Napa County supervisors ask staff to study ban on new or expanded gas stations as part of regional climate plan

The Napa County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday directed staff to continue investigating an ordinance that would prohibit new retail fossil-fuel stations and prevent expansion of existing stations in the unincorporated county, linking the move to the draft Regional Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (RCAP) staff presented earlier in the meeting.

County planner Eric Melendez introduced the ordinance idea during the RCAP discussion, saying the county’s 2022 resolution declaring a climate emergency set a priority “for 2030, for net 0, or as quickly as possible thereafter.” He described the ordinance as a zoning change to Napa County Code Title 18 that would allow existing retail fuel stations to continue operating but would bar expansion and new retail fossil-fuel stations in most unincorporated areas.

Why it matters: On-road transportation accounted for 39% of the county’s greenhouse gas emissions in the countywide inventory staff showed, and supervisors framed a fuel-station prohibition as one of several local actions that could help speed decarbonization of transportation. Supervisors requested additional analysis to avoid creating equity or access problems in sparsely populated areas and to pair any prohibition with policies that expand electric-vehicle (EV) charging and other alternative-fuel infrastructure.

Board discussion and direction

Chair Cottrell and board members praised the RCAP work and discussed feasibility, timing and equity. Supervisor Gallagher said jurisdictions in Napa County’s cities had already enacted similar bans and urged the county to include complementary provisions requiring or incentivizing EV chargers or other alternative fuels if fossil-fuel infrastructure were to remain in certain locations.

Supervisor Alessio and Supervisor Manfrie both backed further study. Manfrie emphasized wetlands, grasslands and other land-cover types for carbon sequestration in the broader RCAP discussion; Alessio stressed that rural residents must have affordable access to needed fuels and fast EV charging before the county adopts prohibitions.

Supervisor Ramos and others asked staff to prioritize measures in the RCAP by how competitive Napa County would be for state funding streams, such as the recently announced Fast Charge California program, and for grant programs tied to Proposition 4. Ramos also requested that staff return with population- and travel-pattern data showing which parts of the unincorporated county lack ready access to fueling or charging.

Staff presentation and data

Melendez told the board there are 37 retail fuel stations in Napa County, with six located in the unincorporated county. Staff mapped a five-mile radius around each station to show travel distances for residents and visitors. In preliminary parcel screening, Melendez said there are 15,683 parcels in the unincorporated county, 2,167 zoned to allow fuel-station development, and after further refinement staff identified 539 parcels that appear preliminarily viable for a new retail fuel station based on zoning and assessor land-use descriptions. He cautioned that the 539 figure is an initial estimate and would require parcel-by-parcel verification.

Melendez also noted exemptions already considered for non‑retail fueling uses—marina fuel for boats, agriculture or industrial fueling tied to an approved land use—and said environmental- and safety-driven improvements to existing stations would be allowed under the draft approach but expansion would not.

Public comment and industry input

Several public commenters supported a ban. Katherine Bitt (identified in the record as an incoming senior at American Canyon High School and co‑vice president of Napa Schools for Climate Action) urged the board to “act a complete ban on new and expanded gasoline infrastructure without delay or compromise.”

Business and industry speakers asked the county to consider existing local renewable‑fuel and transitional projects. Jim Gilbreth spoke on behalf of Stan and Patty Tieterman and described an existing site offering EV charging and the potential to supply hydrogen; he asked the county to recognize businesses already investing in alternative fuels and to engage those operators. Dave Whitmer, who identified himself in the meeting as a former agricultural commissioner and a past president of Sustainable Napa County, urged outreach to local operators and to sectors—haulers, vineyards, recycling firms and school districts—that could use alternative fuels.

Board response and next steps

After public comment, the board signaled consensus to direct staff to continue investigating the draft ordinance. Staff said they would return with additional data requested by supervisors: parcel‑by‑parcel viability checks, population and commuting analyses to assess vehicle‑miles‑traveled impacts, clarification of jurisdictional limits regarding Lake Berryessa and the Bureau of Reclamation, and options for pairing any prohibition with requirements or incentives for EV charging and other non‑fossil fueling alternatives. Melendez told the board he would also seek to engage current fuel providers and businesses testing renewable fuels to understand market dynamics.

The board did not take a final vote on an ordinance; the action was a direction to staff to refine the analysis and return with options.

Ending

Supervisors said they wanted to move carefully so that rural residents and low‑income households are not left without affordable fuel access while the county accelerates alternatives and seeks competitive state funding. Staff said it would bring back a refined proposal and additional maps and data for further board direction.