ATTACHMENT 8
To: City of Napa Planning Commission August 31,2022
From: Craig L. Isham
Subject: City of Napa General Plan Revision
Whose interests are we accommodating with the new General Plan revision? It doesn't appear to give much consideration to the current residents of the City of Napa. For the past twelve years the citizens of Napa have made it abundantly clear that we want to preserve our gateways and rural buffers.
In particular I am addressing the area that you are calling the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor (FRMUC). At the last Planning Commission Meeting, Chairman Huether repeated what I have heard in the past, that the Ghisletta property is useless for agricultural purposes. I am not sure where that rumor started because the definition of agriculture is the practice of cultivating plants and livestock. The Ghislettas have run cattle on the property for at least the last 40 years that I am aware of and there are adjacent vineyards to the south, a vineyard on the east side of Highway 29, and there have been two small vineyards on the west side of Foster Road. As a matter of fact, there is quite a bit of existing vegetation on the old Ghisletta home site (across from 1301 Foster Road).
In another comment Chairman Heuther said that he understands the rights of private property owners being able to do with their properties as the see fit. I agree, but that does not allow someone to change their zoning from Ag to multi-family residential. In this particular case the Ghisletta property was purchase several generations ago as Ag property. I am relatively certain there was no indication that the City would allow this FRMUC designation in the future. All of the neighboring property owners purchased their homes and land with the understanding that the Ghisletta property was zoned for agricultural use. If this rural environment was not a deciding factor I am sure that most residents would have purchased tract homes elsewhere. Any change from Ag zoning would in effect devalue the adjacent property values. So in summary allowing one property owner to exercise his rights to develop, to increase the value of his land, takes away from the value of all of the surrounding properties.
Another point, made by City staff, that I would like to challenge is the State housing quota.
There has been a tremendous amount of residential construction in the City including the Gasser property, the new development between Lincoln Avenue, Soscol Avenue, Pueblo Avenue and Central Avenue, the subdivision off of Roosevelt Street, all of the units between Second and Third Street, the multi family units at Browns Valley and Highway 29, and the new ADU changes to name a few. It is very hard to believe that we have not only met but exceeded any quota. Why then would we need something of the magnitude of the Ghisletta property.
There are also plenty of infill properties available for development. All that in conjunction with the reported population decrease in California. Maybe all of these additional units are not enough keep up with the demand for vacation homes. Again, who are we accommodating with our General Plan revision?
There are so many reasons not to approve this FRMUC:
- Opening the door to annexation and potential zoning change - Destroying a major gateway to the City
- Increased traffic on already congested streets
- Further taxing our limited water supply
- Increasing the City’s infrastructure that they already can not maintain 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 261 of 264
At the last Planning Commission Meeting City staff argued that they would like to have the new General Plan approved, as they had already put in a lot of work and effort trying to accommodate the public’s concerns. I am not sure how they did this in a transparent fashion. If it were not from hearing about some of the meetings through the “grapevine” I would not have know anything.
I know of no valid reason to include the FRMUC in the General Plan, but an overwhelming amount of reasons for its deletion. I strongly urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to make the right choice and remove the FRMUC designation from the General Plan. Once that path is taken, there is no going back.
2 of 2
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 262 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8
ATTACHMENT 8