, so completely okay with, um, removing chimneys if that's not inappropriate standard.
Um, really the goal of the overall list of standards here is to break up, of course,
um, a wall that exceeds 35 feet and width.
So I just wanted to ask if there are any other design elements that you think would be more appropriate.
Um, so if we removed chimney as an option, there would only be three.
And really we like to provide a whole number of options that we feel are appropriate for the city of Napa.
So if you have any other suggestions, that would be very helpful.
Maybe it's a recess.
I don't, you know, just.
What about, I mean, I love like belly bands and in between like a stem wall and underneath window trim and things that that literally run the length of the wall.
Um, I think they're, they're, they are very craftsmen or farmhouse fish.
But, um, that is something that I like to see.
So belly band is an option.
I think to break up some of the maybe the vertical monotony and I think it is a standard in one of the sections as an option.
I think this generally would be to break up the large expanse of wall horizontally.
Um, but I do think that the belly band is a standard and option for that.
Yes, for the upper story elevation, actually that the next number right after number two, it's an option.
It's called horizontal band, but.
Commissioner Missara, I also have on here my notes from you.
That you had suggested that windows that necessarily have to be patruding and picture windows would be an option there as well.
Yeah.
I'm looking at other window types rather than just.
It is to pay window.
Pretty petruding window.
Right.
Thank you.
Um.
I don't want to take up all the time because I know my.
No, it's have been communicated.
So, um, but I do want to just hit on.
And I think I talked a little bit about this in the beginning when I started talking on the next page where we had 17 D 144.
Yeah.
Five articular art architectural articulations for stucco buildings.
And then it's repeated in here for other buildings with these, with these same.
A through F's.
Descriptions where we have Iron window grill.
Julia balcony.
Decorative tile arch window.
Classical and tablature.
Cornous arch door, etc.
That's what I was referring to as.
Being very specific.
Architectural styles.
But we're not telling.
We're not giving architectural styles as a full definition.
So, it's either it's kind of like either take that away or.
Go deeper.
It's sort of how I feel.
So, as you're concerned, you don't like this list or you'd like to add additional options to this list.
Um, I guess what what I'm trying to say is maybe I don't.
I don't like the list because.
It.
If we're trying.
If we're trying not to dictate style.
But we're but now we're dictating style.
Sure.
I think that is just where I'm at.
What do you think?
What do you guys think up here?
What am I?
Commissioner's think.
I think some input and it because I think context is important.
Like generally.
Staff had received the draft.
Um.
Limiting the amount of stucco was generally the theme.
And then.
Staff had conveyed comments that will well.
There's a traditional style that utilized primary primarily stucco.
So, how is there an option to.
Give that option to people, but also still break up.
What could be large expanses of wall that provides stucco.
So I think the initial take of that is.
To give certain relief options that are generally typical for.
Maybe architectural styles that utilize stucco.
So it's not to dictate it, but I think it's generally to.
So it's not to acknowledge where there are certain architectural styles within the community to give options to.
Still receptive of feedback if they're alternative.
Ways to to give more relief to.
To stucco.
Yeah, I agree.
That just gives some perspective of.
Of.
Why I think this section is out on.
The section does also say must provide a minimum of one.
And like commissioner masaro says said.
You know stucco is now used more often because of its fire resistivity.
So it's and there's modern homes that have none of those on the home.
It's not you know not Spanish at all.
So I agree they don't have to have one of those.
Maybe the wording is.
Something how you discuss the relief or breaking up the massing.
But I don't think it's it has to have one of those ABCD.
And maybe that's the the request is to maybe identify more options to that.
It's generally do want to acknowledge where the commission has.
Provided feedback in past projects where it has just been a stucco box.
So it's trying to strike the right balance.
Sure.
Okay, so then maybe we should think about adding.
Something to this list that meets the.
Design standard of a.
Contemporary or modern because the only.
Must in here if you already do a modern would be a Julia balcony.
And why that may just work fine because I think it works fine on the.
That modern.
Looking apartment complex on first tree.
Maybe that's it. Maybe that's fine.
But maybe add an onion in here.
Because that would break up the.
Menate of a stucco something.
That's very helpful. Thank you.
And then same thing repeated on page 17D150. It's the same architecture articulation for
stack of buildings having to do with multi-family. So, just the same note.
There was one note I had in here and I don't know if you can find it for me easier over there, Molly.
It was the one having to do with dormers.
So, yeah, you were on that page 144.
Yes, I have looking at options that would allow for the placement of solar panels.
Yes, yes. I love a long, big beautiful roof plane.
Yes, not just dormers, but look at options for incentivizing or allowing for solar panels.
I do have that. It's on page 17D144.
If I could just ask, so we've certainly had discussions about dormers, about the solar access.
So, if you could just clarify, do you think it would be best to remove the standard that requires dormers when a roof plane exceeds 40 feet?
Yes, that's what I would recommend.
And I think that was it with my specifics and questions.
Did you, right? Because I have all of your notes, everything is kind of running together.
I should have cut it a little bit better.
But, so I do anything we spoke about when you came to meet with us.
And I think they will make sure the consultants get.
We had the opportunity to look through your comments.
There might be other questions that we have.
So, hopefully, we were able to ask staff to get any clarity.
But, one thing does come to mind.
I believe, and if it wasn't your comment, Commissioner, I apologize.
A question about roof fencing. Do you recall that?
Oh, yeah.
Could you provide a little more clarity about what you're looking for there? Is it screening of roof fencing?
Or is it the regulation of venting methods?
Well, I think it was the, well, it had more to do with is there.
As we're planning to, as we're getting into providing more and more solar on our commercial buildings and then our multifamily buildings and our residential buildings.
There's an advantage to grouping your venting in a location that would then keep it away from where the solar panels would normally be.
And it's a little bit more expensive to do it that way.
But, it gives whoever the homework is, the opportunity to have the most space available.
Typically, when you build construction, you're where your bathroom is, your roof fencing comes out right from the bathroom.
And then your bathroom might, you might have three bathrooms. And so you have three different bathrooms, and then you have the washing machine vent.
You got the water heater vent and kitchen, kitchen, and all those things. Yeah.
So that was it. But I don't know that that would be feasible.
I have a quick question because you are so knowledgeable about energy, like clean building, healthy buildings, all of it, very, very impressive.
When will solar panels be smaller and less intrusive and why aren't there more building roof materials that are that have the solar capacity embedded in them?
Why are there not more building materials that can, that can do the job of solar panels, so that you don't see solar panels, it's embedded in the building materials.
It's a longer conversation, but it has to do with building code and testing and getting your, and getting the items tested to be approved in the standards.
That's a bigger question.
If I may ask chair Owen, since we do have public in the audience tonight, and we are starting to lose members of the public, ask whether the chair might consider allowing the public to comment.
And then coming back to the audience.
How many comment cards am I doing?
I received six.
Okay. Before we open public comment, could I have an opportunity to actually, because my, my comments are very, very concise.
Okay.
Because I met with staff and I covered everything and only have a couple of items.
Sure.
Is that okay?
I just want to say that I've been very impressed with.
When I signed up for to receive the email correspondence and getting the updates, it has been so incredibly helpful, so thank you.
And I also wanted to say that I appreciate the reduced parking standards to help increase density.
I thought that I believe that this updated draft, even though we're still working on it and I will have will submit more thoughts through the, either through staff or through that amazing vehicle that we have with the portal.
But the updated draft I just wanted to compliment you guys because it is much more user friendly than the previous draft the zoning map is so much easier to navigate.
The course wants to throughout this project with those emails and updates have been really helpful, especially the executive summary.
If you just have time to read the executive summary, you learn so much right.
I just wanted to mention that I had a question and this is something that you can just think of how to staff me be able to get back to me on it two things number one.
Artificial turf is mentioned in two areas and I did meet with staff and I explained this, but I just thought it's worth repeating here.
17D 11, we have a required landscape area visible from the public right of way, it must not utilize non vegetative ground.
And then we have a net it's also mentioned back here and then on page 17D 157 and open space design.
We have where you're designing an open space that artificial turf is prohibited.
This just made me explore extraordinarily happy because I feel that it would be great if we could somehow ban artificial turf unless it's perhaps many golf courses or perhaps an area of a playground or.
Something of that sort I know other cities have done it and I just had a question for the consultant team have you worked with any cities that have banned artificial turf.
And Catherine maybe Catherine can wait and in my experience it's it's all over the gamut right coming so we've we've had.
We've had clients that kind of want the opposite and and right now they're starting to allow artificial turf I know there are always water you know concerns and things like that.
I don't recall it the client that's ban turf but maybe you will do.
I would just add that this actually came up in a meeting I was in today with our parks and recreation director and as we're looking at harvest.
You know sometimes there is a benefit in terms from the sport field perspective from artificial turf and so I think that that's a conversation that's going to be coming up as part of the harvest.
Projects discussion and you know what what and she also said that the technology is changing a little bit so I'm not going to get it right but some sort of off gassing that that comes from it.
Many of the products are changing however the downside being artificial turf isn't last as long so you.
So many problems with it but I won't get into that that's my water loop and then the last thing.
I just have this other question that I couldn't really and perhaps I've read 90% of this I just have a few more pages to go back on but.
Is there a way to put more restrictions on.
Extending entitlements or that the extensions of entitlements is there is there anything in a zoning code that we can restrict.
Like.
The extensions of permits and entitlements that have already been approved.
I would I would recommend as you just saw we did that for the first time you this commission included a recommendation that goes to council next week on that in the zoning.
I think each project is going to be a little bit different and actually one of the.
One of the points in a grand jury report that was written about the planning division was suggesting that we look at that so I would I would maybe pull that one out separately from from this but look at maybe a citywide policy and administrative regulation.
I think he's that he was it thank you and I would I would actually say to commissioner on since you're the only one that hasn't gone it's probably makes sense for you to go now and and sorry to the public if you can hang on with us for just a few more minutes.
I looked through mine they're very designed specific so I can just email to you and you can communicate them.
Okay up to you I just wanted to give you that option just said that you don't like to more so.
Okay.
All right.
Do you want to sort of public on we can go to public comment.
So I received seven I don't know if everyone is still here but I can just call them up in no particular order Linda Brown Chris Benz.
Maryland at night men's in Bruce.
Bruce Bosch.
Joseph Keibler and Carlotta Sinato and Bayard Fox.
And Catherine Kelly in my register to clarify will stick with the typical three minutes. Thank you.
Before I'm going to read.
Before my three minutes start I just want to say that Carol, barge and Bruce barge I think of left.
Okay.
So they were on your list but I don't see them now.
Thank you.
First of all, commissioner shot well.
Thank you for your comments on artificial turf.
I couldn't be in more agreement.
It's not sustainable.
It breaks down into microplastic pollution no matter what they say.
It disturbs the agroecology which kills off soil and also disturbs the microbiome in the organic material that sequester's carbon.
And it heats up greatly and it's a completely inappropriate for athletic fields where in a time when the world is heating up when we're having super heat days.
The last thing we need are athletic fields that are even hotter than they would be if they were grass.
Now here are my prepared comments.
Remember seeing Claire gas stations.
Maybe you don't.
But if you do, you'll remember that they had a dinosaur that was their big emblem.
And that's how we should be looking at gas stations right now.
They're dinosaurs.
They perpetuate fossil fuel dependency culture that is in parallel to our climate and our lives.
Not to mention future generations.
This is not Jurassic Park.
We do not want to encourage gas stations.
I have so much to say about it.
I know others will be commenting on it.
But I will say a few words.
Our general plan and our RCAP as well as our sister cities throughout the county have established permanent bands on new and expanded fossil fuel pumps.
And the RCAP envisions facing down our gas dependency over time.
We need alternative transportation.
That's where our efforts should go.
We do not need new gas stations.
Please modify the draft zoning language to be in sync with these intentions.
Now to say a word about drive throughs.
These are primarily all about convenience.
When I grew up, we didn't have drive throughs.
It was not something anyone ever felt we needed to do.
We could get out of the car and go walk into wherever.
It's not about community benefit.
It's all about convenience.
And as we've learned the hard way from fast food, fast fashion.
Convenience is bad for our health.
It is well-established at vehicle idling emissions or dangerous to breathe hurting nearby residents, especially in simultaneously contributing to climate change.
Our kids in Napa already have asthma rates that are higher than the California average.
And there are numerous pulmonary and other diseases associated with the emissions of idling vehicles.
Our traffic circles thankfully reduce these emissions at high density intersections but we need to do a lot more.
Just take a look on Jefferson Avenue at Dutch Brothers or at McDonald's or at In and Out Burger.
The lines are obscene.
We have to do something that's not about convenience.
So I urge you to change the language in the zoning ordinance to phase it out.
Thank you.
Good evening.
Maryland Night Mendelssohn, Napa resident, member of Napa climate now.
I'm also going to speak to the issue.
Of new and existing gas stations. The draft zoning regulations that permit new and expended fossil fuel gas stations do not seem to align with key parts of the 2040 general plan.
Getting principal number 7 states to achieve a healthy and safe community for all.
The public health and equity element addresses how this is to be achieved. It contains two goals that are relevant to the gas station issue.
First one, goal P-H-E-1 states incorporate a health in all policies framework to send a health considerations in policies, programs and practices that affect all aspects of the civic decision-making process.
That's the first one. The second one, goal P-H-E-3 states promote clean air and water, healthy natural environment and pollution-free neighborhoods to reduce disparate health impacts resulting from environmental pollutants in vulnerable communities.
The public health and equity element of the general plan contains a map of pollution sources, including what are referred to as permitted water discharges.
And include the Brownfield sites at former gas stations. The general plan describes this pollution as follows. Ground water threats happen when hazardous chemicals are stored in containers on land or in underground storage tanks.
Leaks from tanks that can contaminate soil and groundwater. Common soil and groundwater pollutants include gasoline and diesel fuels at gas stations.
Do you believe that permitting new gas stations will promote clean air and water and natural healthy environment and pollution-free neighborhoods?
No. Abband on new and expanded fossil fuels stations aligns the zoning regulations with the goals and guiding principles of the city's general plan.
We ask you to direct staff to amend the draft regulations to include a ban. Thank you.
Good evening. My name is Byard Fox. I am ten gently involved in the agricultural industry, which is very much impacted by the climate crisis today.
So let me also allow me to thank you for your service to the community. I'm well aware of considerable reading and workload involved in your responsibilities.
Your job is to implement land use policies specifically applied by parameters of the general plan. The general plan has clear sustainability objectives as well as climate pollutant targets related to CO2 and other gases.
I've not seen convenience as a priority in the general plan.
Vehicle miles traveled are our largest single climate pollutant and as such all aspects related to VMT must be addressed in all aspects of land use.
Public review provided strong direction on a permanent moratorium of drive throughs as well as fossil fuel stations.
Your direction to staff and the consulting group behind me are critical to implementing the overall lens of our climate initiatives.
The current suggested verbiage appears vague and equivocates on the importance of the climate agenda and general plan especially in regards to drive throughs and gas stations.
Other napavalley towns have a permanent moratorium on gas stations and we should follow that precedent likewise.
Drive throughs should be completely abolished idling accounts for 5% of our vehicle emissions.
Why are we continuing to contribute with that? Thank you.
Hi, Carlota Sinato program manager with the Napa County Bicycle Coalition.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide and put on the draft zoning ordinance update.
We submitted a written letter earlier in the public comment period with our detailed comments but I wanted to come and highlights some of our main points for the planning commission.
First we want to thank the city and the consultant for exceeding state requirements for location of non-residential bike parking requiring that the bike parking be within 50 feet of a building entrance.
This is a standard that's set by the association of pedestrian and bicycle professionals and recognized by the league of American bicyclists bicycle friendly communities program.
However, it's our understanding that the draft non-residential bike parking code is otherwise not in compliance with the mandatory 2025 Calgreen codes.
We outline the Calgreen codes regarding non-residential short term and long term bike parking in our written letter.
I know one of our team members has brought this up earlier and began this conversation so we hope to see that this is corrected prior to adoption.
Assuming that the codes are updated this way we ask that Napa's local ordinance also requires that short term bike parking be compliant with the association for pedestrian and bicycle professional guidelines around bike rack styles and placement.
As well as include language around accommodating cargo and child carrier bikes and coverage by building security cameras.
Doing so will help ensure that bike parking is secure useful and makes efficient use of space as well as help the city of Napa in maintaining and advancing its status as a bicycle friendly community.
Additionally, in our written letter we outlined recommendations for a May include section for residential bike parking requirements to supplement the Calgreen requirements.
As AB 130 has placed a moratorium on the adoption of new or more restrictive residential building standards.
I put the state and local levels for the next five years.
The only way these features can be included in Napa zoning code is as May include recommendations.
Including these recommendations will encourage builders to consider features that will support city of Napa's mode shift goals and that may not otherwise occur to builders who are unfamiliar with bike parking specific best practices.
Having safe and secure bike parking is one of the first things that people consider when they are weighing the decision to invest in things like e-bikes or e-cargo bikes that can really help shift that mode.
So having really strong bike parking guidelines is essential to helping people get out of their cars and get on bikes.
We are happy to answer any questions or provide further insight on our request with the team and thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Good evening commissioners, Jim Wilson, city of Napa resident.
Member Napa climate now and grandfather.
I'm reading from a letter to the editor from our mayor.
Scott Sajli published February 16th, 2022 protect our local watershed.
In it, he says, quote,
We need to find short and long-term solutions to housing, transportation and climate change.
Climate change is brought us many uncertainties.
And we'll require monumental change to the way we conduct business and quote.
This is an inspiration to me and many of the folks that I work with.
I teach climate responsibility in the schools.
I teach this letter to the community by our mayor.
I'm looking at a letter written in May of 2022 by planner Paul Aniel.
And he's writing it to a gas station applicant on sosco Avenue.
It's about a pre-application.
It's in his preliminary review summary.
This application has some problems.
But Mr. Neil took pains to say the following and this makes my heart race.
Since the use permit requires approval by the Planning Commission.
An applicant should consider the previous meeting and discussions of the commission and their opinions on drive through uses and other uses.
That are thought to increase greenhouse gas emissions.
If the project is appealed, it will be reviewed by the city council who are even more critical of greenhouse gas generating uses.
The council recently adopted a resolution declaring a climate emergency last month, April 5, 2022.
And granted an appeal denying a drive through facility on November 22, 2021.
A more TORM on new gas stations is also likely to be approved by the city council in the near future.
Similar to the more TORM's past by the city of Petaluma and other Sonoma County cities.
And quote.
Thank you, Paul.
That more TORM went into effect in April of the following year and expired a year later in 2024.
Ultimately, the resolution Paul referred to led to the general plan, which was updated later in the year.
And I want to quote from the goal CCS1 further.
The city's sustainability initiative is to reduce the community's greenhouse gas emissions and foster green development patterns, including buildings, sites and landscapes.
And the first policy around climate change is from the resolution, implement immediate and sustained actions and support of achieving that zero climate pollutants from public and private operations within the city by 2030.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Sophie Wassif and I'm a recent graduate of justancy in a high school in coming freshman at MIT and co-president of the student led environmental advocacy organization, NAPA Schools for Climate Action.
Today, I speak behalf on behalf of my team to urge you to take the climate emergency seriously and uphold your commitment to addressing climate pollution in our beautiful valley.
It has come to our attention that the city of NAPA's moratorium on new fossil fuel stations has expired and a recently published zoning public review draft indicates that construction of new gas stations is indeed permitted.
This represents a big step back for NAPA, a city that has committed to prioritizing urgent climate action to lay the groundwork for a safe future for its inhabitants.
Gas stations not only contribute to environmental harm through greenhouse gas emissions and the transportation sector, the sites themselves pose risks to human health.
To specify, gas stations release volatile organic compounds into the surrounding air, which are associated with respiratory issues as well as increased cancer risk.
Below grounds leaks contaminate nearby soil and water sources.
Once their time is over, gas stations become brownfields that are costly to remediate.
I urge you to question whether continuing to build infrastructure that poses a threat to human and environmental health is what is right for our community.
As a city whose livelihood relies on the stable climate, we have to understand that building a sustainable NAPA means prohibiting additional outdated and harmful fossil fuel infrastructure and immediately shifting efforts to expand clean energy and its accessibility.
As the neighboring Yantville, St. Helena, American Canyon and Calistoga have all worked to create permanent bands on new and expanded gas stations consistent with their climate emergency resolutions and 2030 net zero greenhouse gas emission commitments.
We hope the city of NAPA will do the same.
During the May 15th and November 6th planning commission meetings last year, we made similar formal requests for action, as I'm sure you might remember.
We understand taking these actions are neither simple nor easy. They require continuous attention, collaboration and leadership centered on climate forward values.
At the same time, we see them as necessary to ensure a safe and livable future.
Thank you very much for your time and attention.
Thank you and congrats on MIT.
So, he's also a winner of the NAPA Schools for Climate Action Scholarship this year.
I don't mind waiting because it has to make the comments because it was fascinating to see you all.
We use your expertise and go deep into the woods on these regulations. Thank you for that. I was very appreciative of all your comments.
I also wanted to say thank you to writer and the staff and the consultants for the public workshop on Tuesday night. That was very informative and it was great to see commissioner shot well there.
Learn from staff that this graph does not contain a ban on new and expanded fossil fuel stations because staff did not receive formal direction from the planning commission.
The city council has given clear direction when they established a more atrium on new stations, pending the update of the zoning regulations.
The city council members and our vios and painter who served on the Napa County Climate Action Committee were clear when they approved the regional climate action and adaptation plan, which list a ban on the development of new fossil fuel pumps as one of its near-term actions.
If you think as we do that Napa is adequately served by the 21 gas stations we have now, including 32 pumps at Costco, then we ask you to please give clear direction to the staff to have the zoning regulations include a ban on new and expanded fossil fuel stations as has been done by the other jurisdictions in the county.
Thank you. Thanks Chris.
Hi my name is Katherine Kelly. I'm a newcomer to this because we recently purchased a piece of property in the industrial park.
I have some concerns about it. For one, the map isn't right, so I'd like the map to be updated for the industrial park, the map that showed the things.
So it's not right. There's river sound way goes through it now and it's not it's not indicated on that, so maybe that could be updated.
Napa Valley Commons is a name of that industrial park and Napa Valley Commons.
I think, I think, but I'm not sure about this, that there is a commercial hospitality or commercial tourism zoning designation on top of the industrial park.
So you might want to look at that because I don't think the industrial park CC and ours allow it.
So I think on the map that I saw, but I can't really tell because I'm not really sure of the colors.
But I think on the map that I saw the industrial park A has been painted like orange colored and that's actually supposed to be industrial park colored so that was another thing.
And one of my concerns about that is that a lot of the industrial park uses got eliminated or proposed to be eliminated that were acceptable before.
And I think this might be an issue because if we're trying, I know that most of the focus of this is on residential and design and things like that, but my dog and the fight is industrial park because that's where I have these property.
So I'm interested in trying to find out if those industrial uses that were there before in the industrial park could remain there and why they were taken out.
So I don't know why the uses that were allowed before were taken out.
A lot of them seem to have been grouped into flex industrial and I'm not really sure, but I think from my experience whenever you sit in industrial use next to residential or mix with the residential you're going to get a lot of complaints.
Because somebody who's a little glass blower and has a little glass blowing furnace or has a kiln or something like that is trying to be an artisan and they got their little.
Thousands degree kilns sitting in their backyard in the neighborhood doesn't like it because they're trying to live there.
I think that's a possible mix that might cause problems down the road.
The industrial park doesn't have any added residential uses in this draft that I see.
I would say that maybe some of those smaller arson things should be included in the industrial park, which doesn't have that kind of issue.
Another thing that consider I'm pushing my pushing my agenda here, but another thing to consider is that a lot of the uses that were.
Now that this proposed draft allows in the industrial park our uses.
That this draft this allows our uses that are allowed in the county.
So what's happening is you're taking stuff that the county can the county will take the businesses.
The county will take those business uses.
Okay.
You can finish your sentence.
The county will take the business uses and that's revenue for the city because the county allows those uses right outside.
You know where airport the airport business park is.
They will allow those uses and this draft this allows them within the city.
So I think that that might be a conflict there. So I kind of like.
Those perhaps consider a review of what's the wording.
Perhaps the review of the draft uses land uses in the industrial park.
Thank you.
Is that all of the public comments for tonight?
I just want to make sure it be Joseph Keibler and Bruce Spock.
Writer shall I get a motion to close public comments since we did have a public comment.
Yeah.
It's safe to.
Okay. Okay. Get a motion to close public comment.
Motion to close public comment.
Second. All in favor.
I. Thank you.
Well, that was very interesting.
Great to hear from you guys.
I didn't realize we are the reason that gas stations are still in there.
I won't be able to sleep tonight.
Honestly.
I'm fine.
Not being the reason that they are in there.
I.
Sir, let's talk about fossil fuel stations for a second.
Public comment was actually excellent in that.
And I.
And I feel a little remiss to about missing the fact that when we talked about the last time.
We didn't really make a clarification in that.
So I would.
Be very happy to.
Include a moratorium on new fossil fuel stations and new expanded stations.
Or expanded stations.
And put that moratorium back.
It's a moratorium back.
It's a moratorium is temporary.
Right.
That's okay.
That's important to us tonight.
Abolish.
Yeah.
So a ban.
That's what I mean.
I mean.
Let's. Let's ban it.
That would be.
The.
But we can say the planning commission would recommend that.
Along that line.
I.
At the last meeting.
We talked about this.
I'm in strong support of similarly banning drive through.
Where are thoughts on that?
Yeah.
Replay.
Yeah.
You have to replace.
Or do we not.
We discuss that.
There are some drive throughs like pharmacies have drive.
Remember we.
It goes.
You have to really consider.
What drive throughs we would want to ban.
To clarify the code does break them out.
So it does have retail drive through.
I would be speaking specifically about the restaurant category of drive through.
So like a pharmacy.
Or something of that nature would still be okay.
Right.
Just talking about the restaurant use.
So restaurants coffee shops.
Look at the Dutch bros.
Yeah.
Everything that falls under that.
It's service.
It's in batch.
Whatever.
Yeah.
Food and beverage.
Okay.
I mean, I think that's part of the problem with Americans.
People just don't want to get out of their car wash.
Okay.
Let's talk about that for a second.
So yeah.
Anything that we talk about stackable.
Car stacking.
Right.
I think we.
I remember back.
And.
So we were talking about.
How do we avoid the car stacking or the emissions.
And I think we have.
I do think we have enough.
Car washes in town.
Already.
And what's going to stand is that if a car wash is there.
It's used as there.
Then it's permanent until they stop operating for.
What a year.
Is that what we said earlier.
Right.
He said that earlier.
But I didn't know if it applies to everything.
If if a business stops operating.
If a car wash stops operating.
For a year.
There's no new owner thing coming there and buy it.
You're in a half later and started.
So it technically depends.
And Dan should still be online.
But technically depends on how that.
That that use was authorized.
Okay.
Use permits generally if they vest those rights.
There's usually a formal action needed to revoke it.
So there's there's the section for legal non-conforming uses otherwise.
And if they act upon those rights not granted under use permit, but like generally allowed.
That.
Absence of that.
And if the zone district does not allow for that use to continue.
They cannot continue it unless through like a non-conforming use permit.
Okay.
So.
So there's nuance to that.
There's not a straight answer.
Unfortunately.
Because there are the vested rights.
And technically it's like like the use permit example is.
You need a formal action to revoke it unless.
It was prescriptive of a certain sunset date.
Okay.
So but basically what we're talking about right now is not allowing any new.
Drives through.
So is the direction to not allow new to not.
I'd like to hear from the other commissioners.
Expansion.
I would say new and more expansion of existing.
Yeah.
New A and expansion.
Exactly.
That's what was also provided to us from the MIT student.
New experience.
Yeah.
I mean, we are happy to take that direction.
And I think the most straightforward to do that would be to just prohibit it in the districts.
And which case rather than allowing it with any sort of conditions.
That that would open up as writers noting the.
The applicability and the duration of that use permit.
And perpetuity but if it's simply not allowed.
It would be allowed any any existing use it would offer under its existing use permit.
It would operate under its existing allowances until at one point it becomes obsolete.
And then business were to close.
In which case commissioner it would then fall under.
The non conforming provisions at which point yes after a certain period of time.
You've you've known not you've lost your ability to be illegal non conforming use and you wouldn't be able to resume that up.
You know temporary temporary short term you know ceases of operation.
You can usually continue and pick those back up but after a certain period of time.
They would be gone.
So and that would be any existing and then the expansion of those would also fall under that prohibition.
Because if it's a prohibited use you can't enlarge your non conforming use.
So you don't even you would be able to remain more silent on that because if it's not allowed you can expand and use a silent.
Could they could the business owner or building owner who let's say has the.
Current drives through and they aren't expanding the footprint but they need to remodel it they can still do that correct.
We we we we would need to look at your non conforming and maybe writer and really could speak to that.
But typically there's some ongoing maintenance that's allowed so you don't fall into complete disrepair during that operation of that non conforming.
Usually it's the argument of expansion of or intensification of that use of generally a remodel in itself that does not expand that area is not that.
And if they're continuing that use effectively you can come in for remodel it won't.
But argument of like intensification is generally tied to the the floor area or the usable area so and some other uses it could also be outdoor area if it's like active.
But the maintenance you should be able to maintain the exterior make minor facade and you know improvements that don't expand the those graphics.
I guess an example that is where there have been other tenants that have come in generally that extends to like signage as well.
But looking at the the current configuration of the site most of the time in the way it's been applied generally is that that configuration remains the same even if inefficient.
You know that's interesting because.
The reason I met my husband was in 2010 or around that time period maybe it was yeah 2010 McDonald's was up for improving their facility on Jefferson Street to what we have now and they had the most ridiculous.
Stacking for cars at that place and so I think it's kind of funny that.
One of the reasons I got together with Bob was over a drive through.
You would be very proud.
Can I just clarify the ban on new and expansion we said food service we said car wash I think we want to carve out for pharmacy.
I'm just thinking like we have a drive through dry cleaner and take other services so I just.
Or we look services are okay or just pharmacies are okay and everything else I just and who knows what else someone will try to make into a drive through and day so.
What other land use is specifically have in the use chart.
A section for.
So there are three types of drive through currently.
Currently proposed in the code.
So it's retail with drive through facility.
So that's.
Pharmacy relatively broad yeah so so that would include pharmacies as as currently as proposed to be defined.
Then there's.
Restorant with Drive3, which is the fast food, and then bank or credit union with Drive3. So right now, as proposed, there are the three types of retail restaurant and bank or credit union.
So my interpretation of that, then would be that, like, a personal service drive through would currently going forward, be able to go along to work and use, right? Unless we'd just say fair food.
Well, like, as it's even written now that personal services are not permitted to have drive throughs under this new version, what's the definition of retail?
Yes, so the definition of retail with the drive through facility is on page 17B34, and it's a general retail use with the motor vehicle drive through, which is designed and are used to provide purchase items including prescriptions.
But I think the question here is, right, if drive cleaners would fall under retail or if that's under service, in which case that might be.
I don't, I don't think under the broad definition of retail, it includes those personal services, like a drive cleaner.
In my mind, it would already be not comfortable.
It would be not for me, but it's correct for you if I'm, it's different, but I will pay with not allowing new drive through drive clears.
I agree completely.
I was thinking about driving, I would, I would love to ban future drive cleaners.
But that's because again, I think that they're toxic.
The other thing that I just, that just occurred to me when we're thinking about this is that now with so many,
so many stores and whether they're retail establishments, cafes, what have you.
You have the option to order online and then have the curbside pick up and people literally come to your car.
So I think because we're replacing drive throughs with that type of convenience and it's human interaction.
Someone's literally greeting you.
If you can't get out of your car, if you've got four kids, you know, just got finished with soccer, you still can stay in the car and get your groceries and things of that sort.
So I think that that hopefully this will help encourage people to just, you know,
socialize more too because drive through you're just like waiting and you're dealing with an inner calm and there's not a lot of human reaction.
I agree. I actually, I think one of the public speakers used this term, mode shift goals.
And I think that's really where we're moving towards this where, you know, I think about my mom is 83 and she now orders her groceries and she drives and she parks in one of the stalls and the person comes out and they'll even deliver her pharmacy to her.
And then there's also delivery service too. So I think we're just shifting the way that we use retail now in actually much more much better more sustainable way.
Yes, and it's more one stop shopping as well. So you can pick up your food and your medicine and a t-shirt or pajamas at the same time.
And I would note to the commission that from similar conversations that we had with the commission previously the code does include some provisions for encouraging those types of pickup spaces to think about how parking has shifted because there are more of those types of uses.
The parking part of the draft code does talk about those reserved and dedicated spaces for just online order pickup because of your direction previously something he for that.
Do you need anything else from us on this topic?
Can we clarify fossil fuel stations if that's also within the commission's recommendation or maybe you're moving there right or I think we maybe close the book on the drive through.
Yes, I had heard that you wanted a ban for new or expanded facilities generally so that that would assume the same provisions apply and so for the existing fossil fuel stations generally that equipment has a limited lifespan.
So you have to see every so often tanks being replaced.
And then generally the safety limit of the valves and then the pumps generally.
Well, I think that I think that right, I think that applies actually for both uses right so for fossil fuel you want to make sure that you are able to keep those fossil fuel that we do have who do want to stay in business and as I go through
I'm not expanding their tank but they got to fix it right or maybe and I think at some point they may have to expand their tank.
So in generally the the size of the tank.
Not that it doesn't matter as much as the number of.
So generally the way it's been enforced is the number of existing pumps okay and if it's being replaced.
Matching the same number okay okay and then the types of fuel.
Sometimes the equipment does drastically change.
Most of the time it's in in in a very efficient footprint.
But I'm not that expert on fossil fuel stations generally and the equipment used.
So there's wiggle room there and the equipment itself may fluctuate in size if.
It needs to be replaced but generally the way it's enforces number of pumps.
So how would we deal just trying to future think.
How would we deal with this type of thing if.
Pumps decreased and electrical.
Charging increased and that caused an expansion of the fossil fuel station.
Well not fossil fuel.
That's a good deal.
Generally EVs are different topic.
Right.
Type maybe a topic for another point in time and obviously there are considerations.
Industry wide of like hydrogen and.
Yeah so that's what I mean is like what how.
Did we then look at this zoning again in the future when that happens?
You can replace like I think it's a fossil fuel.
Tank pumps the packs number of pumps so if you remove.
If you have 10 fossil fuel pumps and you remove to replace them with electric.
You can never put those to back is what I'm hearing.
That's what I meant.
But you can replace them with something different.
Like bio diesel.
You could add five.
Yes.
Yeah.
Okay.
So we're specifically talking about fossil fuel.
Okay.
Perfect.
My gallon in the back.
Yeah.
Okay.
I think yeah.
No new.
Car washes.
Okay.
Does any commissioners have any other further comments?
I do have one more comment.
Sorry.
The hospitality commercial land use.
Did the name change for that on the map?
Yes.
So I went from tourist commercial to hospitality commercial.
Thank you.
Which actually matches the designation.
I believe.
Yeah.
The only question I have.
Oh, did you have anything else commissioner?
Well, the public comments from this evening.
Because it was in the workshop.
I got to ask the question.
I recognize the address 90% of them.
And if people left them, I know that you would follow up.
So how will you respond to the members of the public who spoke tonight, who are no longer here?
How will they know that their comments were taken into account and addressed?
Yes.
So I'll refer to staff on that one.
So is the question about a comment that wasn't conveyed?
Well, industrial flecks versus.
But first is, we'll look into that.
And then that week, you'll get back to that week.
Topics that are conveyed will, so if they're emailing the zoning update at city
of Napa.org or otherwise conveying information to a body, and sometimes it's been planning
community city council.
Staff has generally been responding also to those individuals that have reached out, but
generally for the workshop, for comments received through the email, through the comments
received here tonight.
We're creating a log of comments received.
Now we'll, in future efforts, outline each individual comment, probably not, but we'll
probably combine and you'll do, I get it.
Yeah, dividing conquer a little bit.
Yes, that's what I was going to say.
Awesome.
Okay.
Thank you.
I'm going to go to the next slide of things to our next deliverable as any rota.
So similar to the list that staff's putting together of comments received from various
members of the public.
We'll take by any commissions direction here tonight and identify edits future edits to the draft in any rota
sheet.
So it'll be a separate document.
It won't be a revised code.
That'll come before you next time for public hearings.
It'll be in a rota document that clearly identifies proposed edits to the code.
As a next step.
Okay.
Commissioner Missara, did you have anything else to add?
No.
Well, a big thank you to staff and the consultants at Lisa Wise.
This was quite the undertaking in the last two years in a big heavy lift.
So we thank you for all of your hard work.
And thanks to staff for printing these for us.
It will hold something down at my house in the future.
I'm not sure what yet.
But and thank you for being open and transparent with the public throughout this process.
It has been a very thoughtful and transparent process to work with you guys.
Also, thank you.
No formal action is required.
So that is that.
I guess we we end with any other comments for competitors or staff after the last three hours.
None.
We do have an associate planner starting on Monday.
So the way the the forecast is tracking we won't have a planning commission hearing.
And maybe that's maybe that's a relief to some or you're looking forward to a planning commission hearing beginning of August.
So we're tracking for the second hearing in August.
So we'll look to introduce you to her as she comes on board.
So excited about that again appreciative of of the public for tonight and through the process appreciative of each and every one of the staff members that is contributed to that document.
It's taken a lot of time.
All the planners have had input multiple divisions department of that input multiple meetings with the consultants.
Just to reiterate public comment period ends on the 24th.
Not to say that that is the ending of public comment generally because we will have hearings hearings generally.
But it does put certain significance into the comments conveyed of the public draft gives staff and our consultant direction to where that that dropped is generally headed.
So appreciative of the time and attention there.
Thank you.
All right and with that the next regularly scheduled meeting of the planning commission of the city of Napa is on August 20th, 2026 meeting is adjourned.