General Plan: County’s blueprint draws scrutiny

By DAVID RYAN, Register Staff Writer

The county’s proposed planning blueprint for the next 25 years is in a crucial phase of its development.

The Napa County General Plan Update Steering Committee, citizens appointed by members of the Napa County Board of Supervisors who have been guided by county officials, formally sent their work out to the public Feb. 16 to see what residents and key political groups around Napa County think of their ideas.

The 300-page document, and the accompanying draft environmental impact report that is about three times as long, address some thorny development issues. These include the so-called Angwin urban bubble, which may have impact on Pacific Union College’s plans for a new “Eco-Village,” as well as several south county sites and the zoning for the former Napa Pipe property along the Napa River, which is now industrial but may be dubbed “transitional” or otherwise compatible with housing.

The plan also takes on more unusual ideas — like whether there is room for more commercial activity in Pope Valley.

While the other hot zones are already the sites of intense political activity, the Pope Valley idea was included in the draft report specifically to find out what people thought of it.

County officials will hold three public hearings on the draft general plan at the same time it accepts written comments from around the county — two in March and one in April. Meanwhile, residents are encouraged to e-mail their comments to Patrick Lowe at the Napa County Planning department at plowe@napacountygeneralplan.com.

Two weeks after the release, representatives many of the county’s most powerful interest groups say they haven’t had a chance to fully review the draft update and EIR.

Several groups are asking the county to extend the 60-day comment period. For example, the new Napa County Parks and Open Space District recently voted to advise the county to extend the comment period to 120 days.

That’s a sentiment echoed by other interest groups around the county, from the Napa County Farm Bureau to the citizen’s group Save Rural Angwin.

“I think the county ought to give people more time to read it and respond to it,” said Save Rural Angwin spokesman Allen Spence.

The Napa County Board of Supervisors could vote to extend the 60-day comment period in coming months.

Since the general plan is not yet final, neither is the environmental impact document — which offers different scenarios based on land-use planning decisions. It is likely that the plan will result in a mixture of impacts outlined in what the draft EIR refers to alternatives B and C.

Alternative B reflects draft general plan elements like a “transitional” designation for south county industrial lands — where it estimates housing could be phased in over time. It also assumes that by 2030 Jamieson Canyon Road would be widened to four lanes, and that by then an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 acres of new vineyards would be planted.

Alternative C contemplates even more change. It would redesignate some land surrounding the cities of Napa and American Canyon for housing, specifically calling for the Napa Pipe lands near Kaiser Road to be used as housing, and placing a rural-urban limit line around American Canyon that is smaller than is called for by American Canyon documents.

It would also call for a small area of the Pope Valley crossroads to be redesignated for local commercial use, subject to a county-wide Measure J vote.

But one environmental impact is likely in the next 25 years no matter what General Plan strategy is ultimately adopted: Traffic will get worse at peak commute times in key spots by 2030, even with road improvements like the widening of Jamieson Canyon and American Canyon Road.

For example, traffic along Highway 29 near St. Helena, from Lodi Lane to Deer Park Road, is expected to deteriorate to failing levels of service. Likewise traffic between Kelly Road and Jamieson Canyon Road on Highway 29 would deteriorate to — in the best case — just above failing. American Canyon Road between I-80 and Flosden Road would decay to failing levels, as would Highway 221 — the southern extension of Soscol Avenue — between Kaiser Road and the intersection with Highway 29.

The reasons for these problems are complex. With growth in the Napa economy outpacing growth in housing for workers, the environmental modeling suggests traffic at key entrance and exit points will get worse. The modeling also suggests net loss of forest land and sensitive animal populations, increase in greenhouse gas emissions from auto traffic and more pressure on county water supplies.

Tyler York, vice-chair of the Napa County Sierra Club, called the prospects disturbing. However, like other environmental groups, he said the Sierra Club needed to take more time to look at the data the county used to come up with its analysis.

At this point, the story of the draft general plan and the environmental impact report is that of a work in progress, and upcoming reaction from key interest groups is likely to guide its course — once they’ve fully read it.

Napa Valley Register Copyright © 2009