Planning – Napa County

The Napa County Planning Director has undertaken a Herculean task to correct as serious a problem as Napa County has faced. He has replaced lost staff, reinstated process and made excellent progress. The County Executive Officer and the Board of Supervisor (while probably late) have given him the support and funds to do the job. The NCCDPD is once again a part of the team serving all of Napa County’s residents. Commendation The Planning Director is commended by the Grand Jury for his leadership in the Department.

The Board of Supervisors is acting responsibly in refusing to allow housing on prime agricultural soils or in environmentally unacceptable locations.

The process of environmental review of projects with the potential of causing harmful erosion (in part, new vineyards and replants) should continue to be improved so that critics are comfortable that the process ensures protection of the environment and property owners are assured that there is a process. The recent agreement for the Suscol Springs Vineyard Conversion Project (March) between critics of the process, property owners, and the Department is a foundation for putting this problem behind the County. BACKGROUND In March 2001 the Napa County Planning Director resigned, having held the office for 14 years and was replaced by first an interim Planning Director on March 27, 2001 and then a permanent Planning Director on June 12, 2001. When the outgoing Planning Director left the office: 1. There were a great number of applications for use permits on file, many of which were more than six months old and had not even had a planner assigned to process them. 2. There were a great number of applications for certificates of compliance which had been on file for more than two years, had not been acted upon, and were not being processed. 3. There were a great number of applications for lot line adjustments referred by the Department of Public Works which had not been acted upon and were not being processed. 4. There were 140 applications pending for agricultural erosion control plans which had not been acted upon, the majority of which had been pending for 12-24 months, and of which 41 were not even on the Planning Department’s list. Very few were being processed. 5. There were 63 applications pending for structural erosion control plans which had not been acted upon, the majority of which had been pending for 12-18 months. 6. Before the change in Planning Directors, the Conservation, Development and Planning Department was divided into two divisions, Planning and Building Inspection. The Planning Division was authorized 13 Planning positions including the Deputy Planning Director, of which 4 were not filled. In April 2001, 2 planners terminated employment. In May 2001, the Deputy Planning Director announced his decision to retire affective August 3rd bringing the total number of vacant positions to be filled to 7. Of the 7 vacant positions, 6 were staff planners, which left 6 planners to do the work. 7. Napa County was in litigation over the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report for the 1998 Airport Specific Plan. The County lost in the trial court and lost in the District Court of Appeal. The County was also in litigations with the Sierra Club over the alleged lack of environmental review of vineyards requiring Erosion Control permits. 8. There was a lack of co-operation between the Department and the rest of the departments of the County. 9. The morale of the Planning Department staff was poor. The Napa County General Plan Housing Element does not comply with housing requirements established by the State Department of Housing and Community Development and its Councils of Government (in our case the Association of Bay Area Governments more commonly known as ABAG). The State Office of Planning and Research (more commonly known as OPR) lists the Napa County General Plan as “not comprehensively updated”, which means that 5 of the 7 mandatory elements of the General Plan have not been updated in the last 10 years. As of March 11, 2002, 12 months later, the Planning Division of the Conservation, Development and Planning Director was reorganized into two divisions, the Planning Division and the Conservation Division with the allocation of a new Deputy Planning Director position to head the Conservation Division. In addition, the Board approved the Planning Director's request to add two Principal Planner positions, and a Planning Tech position as part of Final Budget Actions in June 2001. All vacant position were subsequently filled by the end of 2001. The added position of Planning Technician now allows the public counter to be staffed for the entire business day, rather than the previous limitation of noon-5 p.m. Perhaps the greatest problem facing the people of Napa County in generations is the conflict between two desirable goals, both recognized state wide and nationally. One is the preservation of prime agricultural lands and the other is the zoning for, and construction of, housing. Both goals must be met in an environmentally satisfactory manner. The Housing Element of the Napa County General Plan is inadequate and cannot be made adequate without jeopardizing prime agricultural lands. The Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of the City of Napa and the City of American Canyon know the problem and have told the public they intend to deal with the problem. If they do not, they will subject the County (and its taxpayers which are mostly residents of the Cities) to litigation which the County cannot win, and to sanctions from the State of California which will work to the detriment of all of Napa County’s citizens. Napa County must meet its share of California’s housing need. Napa County must preserve its prime agricultural lands and protect the environment. Lands that are not prime agricultural lands need to be annexed to the City of Napa and the City of American Canyon for housing. State legislation is needed to allow Napa County credit for past and future annexations for housing to the City of American Canyon and future annexations to the City of Napa. The County should be looked at by the State as “one” with its cities and not as an entity required to provide housing. Another serious problem facing the people of Napa County is the planting of new vineyards only after compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Conservation, Development and Planning Department, the Conservation, Development and Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors need to identify which new plantings are entitled to categorical exemptions, which are entitled to negative declarations or mitigated negative declarations, and which will be required to prepare environmental impact reports. Critics of previous County activities need to be satisfied with the process. PROCEDURES The Grand Jury committees interviewed the Planning Director, planners, Napa County Supervisors, Napa City Council members and staff, City of American Canyon Council members and staff, and applicants for use permits, certificates of compliance, lot line adjustments, structural erosion control plans, and agricultural erosion control plans.