Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

ready. Of course. All right. It is 6:31. I call this regular planning commission meeting to order. It's 6:31. Let's stand for the pledgece to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you Nicole. Roll call please. Yes. Um, youth commissioner Ramadep Joanda is absent. Um, Commissioner Marilyn Abalon, present. Commissioner Eric Alman, present. Commissioner Shelby Goss, present. Vice Chair Charles Plamer, present. Chair Dvet Muhammad, present. There are no presentations. We'll move on to public comment. Okay. Um, so we have for non-aggendaized items, we have Ivonne Beanski. Okay, can I let me read my little Sorry, Ivonne. Just give us one second, please. So, public comment this time is reserved for members of the public to address the planning commission on items of interest that are not on the agenda and are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the planning commission. It is recommended that speakers limit their comments to three minutes each and it is requested that no comments be made during this period on items on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to address the planning commission on items on the agenda should comment via email prior to the start of the meeting or to verbally comment on the item during the meeting. Click the raise your hand button if joining by computer or press star9 if joining by phone when the item

is called. The planning commission is prohibited by law from taking any action on matters discussed that are not on the agenda and no adverse conclusions should be drawn if the planning commission does not respond to public comment at this time. Speakers are asked to please speak clearly and provide their name. Any handouts for distribution to the planning commission must be emailed by 3M on meeting day. Thank you. Thank you. Um great good evening. Good evening, commissioners. Um, my name is Ivonne Beginsky and I'm a resident of Napa County. I'm also the conservation director for the Napa Solano Autobon Society. I'm also a member of the Sierra Club and I'm also the founder of the Napa County Wildlife Habitat Conservation Coalition. I'm here today to talk to you about the possibility of putting together a presentation tailored for the planning commission on the impact of development on uh on the uh conservation and the areas around American Canyon. Um we had been getting together as groups for several months and one of the things we talk about is how do we educate the people who are in the positions of power in making policy? How do they understand what we're trying to do? Because I come to the meetings, I have three minutes and I can say a lot of things about eagles or sightings, but really there needs to be a comprehensive conversation between the groups. So, I offer you the opportunity to invite us for a presentation and we would be happy to put something together specifically for the planning commission. Thank you. Thank you, Ivonne. Okay. Um, we have John Pla.

Good evening everybody. Uh I'm John Pitlack. I'm a representative of the Northern California Carpenters Union. Like to speak a little bit about the importance of area standard wages and benefits uh and why they matter for both workers and uh businesses. Fair wages are essential for economic stability and worker satisfaction. When wages are in line with area standards, employees are more likely to stay with their employers, leading to lower turnover and increased productivity. It also helps ensure that workers are compensated fairly for their skills and economic necessities of their location. Wages aren't the only uh component for fair compensation. Benefits matter, too. Health insurance, retirement plans, and vacation are just as important to ensuring an employees well-being. Just as with wages, benefits should be competitive and meet area standards to uh support workers in both their personal and professional lives. By maintaining area standards and wages and benefits, we promote uh income equality. It creates a more equitable uh environment for all employees, ensuring that everyone is treated fairly. In conclusion, area standard wages and benefits aren't just numbers. They're a reflection of fairness and respect to workers. By ensuring compensation is aligned uh with area standards, we can create more a balanced and thriving economy for both employees and businesses. Thanks. Thank you, John. Okay, there's nobody else in the room and we have no one else on Zoom. So, I'll go ahead and close public comment. Director Cooper, are there any agenda changes? Oh, thank you. There are no agenda changes tonight. Moving on to the consent calendar.

I will make a motion. There we go. Turn the microphone on. Helps. I will make a motion that we adopt the consent calendar. Do I have a second? I'll second that motion. Nicole, roll call, please. Yes. Um, just bear with me for one second. Um, Commissioner Marilyn Abalon. I, Commissioner Eric Alman, I. Commissioner Shelby Goss, I. Comm. Uh, Vice Chair Charles Plamer. I chair Devet Muhammad I. Moving on to public hearings. We'll start with the Crawford Way multifamily project design permit. Are there any disclosures? Good. Okay. Oh, hold on. Let's see. There we um There we go. Sorry. All right. Good evening, uh, Chair Muhammad and, uh, members of the planning commission and members of the public.

Uh, William Heave with the planning division. Very happy to be here today to give a presentation on the Crawford, uh, multif family project. Uh this is a one of the larger projects. So I've broken it up to a couple of sections and I have the agenda today. We'll start with the project info and then we'll take a look at the architecture, the parking access, uh landscaping amenities, inclusionary housing, um development waiverss, their sight specific issues, and then public outreach and staff's recommendation for the project. So this project is before you today um uh because we it is a housing project and it's subject to the California housing crisis act. Um the applicant has requested to continue this meeting into April which uh conflicts with the housing project uh housing crisis act. Um the one of the main concerns uh we have is that the crisis act um says that a city or a uh public agency cannot uh conduct more than five public hearings on a housing project and even continued hearings count as a public hearing. Um because this is the third public hearing, we really want to bring this project before you guys and uh give an explanation of what this project entails. Um there are uh including this one, there are two remaining and I think I just got a uh update from uh city attorney Ross that the the appeal might not count as one of the five, but we still don't want to be backed against the wall with public hearings. So that's why we're going to take this and then we um let you guys make a decision on this

project. Um so let's start with the location and give you uh some bearings of where this project is. Uh it is at the southwest corner of Crawford and Highway 29. The site is approximately 4.3 acres. It is directly uh uh to the north we have Canyon Plaza. Uh to the northwest we have the Cam American Canyon Library. We have some residential homes on the west side. And then the open door church is directly to the south and then to the east is highway 29. The site has two access points. The main entry will be on Crawford and then we have an emergency vehicle access which acronym is EVA that uh that leads to the highway but that's only for uh fire trucks and emergency access vehicles. Um the site consists of approximately 16 residential buildings and then we have one um community building on the center south area. So here's the project information. Um the project consists of 100 three-story u home dwelling units. 68 of those units will be two-bedroom. 32 units of those will be threebedroom. Uh 16 buildings, one recreation building, and a children's playground near the recreation building. 216 uh vehicle parking spaces and eight um bicycle parking spaces. The project uh is subject um requests a density bonus and uh several waiverss of development standards uh which they can uh request per state wall and it's uh it's them invoking their rights there. Um the

architecture is modern industrial and then the project includes um furniture improvements on both the Crawford side and Highway 29. I want to share some photos of the site. Right now it is vacant. Um this is from the northeast corner looking south southwest. This is on Crawford Way. And I took these photos about two weeks ago. Uh this is another vantage point from uh the northwest corner facing west. and and then the the bottom is the one that's on Crawford uh facing south. For architecture, the site um uh consists of the kind of like a modern farmhouse, very similar to the Canyon Plaza buildings. There are three stories and um they have garages on the very first floor. Um the the applicant has has uh thoughtfully placed the front of the units facing Crawford and Highway 29. So they have like their nice side facing the streets and then the the more uh uh the rears are all facing inside of the the site. Here's a um kind of like a photo simulation of how those buildings look. Uh they have um balconies on the second floor, patios on the first floor and a variety of of materials uh for their um for the architecture itself. Uh I want to share the um threebedroom type uh floor plan. So each unit has three stories and so the first story is a twocar garage. The second story has the kitchen, family, and dining uh room as well as the the

balcony for the second story. And then the third floor has the three bedrooms and uh two baths. Uh and it's a combined living square footage is 1632 ft. And then the two-bedroom type is very similar. um the garage on the on the bottom floor, uh kitchen, dining and family room on the second floor with a balcony and then two bedrooms in the um on the third floor on top and those are,12 square ft. Parking and access. The site has 216 parking spaces. Of the 216, 200 of those parking spaces are garages. So each of the 100 units will have a twocar covered garage and then there's the 16 uncovered guest spaces uh very which are uh placed near the uh community center. eight eight bicycle parking spaces per the the zoning code. And um and the uh the uh total number of parking spaces uh is a little bit under our uh required uh number and but I'll get to that when I talk about the waiverss later on. Uh for landscaping and amenities, the site uh consists of um three POS that they have between some of the buildings. Um they have the uh the rec center that's about 2400 square feet on the south. And then they have a playground that's near the rec center. And then about um about one acre is it 0.95. So it's about one acre of landscaping around the site itself.

Along uh highway 29 they're using crepe myrtle trees as well as uh red buds. And then along um the Crawford side they're using uh ginko palopa trees. So um I want to talk a little bit about the inclusionary and affordable housing. This has been a question that uh some folks have asked um through our e comments and um the the the project before you today is looking at the design the design permit which defines the site site plan architecture and parking. Um and this the applicant can decide whether to go uh make these uh dwelling units for rent as apartments or condominiums uh if they choose to. Um if they do proceed with apartments then they will have to provide 15% of the units or 15 units as affordable and under that affordable uh units uh five units will be very low five units will be low income and then five units will be moderate. uh if they choose to do uh condominiums then 10% of the units have to be affordable and um the uh if they go that route they have to complete a condominium subdivision map which they have to bring back to the planning commission and city council later. Um so there's some flexibility what we uh added as a condition of approval to the design permit is that they have to make that choice prior to the first building permit. So they will come back later on. And now we get to some of the waiverss. Uh because this project is a housing project that includes affordable housing. Um the applicant has request um has invoked these uh development

standards uh waivers. So, state law grants the applicant the right to um uh to zoning development standard waiverss as long as they comply with health and safety laws and these all do. So, the first one is density bonus. Um the the site is in a local serving mixed use zone and the density the maximum density allowed is 20 dwelling units per acre and 20 dwelling units with a 4.3 acre site equals to approximately 86 units. They needed more density for this project to uh to proceed. Uh this is something that they have uh explained to staff even in the beginning of their project. So, they're using a density bonus to increase the density to 24 dwelling units per acre, which would make it 105 units max. Um, they're choosing to do 100 instead of 105. Um, with the density bonus law, uh the uh uh developers can provide a less uh less parking than required uh in compared to the the city's municipal code. So if they go by the city's code, they uh for the 100 units, they're required 225 parking spaces and they're providing 216. So there's a difference of nine um that they're not providing, but according to state law, the minimum is a is a big difference. The they state law allows them to go um 1.5 um parking spaces per unit. And so the minimum for according to the state law is 150 units. So they've exceeded the state law minimum by a lot. But they're they haven't met the the city uh the city's um municipal code, but you know, state

law trumps the city for that uh that aspect. Um the third uh waiver is a height increase. So according to the Broadway specific plan um buildings within the setback facing a a road um uh the first 30 ft is required to be less than 24 feet. So this um this diagram kind of shows how the project is on Crawford and this orange line is where the um the 30 ft would be. So they have like I don't know maybe like 10 units that are right on that line and they can't they can't make their buildings like shorter just there. So that's why they're they're requesting like all their buildings, even the ones within that 30 foot setback to be 38 feet tall, which is consistent with all of their their buildings. And then um three more waiverss. Um the garage size minimum for uh according to the municipal code is uh uh 10 by 20 per per um uh covered space and a 7 foot6 tall ceiling. And so if it's a twocar garage, it's 20 by 20. The applicant is requesting their their garages to be a little bit smaller, 18 by 20. Um, and then the the ceiling for some parts of the of the garage is to be as low as 6'3. And that's just because they have some overhead stairways on the garage. So the entire stairway is not the the

entire garage is not uh the same height. Um what if the besides the stairway portion the garage is actually 9 foot tall. So um the next waiver is the um building to building setbacks. Um the the applicant has uh requested the building setbacks between two of the faces uh to be 25 ft whereas the Broadway specific plan requires 35 ft between those. Um and the last one that they have requested is the uh the balconies. So the balconies, this is a Broadway district um uh standard is minimum depth is six feet and the minimum size is 50 square feet. And so the they can accommodate um the size where their balconies are actually 84 square feet but the depth they can only do 4 foot and six inches about. So about one and a half ft um shorter than what's required. However, even with the shorter distance, this is um this is okay from a a safety uh point of view. Um next we have site specific issues. Seven specific issues to this site. uh Broadway district traffic impact fees, overhead utilities, noise and acoustics and uh uh fire and trash collection is also and also the earthquake zone. So this this project is uh located in the Broadway district. Um the Broadway district consists of 292 acres. I'm sure most of you have seen this map

before. um was approved in uh July of 2019 and with the approval um the the site um the the environmental impact report approved 840,000 square foot of commercial uh spaces and 1,200 units. One of the things that they included in the study was the breakdown of where those units will be. And of the,200 units, the local serving mixed use uh was only allotted 86 units. Um one of the things that the Broadway district specific plan allows is for transfer of units between different subdists. And for this project, um, staff is recommending the the transfer of 14 units from the medium residential zone into the local serving mixeduse zone so that they can get 100 units in the local serving mixed use. Um, there hasn't been any proposed projects for the medium residential zone. So, it seems like a good fit to make this adjustment. uh with the adjustment the total number of uh units will still remain as 1,200. Next we have traffic impact fee. This is been a question from a couple of uh commenters as well. The project includes a study for traffic impact and it calculated that this project will bring 674 net new trips to the area to that site. Um, new development brings more traffic. Um, traffic for the fees that this project will bring in is around half a million, $495,000 and $855 because the traffic impact fees is

$735 per trip um according to its current uh fee schedule. um included in the fees uh um included in their project uh the applicant will bring new curb uh gutter and sidewalk along Crawford and Highway 29. They will include a class two um bicycle lane along Crawford, a 12- foot multi-path purpose path along Highway 29, and then frontage improvements. Um these frontage improvements are not subject to the traffic impact fee reimbursement. So, these are just things that the applicant is uh required to do. Um, additionally, they're going to bring a new midblock U pedestrian raised crosswalk between Crawford and Canyon Plaza. So, that's in the middle of the street. Um, this new uh raised crosswalk will enhance the resident uh access to Canyon Plaza, the library, and the post office. And this one will be something that the developer uh will complete but will get a deduction for the traffic impact fee. So it's good to see that the the traffic impact fee is providing uh a a new feature just at their site. and and as usual, the uh staff looked at uh um overhead utilities and see if this site had any that could be undergrounded. Um this site doesn't have like overhead wires along Highway 29, but they do have three poles and wires that are going into their site. This is on the southwest corner. And so um there's a public works uh condition approval of approval that they will have to underground these poles as well as the wires um prior to

construction. Noise and acoustics. The the applicant has conducted a noise study for the project. They will be um adding some sound reduct reducing windows and doors for the units facing Broadway so they can comply with the city's noise ordinance. And then there's a whole slew of um u noise reduction mitigation measures in the study. I think I counted almost like 30 of them, but some of the highlights is that they're going to have a designated noise complaint officer. um they will have equipment within any equipment within a 100 feet of the nearest residential property will be acoustically shielded and they're going to try to use noise reduced equipment as much as possible. Um we're not going to list all of those mitigation measures and the conditions. We're just going to say that they have to comply with the study. So that's kind of like an umbrella of what they're going to have to do. Um the there was some concern about fire access. Um this is their fire apparatus um uh uh plan and uh according to the fire district, this is okay with them. They can bring a fire truck to some of the the furthest uh uh homes in the site. And this is the same with the uh trash collection and recology. Um they've they've shared this study with Recology and they they're okay with this design. fault study. So this this site is actually on um indicated in the um Alcus Polo fault zone and the applicant uh conducted a fault study in 2018 and confirmed that the Napa fault is not located within the property lines. Uh the project site is feasible uh for development from a geological

perspective. So there's a there's a fault study included in the staff report for this and that's it for the design. We did a lot of outreach for this project. The applicant themselves had done some outreach in uh in in the earlier stages of this project. Um I think we had over 25 um letters responded in the staff report. So would people know about this project and and we're trying our best to to respond to the questions that they had. Um so that's all I have. The the application include included a SQA addendum to the Broadway district plan environmental report and the the addendum showed that there were no substantial changes with this project. Staff's recommendation is to approve this project, but um the applicant has requested a a continuence until the April meeting. So, I'm sure you have a lots of questions as that's the end of the presentation. Thank you, Mr. Heath, for the great presentation. Is the applicant here? Don't believe so. Not. Uh commissioners, I want to open up for questions. Do you have any questions for Mr. Heath? Commissioner Avalon, thank you for your presentation. It was uh very concise and very detailed. I also like that final slide that showed the amount of public outreach that went out to to get feedback. My my question is one of um parking. you you you went through concisely discussing parking, but my question is, will there be adequate um ADA parking slots for the

residents that will live in in this development? Well, there will be ADA there's an ADA um parking spot for like getting into the rec center and but for each of the individual units I think that's something that they will have to work on for the construction permits but director Cooper have some thoughts on that too. Right. Um well, Commissioner Abalon, um accessibility is um there are different standards depending upon whether it's sold as a condominium or as an apartment. Um and so at some point the applicant would need to choose which way they're going. Um there is a condition of approval that requires an accessibility study uh regardless of whether they're condominiums or apartments, and that would address the accessibility issues you're referring to and and others as well that go with the building code. Thank you. Any other commissioner questions? Commissioner Plameumber. Thank you. And and I I also echo thank you for the presentation. I appreciate it. My my question and and this may be more for the developer, but I'm asking is the egress and ingress of the property itself. There's only one way in and one way out for the residents um besides the emergency vehicle access point. Um, I could see that potentially posing a problem if anything happens to that particular entrance coming in and out of that. Is there any concerns from the city other than um I mean I think most properties and residential properties at least from the from where I work at and what we have to deal with we also have to deal with separate entrances and accesses besides just the emergency vehicle access. Well, well, this was uh the the fire access plan was reviewed by a fire district and you know, ultimately they

had no problems with what they presented. Um in addition to the EVA and the entry on Crawford, the houses facing Crawford and the houses facing Highway 29, they have direct access to the sidewalk. So, I don't know if that answers your question, but I can also pass a question. Right. And I could add on to that, Commissioner Plamer. Um we've had several recent projects. Um there was one in Watson Ranch, uh lot seven. Um that one also has a single point of ingress and egress. Um and the another one prior to that is the Promontory also in Watson Ranch. Um and that one has 219 units. There's a condition of approval that they can't build something more of I think around 200. So there are there are fire um standards for the number of units you can build before a second vehicle access for the residents needs to be provided. And and so the 100 units here is within the threshold that allows for uh one entrance and exit. And I mentioned there are a couple recent projects that also have one entrance and exit. one that will have it entirely and another one where they have a limit on the number of homes before they need to provide a second entrance. I appreciate the explanation. Um I do have another question uh concerning overflow of parking. Do we know on Crawford Way specifically the width of of of that road? Because I'm under the assumption knowing that we have another condo residential thing across the way. I don't know exactly what it's called, but there's tons of overflow parking. 16 guest spots is not going to be enough for 100 units there. So therefore, we can assume there's going to be overflow parking on Crawford Way and or probably in addition to in the residential area

or across the way in the plaza area as well too. So, I guess the concerns I'm just asking, has that been addressed as far as the width of the road and allowing traffic to flow with additional parking? That will likely happen on on Crawford. I think the width of the street is better answered by the public works director of Crawford. Yes, I'm sure our public We're very happy to have Erica Smithy's Aman here tonight. um public works director who knows all about road widths. Uh while she's coming up, I I think we're all in agreement. I think everyone in this room, I don't think anyone is here from the state of California um doesn't like the state rules that allow residential projects that include affordable housing to provide less parking than the city code. the village of Vintage Ranch uh meets the city code. Uh perhaps the tenants there choose not to use their garages, but um none of us are happy I think here uh about the prospect of residential projects providing less parking than our code. But it is a state law and it's uh unfortunate. Um it can't be changed because it's a state law. I think the the consolation is, as William pointed out, um state law would say they could build 150 spaces and they're providing much more than that. Uh only nine less than what our code would require. So, it's the best we can get, I suppose, um under a situation where state law allows the applicant the right to provide less parking than the code. Good evening, planning commission. Erica Alma Smithy's public works director. Um, as far as the question, I had to not look up the um the width of the road

before I came here this evening. I'm looking at a quick Google Earth view. There is parking allowed on the north side. That's the westbound as you come off a 29. Not many people use that. I don't know how many times a day you drive through there. I hardly ever see anyone. There's only two shown on Google Earth. The current imagery that leaves you leaves me to believe that that it is an underutilized street for parking. The south side is narrow. It looks like only a lane width. So I without having the plans in front of my face see what the off-site improvements. I know there's sidewalk included. I don't believe it allowed for parking on street on that side. But um you know that that's where they could park now and no one is parking on that side. So there will be traffic calming improvements as shared with the proposed the conditions. It's a raised crosswalk table similar to what we've been gone in on Marcus Way and um Rolling Hills Drive and that is planned also at Melbourne. So, um, with that, if I have any, right? And and Commissioner Palmer, I think parking on the south side adjacent to the apartments would not be allowed because there is a class 2 bike lane striped next to that. Thank you. There you go. Was there parking still allowed on the north side? I I don't have that at the top of my head. I believe there is. Okay. All right. I I did have one related to Oh, okay. if it's related. Um, yeah. So, regarding everyone's favorite issue of parking, um, I was wondering based on like some public comments I saw and my own reading of the plan, um, you know, it seems I understand that the current parking plan is greater than what the state minimum would be. Um, it also seems like this the location of this

development uh would be poised to encourage uh lower levels of car ownership because it is near the bus stop that goes to BART. Um, it's near it's within walking distance of local amenities shops, the plaza, all of that. Um, and you know that's great if we can encourage fewer vehicle trips. Obviously, that helps reduce VMT, helps with climate change, all of that. Um, but it did look like actual bike parking on site is quite low. I understand that in theory someone could park their bike in the garage, but we all know that a lot of people use garages for a wide variety of things. Um, and so I wondered if it would be possible to discuss with the developer the possibility of adding more designated bike parking as an additional measure to encourage other modes of transportation. So that maybe some of those units are only one car households instead of two. Um, you know, if people are able to have other options, they might choose to own fewer vehicles. Um, yeah, thank you for the question. This is a a topic that the the Napa County Bike Coalition has brought up in the comments and what we found out is that there may be new like um building u California building code legislation that will come up that requires more bike parking than than what's required now and they'll have to comply with that. So this is, you know, if if they move fast and then they will not be subject to that new rule, but if if they wait, then they might have to change their plans and add more bike parking. Um, but I'll let Director wants to add that. All right, Commissioner Goss. I think I think um Mr. He answered it correctly. The zoning code requires the

eight bike parking spaces. Um, we did have a conversation between the applicant and the Napa Valley Bicycle Coalition and the applicant um did not agree to add more parking. Um, because the code only allows eight, there is no way to compel the applicant to provide more. But as Mr. he pointed out um uh there is a new building code that will uh be approved statewide uh effective January 1st of 2026. So, if you're building a a housing project, that's kind of around the corner. Um, the rules are that if you have your building permit application complete before January 1st, then you're subject to the current rules. But if you submit your building permit application or it's not complete until after January 1st, then you're subject to the new rules. So, um, as Mr. He pointed out if the applicant is gets their approval and they move forward with their building permits, then they're subject to today's rules. If they're slow and they submit their permits, um, and they become complete after January 1st, um, it looks as if the new building code uh, would require more more parking, more bicycle parking. I think the ratio is something in the neighborhood of of two spaces per unit or there is much more than eight for sure. Um so I guess the race is on. Thank you. Um you mentioned that the um the number of units uh per acre at 20 uh the waiver to go slightly higher on that based on the affordability of units in there. So that took us from 87 to 105 or 86 to

105ish. Correct. Which leaves about 18 to 19 affordable units. Is that correct? If that if that would be the number, right? Going from 87 and then that 15% or whatever that percentage was would be x amount of affordable units. Correct. It's not a direct proportional uh like that. I think the state has um um a whole table of how much affordability you provide and how much density that you'll get. And according to the the math, it it works out that they will get up to 105 units for the 15 units of affordable that they're providing. But um I also think that it's it's based on the the base units, right? Well, planners aren't the best at math. Well, that because that's my qu my question is if if if it's based on the number of of of 87, right, the 20 to 24, right, that's been moved up and we say conditionally they get 105 even though they scaled back to 100. That would equate to a number of affordable units. Correct. um or no. The the way it works is um there there are some complicated tables, but uh the simplest way to describe it is if they provide 5% of the units affordable to very low income, then they're entitled to a a 20% is that correct? Uh density bonus. Um they aren't actually using all of their 20% bonus. They're using something less than that because doing a 100 units. Um if you build 100 units then our zoning code would say you need to provide if it's apartments 15% of them affordable at those different three tiers or if it's uh ownership then it's 10%. So our zoning code um applies requirements for

affordability on the total number of units and the state law says if 5% of them are very low then you get a density bonus. So there's kind of different ways of looking at it. Sort of the before picture with what the zoning allows for density. 5% of those gets you 20%. Thank you. And then once you're there, then we apply our ratios. So So if I'm hearing you correctly, that the the number is not set until they choose whether they're going to be apartments or condominions. Right. The inclusionary amount, the affordable requirements for the city is set when we know how many units they are proposing. Got it. So we don't have that number until they I was trying to to arrive at a number of affordable units that we could anticipate then so we won't know that right is 15% if they're if they're uh apartments or 10% if it's ownership and the big asterisk to that is with rising costs um and an example would would be even the Oatill apartments um they had economist uh probably because of the hillside condition makes it very expensive to build it with all the retaining walls and the grading. Um the the economist for the Oakhill project concluded that if the city required affordable housing with that project, it would make it too expensive to build because affordable housing is subsidized housing. So the builder isn't getting, you know, the full value of a market rate unit for those units. They're subsidized. So when you add that extra cost burden to the project is in the oatill context with the hills and all the grading and such it would make the project infeasible. Today we have different conditions and with with inflation back in in 2019 2020 when the oatill was being considered you

know that was before we had that burst of inflation after co um and so uh we've had several years of inflation and a lot of builders are saying those costs are going up. Um, we haven't had a study from the applicant on this project concluding that providing on-site affordable units would be infeasible, but I wouldn't be surprised if we did. And if we do, state law says you have to consider alternatives because we don't want to stop projects from happening because our affordable requirements are making them too expensive. So you have to look at different uh ways to provide affordable housing and the simplest way that we have is an inclusionary housing fee. There are other options too, but that's the one that tends to be the easiest one to come up with. Thank you. One more thing I want to add um is our housing element. Uh this project includes two bedroom and threebedroom units. It's unusual for apartments to have three bedrooms. So, if you have an affordable three-bedroom unit, even the the housing element today acknowledges that's a a really valuable thing because there are very few rental units available for families. And so, um, there is even, um, uh, just from the outset, uh, room for for discussion about potentially reducing the overall affordable requirement if those units are three-bedroom units just because it's so hard to find uh, rental units with that have three bedrooms. So there's a lot of um discussion to have over how the affordability is actually done, which is why it's a condition of approval that kind of gets worked out when they're about ready to build the project. And and I have one more question if you

don't mind on slide 14. Could you could you bring that up? So my question is and and this is this is actual northsoutheast west. Is that right? That's right. Yeah. So on the western side I see there's a a sidewalk or Yeah. Whatever that is. Do we know the setback from the fence line there? Because that's a residential property just to the left of that. Is that correct? That's correct. Do we know the setback distance? Uh the size of that sidewalk size of the sidewalk is approximately five feet. And then the building to the fence is at least 10 feet. At least 10 feet. And then the the fence height as as I read is only six feet. Is that correct? That's correct. I I think we've heard public comment from from residents before about their concerns of having balconies facing into backyards and looking at that. But I think there needs to we need to take a look at this side of the design and what those visible sight lines look like into residential properties. I think that would be something I want to make sure we're voicing and that's specifically to the western side of the of the development. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Goss. Turning on my mic helps. Um, so my next question was also regarding this slide um and the landscaping plan laid out um in this proposal. Um the species of plants mentioned by name in the proposal uh were all um were at least primarily ornamental uh introduced species. They were not

they're not native to this region. Um and I did see in public comments that this issue of native plantings had been raised. Um, and it was acknowledged that the city cannot compel the developer uh to include more native plantings. And I I understand that. Um, I would still love if they would more consider it more seriously. In particular, I noticed that one of the tree species suggested is an Oklahoma red bud. There is a California red bud that looks incredibly similar. It is a native species. It's used regularly in landscaping for public works projects or public uh state government projects um in public right away. Um it grows well in this area. It's a native species. It looks very similar aesthetically to the Oklahoma redwood and it ultimately requires less water over its lifetime. So it would be a reasonable choice uh as far as resources required to grow it. Um, and it's how hearty it is in this environment. Um, again, this is more of a comment. I understand that the city can't compel the developer to include this, but I would love to be able to ask the developer about that directly, but they are not here, so you Mr. He get my comment instead. Um, I'll pass that on. Yeah. Um, that just stuck out to me as like a really clear alternative that could be used instead. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so thanks. Thank you, Commissioner Alman. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, William, for the presentation. Um, I got a variety of things, some of which have already been touched on uh and some have not. I'll start with uh what our vice chair came up with about

the um entry and exit uh access. Uh that's always been a bugaboo of mine. Um, and you know, putting it bluntly, my concern isn't so much whether the fire department thinks they can get a fire truck in and out easily enough to deal with a fire situation. My concern is a bigger concern in terms of um public safety in in the event of a bigger event, whether it be an unexpected earthquake because again, we didn't really know a whole heck of a lot about uh the West Napa fault until we had a quake on the West Napa fault. Um, so while I know they've done studies and and whatnot and it doesn't appear that there's an issue, we don't know. And my concern anytime you've got less than two access points is if there's a quake and if the road is impassable, how do people get out? or are you trapping the hundred residents because the driveway exit is now impassable? Um, and that's not a fire department. That's not that's not a okay, there's a fire. What do we do? That that that's a a bigger uh safety hazard safety issue. Um, and I'm really disappointed that the applicant is not here uh to address questions um and chose not to show. And uh I think it's it's really poor form on their part. And and I will tell you um that you know without having answers to questions, I for one am not prepared to uh consider moving forward with this.

So, I mean, it it's I I need I need answers and and as I said, I've got some other questions and comments, but I needed to get that on on the uh the record to begin with. An area that hasn't been touched on that is really important to me is you showed up. It was slide 20. If you can bring that one up. Yeah. Page 20. Broadway district specific plan sub area development transfer. This is a local serving mixeduse sub band or whatever we want to call it within the plan. We're going to exceed the number of units on a residential, not a mixeduse, which means we then have no local serving mixed use available unless we can get additional transfers within other areas. I I think that this is, you know, and I know this isn't the the the question before us, but I think it's really critical to point it out. I I think that this project doesn't fit the zoning. If you want to put this in a um you know uh residential zoned area, okay, that that's what the that's what it's zoned for. I still have questions about the the egress and and entry and and other issues, but I think taking our um local serving mixed use and dedicating it to a residential property makes no sense from the city's perspective. Um, I I think that it is a really bad

call because given the location and we heard comments earlier, it's because it's right next to a shopping center, there's greater accessibility, there's more ability for bicycling and other modes of transport rather than automobiles. We're giving that all up. That's what local serving mixed use really plays on is having the ability to be able to use public transit, be able to I mean it it's why when you look at big cities, mixed use is usually near transit zones. So here we're taking our and I believe it's the only mixeduse zone that we have and we're making it residential. I I don't get it. I mean, it makes no sense to me. It's duly noted. I mean, and and and again, that so that's one of my questions actually for the developer. I'd like the developer to answer, you know, don't they understand what this is and and why this was zoned this way? And why why is the their proposal for something that does not fit what the zoning is now? Granted allowances are permissible and that's what they're looking for and they're looking to take advantage of all of the state permitted allowances and they're looking to, you know, do all of this. I I just from from our standpoint as a community, I don't think this project makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. Now, that said, I think it's a lovely project in a lot of regards. I think the architecture is nice. I think uh I I love the fact that they will underground the utilities, which is something I'm a

big uh advocate of, as you guys know, you've heard me on that subject. Um but I just I I just have some major major concerns and you know, I think the site design is inappropriate basically. So that that's that's kind of my comments. That's what I've got at this point. So thank you. William, could you show a slide that shows the districts there? I mean this isn't the only mixeduse location. Um there is um the local survey mixed use is located at um that's There's one on the east side of Highway 29. Um, we have this one here. I think Donaldson Way is another one. There are there isn't a lot, but it is, but there are other locations. Um, and your point is well taken that it's nice to have mixed use. I think we all would like to see that. Um, the zoning does today allow the uses that's proposed and it's perfectly fine to have a perspective that you wish the zoning was different, but today the zoning allows what is proposed and it's perfectly fine to feel differently. Commissioner Goss. Oh, Commissioner Avalon, sorry. I I also have to share I'm a little disappointed as well that the developer isn't here and I kind of just want to piggyback on some of the um concerns and comments from my fellow commissioners. Um, Commissioner Goss went into real detail when it came to the to the shrubs and the trees and um, I don't have your

biology expertise, but those were one of my questions and concerns too about will the existing trees and shrubs prevent um or help um help protect the privacy of of the neighbors in that area because that was one of the concerns in some of our previous meetings that people that live along the neighborhood were very concerned that as people are on their balcony, they could perhaps see into their backyards or their front yard. So, I wanted to make sure that we address that. And I'm going to agree with um Commissioner Plameumber. I was very much concerned when I looked at slide 14, which is more of a colorful graphic. And again, going to slide five, when was it slide five? Yeah. Yes. when it talks about the entrance and exit of the um I'm sorry I was on the wrong the entrance and exit of possible emergency vehicles while the fire fire truck can go in you know but can they make some sort of U-turn and I'm in agreement too should there be an emergency you've got a lot of residences trying to get out of two different entry points I I just don't see that happening Um, one, what? That's right. One entry point. You're correct. Those are my comments. uh chair and commission members, I I think one thing to note, you know, the applicant isn't here, but under either the housing accountability act or our own standards with respect to the design permit that's at issue, the standards substantial evidence and certainly there's substantial evidence in the

staff presentation, but you know, I'm counting roughly there are I think eight questions that would be only answerable by the applicant. And because of that in in order to ensure due process in the hearing and um the opportunity to establish substantial evidence one way or the another on these issues that you raised that the matter has to be continued. Um certainly the questions presented would be forwarded to the applicant but um I think in the context of the balance of this hearing if there's public comment um the standards involved for an eventual decision both require substantial evidence and that in our advice would be that can only be achieved after um the applicant has a chance to respond. So in essence it's a continuence uh I guess it's the jury it would be you know there would be a continuence as a matter of law so but you know I think for the balance of the procedure to ascertain if there are any more questions from the commission and if there's public comment or questions that would also be appropriate thank you attorney Ross I do have two questions and one to add to your list of eight the first one is is are is are the garage parking that's going to be available are they going to be EV ready? Um I don't have the answer to that but I think EV is also is also something part of the California building code soon. So um I'll find out and get back to you for that question. I I believe when I read through the documents it said that part of the condition was that it had to be

EV plug and ready. Correct. remember. Thank you. And my other question is, do we know why the applicant is not here? Uh, you know, I'm sorry. Do we know why the applicant is asking for a continuence? Uh, prior to the staff report being issued, I I've uh contacted him um to explain the housing crisis act and how, you know, we we need to have this meeting to bring this project forward. and uh his response is he's still working with his his internal staff and looking through um the um financial numbers for the project. Thank you. If there are no other commissioner questions, I'm going to go ahead and open it up to public comment. Wait, please please go. Um allow me to call you please. We we have No, please go up, Mr. Thomas. Excuse me. If there's anybody else in the room who would like to make a comment on this item, please fill out a speaker card and bring it up. Great. Uh, thank you for allowing me to speak here. Um, my name is Philip Thomas. I live here in American Canyon. And I got a couple of comments about the project. I think the first comment I have is uh are they planning on getting the entitlements and then selling the project or would they build it out and develop it themselves? That's the first comment. Uh second comment is what is the experience of this group developing the property? We're not talking about building a duplex here. We're talking about building a very big project and uh I hope they have the financial acumen and ability to see the project through. Uh those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Is there anyone else in the room who

would like to comment on this item? Beth, go ahead. Hi, I'm Fran Lemus. Uh, I'd like to make sure that uh the people there's two houses in that area and I agree with you. They need to have some kind of protection. So, maybe those trees could be a bar barrier or something. I don't know. It it just seems like uh they shouldn't be looking down in their backyards because uh I'd like to see make sure that that's kind of corrected. And it looks like a nice project. Uh I I hope that one way in and one way out is not a problem. And uh I like the overpass that goes to the um Canyon C canyon plaza. So um if they can make sure that the neighbors are protected, it would be a good thing. Thank you. Thank you, friend. Beth Marcus, I was going to fill out a card, but by the time I did it, it would be too late. Um, I just want to congratulate all the new commissioners. You guys are like rock solid solid. I mean, for a project like this and you're here, I mean, your very first meeting was about the thing over there. Now you got this. So, you guys are doing a great job asking a lot of great questions and everything. Um, I think the the project looks very nice. I'm sorry, Brent. I just have to

comment about Melvin Road. I mean, you guys learned a lot from that project. It's too late now for my street, but uh it looks very nice, pretty much like uh Oat Hill, I think. So, it's a very attractive looking um building or you know, complex. The other thing is um I know we're talking about the traffic and everything and and parking. The only time that would really be a parking is there is sometimes we have events in the plaza and people park out there. So I don't know but that's not all the time. And the other thing is um for those who are going on Crawford onto the highway. Is there an anticipation? I know we're talking about roundabouts or if there would potentially be a red light there or could you have another right lane that goes down and it goes I don't know how to explain it. Yeah. Like where you go Yeah. Where you can merge back onto the to road or something. I know it's probably an Erica question, but that's just some comments, but um otherwise I think it looks very nice. Just glad I don't live next to them. Great job, you guys. Thank you, Beth. Yes, Chair Muhammad. I think our public works director could um describe what may be in store for the Crawford Way, Highway 29 intersection. I know the plans are still u somewhat in putty but I think the options are are being narrowed. Is that silly putty? Definitely not serious putty. All right. Good evening again. Um Eric Almond Spitties, public works director. As far as the improvements plan for Highway 29, the quarter improvements, um, some of you that are very active and uh, watch a lot of the meetings and come to the meetings, there is a project on Highway 29. It's currently in the preliminary engineering environmental review with between CALR, Snap Valley

Transportation Authority, and the city of American Canyon as a very important stakeholder. The project will in will help build the um Broadway specific plan out as far as the class ones on either side of the road and the needed much neededed improvements at the intersections. The two alternatives right now are either the bus transit quick pass um lanes with still signals all through um Napa Junction all the way to American Canyon Road. The second alternative which seems to be the most viable because people as we know still run you know the the still the major injuries are when you run um intersection lights. So the roundabouts are still probably the more viable most safe for everyone. Um it includes the um rapid reflective beacon crossings with the roundabouts will have the crosswalk on approaches all directions. The bullouts at the needed um intersections including Crawford Way. Um, and then there will still be a signal down at the American Canyon Road because it's such a confined space with the P Gen substation and the railroad crossing. You don't have much room to make sure you can have adequate space for the proper size roundabout. So, I'm I'm open to hear more questions on that, but there will be improvements, multimodal improvements, complete streets um at those intersections that one of those projects gets completed. Napa Valley Transportation Authority is taking the lead on that. And while I'm up here, I'll give the plug that we're planning on a public workshop in the HR annex downstairs um in the city hall on April 30th. I believe the time will be at six o'clock. So, there'll be more to come on that with public outreach through our communications team and Napa Transportation Authority and probably CALR. So, it'll be blasted in all directions um when that meeting is scheduled um confirmed with the location. There'll be more workshops as it goes. So, it'll actually an active workshop where you're moving around from station to station. So, more than you wanted to ask right now, right? I've got one quick question. Okay. Is there any

timeline any like is this going to happen in five years, in 35 years, in six months? The goal is to get under construction in 5 years or less. So, you have the the P AED they call it, which is the preliminary engineering to environmental will take another 18 months. It's been underway for approximately six months. Uh Kimley Horn is the consultant on the team, the prime. The uh following that will need funding to start financing the the rideway acquisition needed, starting the rule 20A 20B project with uh underground and the utilities that are still needing to be underground and then finding the funding for full construction. So leveraging that between our new measure U, thank you to the voters who voted to get that passed. Um bonding that to to leverage grant funds and other funds as we can. Awesome. Thank you. You're welcome. I have a quick question if you don't mind too. It's just more of a general question. Um, love the roundabout ideas by the way. I think it's fantastic. My my my my concern and maybe you can give me some insight or maybe I need to wait for the workshop is pedestrian crossings. Uh, has there been any thought to doing a pedestrian overpass crossing versus a street crossing because there's still so much pedestrian accidents that happen on that road regardless of roundabouts or not. that's still being discussed um even at city council level. So u it's not a complete bygone idea. So stay tuned. Are there any other public comments? Is there anyone? Okay. Just wanted to take a quick look. Is that a park? Is there going to be a park or any kind of space for the kids? Yeah. Okay. That's what I couldn't see from the other from the back. Anybody on Zoom? There is no one on Zoom. Is there anyone else in the room that who has not had a chance to speak

who would like to make comment on this item? So, please go up and state your name and then if you could fill out a speaker card afterwards. Yes. Thank you. Hello, I'm Demetria Thomas and uh my husband Philip and I, we own the property right next door. Um I'm looking at this layout. Do you see where the entry line is coming in? What if those two units or the two strips there are back to back and there's an opening for access there and another opening for access on the opposite side. I don't know if that's a two entries. That's it. Thank you, Demetria. Okay, there's no one on Zoom. So then I'll go ahead and close public comment. Commissioners, do we have a motion to Yes. I will uh make a motion that we continue this uh item, the Crawford Way multif family project design permit hearing until our next regularly scheduled planning commission meeting. And do I have a second? I'll second that motion. Roll call, please. Yes. Just one second. Um just one second.

Commissioner Marilyn Abalon. I. Commissioner Eric Alman. I. Commissioner Shelby Goss. I. Vice Chair Charles Plamer. I. Chair Devet Muhammad. I. Next on the agenda. Next we have the general plan. Director Cooper. Um, hold on. Oh, there you go. The benefit of testing ahead of time. All right. Well, good evening, uh, planning commission. I'm Brent Cooper, community development director, and um wanted to congratulate you on being the first planning commission in 31 years, back again to math, to uh consider the comprehensive general plan. Um I'm really pleased tonight to uh also welcome um our consultant team representatives. We have uh Janna Meshi, you um she was here in the fall um from Rencon Consultants uh environmental planner and uh Brent Gibbons with uh Mintier Harish. Um so we're really happy to have them here and and um we've been working on this project for a long time and u just very pleased to um bring a conclusion to you.

Okay. So, um what is a general plan? Um the general plan is it's a very complicated uh detailed document that spells out how the city will develop over the long term 20 to 30 years. And u you've probably heard of the zoning ordinance. talk a lot about that, but we have a lot of other development regulations. Um, and we also have uh public improvements. Uh, I think on your upcoming agenda is uh confirming that the city's capital improvement plan is consistent with the general plan. All of the decisions that are made with the way in which development happens in town has to be consistent with the general plan. And because the general plan has uh covers so many different topics, um they need to work together. Um no one of them supersedes the others, but they have to work in concert. And so since our general plan was initially adopted in 1994, um and it's been updated since then, it's not all updated. So this is a refresh of everything to get it all talking the same language in a sense and working together. And so um what we have before you tonight is is the product of that uh the technical general plan update. Along with the general plan, we have an environmental impact report which evaluates the future development in the city and provides mitigation measures and a path forward for development in the city. So this was never done before and so each project that comes along since then has to have to do its own environmental review. Um having a programmatic approach really helps. It's been done in Watson Ranch and it really helps there. also the Broadway district,

but there are other areas of the city where development happens. And so having a an environmental impact report cover everything really helps streamline the way in which environmental review will go forward for the rest of the city in the long term. One of the things that that we all appreciate about our city council and our planning commission is their high achieving people. So, it takes a while to update the general plan, but there are important priorities that need to be dealt with. And so, as we've been updating the general plan, we've also been co working in updating the general plan for specific areas. And that's really helped address a lot of the issues that you might look at at a normal garden variety general plan update where they save everything to the end and it's a big bang with all the change. Um, a lot of it has been addressed along the way and the controversy and the dialogue. We took care of that. Um, and so the general plan we have before you is really a completion of a larger process that's been going on for years. So, uh, a lot has already been done and and we're kind of here to see the finish. Um, one of the other little surprises at the end, um, was the update, uh, from our friends to the north. Um, Napa County updated its airport land use compatibility plan. Um, it was approved in December just last year. And the the airport, we all know, is not that far from us. that's in fact borders us immediately to the north and it has these sort of consonant these circles that go around it that reflect uh limitations on land use as you get closer to the airport it's more

restrictive less restrictive further out and so we're actually today in zone E of the airport land use compatibility plan you might not have known that but E is actually a pretty good zone it's the least zone um D is um just uh north of Wetland's Edge and uh Eucalyptus and it kind of arcs to the northeast, goes over Roadill, cuts through um right north of Tractor Supply and continues on. So that's a a noise impact area under the old plan and housing wasn't allowed up there. It was incompatible. So there's been a change to that, but it does influence the city and the way we react to that. State law says that when there is a new airport compatibility plan, the city has six months to update its general plan to conform with the new plan. That doesn't leave us a lot of time, but I guess in some ways it's beneficial because we're happen to be updating our plan anyway. So, we just kind of folded that in. It's a little bonus. Um, another component that we'd like to take care of is there are some land use changes. I'll have a slide for that. And uh, so we've also updated our zoning so that it's consistent with the general plan. A lot of cities, they do the general plan, they come back later and argue about the zoning, but we're going to kind of take care of it all at once when bundled. Um, so that's kind of the overview of of what we're here to talk about tonight. One of the key issues that when you're working on a general plan is okay, it's there's a geography, there's a geographical area that we're studying and uh planning law, which is what what largely drives the general plan update

says any area that the city has an interest in in one way or another should be included in your general plan geographical area. Um and so the outer boundary of our geographical area is the city's water service area. The water service area predates the city. Um and so uh what makes it important is that even though it's outside the city, land uses that need water, what doesn't, um needs to get that water from the city. So the city has influence over water service well outside the city's boundary which is actually a pretty uh important role. Um and so it's not something that we deal with a whole lot dayto-day but it is still a very important um aspect of cities the way which it operates. As we kind of shrink down a little lower, um there's another boundary around the city, a little tighter to our our boundary called the urban limit line. Back in 2008, the city and the county reached consensus on what might be a logical boundary for the cities for the city itself. And so this is a a contract between the city and the county and it was uh reinforced with an initiative that passed the residents. So that's an important boundary as well. Moving in again, there is another term called the sphere of influence. Um, I know that might kind of sound like a movie, but it's actually a state term for the state of California. And what the state of California says is the area that's in your sphere of influence is logical to add into the city's corporate boundary in the relatively short term. And so we have a little area here um

around our city that's in the sphere of influence. And then finally, we're left with the city's corporate boundary, an area that we know and love. So all of these different areas here have uh a role for the city, and they all differ a little bit, but um they're all important. So I have here a a picture of the city's land use map. Um sometimes people see an open field and they think ah it's an open field it must be open space because it's open but it more likely than not it's owned by somebody and they have plans to use it for something in the future. So, the general plan allocates a land use to all of the land that is in our um sphere of influence and city corporate boundary and the property owner has expectations to use their land in accordance with the general plan. And so, um we have that there. Um you probably noticed this very brightly colored dashed area in the northeast side um with the Hessair property. This property is in Napa County and it is beyond our urban limit line. It's in our water surface area, but it's beyond the urban limit line, the sphere of influence, and the city limit. And so, um, this property actually has an application recently approved by the county for industrial development. And so, uh, two years ago, uh, the city council directed staff to include that property, um, as a prospective amendment to our urban limit line. And so it is highlighted in the general plan and in the environmental impact report as a study area. So the idea would be it would be included in the urban limit line, but but we can't

do that now because there's an initiative that says it's somewhere else. So, but we do need to start thinking about that. These things are complicated decisions to make. They take some time and and so it's highlighted as a priority once a general plan is adopted to to have conversations with the county about including that in our urban limit line. I'd mentioned that there's uh some land use changes. Um all of the more difficult and complicated ones have already been accomplished. So that kind of leaves us some cleanup. And so what we have here is um there are some creeks and parks um today that have zoning and general plan designations that's commercial or residential. Um probably in the beginning when an area was being planned it all had residential zoning and out of that they carved out the parks and the schools and the creeks and they didn't do anything about the underlying zoning. And so we're just going to clean that up. Um uh the schools are a public use and so it will be changed to public. The creeks are an open space use so that's what they'll be changed. Uh parks as well are a public use. So these are all just kind of cleaning things up so they make sense. Um and we have compatibility between the general plan and the zoning and what's actually happening on the ground that is going to be there indefinitely um as far as we know. So, that's largely what we're left with, which is which is kind of nice. Um, you might notice up here on the upper right we have some color changes. Um, that's the area in Watson and Poli Loop. Um, back when we were beginning this in 2022, we didn't know it was like a horse race. Um, is the Poli Watson project going to go forward or the general plan who's going

to win? Uh, the Poli Watson won. So that land use has been changed and so it's it's kind of there to remind us how much we've gotten done. Um part of the general plan that's gets a lot of conversation is uh mobility and uh roadways of course are expensive difficult facilities to build. Um and so we have in dash lines here some roadway extensions. Um we have Rio Delmare which east which is largely already built. Um so we can congratulate ourselves for that. Um New Road on is uh follows Watson Ranch all the way up to Green Island Road. Some of that has been constructed so we're moving forward with that. Um it also shows it a little hard to see because of the patterns um directly north through the Hess layer to connect to South Kelly Road. So that's kind of referred to as the east side connector and provides a parallel uh transit route uh east of Highway 29. Um there is also a plan for the westside connector and there was a subcommittee that we had for a couple of years uh around 2020 to 2021 and the subcommittee approached the council with an alternative they supported and at the time the council acknowledged support uh which is something less than an adoption. They were like we think it's a good idea but but that's already four years ago. Um along with roadway of course we have multimodal we're very concerned about. Um today we have a bicycle master plan. It was adopted into the general plan in 2020 and that plan is staying put. So it's being brought forward. We're not changing that. And along with that there

is a pedestrian master plan that was approved in 2017 and that too was adopted into the general plan and is staying there. The Napa Valley Transportation Authority is today working on a replacement plan for both those things as they're calling it the active transportation plan. So, we're participating in that and when NVTA completes it, we'll be bringing it to the planning commission to be included in the general plan to replace the older bicycle and pedestrian plan in the general plan. So, we're looking forward to that, but that's a little ways out now because they've just started working on it. And then our public works director referred to the uh uh Highway 29 project initiation environmental document. I get it right because Highway 29 is is owned by the state of California. The city does not own it. We do not control it. um we have to work with them and they have complicated protocols because they're all engineers and uh so we're working our way through that. Um and we're very excited about it. Um some new issues in the general plan that wasn't there before. Um uh and that is uh wildfire mitigation. um they're very concerned and that's a good thing to be concerned about and and so there are new policies in the general plan that speak to wildfire mitigation. I've mentioned the uh new airport land use compatibility plan. Um here is a simplified map. Beth gets my humor. Um, one of the things that that I can say about the the new plan is, uh, I'd mentioned zone D, which is our arcs across our northern part of their city.

Um, the plan there didn't allow residential uses, and through their process, the county has seen fit to allow residential uses into the Dzone. And so it does offer some new opportunities that didn't exist. Well, they did exist through a process where the council can overrule it, but that's not a good thing. It's not a nice thing to do. They don't like that. So, we're all getting together and and and there's some new opportunities now in the Dzone. And um if if we could dissect this map, you'd see that. Um and it's being incorporated into the general plan. U we've done a lot of outreach over the years. Um you can see from the face masks that we've been doing it a long time. Um and so we're pretty excited about that. We try to get the word out. I know that talking about a general plan isn't probably foremost on most people's minds. Uh but we do our best. I'd mentioned that there's a number of more difficult things that have already been done and um which is great because we're not handling them all at once now. And so among them is a fuel station moratorum. So uh back when this was being considered around 2021, the general plan had no policies about climate change because it's from 1994. And like I mentioned, our ordinances need to be consistent with the general plan. And so, um, putting a moratorum on gasoline powered fuel stations has a hook into climate change. And so, in order for us to have a legitimate ordinance, the general plan has to talk about that. So we did

uh amend the general plan to incorporate climate change policies and therefore that enabled a fuel station moratorum to go forward because now we've we've created this connection between our ordinance and our general plan. So so that's accomplished. Um the Oatill residential project it's well on its way under construction today. um it had industrial general plan and zoning before and around 2021 that was amended to allow the housing that you see under construction today. So, um that was a nice accomplishment. It was it was a lot of work. I know William was the project manager and I think um this project singly had the most number of resolutions for the planning commission to go through of any in our history. It was it was a big project. Furthermore, there is a little piece of it that was in zone D in the airport plan and it had to have an airport land use compatibility overrule because they deemed it incompat incompatible and so um it had to go to the council for an overrule. It was a big shamazle, but I think at the end of the day, um, it enabled the county to see fit to update their plan because it really was out of date. So, we have a lot to be thankful for, um, with this being behind us. I mentioned the Paley Watson general plan amendment, prezoning, um, and, uh, annexation. Um, the environmental review for that, um, is subject to a lawsuit. Um but Bill Ross's uh capable team is uh making progress and someday it will be behind us. But the hard a lot of the hard work of doing the there was an environmental

impact report for that uh general plan amendment zone change airport land use commission review um all of these things um take a lot of time. Um who can forget the housing element? So every jurisdiction in the Bay Area, all 120 of them, 400, there's a lot of them anyway, hundred of 100 plus, all have to update their housing element in accordance with the state's rules. It's it's the single element in the general plan that gets the most scrutiny from the state of California and it also has to be approved by them. So they had provided us this incredibly tight time frame uh reaching out to everybody we could with a lot of policies and a lot of effort and um there are many cities that still don't have their housing element certified. Um but we do and um that was a lot of work to get done and uh it was we're glad it's behind us and we bringing you all the time implementation programs with subsequent zone changes and policy updates and things to help fulfill um our efforts to further housing in American Canyon. Um I mentioned the westside connector. We had a subcommittee specifically looking at that. I you know we have the east side connector. We don't have one on the west side. Um and so we have the uh recommended steering committee uh subcommittee um here. Um and I'm sure it will be discussed also at the council level about whether this is an idea that they uh continue to support. Um there's another policy um that we tal touched on tonight uh called vehicle miles traveled. Um it is intended to be part of our general plan, but we've

already taken care of it. Um the idea is that we all most of us drive by ourselves in an automobile and when we do it creates traffic congestion and air pollution and so if we can both drive less and add more people to each vehicle then you reduce the overall miles you travel to get around. And so, um, that policy was adopted and, um, it's a great component that we have to our general plan. And I'm mercifully down to our last slide, our schedule. Um, we have a an aggressive schedule coming up um, tonight. Of course, um, here we are on March 27. Um, next week we're looking forward to going to the Open Space and Active Transportation and Sustainability Commission on April 2nd. They will make a recommendation to the city council, the parks and community services commission April 10. Uh, we're having a workshop with the council on tax day. So, um hopefully you won't be procrastinating and can come. Um, looking forward to that. And then um we'll be visiting our friends at the airport land use commission. I I did um have a city attorney and I met with the staff planner and shared our plans to make our plan consistent with their plan. Um we got smiles so I'm encouraged. Um so I'm feeling good and um adoption on May 20. And um if you have any questions on this part of our I should have mentioned this part of our presentation, glad to take those calls. Uh Giana has an overview for you on the general plan that I promise is not as long as this.

Alrighty. Can um so my name is Gianna Meski. I'm here on behalf of Ringcon Consultants. Uh we supported American Canyon with preparing the environmental impact report for this project. So here is a brief overview of what I will be presenting on today. And uh Brent was very kind and already introduced everybody so I won't bother with that again. Um and I'll jump right into SQUA and environmental review. Uh so to give a little bit of background the general plan is required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act or SQUA as I will be referring to it. Um so to start that process uh the city determined that a program EIR was necessary to evaluate the impacts of the general plan and the draft EIR serves to provide an avenue for analyzing the impacts of the project and disclosing those impacts to the public. It also seeks to minimize or avoid or reduce um significant environmental impacts. And then lastly, it provides an adoption um of a mitigation monitoring um and reporting program or MMRP. So this is a brief flowchart of the SQA process from start to finish. It begins with um issuing an NOP or a notice of preparation um which then allows the city to begin preparing a draft DIR. Right now, um you can see that we've made it through most of this process and we're currently at the planning commission hearing, which is the tail end of a project being able to be adopted. So, more specifically, um kind of going off of that, here are some specific SQA milestones that the general plan has achieved itself. Um the SQA process kicked off, um in July 2022. So, um it's been a while just for the SQA process alone on this project.

Um and the draft ER was made public in September 2024. Um the public review clo uh period closed in November 2024 and then the final EI was completed just a couple of weeks ago. So um the draft EIR itself uh studied the following resource areas. So it covers topics ranging from aesthetics to energy to noise and population and housing to transportation and wildfire. So it really covers a lot. Um within the analysis of the draft EIR, it was determined that eight of those aforementioned environmental resource areas would have a less than significant impact with no mitigation required and addition additionally found that two resource areas would have no impacts at all which are agriculture and forestry and mineral resources. Um it did note that two resource areas noise and transportation would result in significant unavoidable impacts with regards to construction noise and vehicle miles traveled. So um along with each section of the draft EI it was determined um if mitigation would be required uh to reduce or avoid project impacts. Accordingly, 28 mitigation measures were set forth and established through the draft DIR which reduced or avoided impacts to the following sections. Um, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, paleontological resources, and wildfire. So, um, once the draft ER went out for public review, it was out for an 111day public review period, which I think is maybe the longest that I've ever had, um, an ER out for public review. Um, that period allowed public agencies, stakeholder groups, and members of the public to read, review, and comment on

the ER and its findings. In total, the city received 11 letters on the draft DI which were carefully reviewed by the city. Um, comments and concerns therein were raised by the public and were considered for incorporation um or edits to the draft EIR. This was done through a response to comments document which is included as section two of the final EIR and revisions were made accordingly um and included as section three of the final ER. So some of the comments that were received on the draft EI were not specific to environmental issues um or associated with the project or adequacy of the analysis of the ER. So accordingly, no um response was required for those types of comments. However, they were still acknowledged um within that final e response to comments. Um as I mentioned, section three of the final ER includes minor revisions to the draft ER. Um they were for the following sections. Project description, environmental setting, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. Um all of the edits that were included were all textual modifications. Um so they helped clarify or expand on information that or language that was already included within the draft DI. Um, accordingly, it was determined that those edits did not constitute a significant um any significant new information um and would not result in any significant new impacts or substantial increase um in severity of previously identified impacts. Therefore, uh recirculation of the draft was not warranted. All right, I think this is my last slide. So, um so as far as next steps, Brent um kind of touched upon this as well. Um, so, uh, we really are kind of towards the end of the SQA process. Um, so we're going through those final hearings and

then it will be brought forward to city council for consideration for adoption. Um, in the meantime, the city has complied with section 15 um091 of the SQA guidelines, which requires that a public agency before uh approving a project is to identify any significant impacts made um and prepare a findings of significance and statement of overriding considerations. Additionally, the city has complied with section 210018.6 six of the SQA guidelines which prepares a monitoring and mitigation program the MMRP that I spoke upon um to address and ensure that the implementation of proposed mitigation measures um within the ER are followed. And then lastly, once the project is approved by city council, the city will prepare um and file a notice of determination or NOD with the state clearing house and county clerk within five working days of the project being approved. And that is all that I have for you. Thank you. Thank you, Giana. Open up for commissioner comments, questions, commissioners, chair. Uh, I have one. Um it's a uh technical comment and it bears on um resolution number two, but it has to do with urban limit lines policy and it's on urban limit lines LU11 page LU27. And I want to change the word coordinate with Napa County to meet and confer with Napa County. Thank you, Attorney Russ.

Commissioners, Commissioner, City Attorney Ross may have just addressed what um I wanted to address, but in the I don't recall in the voluous uh EIR documents, but in the um packet cover note, there was a comment about the uh urban limit line expiring in 2030. And it then continued on with a comment uh about an expectation, I believe was the word, to continue it to confer with Napa County and continue it indefinitely. And I had some concerns and was curious as to exactly what the thinking and so on with all of that uh is because part of me says say look when we're five years short of 2030 then we can come back and we can evaluate and make determinations as to as a city what we think makes sense and at that point then have a conversation with the county and kind of go from there, why would we want to extend what we currently have indefinitely? What's the benefit to us? And can we even do that at this point? So, that's that's my inquiry and I don't know if that's what um city attorney Ross was kind of dealing with with his uh change of language there. So, fill me in. I I think the basis is other than that um I think coordinate implies that we're contracting away our

police power. Um I just think meet and confer is a better terminology um than coordinate. Coordinate has the implication that you coordinate for agreement. And since all the urban limit line originated originated with an initiative measure, it's not some to be an act of equal dignity. It's got to be something that would originate from an initiative measure. Hope that was straightforward. I sort of get it being a non- attorney. Commissioner Avalon, Director Cooper, thank you for your um updates to the American Canyon uh general plan. I found it to be uh very comprehensive and detailed. Um and I think it's also progressive. So, I appreciate that. I I have a question and forgive me, but this is on the first packet, slide eight, and it was concerning um my question was about the Dzone. I'm not sure if I heard properly and um something about that we could possibly build housing on the Dzone, but my question is is that too close to the airport? Um Commissioner Abalon, that's a great question. Uh we aren't proposing any land use changes um within the area covered by the airport's DZone, but because the airport land use plan previously made residential inconsistent or incompatible. um we hadn't made changes in that

regard, but should the city council decide this is something to pursue, we could do so knowing that it's uh compatible with the airport land use plan. And uh it is closer than now, but but the plan itself would would acknowledge that uh housing is is permitted within certain areas of their of their Dzone. Thank you. So, thank you uh again both for your presentation. It was nice to see the proposed circulation and the wildfire uh mitigation plans. That was really nice to see. Uh also the airport land use um bringing in the zone D to like you said bring in new opportunities. So that was nice to see as well. I have a question about the climate change policies. We do have the moratorum on the fuel station and I just have to ask this question. Do we have a moratorum? Are we talking about not having any more drive-throughs in the future? Oh, um that hasn't been a part of the general plan, but um should after the general plan be adopted um or or anytime really because the policies are already there. um if there were uh direction to pursue that by the city council um it's arguable that there could be a linkage there. Um but that would be uh something we call an implementation of the general plan and not part of the general plan itself and then our next general plan would be due in 2045. Well, a general plan is never done. um a comprehensive general like that taking everything and uh doing it is is uh uh once in a generation for most cities. Um but uh I expect you know

we're going to be seeing on the heels of this completion all kinds of different ideas and amendments and things and that's all normal and natural and and it's a healthy thing as well for the growth and betterment of the community. Thank you, Commissioner Gus. Hi. Yeah, I just wanted to uh congratulate the city and the consultants first of all. Um I know that these plans are long long processes and take a lot of coordination and research and expertise and time and um I think both the general plan and the EI are well done. So congrats. Um I did have a question about um a couple of the policies in the general plan. Um and I understand that the general plan um you know essentially a set of guidelines for future development to follow, right? Um specifically um I had questions about some of the land use policies. um land use 11.3 preserve agricultural and open space. Um I saw that it had been edited um to acknowledge that the city urban limit line may be amended uh during the term of the general plan. Um and you know that policy promotes defining the urban limits of the city and preserving agricultural and open space. um as it says in its name. Um there's also um land use 12.1 to maximize economic development explicitly supporting new industrial and business parks. Um, and so I guess I'm curious since the urban limit line may be amended, um, since which I presume would mean zoning

changes like that that new area would have to be zoned. Um, which policy takes precedence, which is the priority, preserving open space or maximizing economic development? Um, how how are those decisions going to be made? Those are great questions. That's what I'm here for. I know. It's great. Um, our general plan is also particularly when it comes to our ultimate city boundary, whether it's an urban limit line change or a sphere of influence change. Um, with respect to Napa County. So, we're all very familiar probably with the uh agricultural land reserve and conservation policies in the county. The county itself though has uh development pressures for non-aggricultural uses and they acknowledge that actually in their 2008 general plan update for the Hesair property. They specifically identified that as future industrial property um should the demand be needed sometime in the future. In the meantime, uh up until uh the county recently amended their general plan, that was agricultural watershed, but the general plan had sort of earmarked that as potential expansion of the Napa airport business park. And so the county itself has pressures. And so there is always this tension between what is this a good time for property that is large mo most of the county uh area that isn't already developed is designated agricultural watershed and so the question is always is this the time that some of it would be converted to something else and is

this the right location is this the right time and so on. And so our general plan is kind of reflecting that because if we're going to grow, we're growing into the county area. So as we're looking at it, the county has already designated areas as industrial. There are other policies in uh the county that say that urban growth belongs in cities. And I think it's pretty easy to conclude that industrial development is an urban development. So there are there were there's a there's a context in which all of these decisions are made and they uh get decided through the meet and confer process for the most part with Napa County. Okay. So it's an ongoing conversation with the county as well. Absolutely. Okay. Um I'd like to add something too. Um ultimately, you know, specifically with regard to your question on policies, they're going to come up when a particular development proposal comes forward. And that's when the issue of general plan consistency is to be determined. And there's a standard for that that was articulated and confirmed in case law. And it really puts the burden back on then the decision-making body to resolve those um seemingly conflicting policies. And I think I can cite it. You know, it says an an action will be deemed to be consistent with the general plan if it furthers the general plan policies without hindering them. So you might think, well that's six of one and a half dozen of the other. But I think what that means

is you as the decision makers have to balance those those policies then for whatever the envelope that comes before you and decide whether it's consistent with those policies under that standard. So that would be like the implementation of what Brent said. that that's how it would come up. So, if that's helpful, it is. Thank you. If there are no other commissioner comments, I'd like to open up public comment. Okay, we have Ivonne Beginski. Thank you. Um, Mr. Cooper, thank you. Thank you. I know what a bear it is to put a plan like this together. I also know that um there are things that are inadequate in this plan. I'd like to address a few of them. Um this plan does not address uh climate adaptation for the city of American Canyon. It does not address seawater rise. It does not address increasing heat and how this is going to impact the land around American Canyon. It does talk about the urban limit line which now butts up against Napa County, but there's only two pieces of property. Uh there's actually one piece of property that it ab butts against that's uh listed currently as a watershed. The other piece of property has already been zoned um that has layered has already been zoned industrial. Um it it doesn't have any kind of defining green space, any kind of green belt around the city of American Canyon. um it is strictly an urban environment and if they're looking at the only green belt around there that's they're looking at um investing in that as an urban environment as well. Um the general plan designates creeks in residential areas as open spaces. Uh there are already stream setback rules

by the state of California that must be adhered to. And I believe these creeks are often found in open space, but I don't believe they are open space designations on their own. I know that many of these creeks go between homes, between uh uh warehouses, and there is no access to the public who wouldn't even be able to get to those creeks. Altogether, including the creeks and public parks, less than 20% of American Canyon's land falls in the open space category. Right now, the state of California is asking for a 3030 open lands policy throughout the state. That translates to 30% of the land to be conserved by 2030. They are asking each municipality to do its fair share. American Canyon has fallen short of that. What caught my eye was the impact of all the development on biological species that quote with mitigation measures would be reduced to a less than significant level. I have been following the ERS and the development in this community. And I mean mean if you consider habitat destruction and um a complete habitat destruction as not having any impact environmental impact on these habitats, you should have a conversation with the Autobon Society that is out there every single Sunday with walks and measuring the wildlife and saying they're already seeing a decline. They're seeing an impact throughout the community. I know I have three minutes and I'm not going to be able to say everything I've written. I'm going to say that I am very concerned. I'd like to see a more detailed uh response in some of these areas. I've got two pages of things I commented on. Um and I thank you for your time. Thank you, Ivon. Is there anyone else who has not turned in a card that would like to speak on this item? Okay. And there's no one on Zoom. Thank you. I will go ahead and close public comment. Do I have a

motion with the amendment? We have three resolutions. Correct. And just to be clear, we have to do three motions and three Do I have a resol motion for the first resolution? Alrighty. I will make a motion that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending the city council of the city of American Canyon. One, certify the comprehensive technical general plan update final environmental impact report number 2022738. Two, adopt SQA findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations. And three, adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Do I have a second? I second that motion. Nicole, roll call, please. Yes. Um, Commissioner Marilyn Abalon, I. Commissioner Eric Alman, I. Commissioner Shelby Goss, I. Vice Chair Charles Plamer, I. Chair Devet Muhammad, I. Do I have a motion for the second resolution?

I'll make a motion uh to planning commission to create a resolution recommending that the city council of the city of American Canyon adopt the comprehensive 2040 technical general update plan and policies to sustain compliance with the 2024 Napa County Airport land use compatibility plan. Do I have a second? to meet and greet. Yep. As noted to meet and confer with Napa County. Yep. To meet and confer with Napa County. Making the verbage change. Correct. I will second that recommendation. That motion. That motion. Nicole. Roll call, please. Commissioner Marilyn Abalon. I. Commissioner Eric Alman. I. Commissioner Shelby Goss. I. Vice Chair Charles Plamer. I. Chair Devet Muhammad. I. And do I have a motion for the third resolution? I'd like to make that motion that a resolution recommending the city council of the city of American Canyon adopt the zoning code amendments to ensure consistency with the general plan and the 2024 Napa County Airport land use compatibility plan. Do I have a second? I'll second the motion. Thank you, Nicole. Roll call, please. Commissioner Marilyn Abalon. I Commissioner Eric Alman. I. Commissioner Shelby Goss. I. Vice Chair Charles Plamer. I. Chair Devet Muhammad. I. Moving on to business. I will excuse

myself. Vice Chair Plameumber. Thank you, Chair Mohammed. Moving on to This this item number four, uh 285 Napa Junction, citation appeal. Thank you, Vice Chair Plameumber and Planning Commission Brent Cooper. Um we're continue to discuss with the uh appellant um some options for their property and uh I'm pretty confident we'll have something to bring back to you for a decision at your next meeting. Any the commissioners like to make a recommendation on continuance? Yes, I will make a motion that we once again continue the uh 285 Napa Junction citation appeal to our next planning commission meeting scheduled for April 24th, 2025. Is there a second? I'll second that. Roll call. Just one moment, please. Commissioner Marilyn Abalon I. Commissioner Eric Alman I. Commissioner Shelby Goss I. Vice Chair Charles Plameumber I. And Chair Devet Muhammad has recused herself from this item. I'll pass the Davl and chair back to Chair Mohammed. Thank you, Vice Chair Plamer. Moving on to management and staff oral reports. Thank you, Chair Mohamd Brent Cooper. I left my spreadsheet over here, so I I'm over here now. Um I'll just uh touch bases on some of the current projects happening here um in community development department. on some of the highlights. Um we have uh there is a

development agreement which uh locks in approvals over the long term for the Napa airport commerce center at South Kelly and Develin Road. Um they were approved for five years and they have applied to extend that um vesting called um for their project for an additional 10 years. And so uh we're evaluating that right now. We plan to bring that to you uh I think in your next meeting. Uh so um we'll get to talk about development agreements. So we're looking forward to that. Um the Ganoni Logistics Center um they had a subdivision map that was uh expires if um there isn't a a recordation and progress on that. Um and so they had an extension approved by the city council at their first meeting in March. Um coming up, um on Canyon Estates, um I'd mentioned that there are six uh lots where we've uh worked with them and they can fit their floor plans. It's fine. Um they've submitted another two challenging uh lots uh to find homes that can fit in there without having to completely regrade everything. Um it looks very encouraging. Uh and uh so I'm looking forward to knocking two more off of the list. I've really appreciate uh Richmond Americans uh diligence at uh finding ways in which to uh plot their floor plans onto the lots without regrading all the hills that have been so carefully done. Um what is also nice about this project is they have a lot of selection of floor plans that will be available. Many of them singlestory. So, even though it may not be custom homes as we might have hoped,

uh the homes I have confidence are going to be really attractive and varied and um it'll it'll be a nice addition and I appreciate their efforts to work within the areas on the lots that they have um which is very nice. So, can can I ask a quick question on that? Yes. Is is it permissible to do a custom if you want to or is it now got to be a a Richmond home? Uh Richmond Americans purchased um there are two lots that were sold to individuals um and they have purchased the remaining 33 lots and their intent is to build the lots themselves. to you on that. Are are they do you know sorry um if their plans are to keep the lots intact or to partition them? Uh because I know they're sizable lots. So they be partitioned to have multiple homes on lots versus single homes. Um their plan are single homes. Um the lots themselves are um large per in accordance with the zoning for the property. Now, I'm not going to get into state law and accessory units and uh SB9s. There's a whole alphabet soup of laws where there are exceptions to what our zoning laws are. But I think your questions more build up per zoning and and the answer as far as I have indicated is yes. And I think that's pretty much my um update for you if you haven't have any questions, things going on in town. Thank you, Director Cooper. Do we have any commissioner items? No. All

right, it is 8:45 and I will adjourn the meeting. Good night, American Canyon.