More than 100 people -- from winery owners and elected officials to long-time citizens with a list of concerns -- crowded into the county's penultimate general plan meeting, held at the Napa City-County Library on Wednesday evening.

The series of meetings is designed to get citizen input on the on-going revision of the general plan, Napa County's blueprint for governance on a host of issues.

Like the previous five meetings at various locations around the county, two major and sometimes conflicting themes emerged: The preservation of Napa County's agricultural base and individual property rights.

State law requires county general plans to address seven elements: Land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, safety and noise. Several people called for new elements such as water, parks and recreation and community character.

Hillary Gitelman, the county's planning director, said, "There's probably a lot (in the general plan) that won't change at all, but we're getting great feedback."

Get a Grip on Growth's Ginny Simms supported a greenbelt between Napa and American Canyon, and Warren Winiarski of Stag's leap Wine Cellars called for preserving "old values" pertaining to farming and the watershed.

Writer and historic preservationist Nancy Brennan said, "We need to preserve the fabric of the community," while Alex Phillips termed the Agricultural Preserve, "one of the treasures of the world."

Farm Bureau representatives said making permanent the county's existing restrictions on urban development would be a good idea.

While those supporting land use restrictions were prevalent throughout the session, the Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance had members and supporters scattered throughout the four breakout groups at the library's community room. "Preserve income opportunity on private property," said one.

"Provide incentives for those giving up land," said another.

Other comments included, "No absolute restrictions on growth," and "Educate, not regulate."

Attorney and mediator Chuck Meibeyer said wineries need more freedom to market their products, adding that hot air balloonists need a permanent launching site.

Some unique ideas were put forth:

* The county should impose fines on trespassers and use the money to purchase open space.

* Put the general plan online, make it interactive and keep it updated on a regular basis.

* Set aside a percentage of new construction for the arts.

* Take the county's case for agricultural preservation to the state and federal governments.

* Place "roundabouts" at major intersections along Silverado Trail and Highway 121.

* Tax tourists by placing a 50-cents-per-tasting tariff on wines.

Reflecting the community controversy over Highway 12 improvements through Jamieson Canyon, participants seemed evenly divided on the issue Wednesday evening. "Widening Jamieson Canyon?" said a planning staffer reading from the comment lists. "Yes; No."

Even as Napa citizens called for more diversity in agriculture and housing, that diversity was not evident in the make-up of those on hand to help shape the future of the county.

With a Hispanic population in Napa County of at least 25 percent, more than one participant noted the absence of Hispanics at the meeting.

A show of hands indicated a majority of attendees were Napa residents, but there was a strong showing by those in the unincorporated areas as well.

Gitelman said as the multi-year task of updating the county's general plan continues, they will reach out in different ways to ensure involvement of all members of the county's population.

"We have to address it," said Gitelman, "perhaps through the schools and involving children."

Gitelman said the process is off to a good start. Planning staff will be taking the information gathered at the public meeting to the next step in the process.

Wednesday, April 6, the final meeting in the series will be held at the Lake Berryessa Senior Center, 4380 Spanish Flat Loop Road from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.