NAPA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
Public Review Draft
February 16, 2007
DRAFT
1
NAPA COUNTY
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
FEBRUARY 16, 2007
Please send comments to:
Napa County Department of Conservation, Development & Planning
Attn: General Plan Comments
1195 Third Street, Suite 210
Napa, CA 94559
( 707) 253- 4416
info@ napacountygeneralplan. com
Prepared with the Assistance of PMC
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Board of Supervisors
Brad Wagenknecht, District 1
Mark Luce, District 2
Diane Dillon, District 3
Bill Dodd, District 4
Harold Moskowite, District 5
Planning Commission
Heather Philips
Jim King
Bob Fiddaman
Terry Scott
Rich Jager
General Plan Steering Committee
Peter McCrea, Chair
Tom Andrews, Vice- Chair
George Bachich
Debra Blodgett
Mary Ellen Boyet
Jon- Mark Chappellet
Stephen Cuddy
Tom Gamble
Michael Haley
Jim Hendrickson
Guy Kay
Carol Kunze
Carole Meredith
Beth Painter
Carol Poole
Jeff Reichel
Brad Simpkins
Stuart Smith
Robert Torres
Bill Trautman
Duane Wall
Conrad Hewitt ( Charter member)
i Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– i–
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ( Page 1)
Summary and Vision ( Page 13)
Agricultural Preservation and Land Use Element ( 24)
• Introduction ( Page 24)
o History of Land Uses ( Page 26)
o Land Use Planning in Napa County ( Page 27)
o Agriculture in Napa County ( Page 28)
o Issues Facing the County ( Page 29)
o Cities and Other Agencies ( Page 31)
• Agricultural Preservation and Land Use Goals ( Page 33)
• Agricultural Preservation Policies ( Page 34)
• Other Land Use Policies ( Page 39)
o Policies in Support of Urban- Centered Growth ( Page 39)
o Residential Policies ( Page 40)
o Commercial, Industrial and Transitional Land Uses ( Page 243)
o Public- Institutional Uses ( Page 48)
o Prohibited Uses ( Page 48)
• Policies Specific to Geographic Areas of the County ( Page 49)
o Angwin ( Page 50)
o Berryessa Estates ( Page 57)
o Berryessa Highlands ( Page 59)
o Big Ranch Road ( Page 61)
o Coombsville ( Page 62)
o Deer Park ( Page 64)
o Lake Berryessa: Moskowite
Corners, Pope Creek, Spanish
Flat ( Page 66)
o Silverado ( Page 72)
o South County Industrial
Areas ( Page 74)
o Oakville ( Page 77)
o Pope Valley ( Page 79)
o Rutherford ( Page 82)
o South St. Helena ( Page 84)
• Implementation Policies ( Page 86)
o Social Equity/ Environmental Justice ( Page 86)
o Measure J ( Page 87)
o Land Use Categories, Land Use Map, and Zoning Consistency ( Page 89)
o Interagency Cooperation ( Page 93)
February 16, 2007 Public Review Draft ii
– ii–
o Code Enforcement ( Page 93)
o Growth Management ( Page 94)
o Schools ( Page 106)
o Regional Planning Issues ( Page 107)
o Voter- Approved Amendments ( Page 114)
Circulation Element ( Page 116)
• Transportation in Napa County ( Page 117)
• Napa County’s Roadway System ( Page 120)
• Traffic Congestion and Other Issues ( Page 121)
• Circulation Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Actions ( Page 125)
• Circulation Map ( Page 127)
Community Character Element ( 135)
• Introduction ( Page 135)
• Aesthetics, Views, and Scenic Roadways ( Page 137)
• Cultural and Historic Resources ( Page 138)
• Light and Glare ( Page 143)
• Noise ( Page 144)
• Odors ( Page 151)
• Aesthetics, Views & Scenic Roadways Goals and Policies ( Page 152)
• Cultural Resources Goals and Policies ( Page 155)
• Light and Glare Goals and Policies ( Page 159)
• Noise Goals and Policies ( Page 160)
• Odors Goals and Policies ( Page 165)
• Noise Maps
o Napa Airport Projected Noise Levels ( dBA CNEL) ( Page 149)
o Angwin Airport Projected Noise Levels ( dBA CNEL) ( Page 150)
iii Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– iii–
Conservation Element ( Page 167)
• Introduction ( Page 167)
o Conservation in Napa County ( Page 167)
o Natural Resources in Napa County ( Page 169)
o Water: Quality, Use, and Conservation ( Page 170)
- The Napa River Watershed ( Page 170)
- Other Watersheds ( Page 172)
- Water Quality ( Page 175)
- Water Supplies ( Page 177)
o Energy Use and Conservation ( Page 178)
o Air Quality ( Page 180)
- Particulate Matter ( Page 181)
- Carbon Monoxide ( Page 181)
o Solid Waste ( Page 182)
o Managed Production of Resources ( Page 183)
- Forest Resources ( Page 183)
- Mineral Resources ( Page 183)
- Geothermal Resources ( Page 184)
o Vineyard Development ( Page 184)
- Environmentally Responsible Vineyards ( Page 185)
• Goals and Policies ( Page 187)
o Open Space Conservation ( Page 187)
o Natural Resources ( Page 191)
o Water Quality, Water Use and Water Conservation ( Page 199)
o Air Quality ( Page 206)
o Energy ( Page 210)
o Waste Management ( Page 212)
o Managed Production of Resources ( Page 214)
Economic Development Element ( 217)
• Introduction ( Page 217)
• Napa County’s Economy ( Page 219)
• Jobs, Workers, Housing and Income ( Page 220)
• Worker Training ( Page 221)
February 16, 2007 Public Review Draft iv
– iv–
• Eastern Napa County ( Page 222)
• Interagency Coordination ( Page 222)
• Economic Diversity ( Page 223)
• Aging and Hispanic Populations in Napa County ( Page 223)
• Economic Goals and Policies ( Page 225)
Housing Element ( Not included in this Public Review Draft)
Recreation and Open Space Element ( Page 229)
• Uses of Open Space ( Page 229)
• Recreational Needs and Current Conditions ( Page 233)
• Supply and Demand Characteristics for Outdoor Recreation ( Page 241)
• Formation of Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District
( Page 243)
• Open Space Ownership Characteristics ( Page 243)
• Location and Accessibility of Recreational Open Space ( Page 246)
• Recreational Trails ( Page 252)
• Recreation and Open Space Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Actions
( Page 255)
• Recreation and Open Space Maps
o Dedicated Open Space by Agency ( Page 245)
o Dedicated Open Space by Level of Public Access ( Page 248)
o Time Distance from City Centers ( Page 250)
o Trail Network— Existing, Proposed, and Potential ( Page 253)
Safety Element ( Page 262)
• Safety Hazards in Napa County ( Page 262)
• Napa Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan ( Page 264)
• Safety Goals and Policies ( Page 270)
• Safety Hazard Maps
o Earthquake Faults ( Page 266)
v Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– v–
o Wildland Fire Risk Evaluation ( Page 267)
o Flood Zones ( Page 268)
o Liquefaction Susceptibility ( Page 269)
Implementation Plan ( Page 278)
( Not included in this Public Review Draft)
Glossary ( Page 279)
Index ( Page 302)
( Not included in this Public Review Draft)
1 Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
- 1-
INTRODUCTION
Citizen input from meetings like this one in Angwin in August 2006 is reflected in this General Plan
Background: The 2007 Update Process
This General Plan represents the product of years of efforts on the part of residents
and businesses in the community working to maintain and improve Napa County’s
superior quality of life.
The first Napa County General Plan was adopted in 1969. Since then the General
Plan has been periodically reviewed and updated to reflect changing conditions and
to remain timely and useful. The County adopted a major update to the General
Plan in 1983, but it was not until 2005 that another comprehensive update to the
General Plan was begun.
In the intervening years between 1983 and 2005, Napa County had become much
more diverse in terms of its demographics. Internal and external forces also
changed substantially— in 1983, the personal computer was relatively new, the
Internet had just been launched, and the residents of American Canyon had not yet
formed their new city.
February 16, 2007 Public Review Draft
- 2-
Recognizing the need to update the General Plan to address the issues now facing
the county, the Board of Supervisors embarked on a process that began with the
preparation of a comprehensive Baseline Data Report ( completed in 2005 after
several years’ work) and a comprehensive update of the General Plan itself. In the
years between 2005 and 2008, all of the General Plan’s elements were reviewed and
revised except for the Housing Element, which must be updated on a regular cycle
determined by State law.
Community Involvement
Citizen participation played an important role in preparing the Napa County
General Plan Update. Because the General Plan needs to reflect community goals
and aspirations, citizens were involved, from the onset, with issues identification and
goal formulation. One of the most important parts of this process was the General
Plan Update Steering Committee, whose 21 members met at least monthly
throughout the preparation of the Draft General Plan to bring their own expertise
to the process and to hear from members of the public.
A wide variety of civic and professional organizations were consulted during the
Plan preparation stage whenever possible. Numerous public meetings were held to
discuss the Plan, and additional public involvement occurred during the public
hearing process.
Citizen groups and individuals participated in preparation of the General Plan
through attendance at General Plan Steering Committee meetings and at General
Plan public workshops and public hearings. Targeted outreach to leaders and
members of the County’s large Hispanic community supplemented these efforts.
Role of the General Plan
The General Plan is a broad framework for planning the future of the County of
Napa. The General Plan is the official policy statement of the County Board of
Supervisors to guide the private and public development of the County.
State law requires that the County’s ordinances regulating land use be consistent
with the General Plan. The Zoning Code, individual project proposals, and other
related plans and ordinances must be consistent with the goals and policies in this
General Plan. In addition, all capital improvements and public works projects must
also be consistent with the General Plan.
Periodic review and possible amendment of the General Plan to adjust to changing
conditions and County priorities is required. This General Plan, while prepared with
a time horizon of at least 20 years in mind, is not unchangeable. As circumstances
or the County’s desires change, this General Plan may be amended by the County
Board of Supervisors following review by the Planning Commission. The General
3 Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
- 3-
Plan may also be amended by the voters of Napa County, and as explained in later
sections of the document, there are certain policies and portions of the official Land
Use Map that can only be changed by the voters pursuant to Measure J ( 1990).
Eight Elements of this General Plan
The California Government Code ( Section 65302) requires that a General Plan
address seven basic topics: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open
Space, Noise, and Safety. In addition to the required topics, State law allows each
General Plan to address other locally important issues.
Napa County has chosen to address four additional areas in addition to those
required by state law: Agricultural Preservation, Community Character, Economic
Development, and Recreation. These topics, along with the topics mandated by
state law, are organized into the following eight General Plan Elements:
• Agricultural Preservation and
Land Use
• Community Character
• Conservation
• Circulation
• Economic Development
• Housing1
• Recreation and Open Space
• Safety
The eight General Plan Elements provide the goals and policies for the long- term
development of the County. Each Element provides a brief summary of the topics
it covers, with references to the BDR and other documents where necessary to
assist the reader in location other sources of information.
As well as the eight Elements, the Plan contains ( in addition to this Introduction), a
short Summary/ Vision statement, and a chapter on Implementation which repeats
the action items included in each element and suggests ways to monitor progress
towards the Plan goals. There is also a Glossary and an Index.
Please see “ Using and Interpreting this General Plan,” later in this chapter, for notes on Goals
and Policies in this document.
1 The Housing Element was not updated in 2007, since it was updated in 2005 and not due
for a state- mandated update until 2009.
February 16, 2007 Public Review Draft
- 4-
Napa County General
Plan
Element and California
Government Code
Section References
Contents Required by
State Law
( Excerpted from the
California Government
Code)
Topics Discussed in
Element
Agricultural
Preservation and
Land Use
Includes components of the
following:
Land Use Element
Government Code § 65302( a)
Conservation Element
Government Code § 65302( d)
“ A land use element which
designates the proposed general
distribution and general
location and extent of the uses
of the land for housing,
business, industry, open space,
including agriculture, natural
resources, recreation, and
enjoyment of scenic beauty,
education, public buildings and
grounds, solid and liquid waste
disposal facilities, and other
categories of public and private
uses of land. The land use
element shall include a
statement of the standards of
population density and building
intensity recommended for the
various districts and other
territory covered by the plan.
The land use element shall
identify areas covered by the
plan which are subject to
flooding and shall be reviewed
annually with respect to those
areas. The land use element
shall designate, in a land use
category that provides for timber
production, those parcels of real
property zoned for timberland
production pursuant to the
California Timberland
Productivity Act of 1982,
Chapter 6.7 ( commencing with
Section 51100) of Part 1 of
Division 1 of Title 5.”
The Agricultural Preservation
and Land Use Element
contains the County’s goals
policies for the preservation
of agricultural land and uses,
and for the development of
land for public and private
uses. This Element defines
land use categories and
includes the Land Use Policy
Map, which illustrates the
County's land use policies.
The Element defines the
general distribution and
intensity of land uses for
agriculture, housing, industrial
and commercial uses,
institutional uses, public
facilities, and open space.
Notes:
• Flooding is addressed in
the Safety Element
• Timber resources are
addressed in the Con-servation
Element
Community Character
Includes components of the
This Element addresses topics
required by state law including:
“ Open space for outdoor
The Community Character
Element addresses a variety of
issues that affect the character
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
- 5-
Napa County General
Plan
Element and California
Government Code
Section References
Contents Required by
State Law
( Excerpted from the
California Government
Code)
Topics Discussed in
Element
following:
Noise Element
Government Code § 65302( f)
Open Space Element
Government Code § 65560( b)
( 3)
recreation, including but not
limited to, areas of outstanding
scenic, historic and cultural
value.” GC66560( b)( 3)
of the County's, including
visual resources and
aesthetics, noise, historic and
cultural resources, and odors.
Conservation
Government Code § 65302( d)
“ A conservation element for the
conservation, development, and
utilization of natural resources
including water and its
hydraulic force, forests, soils,
rivers and other waters,
harbors, fisheries, wildlife,
minerals, and other natural
resources. That portion of the
conservation element including
waters shall be developed in
coordination with any
countywide water agency and
with all district and city
agencies which have developed,
served, controlled or conserved
water for any purpose for the
county or city for which the plan
is prepared. Coordination shall
include the discussion and
evaluation of any water supply
and demand information
described in Section 65352.5,
if that information has been
submitted by the water agency
to the city or county.”
The Conservation Element
addresses the conservation
and protection of water ( both
in terms of its use and
quality), air, energy ( including
geothermal), and timber and
mineral resources. This
Element also provides goals
and policies for solid waste
disposal and vineyard
development. This Element’s
policies are coordinated with
policies in other Elements to
address how the County,
through its land use policies,
its review of projects, and its
own operations, can conserve
natural resources and reduce
impacts on air quality.
Note:
• Conservation of agri-cultural
soils is also ad-dressed
in the Agri-cultural
Preservation and
Land Use Element.
Circulation
Government Code § 65302( b)
“ A circulation element
consisting of the general location
and extent of existing and
The Circulation Element
covers all forms of trans-portation
in Napa County,
February 16, 2007 Public Review Draft
- 6-
Napa County General
Plan
Element and California
Government Code
Section References
Contents Required by
State Law
( Excerpted from the
California Government
Code)
Topics Discussed in
Element
proposed major thoroughfares,
transportation routes,
terminals, and other local public
utilities and facilities, all
correlated with the land use
element of the plan.”
including private vehicles,
public and private transit
systems, bicycling on
roadways or off- street paths
or trails, walking, rail, air, and
by water on rivers and other
waterways.
Economic
Development
Optional Element as
discussed in Government Code
§ 65303
No requirements in State Law.
This optional element
establishes policies promoting
agriculture, tourism, eco-nomic
diversity and the
County’s relationships with
the incorporated cities within
Napa County. Topics include
the county’s agricultural
economy and its historical
basis as well as information
on the county’s jobs, housing,
incomes, and the workforce
population.
Housing
Government Code § 65583
“ The housing element shall
consist of an identification and
analysis of existing and
projected housing needs and a
statement of goals, policies,
quantified objectives, financial
resources, and scheduled
programs for the preservation,
improvement, and development
of housing. The housing
element shall identify adequate
sites for housing, including
rental housing, factory- built
housing, and mobilehomes, and
shall make adequate provision
for the existing and projected
needs of all economic segments
The Housing Element
provides the County’s policies
and programs related to
providing safe and affordable
housing for the County’s
current and future residents.
This Element identifies
developmental constraints,
and includes policies and
action programs for providing
adequate housing.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
- 7-
Napa County General
Plan
Element and California
Government Code
Section References
Contents Required by
State Law
( Excerpted from the
California Government
Code)
Topics Discussed in
Element
of the community.” [ excerpt]
Recreation and Open
Space
Government Code § 65560
( a) " Local open- space plan" is
the open- space element of a
county or city general plan
adopted by the board or council,
either as the local open- space
plan or as the interim local
open- space plan adopted
pursuant to Section 65563.
( b) " Open- space land" is any
parcel or area of land or water
which is essentially unimproved
and devoted to an open- space
use as defined in this section,
and which is designated on a
local, regional or state open-space
plan as any of the
following:
( 1) Open space for the
preservation of natural resources
including, but not limited to,
areas required for the
preservation of plant and
animal life, including habitat
for fish and wildlife species;
areas required for ecologic and
other scientific study purposes;
rivers, streams, bays and
estuaries; and coastal beaches,
lakeshores, banks of rivers and
streams, and watershed lands.
( 2) Open space used for the
managed production of
resources, including but not
limited to, forest lands,
rangeland, agricultural lands
and areas of economic
importance for the production of
food or fiber; areas required for
The Recreation and Open
Space Element contains the
goals and policies of the
County regarding recreation
and open space lands and
trails. This Element also
addresses cultural,
interpretive, and educational
opportunities that can be
provided as part of the open
space system.
Notes:
• Open space for scenic,
historic, and cultural
values is addressed in the
Community Character
Element.
• Open space for
preservation of health
and safety is addressed in
the Safety Element
February 16, 2007 Public Review Draft
- 8-
Napa County General
Plan
Element and California
Government Code
Section References
Contents Required by
State Law
( Excerpted from the
California Government
Code)
Topics Discussed in
Element
recharge of ground water basins;
bays, estuaries, marshes, rivers
and streams which are
important for the management
of commercial fisheries; and
areas containing major mineral
deposits, including those in
short supply.
( 3) Open space for outdoor
recreation, including but not
limited to, areas of outstanding
scenic, historic and cultural
value; areas particularly suited
for park and recreation
purposes, including access to
lakeshores, beaches, and rivers
and streams; and areas which
serve as links between major
recreation and open- space
reservations, including utility
easements, banks of rivers and
streams, trails, and scenic
highway corridors.
( 4) Open space for public
health and safety, including, but
not limited to, areas which
require special management or
regulation because of hazardous
or special conditions such as
earthquake fault zones,
unstable soil areas, flood plains,
watersheds, areas presenting
high fire risks, areas required
for the protection of water
quality and water reservoirs
and areas required for the
protection and enhancement of
air quality.
Safety “ A safety element for the The Safety Element seeks to
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
- 9-
Napa County General
Plan
Element and California
Government Code
Section References
Contents Required by
State Law
( Excerpted from the
California Government
Code)
Topics Discussed in
Element
Government Code § 65302( g)
protection of the community
from any unreasonable risks
associated with the effects of
seismically induced surface
rupture, ground shaking,
ground failure, tsunami, seiche,
and dam failure; slope
instability leading to mudslides
and landslides; subsidence,
liquefaction and other seismic
hazards identified pursuant to
Chapter 7.8 ( commencing with
Section 2690) of the Public
Resources Code, and other
geologic hazards known to the
legislative body; flooding; and
wild land and urban fires. The
safety element shall include
mapping of known seismic and
other geologic hazards. It shall
also address evacuation routes,
peakload water supply
requirements, and minimum
road widths and clearances
around structures, as those
items relate to identified fire
and geologic hazards. Prior to
the periodic review of its general
plan and prior to preparing or
revising its safety element, each
city and county shall consult the
Division of Mines and Geology
of the Department of
Conservation and the Office of
Emergency Services for the
purpose of including
information known by and
available to the department and
the office required by this
subdivision.”
reduce the potential risk of
death, injuries, property
damage, and economic and
social dislocation resulting
from fires, floods,
earthquakes, landslides, and
other hazards. Goals and
policies in the Safety Element
address the identification of
hazards and policies for
emergency response, as well
as mitigation through
avoidance of hazards by new
projects and the reduction of
risks associated with known
hazards.
February 16, 2007 Public Review Draft
- 10-
Components of the General Plan
As discussed earlier in this chapter, the Napa County General Plan consists of eight
Elements which together exceed the requirements of State law.
Two important documents support the General Plan. The Baseline Data Report ( BDR)
and the General Plan Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) are both intended to be used
in conjunction with this General Plan and to serve as companions to this policy
document.
The BDR is a comprehensive data set and computer- generated maps reflecting
existing environmental conditions in the County. It also includes several computer
models which may be used as tools to evaluate future changes. To provide up- to-date
information, the BDR is envisioned as an evolving work product that will be
updated as necessary over time to reflect new information, changes in the plans
adopted by other agencies, and other new information.
The General Plan EIR assesses the potential implications of the policies in this
General Plan in terms of physical environmental impacts. State law requires the
EIR be certified prior to adoption of the General Plan, and be used to inform
specific findings that are part of the Board’s approval action( s). In the years
following plan adoption, the assumptions, analysis, conclusions, and recommended
mitigation measures inherent in the EIR will be useful in assessing follow- on
implementation actions and projects.
Using and Interpreting this General Plan
The General Plan is intended to be used by a broad range of persons, including:
• The Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission in decision- making
activities;
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
- 11-
• County staff in developing programs and projects;
• The development community in preparing development proposals; and
• Residents and citizens interested in the future of Napa County and the
County’s policies.
When using this General Plan, the following basic rules should be kept in mind:
• Only those statements specifically listed as “ Goal” are to be interpreted as
stating the County’s goals.
• Only those statements specifically listed as “ Policy” are to interpreted as
statements of County policy. Narrative descriptions and discussions not
preceded by a Policy designation are provided for information and
background only and may assist decision makers with the interpretation of
Policies.
• Unless otherwise defined by Policy, the standard definitions of words and
terms shall be used. The Glossary to this General Plan provides definitions
of many commonly used planning terms; these may be used as a starting
point in resolving disputes about the meanings of words in Goals or Policies.
• Some information in this General Plan ( e. g. population figures) is expected to
become outdated in the normal course of events. Where this information is
critical to the use of this Plan’s Goals or Policies, the most up- to- date
information should be used, including the Baseline Data Report.
The following specific conventions are used in this General Plan:
• Where the word “ County” is capitalized, the reference is generally to the
County of Napa as a governmental agency, as in “ The County’s offices are located
in Napa.”
• Where the word “ county” is lowercase, the reference is generally to the
geographic place, as in “ There are five incorporated communities in the county.”
• References to current facts and figures should generally be considered to refer
to the years 2006- 2007, unless specifically stated otherwise.
February 16, 2007 Public Review Draft
- 12-
Amendments to this General Plan
Recognizing the need for the General Plan to remain up- to- date and reflective of
local issues and policies, State law allows the County to amend the General Plan to
ensure that it is consistent with the conditions, values, expectations, and needs of
the community. The General Plan Guidelines note:
“ The General Plan is a dynamic document because it is based on community values and
an understanding of existing and projected conditions and needs, all of which continually
change. Local governments should plan for change by establishing formal procedures for
regularly monitoring, reviewing, and amending the General Plan.”
Periodic revision of the Housing Element is required by state law ( as of this writing,
the next mandated update is scheduled for 2009), but there is no required regular
update for any other portion of the General Plan.
As provided in Measure J ( in place through 2020 unless extended by the voters), any
change to the Land Use Map which would re- designate land currently designated as
Agricultural Resource or Agriculture/ Watershed/ Open Space to some other use
requires approval by county voters.
Implementation of This General Plan
This General Plan, while it provides detailed policies to guide the county’s growth
and decision- making, is not intended to answer every question which will be faced
by the County over the lifetime of the Plan. Nor is it intended to be a step- by- step
guidebook for its own implementation.
Future work will be needed to fully implement this General Plan. These actions are
listed in the Implementation section of this General Plan. Some of these actions
may occur in the short term; others will require more time and resources and may
not be completed for some time.
The Napa County Zoning Ordinance is a key implementation tool for the General
Plan. Many of the Goals, Policies, Objectives, and Action Items in this General
Plan are achieved through zoning, which regulates public and private development.
The County is responsible for ensuring that its Zoning Ordinance and this General
Plan are in conformity. In most instances, this will mean that land is designated in
the General Plan and zoned for similar uses with similar development standards ( i. e.
similar densities and minimum parcel sizes). Where zoning and General Plan land
use designations are not identical, policies of this General Plan should be consulted
carefully for guidance. Unless otherwise stated, the more restrictive controls of
either zoning or General Plan that apply to the parcel in question ( e. g. larger
minimum parcel size, fewer permitted uses, etc.) shall prevail.
13 Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
- 13-
SUMMARY: A VISION FOR NAPA COUNTY IN 2030
Welcome to Napa County! This General Plan is intended to ensure the preservation of the qualities
and features that make the county a world- renowned place.
The heritage of unincorporated Napa
County is derived from its agriculture and
from its citizens’ success at preserving
agricultural lands while other Bay Area
counties have experienced unprecedented
growth through the 1970s, ‘ 80s, and ‘ 90s.
Napa County is a stable place, home to
world- famous wines and a residential
population smaller than most Bay Area
cities and towns. The County also lacks
much of the urban infrastructure of other
Bay Area counties. As a result of these
and other factors, Napa County has a
rural character that is treasured by those
who live, work, and play here.
Napa County is part of the larger San Francisco
Bay region
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007 14
- 14-
This Napa County General Plan
represents, at the most basic level, the
wishes of its residents and decision-makers
for the future. The following
pages describe the County’s Vision,
highlight the County’s role in achieving
this vision, and summarize the multi-faceted
Plan which follows.
Longstanding community values
include agricultural preservation,
resource conservation, and urban-centered
growth. These values will be
perpetuated by this General Plan, and
will continue to ensure that new
housing and commercial enterprises are
directed to already developed areas, and
that every important land use decision
is scrutinized for its potential to affect
the quality of life, the environment we
live in, and the farmer’s ability to farm,
process agricultural products, and get
those products to market.
A VISION FOR NAPA COUNTY
AND THE ROLE OF THIS GENERAL PLAN IN ACHIEVING THIS
VISION
The Vision described in this section was derived from the input of many people: the
residents and businesspeople who took part in the General Plan Update process, the
members of the General Plan Update Steering Committee, and the County’s
decision- makers.
The various parts of the Vision are not presented in order of importance; in fact, it
is the interplay between the various ideas contained in this section and throughout
the Elements of the General Plan that will make Napa County the place it is
envisioned to be. When considered as a whole policy framework, this General Plan
is intended to provide future decision- makers with the guidance they need to make
wise decisions in support of accepted community values and to balance potentially
competing priorities.
ABOUT NAPA COUNTY
Population
Most of Napa County’s residents live in
the county’s five cities: American
Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, St Helena and
Yountville. Only one- fifth of the total
population in Napa County— or about
28,000 persons as of 2004— live outside of
cities in the unincorporated area.
Wine
Napa County’s vineyards produce some of
the world’s best wines. According to
industry reports, the value of the wine
grape crop in 2005 was $ 541,000,000, with
an average price of almost $ 3,000 per ton.
15 Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
- 15-
Napa’s world- famous wines begin with grapes from
vineyards in the Napa Valley and throughout the county.
apa County in 2030 will remain a world- famous grape-growing
and wine- making region, with a viable and
sustainable agricultural industry.
Under this General Plan,
the amount of land
designated for
agriculture will increase,
assuming no further
annexations of County
land by incorporated
cities and towns. 1 New
non- agricultural
development will
continue to be focused
in the incorporated cities
and already developed
areas. County decision-makers
will embrace a
“ smart growth”
philosophy and work
collaboratively with
decision- makers in incorporated cities and towns who do the same. As a starting
place, this Plan establishes a new Rural- Urban Limit around the City of American
Canyon, and illustrates the ( existing) limit line around the city of Napa.
Policies supporting agriculture include the long- standing “ right to farm” which
ensures that new residents and new users of land understand they inhabit an
agricultural area where the viability of agriculture comes first. These policies also
define all the components of agriculture encompassed by the right to farm, and
perpetuate the County’s longstanding commitment to protections for agricultural
land.
The Plan also establishes agriculture and rural residences ( i. e. not urbanized areas) as
the principal users of ground water aquifers and calls for data collection and long-term
monitoring to ensure adequate supplies remain in the future.
Vineyard development is expected to continue, and will become increasingly
environmentally sensitive as business practices and conservation priorities converge.
1 Note to the Reader: the actual change in the amount of agriculturally designated land in
the General Plan will depend on your input and final decisions regarding areas such as
Angwin, Pope Valley, and Berryessa Estates. Please see the Draft Agricultural Preservation
& Land Use Element and the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) for more
information.
N
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007 16
- 16-
The County General Plan hastens this trend by calling for a streamlined permitting
process for environmentally superior vineyards that fully address erosion and other
water quality concerns and other natural resource issues by implementing proven
techniques to control erosion and runoff.
Overall, the Plan’s Conservation Element ensures that we will use and protect the
County’s wealth of natural resources wisely – conserving and enhancing natural
resources for present and future generations. Policies promote and reward good
stewardship, defining the role of the County, private property owners, and
partnering organizations. The use of incentives is emphasized, along with
community outreach, and the principle of “ adaptive management,” which means
constantly evaluating the effectiveness of policies and practices, and revising them as
circumstances change.
apa County in 2030 will retain its rural character and
outstanding quality of life.
This General Plan
will preserve and
improve the
quality of life and
the rural character
of the County by
proactively
addressing land
use, traffic, and
safety concerns in
addition to
sustaining the
agricultural
industry. The
Plan describes the
character of each
developed area in
the
unincorporated
area of the county, and includes policies to ensure the character of these areas is
preserved. Important rural crossroads are also identified and are viewed as vital
parts of the whole Napa County picture.
The Plan contains policies aimed at the County’s aging population, and will guide
decisions in the future about housing for seniors, paratransit, communication
systems, and more. The Plan also establishes significance standards that will be used
to evaluate and mitigate traffic congestion associated with land use changes, and
identifies scenic roadways that will be protected from significant visual changes. By
N
Napa County’s back country— here, the Pope and Chiles valleys,
viewed from Aetna Springs Road— is an important part of the
County’s heritage which this General Plan seeks to preserve.
17 Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
- 17-
keeping non- agricultural uses in already developed areas and addressing
requirements for all new development, the Plan will also ensure that the night sky in
Napa County’s rural areas remains dark, retaining a key feature that makes these
areas special.
thriving economy will be maintained where agriculture
is complemented by tourism and other activities and
economic sectors.
This General Plan
reflects the dominance
of agriculture in the
local economy, and the
wine industry’s
extraordinary $ 9
billion impact on the
State’s economy.
Although only four
percent of California’s
wines are produced in
Napa County, they
account for more than
one- fourth of all the
wine sales in California
due the high prices
commanded by the
county’s fine wines.
Some 40,000 persons
are employed in the Napa County wine industry, with a total payroll of $ 1.4- billion. 2
Tourism also plays an important part of the County’s economy. According to a
2006 study, 3 the tourism industry generates almost $ 1- billion in direct and indirect
economic benefits in the county, employing 17,500 persons. This Plan recognizes
the role of tourism in providing jobs and revenue to the County, and also recognizes
the need to avoid impacting agriculture or the scenic qualities of the County that are
enjoyed by tourists and residents alike.
Other sectors of our economy are identified, and a range of policies is included to
ensure sufficient industrial areas are maintained to provide for the “ back of house”
functions associated with the wine industry for years to come. These areas also
2 Source: Napa Valley Vinters, “ Economic Impact of Wine and Vineyards in Napa County,”
June 2005
3 “ Napa County Visitor Profile Study & Napa County Economic Impact Study,” Purdue
University, March 2006
A
Winery tasting rooms support the County’s agricultural and
tourism industries
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007 18
- 18-
provide a home for a variety of other enterprises critical to local residents and
businesses and in the future can be the source of high- wage employment for Napa
County residents.
Local- serving businesses are called- out as critical contributors to the quality of life,
and the Plan includes policies to support these businesses in appropriate locations,
such as commercially zoned land near Lake Berryessa.
apa County will become known for its successful
strategies aimed at increasing the supply of housing
available to people at all income levels.
To help meet future
housing needs, this
General Plan provides
for the reuse of former
industrial sites to help
provide a mix of
housing types without
converting land from
agricultural use. 4 The
Plan contains policies
aimed at helping the
County meet its
requirement to
provide a fair share of
the region’s need for
housing at all income
levels. Policies deal
with a wide range of issues, including the use of second units, the desire for
“ workforce” housing, providing new “ affordable” housing, and ensuring that special
needs groups ( such as the disabled, female- headed households, large families, and
farmworkers) have housing options available to them.
This Plan also continues the County’s decades- long commitment to work
cooperatively with the county’s cities and town to focus new housing in the cities
and prevent the sprawl of housing into the county’s prime agricultural areas. Rural
Urban Limit ( RUL) lines are defined in this General Plan around the county’s largest
4 Note to the Reader: The mix of uses proposed for the Napa Pipe site and the nearby
Pacific Coast/ Boca site will depend on your comments and the final decision regarding an
appropriate mix of land uses. Please see the draft Agricultural Preservation & Land Use
Element and the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) for more information.
N
Farmworker housing in the Napa Valley represents just one
segment of the county’s need for housing for all persons
19 Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
- 19-
cities ( Napa and American Canyon), reflecting the County’s commitment to keep
growth focused in cities and already developed areas.
The County is also committed to ensuring that its own operations be conducted in a
way that encourages the development of new affordable housing, seeking to lower
fees and reduce delays for home builders.
he Napa River will increasingly run clean and healthy,
supporting native fish, plants, and animals and serving
as an important part of the life of the County’s people.
The Napa River has served many purposes in the lifetime of the county— a source
of food and water for
early peoples, a way to
transport goods to
market, a place to
recreate. The River is
also an important natural
resource, providing
habitat for numerous
fish, plants, and animals,
including threatened and
endangered species such
as cutthroat trout.
This General Plan
contains specific policies
and steps to improve the
health of the Napa River and help restore its natural populations of native species.
These policies build on the work of the “ TMDL” 5 process to reduce impacts
created by septic tank failures, erosion, and sediment build- up in the county’s
waterways. A healthier river will invite more visitors, and this General Plan seeks to
improve both habitat and access to the river, as well as expanding education and
outreach efforts.
The Napa River also has a darker side: its propensity to flood after heavy storms.
This General Plan also includes policies addressing the River from the standpoint of
safety, building on efforts already under way at the time the Plan was updated to
improve the river’s ability to safely carry storm flows and eliminate the flooding of
homes and businesses which has been a part of county life for decades.
5 “ TMDL” refers to “ Total Maximum Daily Load.” The TMDL process is a multi- agency
effort to develop methods to reduce pollutant loading in the river.
T
The Napa River supports a wide variety of wildlife, and is a
central feature of downtown Napa
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007 20
- 20-
Napa County will be a community in which reminders of
the County’s rich history are preserved, protected, and
cherished.
This General Plan identifies the
steps the County will take to
protect important natural and
cultural resources and improve
their visibility as part of the
county’s rich arts and cultural life.
Cultural and historic resources in
Napa County run the gamut from
million- year- old fossils to remnants
of prehistoric Native Americans to
the history of European settlement.
Many historic buildings and sites
are related to the county’s
winemaking industry, but others,
like the grist mill pictured above,
pre- date the wine industry and
harkens back the area’s agrarian
roots.
This General Plan seeks to preserve these many and varied resources in a variety of
ways: documenting the resources that remain, establishing incentives for preserving
historic buildings, and making it easier to establish new uses in historic structures.
The historic Bale Grist Mill was built in 1846 and
was at one time a center of social activity in the
Valley. It is now a State of California Historic
Park.
21 Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
- 21-
apa County will have an increasing number of trails
and a wide variety of recreational opportunities aimed
at allowing residents and visitors to appreciate and
experience our world- famous scenic beauty and the county’s
natural areas.
This General Plan includes goals,
policies, and actions intended to
provide for the development of new
hiking trails and access to protected
public open spaces for nature- based
recreation.
The Recreation and Open Space
Element in this General Plan steers a
more proactive course with regard to
park and recreation development
than has been followed by the
County in the past. This General
Plan targets the construction of new
trails and calls for adding to the
amount of public open space
available for hiking and recreation.
This General Plan is also mindful of
the potential conflicts between
recreational uses and agriculture, and
seeks to ensure that the county’s
farming uses will be able to coexist with the expanded trails and public open spaces.
This General Plan also continues the County’s long- standing policy to avoid using
eminent domain as a means to acquire open space. The County supports the
voluntary sale or donation of these lands ( or easements) by willing owners.
N
Calistoga in the Fall-- one example of the Napa
Valley’s scenic beauty
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007 22
- 22-
apa County will respond to change and to internal and
external factors in proactive ways, identifying issues
before they become crises and developing innovative ways to
respond.
By continuously
monitoring progress
and updating the
County’s knowledge
base, this General Plan
will allow the county
to respond to change.
Some issues can be
foreseen now—
including an aging
population and
increasing pressures
on agricultural lands—
others are less clear
but will be dealt with
as part of the ongoing
process of
implementing this
Plan.
In addition, this General Plan provides the basis for the County’s responses to other
governmental agencies: Conservation policies in this Plan will direct the County’s
response to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards ongoing process to reduce
pollution in the Napa River ( the “ TMDL” process); and policies in the Agricultural
Preservation/ Land Use Element will permit effective responses to regional housing
requirements created by the Association of Bay Area Governments.
ACHIEVING THE VISION OF THIS GENERAL PLAN
The plan is a reflection of all the community input, etc. etc. and its effectiveness will
be monitored over time. Ensuring that the Vision contained in this General Plan is
followed and achieved will require conscientious efforts on the part of citizens and
County officials. Monitoring progress toward this Vision is also important, since the
policies and actions in this Plan may have to be adjusted from time to time in order
to be effective.
N
Solar power is one example of positive change occurring in Napa
County
23 Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
- 23-
This Plan therefore embraces the concepts of indicators— measurable ways to
determine if the County is achieving its goals— and adaptive management—
changing the way the County does business to retain good practices, abandon or
change those practices that don’t work, and adopt new, workable practices. The
Implementation section of this General Plan, therefore, lays out a process to ensure
that this continual process of measurement and adjustment takes place— the
monitoring process laid out in the Implementation section of this General Plan is
critical to the long- term success of this Plan. 6
6 Note to the Reader: the implementation section of the plan will be developed following
public review of the draft elements and the draft Environmental Impact Report ( EIR). The
implementation section will ( 1) repeat the action items included in each individual element;
and ( 2) articulate strategies for monitoring or measuring the success of the plan over time.
Suggestions regarding the format and content of this section are welcome.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 24–
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND LAND USE
Preservation of Napa County’s agricultural industry is a key goal of this General Plan.
Introduction
In Napa County, preservation of the county’s agricultural lands has been the subject
of close attention, discussion and legislation for almost a half century.
Napa County has long been on the forefront of planning for the preservation of
agricultural lands, and intends to remain in a leadership position with regard to
planning for a sustainable future. Napa County has managed to retain its prime
vineyard lands in production while vast tracts of farmland in other parts of the Bay
Area have been urbanized. The County established
the first Agricultural Preserve in California in 1968,
and the urban- centered growth ( homes and businesses
concentrated in cities to preserve farmland) which has
characterized the Napa Valley since the turn of the
century foreshadowed by decades the “ smart growth”
movement. Continued on page 26 …
Please turn to Page 25 for
a complete listing of topics
covered in this Element,
with page number
references.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 25–
IN THIS ELEMENT
 Introduction ( Page 24)
o History of Land Uses ( Page 26)
o Land Use Planning in Napa County ( Page 27)
o Agriculture in Napa County ( Page 28)
o Issues Facing the County ( Page 29)
o Cities and Other Agencies ( Page 31)
 Agricultural Preservation and Land Use Goals ( Page 33)
 Agricultural Preservation Policies ( Page 34)
 Other Land Use Policies ( Page 39)
o Policies in Support of Urban- Centered Growth ( Page 39)
o Residential Policies ( Page 40)
o Commercial, Industrial and Transitional Land Uses ( Page 243)
o Public- Institutional Uses ( Page 48)
o Prohibited Uses ( Page 48)
 Policies Specific to Geographic Areas of the County ( Page 49)
o Angwin ( Page 50)
o Berryessa Estates ( Page 57)
o Berryessa Highlands ( Page 59)
o Big Ranch Road ( Page 61)
o Coombsville ( Page 62)
o Deer Park ( Page 64)
o Lake Berryessa: Moskowite Corners, Pope Creek, Spanish Flat ( Page 66)
o Silverado ( Page 72)
o South County Industrial Areas ( Page 74)
o Oakville ( Page 77)
o Pope Valley ( Page 79)
o Rutherford ( Page 82)
o South St. Helena ( Page 84)
 Implementation Policies ( Page 86)
o Social Equity/ Environmental Justice ( Page 86)
o Measure J ( Page 87)
o Land Use Categories, Land Use Map, and Zoning Consistency ( Page 89)
o Interagency Cooperation ( Page 93)
o Code Enforcement ( Page 93)
o Growth Management ( Page 94)
o Schools ( Page 106)
o Regional Planning Issues ( Page 107)
o Voter- Approved Amendments ( Page 114)
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 26–
Continued from Page 24 …
The County’s long history of, and close attention to, agricultural preservation and
land use planning makes this a critically important Element of this General Plan. In
the pages of this Element, you will find the County’s policies on a wide range of
issues related to the use of land, the continued viability of agriculture, and
coordination with other agencies.
History of Land Uses
The modern development of Napa County began even before the formation of the
county in 1850 ( one of the original California counties). Early developers tried a
number of schemes to extract a living from the Napa Valley, including mining and
farming. Winemaking was tried only after several other ideas failed to pan out, and
the wine industry itself was severely tested, first by an insect that killed almost all of
the valley’s vines and then by Prohibition, which eliminated the market for all but a
fraction of the county’s wine output ( sacramental wines and grape juice production
kept a few wineries afloat).
Initially, Napa County contained no incorporated cities— the first city, Napa,
incorporated in 1872. St. Helena became a city in 1876, followed by Calistoga in
1886. Almost 80 years would elapse before the next incorporation: Yountville, in
1965. The incorporation of American Canyon in 1992 completed what is likely the
last incorporation in the county.
The settlement pattern in Napa County from its earliest days mirrored that of other
rural, agricultural counties, with small settlements widely separated. This pattern
continued, and modern Napa County remains sparsely settled outside of the
incorporated cities and town and a small number of urbanized areas in the
unincorporated county.
For most of the county’s history, the amount of development in the unincorporated
area exceed that of the cities. It was not until the beginning of the modern era of
urbanization in about the 1960s and 70s that the current city- centered development
pattern emerged. Table LU- A, below, shows the history of population growth in
the county. In 1900, almost two- thirds of the population lived in the
unincorporated area; the remaining one- third lived in the cities that existed at that
time. By 1970, the county’s share of residents had declined to 44 percent. As of
2006, the unincorporated area accounted for only 20 percent of the county’s
residents.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 27–
TABLE AG/ LU- A:
POPULATION GROWTH IN NAPA COUNTY, 1900- 2006
Population
City/ Town
( Date
incorporate)
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006
American
Canyon ( 1992) 5,712 7,706 9,774 14,961
Calistoga
( 1886) 690 751 850 1,000 1,124 1,418 1,514 1,882 3,879 4,468 5,190 5,258
Napa
( 1872) 4,036 5,791 6,757 6,437 7,740 13,579 22,170 35,978 50,879 61,842 72,585 76,705
St. Helena
( 1876) 1,582 1,603 1,346 1,701 1,758 2,297 2,722 3,173 4,898 4,990 5,950 5,989
Yountville
( 1965) 2,332 2,893 3,259 2,916 3,264
Unincorporated
area 10,143 11,655 11,725 13,759 17,881 29,309 39,484 35,775 30,938 28,500 27,864 28,267
Total 16,451 19,800 20,678 22,897 28,503 46,603 65,890 79,140 99,199 110,765 124,279 134,444
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments
Although the county has grown, it has grown relatively slowly, particularly
compared to the other counties in the Bay Area. Napa County remains relatively
small in terms of population as compared to other Bay Area counties. The entire
population of Napa County in 2006 ( about 134,000 persons) is smaller than the
population of Santa Rosa ( a city about 156,000 persons in Sonoma County).
Land Use Planning in Napa County
As noted above, Napa County has a long and distinguished history of planning.
Key milestones of the past one- and- one- half centuries include:
1850 Napa County is formed ( one of the original 27 counties at the time of
statehood)
1872 City of Napa incorporates
1876 City of St. Helena incorporates
1886 City of Calistoga incorporates
1955 First County Zoning Map adopted
1965 Town of Yountville incorporates
1968 Agricultural Preserve is established
1969 First “ Preliminary General Plan” for Napa County
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 28–
1973 - 75 Adoption of Conservation, Open Space, and Seismic Safety elements of
the Napa County General Plan ( an almost complete General Plan)
1975 First Napa County General Plan Land Use Element
1977- 80 County rezones land to be consistent with the new General Plan
1979 First Napa County Housing Element, outlining housing policies
1981 Growth Management System (“ Measure A”) is adopted
1983 Comprehensive update of the Napa County General Plan
1990 Winery Definition Ordinance adopted, placing limits on new wineries
and uses including limits on tours and tasting and requiring the
production of wines with minimum 75% Napa County grape content
1991 Conservation Regulations adopted with conforming General Plan
Amendments
1991 Measure J is enacted, requiring voter approval of conversion of lands
designated agricultural in the General plan to urban uses
1992 City of American Canyon incorporates
2005 County begins a comprehensive update of the General Plan, beginning
with the preparation of a detailed Baseline Data Report
Agriculture in Napa County
Known today throughout the world for its wine industry, Napa County’s first
agricultural industry was cattle, grown to support the nearby Sonoma Mission. A
combination of drought, floods, and fences combined to all but end the cattle
industry by the 1860s, and it was replaced with dairies, horses, chickens, wheat, fruit
orchards … and vineyards. The most popular crop of this period was prunes, and
by 1899, prunes were the dominant crop in the county.
Wine grapes caught on quickly, and by the 1880s there were 16,000 acres of vines in
the Valley. After an infestation of Phylloxera, a plant pest, grape growers replanted
with pest- resistant root stocks, and the industry thrived until the enaction of
Prohibition in 1920. Many wineries closed during the dry years, and those that
survived did so by making sacramental wine and nonalcoholic grape juice. With the
end of prohibition in 1933, growers once again began planting grapes, and by the
mid- 1930s, the land devoted to vineyards ( 15,000 acres) had exceeded the
historically dominant prune orchards ( 12,000 acres).
The increase in land devoted to vineyards from about 15,000 acres in the mid- 1930s
to almost 50,000 acres in 2007 happened gradually at first, with the rate of new
vineyard development picking up pace in the 1970s and 1980s. Notable events in
this trajectory included the advent of hillside vineyards, which today produce a large
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 29–
percentage of Napa County’s premium wine grapes, the designation of multiple
viticultural areas ( AVA’s) by the federal government, and the diversification of
varietals. As of January 2007, there are 11 separate AVAs located entirely or
partially within Napa County. The 2005 County Crop Report indicated that about
42,000 acres were planted in vines that year, with a yield of 42,000 tons of grapes,
including some 35 separate varietals, for a total value of approximately $ 540- million.
Charles Krug is credited with producing the Valley’s first commercial wines in 1858.
Soon after, a fledgling industry of some fifty winemakers, including Krug, the
Beringer Brothers, John Lewelling, G. B. Crane, and Gustave Niebaum, were making
a total of 8,000 gallons of wine per year. Output rapidly increased in the early days,
and by 1890, 100 wineries were producing 4- million gallons each year.
Hit hard by Prohibition, Napa County’s wine industry did not truly recover until the
1960s. The famous 1976 blind tasting competition in Paris that pitted Napa wines
against the best French wines ( a competition won by Napa wines) cemented the
county’s reputation as a world- class wine region.
The question of what activities and infrastructure are allowed at a winery led to
adoption of the Winery Definition Ordinance in 1990, establishing parameters for
wine making as a form of agricultural processing within agricultural areas of the
County. Today, more than 400 wineries are approved for development in the
county; almost 300 are in operation, producing millions of gallons of wine each year.
In 2005, 8.5- million cases of wine ( more than 20- million gallons) were produced
within the County.
Issues Facing the County
Looking to the future, there are a number of demographic trends and land use
issues that the County will face, not the least of which is the expected growth in
population. Between 2005 and 2030, the Association of Bay Area Governments
( ABAG) projects that Napa County will add 17,000 new residents, and that over
7,500 of those will reside within the unincorporated area ( ABAG Projections 2005).
Population Projections for Napa County
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2020 2030
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 30–
Characteristics of these new residents and the population as a whole are discussed
further below, along with related housing and land use issues.
Aging Population
Napa County’s population is aging. Reflecting a nationwide trend, Napa County’s
median age has been on the rise for decades, increasing from 32.3 years of age in
1970 to 36.5 years in 2000. In Napa, this trend has been accentuated by the
County’s long- standing policy of limited residential growth ( which has prevented an
influx of large numbers of young families) and the relatively high prices of homes
( which tend to favor older homeowners with higher incomes). Since the County’s
growth management policies remain the same, and because housing prices are
expected to remain high, this trend toward an older population is expected to
continue.
The County, both as a land use agency and as a provider of social services, will need
to address the issues of an aging population as the population’s median age
continues to increase. Examples of potential issues associated with an aging
population include a shift in demand for housing ( to single- level, smaller, and more
easily cared- for units), more demand for medical care and transport, and higher
demand for public transit ( as people become unable to drive).
Changing School Enrollment Patterns
Reflecting the increasing age of people in the county, Napa’s school population is
also changing in terms of age and location. Most of the Napa Valley Unified School
District’s current ( 2006) increase in enrollment is happening at upper grade levels ( in
particular high school- age students) and in the city of American Canyon. Planned
school construction currently ( 2006) calls for a new middle school and high school
in American Canyon.
At the same time, enrollment in some elementary schools is decreasing as the
number of school- age children declines.
This Element expresses the County’s desire to coordinate with the School District
on these issues to ensure that all of the county’s residents have access to a high
quality education.
Increasing Cultural Diversity and the Need for Social Equity
Napa County has always relied on minorities as a vital part of its culture and
economy. Beginning in the early 1800s with Chinese laborers, followed later by
Italian immigrants, and most recently Hispanic workers from Mexico and other
Latin American countries, the county has long been a beacon to those willing to
travel far from home to find work and a place to live.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 31–
Beginning in the 1970s, an increasing number of the county’s farm workers,
previously a seasonal population, began to live in the county all of the year. As of
2006, more than one- fourth of all persons in the county spoke Spanish as their
primary language.
As the county’s social makeup continues to change, issues of Social Equity are
becoming more important, and the County will need to work hard to ensure that all
members of society are included in decisions about future land uses and other
policies. This Element expresses the County’s desire to ensure that all groups are
treated fairly and equally without regard to race, income, or other factors.
High Cost of Housing
As is the case in most of California— and in particular the Bay Area, of which Napa
County is a part— housing costs have risen at rates far exceeding the general rate of
inflation. As of 2006, the median price of a home in the unincorporated area of
Napa County was approximately $ 622,500 well beyond the reach of households
earning a moderate income. This shortage of housing affordable to moderate, low,
and very low income households makes it difficult for many of the county’s
workforce members to live in the county, increasing traffic on roads to other
counties as these workers commute from less expensive areas. Those families who
chose to live in the county devote a large share of their income to housing, leaving
less disposable income for other purposes.
Development Pressures on Agricultural Land
Affordable housing for the Napa County workforce is just one issue that makes it
challenging for County policy makers to sustain their longstanding commitment to
preserving agricultural land. Other pressures include the desire for additional high-wage
employment, the need for industrial land to support the agricultural industry,
and the potential for continuing annexations by the incorporated cities. All of these
issues are addressed in the policies included in this element -- policies which are
collectively intended to perpetuate a policy framework that sets agricultural
preservation as the immovable foundation for sound decision making within Napa
County.
Policies such as those articulating broad housing strategies, establishing an industrial
reserve, and addressing specific geographic areas of the County provide a road map
for decision makers that will allow them to address critical social issues without
compromising the principles of urban- centered growth and agricultural
preservation, and without substantially decreasing the amount of land designated as
Agricultural Reserve ( AR) or Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space ( AWOS) by
the General Plan.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 32–
Global Competition & the Continued Economic Viability of Agriculture
While the economic impact of Napa County’s wine industry was estimated at
around $ 9 billion in 2005,1 the industry faces ever increasing competition from other
winemaking regions around the world. In addition, changes within the industry
such as consolidation by large ownership interests and increasing competition for a
limited number of distributors necessitate an increasing focus on marketing and
direct sales by many wineries. Preserving the economic viability of agriculture by
helping position Napa County to compete globally, and by accepting the industry’s
need to adapt and change is a goal that is inherent in the policies presented in this
element, and is also addressed in the Economic Development Element.
Cities and Other Agencies
Implementation of this General Plan will require cooperation between a number of
local, state, and federal agencies.
Four cities and one town are located in Napa County; each is governed by a locally
elected city council and has authority over land use planning within its boundaries.
These are ( in order of their formation):
City of Napa ( 1872)
Area: 18 square miles
2006 Population: 76,705
City of St. Helena ( 1876)
Area: 4 square miles
2006 Population: 5,989
City of Calistoga ( 1886)
Area: 2 square miles
2006 Population: 5,258
Town of Yountville ( 1965)
Area: 3 square miles
2006 Population: 3,264
City of American Canyon ( 1992)
Area: 3 square miles
2006 Population: 14,961
In addition to these agencies, a number of other local, state and federal agencies
either contribute to local land use policies, and/ or control large areas of the county.
The Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) for Napa County operates
consistent with state statutes, and has both regulatory ( annexation) and planning
( sphere of influence) responsibilities. The federal government owns almost 63,000
acres of public lands; the State of California owns more than 42,000. Combined,
the 105,000 acres of land owned by State and federal agencies ( and not subject to
the County’s land use controls) comprise more than one- fifth of all land in the
county. ( For a complete listing of publicly owned or accessible lands in Napa County, please see
the Recreation and Open Space Element.)
1 “ Economic Impact of Wine and Vineyards in Napa County,” MKF Research, June 2005.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 33–
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND LAND USE GOALS
Ag / LU Goal 1: Preserve existing agricultural land uses.
Ag / LU Goal 2: Support the economic viability of
agriculture, including grape growing,
winemaking, other types of agriculture,
and supporting industries to ensure the
preservation of agricultural lands.
Ag / LU Goal 3: Concentrate non- agricultural land uses
in existing urbanized or developed
areas.
Ag / LU Goal 4: Provide for commercial, industrial,
residential, recreational, open space and
public land uses in locations that are
compatible with adjacent uses.
Ag / LU Goal 5: Create a stable and predictable
regulatory environment that encourages
investment by the private sector and
balances the rights of individuals with
those of the community.
Ag / LU Goal 6: Plan for demographic changes and
desired social services when siting
public facilities and when considering
the design of those facilities.
This Element contains policies in the following general categories to
implement these goals:
 Agricultural Preservation Policies
 Land Use Policies
 Policies Specific to Geographic Areas of the County
 Implementation Policies
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 34–
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION POLICIES
This section includes some policies which were incorporated in the General
Plan by voter- approved “ Measure J” and other policies which were adopted
by the Napa County Board of Supervisors. Policies derived from Measure J
may not be amended or deleted without subsequent voter approval until after
December 31, 2020 or after a later date if an extension is approved by the
voters.
Policy Ag/ LU- 1: Agriculture and related activities are the primary land uses in
Napa County. ( Former Land Use goal 1)
Policy Ag/ LU- 2: The County defines “ Agriculture” as the raising of crops, trees
or livestock; the production and processing of agricultural
products; and related marketing, sales and other accessory
uses. Agriculture also includes farm management businesses
and agricultural employee housing.
Policy Ag/ LU- 3: The County’s planning concepts and zoning standards shall be
designed to minimize conflicts arising from encroachment of
urban uses into agricultural areas. Land in proximity to existing
urban areas currently in mixed agricultural and rural residential
uses will be treated as Residential Country Areas and further
parcelization of these areas will be discouraged. Day care
centers will be allowed in agricultural areas where there is a
finding that there will be no conflict with agricultural use in the
vicinity. ( Former Land Use policy 3.5)
Policy Ag/ LU- 4: The County will reserve agricultural lands for agricultural use
including lands used for grazing, except for those lands south
of Soscol Ridge which are shown on the Land Use Map as
planned for urban development. ( Former Land Use policy 3.10
combined with Former Land Use policy 3.8)
Policy Ag/ LU- 5: The County will promote an agricultural support system
including physical components ( such as farm labor housing,
equipment supply and repair) and institutional components
( such as 4- H, FFA, agricultural and natural resources education
and experimentation). ( Former Land Use policy 3.3)
Policy Ag/ LU- 6: The County will continue to study tax assessment policies
which recognize the long term intent of agricultural zoning and
the fact that agricultural land uses require a minimum of public
expenditure for protection and servicing. ( Former Land Use
policy 3.4)
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 35–
Policy Ag/ LU- 7: The County will research, evaluate and pursue new approaches
to ensure ever stronger protections for the County’s finite and
irreplaceable agricultural resources. Such approaches may
include implementation of a “ Super Williamson Act” program,
a conservation easement program or other permanent
protections, and programs promoting the economic viability of
agriculture. ( Derived from Former Land Use policy 3.2.).
Policy Ag/ LU- 8: The County’s minimum agricultural parcel sizes shall ensure
that agricultural areas can be maintained as economic units.
( Former Land Use policy 3.6)
Policy Ag/ LU- 9: New wineries and other agricultural processing facilities as well
as expansions of existing wineries and facilities in agricultural
areas should be designed to convey the permanence and
attractiveness associated with existing Napa Valley wineries
and facilities. ( Former Land Use policy 3.11 combined with Former
Land Use Policy 3.13, with edits)
Policy Ag/ LU- 10: Seasonal farm labor housing may be provided in agricultural
areas without regard to the location of farm employment when
the housing is under public agency ownership or control.
( Former Land Use policy 3.7a)
Policy Ag/ LU- 11: No non- agricultural use or development of a parcel located in
an agricultural area shall be permitted unless it is needed for
the agricultural use of the parcel, except as provided in Policies
LU- 1, LU- 5, and LU- 24. ( Former Land Use policy 3.11)
Policy Ag/ LU- 12: In the case of wineries, agricultural processing includes tours
and tasting, retail sales of wine produced by or for the winery
partially or totally from Napa County grapes, activities for the
education and development of consumers and members of the
wine trade with respect to wine produced by or at the winery,
and limited non- commercial food service including wine- food
parings, provided any such activities are clearly accessory to the
principal use of the facility as an agricultural processing facility.
( Former Land Use policy 3.11 with wine- food pairing added.)
Policy Ag/ LU- 13: The same location, design, and other considerations applied to
wineries shall apply to all other food processing businesses or
industrial uses located in the agricultural areas. ( Former Land
Use Element policy 6.3)
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 36–
Policy Ag/ LU- 14: The County affirms and will protect the right of agriculture
operators in designated agricultural areas to continue their
agricultural practices ( a “ right to farm”), even though
established urban uses in the general area may foster
complaints against those agricultural practices. The “ right to
farm” shall encompass the processing of agricultural products
and other activities inherent in the definition of agriculture
provided in Policy Ag/ LU 2, above. ( Former Land Use policy
3.12)
The existence of this " Right- To- Farm" policy shall be indicated
on all parcel maps approved for locations in or adjacent to
designated agricultural areas and shall be a required disclosure
to buyers of property in Napa County. ( Derived from Former
Land Use Policy 3.12 and already in practice.)
Policy Ag/ LU- 15: In recognition of their limited impacts, the County will
consider affording small wineries a streamlined permitting
process. For purposes of this policy, small wineries are those
that produce a small quantity of wine using grapes mostly
grown on site and host a limited number of small marketing
events each year.
Action Item LU- 15.1: Consider amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance defining “ small wineries” and establishing a
streamlined permitting process.
Policy Ag/ LU- 16: The County encourages active forest management practices,
including timely harvesting to preserve existing forests. The
County also encourages timber plantations for fuel wood and
lumber production. ( Former policy 3.15)
Policy Ag/ LU- 17: Timber production areas in the County shall be considered to
be those defined in the most recent adopted mapping available
from the California Department of Forestry unless local areas
are defined through a public planning process.
Policy Ag/ LU- 18: The following standards shall apply to lands designated as
Agriculture, Watershed, and Open Space on the Land Use
Map of this General Plan.
Intent: To provide areas where the predominant use is
agriculturally oriented; where watershed areas, reservoirs,
floodplain tributaries, geologic hazards, soil conditions and
other constraints make the land relatively unsuitable for urban
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 37–
development; where urban development would adversely
impact on all such uses; and where the protection of
agriculture, watersheds, and floodplain tributaries from fire,
pollution, and erosion is essential to the general health, safety,
and welfare. ( Note: This text is derived from Measure J)
General Uses: Agriculture, processing of agricultural
products, single family dwelling. ( Note: This text is derived from
Measure J.
Minimum Parcel Size:
160 acres, except that parcels with a minimum size of 2 acres
may be created for the sole purpose of developing farm labor
camps by a local government agency authorized to own or
operate farm labor camps so long as the division is
accomplished by securing the written consent of a local
government agency authorized to own or operate farm labor
camps that it will accept a conveyance of the fee interest of the
parcel to be created and thereafter conveying the fee interest of
such parcel directly to said local government agency, or
entering into a long- term lease of such parcels directly with
said local government agency. ( Note: This text is derived from
Measure J)
Every lease or deed creating such parcels must contain
language ensuring that if the parcel is not used as a farm labor
camp within three years of the conveyance or lease being
executed or permanently ceases to be used as a farm labor
camp by a local government agency authorized to develop
farm labor camps, the parcel will automatically revert to, and
merge into, the original parent parcel. ( Note: This text is derived
from Measure L)
Maximum Building Intensity:
One dwelling per parcel ( except for second units of limited size
as envisioned by State law, and except as specified in Housing
Element). Nonresidential building intensity is non- applicable.
( Note: This text is derived from Measure J)
Policy Ag/ LU- 19: The following standards shall apply to lands designated as
Agricultural Resource on the Land Use Map of this General
Plan.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 38–
Intent: To identify areas in the fertile valley and foothill areas
of the County in which agriculture is and should continue to be
the predominant land use, where uses incompatible with
agriculture should be precluded and where the development of
urban type uses would be detrimental to the continuance of
agriculture and the maintenance of open space which are
economic and aesthetic attributes and assets of the County of
Napa. ( Note: This text is derived from Measure J)
General Uses: Agriculture, processing of agricultural
products, single family dwelling.
Minimum Parcel Size: 40 acres, except that parcels with a
minimum size of 2 acres may be created for the sole purpose
of developing farm labor camps by a local government agency
authorized to own or operate farm labor camps so long as the
division is accomplished by securing the written consent of a
local government agency authorized to own or operate farm
labor camps that it will accept a conveyance of the fee interest
of the parcel to be created and thereafter conveying the fee
interest of such parcel directly to said local government agency,
or entering into a long- term lease of such parcels directly with
said local government agency. Every lease or deed creating
such parcels must contain language ensuring that if the parcel
is not used as a farm labor camp within three years of the
conveyance or lease being executed or permanently ceases to
be used as a farm labor camp by a local government agency
authorized to develop farm labor camps, the parcel will
automatically revert to, and merge into, the original parent
parcel.” ( Note: This text is derived from Measure J)
Maximum Building Intensity: One dwelling per parcel
( except for second units of limited size as envisioned by State
law, and except as specified in Housing Element).
Nonresidential building intensity is non- applicable; but where
practical, buildings will be located off prime soils. ( Note: This
text is derived from Measure J.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 39–
OTHER LAND USE POLICIES
Policies in this section address the following topics:
 Policies in Support of Urban- Centered Growth ( Page 39)
 Residential Policies ( Page 40)
 Commercial, Industrial, and Transitional Policies ( Page 43)
 Public- Institutional Uses ( Page 48)
 Prohibited Uses ( Page 48)
Policies in Support of Urban- Centered Growth
Policy Ag/ LU- 20: Urban uses shall be concentrated in the incorporated cities and
the already developed areas of the unincorporated County as
they existed in 2006.
Policy Ag/ LU- 21: The County will enact and enforce regulations which will
encourage the concentration of residential growth within the
County's existing Cities and areas designated for urban uses on
the Land Use Map. ( Former Land Use Element policy 4.13)
Policy Ag/ LU- 22: Commercial uses will be grouped in geographically compact
areas outside of areas designated for agricultural uses in the
General Plan ( subject to any exceptions contained in this
General Plan). ( Portion of former Land Use Element policy 5.1b)
Policy Ag/ LU- 23: The County opposes the creation of new special districts
planned to accommodate new residential developments outside
already developed areas, except as specified in the Housing
Element. ( Former Land Use Element policy 4.3)
Policy Ag/ LU- 24: The County will discourage proposed developments outside of
urbanized areas which require urban services. However,
nothing in this Land Use Element is intended to preclude the
construction of a single- family residence, day care center or
private school on an existing, vacant, legal parcel of land, in
compliance with adopted County ordinances and other
applicable regulations. ( Former Land Use Element policy 4.11 and
4.13)
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 40–
Policy Ag/ LU- 25: For the purposes of this General Plan, the terms “ urbanized”
or “ urbanizing” shall include the subdivision, use, or
development of any parcel of land for non- agricultural
purposes. Engaging in nature- based recreation or non-agricultural
uses that are permitted in the applicable zoning
district without the issuance of a use permit, such as
development of one single family house and/ or second unit on
an existing legal lot, shall not be considered urbanizing. ( Former
Land Use Element policy 4.12 with clarifying edits)
Policy Ag/ LU- 26: The County will plan for and accommodate the distribution of
population among the sub- areas of the County, giving
preference to existing incorporated and urban areas. ( Former
Land Use Element policy 4.5)
Policy Ag/ LU- 27: Governmental uses and public utility uses shall be permitted in
appropriate locations. Only those new governmental and
public utility uses which specifically implement programs
mandated by the state or federal government shall be permitted
in non- urban areas. ¶ On parcels which are designated
" Agricultural Resource" or " Agriculture, Watershed and Open
Space" on the Napa County Land Use Map, Governmental
uses and public utility uses existing as of 1983 shall be allowed
to continue to operate and to use the existing buildings and/ or
facilities but shall be allowed to expand in size and volume of
business only for the purpose of modernizing the facilities and
meeting additional demonstrated public needs. ( Former Land
Use Element policies 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3)
Residential Land Uses
Policy Ag/ LU- 28: The County shall use a variety of strategies to address its long
term housing needs and to meet the State and regional housing
requirements in its cyclical updates of the Housing Element.
In addition to working with the State and ABAG to reduce the
County’s regional allocation, these strategies shall include:
 Re- use of former industrial sites designated as
“ Transitional” on the Land Use Map to provide for a mix
of uses, including affordable and market rate work force
housing as appropriate.
 Use of overlay designations to permit/ facilitate multifamily
housing on specific sites within other developed areas
shown on the Land Use Map.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 41–
 Collection and disbursement of housing impact fees to
subsidize construction of affordable housing.
 Cooperative agreements with incorporated agencies within
the County where these jurisdictions are able to accept
additional housing requirements in exchange for other
considerations.
 Actions that provide housing to farm workers and their
families.
 Use of County- owned land for affordable housing where
this land is no longer needed to meet the County’s
operational requirements and would be appropriate for
housing.
 Actions to allow production of second units in all areas of
the unincorporated county as appropriate.
 Other policies and programs which address the need for
workforce housing.
Policy Ag/ LU- 29: The County will work with the Cities to see that low and
moderate cost housing is provided to address the needs of low
and moderate income householders in Napa County. In
addition, the County will accept responsibility for meeting its
fair share of the housing needs, including a predominant
percentage generated by any new employment in
unincorporated areas. ( Former Land Use Element policy 4.4)
Note to the Reader: Please refer to the Housing Element of this General Plan for additional goals,
policies, and programs related to affordable housing.
Policy Ag/ LU- 30: The County will maintain and improve the safety and adequacy
of the existing housing stock in the County through application
of applicable building and housing codes, and related
enforcement programs. ( Former Land Use Element policy 4.3)
Policy Ag/ LU- 31: The County will promote development concepts that create
flexibility, economy and variety in housing without resulting in
significant environmental impacts. ( Former Land Use Element
policy 4.7)
Policy Ag/ LU- 32: The following standards shall apply to lands designated as
Urban Residential on the Land Use Map of this General
Plan.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 42–
Intent: Provide, in identified urban areas, for development of
a full range of urban housing opportunities, such as single
family dwellings, multiple dwellings, townhouses, row houses,
condominiums, and cluster housing in a desirable relationship
to planned common use space, limited commercial,
institutional, educational, day care, cultural, recreational and
other uses, while at the same time preserving the quality of
urban areas.
General Uses: Single family dwellings, multiple dwellings,
mobile home parks, day care centers, limited commercial and
institutional uses ( denser uses subject to specified conditions).
Minimum Parcel Size: Between 0.0625 acre and 1 acre.
Maximum Dwelling Density: One dwelling per parcel
except as specified in the Housing Element. Other residential,
commercial, educational and recreational facilities subject to
specified conditions related to the adequacy of utilities and
normal municipal services.
Policy Ag/ LU- 33: The following standards shall apply to lands designated as
Rural Residential on the Land Use Map of this General Plan.
Intent: Provide for low density residential use in
neighborhoods that are in proximity to existing urban areas but
that are currently in agriculture or where further parcelization
will be discouraged. On some lands suitable for increased
population density near major medical care facilities, large
residential care homes may be permitted. Other land near
major public recreational areas which, because of its location in
relation to existing or future community services, facilities, and
access roads, and because underlying soil and geological
characteristics, land slope and minimum fire hazard is suitable
for low density residential or mixed- use development, tourist-serving
commercial development and resident- serving
commercial development.
General Uses: Single family dwelling, day care center, large
residential care homes, existing major medical care facilities
( facilities licensed with a minimum of 100 beds), private
school, agriculture, stables ( and others under specified
conditions). In Capell Valley and Berryessa Areas tourist-serving
commercial uses and mixed uses will also be allowed.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 43–
Minimum Parcel Size: 10 acres, except that all permitted
commercial development, and legal residential structures in
Deer Park existing on December 31, 1994 and master planned
as part of St. Helena Hospital may be allowed on smaller
parcels, depending on the type of facility, services available,
and surroundings.
Maximum Dwelling Density: One dwelling per parcel
( except as specified in the Housing Element).
Commercial, Industrial, and Transitional Land Use Policies
Policy Ag/ LU- 34: The central business district of each urban center will be
recognized as the dominant commercial and financial center
for the surrounding trade area. ( Former Land Use Element policy
5.1b)
Policy Ag/ LU- 35: The County will plan to locate industrial areas adjacent to
major transportation facilities. Necessary utilities and services,
including day care centers, will be planned to meet the needs of
the industrially zoned areas. ( Former Land Use policy 6.7)
Policy Ag/ LU- 36: The County will plan for the reservation of sufficient industrial
property to satisfy future demands for orderly growth and
economic development of the County. Non- agriculturally
oriented industry shall not be located on productive
agricultural lands, but should be located in areas more suitable
for industrial purposes. Industrial areas should be located
adjacent to major transportation facilities. ( Former Land Use
Element policies 6.1, 6.3, and 6.7)
Policy Ag/ LU- 37: The properties known as the “ Hess Vineyards” shall remain in
agricultural zoning but shall be reserved for industrial uses to
meet the county’s long term need for industrial space. Prior to
rezoning these lands for non- agricultural uses, the County shall
make a specific finding that no other suitable industrial land is
available in the unincorporated area. The 230- acre Hess
Vineyard site is located on the east side of Highway 29, north
of the city of American Canyon and diagonally across from
Green Island Industrial Park. The site is designated on the
Land Use Map for Industrial uses, but is currently ( 2006)
zoned agricultural and is in use as a vineyard.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 44–
Figure Ag/ LU- 1: Hess Vineyards Location ( for Policy Ag/ LU- 38)
Source: County of Napa
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 45–
Policy Ag/ LU- 38: The County will support the development of tourist facilities
where there is a showing there would be no conflict with
agriculture and the necessity for this type of service can be
documented to the County's satisfaction. ( Former Land Use
policy 5.2)
Policy Ag/ LU- 39: County review of non- residential development proposals, shall
address the balance of job creation and the availability of
affordable housing. ( Derived from former Land Use Element policy
6.4)
Policy Ag/ LU- 40: Lands along the west bank of the Napa River south of the City
of Napa and specific urban areas within four miles of the high
water mark of Lake Berryessa are appropriate areas for marine
commercial zoning and development. ( Former Land Use Element
policy 5.6)
Action Item Ag/ LU 40.1: Consider amendments to the
Zoning Code to allow additional commercial, residential, and
mixed uses in the Spanish Flat, Moskowite Corners, and
southern Pope Creek areas which are complementary to
recreation activities at Lake Berryessa.
Policy Ag/ LU- 41: For parcels fronting upon the west side of the Napa River
south of the city of Napa which are designated “ Agriculture,
Watershed, and Open Space” or “ Agricultural Resource” on
the Land Use Map of this General Plan which have
commercial zoning, additional commercial development will be
allowed as follows:
 All existing commercial establishments that are currently
located within a commercial zoning district shall be
allowed to continue to operate and use the existing
buildings and/ or facilities.
 Additional commercial uses which are permitted by the
existing commercial zoning of the parcel shall be permitted
on that portion of the parcel zoned commercial.
 Existing restaurants qualifying under this Policy that are
currently located within a commercial zoning district shall
be allowed to increase the number of seats accommodated
within existing buildings and/ or facilities on any parcel
designated as a historic restaurant combination zoning
district. ( Former Land Use policy 5.4a)
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 46–
Policy Ag/ LU- 42: All existing commercial establishments that are currently
located within a commercial zoning district shall be allowed to
continue to operate and use the existing buildings and/ or
facilities. Additional commercial uses which are permitted by
the existing commercial zoning of the parcel shall be permitted
on that portion of the parcel zoned commercial. ( Former Land
Use Element policy 5.4)
Policy Ag/ LU- 43: Legal structures and uses destroyed by fire or natural disaster
may be rebuilt within three years of most recent occupancy or
as otherwise approved by the County, whether or not they
conformed to the zoning ordinance at the time of the
fire/ disaster.
Policy Ag/ LU- 44: Land uses in Airport Approach Zones shall comply with
applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility policies. This
policy shall apply to Napa County Airport and Angwin Airport
( Parrett Field). ( Derived from former Land Use Element policy 1.1)
Action Item Ag/ LU- 44.1: Use zoning and, if necessary,
acquisition of development rights to implement this policy.
( Former Land Use Element policy 1.1)
Action Item Ag/ LU- 44.2: Refer General Plan land use
changes, proposed rezonings, and proposed developments in
Airport Approach Zones to the Napa County Airport Land
Use Commission for review and comment. ( Former Land Use
Element policy 1.1)
Policy Ag/ LU- 45: The following standards shall apply to lands designated as
Commercial on the Land Use Map of this General Plan.
Intent:
( 1) Provide areas where residents of the unincorporated area of
the County may obtain commercial services for day- to- day
needs in surrounding land uses. The area and location of such
districts shall be determined largely by the urban nature and
extent of the local trade area to be served. Other criteria which
will figure significantly in the choice of parcels deemed suitable
for classification include availability of public service, public
utilities, traffic safety, character of the site and surrounding
area. The central business district of each incorporated city
shall be recognized as the dominant commercial and financial
center for the surrounding unincorporated area of the County.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 47–
( 2) Provide areas consistent with the General Plan in which the
principal use of land is devoted to general commercial uses in
non- marine urban areas, limited commercial facilities essential
to the needs of residents in residential neighborhood areas,
limited commercial facilities oriented to the needs of
recreational users in marine area, and limited commercial
facilities serving the needs of travelers in locations in proximity
to primary transportation corridors which provide access to
areas where tourist- oriented uses predominate.
General Uses: Neighborhood, tourist and other limited
commercial uses; subject to specified conditions.
Minimum Parcel Size: 1 acre; 1/ 2 acre where public water
and sewer are available.
Maximum Building Density: 50% coverage
Policy Ag/ LU- 46: The following standards shall apply to lands designated as
Industrial on the Land Use Map of this General Plan.
Intent: To provide an environment exclusively for and
conducive to the development and protection of a variety of
industrial uses such as administrative facilities, research
institutions, limited commercial and related facilities which are
ancillary to the primary industrial uses and specialized
manufacturing organizations to be located in area suitable for
industrial development.
General Uses: Industry, limited commercial and related
facilities which are ancillary to the primary industrial uses,
agriculture, wineries. No residential uses.
Minimum Parcel Size: 1/ 2 acre to 40 acres depending on
proximity and access to utilities, airport, highways, rail service
and service roads.
Maximum Building Density: 50% coverage
Policy Ag/ LU- 47: The following standards shall apply to lands designated as
Transitional on the Land Use Map of this General Plan.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 48–
Intent: This designation provides for flexibility in the
development of land, allowing either industrial, or commercial
and residential uses. This designation is intended to be applied
only to the Napa Pipe site and the Boca/ Pacific Coast parcels
in the unincorporated area south of the city of Napa, where
sufficient infrastructure may be available to support this type
of development.
General Uses: All uses allowed in the Urban Residential,
Commercial, and Industrial land use categories may be
permitted.
Minimum Parcel Size: Parcel sizes shall be as established for
the Urban Residential, Commercial, and Industrial
designations, depending on the use.
Maximum Building Density: Maximum building intensity
shall be determined through site- specific planning.
Public- Institutional Policies
Policy Ag/ LU- 48: The following standards shall apply to lands designated as
Public- Institutional on the Land Use Map of this General
Plan.
Intent: To indicate those lands set aside for those existing and
future uses of a governmental, public use, or public utility
nature such as a public hospital, public use airport, sanitation
district facilities, government equipment yard, state or federal
administrative offices, recycling- composting facilities or any
other facilities for which the determinations set forth,
pertaining to criteria for eminent domain in the California
Code of Civil Procedures Section 1245.230( c)( 1) through ( 3),
can be made.
Minimum Parcel Size: Not applicable
Prohibited Uses
Policy Ag/ LU- 49: To the maximum extent permitted by law, casinos and
gambling operations of any type are specifically prohibited in
the unincorporated areas of Napa County.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 49–
POLICIES SPECIFIC TO GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF NAPA COUNTY
The following discussions address geographic areas of the County which are
desired to retain their unique character.
The areas described on the following pages are in two general categories:
1) Areas designated on the Land Use Map for non- agricultural uses, and
2) Areas not designated on the Land Use Map for non- agricultural uses.
Areas Designated on the Land Use Map for Non- Agricultural Uses
 Angwin ( Page 50)
 Berryessa Estates ( Page 57)
 Berryessa Highlands ( Page 59)
 Big Ranch Road ( Page 61)
 Coombsville ( Page 62)
 Deer Park ( Page 64)
 Lake Berryessa: Moskowite
Corners, Pope Creek, Spanish
Flat ( Page 66)
 Silverado ( Page 72)
 South County Industrial Areas
( Page 74)
Areas Not Designated on the Land Use Map for Non- Agricultural
Uses
 Oakville ( Page 77)
 Pope Valley ( Page 79)
 Rutherford ( Page 82)
 South St. Helena ( Page 84)
The discussions below include a brief description of each geographic area,
including any specific community characteristics or features which are of
particular importance in the area.
The following general policy applies to all geographic areas:
Policy Ag/ LU- 50: The County shall ensure that the special features in each
geographic area shown in this General Plan shall be
retained or enhanced, and shall consider these features in
its review of any proposed development project.
Policy Ag/ LU- 51: In the event of a conflict between policies specific to a
geographic area and other policies, the area- specific
policies shall supersede.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 50–
Angwin
Note to the Reader: The three maps below show potential scenarios for the boundaries of the area at
Angwin which is designated for non- agricultural uses. The adopted General Plan will contain only
one map, which will also be reflected on the countywide Land Use Map in this Element.
Either of the Angwin- area maps which include the existing residential area west of Pacific Union
College in the urban designation, if adopted by the County Board of Supervisors, would require
ratification by voters countywide through the Measure J process. These maps are shown as “ Scenario 2,
Including Measure J Changes” and “ Scenario 3, Including Measure J Changes,” but any version of
the Angwin map which shows the addition of new areas to the lands designated for non- agricultural
uses would be subject to Measure J.
The County invites comments on which of these maps best represent your concept of future growth at
Angwin, or whether a different map not shown below should be adopted. Please feel free to comment
by either describing the map you would recommend or by submitting a map of your own.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 51–
Scenario 1: Existing Urban Designation
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 52–
Scenario 2, Including Measure J Changes
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 53–
Scenario 3, Including Measure J Changes
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 54–
Description: Angwin has the greatest
variety of land uses of all the urbanized
areas in the unincorporated county. The
community has historically been centered
around the Seventh Day Adventist
Pacific Union College ( shown at right)
founded in 1882 and moved to Angwin
in 1909, becoming the first college in
Napa County. Enrollment at the college,
which has climbed as high as 2,300, is
currently ( 2006) about 1,550 students.
In the past, most of Angwin’s residents were associated with the college, the church, or
both. Many residents continue to work for the college, although in recent years an
influx of new residents has resulted in a more diverse mix. Drawn by housing
opportunities and the area’s small- town character, new Angwin residents share with
longtime residents a desire to retain the area’s rural character.
Part of Pacific Union College is the Angwin Airport, second largest in the county and
important due to its elevation above the fog that occasionally halts operations at Napa
Airport. ( Note to readers: updated information on the ownership & management of the airport will
be inserted here when available. The County is currently investigating purchase from the College.)
In recent years, vineyard development has expanded considerably in Angwin, which
lies in the Howell Mountain appellation area. A number of new vineyards and wineries
have been developed, and more are likely, in accordance with the General Plan
agricultural land use designations for the Angwin area.
Pacific Union College is the largest land holder in Angwin with the main campus, the
airport, campus housing and a large parcel of land reserved as open space. The
college’s Planned Development zoning was created to in order for the college to
provide necessary services to their students and ensure that the college would be able
to grow should the student body increase in size.
West of the college campus is the largest concentration of residences in Angwin, where
parcel sizes range from ¼ to ½ an acre. Several small businesses, a fire station, and a
school are also located in this village- like enclave.
Angwin was one of several locations in the county identified in the 2004 Housing
Element as having the potential to support the development of affordable housing.
Two locations in Angwin were identified, with a potential for up to 191 residential
units.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 55–
Policies:
Policy Ag/ LU- 52: The County shall seek to maintain Angwin’s rural setting and
character while supporting continued operation of Pacific Union
College and providing opportunities for limited commercial
services focused on the Angwin community.
Policy Ag/ LU- 53: The “ urbanized” area of Angwin shown on the County’s land use
map shall contain institutional uses ( i. e. the college), residential
uses, and limited neighborhood- serving non- residential uses.
Policy Ag/ LU- 54: Notwithstanding policies elsewhere in this General Plan, re-designating
the existing, already developed, residential area of
Angwin from agriculture ( AWOS) to rural residential ( RR) is
worthy of consideration by Napa County voters pursuant to
Measure J.
Note: The General Plan Steering Committee seeks specific input on this
policy and the possible boundaries of the residential area to be considered for
re- designation. As noted above, two of the potential scenarios included for
comment in this Draft General Plan would require voter approval through
the Measure J process, as would any scenario that expands the designated
urban area beyond its current boundary.
Policy Ag/ LU- 55: The existing density of development in the Angwin Area and the
County’s desire to be protective of water quality precludes future
subdivision activity based on septic tanks. Also, the County shall
encourage replacement of existing septic systems with municipal
wastewater treatment as feasible. ( Former Land Use Element policy
4.9a with edits)
Policy Ag/ LU- 56: Nothing in this General Plan shall preclude consolidation of
private water districts in the Angwin area or changes to their
boundaries.
Policy Ag/ LU- 57: The County recognizes the historical significance of Pacific
Union College in the Angwin community and will continue to
support this time- honored institution and employer.
Policy Ag/ LU- 58: To maintain the rural atmosphere of the Angwin community, the
County will not promote policies that encourage land uses that
are incompatible with or out of character with the area,
recognizing that a large part of the community’s character is
derived from its wooded setting.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 56–
Policy Ag/ LU- 59: The Angwin area should retain a variety of housing types to
support residents, students, and employees of Pacific Union
College and St. Helena Hospital.
Policy Ag/ LU- 60: The County supports the ongoing operation of Angwin Airport,
including any improvements approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration with the AV zoning district.
Policy Ag/ LU- 61: The County will continue to maintain a road network to service
the needs of Angwin residents and provide accessibility to
emergency vehicles.
Policy Ag/ LU- 62: The County welcomes input from community organizations in
Angwin and also supports the creation of an Angwin Community
Commission that will serve in an advisory role to the District 3
Supervisor regarding topics of concern to the Angwin population.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 57–
Berryessa Estates
Typical home in the Berryessa Estates subdivision.
Many of the homes are located on steep hillsides.
The Stagecoach Market in Berryessa Estates provides
much- needed local commercial services.
Description: Located in northern Napa County, the Berryessa Estates subdivision
dates from the late 1970s, and is in a remote, hilly area. About 200 homes have been
built in the Estates, which also includes a small general store. Street names ( and some
of the homes) reflect a Western theme, with names such as “ Deputy Drive” and
“ Stallion Court.” Residents have private access to Putah Creek.
Single family residential is the primary use, but only a portion of the subdivision lies
within the area designated by the General Plan Land Use Map for urban residential uses.
Approximately one quarter of the urban residential General Plan designation coincides
with the Planned Development zoning. The remainder of the land within the urban
residential designation is open space.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 58–
Berryessa Estates includes about 283 acres of sparsely developed property. A majority of
the land has steep slopes and is not accessible by developed roads. There is a lack of
general services in the vicinity, including schools. These constraints suggest that this area
is not a good location for intensified use due to lack of services and distance from major
employment opportunities.
Policies:
Policy Ag/ LU- 63: Recognize the character of this community and the quality of
environment in the review of future development projects in the
Berryessa Estates area. All new development, including
subdivisions, use permits, and other discretionary actions, shall
conform to the General Plan Land Use Map.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 59–
Berryessa Highlands
Entrance to the Berryessa Highlands residential area.
Hillside homes typical of Berryessa Highlands. Many
homes have views of Lake Berryessa.
Description: Berryessa Highlands is a large residential subdivision dating from the
1970s, and has been only partially developed. A variety of housing styles pepper the
hillside above the lake in an area that goes from rolling hills to steep slopes. The zoning
is a combination of Planned Development ( PD) and Residential Country ( RC).
The area designated for rural residential uses in this area is comprised of approximately
275 acres and encompasses only a small portion of the potential residential land per the
zoning designation.
There are a number of undeveloped lots within the Highlands subdivision. Many
building lots in the subdivision have portions of the property that are basically unusable
due to slopes over 30%, but have a nice view of the lake. A blanket variance to setback
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 60–
requirements was given to minimize front yard setbacks and allow more lots to be
developed. Areas with zoning that would allow additional residential development
north of the Highlands subdivision are remote with limited access. Again, steep slopes
have prevented more intense development.
Policies:
Policy Ag/ LU- 64: Recognize the character of this community and the quality of the
environment in the review of future development projects in the
Berryessa Highlands area. All new development, including
subdivisions, use permits, and other discretionary actions, shall
conform to the General Plan Land Use Map.
Policy Ag/ LU- 65: The importance of views to residents shall be considered in the
review and approval of new development. Where possible,
existing views— particularly of Lake Berryessa— should be
preserved.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 61–
Big Ranch Road
Description: Comprised of just over
200 acres, the Big Ranch Road area is
adjacent to a large subdivision in the
city of Napa and located on both the
north and south sides of El Centro
Avenue. Parcels in the Big Ranch Road
area range in size from 8,500 square
feet to over 10 acres. Current uses
include residential and agricultural
uses.
The land in the Big Ranch Road area is
relatively flat. Due to the agricultural nature of this area, most of the properties are
minimally developed.
Policies:
Policy Ag/ LU- 66: Recognize the character of this community and the quality of
the environment in the review of future development projects
in the Big Ranch Road area. All new development, including
subdivisions, use permits, and other discretionary actions, shall
conform to the General Plan Land Use Map.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 62–
Coombsville
Description: The Coombsville area is currently ( 2006) in transition. Older homes
and ranchettes with horses and cattle are being replaced by new, larger homes with
vineyards. As far as size, the Coombsville urban designation encompasses more than
750 acres with the majority of parcels in the one- to three- acre range. Parcels are as
small as 7,000 square feet and greater than 10 acres, often next to each other. The
General Plan Land Use Map’s designation for this area generally corresponds with
the area’s Residential zoning.
Parcels in the Coombsville area are located in the Milliken Sarco Tulocay ( MST)
groundwater deficient basin. In a 2003 study, the USGS found that this basin is in
continued decline ( groundwater is being used faster than it is being replaced). Napa
Sanitation has been working to bring reclaimed water out to the Coombsville area
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 63–
for irrigation purposes which may decrease the amount of groundwater used by
residents and allow the recharge of the water resources throughout the MST. The
Coombsville area is outside the city of Napa’s Sphere of Influence ( SOI) for water
service.
Recent ( as of 2006) studies have also identified potential pollution issues related to
failing private septic systems in the Coombsville area. These issues can be corrected
through the installation of new septic systems or, where this is not possible, the
installation of domestic ( municipal) sewer service.
Policies:
Policy Ag/ LU- 67: Recognize the character of this community and the quality of
environment in the review of future development projects in
the Coombsville area. All new development, including
subdivisions, use permits, and other discretionary actions, shall
conform with the General Plan Land Use Map.
Policy Ag/ LU- 68: The County supports the extension of public sewer service or
use of alternative approaches to address water quality concerns
where private septic systems are in proximity to Murphy Creek,
provided that any municipal services are sized to accommodate
only the development permitted by this General Plan.
Policy Ag/ LU- 69: The County supports the extension of recycled water to the
Coombsville area to reduce reliance on groundwater in the
Milliken Sarco Tulocay ( MST) area.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 64–
Deer Park
St. Helena Hospital in the 1930s. ( Photo courtesy of the Napa Chamber of Commerce)
Description: Often considered a part of Angwin, Deer Park is located in the valley
adjacent to and on the hillside above St. Helena. Current land uses include a variety
of residential uses, St. Helena Hospital, vineyards/ wineries and a small commercial
node on Sanitarium Road. Much of the housing stock is older and dates back to a
time when the hospital also served as a retreat and cottages were constructed as
second homes. Deer Park consists of a little over 400 acres.
Policy Ag/ LU- 70: The existing density of development in the Deer Park Area and
the County’s desire to be protective of water quality precludes
future subdivision activity based on septic tanks and wells.
( Similar to former Land Use Element policy 4.9a about Angwin)
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 65–
Policy Ag/ LU- 71: The County supports the continued operation of the St. Helena
Hospital, and recognizes the importance of the hospital’s role in
providing in- and out- patient services and employment for
Napa County residents.
Policy Ag/ LU- 72: Recognize the character of this community and the quality of
the environment in the review of future development projects
in the Deer Park area. All new development, including
subdivisions, use permits, and other discretionary actions, shall
conform to the General Plan Land Use Map.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 66–
Lake Berryessa:
Moskowite Corners, Pope Creek, and Spanish Flat
Moskowite Corners
Pope Creek
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 67–
Spanish Flat
The Corner Store is a central feature of the community.
Above, a typical unit in the mobile home community at
Moskowite Corners. Below, a newly revitalized
commercial use at Spanish Flat
Description: Lake Berryessa is a 19,000
acre man- made lake dating from the 1950s.
Together with the Blue Ridge mountains to
the east, the lake defines the character of
much of eastern Napa County and
provides its emphasis on recreation, rather
than wine. The lake and a narrow
shoreline band ( 28,000 acres total) are
under the jurisdiction of the federal Bureau
of Reclamation ( BOR), while private
properties in upland areas are within Napa
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 68–
County jurisdiction. Water from the lake primarily serves Solano County, but the Lake’s
scenic and recreational values accrue to Napa County.
Mixed- Use Communities. Mixed use communities west of the lake include Pope
Creek, Spanish Flat, and Moskowite Corners. All are rural in character and even the
closest to the City of Napa, Moskowite Corners, is remote by urban standards— at least
a 30 minute drive from most services.
Pope Creek consists of a residential
subdivision south of the Pope Creek
bridge, and another planned but un-built
subdivision north of the bridge.
Marine storage is the only commercial
use in the area. The Rancho Monticello
Resort— along the shoreline nearby— is
a concession area under BOR
jurisdiction.
Spanish Flat consists of a residential subdivision, a mobile home park, and a small
commercial enclave. Commercial services include a small market, restaurant, self-storage
laundry and boat storage facility. The Spanish Flat Resort – along the shoreline
nearby – is a concession area under BOR jurisdiction. The Monticello Cemetery is also
nearby.
Moskowite Corners is located at the intersection of Highway 128 and Highway 121
( Monticello Road) some distance from the lake, but anyone accessing the southern end
of the lake must pass through this crossroads. Existing uses include a mobile home
park, winery, tavern, cafe and grocery store, RV storage area, and two closed gas
stations. Larger parcels to the west are planted in vineyards.
Issues & Opportunities. Commercial services in these communities have diminished
since the 1970s, even though the lake itself and shoreline areas leased by the BOR to
concessionaires continue to attract recreational users year- round. The area is home to
an estimated 2,000 people ( including Pope Creek, Spanish Flat, Moskowite Corners,
Berryessa Highlands and surrounding areas). Approximately 3,200 people drive by
Moskowite Corners on an average weekday ( more on some weekends).
Since Measure J was adopted by County voters in 1990, subdivisions to create small
parcels have been precluded, as have multi- family housing outside of the so called
“ urban bubbles” designated as non- agricultural on the General Plan land use map.
[ Measure J precludes the Board of Supervisors from re- designating agricultural land for
another purpose or reducing minimum parcel sizes of 40- 160 acres without a majority
vote of the people. In March 2002, voters did approve a re- designation of land from
AWOS ( Agriculture, Watershed & Open Space) to RR ( Rural Residential) to allow
expansion of the existing Lakeview Boat Storage facility.] However, within the
Other Residential Areas at the Lake
There are also two residential communities
adjacent to the lake. One is Berryessa
Highlands, which is perched on the hills at
the south end of the lake. The other is
Berryessa Estates, which is at the north end
of the lake and considered part of Pope
Valley. Both areas have their own service
districts and are independent from the
mixed- use communities of Lake Berryessa.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 69–
“ bubbles” at both Spanish Flat and Moskowite Corners, there are under- utilized parcels
zoned for commercial use, and others zoned for multi- family residential ( affordable or
workforce) housing. Property owners have not shown an interest in building- out these
permitted uses, perhaps due to infrastructure costs. The Spanish Flat Water District
( SFWD) provides water and sewer services to the Spanish Flat area as well as Berryessa
Pines ( in the Pope Creek area). Services in the Moskowite Corners area are more
limited.
Within the next few years, the BOR will negotiate new concession agreements for
resorts within its jurisdiction, potentially changing the character and clientele of some of
the resorts. Also, the BOR has expressed a willingness to structure the new agreements
in such a way that Napa County can recoup the cost of services it provides to users of
the concession areas ( e. g. law enforcement, road maintenance). These changes provide
an opportunity for lake communities to re- position themselves as staging areas for the
area’s recreational amenities. All three communities can accommodate housing for
workers at the concession areas, and can provide home- ownership opportunities and
lodging types that will not be available within federal jurisdiction. Also, these areas can
be re- invented and marketed as destinations, with amenities and local services organized
around attractive village centers at Spanish Flat and Moskowite Corners.
Lake Berryessa Policies:
Policy Ag/ LU- 73: Moskowite Corners. Moskowite Corners lies at a critical
crossroads and should be viewed as a staging area for the Lake
Berryessa recreational area, with affordable housing for those who
work in the area and services for residents and travelers.
Moskowite Corners, with its winery and vineyards, should also be
viewed as a link between Lake Berryessa communities and the
viticultural economy of Napa Valley.
Policy Ag/ LU- 74: Pope Creek. Pope Creek is envisioned as a quiet lakeside refuge
and should remain a mostly natural area, with lake view residences
and limited commercial uses.
Policy Ag/ LU- 75: Spanish Flat. Spanish Flat lies at the heart of the Lake Berryessa
recreational area and should be viewed as its primary resort
community, with affordable housing for those who work in the
area and an attractive “ village center” providing commercial
services to locals and visitors.
Policy Ag/ LU- 76: The Timing is Right. Upcoming changes at concessions within
the BOR’s jurisdiction provide an opportunity for the nearby
communities of Pope Creek, Spanish Flat, and Moskowite Corners
to re- invent themselves. The County invites property owners and
others to develop a “ vision” for each community that leverages the
changes expected within BOR’s jurisdiction.
Public Review Draft February 16, 2007
– 70–
Policy Ag/ LU- 77: Targeted Re- Investments. If the County is successful at
recouping the cost of services provided to concessionaires at Lake
Berryessa, either through collection of transit occupancy taxes or in
lieu fees, a percentage of those funds should be invested in
infrastructure and services benefiting communities within County
jurisdiction at the