ATCH 8 - Public Comments — Napa City Council, September 20, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 1 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 2 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 3 of 264
Napa 2040 General Plan ?
Anthony Blanchard
Mon 4/18/2022 4:11 PM
To: Michael Walker >
[EXTERNAL]
Hi Michael –
In reviewing the Feb 2022 draft General Plan, we noticed the City’s property located at the SWC of Pearl St and West St is shown on Figure 2-3 (and 2-8) with a Land Use Designation of “Downtown Parks and Open Space”. Is this correct?
The Downtown Specific Plan shows such City property as having the Land Use Designation of “Downtown Mix Use”, per Figure 4.1.

Thanks,
Anthony
_____________________________
Anthony Blanchard
SVP, Finance and Acquisitions

SYWEST DEVELOPMENT

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 4 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 5 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 6 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 7 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 8 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 9 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 10 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 11 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 12 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 13 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 14 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 15 of 264
general plan comments - more infill housing and active transportation please Norma Guzman < >
Mon 4/25/2022 3:58 PM
To: Michael Walker < >;General Plan Update
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL]
Hi there,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the General Plan. I live in the auto row area of Napa and I support planning for more infill housing at all levels of affordability in our city’s general plan.

I encourage our local officials to be bold when planning the city’s future, to allow for:

1. more housing,

2. denser housing, and

3. housing close to jobs and public transportation.

We should plan for more infill housing so that we have the public works and transportation infrastructure that suits our city 20 years from now. To me, this looks like a city with different types of housing (single-family alongside, duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, as well as larger buildings in denser zoned areas like the downtown specific plan). I am especially concerned about surface parking lots in the center of town and commercial lots with aging buildings -- these would be great places for dense, infill housing near existing infrastructure
We should make sure that the growing tourism in Napa builds and contributes to our local community by having thoughtful requirements on new hotels and other businesses that cater almost exclusively to visitors.

Housing is an issue which has knock-on effects on almost every other part of the General Plan and you have my support in being bold and taking it seriously!
Finally, as someone who does not own a car, but is surrounded by lots of cars, (some of them super loud cars,) I would like to see a greater emphasis on more protected bike lanes and more reliable Vine Transit. I walk most places and there are always cyclists on the sidewalks all over town because people are scared of speeding drivers in our wide, exposed streets. It is uncomfortable having to squeeze onto one side of an already narrow sidewalk while someone zooms past on their bike.

Thank you,
Norma
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 16 of 264
Re: general plan comments - more infill housing and active transportation please Norma Guzman <
Mon 4/25/2022 4:01 PM
To: Michael Walker < General Plan Update < g>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL]
One more thing - can Napa ban the new construction of new gas stations? I have seen 3 under construction and this worries me as we are in a climate crisis. Petaluma banned new gas stations. In this very fire prone region with a sensitive river habitat, I would LOVE to see the City of Napa ban all new gas stations. Including any gas stations in proposed strip mall/big box projects.

Thank you
Norma
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:57 PM Norma Guzman < > wrote:

Hi there,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the General Plan. I live in the auto row area of Napa and I support planning for more infill housing at all levels of affordability in our city’s general plan.

I encourage our local officials to be bold when planning the city’s future, to allow for:

1. more housing,

2. denser housing, and

3. housing close to jobs and public transportation.

We should plan for more infill housing so that we have the public works and transportation infrastructure that suits our city 20 years from now. To me, this looks like a city with different types of housing (single-family alongside, duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, as well as larger buildings in denser zoned areas like the downtown specific plan). I am especially concerned about surface parking lots in the center of town and commercial lots with aging buildings -- these would be great places for dense, infill housing near existing infrastructure We should make sure that the growing tourism in Napa builds and contributes to our local community by having thoughtful requirements on new hotels and other businesses that cater almost exclusively to visitors.

Housing is an issue which has knock-on effects on almost every other part of the General Plan and you have my support in being bold and taking it seriously! Finally, as someone who does not own a car, but is surrounded by lots of cars, (some of them super loud cars,) I would like to see a greater emphasis on more protected bike lanes and more reliable Vine Transit. I walk most places and there are always cyclists on the sidewalks all over town because people are scared of speeding drivers in our wide, exposed streets. It is uncomfortable having to squeeze onto one side of an already narrow sidewalk while someone zooms past on their bike.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 17 of 264
Thank you,
Norma
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 18 of 264
Napa General Plan
Marcus Helmer < >
Mon 4/25/2022 3:56 PM
To: General Plan Update < >;Michael Walker <
Cc: >
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL]
As a resident of Napa County who works in Napa and cares very deeply about this city, I support a bold vision in our general plan.

I encourage our local officials to think big when planning the city’s future to step away from old ideas like car-centered city planning and exclusively single-family zoning.

Please focus on addressing our community’s needs around the protection of our environment, housing at all levels of affordability, and the equitable access to opportunity and public resources for all members of our community.

Marcus Helmer
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 19 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 20 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 21 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 22 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8

Page 23 of 264 ends

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 24 of 264 ends

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 25 of 264 ends

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 26 of 264 ends

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 27 of 264 ends

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 28 of 264 ends

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 29 of 264 ends

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 30 of 264 ends

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 31 of 264 ends

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 32 of 264
General Plan Public Comment
Luke Myers < >
Mon 4/25/2022 1:22 PM
To: Michael Walker < >;General Plan Update >
Cc:

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Hi there! Thanks for your time.

I’m Luke; I live in St. Helena and work in Napa. I’m writing to advocate for a bold vision in the city’s general plan.

I encourage our local officials to think big when planning the city’s future to step away from old ideas like carcentered city planning and exclusively single-family zoning.

Regarding housing, I support planning at all levels of affordability in our city’s general plan. I encourage our local officials to be bold when planning the city’s future, to allow for more housing,
denser housing, and
housing close to jobs and public transportation.

We should plan for more housing so that we have the public works and transportation infrastructure that suits our city 20 years from now. To me, this looks like a city with different types of housing (single-family alongside, duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, as well as larger buildings in denser zoned areas like the downtown specific plan).

I also believe that the alternate plan within the general plan is worth pursuing because of the increased density, that likely will result in fewer GHG emissions per capita, considering the number of additional residents that will be housed in a centralized, pedestrian-focused area. Displacement and a larger population of commuters could result in higher GHG emissions on a regional and state level, which CEQA requires to be considered.

Today, the effects of our housing shortage can even be seen in our parks and recreation. The number of people who live on the banks of the Napa River, and in some of our parks and open spaces is increasing annually. I think we’d benefit from adopting a general plan that acknowledges the number of people we believe are living in parks and open spaces in the city. That way we can adopt policies that attempt to help these populations, and continue to provide the parks and recreation services that we intended with our general plan.

Our lack of housing means that those in crisis have limited options to relocate to a safe place to live.

Domestic violence is already a complex and traumatic experience and our lack of housing in turn ATTACHMENT 8 Page 33 of 264
unfortunately creates a housing crisis for those in unsafe living situations. NEWS, Abode, Napa Valley Community Housing, and all non-profit organizations dedicated to helping those in need face the dilemma of being short on supportive housing and experience difficulty moving people to long-term housing. This is not due to a failure of any specific non-profit organization, but points to a larger scale problem of a failure to construct housing at all affordable ability levels. As a result this increases housing instability for those experiencing domestic violence, abuse of any kind, and all who reside in the City of Napa.

Regarding transportation, I’d encourage the city to adopt a general plan that prioritizes:

Creating resources that everybody has equitable access to (not just car-owners) More Class I multi-use paths and Class II bike lanes, with the same level of focus that our Collectors and Arterial roadways have
A continued devotion to improving the pedestrian services like we do in areas like downtown More abundant and responsive public transportation service Napa has a large number of pedestrians and cyclists, myself included, and there is a growing number of alternative means of transportation. You have my support to plan for a Napa that accommodates all of these transit options safely, without always prioritizing cars.

Thanks again for your time. I urge you to pursue a bold general plan that considers the needs of our community in an equitable and sustainable manner.

All best,
Luke Myers
Chablis Ct., St. Helena
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 34 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 35 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 36 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 37 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 38 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 39 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 40 of 264
Advocating for smart climate action based on the latest climate science www.350bayarea.org/NapaClimateNow •
March 16, 2022
Dear City of Napa Planning Commissioners,
Below are recommendations from Napa Climate NOW! for the Climate Change and Sustainability Element and the Transportation Element of the Public Review Draft of the 2040 General Plan.

We want to express our deep concern that it appears the work of the citizen representatives selected by the City Council to serve on the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) has been ignored and overridden in the Public Draft. The GPAC members not only held in-depth discussions of goal and policy wordings, but also incorporated public feedback they received during GPAC meetings, public hearings, and additional outreach efforts. We urge the Planning Commission to retain the language from the Draft Element Framework (4/2021) that resulted from the GPAC’s process.

COMMENTS ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT General Recommendations

1. Retain the stronger, more precise terms proposed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) in the Draft Element Framework (4/2021) as noted in Specific Comments below.

2. Throughout the document replace “GHG emissions” with “GHG/SLCP emissions”. • Aligns the Plan with the reduction targets of SB 1383 for the Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: black carbon (a particulate) and the GHGs methane and hydrofluorocarbons.
• Allows incorporation of the GHG/SLCP inventory the City is supporting through the Napa County Climate Action Committee.

Additional policies recommended for inclusion: (Added text in bold.) Under Goal CCS-1: Climate Change and GHG Reduction
• (From the 4/2021 Framework) Set clear goals to increase energy efficiency of City-owned buildings by implementing alternative and renewable energy solutions.
• Reduce emissions from Small Off-Road Engines (SOREs) by prohibiting use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers.
• CCS 1-4: Add “Create a Sustainability Coordinator position within the City to provide oversight of CC&S goals and policies. This position would also expand local awareness of actions that residents and businesses…” ATTACHMENT 8 Page 41 of 264
Advocating for smart climate action based on the latest climate science www.350bayarea.org/NapaClimateNow •
Under Goal CCS-2: Land Use and Mobility
• Limit expansion of fossil fuel gasoline service stations to avoid additional brownfield sites and support transition to Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs).

Under Goal CCS-4: Solid Waste Recycling and Waste Reduction • (From the 4/2021 Framework) Transition the heavy refuse and recycling vehicle fleet to vehicles that are 100 percent electric by 2023. • Adopt a Disposable Foodware Ordinance to eliminate non-recyclable, noncompostable takeout ware.

Under Goal CCS-5: Water Use Efficiency and Conservation • (From the 4/2021 Framework) Invest in infrastructure for potable recycled water.

Under Goal CCS-8: Green Building
• Require NZE or net-positive design for all new buildings (residential and commercial). (And include from the 4/2021 Framework) Require NZE or netpositive design for significant retrofitting of existing buildings by 2030.

Encourage NZE and net-positive design for adaptive reuse projects. • Align City regulations with proposed BAAQMD thresholds of no natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing in both residential and non-residential development.
• Require that City-owned building projects provide training and apprenticeship opportunities targeted to local residents as specified in a Project Labor Agreement in order to develop the local skilled and trained blue collar construction workforce needed to craft high performance buildings.

Specific Recommendations
• Page 6-4, Methane Emissions Reductions: Senate Bill 1383 Include the following: This legislation also set statewide emissions reduction targets specifying a 40 percent reduction in methane, a 40 percent reduction in HFCs, and a 50 percent reduction in anthropogenic black carbon below 2013 levels by 2030.
(from https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/slcp/about#:~:text=These%20pollutants%20include%20the%20g reenhouse,climate%20change%20and%20public%20health.)
• Page 6-9
Include the following under Solid Waste Recycling and Waste Reduction: (From the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan, page 3-13) However, in the case of GHGs with a shorter atmospheric lifespan, such as black carbon and methane, a 20-year time frame provides a more realistic means to express their global warming ATTACHMENT 8 Page 42 of 264
Advocating for smart climate action based on the latest climate science www.350bayarea.org/NapaClimateNow •
potential. For example, …, methane has a GWP of 34 using a 100-year time frame, but its GWP increases to 86 using a 20-year time frame. • CCS 1-1: (Retain 4/2021 language.) Replace “Seek to achieve net zero climate pollutants…” with “Achieve net zero climate pollutants…” • CCS 1-2: (Retain 4/2021 language.) Replace “The City should lead by example…” with “Ensure that the City leads by example…”
• CCS 1-2: Replace “Develop plans for the reduction of fossil fuel consumption…” with “Develop plans for the elimination of fossil fuel consumption…” and set a deadline.
• CCS 1-2: Add “Require new or substantially renovated municipal facilities to achieve zero net energy and ultra-low water consumption, to incorporate costeffective strategies for reducing…” • CCS 1-5: Insert “develop a Climate Action Plan for the City…” • CCS 2-1: (Retain 4/2021 language.) Replace “Expand programs that encourage the installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure.” with “Expand electric vehicle charging infrastructure.”
• CCS 2-3: (Retain 4/2021 language.) Replace “Study options to transition the City’s vehicle fleet…” with “Transition the City’s vehicle fleet…”. Set a deadline of completing fleet electrification by 2027.
• CCS 3-1: (Retain 4/2021 language.) Replace “Study and incorporate green infrastructure…” with “Incorporate green infrastructure…” • CCS 3-3: “Install a BioEnergy system…” Move this policy from Green Infrastructure to Energy Generation and Security.
• CCS-4: (Retain 4/2021 language.) Replace “divert 75 percent (or more) of waste from landfills by 2035 and maintain diversion at 75 percent of greater through 2040.” with “divert 100% of waste from landfills by 2022 (Note: Date chosen by GPAC will have to be updated) and maintain 100% diversion through 2040.” • CCS-8: Change text to “Support the City’s vision of a sustainable community by promoting efforts to reduce energy demand, reduce GHG/SLCP emissions, and conserve resources through improved building design.”
• CCS 8-1: Add “Incentivize Tier 1 and Tier 2 upgrades.” • CCS 8-2: (Retain 4/2021 language.) Replace “Seek to incorporate net zero energy…” with “Require net zero energy…”
• CCS 8-3: (Retain 4/2021 language.) Replace “Encourage roofing design…” with “Require roofing design…”
• CCS 10-1: Correct “Napa Green Certified Land Program” to “Napa Green Certified Vineyard Program”.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 43 of 264
Advocating for smart climate action based on the latest climate science www.350bayarea.org/NapaClimateNow •

COMMENTS ON THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
General Recommendations

1. Prioritize community concerns of increasing safety for pedestrians and cyclists, reducing vehicle speed in residential areas, and employing traffic calming measures from the April 2021 Public Hearing on the Draft Element Framework.

Additional Policies recommended for inclusion
Under Goal TE-3: Promote active transportation…
• Prioritize maintenance and improvement plans that remove barriers identified through the Safe Routes to Schools program to allow students to bike and walk safely to school and reduce congestion and emissions around school sites.

Under Goal TE-5: Automobile Movement
• Adopt proposed BAAQMD thresholds for Land Use Projects including targeted reductions in VMT.

Specific Recommendations
• Page 3-14: Clarify the following: “…rail right-of-way owned by the Sonoma Marin Area rail Transit in American Canyon.” Is this right of way in American Canyon a north-south route, east-west route?
• Page 3-14: Include the date of the SMART Feasibility Study for the Novato to Suisun City corridor.
• TE 1-2: Set a target and date for completing planned bicycle and pedestrian plans, e.g. complete at least 50% of the planned bike and pedestrian network by 2035.
• TE 2-3: Add text “Install traffic calming infrastructure during routine paving and maintenance.”
• TE 2-4: Include as examples “street landscaping and street trees” and “ADA compliance” that were in item I in the Draft Element Framework. • TE 6-1: Include V Commute website information (vcommute.org) as requested by NVTA staff.
• TE 6-4: Change text to: “Include Travel Demand Management responsibilities under a Sustainability Coordinator position in the City Manager’s office to provide…”
• TE 7-5: Change text to: “This can be accomplished through thoughtful design of parking lots/structures and site design, improved connections to nearby uses, traffic/parking management, and financial incentives such as discounted paid parking.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 44 of 264
Advocating for smart climate action based on the latest climate science www.350bayarea.org/NapaClimateNow •
• Goal TE-10: Sustainable Transportation Choices: Set specific goals and timelines, e.g. “Achieve a mode shift of 10% for bicycling/walking for trips less than 3 miles by 2035.”
We are happy to provide further information about our recommendations. Please contact Chris Benz at
Thank you for your consideration,
Napa Climate NOW! Government Accountability Issues Team Chris Benz
Linda Brown
Lynne Baker
Jim Wilson
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 45 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 46 of 264
MEMO
Date: March 24, 2022
To: Mike Walker, City of Napa
From: Danielle Schmitz, NTVA
Re: City of Napa 2040 Draft General Plan
______________________________________________________________________ Please find NVTA’s comments on the City of Napa’s 2040 Draft General Plan. If you have any follow-up questions please contact NVTA Director of Planning, Danielle Schmitz at

Page 3 ends

Figure 2-5 – Proposed condition is missing bike infrastructure; If VMT reduction is a goal in the plan, all major streets should be complete streets that accommodate all modes of transportation.

Figure 2-5 and 2-6 – change “auto-oriented” to “multimodal” Figure 2-6 – Consider improving on-street bike facilities as well as crossings and include potential mid-block crossings to reduce distance between crossings.

Page 2 ends

Transit Center in the Downtown and Oxbow signage programs.

Figure 2-7 – No mention of transit or improving access to transit stops.

Page 2 ends

places near public transit planned for new homes, jobs and community amenities.

Located in downtowns, along main streets and around rail stations, PDAs help the Bay Area reduce greenhouse gas emissions and solve for housing shortages. The Downtown Napa Soscol PDA was approved in 2012.

Page 3 ends

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 47 of 264
2

Page 3 ends

several bike/ped pictures we can provide the city if need be.

Page 3 ends

“study” corridors. The map shows planned facilities, and study corridors, this should be explained.

Figure 3-1- NVTA supports making new street connections at dead-end streets to improve multimodal circulation and greater mobility.

Figure 3-2 - Add link to plan: https://www.imolacorridorplan.org/ Figure 3-3 – Wondering why the figure doesn’t expand on other planned complete streets improvements for Imola Corridor, Browns Valley Road, and other improvements identified in adopted countywide plans. It seems limited for a 20 year outlook.

Page 3 ends

being…”

Page 3 ends

with Napa-Vallejo Express

Page 3 ends

Table 3-2 Planned Roadway Improvements – Jefferson Street/Old Sonoma Road – Is there an option for short-term intersection modifications to increase turning radius and therefore allowing buses to turn right from Old Sonoma Road onto Jefferson?

Page 3 ends

cost effective, multimodal…”

Page 3 ends

Rapid Flashing Beacons, curb extensions, pedestrian refuge islands and enhanced paint patterns.

Page 3 ends

Soscol Gateway Transit Center and major bus stops like park and rides. Include transit stops on city maps and marketing/outreach information.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 48 of 264
3

Page 3 ends

for complete streets/active transportation.

Page 3 ends

means. Do you mean the ability for transit systems to carry bikes (all systems currently support that) or does this mean bicycle connections to transit systems for first mile/last mile connections, such as bike/scooter share?
Table 4-4: Existing Parks and Facilities in the Planning Area (2021) Under Trails the Napa River Footnote (3) needs to be smaller.

Figure 4-4 – Include a proposed Class I along Imola on the south side from SR 221/Soscol intersection to 4th Avenue. NVTA, the City of Napa and County will be applying for ATP funds for this project. It will connect to the Bay Trail and Vine Trail.

Figure 4-7 – Include improvements from the Imola Corridor Complete Streets Plan like the Class I on the south side of Imola Ave.

Page 7 ends

walking and biking to access goods and services, switching to electric cars and bikes, and… “

Page 7 ends

biking to school.

Page 9 ends

under complete and active neighborhoods.

Page 9 ends

miles and 69% are under 5 miles (Napa Valley Travel Behavior Study 2020). Creating better walkable/bikeable neighborhoods can shift a portion of these trips to an active transportation mode, curbing greenhouse gas emissions and VMT.

Page 9 ends

Figure 9-5 – This Route map is outdated. NVTA will provide a current route map. The Vine operates 4 local fixed routes within the city and on-demand stop-to-stop service in specific zones. Remove Route 25 to Sonoma it was canceled in December 2017.

Page 9 ends

facility that is usually included as a node for residents to access by walking; an exception would be access by employees that live nearby.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 49 of 264
4 Figure 9-7 – Napa State Hospital is not a “health center” that would generally be accessible to residents for medical care.

Page 10 ends

encouraged and mentioned.

Page 10 ends

workforce housing or affordable housing for service sector employees.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 50 of 264
Napa General Plan Comment
Ryan O'Connell
Sun 4/24/2022 2:02 PM
To: Michael Walker General Plan Update How-To-ADU ADU
<
[EXTERNAL]
General Feedback:

As a resident of Napa, I support a bold vision in our general plan.

I encourage our local officials to think big when planning the city’s future to step away from old ideas like car-centered city planning and exclusively single-family zoning.

Housing Element:

I support planning for more housing at all levels of affordability in our city’s general plan.

I encourage our local officials to be bold when planning the city’s future, to allow for more housing,
denser housing, and
housing close to jobs and public transportation.

We should plan for more housing so that we have the public works and transportation infrastructure that suits our city 20 years from now.

To me, this looks like a city with different types of housing (single-family alongside, duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, as well as larger buildings in denser zoned areas like the downtown specific plan and near mass transit centers like the Soscol Transit Center).

We should make sure that the growing tourism in Napa builds and contributes to our local community by having thoughtful requirements on new hotels and other businesses that cater almost exclusively to visitors.

Housing is an issue which has knock-on effects on almost every other part of the General Plan and you have my support in thinking BIG and taking it seriously! Transportation:

I’m a Napa resident who owns a car, rides a bike, and walks.

The city has done a great job with roadways, and I’d encourage the city to adopt a general plan that prioritizes:

Creating resources that everybody has equitable access to (not just car-owners) ATTACHMENT 8 Page 51 of 264
More Class I multi-use paths and Class II bike lanes, with the same level of focus that our Collectors and Arterial roadways have
A continued devotion to improving the pedestrian services like we do in areas like downtown
More abundant and responsive public transportation service Our bike parking and bike lanes are severely lacking. Napa has a large number of pedestrians and cyclists, and there is a growing number of alternative means of transportation. You have our support to plan for a Napa that accommodates all of these transit options safely, without always prioritizing cars.

Napa 15 years from now will not look like the Napa of today. There will likely be more ride shares, more delivery services, and more alternatives for individual commuters and pedestrians (like ebikes, scooters, etc.) We need to have a vision that is still relevant years and years from now, not one that is anchored on the Ford Model T.

Additionally, when important changes happen in our city, like moving county health and human services or moving the transit center on Pearl St to Soscol Transit Center, we should make sure the general plan encourages us to plan for the impact that has on transportation and equitable access to services.

Parks and Recreation / Open Spaces:

Since the 1998 general plan, the housing and homelessness crisis has worsened significantly in Napa. Today, the effects of our housing shortage can even be seen in our parks and recreation.

The number of people who live on the banks of the Napa River, and in some of our parks and open spaces is increasing annually. It has moved from a largely seasonal trend related to our harvest and tourist season, to be a year-round occurrence.

I think we’d benefit from adopting a general plan that acknowledges the number of people we believe are living in parks and open spaces in the city. That way we can adopt policies that attempt to help these populations, and continue to provide the parks and recreation services that we intended with our general plan.

Safety and Noise Element:

Our lack of housing means that those in crisis have limited options to relocate to a safe place to live. Domestic violence is already a complex and traumatic experience and our lack of housing in turn unfortunately creates a housing crisis for those in unsafe living situations. NEWS, Abode, Napa Valley Community Housing, and all non-profit organizations dedicated to helping those in need face the dilemma of being short on supportive housing and experience difficulty moving people to long-term housing. This is not due to a failure of any specific non-profit organization, but points to a larger scale problem of a failure to construct housing at all affordable ability levels.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 52 of 264
As a result this increases housing instability for those experiencing domestic violence, abuse of any kind, and all who reside in the City of Napa.

Thank you for considering my comment as a resident of Napa who also works in Napa.

Best regards,
Ryan O'Connell
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 53 of 264
General Plan Draft EIR
Charles Shinnamon <
Thu 4/21/2022 11:17 AM
To:
[EXTERNAL]
Commissioners,
As I am sure you recognize, the Draft EIR is a voluminous and daunting document to read, understand, and comprehend. I suggest that you consider recommending a longer comment period than currently envisioned.

In relation to the consideration of Project Alternatives, I would like to offer some comments about the Higher Density Alternative. As noted in a prior letter to the Council and Commission, several of us suggested that the FAR’s in the Focus Area Corridors need to be reviewed and perhaps increased. This then feeds into consideration of the “Higher Density Alternative”. None of us know what kind of exciting projects that might be brought forward by future developers of these re-use parcels. Allowing a higher FAR might open up the conversations about great design and compatibility. As illustrated in other communities, some higher density projects can actually work better visually, aesthetically, and practically than lower density ones. To summarily dismiss the Higher Density Alternative because there is more traffic, noise, etc, might be shortsighted. Unfortunately, the DEIR doesn’t give much specificity about the kind of development (heights, densities, FAR’s, etc) and it is hard to assess how those interplay with the Draft GP.

I think that the alternative plan could lead to a greater amount of infill housing and a greater reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

In section 4.4.2.7 it is stated that, “projected emissions under both [the Higher Infill Alternative and the Project] are estimated to exceed the target levels established by the State and air district”. Knowing this, we should pursue the alternative that emits fewer greenhouse gas emissions. It is stated later that the Project is “environmentally superior”. However, this is partially based on the claim that the Higher Infill Alternative produces similar GHG emissions. But the ~2100 people who live in the 840 units of housing that would be constructed would be producing significantly less GHG than if they were to live elsewhere. Yes, there would be increased VMT’s locally but there probably would be far fewer VMT’s created from folks commuting long distances from elsewhere to work in Napa.

If people are displaced outside of Napa or commuters continue to lack housing options in Napa it will result in significantly higher GHG per capita than if they were to live in the City of Napa in the pedestrian centered neighborhoods created in the Higher Infill Alternative. Displacement and a larger population of commuters would result in higher GHG emissions on a regional and state level, which CEQA requires to be considered.

Having higher allowable FAR’s in these corridors may have some strong value and will need further conversation.

These higher densities and re-development of such areas are new things to Napa and to other parts of the more low density cities in the Bay Area. We are going to need some great examples from other areas to show us what can be done especially as we blend those higher densities into surrounding neighborhoods.

I know this particular land use issue is not before you tonight as related to FAR’s. But the DEIR and its alternatives is part of the conversation that needs to be had.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 54 of 264
Thanks for your consideration,
Chuck Shinnamon
Charles W. Shinnamon, P.E.
“If you don’t like the news, go out and make some of your own.” (Wes “Scoop” Nisker) ATTACHMENT 8 Page 55 of 264
Napa General Plan: Noise and Safety
Aisha Rivera
Mon 4/25/2022 3:53 PM
To: General Plan Update >;Michael Walker >
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL]
Our lack of housing means that those in crisis have limited options to relocate to a safe place to live.

Domestic violence is already a complex and traumatic experience and our lack of housing in turn unfortunately creates a housing crisis for those in unsafe living situations. NEWS, Abode, Napa Valley Community Housing, and all non-profit organizations dedicated to helping those in need face the dilemma of being short on supportive housing and experiencing difficulty moving people to longterm housing. This is not due to a failure of any specific non-profit organization, but points to a larger scale problem of a failure to construct housing at all affordable ability levels. As a result this increases housing instability for those experiencing domestic violence, abuse of any kind, and all who reside in the City of Napa.

Dense mixed-use development with different styles of housing; duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and communal housing; helps to prevent violence by increasing the chance of detection. By allowing dense housing we have individuals and families living closer together which allows neighbors to more easily spot signs of abuse or other signs concern. Detection reduces community violence, we saw this when their was a spike in reported cases of child abuse as children returned to school after schools reopened in person. Denying density means increasing the space between individuals and families and the possibility of violence continuing without notice.

When families can have housing that suits their needs they are also less stressed. Less stress leads to less violence and improved health outcomes. We can reduce violence and increase community health with a general plan that reflects our diverse housing needs.

Thank you,
Aisha Rivera
Pronouns: She/They
Artist, Writer, Actor, Advocate
🌈
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 56 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 57 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 58 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 59 of 264
Comments on Tourism issues in Draft General Plan of City of Napa by Genji Schmeder
Thursday 21 April 2022
The explanatory text for general plan guiding principle number 10, "Achieve an economically diverse and resilient community" begins on page 1-9, "While furthering continued tourism growth, the General Plan seeks ...". Yet this assumption of tourism growth as general plan intention is not supported in the rest of the document, rather only growth in special aspects of tourism (cultural and heritage), which could be accomplished merely by broadening the attention of current numbers of tourists. To preclude any misunderstanding that tourism growth is axiomatic to the general plan, these words should be changed or deleted.

But this careless phrase reveals a deeper issue, that the general plan never considers the optimum level of tourism by year 2040. The plan's language about balancing and considering residents' needs with regard to the tourist industry is heavy with concern but light with remedy. We also need to estimate the points of diminishing returns, break-even and over-supply. The residents of Napa deserve a straightforward debate based on concrete alternatives written into the draft general plan and subject to full public comment.

On 26 March 2022 a subset of the general plan citizens advisory committee (Band, Barreca, Dahme, Shinnamon, Siegel) submitted comments on the draft. In their section about Hotel Estimates, they state that the number of hotel rooms in the city by year 2040 could be two-and-a-half times the number in 2021. This implies 5 pct annual increase compounded over 19 years. It would be irresponsible to approve a general plan which acquiesces in such huge growth in tourist lodging without first facing the basic question of how much tourism our community desires. And debate over that question should be informed by statistics about hotel developments in the pipeline, as well as estimates of impacts like unsatisfied employee housing demand under a few scenarios of lodging growth rate.

Experience as independent traveler in USA and abroad moves me to propose the option to permit a tourist hostel in our city, say with fewer than forty beds. Hostels attract not simply low-budget travelers, but the more adventurous, robust and sociable ones. It is primarily young people who can be satisfied with bunk beds in a dormitory and shared bathrooms and kitchens, but a few elders (like myself at age 79) prefer hostels because of easy socializing with other travelers, especially from other countries. Though provisions are basic, hostels can still be quite clean and well managed. At hostels in Boston and Manhattan my dormitory lodging cost $60 per night. A Napa hostel will not appeal to many prosperous tourists, but may attract the more interesting ones. Not by money alone does our community thrive.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 60 of 264
Various Comments on Draft General Plan of City of Napa
by Genji Schmeder
Monday 25 April 2022
Small Town or Small City

Page 1 ends

has approximately 80,000 residents within an area of 18 square miles. This implies 4,444 per sq-mi or in metric terms, 1,716 per sq-km. In 2020 the United Nations Statistical Commission adopted "Degree of Urbanization" definitions for settlement types, defining a city as having at least 50,000 inhabitants with density of at least 1,500 per sq-km. Since the draft provides no reason to deem Napa a small town, we should apply the international standard and recognize that our community is a small city. (The same conclusion can be derived from publications of US Census Bureau.) On pages 2-1, 10-2 and 10-4, the draft speaks of Napa's "small-town" "character", "charm" and "feel".

Such insubstantial attributes may fit the Napa of early memories, but the general plan should face reality, not foster nostalgia. A serious program to preserve or revive Napa's small-town qualities would require radical changes. For example, one quality of small towns is high degree of personal interaction in public, an unlikely result when few people walk, bike or ride buses, preferring to travel isolated inside private vehicles. And on the brighter side of Napa's growth, let's be proud that small-city Napa took on the huge effort to rescue the Napa River from decades of abuse by small-town Napa.

Parking
The 2015 Downtown Parking Management Plan is in effect and was not deeply examined in the draft general plan. I suggest scheduling a review in light of modern ideas about parking, especially affecting downtown land use. The current strategy can be compared with the proposals of Donald Shoup, author of the 2005 book "The High Cost of Free Parking". Vehicle parking is a huge overhead cost for a downtown, demanding space exactly where high density of uses is key to attracting customers. Free parking encourages squandering of public and private land. There are proven successful ways to charge for parking, to relieve businesses of mandatory parking allocations, to maximize efficiency of public parking.

Growing prosperity in European cities after World War Two led to an explosion of private car driving.

This began making the downtowns of numerous cities fatally congested, provoking movements to minimize or eliminate car presence. The scene today in cities of Netherlands where bicycles are the primary means of individual travel developed over decades of political struggle. In Paris France first one side of River Seine was closed to cars and recently the other, leading to a huge increase of cycling in the city center.

Every American city agonizes over the dilemma of attracting car drivers to business districts yet wasting much of that land on storage of vehicles. At least one-third of the surface of downtown Napa is devoted to vehicle parking. Modern parking strategy can reduce that overhead cost and make downtown more useful and enjoyable.

Schmeder 25 April 2022 page 1
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 61 of 264
Bicycling
The sooner our streets become safe for cyclists, the sooner more people will ride bikes. Perceived danger is the primary reason for not cycling in Napa city and county. Working to maximize youth cycling as soon as possible means a larger number of young-adult cyclists by year 2040. Fundamental to safer streets is creating separated bike lanes on all heavily traveled routes.

An ordinance of the city of Cambridge Massachusetts mandates building separated bike lanes along specific streets whenever those streets are scheduled for maintenance. Instead of needing repeatedly to advocate for installation of lanes, cycling advocates have done the initial work of getting them into the city plan so they can be implemented routinely.

Major Changes Require Definite Plans and Mandates
From my own reading and from critical comments by climate and cycling advocates, also by a subset of the citizens advisory committee, the draft general plan authors seem to have weakened major reforms by shifting them from the concrete and mandatory toward the vague and optional. It's understandable that planners and administrators value flexibility, but major changes need to be empowered to overcome the momentum of habit. Without definite programs enabled on adoption of the new general plan, reforms will become mere good intentions to lie dormant for another twenty years.

That is the case with traffic calming, supported by goal and policies on page 3-19 of the 1998 general plan but, in light of ever worse danger and discomfort from motor vehicles in neighborhoods, not adequately implemented.

In the case of reforms to meet the climate crisis, good intentions without adequate action are unfortunately typical in most countries. But our small city of Napa can make a serious effort. Let's be the change we wish to see in the world.

In the case of tourism, the draft plan seems to acquiesce to tourist industry aspirations. There is amazing dissonance between officials routinely approving new hotel projects and the probable majority of the public opposed to further expansion of the industry. All the concern over tourism impacts expressed in the draft general plan means nothing if the plan fails to present practical choices, including a possible twenty-year prohibition of additional rental rooms.

Schmeder 25 April 2022 page 2
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 62 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 63 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 64 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 65 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 66 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 67 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 68 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 69 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 70 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 71 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 72 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 73 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 74 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 75 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 76 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 77 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 78 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 79 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 80 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 81 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 82 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 83 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 84 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 85 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 86 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 87 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 88 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 89 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 90 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 91 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 92 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 93 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 94 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 95 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 96 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 97 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 98 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 99 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 100 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 101 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 102 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 103 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 104 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 105 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 106 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 107 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 108 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - Senior population, affordable shelter and transportation
Squarespace <[email protected]>
Fri 4/22/2022 4:29 PM
To: Michael Walker >
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Thomas Kalbrener
Email Address:

Subject: Senior population, affordable shelter and transportation Message: About 30% of the population in Napa is over 60 years old. I will be interested in knowing how this plan will support this populations shelter, health care and transportation resources.

What is your comment about?: General Plan
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 109 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - Draft General Plan Comments Squarespace <[email protected]>
Fri 4/22/2022 2:58 PM
To: Michael Walker
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Rainer Hoenicke
Email Address:

Subject: Draft General Plan Comments
Message: I'd like to offer a few comments:

Chapter 6 - Climate Change and Sustainability: It lacks a section on how to prioritize actions and intersections among Elements. What kind of policy changes are anticipated base on new goals and strategies? For example: Why wait for the Urban Forestry Master Plan to be completed when we know that public health, climate change responses, and parks and recreation amenities require more tree cover along major east-west and north-south traffic corridors, such as Imola, Trower, Jefferson, Lincoln, Soscol, Linda Vista, Redwood/Trancas, and others? There are easy, low-hanging fruit to pick NOW to reduce heat island effects and promote non-motorized commutes within 2-10 miles. Look at the City of Davis!
CSPR9-13 and LUCD-3: Please explicitly build in connectivity among existing trails and parks and link these goals and strategies among goals and strategies. Be explicit about using development and redevelopment projects to establish trail easements among already existing trails, parks and natural areas and open spaces with connectivity everywhere - not just for Napa River access.

CSPR9-8: Mention education explicitly with examples of Community Centers and surrounding park land as means to educate the public about climate change mitigation, public health protection, community cohesion,promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and what it takes to maintain and operate a livable city.

Connect recycled water facilities with new renewable energy facilities.

Identify and act on stormwater harvesting opportunities for landscape irrigation and other appropriate substitutions of drinking water. Require parking lot retrofits to include runoff harvesting technology (e.g. Napa High School parking lot runoff to be used for sports field irrigation - look at what the City of Los Angeles has done int that regard!).

What is your comment about?: General Plan
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 110 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8

Page 111 of 264 ends

May 6, 2022
Michael Walker, Senior PlannerCommunity Development Department, City of Napa 1600 First Street
Napa, CA 94559
RE: Draft 2040 General Plan Update
Dear Mr. Walker,
The Napa County Bicycle Coalition—which works to make biking in Napa County safe, accessible, and convenient—appreciates many of the goals and guiding principles of the draft 2040 General Plan (“the Plan”), including the intention to “increase travel options through enhanced walking, bicycling, and public transportation systems” and to “decrease reliance on automobile use by increasing access to public and active transportation, and supporting infrastructure improvements for bicycles…and zero-emissions vehicles.” In fact, six of the Plan’s 10 guiding principles cite bicycle infrastructure or network improvement as integral to the path forward.

However, as heartened as we are by these goals and principles and what they could mean for the health of our community, we are also concerned that the Plan’s corresponding policy statements lack targets and commitments that are critical to ensuring the proposed changes are realized. We see a mismatch between good intentions and commitment to action.

For example, TE 2-3 states: “Apply traffic calming principles where appropriate with consideration of functional classification, emergency access, and vehicular traffic volumes to support livable and complete streets.” When it comes to bicycle infrastructure and safety improvements, the Plan utilizes an abundance of phrases such as “where appropriate,” “where feasible,” “depending on,” “support,” and “promote” that may cause confusion at best and both complicate accountability and delay critical improvements at worst.

General plans can and have used more committed language and overarching targets. For example, San Luis Obispo’s current plan includes the following policies:
“The City shall construct bikeways facilities as designated in the Bicycle Transportation Plan when:

A. The street section is repaved, restriped, or changes are made to its cross-sectional design; or B. The street section is being changed as part of a development project.” “The City shall identify and pursue the acquisition of right-of-ways needed to implement the projects identified in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan.”
“The City shall maintain its silver level award designation as a Bicycle Friendly Community and pursue a gold level designation.”
We ask that in addition to including our priority revisions in the following table, the Plan retire terms like “support” and “promote” and replace them, wherever possible, with terms like “persue,” “work toward,” “aim to,” “strive to,” “implement,” “expand,” “require,” “maintain,” “achieve,”and “design”—words that reflect more commitment to action.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 112 of 264
Napa County Bicycle Coalition’s
Priority Recommended Changes to the Draft 2040 General Plan Page/
Policy Current Language Revisions & Additions
p3-16
TE 1-2
Foster a more connected system of streets,
pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities as new
development and redevelopment is undertaken,
and as opportunities are presented.
“Build out the planned multi-modal transportation
network for auto, bicycle, pedestrian and transit
needs. Aim to complete at least 50% of the
planned bike and pedestrian network by 2040.”
p3-16
Goal
TE-1
Foster a comprehensive network of accessible
roads, trails, sidewalks, and pathways that
emphasize a Complete Streets approach, while
reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
dependence on single-occupancy vehicles.

There is currently no corresponding policy
statement addressing VMT. Add: “Work to reduce
VMT by 15% by 2040.” (California’s target is to
reduce VMT by 15% by 2050.)
p3-19
Goal
TE-6
Support policies and programs to reduce
automobile mode share, reduce automobile
dependency, and encourage alternative forms of
transportation.

None of the policies under this goal reference bike
or pedestrian facilities. Add: “Implement the City’s
existing transit, pedestrian, and bicycles plans to
increase mode share for transit, walking, and
bicycling to 20% by 2035” (Countywide Pedestrian
Plan shows current mode share at 11%).

Add: “The City shall strive to allocate
transportation funding across various modes
approximately proportional to its modal split
goals.”
p3-4
Table
3-1
Table listing roadway classifications.

Includes function of roadway type, and “typical
characteristics” based on Average Annual Daily
Traffic (AADT).

As is done in other communities and Napa’s
adopted Bicycle Plan, include a column for Level of
Traffic Stress (LTS) for proposed bike facilities.

AADT is automobile-centric, whereas LTS is key to
planning future improvements, including bike/ped
facilities and increasing the level of comfort for all
users.

Starting on
p2-21
The Focus Areas. Currently two show improved
bike facilities in the “proposed conditions”
drawings but do not mention them in the policy
language. Jefferson shows no bike facilities, but
the policy language acknowledges that they may
be a possibility after study. A Class II bike lane
already exists on North Soscol, and “proposed
conditions” do not improve this. It is unclear
what the intention is for bike facilities in these
corridors.

Given that the focus areas are key active
transportation corridors, include:
“Implement bike facilities that are appropriate
given the Level of Traffic Stress in each of the
Focus Area corridors, with design of facilities on
Jefferson Street to be determined after study.”
p3-
8,10,11
Tables
3-3,
The Level of Service (LOS) traffic standard
referenced is for automobiles only and suggests
that only “drivers’ perception of comfort,
convenience, and efficiency” is an important
Adopt a Multimodal LOS that includes factors that
also lead to a superior LOS for bicyclists and
pedestrians. Factors for pedestrians can include:

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 113 of 264
3-4 consideration when making decisions around
“safety, equity, and sustainability.” • Providing a walkway on both sides of the roadway with ample width that allows side-byside walking • Distancing the walkway away from vehicular
traffic using bike lanes, shoulders, on-street
parking, buffers, trees, and landscaping
• Reducing vehicle volumes and speeds,
particularly those closest to the walkway
• Limiting delay for pedestrians at signalized
intersections
• Providing raised medians that can serve as
pedestrian refuges at both signalized and
unsignalized locations
• Removing permitted left turn movements by
vehicles at signalized intersections
• Prohibiting right turn movements on red by
vehicles
• Narrowing the crossing distances at
intersections
Factors for bicyclists can include:
• Providing bikes lanes on both sides of the
roadway with ample width or separation
• Excellent pavement condition that is free of
potholes, damage, and debris
• Distancing the bike lane away from vehicular
traffic as much as possible
• Reducing vehicle volumes and speeds,
particularly those closest to the bike lane
• Reducing the number of trucks, particularly
those closest to the bike lane
• Removing or reducing on-street parking
• Narrowing the crossing distances at
intersections
• Providing bike lanes through intersections
• Limiting the number of commercial driveways
or driveways serving high-density residential
buildings along the street
• Limiting or reducing the number of unsignalized
intersections along the street
p3-16
TE 2-3
Apply traffic calming principles where
appropriate with consideration of functional
classification, emergency access, and vehicular
traffic volumes to support livable and complete
streets.
“Adopt and implement a comprehensive traffic
calming program to meet Level of Traffic Stress
thresholds throughout the city. Incorporate traffic
calming in regular paving and maintenance projects
by default, unless infeasible due to engineering or
emergency/transit access needs.”
P3-16
TE 2-1
Work towards safer streets to reduce and
eventually eliminate fatal and severe injury
“Work towards safer streets and reduce and
eliminate fatal and severe injury collisions among
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 114 of 264
collisions among vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicyclists by adopting a Vision Zero Plan.
vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists by 2035 by
adopting and implementing a Vision Zero Plan.”
p3-17
TE 3-2
Collaborate with the Napa Valley Unified School
District (NVUSD) in creating a Safe Routes to
School plan and securing dedicated funding to
provide safe and equitable access for students
to local schools.
“Partner with public, nonprofit, and community
stakeholders to secure dedicated funding for the
education and infrastructure needs of the
Countywide SRTS program to provide safe and
equitable access for students to local schools.”
For nearly 10 years, the Countywide SRTS program
has been a partnership led by Napa Valley
Transportation Authority, Napa County Office of
Education, the Napa County Bicycle Coalition, and
many plans have already been developed.

Other key areas where the mismatch between intention and commitment stand out include:
• The emphasis on pedestrian-oriented infrastructure but de-emphasis on bike facilities throughout the Land Use and Community Design Element. Please consider elevating bicycling to be on par with the emphasis on walking throughout this element. • 17 of the 19 listed Planned Roadway Improvements (Table 3-2) are automobilefocused. Key active transportation corridors with planned bicycle facilities are not included in these pages or the City’s existing CIP project list though many having been in adopted plans for over 10 years.

In order for the Plan’s implementation to mirror its guiding principles, these discrepancies must be reduced—even if that means more time is needed to incorporate these changes. Given the significance and scope of this Plan, and the opportunity it presents to address our climate emergency and create a meaningful shift to livable and complete streets, we urge all involved to ensure the document reflects more commitment to its goals, as well as some overarching targets, to better enable the City to realize the 2040 General Plan.

Should you have any questions about the above comments, please contact me at (707) 258- 6318 or at [email protected]. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Kara Vernor
Executive Director
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 115 of 264
Gateway to Napa
David Dunlap
Tue 5/3/2022 1:48 PM
To: Michael Walker
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Regarding plans for the Ghisletta and Horseman property:

The USDA/LAFCO designated these parcels as Prime Agricultural Land ( 146 acres ) - the “Last Crop" in Napa - it is irreplaceable.

This proposed development represents one of the largest - if not the largest - developments in the History of Napa - a city within the city.

The super-sized scale of this proposed development is a result of the City and the County not building as they were required in past decades.

Now, the City is taking the easy way out and proposes to devastate the “Last Crop" of AG lands - a much needed resource for the residents and farmers of Napa.

In addition to the senseless creation of an expensive infrastructure situated on top of an active earthquake fault, these reasons should prevent the City of Napa from placing new housing in this location.

Sincerely
David W Dunlap
Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 116 of 264
Ghisletta proposed property development
Peggy Francis
Tue 5/3/2022 11:32 AM
To: Steve Potter <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
I am a 35 year resident of Napa. My husband and I fulfilled a dream to move here as we were drawn to the agricultural community with the promise of a lifestyle connected to the seasonal life of the crops. Time and again we have been called upon to protect our agricultural land from development even as available land within the city has remained undeveloped.

I am writing today in protest of the proposed development of the Ghisletta property on Foster Road. I am strongly against developing the valuable corridor into the Napa Valley.

Here are a few of the reasons I am opposed:

Water...where will the water come from?
The USDA/LAFCO designated these parcels as Prime Agricultural Land ( 146 acres ) - the “Last Crop" in Napa - it is irreplaceable.

In 2007/08, almost 6,000 names signed a petition requesting that the City NOT annex, up-zone and develop these very same parcels. Even the Bank of America has stated: “ We can no longer afford the luxury of urban sprawl. ”2 These parcels are officially designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Area. They contain a wide swath of an active - very active - West Napa Fault line running the full length of the Ghisletta parcels. Anxiety inducing …. if not negligent to site any development, let alone housing, on these parcels. Will the City be held liable? If so, who will bear responsibility for paying out any possible lawsuits - city taxpayers ?
Other sites such as Napa Pipe and the Gasser sites were developed on fallow, industrial lands or Government lands that were improved by responsible development. They were not the AGW lands of the Gateway Parcels that would be devastated and lost forever to future generations.

The City has failed to even use their own identified sites for housing development ( Housing Element 2015 ) which is expected to yield about 1500 + units. Or to even annex existing county islands that are within the City limits that would yield innumerable possibilities.

They have not proposed affordable housing and workforce housing ( to similar magnitudes) to be located throughout all of Napa - seemingly not ATTACHMENT 8 Page 117 of 264
in the neighborhoods of City Officials.

In fact, they are not even considering this area a neighborhood ! Regardless of our tax base, our neighborhood has been vaporized in the eyes of the City. It is now relegated to a tag line of the “Foster Road Mixed Use corridor”, complete with expanded roadways on Foster Road and a truck channel on Golden Gate Ave.

Traffic congestion, pollution and noise are already a hardship for many - akin to the Santa Monica Freeway in some parts! Imagine the influx of this proposed development + Napa Pipe + all of the Hotels and other developments in the Planning pipeline. An ensuing nightmare may well be an understatement.

I am asking the City to stop the planning and any development of this valuable agricultural land. You are "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" if this project moves forward.

Sincerely,
Margaret (Peggy) Francis
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 118 of 264
Ghisletta property development
Harold Francis >
Tue 5/3/2022 11:53 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL]
I am a 35 year resident of Napa. My husband and I fulfilled a dream to move here as we were drawn to the agricultural community with the promise of a lifestyle connected to the seasonal life of the crops. Time and again we have been called upon to protect our agricultural land from development even as available land within the city has remained undeveloped.

I am writing today in protest of the proposed development of the Ghisletta property on Foster Road. I am strongly against developing the valuable corridor into the Napa Valley.

Here are a few of the reasons I am opposed:

Water...where will the water come from?
The USDA/LAFCO designated these parcels as Prime Agricultural Land ( 146 acres ) - the “Last Crop" in Napa - it is irreplaceable.

The City has continued to ignore the public outcry for decades that these AGW parcels not be annexed, up-zoned and developed. In its own General Plan 2040 Survey at least 77% voiced opposition to developing lands at the City limits. In 2007/08, almost 6,000 names signed a petition requesting that the City NOT annex, up-zone and develop these very same parcels. Even the Bank of America has stated: “ We can no longer afford the luxury of urban sprawl. ”2
These parcels are officially designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Area. They contain a wide swath of an active - very active - West Napa Fault line running the full length of the Ghisletta parcels. Anxiety inducing …. if not negligent to site any development, let alone housing, on these parcels. Will the City be held liable? If so, who will bear responsibility for paying out any possible lawsuits - city taxpayers ?
Other sites such as Napa Pipe and the Gasser sites were developed on fallow, industrial lands or Government lands that were improved by responsible development. They were not the AGW lands of the Gateway Parcels that would be devastated and lost forever to future generations.

They have not proposed affordable housing and workforce housing ( to similar magnitudes) to be located throughout all of Napa - seemingly not in the neighborhoods of City Officials.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 119 of 264
Traffic congestion, pollution and noise are already a hardship for many - akin to the Santa Monica Freeway in some parts! Imagine the influx of this proposed development + Napa Pipe + all of the Hotels and other developments in the Planning pipeline. An ensuing nightmare may well be an understatement.

I am asking the City to stop the planning and any development of this valuable agricultural land. You are "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" if this project moves forward.

Sincerely,
Harold Francis
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 120 of 264
Response to the Draft EIR/Draft General Plan Napa 2040
Linda Kinder
Fri 5/6/2022 3:02 PM
To: Michael Walker General Plan Update <
You don't often get email from l Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Dear Michael Walker and Vincent Smith,
We have been Napa residents on Foster Road since 1986 and this is the third time that we have been opposed to the development of "Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor". These properties remain truly unsuitable for your proposed annexation, up-zoning and development are far reaching. To state some of the issues we present the following:

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: This mixed use project affects land use, greenhouse gases, aesthetics, agricultural resources, view corridors, pollution, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, traffic, utilities, etc. Foster Road has already been impacted by the Broadcast Park townhomes project which is still under construction. The impact of the construction project affects the street traffic on Foster Road which has become more dangerous all the time. We are concerned with the number of cars speeding down Foster Road with Irene Snow school children crossing the road coming and going to school. Many neighborhood families walk along Foster Road to Golden Gate and it is becoming unsafe for this activity.

URBAN SPRAWL: This property is on the city limits in the Carneros region. The Napa Gateway consists of a number of private land parcels including the Stewart Ranch of the Oreo Cows. Another large parcel - the Ghisletta property - has been offered for sale by some of its owners to the City of Napa for the better part of 50 years. The proposed annexatoin, up-zoning and development represents regressive urban planning practices of leap frogging and sprawl more suitable to the unsustainable models of the 1960's. These models have exacerbated our climate crisis. Napa residents want to see corridor streets such as Jefferson, Soscol and Trancas and existing neighborhoods be the sites for development and housing priorities as Smart Growth planning.

WATER: This is an ever growing concern for past 25 years and is more precious now during our drought.This proposed annexation, up-zoning and proposed development will dramatically increase our water shortages, water quality and ever-rising rates are very problematic to Napa residents especially in our multiple years of extreme droughts and wildfire danger.

WEST NAPA FAULT LINE: There are active Earthquake fault lines (West Napa Fault Line) running directly thru this property which suffered major fracturing, fissures, and slippage in the 2014 Napa Earthquake and are continuing to shape-shift to this day. Irene Snow Elementary had to be torn down and rebuilt due to this fault line. Is Napa taking in to consideration of future home owners being on this site. We feel it is being irresponsible to future Napans by having housing being constructed on a known fault line.

The Ghisletta parcels were designated by USDA/LAFCO as Prime Agricultural land. Any possible annexation should be subject to Measures J & P - requiring Voter Approval for any proposed annexation.

PRESERVE THE GATEWAY: The entrance to the Napa Valley/Napa Gateway welcomes millions of visitors a year to the wondrous Napa Valley as it represents a thriving, hospitable, and environmentally responsible region. It aspires to a vibrant agricultural area promoting food to table, vineyards, farms, ranches, and preserved oak studded hillsides.

This destination is sought throughout the world for precisely these increasing rare characteristics. Developing multistory, multi-family complexes, tract housing, and the retro-sprawl of retail, food marts, and parking lots on these highrisk properties is putting an undeniable BLIGHT to our city's entry and reputation. It is exactly what people do not want to greet them upon arrival. The Gateway now provides an beautiful pastoral scene with the Oreo cows on the hillsides.

A viable alternative is to retract the proposed annexation, up-zoning and development of these parcels and retain their designation as AQW or a Resource Area for all of Napa and its visitors.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to our concerns about this on-going issue which we have been dealing with since we have lived on Foster Road.

Daniel M Kinder and Linda J Kinder
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 121 of 264
General Plan Comment
Scott Klingbeil
Thu 5/5/2022 3:47 PM
To: Michael Walker <
1 attachments (2 KB)
image001.emz;
[EXTERNAL]
Mike,
In believe tomorrow is the comment deadline and wanted to make sure I got this to you in time.

I believe this maybe a mapping error as the property at 1022 Bella lane is currently designated TC-410 and is part of the Senza Hotel. The property should be designated Hospitality Commercial.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 122 of 264
Please let me know if you have any questions
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 123 of 264
Thanks
Scott Klingbeil

artners.com
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 124 of 264
5/6/22
Mr. Michael Walker, Senior Planner
Community Development Department, City of Napa
1600 First Street
Napa, CA 94559
Dear Mr. Walker,
I am part of a community of engaged citizens who are not in support of the Foster Rd. Mixed Use proposal outlined in the Napa General Plan 2040. During the GPAC process community voices discussed Greenbelt, partially because we have limited parks at the south end of the city, we envisioned horse and bike trails, parks, and community activities at the gateway as both welcoming and necessary. Responses to our community voices were always met with the response that these parcels WILL be developed.

My comments regarding the DEIR are about the lack of mitigation measures identified, CEQA requirements, a lack of substantive Alternatives identified, and concerns relative to Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Air Quality, Traffic, Noise and Environmental Justice issues.

One of my chief concerns is the continued Loss of Agricultural Land as it related to the Foster Rd. Mixed Use parcels, approx. 144 acres of virgin land situated at the southwest edge of the city in the RUL and within the SOI. Our community and I specifically advocate to exhaust all other viable land and development locations prior to developing the virgin land at the edge of the city that only contributes to leap-frog development and sprawl. This has been a key issue for Napans for 40 years.

CEQA – we believe there are better Alternatives and there is inadequate evaluation of those Alternatives in order to achieve a desired outcome instead of a good faith look at better alternatives. It strikes us that the language of the DEIR in its current configuration is all or nothing. It says that we can’t do anything to mitigate the effects of development or greenhouse gas emissions. That’s a ridiculous proposition. Regarding greenhouse emissions, there would clearly be less emissions, they are not unavoidable, by clustered development in existing corridors and already urbanized areas where through public participation by the GPAC Napa citizens are supportive of development in these areas.

We remain deeply concerned about mitigating the environmental effects of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and subsequent degradation of Air Quality. One proposal to mitigate such effects would be If the city eliminated the annexation of the land that makes up the Foster Rd Mixed Use and instead developed the corridor focus areas (Jefferson, Soscol, and Trancas), this would definitely mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions/AQ. To densify an already urban area would help in efforts to keep transportation demands concentrated and prevent automobile usage. To provide the mix of housing needs along these corridors FIRST, revitalizes these corridors and ATTACHMENT 8 Page 125 of 264
neighborhoods, would not be adding more cars, noise, and light pollution to the edges of the city, but focus the housing in already urban areas, not at the rural urban interface.

Developing the gateway parcels as part of the Foster Rd. Mixed Use area induces growth! To potentially build up to 1,200 housing units including commercial business and automobiles on these parcels, will definitely impact Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Air Quality. By not providing a detailed Environmental Impact Report for such densification of this area, but instead threading the needle for future development of the area through annexation, it attempts to circumvent a true EIR for the proposal within this General Plan. Instead, the community has and continues to ask for Greenbelt, or to provide a planned alternative that provides trials, horses, Ag4 youth, and community centers for welcoming people to Napa and the Valley.

When one looks at the visual images provided by the consultants of mixed-use housing/commercial along the corridors of Jefferson, Soscal and Trancas, they are misleading and I suspect such proposals would yield considerably more housing units, therefore I challenge the potential housing numbers that currently total for these three major corridors only 710 new total units. The images of mixed-use along the boulevards of Jefferson, Soscol and Trancas would yield a considerably higher number of housing units than shown with the digital images provided in the General Plan. I offer such insights not as a layperson, but as a licensed professional and Professor of Architecture, my area of expertise. A preferred strategy would be to develop first in already urbanized developed corridors and produce the number of units that should include at least 3 times(2,130 units) what is anticipated in order to reduce sprawl, and in so doing reduce the particulate matter, greenhouse gas emissions and maintain air quality.

A recent University of California at Berkeley study regarding how sprawl cancelled the carbon emissions of densification of cities. https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawlcancels-carbon-footprint-savings-of-dense-urban-cores/. is relevant in this case. If we avoid the sprawl of developing the Foster Rd. Mixed Use area and focus on the existing urban fabric of the city, we can avoid cancelling the carbon footprint that can be mitigated by first developing the corridors. Developing the corridors and focus areas would provide more of the much-needed housing, revitalization within the city neighborhoods and existing businesses.

Environmental Justice
The issue of Environmental Justice is also of concern. Unfortunately, proposed developments such as the Foster Rd. Mixed Use corridor, when an entirely new area is developed on agricultural land that has so many site constrains, (active fault lines, landslide area, flood plain) it may provide limited housing opportunities, difficulties in securing loans, earthquake insurance and limited upside investment potential. And, when the majority of affordable new units for housing are envisioned in the Foster Rd. Mixed Use area (1,210 units) and are concentrated only in this one area at the periphery of the city, it leads to a community that is segregated, and that becomes disadvantaged because of its dislocation from the heart of the ATTACHMENT 8 Page 126 of 264
city. Conversely, the integration of mixed-use housing in the corridor focus areas disperses a variety of housing types together and integrates the housing across the entire city. So, we are concerned about dense housing at the Gateway and we want to minimize the risk to life and property caused by earthquakes and landslides as noted as a goal of the General Plan SN-1.

SN-1: Minimize the risk to life and property caused by seismic activity, soil erosion, and landslides.

The Foster Rd. Mixed Use Area are lands situated directly on a relatively recently discovered but active earthquake fault that crisscrosses the site. The fault has now been mapped as identified by Napa City Planners own site constraints map. These lands additionally include a landslide area to the southern end of the property. In building affordable housing units on or immediately adjacent to this fault line, not only will these areas be of higher cost to develop, but also make the possibility of earthquake insurance impossible. This hardly minimizes the risk to life and property it actually makes any thought of home ownership one of the riskier potential investments for a group of homeowners who have been priced out of safer locations.

It further disenfranchises and disadvantages these potential homeowners. The environmental justice issue is considerable and the development of these lands increases the risk to life and property caused by seismic activity, soil erosion and potential landslides.

CEQA Goals and Objective Too Narrow
CEQA – I remain concerned that the goals and objectives noted in the General Plan and DEIR are overly narrow in order to facilitate the expectation of annexation of land at the Foster Rd.

Mixed Use area for the purpose of development. As such, the goals and objectives indicate a potential pre-condition and or a potential pre-commitment to the property owner(s), who has been interested in development for a number of years and at least since 2005. The goals and objectives as currently written provides the momentum within the General Plan to annex and develop all of the parcels and anticipates, advocates, and encourages the landowners to orchestrate such development.

CEQA- There are cumulative impacts because of the climate crisis that must be included within this Environmental Impact Review Study. The multi-year drought is currently happening, yet the figures do not factor these drought years nor the cumulative effect of development to the ground water by continued development. If we have limited water because of long term drought, we have no business developing until we fully understand the impacts upon us of available water. If we have threats to the viability of our existing community by sustained drought conditions, we should not be encouraging sprawl and further outward development at the edges of the city.

CEQA – General Plans for cities are now addressing the cumulative effects of global warming on flooding and flood planes for the potential development of land. Instead of using 2020 figures, an updated flood plain study should be done now to understand the effects of more dramatic sea rise from the San Francisco Bay and from sea rise on the marshes and wetlands to the ATTACHMENT 8 Page 127 of 264
southern part of the city. These threats should be identified and mitigated now as part of this current EIR process.

Tribal Cultural Resources and Historic Resources Goals – Mitigation Concerns and Inconsistencies
The acreage encompassed by the Foster Rd. Mixed Use are the unceded territory of the Wappo Indian tribe who dwelled on that land for 100’s of years. There would be, as there currently are within the vicinity, a number of Indian artifacts and potential burial grounds. Also, within this gateway parcel, is situated the stagecoach of General Vallejo situated next door to the Ghisletta’ home along Golden Gate Ave. The ruins of the stone building are still visible and it’s wonderful that the history has not been entirely erased. The Wappo tribe dwelled within Napa Valley for hundreds of years, and several tribe members have joined our group to advocate that these parcels be designated Greenbelt at the Gateway. Developing these 144 acres destroys this historical agricultural history and is at odds with the stated City’s preservation program as stated in HCR-3. The DEIR states that mitigation measures will not be able to address the development of these areas. We agree that the impacts of development and mitigation measures would be necessary except they could be avoided if other uses for this land are considered as an Alternative - such as Greenbelt.

Safety and Noise Element Mitigation Concerns and Inconsistencies SN-4: Protect public health and welfare by minimizing exposure of sensitive uses to noise and preventing significant degradation of the acoustic environment. The draft DEIR states that the effects of Noise pollution would be minimal. We disagree.

The Foster Rd. Mixed Use Area intensifies both noise and acoustic exposure to the public. If you imagine more than 1,200 housing units how many new people, cars, businesses, buses, and other new noise making devices will now be situated on these virgin parcels, you cannot deny the increase in overall noise within this area that will affect the Hilton Acres and Westwood neighbors to the west. The proposed uses will create noise and decibel levels that are too high and are inconsistent with adjacent existing uses that are low density Single Family Rural Residential. According to the General Plan chart of acceptable noise levels and compatible uses, the noise created would be a dramatic intensification of noise with no plans for mitigation to the existing community. This would require a more robust study to understand and mitigate any adverse effects. This study should be performed now as part of this EIR and not later by private developers of a Master Plan.

Transportation Element Goals and Policy Mitigation Concerns and Inconsistencies TE-9: Provide safe evacuation routes in case of emergencies and natural disasters, including flooding, earthquake, and fire.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 128 of 264
The Foster Rd. Mixed Use land is situated on an active earthquake fault and flood plain. With the proposed number of new housing units and business uses, this represents a substantial impact on transportation and at key evacuation areas from the entire Napa along highway 29 and 121. The number of units envisioned both as part of Napa Pipe and Foster Rd. Mixed Use parcels and Stanly Ranch will singularly and collectively frustrate transportation and emergency exits in the event of a natural disaster. The proposed improvements to the freeways and roads along Foster Rd., Golden Gate, Stanly Lane, Highway 121 and the 29 Intersection are vague and ill-considered because they do not address any real growth numbers at the southern end of the city.

Stanly Lane and Napa Pipe have been built without any upgrading of surrounding major freeway, roads and arteries. The number of housing units and businesses proposed for Foster Rd Mixed Use at the southern gateway in the event of natural flooding or earthquakes or wildfires means a bottleneck at the southern end of Napa where the burden of the majority of growth in the next 20 years is anticipated by city planners and consultants. It’s ill-considered now and in need of a complete and detailed analysis and study as part of this EIR that is currently schematic at best.

Thank you and I look forward to your responses to the issues outlined in my letter.

Sincerely,
Katherine Lambert, AIA
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 129 of 264
1 COMMENTS
Mickey W. Mantle
Subject: Comments on the Napa 2040 General Plan – May 6, 2022 In general, I found the overall General Plan to be well thought out.

However, there are several oversights that I believe should be specifically addressed.

1. There was a striking lack of any area related to technology that is now, or will be, a big part of our lives long before 2040.
a. Nowhere is there any mention or even a hint at oversight of the placement of Cellular Towers (known sources of serious
radiation), WiFi hubs, or other communications equipment (e.g., SpaceX Starlink stations) now springing up throughout Napa! b. Autonomous Vehicles (e.g., Driverless cars) are now accepting riders in San Francisco at night for “unpaid” rides. There currently are few, if any, taxis in Napa probably because it is not economically feasible. Driverless cars will change that dynamic, and tourists will love them. Napa needs plans for licensing, oversight, and contingency plans and procedures should there be traffic or rider problems. Napa should help form a working group with American Canyon, St. Helena, Calistoga and Yountville and Napa County to ensure regulations, rules, and practices are not similar, but the SAME, throughout Napa Country and its cities.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 130 of 264
2 c. Surveillance cameras are now cropping up everywhere, governmental, public, and private. For example:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-top-surveillance-cities-worldwide/ Napa needs to have public policies (made with consent of and reviewed by its residents) regarding all types of surveillance cameras including allowable number, placement, access to, usage constraints, etc.
d. Drones. Usage allowance/limits within Napa City limits should be laid out (ideally along with Napa County and other Napa cities to ensure consistency).
e. Cybersecurity competency within Napa City schools and government, along with education and assistance for Napa citizens was not listed as a goal.
f. Nowhere was the notion of Napa as a “smart city” (and the technical implications thereof) mentioned.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 131 of 264
3 2. Traffic Congestion. There are three key spots for traffic congestion in Napa.
a. Trower Ave/SR-29, noted as 1 (i.e., worst delays) in Table 3-4.

It is disappointing that the ONLY mention of addressing this intersection is the extension of Trower Ave east to Big Ranch Road, which will likely exacerbate the traffic at Trower/SR-29! If you ever travel SR-29 south at evening rush hour, you know what a problem this corridor is! Traffic spills over onto adjacent roadways, making this a public hazard if emergency vehicles need to make way. Clearly, this is NOT a simple problem. A “freeway” extension north from Trower past Salvadore would be ideal, but I assume that has been deemed infeasible (Cost? Disruption during a multi-year construction? Aesthetics?) It should at least be discussed in a 20 year plan, if only then dismissed and actionable solutions proposed.

Such solutions could include VERY smart lights on SR-29/ Trower/Wine Country/Salvadore/Oak Knoll working in a very coordinated fashion to improve the flow along SR-29 at all hours, not just rush hour(s)!
Or post “Traffic Flow Coordinators” (i.e., “cops”) at SR-29/Trower at rush hour(s) ensuring traffic is flowing optimally along SR-29, even to the detriment of traffic along Trower east and west. This could be done via a remote Trower light system controller managed by the on-site “cop”.

There are probably other solutions, but the important point is NOT to lump this SR-29/Trower corridor issue in with the other “improvements” to be contemplated! Make it a specific GOAL to be solved within one year…not twenty years!
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 132 of 264
4 It should be noted that this SR-29/Trower corridor was singled out as a major noise issue in the Draft Plan:
b. and c. Though outside of Napa City boundaries, these two choke points impact many Napa City residents far too often.
b. SR-29/12 west toward Sonoma. Napa City needs to set up a Task Force with Napa County, Sonoma County, CalTrans, and CHP to identify solutions to the constant backups that occur, especially at rush hours and on weekends. Traffic can back up heading west for all kinds of reasons, often from a street light failure at Old Sonoma Road, or traffic accidents. Perhaps some pull—over spots on both sides of Hwy 12; emergency dispatch of CHP to help provide traffic direction at an accident or broken light; have a Napa City Employee monitor Google Maps traffic flow (west and east) along the Hwy 12 problem corridor and request CHP help at the FIRST sign of serious traffic flow disruption. c. SR-29/12 east near American Canyon. Hopefully this will be much less of a problem going forward, after the new east Hwy12/I80 on-ramp opens. But I suspect this are will still be a problem because of the immense amount of traffic that flows east off SR-29 during the afternoon rush hour. If it were me, I would have this area monitored by the same Napa City employee as b. above, requesting emergency dispatch from CHP at the FIRST sign of serious traffic disruption (heading east or west).

These two traffic congestion issues should be addressed in the final 2040 General Plan. Make solving these issues a GOAL, with a commitment to improve, if not completely resolve, these issues within one year, not twenty years!
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 133 of 264
5 3. Section 4-6. Regarding this goal:

While this is a good and important goal, it should not lead to disenfranchising one group over another. An example of this is what happened in Yountville when they converted one of their two public Tennis Courts to four full-time Pickleball courts. Pickleball people typically use those four courts a few hours of a week, often mornings on Friday, Saturday, Sunday. During the rest of those days/hours there is only 1 Tennis court available for use by locals, and often by tourists! It is over-subscribed, because there is NO alternative (especially during popular times). Meanwhile, the Pickleball courts (unsuitable for Tennis use) stand idle.

A better solution would have been to create a separate Pickleball area containing the 4 Pickleball courts, which would have been smaller than a single Tennis court, located near but not next to the Tennis courts.

More cost, but not disenfranchising the existing Tennis community.

Beware of taking things away from a community that has few alternatives!
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 134 of 264
6 4. A simple way to dramatically contribute to this goal… …is to follow the lead of that other important Wine area, France:

In January 2019, Roundup1 was banned in France. Napa should ban the sale and use of this product, and all other products containing a glyphosate-based herbicide (the primary ingredient in Roundup).

Glyphosate is an insidious chemical that harms humans and pollutes groundwater. It is not surprising that only the northern part of Napa City (where there are vineyards) shows evidence of ground water contamination:
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 135 of 264
7 Thank you for allowing me to comment and express my concerns.

Mickey W. Mantle
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 136 of 264
5/5/2022 Comments on the Napa 2040 General Plan (February 2022 Draft) Submitted by Napa County Landmarks, May 6, 2022
Problem Statement: Over the decades, Napa has lost many of its important historic buildings, beginning with the destructive redevelopment of the 1970s in which irreplaceable landmarks including the Behlow, Migliavacca, and Masonic Temple buildings were demolished. Our loss of historic landmarks has continued: stone bridges have been dismantled for flood control and road widening, and little more than a year ago a Midcentury Modern car dealership was hastily demolished; others continue to be threatened by neglect and demolition.

In recent decades, ‘good’ new development has complemented and incorporated the historic resources and respected its architectural, cultural and archaeological heritage. An example of this is the Napa Mill/Hatt Building. But there has also been development that is non-compatible in design and scale with surrounding historic structures and landscape features.

The challenge of the General Plan and subsequent zoning ordinances is to preserve, enhance, and reuse the historic resources, while appreciating and celebrating their history. New-build structures and landscape elements should be compatible and carefully designed so that they can become our historic resources of the future.

Specific plan changes or additions (in red) follow:
05 – HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
Pg. 5-1
Napa has a rich architectural and cultural heritage, …

5.3 Historic Surveys and Historic Resources
Pg. 5-6
Add the statement: All “potential” Local Historic Districts will become Local Historic Districts within 5 years.

Table 5-1 (Pg. 5-7) and Figure 5-2 (pg. 5-8): Add the 3 historic National Register of Historic Places buildings on the former Health and Human Services Agency property at 2344 Old Sonoma Road.

5.6 Goals and Policies
Pg. 5-17
GOAL HCR-2
Add the statement: A qualified Historic Preservation Planner/Specialist (a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Standards as an Architectural Historian or Historical Architect) must be hired by the City of Napa Planning Department by January 2023. This staff member is needed to review and make determinations on all projects and other issues for preservation related matters. A contract preservation with the same qualifications can be utilized if hiring full time staff is impracticable.

A Historic Preservation Architect/Planner/Architectural Historian is necessary because too often projects are not recognized by the City as having Preservation impacts. A preservation specialist would assist the project proponent, shaping projects early in the process so that the applicant’s best interests are served, and historical resources are preserved. Lacking a specialist, the process gets prolonged at ATTACHMENT 8 Page 137 of 264
the City and can lead to historic buildings being demolished, badly “restored” or “modernized,” or projects proceed without reference to appropriate guidelines. Non-specialist staff members will also sometimes incorrectly indicate to applicants that projects involving historic buildings meet the appropriate guidelines, leading project proponents to waste money and time planning project that are not approved by the Cultural Heritage Commission.

HCR 2-3
Add to the first bullet: By December 31, 2023, update the five previously surveyed… HCR 2-4
Add at the beginning: Update the Historic Resources Inventory.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 138 of 264
I was born in Napa. As an adult I have lived in the East Bay, Chicago and the South Bay. My ventures into suburbia and the big Cities have made me very aware how wonderful, Napa is with its friendly people and with its open space. When the opportunity arose to return. to Napa, I didn't have to think twice about it. My family and I returned to Napa very quickly!
Now we are facing a miserable change --- especially along Foster Road We all must acknowledge that the proposal to build multiple buildings. on currently open space -- especially along Foster Road, means we are on the verge of loosing all that makes Napa a great place in which to live. Grassy meadows, long walks along Foster Ave, magnificent trees and small neighborhoods where we can get to know and enjoy our neighbors will all be replaced by cars, cars, and more cars, high rise apartments and neighborhoods where everyone is a stranger.

The proposal. will change Foster Road from a peaceful and tranquil spot that all Napans can enjoy to a city that looks so much like the South Bay with an ever-growing number of high rise apartment buildings and an endless line of commuters. Highway 29 will look like the South Bay with truck after truck making a continuous line through the. once beautiful valley.

We must keep Napa Napa. We must keep it a place for diversity, for new ideas, but also as a place where we can all appreciate the valley – the hills, the pastures, and the small neighborhoods. Not a place that is covered with cars and high-rise apartment buildings and developers who want to create even more of the same sprawl—and make even more money We must promote diversity and natural beauty. Surely we can work together to find a way of doing both. My experience has been that we are relying on wealthy land owners and their supporters in City Hall – not on the residents of Napa who help make this a great town.

Keep Napa Napa with all its natural beauty.
-- Lynne Posner
2668027
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 139 of 264
May 4, 2022
Vincent Smith, Community Director
Michael Walker, Sr. Planner
City of Napa Community Development Department
1600 First St.

Napa, CA 94559
Re: Response to the Draft Draft General Plan Napa 2040, dated March, 2022 Dear Mr. Smith and Mr. Walker,
Thank you for the opportunity of offering comments on the Draft General Plan Napa 2040. I submit these comments on behalf of Keep Napa's Gateways Green comprising residents, property owners and businesses throughout the City and County of Napa.

We owe the City of Napa's Community Development Department a. debt of gratitude for such a compilation, especially given the significant demands of the past 2-3 years.

At this point in time, you are well acquainted with the issues of concern to KNGG, as the City has been engaged with KNGG in one form or another since 2005/07. We are heartened that the City has take some our concerns under advisement and included them in this most recent updated draft GPN2040 and DEIR.

Most Unfortunately, the City has continued down the path of their proposed annexation, up-zoning and development of what was once termed the Ghisletta Parcels, the Napa Valley Horsemen's Association and the Wilcoxson property. The City has now rebranded the composite of these Gateway Parcels as the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor.

In re-iteration, an overview of our remaining concerns include:

PRESERVE THE ICONIC GATEWAY - OUR ENTRANCE TO THE NAPA VALLEY:

The Napa Gateway welcomes an astounding millions of visitors a year to the wondrous Napa Valley as it represents a thriving, bucolic, hospitable and environmentally responsible region. It aspires to expand into a full spectrum vibrant agricultural area - at the forefront of the food-to-table movement, vineyards, farms, ranches and preserved oak studded hillsides. It is sought after destination by many throughout the world for precisely these increasingly rare characteristics.

Developing multi-story, multi-family complexes, tract housing and the retro-sprawl of retail shopping centers, food marts on these high-risk properties is nothing more than an 1- KNGG Response to DPLN2040, May, 2022
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 140 of 264
undeniable BLIGHT to the City!s entry - and reputation. It is exactly what people do not want to greet them upon arrival. The Napa Gateway has managed to remain a far cry from the dense sprawl of suburban development that is pervasive throughout much of California. Until now- until this proposed annexation, up-zoning and development of the "Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor".

Until this proposed DEIR, the Foster Road area was a protected scenic gateway. There are viable alternatives to this development that the City has not included in its current DEIR, although they have been identified in earlier City documents such as the City of Napa's Housing Element, 2015 which identified approx. 50-60 development sites throughout the City of Napa. These need to be offered as alternatives to the devastation that will be a consequence of the City's proposed Annexation, up-zoning and development.

URBAN SPRAWL / LEAPFROG (PHASED-IN PLANNING):

This property is literally sited on the city limits in the Carneros region. The Napa Gateway consists of a number of private land parcels including the Stewart Ranch of the Oreo Cows. The other large parcel - the Ghisletta property - has been offered for sale by some of its owners to the City of Napa for the better part of 50 years.

Its proposed annexation, up-zoning and development represents regressive urban planning practices of "leap-frogging” and "sprawl” - are more reflective of the unsustainable and disavowed models of the 1960s These are the very models that have exacerbated our climate crisis which is the emergency exit of our own era.

Paradoxically, the City!s own Draft General Plan 2040 directives are focused on City infill and creating a thriving and sustainable downtown. The proposed annexation of the Ghisletta property does not speak to these directives - at all. It speaks of inconsistency.

Alternatives to this proposed sprawl and AG devastation is to further develop the City of Napa's core, its transit corridors. In specific sections to raise the City zoning from a height of 5 to 6 floors. To identify and require a ratio of housing units that are to be included in Mixed Use proposals along these corridors. To incentivize and require Hospitality developers to offer on site or re-adapt existing housing for their own employees - as an economic incentive perk.

HISTORY OF COMMUNITY OPPOSITION:

As mentioned, the Ghisletta property has been offered to the City by the property owners a few times during the past 50 years. It has a varied and complex history.

It is common knowledge that this is the third time that the Ghisletta Property has requested annexation from the City of Napa to change the zoning to allow a super-size 2- KNGG Response to DPLN2040, May, 2022
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 141 of 264
development to move forward. Each time this issue has been raised, residents of Napa throughout the City. have quickly responded, voicing strong and consistent opposition.

Yet, the DGPN2040 and DEIR offers little acknowledgement of this citizen opposition. If fact it mis-represents this opposition as small town Nimbyism. It is not. KNNG advocates for thoughtful and reasonable approach to Smart Growth Directive that are evident in the DGPN2040. However, the proposed annexation, up-zoning and development is inconsistent antithetical to the City's own stated policies and goals. The City continues to fail to offer any alternatives to their proposed annexation, up-zoning and development of their unilateral proposed "Foster Road Mixed Use Development".

The City offers no alternatives to their proposed transformation of iconic AGW land and the existing communities who regard themselves as neighborhoods - not a transactional infused Mixed Use Corridor - one which may comprise one of the largest development in the history of Napa.

NAPA PIPE PROJECT:

The Ghisletta parcels were not annexed in keeping with the City's filing for their annexation in 2007. Rather, industrial land suited for re-habilitation was selected for the Napa Pipe Development. It was approved as a more suitable site for annexation and mixed-use development - leaving the prime AGW as a much necessary resource for the City of Napa.

After all of the negotiations were finalized, the statement by Governmental officials at the time was that this project was to have fulfilled the future housing needs of City and the County and for the citizenry not to worry about further possible development.

Until now.
3- KNGG Response to DPLN2040, May, 2022
Napa Pipe Land Ghisletta Lands
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 142 of 264
As you well know, the Napa Pipe Project ( Mixed Use - Commercial & Residential ) also burdened the City/County with massive traffic increases and subsequent pollution risk.

Of equal importance, Napa Pipe also required additional /supplemental water from the City which placed an acknowledged and significant burden on the City!s reserves. resulting in greater water insecurity and higher water rates levied on residents throughout Napa.

It is common knowledge that Water continues to be an issue of grave concern to the City of Napa, California and the Western states .

Their are scant offerings of Alternatives to the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor in the DEIR. A relatively obvious and viable alternative is to require the Napa Pipe Developers to increase its housing numbers to to its original request of approx. 2500 housing units to accommodate State demands. Clearly, they are already building the necessary infrastructure and are enriching fallow, industrial land, as opposed to devastating irreplaceable AGW resources ( pictured above ).

WATER:

This is the ever-ready issue for the past 25 years. We all need water to live and for Napa to thrive. It is precious and in the midst of this multi-year severe drought, it is evaporating before our eyes.

The proposed annexation, up-zoning and proposed development will exponentially increase the water precarity and insecurity of the City of Napa. The projected water shortages, water safety and ever-rising rates are already deeply problematic and taxing to City residents - especially in the midst of multi-year extreme droughts and wildfire danger.

A viable alternative is to retract the proposed annexation, up-zoning and development of these parcels and retain their designation as AQW or a Resource Area for all of Napa and its visitors.

SIGNIFICANT/CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS & CLIMATE RESILIENCY.

Elevated, unhealthy levels of Air, Water, Noise, & Light Pollution are all severe consequences to the residents of Napa by way of this proposed development and increased Traffic. The extreme levels of traffic congestion, light, noise, air and water pollution strip-mine the benefits of an agricultural region and speak more of the environment of Los Angeles!s San Fernando Valley and the 405 Freeway. 4- KNGG Response to DPLN2040, May, 2022
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 143 of 264
This is and will be even mores devastating to a world renown and enticing, revenue generating tourist region. The San Fernando Valley is the subject of ridicule nationwide. for its sprawl and environmental devastation, This annexation and development will bestow ridicule upon Napa. After having spent the better part of a century building a global brand, the City of Napa is now introducing a new concept, Suburban Tourism - a shell of what Napa once represented.

Development of this project represents the destruction of much needed grasslands and will only create more "carbon -sinks” and "heat islands” which Napa can no longer tolerate. Although mentioned in the DGPN2040 and DEIR, mitigation measures are inadequate to the crisis and accountability measures demanded by this situation.

Reportedly, Napa already has some of the highest cancer rates in the state/country.

We do not wish to take the #1 spot! Yes, electrification will provide some answers but they are not spelled out nor is the time table of policy requirements - nor are mechanisms of accountability delineated nor are processes of implemented.

Green House Gas Emissions are not unavoidable" as stated in the Draft EIR.

These parcels ( grasslands ) serve as an important carbon sink ( sequestration ) that Napa desperately needs and ought not be displaced for the proposed unnecessary commercial/housing development.

Increasing the population (2.5 persons per unit avg.)in an outlier site so dramatically (could be up to 3250, new people/ 3000 new vehicles + commercial transit, people and vehicles) in this section of the city would have immediate dire and grave environmental impacts on the land, safety, quality of life, health, and well-being of all who live there. *https://www.bls.gov/cex/2019/population/population.pdf By way of Reference, the City of St. Helena has approx. 5,200 + residents.

Issues of Climate Resiliency overwhelmingly require that these parcels remain zoned as either AGW or Greenbelt. If not , a whole new meaning to the definition of Rustbelt will be realized here on these Gateway Parcels.

HOUSING NUMBERS
The DPLN2040 proposes an unreasonably high level of density and scalar magnitude of additional population, housing units and commercial development for this area. As mentioned, the resulting significant impact on traffic, congestion, noise, air, water and light pollution represents a deviation of quality of life and will be unreasonable, if not untenable, and result in economic loss for the City.

Additionally, these population housing numbers are based on inaccuracies representing an inflation of approximately 66%, by Dyatt and Bhatia. KNGG has been brought these 5- KNGG Response to DPLN2040, May, 2022
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 144 of 264
inaccuracies to your attention a number of times. The Planning Commission has requested verification - none of which has been received by KNGG. Additional, inflated inaccuracies include ie. The DEIR states that the City's a population of 80,000. That is inaccurate The population in 2022 is 75,682, currently declining at a rate of 1.04%.

The population in 2010 was 76,915.

HOUSING IS A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY:

The DGPLN2040 has not proposed affordable housing and workforce housing ( to similar magnitudes) to be located throughout all of Napa The State of California requires that Housing be a shared burden to be borne by the City of Napa as a whole. In other words, housing - especially affordable and workforce housing - should be sited throughout the City as a whole - not siloed within one area.

Classes of people are not to be segregated into regional ghettos developed upon high risk and unsustainable properties. The Land Use in Draft General Plan 2040 represents an unthinkable strategy of disavowed planning practices which may result in calls of environmental racism, classism and a new definition of redlining itself.

The DEIR does not provides alternatives for housing to be sited throughout the city through adaptive re-use, etc.- on other sites, abandoned and vacant office buildings, vacant strip malls, institutional buildings, etc. One needs only to take a five minute drive to identify innumerable such buildings sited within the urban core.

This proposed "affordable " "workforce" housing would represent a blatant segregation of people and (mis) place the burden of the socio-economically constricted into one high-risk, neighborhood, furthering marginalization, dis-enfranchisement, and restricting equal opportunities to advance - rather than encouraging assimilation throughout the City of Napa itself.

An alternative is equal dispersement of said housing throughout the city which would promote social, racial and economic equity and justice for everyone.

EARTHQUAKE FAULT/FLOOD PLAINS/LANDSLIDE AREAS:

These parcels are officially designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Area.

They contain a wide swath of an active - very active - West Napa Fault line running the full length of the Ghisletta parcels. The land continues to shape-shift to this day.

Obviously, this anxiety inducing …. if not negligent to site any development, let alone housing, on these parcels. Upon probable damage and loss, will the City be held liable for initiating and advancing this proposed annexation? If so, who will bear responsibility for payment due to any possible lawsuits - city taxpayers ? 6- KNGG Response to DPLN2040, May, 2022
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 145 of 264
These parcels are in a FEMA DESIGNATED FLOOD PLAIN - the acknowledged SeaLevel rise is operative in this area.

These parcels are in a FEMA DESIGNATED LANDSLIDE AREA.

What little has been left of the WATERSHED IN WEST NAPA, IT WILL SUFFER SIGNIFICANT DEGRADATION as a consequence of this proposed development.

THIS PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT MAY WELL PROVE TO BE A PRIME WILDFIRE RISK TO ALL RESIDENTS as it significantly reduces and infringes on the WUL ( Wildlife Urban Interface ) - possibly similar in character to the recent Coffey Fire in Santa Rosa and possibly more dangerous due to its proximity to Hwy. 29 and cutting off the primary exit for the Napa Valley.

There are a host of other Environmental Issues including endangered species ….

There are active Earthquake fault lines ( West Napa Fault Line) running directly thru this property which suffered major fracturing, fissures, and slippage in the 2014 Napa and are continuing to shape-shift to this day.

THE WEST NAPA FAULT LINE = HIGH RISK = PROHIBITIVE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT and REPAIR COSTS TO THE CITY and FUTURE RESIDENTS:

This very same fault was cited as a primary reason by the GPAC and consultants to approve a Greenbelt designation for the Napa Oaks and Timberhill development plans.

The Ghisletta and NVHA properties are even more severely impacted by this EQ fault and floodplains.

A viable alternative is to retract the proposed annexation, up-zoning and development of these parcels and retain their designation as AQW or a Resource Area for all of Napa and its visitors.

THE DEIR's INCONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY!S OWN PROPOSED DRAFT NAPA 2040 GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS and NAPA's COMMUNITIES.

The DEIR disregards the stated draft General Plan 2040 guiding principles which include to "preserve surrounding open space and agricultural land.” By 77% Napans resoundingly declared in the GPAC Community Surveys that they want to protect open space/green spaces in our city and do not want to develop on agricultural land at the edge of the City.

As alternatives, Napans want to see corridor streets such as Jefferson, Soscol and Trancas and existing neighborhoods to be the sites for development and 7- KNGG Response to DPLN2040, May, 2022
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 146 of 264
housing priorities. This approach is aligned with widely appreciated "Smart Growth” planning directives.

Little to no verifiable housing numbers have been offered for these established "Mixed Use” corridors. Nor has the City considered raising the height limits from 5 to 6 stories for these corridors to allow for more housing along these corridors, i.e. Soscal. The significant economic and environmental benefit of such an alternative is widely recognized by respected organizations such as Plan Bay Area 2050.

The Draft General Plan 2040 proposal ignores the stated priorities of the Napa Citizens and places all at risk by singularly advancing this irresponsible and perhaps, negligent, annexation, up-zoning and development of the Ghisletta/NVHA /W. properties.

A viable alternative is for the City to be consistent with its own smart growth directives and provide accurate, verifiable housing and population numbers that are consistent with the State California's current forecasting and Smart Growth Directives..

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ( SOI ) -
The Ghisletta Properties were not in the sphere of influence since 1975 as recently stated by City Representative.

They became part of the City of Napa's Sphere of Influence only in 2005 and upon the request of the Property Owners - the Ghisletta Family Trust. Until that point in time they were protected from development in the RUL as part of the Stewart Ranch Area..

Since 2005 it is commonly known that the City has worked with the property owners to continually attempt to annex these parcels - contrary to the decades long opposition of thousands of Napa residents and property owners
The Ghisletta parcels have been designated by USDA/LAFCO as Prime Agricultural land. Any possible annexation should be subject to Measures J & P - requiring Voter Approval for any proposed annexation. The City of Napa has suggested that these parcels are not subject to Measures J&P. The DEIR does not cite these issues and does not provide a reasonable alternative to their own proposal for annexation.

One alternative is to retract the City's proposed annexation, up-zoning and development of the Foster Road Mixed Use Area. There are many more alternatives that could easily be imagined
CREATING A GREENBELT BUFFER ZONE TO WILDFIRES: The Wildlife Urban Interface needs to be retained. These Gateway parcels serve as a major protection for 8- KNGG Response to DPLN2040, May, 2022
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 147 of 264
the City of Napa and the Napa Valley itself. The NVHA serves as an integral ( and much appreciated) element of emergency measures for the safekeeping and temporary housing of animals during wildfires. The Gateway parcels could also serve this purpose once retrofitted.

The DEIR does not provide an alternative to the destruction of this Wildfire Urban Interface.

THE UNNECESSARY LOSS OF USDA/LAFCO DEFINED PRIME AGRICULTURAL ACREAGE;

THE UNNECESSARY LOSS OF PROTECTED GATEWAY SCENIC VISTAS AND RESOURCES;
• THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION WOULD RESULT IN THE PROBABLE

DESECRATION ON NATIVE AMERICAN (BURIAL) SITES AND ATTENDANT ARTIFACTS. This will result in an unconscionable negative impact - one which could not be easily negotiated away as stated in the DEIR

NEED FOR PUBLIC PARKS AND GREENSPACE IN SW NAPA
This parcels may better serve the City and County of Napa in a number of ways. Among other possibilities, it has been suggested that it could serve as an easily publicaly accessible open space specifically for the public. Surprisingly, the City and County have scant open public spaces in the City - specifically the Southwest area. This option would offer a welcome respite from the privatization of open spaces throughout Napa and truly serve all of its residents and visitors.

As an alternative, developing these Gateway Parcels in alignment with the parameters of its current AGW zoning into a Resource Center for the City/County of Napa that would be aspirational in nature. This would support - would underscore - would rebrand - the sustainable and resilient Agricultural ( food based ) future of Napa - as an evolving community, culture and solid economic and resilient base.

As with large acreage of Alston Park located in Browns Valley, the Ghisletta Parcels are also located on the West Napa Faultline. What's good for Brown's Valley is good for Southwest Napa, no?
9- KNGG Response to DPLN2040, May, 2022
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 148 of 264
Other KNGG concerns include the critical need for Design Guideline to be drafted, passes and implemented throughout the City. A Design Commission and Heritage Commission needs to be initiated and be seated beside and work in concert with the Planning Commission.

These represent some of our concerns We are not NIMBYS. We are a coalition of concerned residents of Napa - responsible citizens - who are looking to a viable and resilient future for our city and county. We do not wish to burden future generations with an unsustainable and high risk-burdened future.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments and inclusion in the City;s Database archive.

Respectfully submitted,
Christiane Robbins
On behalf of KNGG.
10- KNGG Response to DPLN2040, May, 2022
Depicting the West Napa Earthquake Fault running through Alston Park ATTACHMENT 8 Page 149 of 264
CITY OF NAPA GENERAL PLAN 2040

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON LAND USE DIAGRAM
May 6, 2022
TO: Michael Walker, City of Napa
SUBJECT: Draft General Plan Comments
Michael -
Thank you for the opportunity to provide formal comments on the City's General Plan 2040 Draft.

As previously discussed via email, I am concerned by the significant reduction in potential future dwelling units under the new "Very Low Density Residential" (0-2u/ac) by re-designating parcels to a lower maximum number of units per acre. In reviewing the Land Use Diagram, it appears that there are at least 300 single family residential parcels that would see reductions in potential housing density, resulting in several hundred units effectively taken "off the board." The vast majority of these parcels are located in Browns Valley, with a scattering of parcels elsewhere in the City, including in the Pueblo, Alta Heights, and Terrace Shurtleff neighborhoods. Many of these parcels are immediately adjacent to similarly situated "Low Density Residential" parcels (3-8 u/ac), and the Plan appears to lack a clear articulation as to why one parcels would be down-zoned while another immediately adjacent parcel would be preserved with higher potential density.

This is certainly a concern for individual residents as it may reduce the value of their property, but also because of the inconsistency with which density designations appear to have been made, and the resulting loss of potential housing sites, which are sorely needed. As you know, the City has a RNHA allocation of 1,939 units in the 2023-2031 cycle. Ensuring that the 2040 General Plan does not unintentionally tie our hands will be critical to meeting this target.

I would like to request a formal response and consideration by City staff to ensure that these (and any other similar parcels) retain at a minimum the maximum density identified in the current General Plan. Given the urgent need for additional housing in our community, such a broad reduction in future housing potential should not be undertaken lightly.

Regards,
Jeremy Sill
Resident, City of Napa
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 150 of 264
CabotWay
1st St
Lincoln Ave
Silvera doTrl
Silve
r
a
d
o
Trl
Mont e c ito
Blvd
C o ombsville Rd
Na pa Val ley
C
o
r
p
o
rate
D
r
Pa
t
t
o
n
Av
e
Cayetano Dr
G
W Imola Ave
olden
G
ate
D
r
BryanAve
W Lincoln Ave
Kilburn Ave
Twin Oaks Dr
Bu hm
an Av
e
CongressValley Rd
T
h
o
mpson
Ave
Broad
m
o
o
r
D
r
Partrick Rd
Ta ll Grass Dr
Morningside Dr
B
r
o
w
nsVal el y
R
d
Scenic Dr
BrownsValleyRd
Lone Oak Dr
W Park Ave
We
stview
Dr
W PuebloAve
W Pueblo Ave
Jefferson St
Big Ranch
Rd
El Centro Ave
El Centro Ave
Vine Hill Dr
LindaVista Ave
Ashlar Dr
5th St
Carol Dr
Morlan Dr
Euclid Ave
Menlo Ave
Young Ave
Norfolk St
Wise Dr
Orchard Ave
1st Av
e
Imola Ave
Kaiser Rd
Soscol Ferry Rd
Bayview Ave
South Ave
Home Hill Rd
Stanly Ln
Stanly Ln
Stanly Crossroad
Old Sonoma Rd
Foster Rd
Buttercup Ct Pine St
Patricia Dr
Tokay Dr
Fairfax Dr
Maclennan St
River Park Blvd
Muir St
Kansas Ave
Laredo St
Coombs St
Locust St
Foster Rd
Indiana St
Spruce St
Shetler Ave
Shurtleff Ave
Seville Dr
Terrace Dr
Birk
dale Dr
Juarez
St
East Ave
Soscol Ave
Wa
Elm St
lnut St
Jefferson
S
t
Foothill Blvd
Casswall St
Douglas Ave
Yajome St
ImperialWay
Clay St
York
St
G
eorgia
St
King Ave
Summit Ave
Highland Dr
Spring St
1st St
3rd St
Main St
3rd St
Coombs St
Napa S
Yo
t
unt St
Brown St
Brown St
Randolph St
Franklin St
Pearl St
1st St
Oxford St
Pinot Dr
Jackson St
Main St
Pine St
Laurel St
Laurel St
Oak St
3rd St
2nd St
California Blvd
E St
F St
California Blvd
Hagen Rd
Trancas St
Garfield Ln
Villa Ln
Lassen St
Diablo St
Sierra Ave
Trower Ave
La Homa Dr
Park Ave Central Ave
Luke Dr
Solano Ave
Solano Ave
Maher St
Pinewood Dr
Pueblo Ave
Homewood Ave
1st St
Redwood Rd
Sos
col Ave
Jefferson St
Dry Creek Rd
Salvador Ave
Trancas St
Redwood Rd
Wine Country Ave
Trower Ave
Pear Tree Ln
Los Carneros Ave
Old Sonoma
Rd
Partrick Rd
Silverado Trl
Vichy Ave
?õ
?õ
A¾
Aà
Silverado
Resort + Spa

NAPA COUNTY

NAPA COUNTY
Napa R
iv
e
r
Source: Napa County, 2018; City of Napa, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Mile
25 Acres
100
Acres
Napa
Valley
College
Napa
High
School
Vintage
High
School Justin-Siena
High
School
Kennedy
Park
Alston
Park
Stanly Ranch
South Wetlands
Open Space
Map Update:
3/15/2022
Map Base
City of Napa
2040 General Plan Area
Sphere of Influence
Downtown Specific Plan
Napa River
Westwood
Hills
Trancas
Crossing
South
Jefferson
Park
Residential
Very Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Traditional Residential
Commercial
Hospitality Commercial
General Commercial
Business Professional
Mixed-Use
Residential Mixed Use
Corridor Mixed Use Low
Corridor Mixed Use High
Foster Road Mixed Use
Napa Pipe Mixed Use
Downtown Specific Plan
Oxbow Commercial
Downtown Neighborhood
Downtown Mixed Use
Downtown Core Commercial
Downtown Public
Industrial
Flex Industrial
Light Industrial
Business Park
Public-Serving
Public-Serving
Open Space & Parks
Conservation
Greenbelt
Agriculture
Document Path: J:\GISData\560_Napa_GP\GIS\Projects\07_PolicyFramework\LandUseDiagram.mxd Figure 2-3
Land Use Diagram
?õ
Airport
Napa Recycling and
Compost Facility
Edward I. Barwick
Jamieson Canyon
Water Treatment Plant
Jameson Canyon Rd
INSET
Not to Scale
SFR-43
Current: 0 to 3
Planned: 0 to 2
APPX 43 PARCELS
SFR-41
Current: 0 to 4
Planned: 0 to 2
APPX 10 PARCELS
SFR-42
Current: 0 to 4
Planned: 0 to 2
APPX 6 PARCELS
SFR-110
Current: 0 to 3
Planned: 0 to 2
APPX. 7 PARCELS
SFI-66
Current: 2 to 5
Planned: 0 to 2
APPX. 43 PARCELS
SFR-117
Current: 0 to 4
Planned: 0 to 2
4 PARCELS
SFR-183
Current: 2 to 5
Planned: 0 to 2
APPX 12 PARCELS
SFR-182
Current: 3 to 7
Planned: 0 to 2
1 PARCEL
SFR-109
Current: 2 to 6
Planned: 0 to 2
APPX 7 PARCELS
SFR-102
Current: 2 to 5
Planned: 0 to 2
2 PARCELS
SFR-100
Current: 0 to 3
Planned: 0 to 2
APPX 39 PARCELS
SFI-46
Current: 2 to 3
Planned: 0 to 2
APPX 46 PARCELS SFR-45
Current: 2 to 5
Planned: 0 to 2
7 PARCELS
SFR-42
Current:0 to 4
Planned: 0 t 2
3 PARCELS
SFR-42
Current: 0 to 4
Planned: 0 to 2
APPX 10 PARCELS
SFR-42
Current: 0 to 4
Planned: 0 to 2
APPX 24 PARCELS
SFR-42
Current:0 to 4
Planned: 0 to 2
1 PARCEL
SFR-55
Current: 0 to 3
Planned: 0 to 2
APPX 40 PARCELS
SFR-55
Current: 0 to 3
Planned: 0 to 2
5 PARCELS
SFI-46
Current: 2 to 4
Planned: 0 to 2
7 PARCELS
Summary Findings:
- 317 parcels across 20 separate
locations ID'd as having reduced
development density under draft
Land Use plan.
- Total reduction of several
hundred units of potential housing,
a significant share of RHNA totals
for the City of Napa for 2023-2031.
- Only examined reduction for
proposed "Very Low Density" of 0
to 2 units per acre.
- Significant additional reductions
in potential housing units exist for
other residential densities, but are
not evaluated in this exhibit.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 151 of 264
No growth.
sally sparling
To: Michael Walker <
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
[EXTERNAL]
There are many reasons to shelve any growth in Napa. Until Napa solves its water limitations and current infrastructure issues we should put a moratorium on the development of Walt ranch, more large vineyards, wineries and foster road developments.

As citizens we are told to conserve water, take out lawns and decrease water consumption. Is the city, county and state hoping for some water miracle ??? The mentality seems to be plan with no plan or our current issues.

Show us a concrete, actionable funded plan for our current and future water needs then we can plan for more growth.

The state requires counties to grow is banter around . I would tell the state the same. Where is the concrete actionable, funded plan for water in drought parts of California. Until then no growth!! One of the most basic climate change action is to maintain trees. Cutting 100s of trees at Walt ranch is a tragedy. We need trees for CO2 absorption. It takes 25 to 50 years to grow a replacement tree. Foolish action or money and growth.

You do not make a plan without solving the basic underlying issues. Water for growth is fundamental, air quality fund other current problems that Napa can’t seem to address are fundamental.

Time to be truthful and realistic. Is growth about livability with no water ? More pollution? Is growth driven my more money to developers, realtors, builders, city and county tax revenues?? We all know it will not be about affordability.

Sally Sparling
Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 152 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - Roadway Extension of Linda Vista Ave from Lone Oak Ave to connect to Robinson Lane
Squarespace <[email protected]>
Fri 4/29/2022 3:36 PM
To: Michael Walker <
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Charles Simonsen
Email Address
Subject: Roadway Extension of Linda Vista Ave from Lone Oak Ave to connect to Robinson Lane Message: I do not support extension of Linda Vista Ave from Lone Oak Ave to Robinson Lane. The are impacted is Treed and mostly green space with a creek going through it . sending the busy traffic of Linda vista Ave through this area will disturb not only the people tha live in the area but also disturb the wildlife that use the area, It makes no sense to upset the landscape for a short extension that could cause more issues than it would solve,
What is your comment about?: General Plan
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 153 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - General Plan Feedback- specific to Figure 2-8 Downtown Focus area at Alta Heights
Squarespace <[email protected]>
Fri 4/29/2022 4:46 PM
To: Michael Walker
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Julie Brown
Email Address:

Subject: General Plan Feedback- specific to Figure 2-8 Downtown Focus area at Alta Heights Message: As home owners in Napa we are interested in proposals that both further the community goals and strengthen our neighborhood character. Figure 2-8 wisely considers modifying/decreasing hospitality areas and creating additional residential zone north of First Street. We support additional residential development but OBJECT to the lack of consideration for the existing neighborhood. The proposed new high density designation abutting what is low density is insensitive and unnecessary.

The diagram should create a transitional zone of no greater than MEDIUM DENSITY directly abutting the low density neighborhood that currently exists which would allow for a reasonable transition/ buffer zone to high density residential. The previous building of Silverado Garden apartments has already greatly damaged this neighborhood. The apartments have zero planted perimeter, excessive impermeable pavement, and incredibly insensitive presentation to the surrounding neighbors. Any future development should seek to learn from this past poor planning. Thank you.

What is your comment about?: General Plan
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 154 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - General Plan
Squarespace <[email protected]>
Wed 5/4/2022 5:56 PM
To: Michael Walker
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Molly Adams
Email Address:

Subject: General Plan
Message: The plan to extend Linda Vista to Robinson Lane across the Redwood Creek should not be a part of the General Plan for the following reasons:

1. There is strong neighborhood opposition to this extension. Neighbors on both sides of Redwood Creek oppose this new road and will make their opposition known to elected officials.

2. The cost of building a bridge across an ecologically sensitive wildlife corridor will be immense.

3. The cost of purchasing the property needed from 8 houses on the Robinson Lane side alone will be more than an additional million dollars at current market rates. The laws of eminent domain in California ensure that the residents will be paid for the property seized.

4. Special engineering will be required at the Linda Vista end to keep the bridge supports from impeding access to a deep major water main at the juncture of the new road with Linda Vista. This water main ruptured within the last two years and required a major excavation of a hole the size of two SUV's.

5. The result of the extension would channel even more traffic onto the already busy Linda Vista/Lone Oak/West Lincoln junction. There are already 4500 cars per day on Linda Vista and an extension would increase this by 1000 cars. This neighborhood is a residential area with schools, not a commercial area.

The streets are not designed for this traffic load. The intersection where Lone Oak and West Lincoln meet is a blind curve with no shoulders or sidewalks - a very dangerous place for pedestrians or bicyclists. The City should be adding bike lanes and sidewalks to Linda Vista and West Lincoln rather than dumping more traffic in this area.

6. If this is truly for emergency services response times, then an emergency services bridge and walking/biking path should be built, not a thru road.

The benefit of this extension will never rise to the level that it will cost. Please take this off the Napa General Plan. Napa is a small town and should support sidewalks and bike paths, not traffic roaring through quiet neighborhoods with no sidewalks.

What is your comment about?: General Plan
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 155 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - General Plan Comments Squarespace <[email protected]>
Thu 5/5/2022 10:04 AM
To: Michael Walker
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Katherine Lambert
Email Address
Subject: General Plan Comments
Message: Thank you for all of your efforts in developing this 2040 General Plan. I've had many concerns about Land Use in the southern end of Napa for many years and so my comments address a new Foster Rd. Mixed Use proposal designed into this upcoming General Plan. I have noted the numerous inconsistencies between the General Plan Goals and Policies as they relate to the city leader's proposal for this new land use at the Gateway to Napa.

Foster Road Mixed Use
"This designation is specifically for the area located in the south-west portion of the City in between Foster Road and Golden Gate Drive. These parcels are presently (2021) within the City’s RUL and SOI and allow for mixed use. " from the General Plan
This statement regarding the parcels within the Foster Road Mixed Use is incorrect and misrepresents the current use and the uses that are currently permitted. The land use Element for the draft General Plan Napa 2040 introduces a new “mixed- use” designation identified as “The Foster Road Mixed Use, it encompasses approx.. 140 + acres, primarily comprised by LAFCO as having some parcels that are “prime agricultural land” sited in the southwest area of the city, within the sphere of influence and RUI.

Located at the southern Gateway to the entire Napa Valley, these parcels run parallel the major transit corridor, scenic Hwy. 29.

This newly identified “Mixed Use” designation is vague - clearly intending to set the stage for annexation, up-zoning and development. As stated, the intent is to implement policy goals for a future Master Plan for this area. Any such Master Plan must then attempt to negotiate and maneuver around not only the numerous high-risk site constraints but the untenable, singular burden of the current and pent-up housing demands for both the city and county of Napa during this 20-year GP period. This draft GP represents an unreasonable proposal for an extremely high level of density in an extreme high-risk area - unlike anywhere else in the city. No other area of Napa or the Napa Valley is – or ever has been - required to shoulder the burden of such projected and unverified housing numbers and it is certainly not a shared burden.

A dedicated EIR required for a future Master Plan would circumvent the current need for the City and County to address a number of Environmental Impacts and Inconsistencies within this draft 2040 General Plan. The Foster Rd. Mixed Use area was a last minute decision by the city council members and to date the citizens have not been provided an opportunity to respond to this proposed ATTACHMENT 8 Page 156 of 264
intensification and upzoning within this area – we will use this opportunity to voice our concerns about inconsistencies of the stated goals and policies of the General Plan.

Firstly, we strongly suggest that a MP amendment be put forth in in the future if it is supported to move forward because of housing demand. Why not treat it similarly to Napa Pipe? The City of Napa would benefit from a more specific focus in this area of the draft EIR now, prior to annexation, upzoning and possible development and prior to any requirement for a future masterplan EIR to be generated by the privatized interests of the property owners/developers. There is legal precedent to have a separate EIR to look at specific alternatives in potential development of this site now, not later.

As drafted, numerous inconsistencies in the General Plan are found within the draft General Plan specific to the stated policy and goals for the Foster Rd. “Mixed Use” area. This new land use designation would frustrate the overall goals of the Napa General Plan, not the least of which is that of creating “complete neighborhoods”, that is completely at odds with the idea of walkable and connected neighborhoods. This Mixed Use designation would only serve to degrade the existing adjacent neighborhood and degrade the quality of life for many of the residents of SW Napa. With that in mind, the following stated goals of the General Plan are inconsistent with these proposed land use changes within the Foster Rd Mixed Use .

Land Use Element Stated Goals in the Napa General Plan 2040 LUCD-1: Maintain a compact urban form to promote a distinct community identity and protect open space and natural and agricultural resources surrounding the community.

This proposed use designation is inconsistent with the protection of natural and agricultural resources surrounding the community and the city of Napa. Some of these parcels are currently prime agricultural land as designated by LAFCO. Known as the “Last Crop” their Agricultural Use for the past century has been of a dairy – of pasturage - and provides of an incredibly valuable and resilient carbon sink for the City generated by one of the remaining natural grasslands within its domain. This proposed Foster Rd. Mixed Use land use designation encourages disavowed urban sprawl and its attendant environmental degradation at the edges of the city. It fails to integrate and maintain a compact urban form. It seeks to create and develop an entire new “neighborhood” within the city’s RUL, not within the city proper - standing at the city’s edge, in stark disregard to the astounding 77% of citizen voices expressed through the City of Napa General Plan GPAC process and decades of consistent, vocal opposition by thousands of Napa residents who do not want to develop agricultural lands at the edge of the city.

LUCD-5: Support an attractive and welcoming image for major gateways and thoroughfares into the City.

For the past century the proposed Foster Rd, “Mixed Use” district has served as a bucolic welcome to the Napa Valley. It is situated at the gateway to Napa Valley along highway 29 leading north into Napa Valley. The proposed density limits, businesses and houses proposed by this proposed Use at the Gateway does not support a welcoming or attractive image at a major gateway, and no matter the quality of the architecture nor public art, neither can substitute for the natural beauty of the hillsides, rolling hills and grazing cows that currently provide the scenic beauty along these parcels at the Gateway to the Napa Valley. A view-shed corridor, highway 29 leads directly up valley to wine country and it’s the rolling hills and grazing cattle that define entrance to the Napa Valley.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 157 of 264
Policy LUCD 5-1: Seek to improve the scenic character of important gateways into the City, including SR 29, SR 121, SR 221, Soscol Avenue, Trancas Street, the SR 29/Imola intersection, and First Street, through under-grounding utilities, increased landscaping, street tree planting, and other improvements.

These Foster Rd. Mixed Use parcels are along SR 29 and are inconsistent with the need for “scenic improvement”. Residents and tourists alike love the natural wonder and allure of these parcels. They would only need “scenic improvement” to obscure the blight caused by the high-density, high-risk mixed-use development.

Policy LUCD 5-2: Support the creation of corridor and gateway design guidelines for both public and private development to promote attractive entrances to the City. Specific plans can also be used to coordinate development.

It is a surprise to know that the city has neglected to provide design guidelines to protect the Gateway already, but perhaps if they had developed guidelines previously, there would never be a storage facility along Golden Gate Dr. adjacent to the Gateway parcels. Unfortunately, these guidelines don’t already exist. A major city such as Napa has an obligation to provide design guidelines. The very loose description in the General Plan to support guidelines is no substitute for having design guidelines – city leaders unfortunately have no idea what they want to be developed there, which is why the potential uses are not only vague and shift with each Master Plan update, are malleable and at odds with what the citizenry have expressed during the planning process for the General Plan.

Policy LUCD 5-3: Support inclusion of greenways, open space, riparian corridors, wetland areas, and agricultural land when they exist in gateway locations.

The type of development encouraged for these parcels is at odds with this policy to support open space, greenways, agricultural lands at the gateways into the city, it’s a direct contradiction of this stated goal. The development of a new Foster Rd Mixed Use area to completely develop this area at the gateway does not support this policy of the General Plan Goals and therefore is inconsistent and frustrates the Master Plan. The public has encouraged the city council and city planners to designate a greenbelt for these parcels at the gateway. Our voices have been ignored and dismissed at GPAC, City Planning Meetings and City Council Meetings throughout this process.

Policy LUCD 5-4: Promote the inclusion of public art, welcome signage, and other landmarks to reinforce Napa’s identity and a sense of arrival into the City.

These gateway parcels and the adjacent Stewart Ranch dot the landscape with “Oreo” cows and long horn cattle and green pastures. The symbolism of these is invaluable. As a major corridor of rolling hills and agricultural land, they welcome visitors from all over the world as well as local people throughout the bay area and those who reside in Napa. These existing agricultural uses are being pushed out by encouraging a Foster Rd. mixed use development for the area. Unfortunately, this idea that public art or welcome signage for a mixed-use development is completely inconsistent with Napa culture. It’s like putting lipstick on a pig.

Policy LUCD-13: Promote housing and business growth as infill development in Focus Areas in keeping with the City’s scale, services, and environment.

The Foster Rd. Mixed Use area is inconsistent with LUCD-13, the desire of the citizen to fulfill their ATTACHMENT 8 Page 158 of 264
housing needs by promoting housing and business growth as infill in Focus Areas and along existing corridors within the city proper. The density of housing units are not significantly encouraged in the focus areas, (although depicted in images) and instead, the MP 2040 seeks to develop the BULK of the stated housing needs within the Foster Rd. mixed use designated area, outside of the focus areas, impoverishing existing Napa businesses by diluting and replicating unnecessary and unwanted businesses from less than a half mile away.

Policy LUCD 13-1: Promote infill development in Focus Areas that makes efficient use of limited land supply, while ensuring compatibility and integration with adjacent uses. Ensure that uses and intensities of infill development support a cohesive development pattern.

We encourage the implementation of the stated LUCD 13-1 policy in the Focus Areas PRIOR to the annexation and potential development of agricultural land at the edge of the city, within the SOI. The development of the Foster Rd Mixed Use designation is also not consistent with existing adjacent uses, which include Rural Residential (low density), wetlands to the east, and a school to the north. _____
Transportation Element Goals and Policy Concerns and Inconsistencies TE-9: Provide safe evacuation routes in case of emergencies and natural disasters, including flooding, earthquake, and fire.

The Foster Rd. Mixed Use land is situated on an active earthquake fault and flood plain. With the proposed number of new housing units and business uses, this represents a substantial impact on transportation and at key evacuation areas from the entire Napa along highway 29 and 121. The number of units envisioned both as part of Napa Pipe and Foster Rd. Mixed Use parcels and Stanly Ranch will singularly and collectively frustrate transportation and emergency exits in the event of a natural disaster. The proposed improvements to the freeways and roads along Foster Rd., Golden Gate, Stanley Lane, Highway 121 and the 29 Intersection are vague and ill-considered because they do not address any real growth.

Stanly Lane and Napa Pipe have been built without any upgrading of surrounding major roads and arteries. The number of housing units and businesses proposed for Foster Rd Mixed Use at the southern gateway in the event of natural flooding or earthquakes or wildfires means a bottleneck at the southern end of Napa where the burden of the majority of growth in the next 20 years is anticipated by city planners and consultants. It’s ill-considered now and in need of a complete and detailed analysis and study that is currently schematic at best. ------
Historic Resources Goals and Policy Concerns and Inconsistencies HCR-2: Continue implementation of the City’s preservation program in accordance with Certified Local Government (CLG) requirements, including identifying sites, buildings, and landscapes that serve as significant, visible reminders of the City’s social, architectural, and agricultural history. This shall include the recognition of historic resources that have been underrepresented, such as those associated with ethnic heritage, cultural landscapes, and the recent past.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 159 of 264
The acreage encompassed by the Foster Rd. Mixed Use are the unceded territory of the Wapo Indian tribe who dwelled on that land for 100’s of years. There would be, as there currently are within the vicinity, a number of Indian artifacts and potential burial grounds. Also, within this gateway parcel, is situated the stagecoach of General Vallejo situated next door to the Ghisletta’ home along Golden Gate Ave. The ruins of the stone building are still visible and it’s wonderful that the history has not been entirely erased. The Wapo tribe dwelled within Napa Valley for hundreds of years, and several tribe members have joined our group to advocate that these parcels be designated greenbelt at the Gateway. Developing these hundred plus acres destroys this historical agricultural history and is at odds with the stated City’s preservation program as stated in HCR-3. ____
Natural Resource Conservation Element Concerns and Inconsistencies NRC-1: Manage natural resources, including riparian corridors, wetlands, and open space areas in and around the City, to preserve and enhance plant and wildlife habitats.

Development of one of the last open space areas at the edge of the city is in conflict with the stated goals of the Natural Resource Conservation element. Situated at the edge of the wetlands to the east, (currently a potential flood risk to the parcels) the land is currently used as pasturage, and is a much needed carbon sink and wildfire buffer. The MP2040 shows an image of these parcels during the summer months, we have included images of these parcels during other parts of the year and from other vantage points that show the natural beauty of the topography of the undeveloped lands. Two ponds on the property are home to migrating birds in the winter.

NRC-4: Support public and private efforts for preserving open spaces and biological environments— particularly unique and fragile biological environments—around the City.

NRC-5: Protect air quality within the City and support efforts for enhanced regional air quality.

The inclusion of over 1000 new residents, additional unknown number of new businesses, brings an increased number of cars and pollution concentrated in such a small area. This proposed Foster Rd.

Mixed Use designation area for these agricultural parcels does nothing to protect the air quality within the city or region and in fact there is inadequate evidence of any true study or mitigation as to the degradation to the air quality for the existing residents within Hilton Acres to the west of these parcels, including the residences to the immediate north and the entire southern end of the city of Napa. of St. Francis Circle.

NRC-7: Seek to reduce mobile sources of air pollution by creating denser and walk-able neighborhoods, building transit-oriented development, and improving bicycle infrastructure, with the goal to reduce the number of miles traveled in cars and improve regional air quality.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 160 of 264
They discuss the Foster Rd. Mixed Use area as a “new complete neighborhood” at the edge of the city cut off from downtown, certainly dense in it’s own right, but not dense as the MP envisions within this stated goal by encouraging a walk-able city, encouraging the existing corridors of Trancas, Soscal and Jefferson to be transformed into boulevards with vibrant street life, bicycles, and a more compact city life.

NRC-6: Through various sustainability measures, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fine particulate matter, and black carbon emissions into the air.

The development of the density envisioned by the Foster Rd Mixed Use district is a cut-off community set apart from the city proper only encourages sprawl and additional use of automobiles, and that increases fine particulate matter and carbon emissions into the air. This needs its own EIR prior to annexation because it should not be attached to the overall General Plan EIR. Legal precedent exists to dictate this approach.

The Foster Rd Mixed Use area envisions a complete neighborhood cut off from the heart of the city. As is true of car-oriented cities that have encouraged sprawl, everyone will get in their car to go downtown or up to restaurants and services along Trancas, Jefferson and Soscal as they currently do.

Everyone knows that creating a separate and segregated community(despite the rhetoric of walkability with a neighborhood) is not in support of the transforming the existing neighborhoods of the city but does replicate and recreates the existing problems that Napa says they would like to change with this stated GP goal. Sadly, the Foster Rd. Mixed Use area is segregationist in that it encourages the bulk of affordable housing needs and encourages in so doing a new form of segregation of a district cut off from the heart of the city and community. It instead inscribes economic discrimination, literally and figuratively.
_____
Safety and Noise Element Concerns and Inconsistencies
SN-1: Minimize the risk to life and property caused by seismic activity, soil erosion, and landslides.

The Foster Rd. Mixed Use Area are lands situated directly on a relatively recently discovered but active earthquake fault that crisscrosses the site. The fault has now been mapped as shown by Napa’s own site constraints documents. These lands also include a landslide area to the southern end of the property. Given that they have described the need to build of lower cost affordable housing units on or immediately adjacent to this fault line, not only will these areas be of higher cost to develop, but also make the possibility of earthquake insurance impossible. This hardly minimizes the risk to life and property it actually makes any thought of home ownership one of the riskier potential investments for a group of homeowners who have been priced out of safer locations. It further disenfranchises and disadvantages these potential homeowners. The environmental justice issue is considerable and the development of these lands increases the risk to life and property caused by seismic activity, soil erosion and potential landslides.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 161 of 264
SN-4: Protect public health and welfare by minimizing exposure of sensitive uses to noise and preventing significant degradation of the acoustic environment.

The Foster Rd. Mixed Use Area intensifies both noise and acoustic exposure to the public. If you imagine more than 1,000 housing units how many new people, cars, businesses, buses and other new noise making devices will now be situated on these virgin parcels, you cannot deny the increase in overall noise within this area that will affect the Hilton Acres and Westwood neighbors to the west. The proposed uses will create noise and decibel levels that are too high and are inconsistent with adjacent existing uses that are low density Rural Residential.

SN-5: Work to prevent urban fires and exposure to wildfires, as well as protect life and property from fire dangers.

We should be developing land/fire breaks at the edges of our city to prevent urban wildfires in order to protect the existing lives and properties from fire danger at the existing perimeter of the city.

Developing these parcels at Foster Rd. is at odds with this goal. ____
Public Health and Equity Element Concerns and Inconsistencies PHE-3: Promote clean air and water, a healthy natural environment, and pollution-free neighborhoods to reduce disparate health impacts resulting from environmental pollutants in vulnerable communities.

The Foster Rd Mixed Use Area does nothing to promote clean air or water, pollution free neighborhoods or pollution. In fact, it seeks to develop most of the housing for the city over the next

20. Years on these. Parcels, an enormous burden that typically would be shared amongst the residents of the entire city. Now, most development is only in the southern end of Napa and they hope to house mostly lower income families within this area.
_____
These concerns and inconsistencies noted within these comments have yet to be fully addressed by the City Council, the Napa Planning Commission, LAFCO, Napa City Planning Staff or the various outside consultants who participated in creating this plan. We ask that they all be address in detail for the citizens review.

What is your comment about?: General Plan
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 162 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - Be Considerate of and Value Our Historic Resources
Squarespace <[email protected]>
Thu 5/5/2022 11:55 AM
To: Michael Walker <
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Chris Jonas
Email Address:

Subject: Be Considerate of and Value Our Historic Resources Message: The General Plan should require all potential local historic districts be formally adopted as historic districts within five years. The plan should also require an update of the Historic Resources Inventory and the city hire a qualified Historic Preservation Planner.

What is your comment about?: General Plan
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 163 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - Transportation - Extension of Linda Vista Ave
Squarespace <[email protected]>
Thu 5/5/2022 1:07 PM
To: Michael Walker >
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Cynthia Deutsch
Email Address:

Subject: Transportation - Extension of Linda Vista Ave
Message: I am writing to oppose the inclusion of the Linda Vista extension over Napa Creek. This plan was in the last 20-year General Plan and was not implemented. It will not be implemented in the current revised General Plan either. Why would the city choose to incorporate Zombie elements in the proposed plan? This project will not be implemented because:

1. There is organized neighborhood opposition to this extension.

2. There are critical environmental issues involved with building a bridge over Napa Creek - disruption of a Wildlife Corridor. I am sure environmental groups would oppose the project.

3. The cost benefit of this extension does not justify the expense - especially with the environmental reviews that will be required.

4. The only Council member who firmly backs this extension is the Mayor. Other Council members will vote against it. This has happened twice in last five years.

5. Napa can’t maintain the streets we already have, why add to the burden.

6. There are already pedestrian and bicycle routes that allow passage from the Linda Vista area to Browns Valley Road - the path by Crosswalk Church (which the city does not maintain) and Pinewood Street.

7. The result of this extension would be to dump more traffic onto West Lincoln (according to City Staff) which is already a dangerous route for pedestrians and bicycles. Where West Lincoln connects to Lone Oak, there is a blind curve with no shoulders and no sidewalks. The rest of West Lincoln has no bike lanes and intermittent sidewalks. A complete revamp of West Lincoln is required if Linda Vista extension is built.

8. The recent water main break at Lone Oak and Linda Vista required digging a deep whole the size of a car. I doubt the city would want to build bridge abutments over this delicate infrastructure.

This project is Dead on Arrival. Let’s not litter our new General Plan with elements that will not have a chance of implementation.

What is your comment about?: General Plan
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 164 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - Historic Preservation Squarespace <[email protected]>
Thu 5/5/2022 2:38 PM
To: Michael Walker
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Lisa Groom
Email Address: t
Subject: Historic Preservation
Message: I support the Napa County Landmarks plan for preserving our local heritage. I support of historic preservation.

What is your comment about?: General Plan
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 165 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - The General Plan Squarespace <[email protected]>
Thu 5/5/2022 2:40 PM
To: Michael Walker
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Gwen Davey
Email Address:

Subject: The General Plan
Message: I support the following information below:
"that the General Plan require all potential local historic districts be formally adopted as historic districts within five years. We also believe that the plan should require an update of the Historic Resources Inventory and that the city hire a qualified Historic Preservation Planner, since qualified staff would both streamline the process for homeowner projects and result in better outcomes for historic buildings."
What is your comment about?: General Plan
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 166 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - Comments on General Plan Squarespace <[email protected]>
Fri 5/6/2022 10:03 AM
To: Michael Walker < >
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Jennifer Anderson
Email Address:

Subject: Comments on General Plan
Message: A crucial health & safety component left out of the planning is creating & updating a telecom ordinance with substantial setbacks from residential areas & schools. It is appalling to see telecom towers being installed on school grounds! Napa Neighborhood Association for Safe Technology is a great information resource here & can provide info on money available to the City for installation of fiberoptic cable for internet access. One of the greatest health threats in the future will be radiation from 5G, so this is problematic when your Plan places such a great emphasis on emerging transportation technologies, such as autonomous vehicles. I protested the 5G rollout in downtown Napa. Please preserve the rural, agricultural flavor of this special place and keep us distinct from Silicon Valley. We do NOT want to be a SmartCity on a SmartGrid.

Adequately funding the police is probably the single most important action the City can take. A lot of people no longer feel safe in the City of Napa, & I'm certainly not going to walk on all the lovely new sidewalks connecting communities if I'm worried about being assaulted. I stopped walking at Alston Park after a gang member was shot there. I don't feel safe jogging on the trail from Downtown to the NV College because of the homeless encampments.

One of the most under-utilized spaces is the Napa Valley Expo. Consider buying this from the State of CA & using it for multiple purposes.

There are a lot of well-meaning projects that cost a TON (like the new transportation depot).

Sometimes these are not productively used. For example, the ride-share parking lot on Trancas/Solano is pretty much now a homeless encampment or tent city, & no one wants to park there, because cars get broken into.

The world is facing unprecedented food shortages and global economic challenges, and food security is going to be a huge problem. Homelessness is going to continue to rise, as the borders become more porous. I would focus on public safety, addressing the needs of the homeless population, and food security, & I'd put other more cosmetic projects on hold.

An ongoing complaint is that there isn't a lot for youth to do in Napa. When my teenagers meet friends & walk around downtown, they are disappointed that there's nothing but super expensive boutiques & wine tasting bars downtown. If there's a way to incentivize local businesses going in over chain boutiques or corporate interests, that would be great. San Luis Obispo is cool that way. We need water parks, roller skating, things for kids to do on rainy days. We LOVE taco trucks. Is there a way to ATTACHMENT 8 Page 167 of 264
allow a bunch of them to congregate at Oxbow Commons? The pandemic shutdowns devastated local business in California and were a huge mistake. Napa also lost a lot of tourism by holding on to ludicrously strict mask mandates longer than any other place in the nation. Poorly done! A lot of the "green" stuff in the General Plan is well-meaning but naive. Electric cars are super expensive, & they are not carbon neutral because they rely upon electricity that is created by burning fossil fuels. So, unless CA is planning to put in nuclear power plants anytime soon, stop with the zero carbon goals & rhetoric. Solar panels & wind turbines can't provide all of our energy & the carbon footprint required to manufacture them is high! I love all the trees you are planning to plant to create green zones. On the other hand, too many trees/properties not cleared of brush was a factor in the wildfires.

Thank you for free parking in Downtown Napa! Love this.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) rules related to generator usage & emissions are ridiculous.

If the state of California can't even keep power going on windy days, then it has no business trying to regulate generator use. Sometimes it's like living in a third world country.

Consider banning glyphosates in the City of Napa for everyone's health.

Cyclists on Redwood Road, particularly in the area between Westview & Browns Valley, are a hazard.

The combination of narrow, curving roads with no shoulder, cyclists, & agricultural trucks is dangerous.

What is your comment about?: General Plan
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 168 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - Comment on City of Napa 2040 General Plan Draft EIR
Squarespace <[email protected]>
Fri 5/6/2022 10:55 AM
To: Michael Walker
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Jim Wilson
Email Address:

Subject: Comment on City of Napa 2040 General Plan Draft EIR Message: Regarding Draft GP Element 6, Goal CCS-1:

Be sure to make the following change, as noted previously in writing (yellow sticky note community session) and during public comment in planning commission meeting, and joint city council/ planning commission meetings:

Element 06 CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT/ page 6-15 Goal CCS-1 existing language states:
"Seek to achieve net zero climate pollutants from public and private operations within the City by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2040, which is five years sooner than what is established under Executive Order B-55-18."
Change this to be consistent with the City Council's April, 2022 Climate Emergency Resolution language that commits to implementing both immediate and sustained actions in support of achieving net zero climate pollutants by or before 2030.

Goal CCS-1 revised language should state:
"Achieve net zero climate pollutants from public and private operations within the City by 2030." (Note that this revision eliminates the relatively noncommittal "seek" action and instead uses "achieve" to describe action needed at the level the science demands, and shows a real commitment to the organizing principle of the climate emergency needed in all planning decisions going forward, in solidarity with other jurisdictions committing to achieving the 2030 goal for net zero climate pollution.)
Thank you,
Jim Wilson
What is your comment about?: DEIR
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 169 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - Transportation element Squarespace <[email protected]>
Fri 5/6/2022 11:03 AM
To: Michael Walker
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Mark Phillips
Email Address:

Subject: Transportation element
Message: I don’t see the intersection of Silverado Trail and Trancas/Monticello addressed in any way.

Despite its remote location I believe it’s in the City limits and one leg of the intersection is not a state highway. It would be a good candidate for a roundabout if the logistics of the various creeks could be worked out.

What is your comment about?: General Plan
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 170 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - General Plan Roadway Extension 3 Terrace Drive - Do not built it!
Squarespace <[email protected]>
Fri 5/6/2022 1:27 PM
To: Michael Walker
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Taylor Swain
Email Address:

Subject: General Plan Roadway Extension 3 Terrace Drive - Do not built it! Message: General Plan ID 3 - Terrace Drive Roadway extension is constructing a bridge over a creek to connect two roadways (Terrace Dr and S Terrace Dr). This bridge is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer money.

Currently traffic that would use this route travels around Shurtleff Avenue and constructing this bridge will only save traffic needing to go through it 30 seconds at best. Traffic frequently travels through the four way intersection on Terrace Dr and Shurtleff Avenue well above normal speeds and ignores the four way stop signs. Shurtleff Avenue is built with this traffic in mind and does not have homes facing it for the majority of the road. Terrace Dr and S Terrace Drive are neighborhood streets and this traffic would directly impact the quality of life of the people living on it.

I purchased a house on this court with the plan for my kids to be able to go out on the court and play safely. There's a basketball court at the end of the street and an old fort neighborhood kids built down by the creek. If a bridge is put in here it makes my front yard and street a serious hazard for my kids.

This section of the street also only has parking on one side of the street with a mailbox at the end of the court. By turning this into a major thoroughfare for traffic simple tasks such as parking and getting our mail become much harder to do.

This bridge plan should be abandoned and taxpayer funds should be put to better use on other improvement projects.

What is your comment about?: General Plan
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 171 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - General Plan Comments Squarespace <[email protected]>
Fri 5/6/2022 3:20 PM
To: Michael Walker
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Kyle Cuddy
Email Address:

Subject: General Plan Comments
Message: Glad to see that major corridors in the City may have the opportunity to develop in a sustainable way, mixing housing and commercial areas to create mixed use and live nearby where you work opportunities. But disappointed to see how much rural residential in the shoulder areas of neighborhoods continues to exist in the general plan. These transitional zones in existing neighborhoods between busy roads or higher density residential and commercial areas were discussed and yet there are still areas where this did not get addressed. At least if it is addressed in writing in the EIR and the general plan does not reflect it there may be an opportunity in the future to have the conversation. Costs never go down they might level off for a bit but historically they are always going up. Providing equality in the community is important, this is not a community for only the well to do; service workers, school teachers, even city employees should be able to afford to live in the community they work if they want to. Not addressing the issue adequately is not sustainable, we cannot create enough programs to help everyone and it is potentially bad for the future not doing all we can do now or we are going against the communities desire to address climate change concerns by reducing carbon, waste, etc. Either we are part of the solution or we continue to part of the problem.

What is your comment about?: General Plan, DEIR
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 172 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - Environmental Impact Comment for General Plan -Terrace Dr
Squarespace <[email protected]>
Fri 5/6/2022 3:24 PM
To: Michael Walker
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Amanda Hallahan
Email Address:

Subject: Environmental Impact Comment for General Plan -Terrace Dr Message: Connecting Terrace Dr seems feasible if you are looking at the whole of Terrace but on the section of Terrace where the bridge will lead from South Terrace toward Tulocay Cemetery, before the stop sign on Shurtleff, the street is too narrow to accommodate the fast traffic that will happen when people speed through to avoid Soscol (and all the stop lights). People already speed through the dead end street and turn around, mistaking the area for a thoroughfare and have been dangerous to pedestrians.

Currently, at least 2 accidents have occurred from the four way stop on Terrace and Shurtleff in the past year and 1 narrow miss from residence coming from Terrace to make a left turn onto Shurtleff because people go through the intersection too fast. That is only the verifiable accidents of neighbors, there have been more that have been witnessed but are not neighbors that I am unable to provide an injured party. This will only increase if more people come speeding through Terrace Dr from a new bridge.

The way the small section of the street is set up, there isn’t enough room for a sidewalk or shoulder on one side of the road. The mailboxes are also located in a dangerous position if there was actual traffic that was racing through. Allowing for traffic to move faster on that stretch of road, is unsafe. Even with posted speed limits, people do not follow them. Look at Westview Dr and Shurtleff as examples for incidences of speeding, property damage, and collisions. Both Shurtleff and Westview are much wider streets. It’s already dangerous for pedestrians, houses, and bicyclists as-is on that small stretch of terrace, and this plan will significantly increase the risk.

The street needs to be widened significantly to make this plan feasible and also follow your main goal of making Napa safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Another option would be to build the bridge to help with erosion of the creek, but to keep it only accessible to pedestrians/cyclists or emergency vehicles.

There is a very dangerous situation that is being submitted and should be adjusted before there are any fatalities or significant property damage from a road collision that the City could be liable for.

What is your comment about?: General Plan, DEIR
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 173 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - Terrance Connector Squarespace <[email protected]>
Fri 5/6/2022 3:32 P
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Madeline Wyman
Email Address:

Subject: Terrance Connector
Message: Opening up the connection in Terrence Drive would be dangerous. There is not enough space on that street for two traffic with cars park as it is. There is already a fire line that limits the size of the street as well. It feels irresponsible to make this narrow street a connector for more traffic, for pedestrians and bicycles alike.

What is your comment about?: General Plan, DEIR
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 174 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - Dont connect Terrace Drive… Squarespace <[email protected]>
Fri 5/6/2022 3:46 PM
To: Michael Walker
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Presley Troendly
Email Address
Subject: Dont connect Terrace Drive…
Message: Connecting Terrace drive will leading to an increase chance of vehicle accidents and property damage due to the speed people will drive down it, if it becomes a through street. Putting pedestrians, bicyclist and residents at risk.

What is your comment about?: General Plan, DEIR
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 175 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - General Plan comment Squarespace <[email protected]>
Fri 5/6/2022 4:29 PM
To: Michael Walker
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Holly Dawson
Email Address:

Subject: General Plan comment
Message: Thank you for including Napa Valley College in the draft Master Plan. I would suggest on 4- 6 – that you work with NVUSD and Napa Valley College!
What is your comment about?: General Plan
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 176 of 264
Form Submission - NAPA 2040 GP Comments - Terrace Drive Connecting Squarespace <[email protected]>
Fri 5/6/2022 5:12 PM
To: Michael Walker
[EXTERNAL]
Sent via form submission from Napa 2040
Name: Taylor Smith
Email Address:

Subject: Terrace Drive Connecting
Message: Terrace drive connecting will increase risk of injury to pedestrians by bicyclists, and residents along with and increase chance of vehicle accidents and property damage because that area is too narrow for the speed people will drive down it.

What is your comment about?: General Plan
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 177 of 264
Additional comments for 2040 GP
Maureen Trippe
Mon 5/2/2022 11:39 AM
To: Michael Walker <
Cc:
1 attachments (179 KB)
Traffic Calming Guidance Memo-20220121 - Signed.pdf;
[EXTERNAL]
Hi, one more comment for the General Plan, please. This Memo (attached) is from the Star of California Department of Transportation and the subject is Traffic Calming Guidance.

The memo addresses the benefit of implementing traffic calming measures and techniques that can be used with the intent to slow speeding vehicles.

Note the comments about livability and vitality of residential and commercial areas. This is very well aligned with Napa’s 2040 goals and objectives.

Thank you for your consideration to include a Traffic Calming Plan in the General Plan.

With appreciation,
Maureen Trippe
Co-founder, Slow Down Napa
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 178 of 264
State of California California State Transportation Agency

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Memo randum
To: DISTRICT DIRECTORS Date: January 28, 2022

DEPUTY DIRECTORS

DIVISION CHIEFS
From: JANICE BENTON RACHEL CARPENTER
Chief, Division of Design Chief, Division of Safety Programs JASVINDERJIT S. BHULLAR
Chief, Division of Traffic Operations
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC CALMING GUIDANCE
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recognizes all modes of travel are integral to our vision of delivering a brighter future for all through a world-class transportation network. As Caltrans progresses towards achieving a transportation system that improves accessibility and connectivity to essential community destinations for all users, we continue to provide guidance that contributes to the livability and safety of all users of the State highway environment. To this end, we will address the benefit of implementing traffic calming measures. Although State highways are planned, designed, and constructed based on geometric design criteria and traffic control devices approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the objective to have an orderly and effective movement of traffic may be compromised by drivers who operate at excessive speeds. This memorandum discusses traffic calming techniques that exist in Caltrans guidance that can be used with the intent to slow speeding vehicles.

According to the FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer: “The primary purpose of traffic calming is to support the livability and vitality of residential and commercial areas through improvements in non-motorist safety, mobility, and comfort.

These objectives are typically achieved by reducing vehicle speeds or volumes on a single street or a street network. Traffic calming measures consist of horizontal, vertical, lane narrowing, roadside, and other features that use selfenforcing physical or psycho-perception means to produce desired effects.” The traffic calming strategies encompass various strategies including law enforcement, public education, as well as temporary and permanent highway features that become part of the highway infrastructure. For the purpose of this memorandum, we will address current Caltrans guidance that can be used to for
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 179 of 264
January 28, 2022

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” accomplish traffic calming, as part of highway infrastructure, that is selfenforcing or self-regulating with respect to vehicular speed.

Conventional highways are the target of traffic calming strategies. The highway may be a two-lane or multilane highway where the prevalence of speeding vehicles will have a negative impact on the non-motorized modes of travel.

IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR TRAFFIC CALMING
Traffic calming needs should be determined by existing operating vehicular speeds, volume counts, and number of crashes for each location. The determination for traffic calming should also include a review of the location’s adjacent land uses (e.g. schools, parks, bus stops, senior and other health care facilities, retail, etc). Traffic calming should also be considered where speed limits may be reduced due to implementation of AB-43 (2021, Friedman). Case studies outlining successful traffic calming strategy development are available in the FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer Module 8.

GEOMETRIC FEATURES
Roundabouts
Guidance for roundabouts is contained in the Highway Design Manual (HDM) Index 405.10. A roundabout is an intersection type that is considered during the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) process, which evaluates the various kinds of intersection designs in order to address the purpose and need of an intersection improvement project. A roundabout design has certain attributes that can reduce speeds. The geometric design of approach alignment and circular roadway of a roundabout has the characteristics that will reduce speeds. Roundabouts also typically have splitter islands that can have the benefit of reducing speeds. For more information about the ICE process, see the Traffic Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) #13-02.

Bulbouts (Curb Extensions)
Guidance for bulbouts is contained in the HDM Index 303.4(1). Bulbouts are a type of curb extension used at intersections for the benefit of pedestrians because it shortens the crossing distance and provides more area and visibility for pedestrians. Bulbouts have a traffic calming effect because it requires more attention for the driver, induces a speed reduction for turning maneuvers, and reduces the roadway width.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 180 of 264
January 28, 2022

Page 3 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Traffic Islands
Guidance for traffic islands is contained in the HDM Index 405.4. Traffic Islands are typically for channelization, but could also be used for traffic calming since it introduces a curb adjacent to vehicles and has the effect of slowing vehicles.

Pedestrian refuge islands and median raised islands are commonly used. Also, providing landscaping in islands is a complete streets feature that contributes to the livability and sustainability of the environment. If landscaping of islands is pursued, the guidance in the HDM Topic 904 applies.

Angle of Intersection
Guidance for angle of intersection is contained in the HDM Index 403.3. The prevalence of speeding vehicles through skewed intersections can have a negative effect on all users of the intersection. If the State highway alignment has an angle or curve, a reconstruction to design intersections at right angles will induce slower speeds to negotiate the turning movements. This concept is especially useful at interchange ramp intersections with local roads.

TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Section 2B.12 and 7B.12 contains guidance and requirements on In-Street Pedestrian Crossing and InStreet Schoolchildren Crossing Signs. The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs are used in the roadway at the crosswalk location on the center line, on a lane line, or on a median island or overhead. The intent of the signs is to remind road users of laws regarding right-of-way at an unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk.

The In-Street Schoolchildren Crossing signs are used at unsignalized school crossings.

Speed Reduction Markings
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Section 3B.22 and Figure 3B-28 contain guidance and requirements on speed reduction markings. Speed reduction markings are transverse markings that are placed on the roadway within a lane (along both edges of the lane) in a pattern of progressively reduced spacing to give drivers the perception that their speed is increasing.

These markings are placed in advance of an unexpectedly severe horizontal or vertical curve or other roadway feature where drivers need to decelerate prior to reaching the feature and where the desired reduction in speeds has not been achieved by the installation of warning signs and/or other traffic control devices.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 181 of 264
January 28, 2022

Page 4 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Crosswalk Enhancement
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Section 3B.18 and Figure 3B-17(CA) and Traffic Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) 12-03 contain guidance and requirements on Crosswalk Enhancements. Crosswalk enhancements include parking prohibitions, pedestrian crossing regulatory (Yield Here to Pedestrians) and warning (Pedestrian Crossing) signs, with diagonal downward pointing arrow plaques and pedestrian crosswalk, yield (advanced yield lines) and high-visibility crosswalk marking pattern markings.

Crosswalk enhancements are used at marked crosswalk at uncontrolled roadways where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph and where the roadways have four or more lanes of travel and an ADT of 12,000 vehicles per day or greater. Crosswalk enhancements can also be useful at calming traffic in other contexts.

The FHWA issued Interpretation Letter 3(09)-24(I) “Application of Colored Pavement” on August 15, 2013 that contains guidance for aesthetic treatments.

Crosswalk aesthetic treatments can increase the conspicuity and have a traffic calming effect because the markings identify conflict areas and shared space that can result in lower speeds.

In-Roadway Lights (typically at crosswalks)
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Chapter 4N contains guidance and requirements on In-Roadway Lights. In-Roadway Lights are special types of highway traffic signals installed in the roadway surface to warn road users that they are approaching a condition on or adjacent to the roadway that might not be readily apparent and might require the road users to slow and/or come to a stop. This includes situations warning of marked school crosswalks, marked midblock crosswalks, marked crosswalks on uncontrolled approaches, marked crosswalks in advance of roundabouts, and other roadway situations involving pedestrian crossings.

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Chapter 4F contains guidance and requirements on Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. A pedestrian hybrid beacon is a special type of hybrid beacon used to warn and control traffic at an unsignalized location to assist pedestrians in crossing a street or highway at a marked crosswalk. A pedestrian hybrid beacon is used to facilitate pedestrian crossings at a location that does not meet traffic signal warrants, or at a location that meets traffic signal warrants, but a decision is made to not install a traffic control signal.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 182 of 264
January 28, 2022

Page 5 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Vehicle Speed Feedback Signs
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Section 2B.13 contains guidance and requirements on Vehicle Speed Feedback Signs. Vehicle Speed Feedback sign displaying to approaching drivers the speed at which they are traveling is installed in conjunction with a Speed Limit sign to remind drivers of the speed limit and compare it with their speed to gain compliance.

Flashing Beacons (e.g., curve warnings, point restrictions, low vertical clearance, obstructions)
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Chapter 4L contains guidance and requirements on In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs. A Flashing Beacon is a highway traffic signal with one or more signal sections that operates in a flashing mode. It is primarily used to supplement warning and regulatory signs, at pedestrian crossings and to warn of obstructions in or immediately adjacent to the roadway. It is also used to provide traffic control as an intersection control beacon. Speed Limit Sign Beacon is a type of flashing beacon used to draw attention to a Speed Limit sign.

Colored Pavement Markings and Bike Boxes
Several Interim Approvals have been issued by FHWA that contain guidance and requirements for Colored Pavement Markings and Bike Boxes:
• April 15, 2011 Interim Approval for Optional Use of Green Colored Pavement for Bike Lanes (IA-14).
• October 12, 2016 Interim Approval for the Optional Use of Intersection Bicycle Boxes (IA-18).
• July 13, 2017 Interim Approval for the Optional Use of Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes (IA-20).
• December 04, 2019 Interim Approval for Optional Use of Red-Colored Pavement for Transit Lanes (IA-22).

Green pavement is used to supplement other markings to bring attention to conflict areas. Green bike boxes are designated areas to improve bicycle safety and operations when queuing at a traffic signal. Red pavement is used to enhance the conspicuity of transit lanes and transit stops. Colored pavement markings have a traffic calming effect because the markings identify conflict areas and shared space resulting in lower speeds.

IMPLEMENTING TRAFFIC CALMING
The use of geometric features and traffic control devices as discussed in this memorandum is an application of engineering judgement for the improvement ATTACHMENT 8 Page 183 of 264
January 28, 2022

Page 6 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” of the State Highway System. Design flexibility that considers community context is essential when applying traffic calming strategies. The project development process will document the purpose and need, as well as any necessary deviation from published standards per Caltrans guidance.

This guidance memorandum is effective until superseded by a subsequent memorandum or appropriate updated guidance documents.

Any questions on the guidance of this memorandum should be directed to the District Design Liaisons for geometric features and the District Traffic Safety Engineers for traffic control devices.
c:

District Deputy Directors, Design
District Deputy Directors, Traffic Operations
District Deputy Directors, Maintenance
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 184 of 264
Letter to City of Napa Planning Commission and City Council April 8, 2020
Dear Commissioners and Council Members,
Thank you for listening to our concerns about the shortcomings of the 2040 Draft General Plan. We are asking Napa leadership to prioritize the needs of local residents by making a firm commitment to reign in unsafe and reckless driving through proven strategies such as traffic calming that make our streets safer, promote more walking and biking, and embrace the unique appeal that makes Napa such a special place to live. This commitment is crucial to the 2040 Napa General Plan.

In 2020, we started Slow Down Napa to address the epidemic of speeding, rampant cut-through traffic and unsafe conditions that too many residents are confronted with on the street in front of their homes, and throughout our City. Attached is an excel spreadsheet with 250 neighbor comments, less than half of what we have received. Please read these. You can see and feel their frustration and disappointment. And, no wonder. They have been waiting for a long time for someone to address this problem.

The General Plan from 20 years ago (Envision Napa 2020) included stronger language, as well as a commitment and definition for traffic calming, which clearly was never acted upon. In 2020 the Transportation Element devoted an entire page to RESIDENTIAL STREETS. Our 2040 General Plan has no such language. When the Envision Napa 2020 GP was drafted in 1998, Napa leadership acknowledged the inevitable tension with transportation planning – every road goes through someone’s neighborhood.

Balancing efficient citywide transportation with quiet and safe streets is not easy but it is important. The situation was described, defined and predicted as an ongoing effort for years to come. In fact, the 2020 plan devoted an entire page to Residential Streets. A quote from 1998 (Envision Napa 2020, Transportation Element, Residential Streets, p. 19)“The conflict between quiet streets and access needs is likely to intensify in the next 25 years, and the issue of traffic calming is likely to be an ongoing effort."
The Envision Napa 2020 Transportation Element included GOAL T-4: To protect residential neighborhoods from high-volume and high speed traffic and its effects. The 2040 General Plan ignores the current situation and omits this goal to protect neighborhoods. We request that Goal T-4 be added to the 2040 General Plan. This is an essential goal if we are honestly prioritizing the needs of local residents. We urge your support for the 2040 plan to include the following:

1. An acknowledgement of the current situation: see Napa COUNTY’s General Plan*

2. Add Goal T-4: To protect residential neighborhoods from high-volume and high speed traffic and its effects.

3. Include clear Policies and Programs for example:
a. Prioritize community concerns of increasing safety for pedestrians and cyclists, reducing vehicle speed in residential areas, and employing traffic calming measure ATTACHMENT 8 Page 185 of 264
b. Provide funding and resources for Police Department enforcement and technology innovation to curb speeding and bad driving behavior. Reduce Napa’s OTS Crash Ranking* (2019 ranked 6th of 105 comparable sized cities, for example Petaluma 44/105). Police Department to set a goal for improvement ranking, for example achieve minimum 45/105 ranking by 2030.

4. Add Traffic Calming definition to the 14 page Glossary of Terms (see below for definition)* In closing, we emphasize that dozens of cities in California have included Traffic Calming in their General Plans along with their Bicycle Plans and Pedestrian Plans. There’s a Senate Bill proposed that will require GP Circulation Elements to include traffic calming plans and prioritize safety improvements. The bill, if passed, would create an annual grant program to award funding to any county or city that’s implementing effective efforts over the next 15 years. We need to be eligible for this program.

Are we going to continue business-as-usual with our heads in the sand, or are we willing to take action to ensure that the City of Napa lives up to its promise to be not just a world-class destination for tourists, but an equally safe, supportive, and vibrant place to start a business, raise a family, and grow old with our loved ones.

With appreciation for your consideration,
Maureen Trippe and Joyce Stavert
Co-Founders, Slow Down Napa
References and resources:
*The Napa County General Plan, Circulation Element, January 5, 2019, page 8:. “As a result of Napa’s thriving economy, traffic has had a noticeable impact on Napa neighborhoods. As primary routes become congested, drivers (aided by smart phone applications and GPS) move to minor roads to save time. This has placed added strain on roads and neighborhoods that were not originally designed or intended for increased traffic intensity. Greater traffic noise, reduced pedestrian and bicycle safety and longer driving times along these secondary routes can decrease the quality of life for residents.”
Example from Escondido - including Traffic Calming in the General Plan http://www.escondido.org/data/sites/1/media/pdfs/planning/gpupdate/generalplanchapteriii.pdf The plan includes 5 sections under Complete Streets, presumably in order of importance:. 1.

Pedestrian, 2. Bicycle, 3. Transit, 4. Traffic Calming, 5. Street Network.

Definition to be added to Glossary of Terms:

Traffic calming is defined as “the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users.”
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 186 of 264
1 SLOW DOWN NAPA Neighbor Comments February 2021

STREET AND/OR

NEIGHBORHOOD

COMMENTS
Linda Vista and Redwood Rd. I live on Linda Vista, right off of Redwood Rd. , but people drive by here like it's the Indy 500!! I'm so scared for the pets and mainly the children that live around here and walk to school and home. Scary!!
Linda Vista You're right, the speed that individuals drive is fast and definitely not necessary. It's a big concern and I'm glad to have read about your efforts.

Arroyo between
Brown/Seminary
I live downtown (St. John's) and cannot believe the change in traffic patterns over the past 6 years. Napa residents race through the neighborhood going from Soscol to Jefferson or vice versa with no regard for quiet residential streets or pedestrians downtown. I am always amazed how fast people drive past the police department where the speed limit is

25. (2nd Entry: I have lived downtown for 7 years and have witnessed the increased incidence of speeding in the downtown area. It's pretty shocking actually. Streets like Brown, Pearl and even Calistoga are impacted by speeding cars. The speed that cars fly by the police department on First St is pretty telling - there just isn't much concern about getting stopped by NPD as there is little traffic enforcement.)
Redwood road
S Jefferson between Old
Sonoma/Imola
Police give lowest priority to traffic enforcement
Clay St, between
Jefferson/California
Every time I move around Napa I get to see all types of drivers, either not following the posted speed limits, not respecting stop signs or just plainly running red lights without even trying to slow down. I am very concerned because I have children and I do not feel comfortable with this current situation regarding bad and inconsiderate drivers in this city. I live on Clay St and I get to see, and hear cars driving on this street well past the posted 25 MPH limit. I have seen the traffic on my street become heavier over the last few years, especially after they constructed the First and Second streets roundabouts, drivers use Clay St to bypass the roundabouts to get to California or First St on the other side of the Highway since it is only one way east of the highway. I just found out about this group and I want to say that I appreciate so much your concern and action regarding this big issue on our streets.

Erin Way near Saratoga
Drive
My chief concern is speeding in my residential neighborhood that has resulted in numerous accidents in recent years and caused significant property damage. The second concern I have is related to traffic downtown especially on the weekends which can be eased with one-way travel on certain streets like First and Third to ease the flow and make turns easier.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 187 of 264
2 Fuller Park & Laurel Street Speeding cars & trucks
Downtown Laurel I just moved downtown from Coombsville and the people who drive down Laurel are going at least 45 when I believe the speed limit is 25 Southeast Napa
Foster Road I live on Foster Road and people use the road as a speedway, going more than 60 mph in a residential neighborhood. I’ve heard similar complaints about Foothill, Westview, etc
East Ave./Alta Heights I have lived on East Avenue since 1994 and have been concerned about speeders on the street since day 1. I have petitioned the city for a stop sign at East and Highland and they have consistently refused due to some arcane regulation regarding stop signs. We do have two radar speed signs, but the one on the northbound side, by the park does not register for someone going over 35mph. My pleas for a new one have been ignored. 1057 STONYBROOK DR I live in the Browns Valley neighborhood, and one area that I think is ripe for serious and fatal accident, and could be easily remedied is the eastbound portion of Browns Valley Road, where it merges with Browns Valley road, near Dezerai court. Drivers heading east on the small sliver of road have a yield/merge with the main road, so are often looking to the left. I have seen multiple dangerous merges, and have also seen kids or others walking or riding their bike westbound around the corner where drivers are looking over their left shoulder for traffic. If the yield/merge was just curbed, and forcing drivers to make a left and come to complete stop (there is already a stop sign there) I think it would be make that area substantially safer and probably slow drivers down by 5-10 seconds. I would be glad to meet out at the location and explain more in person if my written description is hard to visualize what I am trying to describe.

Redwood and Linda Vista Red lights and stop signs are becoming irrelevant. No concern for pedestrians.

Westview drive You are spot on! I would love to get involved and help where I can. I tried to organize westview Drive and have quite a few email addresses of concerned neighbors. We had signs all the way up and down the street for a while until many were stolen. Please add browns valley road at westview for traffic control. A three-way stop would seem reasonable there.

Although, might need to discuss with one home owner that may be unfairly affected ??
Franklin Street between Ash
and Elm
I am furious with how fast people drive between the two stop signs at each cross street on my block. We've tried to get drivers to slow down when we are out and see it happen, but it only seems to encourage them to drive faster by our house. There are two homes with autistic adults living on the ATTACHMENT 8 Page 188 of 264
3 block as well as pets and children who are all at risk of being hit by one of these speeding drivers. It's not just regular vehicles, but Fed Ex, UPS and other large commercial. (2nd entry: Speeding cars not paying any attention to pets and pedestrians crossing streets. Cars race between stop signs on our street daily, with speeds well over 30mph.) trucks that drive much too fast as well.

Spring St./Alta Heights I live in a walking neighborhood without sidewalks. Drivers go too, fast don't even slowdown at intersections , and don't pay attention to what is going on around them.

Killburn Ave./Browns Valley People using our through streets like a highway. I'm on Kilburn Avenue and it's known as a through street when traffic is bad on Browns Valley and 1st st.

Sheridan Dr. The same as your article speeding, running stop signs, red light runners.

Tailgating when going down Jefferson and Soscol. No police enforcement.

Sheridan Dr. Constant speeders up and down this street. Gets a lot of traffic and people do not respect the speed limit have not for years. There are allot of kids in neighborhood.

Pine and Franklin I realize people are stressed during these times, they need to not speed and slow down and watch out for other drivers. They are driving way to fast!
Main Street between
Jackson/G
I have lived in Napa for six years now, coming from major cities around the country. I've never seen a lack of planning or attention to traffic issues like we have in Napa. Our crosswalks are dangerous. Traffic calming techniques are not used throughout the community. Some of our most loved neighborhoods have cars traveling at 40-50 mph around schools, family areas, and homes of seniors. I live on Main Street (Between Jackson/G); we desperately need additional four-way stops at this end of Main as those leaving downtown race to the light at Lincoln, usually over 40 mph. We have children walking to two schools here and MANY elders walking dogs.

It is really scary.
1645 SYCAMORE ST.

St Helena- Church/Pope
Streets
Just wondering if you would represent St. Helena streets as well. I’ve been trying to get the city to install a radar sign on our little street over the last few months with no response. We have little kids here and people use this as a side street off of Main to speed and large trucks come through here to service Safeway. Need help!
La Pintura Lane Traffic using La Pintura Lane as a shortcut between Solano and West Pueblo and going way to fast. There is lots of children playing on the end of Pintura and Morlan
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 189 of 264
4 Shetler Ave I feel that certain neighborhoods are not a concern if city officials when it comes to traffic control. I live in the southeast side of Napa. People speed down Shetler Ave heading east partly due to the lack of stop signs along Shetler.
2144 FIRST AVE In 2016 there was an increase in speed limits on county roads. Many people spoke before the BOS on how bad speeding was already. It fell on deaf ears, for the most part. We did stop them from changing the 1st Ave speed limit from 40mph to 50mph.

Browns Valley on Westview
Drive near Scenic.

Westfield Drive in Browns Valley has become like the freeway for those trying to get between Browns Valley Rd. and Redwood. Cars go flying bye at 50 to 60 mph constantly. The four way stop at Westview and Scenic is just not being observed. We lost a beloved pet who didn’t even bother to stop. We had him sequestered but he just played escape artist and got out without us knowing. He is just one of many on Westview. There are many children and elderly walk the street, and something needs to be done to make them slow down and obey traffic signs.

Southwest napa Friend's dog was hit and killed today by a hit and run driver.

Imola Ave near
school/Skyline Park
Back in June I was t-boned at the intersection of Soscol and Shetler by someone running a red light. We live on Imola Ave across from the school and Skyline Park. Because the street is straight before getting curvy at Skyline people driving this stretch tend to speed 50-60 miles. Back in 2012 a motorcyclist was killed right in front of our driveway. Some speed bumps would really help slow cars down.
2005 SHURTLEFF I live at Shurtleff @ Cayetano and would like to see a stop sign be placed at this intersection. We have a lot of pedestrian traffic as well as dog walkers that are in danger due to speeders. I would be the first to sign a petition if there was one.
283 South Montgomery
Street
Speeding in our neighborhood
Oak St I walk a lot with my dog. I see people speeding and racing. It makes me long for MORE potholes!
Browns Valley Way too much speeding. No full stops. Running red lights. RUDE. Drunk, impaired drivers. Unlicensed drivers.

Foster Road and Indiana I live on Foster Road and speeding on our street is beyond out of control, we need a concerted effort to get speeding under control on our city streets!
Yajome st near Lincoln. I live on yajome st south of Lincoln & people fly done this street. Just a week ago there was a dead KITTEN in front of my house. I TNR’d all the cats a neighbor left behind & all have been killed in yajome. Tons of dead squirrels. It’s heartbreaking & I get extremely anger yay EVERYONE speeding down yajome. I would like to help anyway possible.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 190 of 264
5 6524 VISTA DR I live in Yountville and we have a problem here too. Nobody seems to know that the speed limit in town is 25 mph. On a nearby cross street, I estimate that many drivers are going 40 to 50 mph and virtually nobody stops at the stop sign. Some drivers continue through the intersection without even slowing down. The Sheriff sometimes parks a car in view, but rarely issues citations. Should we simply accept this as the new normal? Central ave My street wide and hardly any stop signs have complained no help seen animals and kids in danger
California Village California Blvd Dragstrip
River park RiverPark Blvd is a long street to get to the end of the street. Cars think it's a race way. I back out of my driveway and suddenly a car out of nowhere almost hits me. Not to mention the drunk drivers from the fisherman park.

Wants to buy signs.

First
Street/Sycamore/Warren/Jef
ferson
The speeding problem is everywhere, if you travel on hwy 29 the speed is typically 70 to 80 MPH, when someone comes off the freeway at those speeds the perspective of speed is greatly altered, and I think they do not even realize how fast they are going. If you have been doing 0ver 70 MPH then even 30 MPH seems like a crawl. Part of the problem has to start there. Another problem is placement of the speed radar signs which warn people they are speeding with a flashing speed and slow down sign. On First Street the last time it was placed here it was just after leaving the round-about, everyone is just starting to speed up. If it were placed further down the street it would caution a more realistic speed. Often cars are speeding up between Sycamore and Warren to beat another car to the Jefferson light. I bought a radar gun and most are traveling at around 42 MPH, when traffic is going that fast the cars trying to beat another to the light are reaching speeds of 50 to 60 MPH, I have clock cars as fast 82 MPH on my street.

Kansas Ave We have little kids playing ,and cars,trucks,motorcycles ,fly back and forth.

Afraid an accident is very possible.
1920 CLAY ST I live on Clay Street between Jefferson and California. I bought my home in 1995. Clay has always been busier than neighborhood streets but the traffic was traveling within the speed limit. Our speed limit is 25 and I would say most traffic travels at 40+ and a lot of people travel at 50+. I see this in all the neighborhoods in Napa, especially in Old Town. I would be happy to help any way I can. I would be good in a support position, gathering signature, passing out information. Thank you and let's take back the power to ensure safety in our neighborhoods.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 191 of 264
6 Bel Aire Increase in speeding has been a concern. Some drivers don’t care. The lack of using turn signals is annoying, I’ve been behind police cars that don’t use them but the speeding through neighborhood streets is increasing and alarming.

Pueblo Ave/Valley Oak
High/Boys-Girls Club
I live on Pueblo ave , accross from the Boys and girls club and Valley Oak High School , traffic zooms up and down this street upwards of 50 miles Ann hour making it dangerous to get in and out of out residential driveways , cross the streets to cars or to the Stadium. I have also noticed as I follow the posted speed limits all through town there is always people right on my bumper who do not wish to , and it is all through out the city.

The problem is only getting worse , and seems to be the residents most of the time. Sometimes while in school zones I notice the parents going to pick up their own children doing the worst of the speeding ???? It's an on going issue and it's awful
Cayetano Drive Very worried about Shurtleff and Cayetano. We have a young child and a puppy. People consistently speed through this intersection. It needs stops signs.

McPherson/ Yajome I've been concerned for years about the corner of Yajome (neighbors refer to it as Yajome speedway) and Central where kids walk to school at McPherson elementary. Cars have been speeding up and down Yajome and Central for years, running the stop sign and drag racing in the middle of the night. It's just a matter of time before someone gets hit. (I've witnessed a neighbors dog get hit) Now with Pietro Place going in at Soscol and Central, with literally hundreds more cars to contend with, we are all really concerned and annoyed with speeding cars. I've requested attention from the city in the past with no response what so ever.

Old Town's St. John's I am concerned that the City of Napa has an ongoing and worsening safety issue of speeding cars in our residential neighborhoods.

Redwood Rd. Thank you for starting this. I see so much dangerous behavior from flooring it across straightaways that have homes and children living here, donuts, drag racing, and disturbance of peace with super loud cars it’s really dangerous and impacts our lifestyle. I’d like to see people slow down and also be more careful around bikers. We seem to have a big road rage problem here in Napa especially with trucks! I live on Redwood Road with Browns Valley as a cross street. I wish we had more police monitoring and also stop signs or bumps because people frequently speed down the mountain and up as if there aren’t homes. It here are 5 children who live across the street and many deer as well as neighborhood outdoor cats. Just in the past year two bikers were also hit by cars in this intersection. I see kids biking as well as skateboarders and it’s otherwise a beautiful and fun road to ride, walk, or drive on. So dangerous, I’d love to be able to walk on redwood and feel safe and not worry about anything.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 192 of 264
7 1605 F Street F Street is only letter street between Jefferson and California that has only one stop sign. Therefore is the most used residential letter street used as a "cut through" between those two streets. Vehicles, including commercial and industrial trucks, regularly speed. A speed bump properly placed could significantly both reduce speed and get the larger vehicles to use Lincoln Avenue which is designed for this use.
175 Jefferson St I am interested in signing a petition. Thank you for organizing this.

Speeding cars, some with modified loud exhausts are racing through our neighborhoods, endangering our children and pets. (2nd entry: Fuller Park Area is a problem. Jefferson Street from Laurel to Imola, people go much too fast and race at night.)
4002 Linda Vista Avenue Drivers routinely run the stop sign on Trower and Linda Vista - they don’t even slow down. We also have teenage kids who do donuts in the middle of Trower and Linda Vista late at night. There seems to be no oversight by our local police. Things are completely out of control.

Pinewood Dr. I leave on pinewood drive ( brown valley). This is a street who connect brown valley to trancas. We have a hill side that ppl coming from both end think they have to accelerate! I will love to have some speed bumps installed, We used to have some police checks time to time ,Don,t try to cross the street without looking, Beside the speed lately it seems that we are in Sears point raceway noise included,
Autumn Creek Ct. Distracted driving and people driving above the residential speed limit is a big concern of mine.

Old town Drivers don't stay within the speed limit. Slow down! 4416 Morse Ct The cars are speeding down neighborhood streets. It is only a matter of time before we have a pedestrian fatality in our neighborhood. We realize the police cannot patrol our area due to staffing. We need stop signs to slow people down.

Hayes Street @
Seminary/Brown
We would love to see speeding mitigation on Hayes street between Brown and Jefferson. It’s a straightaway and a cut through. Lots of new kids on the street too. Essentially all vehicles treat it as a drag strip.

Browns Valley
Big Ranch between
Trancas/Garfield
Excessive speeding on streets that have become more residential (ie Big Ranch Rd). We have had two dog hit/killed by cars traveling at excessive speed, as well as witnessed multiple accidents right in front of our house (including one that resulted in a car in our tree in our front yard). When school is in session regularly it is extremely dangerous, as Big Ranch serves as a major thoroughfare for all the young high school drivers from Vintage.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 193 of 264
8 Yajome and central I live at central and yajome. They drive both roads at 40 mph and above.

There is a school up at Pueblo and they still zoom past. Never a cop anywhere but downtown “for the tourist” . Now they are building a massive structure at soscal and central with no thought to traffic control and it is going to get used even more as cut thrus
Browns valley This is not the correct question. The correct question is regarding speed enforcement, either through police actions or passive speed reduction tools like speed humps.

Fuller Park speeding on Laurel to/from Jefferson, several serious accidents on Laurel/Jefferson-Patchett, we need to do a better job of protecting residents and reduce noise of large trucks and speeding cars. 1610 EL CENTRO AVE I live on El Centro and it's awful. Whether it's parents going to Willow or teens after school or people getting off the highway to get to Jefferson they are always speeding down El Centro at dangerous speeds.

Westwood Compared to other cities, it’s perhaps not bad. But still, there’s some crazy driving going on, quite often. I personally would like to see people driver slower in parking lots. Way too often I see cars driving as if they’re in regular traffic with speeds 25 mph or higher
1136 Kansas Ave People are driving too fast in residential areas. I wish we had certain streets with "rumble strips" or "bumps" to help remind those driving too fast to slow down. I would LOVE a sign! Happy to contribute! Old Town
I live in District 1, on Linda Vista Avenue, north of Trower. I read Bob Archibald's account of meeting with Napa’s Traffic Calming Unit. I had a very similar experience. A few years back, one of the neighbors up the street was hit by a car. (I believe the driver was not speeding but did not see the pedestrian and her dogs as she was crossing the street.) We have a lot of speeders on our street and this incident prompted me to email and call the traffic calming unit and request a meeting. A few weeks later, the officers and engineer came out and met me at the Las Flores community center. After a lengthy discussion, it was clear that the city has no jurisdiction for setting the traffic speed in our neighborhoods. These are mandated by the State of California. However, these kind and sincere gentlemen suggested surveys, etc. However, after questioning them, it became apparent that surveys can result in speeds being increased, not lowered. I was told that Linda Vista is considered an emergency route (or some term like that) and so there would be no possibility of changing or lowering the speed limit. The only workable solution they had for me was to get my neighbors to park on the street, since parked cars seem to slow down speeding motorists. In our neighborhood, at just about any time of day, people are running, biking and walking. Before Covid, there were ATTACHMENT 8 Page 194 of 264
9 fewer and fewer children each year riding their bikes to school. And, on weekends or after school, fewer children and parents on bicycles heading down to the end of Linda Vista to ride around to Dry Creek. In residential areas, 30 miles an hour is too fast. And it is way too fast when drivers push the speeds to 35 and 40 miles per hour. As Bob said, “the 2005 Traffic Calming process is vehicle-centric and it’s time to bring it up to date.” I support your efforts. I wouldn't be surprised if someone else in my neighborhood is involved and I'm just not aware. I look forward to hearing more.
120 Franklin St People are just driving way too fast! We have Shearer School a block away from us at 120 Franklin, and there is constant horn honking at the 2 Way Stop at Franklin and Ash St. Nobody seems to care anymore.

Linda Vista and west Lincoln I see reckless and speeding drivers all the time. Twice, I have seen drivers stop at a red light look around and go through the red light. The lack of any enforcement has emboldened drivers - especially young men.

West Pueblo Estates West Pueblo is a freeway, especially between Linda Vista and Solano where there are not consistent sidewalks. School children are often seen on the edges of streets going to/from School and/or the market. This is an accident waiting to happen.

Pine and Jefferson I have had 2 cars get hit by speeding motorists, one of which was totaled.

The most recent accident was a hit and run on Pine Street near Jefferson and I have always been alarmed at how fast motorists drive through.

Napa Lost Carneros area My wife and I live in Napa county, the carneros region by the School on Los Carneros. It's a shortcut road between cuttings wharf and the main highway and we have had several incidents, hit cats, hit dogs, near misses on humans, rammed garbage truck, rolled over stop signs, mailboxes and sideshow events. The speed limit is newly posted at 40 down from 45 and we would love to see is at 35. There are signs at three spots showing a pedestrian and the 25 mph limit which no one ever adheres to. We have asked Brad W. and the CHP to help but they say that unless there is a more recent traffic study their hands are tied. Both Saintsbury and Hyde wineries have been granted huge increases in the number of visitors they might be allowed to have at their wineries, which will likely increase the danger to pedestrians and cyclists. What have you learned in your fight for safer streets that might be helpful to our situation out here.

Vichy Home owner on Vichy - many motorists treat this rural street like throughway - up to 50 mph through the turns over the bridge 145 Coombs Street I live on Coombs Street next to the Kiwanis ball field. It is like a speedway...

Especially now that there is less traffic density because of covid people are going faster. I have dogs and I'm always super vigilant that they don't end ATTACHMENT 8 Page 195 of 264
10 up in the street. it's amazing to me that the speed limit is 25 and nothing is ever done to enforce it.

Big Ranch Rd -.2 mile north
of Trancas
I live on big Ranch Road just north of Trancas about .2 mile. I have noticed in the last few years that it is become insane, people pass on the double yellow lines when you’re trying to make a right turn into a driveway or street or you’re just happen to be driving too slow for them I guess. I drive the speed limit. My mailbox is on big ranch and it is scary getting my mail! Kent Street/Foster/Old
Sonoma
Cars are speeding through our neighborhood constantly.

Off by Justin Siena
Clay cross street Seymour My cinco neighbors are concerned about the change in the traffic on Clay Street. It seems that more cars are using this street and traveling at high speeds. (2nd entry: Traffic on Clay increased after roundabouts were installed)
Terrace/Shurtleff Too many speeding and aggressive drivers in Napa.

Here is the petition I have started: http://chng.it/KRdMRGxNjW. Here is the Nextdoor post with comments:
https://nextdoor.com/p/MNLCmB4QrrzY?utm_source=share&extras=ODI4 NDYwMg== From my conversation with Maureen, here are the items I will work on this week and next week: Make a draft letter for the Register and officials for review. Prepare a power point draft for a written supplement for City Council. Submit a request for public comment at City Council Meeting. Get copy of police report of the latest accident, and ask who the follow up officers are, what has been done since that accident Find out how many accidents have occurred in the intersection in the past Am I missing anything? I would love to get involved in anything that I am able to attend! I am excited!
Browns Valley/ Broadmoor
Subdivision
Exceeding speed limits and rolling thru stop signs!
1024 Austin Way People speed and tailgate excessively!!! Average speed on Soscol is 50! I avoid that area when possible. Jefferson most people are at 40! Speed limit on my street is 25 and most go about 35 to 40.

Downtown Napa Traffic moving too fast on downtown core streets with lots of pedestrians.

As well as people not stopping at the stop sign in front of my home, at the intersection of Coombs & Oak Streets
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 196 of 264
11 Eggleston Street/St. John Speeding in residential areas, speeding down my one-way street in the wrong direction (FREQUENTLY-as in daily-on my street). Cars also speed down the street going the correct direction. Eggleston Street is very neglected in several ways that impacts driving safety in relation to speeding: Parking is allowed 24/7 on both sides of the narrow street which makes an extremely narrow area of the street drivable. Honestly, I’m not sure how this parking policy was ever approved. Also, there are no redpainted curbs, so cars park into driveways, which makes pulling into the street from the driveway very dangerous. I’ve narrowly missed being hit in the morning on my way to work more times than I can count during the two years since I purchased my home here. I know many, many neighborhoods are impacted by speeding, and I would like to be a part of the solution! Thank youBrowns Valley Speeding on Buhman Ave in both directions at Buhman Court. Everyday all day! Many people have almost gotten hit as well as pets! Oak St between
Franklin/Randolph
The speeding and the engine revving hot rod noise
Summit ave I live on summit ave The drivers speed on our one way streets all the time.

Where can I get a sign.

Main St at Jackson I would like to have a sign!
Foothill Blvd, @ Pine Street Speeding vehicles are also a concern here in my Foothill neighborhood @ Pine and Freeway Drive. Recently a leashed dog was killed in a crosswalk, accompanied by its owner. The car slowed as it approached the crosswalk and then sped up turning right onto Freeway Drive, hitting the dog. Many children use that walkway to and from Harvest Middle School. I hold my breath every time I hear a motor being gunned.

Terrace Shurtleff
neighborhood
The speeds are ridiculous on little neighborhood streets. People routinely drive 40-50 in 25-30 mph zones. We walk every morning, usually Shurtleff to Camille Park or up Terrace, and crossing the street is treacherous. There are hills on Terrace that you can't see over, and turns on Shurtleff you can't see around. It's very scary to cross the street. Also, just driving around town the number of people running red lights is getting to be it's own pandemic. Ever since they took red light cameras down people don't think there's any enforcement.
1701 Sierra Ave We have been working to develop awareness in our Bel Aire neighborhood as well with a Bel Aire-association of sorts but is in its absolute infant stage with interest, discussion among many, 1 meeting between 3 families in particular. It would be great to join forces with a Napa-wide group.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 197 of 264
12 Hagen Rd/Olive Hill Rd We live in unincorporated Napa County, Hagen Road/Olive Hill. Speed Limit posted is 35 however constant excessive speeding (50/60 in a 35) in our neighborhood where many elderly take walks with pets and deer are abundant. It seems like we are out of town so no police presence allows unfettered excessive speeding.

Southwest Napa Speeding; unsafe crosswalks; noise;
Westview Drive Someone mowed down our cat at high speed last year on Westview Drive.

There is a park across the street that I am scared to allow my son to go to on his own because of speeding cars. I was almost hit putting the garbage cans out.

Browns Valley I live near the corner of Brown’s Valley Road and Westview. We often witness drivers speeding down Brown’s Valley Road and Westview, where there are many children.

Huntington Ct/Browns Valley
Rd
My house backs up to Browns Valley Rd… we hear loud, speeding cars and trucks all hours of the day and night. Many of my neighbors have lost pets to these reckless drivers. They often floor the gas right near my house because it’s a smooth straightaway between the crosswalks at Thompson and the market. I’ve also seen an increase in large diesel utility vehicles using Browns Valley Rd as a thoroughfare.

Browns Valley I have 4 young children and pets, distracted and speeding drivers are our concern.

Yes I am still interested, if you have Venmo I can forward 250.00 to you. If I’m up to it next week I will work on the sponsorships. I’ll talk to you soon.

Browns Valley near West
Pueblo
We live in Browns Valley near West Pueblo and EVERY evening around 9- 11pm or later, there are a few cars / vehicles racing with very loud engine and muffler noise. Obviously there is no traffic enforcement, which is a shame. This is a neighborhood of working families, and the police should be doing their jobs to help us with this common widespread problem.

Buhman Ct./Buhman Ave Traffic on Buhman Ave is out of control as people race up and down the hill by the horse hillside and NEVER SLOW DOWN when the Speed limit changes from 40 to 30 or even going past the solar speed sign. And even though it was not the cause of the child getting hit and killed near Browns Valley Elementary, if there was more of a speed or traffic control system, there might have been enough seconds for his mother to grab him out of the street.

Mount George Ave/Olive Hill
Lane
We see drivers daily speeding on streets in Napa.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 198 of 264
13 Oak Street Would love to see the traffic on Oak Street between Jefferson and California slow down - literally referred to as The Oak Street Speedway - how can we petition to get one of those flashing lights showing your speed? I think they help.

Randolph x Oak Much too fast in our neighborhood. Dangerous! Hennessy & Davis Street We live at the intersection of Hennessy and Davis near Coombsville cemetery and every year we have multiple accidents at this corner. Police come and do a minimal report taking followed by no investigation of hit and runs. No one has been killed so far but I imagine even if they were the police response would be the same — inadequate. After reading the article in the register about Attempts to get the city to take action on Jefferson Street, I guess the solution is political. Who holds the power? Who is afraid of losing their power if the people of Napa are unhappy about the lack of police response to our concerns?
ABC Streets In the morning when I walk, dark this time of year, people drive fast b/c there is no traffic and don’t stop at stop signs.

ABC streets, Lincoln @
California area
Speed, exhibition of speed down residential streets... My street! E street.

The person that sets/ controls the lights should be audited. People avoid main Street to because they hold you up.

Post speeding signs in neighborhoods that blink slow down.

Laredo St./Patton Ave Napa residential streets are being over runned by speeders and stop sign runners. I lived in Napa my whole life and every year it’s getting worse.

Erin Way/Saratoga Dr. No one follows the speed limits in Napa and there is no speed enforcement. During Covid lockdown there were comments about taxes possibly needing to be increased. My first thought was why not just enforce speed limits and fine those speeding. This approach could reduce taxes rather than raise them! Our address is Erin Way and the cross street is Saratoga Drive. The speed limit is 25, but cars frequently drive 40 mph or higher on Saratoga DR. We are starting to see more speeding on Erin Way when using it as a shortcut through the neighborhood.

Abajo It’s simple, speed zones ought to matter. They save lives.

El Centro Ave./Big Ranch Rd. People go nearly double the speed limit on my street constantly. It terrifies me because we are close to Vintage High School so we have a lot of kids in our neighborhood. Also a lot of elderly walk their dogs on our street and can’t cross the street in a fast manner. We have neighborhood cats that cross the street often and I have dogs that I would be absolutely devastated if somehow they got out and got hit by a fast car. Lives are constantly at risk because of these cars going way too fast. I have ATTACHMENT 8 Page 199 of 264
14 contacted the police department several times regarding this but they never sit on my street to catch the fast drivers.

Coombs. Division. Oak. Speeding on Coombs. From Division to imola. Children. Animals. Adults.

Safety. Noise and revving engines. Ability to back out of driveway. Ability to turn onto street safely in old town. (2nd entry: I live on Coombs between Division and Oak, it is a raceway for cars, particularly going South to Imola.

The crazies are very active 10 pm - 12 pm and 4:30 am - 7 am. This includes: motorcycles, trucks, cars with loud mufflers and engines and radios. Concerns: Getting run over, getting hit trying to get out of my driveway, cats run over, dog run over, squirrels run over, company/visitors getting hit coming out of driveway, getting any sleep at night. Solutions:
speed bumps, online radar/tickets, more stop signs, ways to take pictures/submission/warnings, red curbs near corners so you can see traffic approaching due to more clearance span.)
Terrace & Shurtleff The traffic and speed along Shurtleff between Terrace and Cayetano is too much. There are deer that cross for the creek, kids walking home from school, pedestrians, dog walkers… the noise from the speeding cars is also irritating to say the least. At night cars don’t stop at the stop signs and blow right through. It seems the flashing speed signs would be a start to help this. They’ve put these in on East Ave in Alta Heights. Thank you for organizing and bringing attention to this.
2468 Vine Hill Dr I've lived on Vine Hill Dr for 47 years- we're a thoroughfare for many travelling from the area. - Dry Creek Rd to Linda Vista. I live on a slight curve in the road and people speed by all the time. It has become a raceway! I even bought a sign for the yard "Slow Down - This IS not a raceway" but people just don't care about neighborhoods anymore! Eva Street at S. Jefferson Speeding is a constant issue here.

South Napa People drive 50mph down our street!!
3313 Homestead Ct Safety and generate quiet enjoyment - Alta Heights I’m concerned about the increasing speed in the neighborhoods. It appears drivers have no concern as I seldom see police units on patrol. I also think that the number of unmoved cars/ vehicles, etc. along city streets is increasing. These vehicles make it easy for speeders to travel undetected, but cause obstructed views for pedestrians, merging traffic, etc.

Baxter Ave right behind the
Bel Aire plaza
1st Street just west of
Jefferson
I moved to Napa in April 2020, live on 1st Street just west of Jefferson. I love it here, but I was a bit astounded by the speeding on 1st Street and I would like to work positively to help combat the speeding. I am afraid my car will be hit one day when I pull out of my driveway.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 200 of 264
15 Stadium Avenue People go 15 miles or more over speed limits, racing each other, knowing they get away with it. They tail you if you even go five over the limit- and then pass me Daily going the wrong way in opposing traffic. Got worse these last few months when everyone should be slowing down. I like traffic because it forces slowness.

Franklin St. Many driving way too fast through residential streets 2191 West Park Ave My most immediate concern is the street I live on. As on so many other straight-shot, long-stretch streets, motorists SPEED - far exceeding the posted speed limit. In addition to pets, squirrels, and pedestrians forced to walk on the street due to a lack of sidewalks, there are deer and other wildlife that come out from the nearby meadow areas. There is one 25 MPH speed limit sign at the intersection of W. Park and Solano Ave, BUT it is mostly obscured by vegetation and is the only indication of the speed limit on the street. I have been tempted to spray paint "slow to 25" on the street but don't want to be punished. Very rarely (though not once this year) a speed monitoring device has been positioned on the street for ONE 24 hour period - if that! Hardly enough to get motorists' attention. There is so much frustration in the city of Napa about this issue and NO action by police or city government officials - only excuses. Maybe the new mayor will shake things up.

Oak St/Fuller Park We have little children in our neighborhood and lots of cats running around plus Fuller Park down the street. People are driving way, way too fast.

Kent St. People who cut thru on Kent- speed down the street full of kids and pets and turn on to pickwick to old Sonoma rd- all to avoid the extra minutes on Foster. They could simply close off Kent and that would solve the problem.

Salvador, Summerfield,
Jefferson
Old town It’s worse on Calistoga and Jefferson Streets- we had six parked cars hit when somebody turned the corner from Calistoga St.,onto Jefferson St., and the big loud trucks Rev their motors up in front of the apartment building where I live. it’s been awful some think it’s a speedway. I’d say 90% of traffic speed up and down Jefferson Street, especially heading north on Jefferson
3341 Rohlffs Way Main Street is like a freeway! What can be done to slow things down along there?
Elm St. I live across from Shearer School and drivers think Elm Street is a freeway and they just race their cars as they please and as fast as they can.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 201 of 264
16 2415 W Pueblo Ave I live on West Pueblo west of Linda Vista. Constantly we have cars going way over the speed limit of 25 MPH. It is dangerous to the children, elderly and pets in our neighborhood. Our cat was killed by a car. I fear for the elderly that are crossing the street from Rolfe's Manor. The throughway to Pine Wood is creating most of the problem. I think the frontage road along Highway 29 needs to be completed from Lincoln to 1st St.

Coombsville People drive too fast,especially on residential areas West Pueblo We have a runway on West Pueblo. Half the street is 30 and the other half is 25. I actually complained so much they changed the area from Linda Vista west to the bridge to 25 about a year ago. We live across from Rholffs Manor, the seniors are afraid to cross, even with the speed limit change because very few go 25. They drive more like 35 to 60.
2117 First St. We live on First St and cars race by every day. I would like a sign for our yard please!
837 Marina Dr Slow down Imola. Slow down Jefferson south of 1st St all the way to the end.

Westview drive I really want to get involved! I tried to organize Westview Drive preCOVID. We had "Slow Down" signs all down the street and it worked for a while. It is definitely about awareness, but more about respect... or lack there of. Browns Valley is a mess with speed and disrespect. I also drop a child off at Vintage every morning and am horrified by speeds on Willis Drive. (2nd Message: Please do. I am a worker bee and passionate about trying to help on this. I am willing to make a donation as well and will try to arrange more. )
Laurel St/Old town Recently my 87 yo neighbor was hit by a pickup in front of Nations as she legally crossed 3rd in a crosswalk. Thankfully she is recovering but drivers should slow down.

La Pintura Lane/Morlan We live off of west Pueblo near solano and the speeding is a major issue.

With three kids who love to ride bikes and as a family on a quieter street we are concerned. We cannot let the kids ride alone because people utilize west Pueblo like a highway. Also, many cars short cut through our street without regard for the kids playing or even staying anywhere near the speed limit. We would love for speed bumps to be placed as well as sidewalks to be filled in near La Pintura Lane.

Laurel St./Downtown Napa I live on Laurel Street and cars are regulars racing around the park. There is also no cross walk on Seminary and 3rd and cars fly by..never even think about slowing so someone can cross. I would like slower traffic and crosswalks in Napa with flashing lights and flags
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 202 of 264
17 Alphabet streets Alphabet streets especially G st is a speed way from Ca Blvd to Yahome Delivery trucks like the post office and Amazon as well as fast cars with the mufflers removed , speed all around the area.

Off of Terrace I walk with my children frequently. In my neighborhoods we have lack of sidewalks, coupled with speeding and distraction it is unsafe for my children to walk a short distance a lone.

West park We live at n west park -cars speed down our street-sadly many years ago a child was killed by a car on our street- near the school-in spite of this there are no extra signs or precautions to go the speed limit Coombs Street I have lived on Coombs St. for 25 years and have never experienced the volume of high speed cars coming through our neighborhood. I am truly concerned about the safety of those who live on Coombs and on other streets in Napa.

River park Traffic on second and river park blvd
East avenue in ALTAHEIGHTS We live on East Avenue and traffic is horrendous especially during school hours people go way over 25 miles an hour and don’t stop at the crosswalks while we’re in them.

East Imola People driving too fast. Distracted, cell phones. Speeding drivers on East Imola, Soscol to Skyline Park.
off Lone Oak As a frequent bicyclist I worry about getting hit by speeding cars. I take all precautions when riding but have been yelled at for not being in a bike lane when there isn't one. I live off Lone Oak, speed limit is 25MPH but many cars are often going 35 MPH or much higher. Speed bumps on this street would certainly slow down the speeders!
Beecham st. Cross street
Pueblo
Our street in the last couple years has slowly became a more family/kid populated area. Unfortunately, people are still driving like its all adults here. Part of the problem is that we are off Pueblo, so people zoom on Pueblo turn onto our street and continue their speed until they reach Windsor ct. So essentially they see it as an extension of Pueblo. We would like to see that changed. We lost our cat(actually our neighbors—but it chose us, haha) about 2 years ago because of a car driving too fast. It was devastating to my son. I was thankful it wasnt a child. I have since bought a green child flag statue for when my kids play in the adjacent court.

Beecham st transitions into Windsor court, a lot of those residents fly down our street, as they dont view it as their own. Would love to create an atmosphere of safety and respect in regards of speeding.

Jefferson Street cross street
El Capitain
I live on Jefferson Street and there are so many accidents, near accidents, and speeding....it is terrible and not safe.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 203 of 264
18 Monticello park People driving to fast. My streets are generally fine. But folks drive too fast on the county roads nearby.

Rubicon St. between
Jefferson/Baxter
People speed in residential areas and are not aware of their surroundings when driving. I am concerned with the high number of preventable accidents due to speed. People are in such a hurry and fail to notice pedestrians and pets. There are cars speeding down our street constantly to avoid the lights on Trancas and going to and from the shopping center.

Our street has no stop signs so people just race down it. Many pets have been hit and killed and a few pedestrians have been injured trying to cross Jefferson in the crosswalk.

Hennessy Davis There are two unregulated corners that I’ve contacted the city about several times. On Hennessy St between Coombsville and Silverado there are no stop signs at all at Davis and Linnell. People speed down Hennessy and don’t realize there are no stop signs where the other streets cross. It’s just a matter of time before someone gets killed there. Thanks for your attention.

Browns Valley Concerned about our kids on our current street in Browns Valley.

Palmer Street Speeding in old town neighborhoods. Insufficient number of crosswalks 25 mph limit should be lowered. (2nd entry: Cars and trucks speed up to 60 mph on our 1 1/2 block long Palmer St, and I don't know what to do about it. Some use it as some kind of short cut.)
Coronado Ave The excessive speed out our street is frightening.

Milton Road Speeding cars on streets where families live and walk with their children, dogs, and friends! Getting your mail and taking out your garbage can be dangerous as well.

Randolph and Oak. I live in Old Town and people speed, run stop signs and don't stop for pedestrians. It has gotten notably worse in the last couple of years.

Coombsville Speeding, distracted driving, lack of courtesy towards bikes and pedestrians
4401 Stillson Street I live at the corner of Cullpepper and Stillson, this is a cut through street for those neighborhoods west of Highway 29. We also live near Justin Sienna High school so kids driving to and from school use this street also. I was able to get the city to install speed limit signs and post a children playing sign for the Los Flores playground and community center at the corner.

This has done little to slow down residents that frequent the park, school and access to Dry Creek road. I'd like to participate in your project to bring attention to this local problem.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 204 of 264
19 Trower Ave and Lloyd Drive I have a nine year old daughter and I really feel for her safety. I am afraid to let her ride her bike in our neighborhood because of the reckless drivers.

At night it gets especially bad...you can hear cars racing and burning rubber down Trower Avenue. Also we often walk to Alston Park, and crossing Dry Creek Rd at Trower can be very dangerous as people drive ridiculously fast on Dry Creek Rd.

First St. Speeding on First St Exiting roundabout
St John's District Yajome and Jackson needs a 4 way stop. I am concerned in general.

Jefferson between Old
Sonoma and Imola
Speeding in neighborhood streets
Fuller Park I just moved downtown right by the park and work out of my house. The speeding cars up Laurel Street are nonstop. I'd say over 80% of the cars do not come to a stop at the intersection of Laurel and Jefferson. It's horrible, and people are getting hurt. It's got to stop! I would love to be involved, my cell is 707-479-8422. (I'm the one who started the NextDoor thread this week about asking people to attend the city council meeting) Jefferson St, south of Old
Sonoma
I live on Jefferson St between Old Sonoma and Imola, and people routinely drive much faster than the 35 mph limit. We’ve had a number of accidents in recent years right in front of my house.
590 Randolph Too many pedestrians, not enough stop signs. No enforcement on transients braking the posted limits and overnight parking. This has been a problem for years, and has recently extremely dangerous.

D street and York street People drive way to fast down York street and it is treated as a by pass freeway from California to Jefferson. We complained to the City and they didn’t even acknowledge our complaint, told us to call the police. D street and York street. Desperately needs a stop sign in order to slow people down.

Sycamore St There is evident dangerous drivers in Napa that must be held accountable if no prevention is to be considered... shouldn't be "ex post facto" we pay way too much local taxes to live in 😨
Trower/Vintage High Concerned about Jefferson between Trancas and Trower to calm down traffic. Also concerned about trucks and car racing and burnouts and side shows on Trower in front of Vintage High. Lots of noise and burning rubber smell as well as fireworks and just reckless people endangering safety and causing noise.

Trower/Linda Vista Fast and distracted drivers
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 205 of 264
20 Dover St nearby Redwood
Middle School,
I live on Dover Speedway, excuse me, Dover Street. Several vehicles and a few motorcycles daily exceed 50 MPH. We have families with small children and many pets on the street. It is used as a main thoroughfare for a few "hot rodders" off of Norfolk and the Northwood Elementary & Redwood middles schools kids. The schools and the two retirement establishments around the corner on Redwood Road add to increased pedestrian traffic with children and many senior citizens. 318 S Jefferson St Living on S Jefferson St aka Alternate Hwy 29 is simply out of control ie speeds are commonly 42-53 mph in a 30 mph speed zone.

Alta heights Speeding in Alta Heights as well as large commercial and big rigs driving down East Ave, speeding busses, etc. Several neighbors years ago tried to have speed tables installed however we were told East Ave is a “collector “ street and can’t have speed tables. I’d like to see signage at the north and south ends that indicate no commercial vehicles (and/or a weight restriction…). I’d also like to see a sign installed in the center of the crosswalk at Ester Deaver park that we we’re promised to get during Peter Mott’s tenure on the city council .
2510 Old Sonoma Road Reckless speeds threatening pedestrians Tokay Drive / Young Ave. Trower Ave. West from Solano Ave. to Dry Creek. Needs more police presence and slow down permanent sonar signs.
715 Greenbach Street We deal everyday with speeders and one-way violators on our street (Greenbach) due to the subdivision Sheveland Ranch that was built about 15 years ago and has been a constant problem ever since and the City will not address the issue no matter how vocal we get! I live on Greenbach Street where there is a high concern for speeders through our neighborhood!(2nd separate entry: I have been trying for 17 years to get the City to do something about the problem but you can't put a bandaid on a gaping wound. I was wondering if there is any way that we could document all the speeding and one-way violations on Greenbach Street !! I am willing to purchase a radar gun to reveal the true speeds on our street!! The city council is well aware of the problem but never does anything about it. ) ((3rd Entry: Ever since the city opened our street to the huge Sheveland Ranch neighborhood there is constant speeding at a high rate on our street as you come around the turn on street it is almost a 1/4 mile straight shot into Sheveland Ranch. Greenback turns into a one way IN only to the Ranch project which is violated constantly by SR residents who come out at a high rate of speed!!))
Silverado Trail/Sheridan Speeding is rampant on every street I use. It’s unsafe for anyone walking including children and pets. I live off Silverado Trail near Sheridan. I take walks in Alta Heights with my sisters and our dogs. As soon as we hear a car coming we move over as much as possible and hope for the best. Some ATTACHMENT 8 Page 206 of 264
21 people slow down upon seeing our death stares but not all. The number of trucks going to and fro is endless.

Coombsville Traffic is too fast for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. Downtown streets, ie Coombs needs speed bumps. Many streets ie Terrace does not have a continuous sidewalk
La Grande and Vichy It’s becoming unsafe. People do not respect the speed limits.

Clay St./The Creek Clay St has become the 101 of Napa, ever since the roundabouts were completed. The speed is ridiculous. Drivers prefer to use Clay instead of Second St. We really need attention on Clay. It is so unsafe. We are also appalled when walking in crosswalks how irritated/inpatient drivers are.

Also witnessed a women getting hit on Jefferson at Clay.

Hennessy Drive -
Coombsville
Speeding in neighborhoods and the lack of stop signs concern me not only when I am driving but also walking my dog.
317 Coombs Street I live on Coombs Street, do I need to say more? Every day I fear my brave cat will venture into the street and be another victim of the individuals who race down my street. I would be glad to post a sign in my front yard.

How do I get one? I intend to attend the City Council meeting December 7th to support the others speaking out about the necessity to do something about the safety of our neighborhoods.

Montclair and Beard Someone posted on Facebook on an article about a speed bump West Lincoln/England Lane Too many people driving too fast. These our the streets of our children, pets and families and its gotten out of hand. West Lincoln is like a highway and has no sidewalks to walk on and no bike lanes. So frustrating! 2823 Cypress Street
Main Street between
Lincoln/Pueblo
Excessive speeding on residential streets
Coombsville Road, below
Wild Horse Valley
Hi, I definitely agree with your goals! I live out in the Coombsville area below the big hill going up to Wild Horse Valley where people often speed both up and down the road. We’ve had to deal with this for 35 years, raising 2 kids. Is there a group for the county with an outreach plan? Thanks
1431 Pine Street Speeding and driving through stop sign’s. (2nd entry: I live two doors down from Shearer School and Pine street has progressively turned into a raceway.)
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 207 of 264
22 Randolph/Ash I live on the corner of Randolph and Ash. 1) Cars are constantly speeding North and South on Randolph St. 2) I have witnessed on several accounts cars rushing through the stop sign on Ash St. without stopping, making Uturns in the intersection to find parking when the Chavez Food Truck is at the A1 Market on Coombs St. This goes on every Monday through Saturday. I have addressed this with the owners of A-1 Market out of the concern for the families and children that live next door to this market.

Jefferson and Elm I have read too many articles about hit and runs of pets and close calls with children. There are still intersections in Napa with no stop signs at all and it seems the only way to get things changed is if a human is hurt or killed. We also recently had traffic detoured to our street around construction on Jefferson and Old Sonoma road and I was shocked at how fast people were driving on our tiny little street. There is so much construction happening in Napa, we can't be the only tiny little street with cars treating it like a highway.

Main and Vallejo My biggest concern is speeding. Many countries and many places in the US use "speed bumps" or "speed humps". I think this is a good low cost way to slow traffic. My secondary concern is the volume of traffic. New housing continues to get built (which is needed) but there is no corresponding investment in roadways. Soon it will take as long to get out of Napa as it does San Francisco.

Roosevelt St The cars race up and down Roosevelt all day long, I have lived here for 15 years and the speeding traffic had gotten worse. I worry for the bike riders and walkers(the sidewalk is narrow and many folks walk in the street.

Please respect our neighborhood and SLOW DOWN.

West hillside Our hilly neighborhood enjoys many hearing and vision impaired elderly retirees, many severely handicapped. Families with children and pets all walk in the streets. There is ample wildlife all day and night. We have speeders and sometime racers, construction workers hurrying to their jobs and racing to get home and many unknown vehicles racing down East Street at all hours. The city tried local traffic circles and they made driving and walking worse, so were We have asked for speed reduction and warning signs and were denied. Many also called the PD to report drivers of dangerous interest without response. Some neighbors are sometimes too intimidated to come out of their homes as they could not physically avoid a speeding vehicle. thankfully removed. We will continue neighborhood efforts to slow traffic that have been helpful. We’d like to design something specific for our needs.

Alphabet streets Comments on Napa Register Facebook post about removal of unofficial speed bump
Program Coordinator at the Napa County Bicycle Coalition, ATTACHMENT 8 Page 208 of 264
23 Pinewood Drive/Browns
Valley
I live on Pinewood and am so frustrated with speeding drivers! Riverside Dr I have cars traveling down the side street I live on at up to 70 mph 1901 York Street, corner of E
Street
Napa county communities are overly dependent on travel by private vehicles. The healthiest and least dangerous or costly mode of travel, walking, has very low priority with Napa city government. Opportunities to improve safety and convenience for walkers are typically ignored or left unfulfilled. One example is the pathway under the freeway on north side Napa Creek a short distance from the vehicle overpass carrying First Street.

Whereas vehicle traffic recently got a major reform with the nearby threering roundabout system, the pathway remains entirely undeveloped because dependent on funding by a housing development (at California Blvd and D Street Alley) which was abandoned by the developer before any work began. This muddy pathway is used by many students of Napa highschool walking from the neighborhood south and west of the Premium Outlets shopping center.

When Premium Outlets was developed it blocked convenient walking access from that neighborhood to First Street and eventually Napa highschool. Students now need to detour around the large complex. I have more than once proposed to city officials creation of a walking-and-bicycleonly path from Bremen Court (which runs north from Kilburn Avenue just west of the Outlets) onto Freeway Drive near the lighted-signal at First Street via a right-of-way from the end of Bremen Ct.

Alta Heights We live next to Alta Heights and need the people coming down from Lakeview to slow down
backs up to
Hillcrest/Silverado Resort
Our house backs up to Hillcrest on the Silverado Resort property. There are electronic speed alert signs but they are ignored. It is typical for cars and trucks to travel this residential street at speed in excess of 45 miles per hour. It is a real problem but all those to whom I have notified and brought to their attention all I get is I know and a shrug of the shoulders. Very exasperating. Thanks for shining a light on this far to common problem.

Atlas Peak Road I recently visited Europe where 30 kph (19 mph) speed limit in residential areas is the norm, particularly Germany and the Netherlands. Factors that result in a much higher share for walking, bicycling and transit use include much narrower streets on average in residential areas, higher residential densities, and measures to divert and keep through traffic on the main streets. In the U.S., removing a lot of pavement and giving the freed space to local residents for green space, flower and vegetable gardens, play space for children, etc. makes a lot of sense. One resource I greatly recommend is strongtowns.org, which has a lot of great material about how far too much pavement and other infrastructure has been provided in ATTACHMENT 8 Page 209 of 264
24 U.S. urban areas, to the point that we cannot afford to maintain it all, and how most of it does not pay economically, nor is economically sustainable.

Big Ranch/Villa/Trancas There is a crosswalk on trancas at Valverde which is a faded crosswalk painted on the street. It’s an essential crosswalk for walkers to get to shopping and medical offices. There are no signs or signals at eye level so drivers don’t notice it. It’s very hard for a pedestrian to get across as only a few astute drivers acknowledge it even if a person is standing in it. All the half conscious drivers blow through it.

Shurtleff Ave Too fast near the Shurtleff Dog park. My friend’s dog was run over (Hit and Run). Shurtleff Ave should have speed bumps for the school and the park. 1100 legion ave Everyone going 50+ thru residential areas...and reading every other day of some jackass flipping a car on a tight neighborhood street.

Wine Country Avenue/Linda
Vista
Our primary concern is Wine Country Avenue (the old West Salvador Avenue) off of highway 29, used to be country. There has been an escalating problem with increased traffic and people speeding. Now with the new construction of houses being built at the intersection of Wine Country Avenue and Linda Vista, it is worse than ever. The speed limit on this street is 35 mph, which is not enforced. With the increased traffic, speeding, and big rigs brought in by all the construction, not only do people need to Slow Down, the legal speed limit needs to be lowered to 25 mph, and enforced. Speeding on Linda Vista (especially north of Wine Country Avenue) and speeding on Dry Creek Road continue to be a big problem and has been for far too many years now.

Crestview Way/Browns
Valley
We used to live on Lantana Lane, near Vintage High. Some drivers used it like a race track.

Main Street between
Pueblo/Central
Way too many drivers speeding on side streets. Especially between Pueblo and Central on both Main Street and Adrian Street. Also, modifying exhaust systems to make the car extremely loud and very obnoxious to ALL neighborhoods.

I would like to purchase two lawn sighs please
1 st street- west of Jefferson I live on First street. Ever since it has become a one way into downtown (30 mph) is not adhered to. I think that there needs to be an effort to slow the traffic down as they enter the downtown area. If the light at Jefferson and 1st is green they speed to get through sometimes I would guess 50 mph can be the norm. Would like to get updated on what this group can do to slow the traffic throughout Napa.

Coombs My street is a 25 mph zone. Cars go 35, 40, 50
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 210 of 264
25 1052 Vassar Dr. How can I help you? Not too many problems in our area. Sometimes on Broadmoor there is a speeder. As there are limited outlets traffic does not find our neighborhood a short cut. But maybe we could help in other areas.

Third St between
California/Seymour
We recently moved to a house on Third Street and the speed of the traffic (especially during commuting hours) is excessive and dangerous.

Glenwood/alphabet streets I live on a straightaway and people try to see how fast they can go. There are too many pets and kids for that behavior!
Laurel St./Westwood Speeding through residential streets. I live on laurel st below Westwood hills. 3-4 times a week late at night or sometimes around 4 am there are cars driving at speeds close 80mph plus down my street. We also have some that drives down our street honking before they make the corner towards browns valley road. It is unbelievable how fast these cars come down laurel from browns valley road
Lexington Court at Shurtleft I live off of Shurtleft, near Terrace. Ever since they opened Shurtleft to the Trail people are driving 35-50mph past my house. We have families, kids on bikes, deer, dogs & cats in jeopardy to cross the road. In fact at Shurtleft & Terrace there should be a button for a flashing crosswalk.

Alta Heights I live in Alta Heights,,, need I say more.. Tired of drivers doing 45 mph down our streets!
1440 First St. Wants 2 signs.

Pine Street and Franklin Speeding
1915 Georgia St between E/F
Streets
I saw your post via NextDoor and applaud your efforts. I’m wondering if your efforts include not only slowing down traffic but prosecuting the many red light running & stop sign running among us? I live in the Alphabet Streets, walk often with my dog to many surrounding neighborhoods in Napa. I have previously reported to public works & the police the truly dangerous intersection of Jefferson St, E Street & Hayes St. I cross it often 3 or 4 times a day, walking or on bicycle. Drivers typically traveling north/south on Jefferson St often speed up thru a standing red light. Additionally (I reported this just this past week) a stop sign posted on the SW corner of E St at Spencer St is obscured by not only a badly faded STOP in the pavement but by a utility pole less than 10 feet from said top sign, 3 small trees, a neighborhood watch sign & often a large white truck parked in front of a residence. As I’ve seen quite often if you are unaware of the stop sign being there (and are often “cutting thru” E St from California Blvd) or realize too late, because it is practically hidden from view & the street marking badly needs a fresh coat of paint, cars & trucks blow thru the stop sign at scary speeds. The incident I saw last week ATTACHMENT 8 Page 211 of 264
26 that prompted a call to public works a truck going an estimated 30 mph never even attempted to slow down, let alone stop as indicated. As your name suggests yes, we need to slow down drivers but additionally we need them to respect/obey traffic laws. The “accident waiting to happen” already has. I wish your organization good luck. Thank you.

Alta Heights Speeding primarily. In our neighborhood, on East Avenue people are REGULARLY exceeding 40 mph and not infrequently exceeding 50 mph!! This is in a 25 mph zone, in front of a park and an elementary school. The issue is they are trying to avoid the lights on Silverado Trail, so they use this to speed through and avoid the lights. We need more stop signs or speed bumps.

Clay Street Since the first street roundabout was built, Clay Street has become a raceway not just for cars, but all kinds of trucks. It is not a street made for so much traffic or speed. I have written to city departments but have not had any response. (2nd entry: I heard about you quite a while ago, but you never got in touch. I live on Clay street, which before the roundabout was a quiet street..now it’s a drag strip. I and my neighbors have written to multiple city officials all of whom had virtually nothing to say about the problem and solving it. The Mayor gave me a snarky 2 word response.) Harkness St People exit off of Hwy 29 and it feels like they want to keep going fast.

Harkness is a nice wide street but with little incentive to slow down other than it being a neighborhood. It’s also a “back way” into the Bel Aire shopping area.

Laredo St Too many spending people inmy neighborhood and all over Napa.

Rubicon St People speed down my street to avoid traffic on trancas and to get to the target/Whole Foods shopping centers faster. It endangers my family, my neighbors, including the children who live on my block. It needs to be addressed with speed bumps.

Randolph at ash
2983 Alderwood Ct We moved to Napa last year and I love my neighborhood but am fed up with people speeding down West Pueblo (while texting many times) especially where the road curves and the sign states 15 mph. Also, the speeds on Pinewood are ridiculously high. It is frightening to cross the streets around here. How can I help?
Brookwood
Dr./Redwood/West Pueblo
Lack of police presence in all of the neighborhoods. Used to see radar enforcement in the neighborhoods with heavy traffic but no more! 137 ALMOND AVE.

West Pueblo Ave between
Solano/Carol
We have had two cars totaled parked in exactly the same spot outside our house in the past four months. I have left voicemails for the City of Napa Traffic Engineer, as well as the City Police Department person in charge of traffic and no one called me back.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 212 of 264
27 2751 Beard Rd near Pueblo Traffic is too fast on Beard Rd. Wants to signs, will pay $10.

Laurel St./Westwood Hill
Park
The speeding in loud cars and trucks is a big problem, so is the ultra loud Harley Davidson motorcycle riders that find it necessary to ride in quiet neighborhoods on Sunday mornings waking everyone up with obnoxious behavior.
2360 Soda Canyon Rd
Rollingwood Dr We have cars fly down my street and it's so dangerous. Wish we could get those big speed bumps installed
Hello, I saw the opinion letter in the Napa Register about speeding. It's a problem everywhere, and one we've been raising awareness with American Canyon for the past year. We've captured speeders going as fast as 70 mph on our residential block! Perhaps we should have a video meetup and discuss ways that we can collaborate, particularly at pushing for change at the county level potentially, as I think we have very similar goals. We did a pilot for a traffic calming measure on our street with the city. The first traffic calming project they'd ever done. Baby steps and more to be done. I am not sure if you are ahead or behind what we've done, but happy to share what worked for us if it will help you. https://wecan94503.com/index.php/category/traffic-calming/ Elm between Franklin and
jefferson
We live on Elm Street across from Shearer Elementary School. Our street connects Coombs and Jefferson, so is somewhat of a thoroughfare. People drive way too fast. There are several homes with kids on this street, and kids who go to the school. I would like to see speed bumps installed around the school.

River Park Speeding on River Park drive
Wilkins Ave between
Imola/Shetler
Where to begin. Speeding through residential streets and the lack of usable sidewalks in Napa creates a dangerous environment for kids, pets, and adults. Cars use that stretch as a speedway and it’s very dangerous.

There are 8 families with small kids who play in the street.

South west Napa Speeders on our long dead end street, from an apartment building on the end. You might have read about us on Hilltop.

North Westwood We lived in Old Town for 5yrs and one of the reasons we moved was the reckless driving we saw on Brown St. This included both speeding and not stopping at stop signs. We're also seeing cars driving really fast on Browns Valley Road now, and often times not yielding to pedestrians trying to cross in crosswalks.

Solano Ave Bicycles on both sides of the road. Running stop signs and lights. Riding 2 or 3 wide. Cars running stop signs and lights.

Old Town It’s a mess.....no enforcement.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 213 of 264
28 Alta Hts Alta Hts without sidewalks (We DON’T want any sidewalks) with kids, elders animals (we DO want animals) and disabled people has speeders and loud mufflers everywhere, racing up and down the hill. East Ave Speed is often 40 mph. Downtown streets are difficult because of jaywalking tourists in the streets or doubleparkers and valets speeding. Seeing crossing traffic is difficult due to parked cars. I hear motorcycles and rice rockets Racing all hours of the day and night. Also, I want a choice of whether or not I receive or manage cookies on your site, not forced. That alone is telling about your organization, and I don’t like it.

Browns Valley we need to make it very easy for our children to walk, ride a bike, or catch a bus to school! thing catch a bus to high school. once the younger kids can safely walk to school that will take hundreds of cars off the road. the vine trail needs to be the main bike path and have good links from the vine trail to the school. there are two high school a few blocks from the vine trail but no good path from the vine trail to school. gp to the city of davis, it very fun to see all the bikes parked outside the schools.

Belvedere Ct./S. Terrace Dr. Speeding, running red lights, flying through crosswalks.

Maher st by justin-siena My street maher has people driving 40-50 down it all day. Its pretty unsafe and ridiculous.

Solomon Ave near Vintage
High
High traffic in residential streets. Next to the Vintage High School neighborhood off Solomon Ave. People use Solomon like a speedway to get to El Centro. Plus there is a ton of High School traffic in the morning with cars including PARENTS speeding down the road. I have reported it multiple times now and nothing improves. There are young kids who use the park off Solomon. I worry about someone (including one of my kids) getting hit one day.

Euclid ave
Hello, Thank you for taking this problem on. Let me start by saying that I don’t personally live in a problem area. My 9-5 life is more like a “5-9” work day so my participation in your cause will be limited. That said, I’m sure that you have considered “speed cameras” and concluded that they are routinely curtailed by court cases around the country based on the conflict of profit motives by non-governmental entities. My suggestion:

Start by designating a charity such as the Boys and Girls Club of Napa as a beneficiary for the current year. (that is only an example) Local neighborhoods will fund raise to purchase Plate / Speed Reader cameras.

They cost between $150 and $250. Lots of choices. Identity subscriptions vary but are not expensive. https://www.amazon.com/Radar-SpeedPhoto-Enforcement-Camera/dp/B071JSX8GM Solar panels, another $40.

Notice signs, $35ea. Permission to install will be a central committee project.For the sake of brevity, let me skip ahead to the point where you ATTACHMENT 8 Page 214 of 264
29 have your network of street captains and the equipment in place. The subscription service will now be compiling the violators and their photos. It will quickly identify the repeat offenders and the most egregious violators.

Next: With off-the-shelf blog/forum software can publish these photos (without the drivers names, etc). The residents of the neighborhood can donate a fixed minimal amount, per posting, to the designated charity which covers the donation and the over head of notifying the driver with a link to their photo(s). That is the basic skeletal view. I’m confident that the system and Notice Signs will provide measurable relief. The published photos and notifications will help bring awareness to the segment of speeders who need it. It will definitely get the attention of commercial traffic who often times use routing software to utilize shortcuts through neighborhoods and to avoid left turns. Beyond the scope of this suggestion is the strategy of how a violator gets their photo removed. I hope this helps if only as a conversation starter.Chuck
Stadium off of California St. I have never seen such terrible people driving thru my neighborhood thinking this is freeway. I have almost been hit several times by these idiots !!!Yet the city of Napa won’t install speed bumps… just wonder how many will die before changes are made…
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 215 of 264
August 17, 2002
Slow Down Napa
Letter to Planning Commission
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Slow Down Napa is committed to working with the City of Napa to reduce speeding, reckless driving, and cut-through traffic in our residential neighborhoods. While the 2040 General Plan you’re reviewing references Traffic Calming, it makes no explicit mention of the serious speeding issues that residents experience on a daily basis in their neighborhoods.

In 1998 when the last General Plan was written, City leadership acknowledged the inevitable tension with transportation planning – every road goes through someone’s neighborhood. This tension is more visible today than ever. Social media makes it easy to witness this tension. The City recognized that balancing efficient citywide transportation with quiet and safe streets is not easy but it is important. The situation was described, defined and predicted as an ongoing effort for years to come. In 1998 Napa leadership said, “The conflict between quiet streets and access needs is likely to intensify in the next 25 years, and the issue of traffic calming is likely to be an ongoing effort."
In the Public Comments about the Transportation Element for the 2040 General Plan document, you will see 29 pages of comments in which residents express anger, outrage and frustration about speeding and cut-through traffic in their neighborhoods. It is clear that this remains an outstanding issue.

The 2020 Plan included an entire page devoted to Residential Streets. The 2040 Plan does not include a single paragraph devoted to Residential Streets. The 2020 Plan included an essential goal that prioritized the needs of local Residents. Goal T-4 in the 2020 Plan reads: To protect residential neighborhoods from high-volume and high speed traffic and its effects. Sadly, this goal is missing in the 2040 Plan.

We urge you to recommend this Goal be listed in the 2040 Plan. Not including this goal means we are ignoring the problem. We are aware that there is a similar sounding goal in the 2040 Plan, Goal TE 2-7, which reads: Employ traffic management strategies to encourage the use of arterials and collectors to reduce vehicle use on residential neighborhood streets.

This does not match the simplicity of Goal T-4. It does not explicitly reference speeding and its effects in our neighborhoods. Please include the Goal T-4 from the 2020 General Plan To protect residential neighborhoods from high-volume and high-speed traffic and its effects.

With appreciation,
Maureen Trippe
Co-Founder, Slow Down Napa
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 216 of 264
References:
2020 Envision Napa General Plan, Transportation Element https://www.cityofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/447/Chapter-3---Transportation-PDF Napa leadership said, “If there is a consistent theme for Napa's transportation planning as it approaches a new century, it is that the City must learn to do more with less. Napa's road system is largely built and is unlikely to change much over the next 25 years. There is less money for improvements, not only for roads but for transit and other modes. There is also a desire to somehow reduce the impacts of traffic on neighborhoods.” 2040 Napa General Plan, Transportation Element Public Comments (219 pages) https://www.dropbox.com/s/u2l4690myuvli6g/AA%20-%20Draft%20General%20Plan%20Comm ents%20-%2004August22_Redacted.pdf?dl=0
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 217 of 264
Memo
To: City of Napa Planning Commission
From: KNGG
Date: August 13, 2022
Subject: PC Meeting , August 18, 2022, Agenda Item 7B-Adoption of Draft General Plan and Draft EIR Request for Extension of the this Agenda Item
Dear Chairman Huether and the Planning Commission:

I write on behalf of the KNGG, Keep Napa Gateways Green to request a 30-45 day extension of the Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 7B: Adoption of the Draft General Plan Napa 2040 and for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) Report ( RDEIR), Needless to say, the General Plan has taken on extraordinary resonance and significance in its sheer magnitude and implications for the future of the City of Napa. The depth of this significance is something few of us could imagine when first contemplating this Draft General Plan 2040.

The Planning Division has been hard at work generating a voluminous document ( initially 882 pages) + a draft EIR and a Draft R-EIR.

This Saturday morning, Aug. 13th the City of Napa Planning Division sent out an email to its email list notifying those on their list of the Planning Commission's impending meeting this coming Thursday, Aug. 18, and their Agenda Item requesting that the PC adopt their Draft General Plan, Draft EIR, and Draft R-EIR.

Further to this notification, just today, we are now receiving en masse responses to the Planning Divisions responses to the DEIR - all of which necessitate judicious review. This is of specific relevance as, regrettably, the degree of factual inaccuracies contained these documents is unusual and may prove deeply problematic in their implications for the City in moving forward with confidence in arriving at such critical decisions.

KNGG Request for Extension -Agenda Item_ Adoption of Draft General Plan Napa 2040/DEIR-08.13.2022 ATTACHMENT 8 Page 218 of 264
As you may realize, many Napas are currently attending to the demands of daily life which are heightened during this time of year - ranging from working 24/7 on the Harvest (now fully underway), others still on summer vacations, others preparing for in-person school and a return to work and yet others still dealing with the pandemic/healthcare and family issues.

This 11th hour notification and direct response ( posted online as attachments) to the substantive responses to the Draft GP, the Draft EIR and the Draft REIR is unfortunate. The Planning Division's request for the Planning Commission and the City of Napa to adopt this flawed Draft General Plan 2040 and DEIR may be viewed as irresponsible to the Planning Commission, the City Council and, most importantly, the Citizens of Napa. By presenting one of the most pivotal and consequential Draft General Plan 2040 and Draft EIR/ Draft REIR in the history of the City of Napa for fast-track approval by the PC and then the City Council - during one of the most demanding periods in Napa - speaks for itself .

We understand that the Planning Division has internal deadlines that they are trying to meet. However, their own delays in preparation should not justify nor be at the expense of the citizens of Napa and, most importantly, the aspirational vision, viability and climate resiliency of the City of Napa itself.

The Planning Division notification approximates 4-5 days for review of these newly drafted documents and technical appendices by the public. This presents an impossible task for most. As such KNGG is requesting need additional time to complete our review and prepare meaningful comments to present to the Planning Commission during a future meeting in mid-to late September.

Thank you for your consideration of this most sincere request.

Respectfully submitted,
Christiane Robbins
On behalf of KNGG
KNGG Request for Extension -Agenda Item_ Adoption of Draft General Plan Napa 2040/DEIR-08.13.2022 ATTACHMENT 8 Page 219 of 264
1 Jessica Shue
From: Beth Wagner < >
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 10:02 AM
To: PlanningCommission
Subject: Concerning Agenda 78
[EXTERNAL]
To Whom It May Concern:

I stand in opposition to the planning division’s proposed Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor and to having it be included in the proposed draft general plan 2040 and the DEIR. I am against any future annexation, up zoning and development as implied by the proposed draft general plan Napa 2040 and the DEIR.

I understand the valley has certain quotas to meet but perhaps some of those requirements need to be readdressed.

We are suffering from a terrible drout, climate change, very hot weather, etc.

We do not need anymore people or building of homes or businesses in the valley.

Please don’t denigrate the lives of those already living here by continuing to add more and more and more and depleting our natural resources, crowding our already crowded roads, etc.

Respectfully submitted,
Beth Wagner
Napa Resident for over 45 years
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important ATTACHMENT 8 Page 220 of 264
1 Jessica Shue
From: Jim Huntsinger
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 10:34 AM
To: PlanningCommission
Subject: Save Foster Road Agenda Item7B
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
We are in opposition to the planning divisions proposed Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor and to having it included in the proposed draft general plan 2040 and the DEIR. We are against any future annexation and development as implied by the proposed draft general plan Napa 2040 and the DEIR.

Napa needs to look more closely at what the City is and is not. It is NOT a place with: A) wide physical boundaries that would accommodate growth, B) plenty of water C) easy access to and from major highways that allow safe passage even in times of major emergencies D) whose residents want to allow major growth E) a stable geological base in the Foster Road area.

Please don”t destroy the awesome Gateway to The City of Napa. Once destroyed, the fields that grace the Gateway can never be replaced.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jim and Debra Huntsinger
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 221 of 264
1 Jessica Shue
From: Linda Leonard
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 10:42 AM
To: PlanningCommission
Subject: PC Meeting for August 18, 2022
[EXTERNAL]
I stand in opposition to the planning division's proposed Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor and to having it be included in the proposed draft general plan 2040 and the DEIR, I am against any further annexation, up zoning and development as implied by the proposed draft general plan Napa 2040 and the DEIR.

Please be assured that I am not opposed to multiple unit housing in general - however, the site that is contemplated needs to be examined from numerous conditions, i.e. elementary school use, traffic mediation in an area with no room for rush hour travel, etc. etc.

Surely there are other sites that have been government studied as far back as 2015 for additional housing in Napa. Once agricultural land has been destroyed, so are the benefits thereof.

Sincerely,
Linda J. Leonard
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important ATTACHMENT 8 Page 222 of 264
1 Napa Working Families Coalition
City of Napa – General Plan
We are writing as members of the Napa Community Benefits Coalition, which is a project of the Napa Working Families Coalition. This Coalition is a combination of labor, environmental, housing, and other community groups active across the City and County of Napa. We agree with the vision expressed in the plan of making Napa a great place to live, work and play. We also agree with the goals of reducing Napa’s climate emissions and creating more quality jobs.

The picture the plan needs to paint is fundamentally a puzzle, made up of a lot of little parts that all need to be carefully shaped to fit together. For example, new affordable housing can be a climate solution if it is built in the right place to high performance green building standards. If the construction is done with high road contracting standards, it can be a source of quality jobs too. Co-locating childcare services with affordable housing, when practical, is a best practice that can add an additional layer of benefits. Attending to this sort of detail is what we do.

Our mission is to improve the quality of life of our community by building public support, through collaborative partnerships, for projects and policies that help make our communities inclusive, sustainable, and economically vibrant with quality jobs, services, and housing for all.

To that end, we offer our commentary on how the general plan draft could be improved to meet our community’s myriad needs.

Climate Change and Sustainability
We appreciate the changes in the redlined copy addressing our comments on short lived climate pollutants and also revisions limiting new fossil fuel stations and promoting zero emission vehicles.

Economic Development
The General Plan Economic Development Element should have policies aimed at increasing the number of high quality jobs available in Napa, with a special emphasis on providing enhanced economic mobility for targeted populations including women, minorities, residents of low income communities, the formerly incarcerated and veterans.

We recommend the following changes in bolded text each with a parenthetic note indicating an addition or deletion:

10.3 Economic Development Strategies
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 223 of 264
2 Workforce Development and Equity:
“there is a gap in workers supporting manufacturing, professional and technical services, healthcare, (ADD) childcare, construction, and management professionals. (DELETE) as compared to the region. ”
(ADD) Childcare: After housing, childcare is the largest expenditure for families with small children. Early care and after school care are required in order for a parent to work outside the home. There is 1 (one) licensed childcare spot for every 4 children who need care in Napa. (ADD) Construction: The shortage of skilled construction workers in Napa reflects a pattern found throughout the region and presents a constraint on the potential of every other sector that relies on construction to support growth.

10.4 Economic Development Element Goals and Policies
ADD a goal to “Maintain and grow the number of childcare facilities, programs and trained providers to ensure quality childcare for every family in need of this service.” GOAL ED-2: “Promote training, education and labor support programs that enhance the quality of the city’s workforce and support more equitable economic opportunities.” ED 2.1: …”Strengthen partnerships with and among local institutions such as NVC, Culinary Institutes of American WANB, the Small Business Development Center, (ADD) Napa Solano Labor Council, Napa Solano Building Trades Council and other countywide, regional and local organizations for workforce development, especially in local production, manufacturing, information technology, healthcare, (ADD) childcare, construction, and culinary arts, with an emphasis on outreach to Hispanic and Latinx communities.” ED 2-5 Continue and expand local-hire initiatives, training, apprenticeships, and partnerships with employers, WANB, NVC, (ADD) Napa Solano Labor Council, Napa Solano Building Trades Council and others to develop a job pipeline in targeted and growth industry sectors in Napa. (ADD) ED 2 –7 Work with the Building Trades to develop a Project Labor Agreement for publicly funded construction projects. Include a local and targeted hire requirement in the agreement with an emphasis on women, minorities, residents of low-income communities, the formerly incarcerated and veterans. (ADD) ED 2- 8 Encourage the use of best practices in workforce development for construction, including the use of apprentices and provision of employer paid health care for work on privately financed construction projects greater than 50,000 square feet of building area. (ADD) ED 2 – 9 Create an incentive program for new hospitality development to employ card check neutrality.
(ADD) 2 – 10 All Cannabis businesses with 10 or more employees, seeking or holding a license, are required to have a signed Labor Peace agreement with a bona fide labor Union".

Public Health and Equity
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 224 of 264
3 There are two changes we would recommend here. One is to include explicit support for child care as a home based business in PHE 4 -2. This complements the goals and policies with respect to child care we are recommending in the Economic Development element. The other change we are recommending regards tenant protections in PHE 6 - 3. We were proud to have worked as a coalition to help publicize and promote efforts to limit evictions during the pandemic, and are convinced that ongoing effort to help protect tenants is essential. We agree with the notion expressed in PH 6 -3 that a just cause eviction ordinance would help, but would also like the city to work on developing an appropriate rent stabilization ordinance as a natural complement to just cause policies in order to protect against unexpected sudden large increases in rent.

PHE 4-2 Update the City's zoning regulations pertaining to home-based occupations (including cottage food (ADD) and child care) in residential areas to support complete neighborhoods and diverse communities that provide opportunities for micro-businesses and entrepreneurship, as well as recognize an increase in remote work. Also see Chapter 10: Economic Development for further discussion regarding equity and home-based occupations.

PHE 6-3 Develop and monitor indicators such as change in share of low-income households, average rent and sales price, supply of affordable units, and evictions and foreclosures within the City. Use this data to identify at-risk neighborhoods, and develop programs and resources to assist, including renter protections such as (ADD) rent stabilization and just cause eviction ordinances, within the limitations of City Charter Section 172.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 225 of 264
Community Services Bldg: 1600 First Street, Napa CA 94559  Mailing Address: P.O. Box 660, Napa CA 94559  (707) 257-9530  www.cityofnapa.org Community Development
August 17, 2022
Christiane Robbins on behalf of via email: [email protected] Keep Napa Gateways Green
Re: Response to August 4, 2022 letter from KNGG regarding the Draft EIR Dear Ms. Robbins:

Thank you for your August 4, 2022 letter regarding the City of Napa General Plan Update Partial Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (Partial Recirculated Draft EIR).

The Partial Recirculated Draft EIR was prepared and circulated to the public because the original Draft EIR that was circulated for public review and comment on March 10, 2022, inadvertently omitted the agricultural resources analysis. To correct this omission, on June 15, 2022, the City circulated the Partial Recirculated Draft EIR for additional public review and comment. The Partial Recirculated Draft EIR consisted solely of the agricultural resources section of the Draft EIR that was not included in the initial Draft EIR, and did not otherwise change or modify the Draft EIR. As explained in the Partial Recirculated Draft EIR, that document must be read together with the initial Draft EIR, and the two documents together constitute the Draft EIR for the General Plan Update. No effort was made by the City to hide the proposed Foster Road Mixed-Use Corridor land use designation for the properties that you refer to as the “Gateway Parcels,” as that land use designation was fully disclosed and subject to extensive discussion and analysis in the Project Description and the Land Use sections of the Draft EIR, among other sections.

Your letter references a proposed annexation and up-zoning as it relates to the “Foster Road Mixed-Use Corridor” area; however, the Draft EIR (which, again, includes both the Recirculated Draft EIR and initial Draft EIR) is not intended to analyze a specific development project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Rather, the Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts from the City’s adoption of the proposed General Plan Update, which adoption will not approve or authorize any actual development project on the Gateway Parcels, or anywhere else in the City. Thus, while the potential development summary table in the General Plan identify potential future development capacity, it is not intended to be a proposal of development per se. As projects are proposed through applications to the City for development permits, future project-level CEQA analysis will occur based on the specifics of the project described in the application, and site-specific mitigation measures, if necessary, would be identified.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 226 of 264
2 There are currently no active applications regarding development along the Foster Road MixedUse Corridor, thus, the City currently has nothing to analyze for such development (e.g., no information such as type of development (residential or non-residential development), number of units or square feet, potential traffic and vehicle miles travelled, etc.), and such an analysis would be speculative. If or when an application is received for this area of concern, the appropriate level of CEQA review will be determined in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines.

The purpose of the Recirculated Draft EIR was to analyze the Agricultural and Forestry Resources under CEQA for the proposed Project – which is the General Plan Update as a whole, not a specific project or projects. Thus, the absence of identifying a specific project or future project in the Recirculated Draft EIR does not in and of itself render the Recirculated Draft EIR inadequate. Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 adequately shows the study area of the General Plan Update, which includes the lands in the Foster Road Mixed-Use Corridor, and thus, adequately accounts for lands within the Foster Road Mixed-Use area as it relates to Agricultural and Forestry Resources under CEQA.

The comments regarding the existing inconsistency of the County General Plan and its zoning is a matter that should be directed towards the County as the area of concern is within County jurisdiction since it has yet to be annexed into the City. The City’s existing General Plan applies three (3) land use designations to the Gateway Parcels: Single Family Infill (SFI), Multi-Family Residential (MFR), and Corporate Park (CP). The proposed Foster Road Mixed Use designation would replace these existing designations. However, none of these City land use designations currently govern development of the Gateway Parcels, which remain in the County’s jurisdiction unless and until a petition is filed with the Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to annex the Gateway Parcels to the City. At that time, in reviewing and evaluating the petition for annexation, LAFCo will consider, among other things, potential zoning inconsistencies.

I hope this has answered your questions and addressed your concerns. I am happy to meet with you and/or to talk on the telephone to answer further questions about the General Plan Update and associated environmental analysis or discuss these issues. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or (Direct) 707-257-9604 or (Mobile) 707-696-9433.

Sincerely,
Ricky Caperton, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Napa | Planning Division
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 227 of 264
KNGG August 18, 2022
August 18, 2022
Ricky Caperton, AICP, Planning Manager
Planning Division, Community Development
City of Napa
Napa, CA 94559
Dear Mr. Caperton:

Thank you for your response of 08.17.2022 re: the Draft REIR and we certainly appreciate your gracious invitation to meet with us. It is most welcome following the past 2-3 years. Unfortunately, today's Planning Commission meeting precludes such a timely meeting with you but , hopefully, one in the future will be in the offering. And please accept my apologies in advance as I am pressed for time and hope that this letter suffices in the interim.

To offer reassurances, KNGG has assumed a topical understanding of the planning process. And, we had hoped that the Planning Division had taken into consideration our earlier response to the DEIR indicating the omission of an Agricultural Resource analysis - We took this heart as such an analysis plays a significant role in any consideration of the newly (2022) branded "Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor".which is one of KNGG's primary focus points.

To be clear, we are not saying that the City was attempting:
"to hide the proposed Foster Road Mixed-Use Corridor land use designation for the properties that you refer to as the 'Gateway Parcels,” as that land use designation was fully disclosed and subject to extensive discussion and analysis in the Project Description and the Land Use sections of the Draft EIR, among other sections.

What we are saying is that until late winter, 2022, the parcels, currently zoned AGW aligning with a long-existing neighborhood zoned Residential, were alternately identified as the Gateway Parcels, Foster Road, Golden Gate Drive, the Ghisletta Parcels, the NVHA and the Wilcoxson properties. The PD's new identifier of the "Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor" has recently been introduced and used with intentionality within the proposed draft General Plan Napa 2040.

The City may be seen as sleight-of-hand in their 11th hour attempt to rebrand these Gateway Parcels as one of the "Corridors" ( along with the GP 2040 identified corridors of Soscol, Trancas, Jefferson and Lincoln). This new identifier of that of a "corridor" would then allow these parcels to be re-zoned/up-zoned and slated for ATTACHMENT 8 Page 228 of 264
KNGG August 18, 2022
development under the rubric of being in sync with the expected, newly adopted General Plan Napa 2040. To be clear, we all realize, the re-zoning and any subsequent development of the Gateway parcels will then be inscribed in the newly adopted General Plan 2040. This sets the foundation for the proposed re-zoning/upzoning of the Gateway Parcels. I trust KNGG's concerns are understandable to theCity, its Community Development, the Planning Division, the Planning Commission and the City Council.

We appreciate knowing that the Draft EIR has not been slightly updated in response to the responses/feedback received from the public other than to correct its omission re: the Agricultural Resources.

In further regard to the City's email/statement:
"the Draft EIR (which, again, includes both the Recirculated Draft EIR and initial Draft EIR) is not intended to analyze a specific development project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Rather, the Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts from the City’s adoption of the proposed General Plan Update, "
Indeed, the Draft EIR actually reveals the "Community Development" strategy. It states that these potential environmental impacts are significant yet unavoidable. The DEIR/RDEIR also fail to offer any alternatives. To be certain, there are ample alternatives — some already identified in past government documents, ie. The Housing Element 2015-23. As such, neither of the City's points could reasonably considered viable. Neither could be farther from the truth — unless — a specific development was already in the unofficial pipeline and underpinning the PD's proposed up-zoning.

Again, the City's sleight-of-hand comes into play in response to your second paragraph . KNGG fully realizes that a specific development has not yet been revealed and introduced to the public. That said, we also understand that the City has been in prolonged, back-door conversations with the owner/developers/investors/ stakeholders in these parcels in drafting plans for a specific development — reportedly for over a decade now.

The staunch opposition of the citizens of Napa was in full evidence in 2007-2008 when these privatized interests first worked with the City to have the City annex these parcels. The City is fully aware of this opposition and for over a decade now, and, despite working under the radar, the City has failed to find viable alternatives to their one easy fix of annexation and up-zoning that will satisfy these privatized interests.

This comes at the expense of the public good and the very real and immediate ATTACHMENT 8 Page 229 of 264
KNGG August 18, 2022
demands of instituting effective measures of climate resiliency . Nor has a DEIR specific to these parcels been reasonably required by the City or the County during this entire period ( 10 yrs.+) in anticipation of the City's/County's proposals.

Further to this point, we understand that the Community Development, the Planning Division and members of the City Council may have laid the strategic foundation in this very Draft General Plan Napa 2040 and Draft EIR as a predicate for ensuring the construction of such a specific development. And most certainly that includes the potential inscription of up-zoning into the adopted General Plan 2040 - thereby possibly circumventing the need for annexation and its required voter approval.

When speaking of these parcels, Mayor Sedgley, himself, has repeatedly said (for years now) "this is a done deal" giving credence to such speculation.

For approximately two years now, the Community Development, the Planning Division have failed to address our concerns re: factual inaccuracies contained in the draft General Plan 2040 and the DEIR. By refusing to address and verify these factual inaccuracies (which are foundational to many of these GP/DEIR), the CD and PD are placing the Planning Commission, the City Council and, most importantly, the Citizens of Napa at risk.

KNGG reasonably anticipates that a specific development project will immediately reveal itself upon the adoption of this draft General Plan 2040 by the City Council.

The County of Napa's draft Housing Element speaks to just such a proposed project which will initiate a leap frog into the City's own proposed zoning plans for all of these Gateway parcels-belonging primarily to the owner/developer Ghisletta Family Trust.

All of these machinations bring to mind the now infamous Lakewood Development ( Los Angeles County ) of the 1950s.

KNGG fully realizes that the Draft GP 2040 and the Draft EIR are not intended to analyze a specific development project. KNGG also feels that it is disingenuous for the Planning Division to offer such a deflective statement. In the midst of glaring zoning inconsistencies, the City's proposal for up-zoning foregrounds the building of such a development. KNGG is fully aware that:
" However, none of these City land use designations currently govern development of the Gateway Parcels, which remain in the County’s jurisdiction unless and until a petition is filed with the Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to annex the Gateway Parcels to the City. At that time, in reviewing and evaluating the petition for annexation, LAFCo will consider, among other things, potential zoning inconsistencies." However, this should not be construed as an excuse for the Planning Commission and the City Council not to render a determination regarding the resolution of zoning inconsistencies prior to adopting the draft general Plan 2040/DEIR. Further to your point, KNGG also understands that many of those long involved this City/County ATTACHMENT 8 Page 230 of 264
KNGG August 18, 2022
proposal process have also been long involved in LAFCO and are extraordinarily familiar with this project. As such many of these officials ( on every level ) should consider recusing themselves from rendering any decisions regarding this proposal for the Gateway Parcels.

Mr Caperton, please understand, this is precisely why KNGG and others throughout the City, the County of Napa, the Bay Area, and the nation are standing in firm opposition to the the adoption of the General Plan's Land Use Element's specific proposal for its transformative name as the "Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor".

Contrary to what the City would have us believe, this moment — this point in time — is the most significant point in the process. It is the moment BEFORE the City dismisses an aspirational future for the City and the County of Napa in favor of disreputable planning practices of the 1950s — the very ones that have contributed mightily to the climate crises we are all now facing.

As always, thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Rest assured, we remain committed to working toward arriving viable and resilient resolutions to this vexing matter and look forward to meeting sometime soon.

Respectfully submitted,
Christiane Robbins
On behalf of KNGG
____________________
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 231 of 264
KNGG August 18, 2022
Memo
To: Planning Commission, City of Napa
From: KNGG
Date: August 18, 2022
Subject: PC Meeting , August 18, 2022, Agenda Item 7B-Adoption of Draft General Plan Napa 2040 and Draft EIR
Dear Chair. Huether and Planning Commissioners,
Again, I write on behalf of the KNGG, Keep Napa Gateways Green in regard to the Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 7B: Adoption of the Draft General Plan Napa 2040 and for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) Report ( R- DEIR), Needless to say, the General Plan has taken on extraordinary resonance and significance in its sheer magnitude and implications for the future of the City of Napa.

The depth of this significance is something few of us could imagine when first contemplating this Draft General Plan 2040.

KNGG has assumed a topical understanding of the planning process - and have submitted our comments as concerned citizens. We applaud many of the "smart Planning Directives motivating a good deal of the General Plan. A number of laudatory inclusions are in the updated Draft General Plan Napa 2040. Of particularly note is the emphasis (6) on environmental sustainability and Climate Change Element. Since 2019 members of KNGG have actively participated in the Draft General Plan Napa 2040 process, offering various City Representatives, GPAC, The Planning Commission, and the City Council feedback and alternatives to the City's unilateral view of their newly proposed Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor. Some of KNGG's suggestions are reflected in this updated Draft General Plan Napa 2040.

It would stand to reason that the validity of the City’s DEIR is, in large, part dependent upon whether the DEIR provides an adequate analysis of the information necessary for LAFCO and for the public to clearly understand the nature and environmental consequences of the Draft General Plan Napa 2040, the DEIR and Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor
While both the Draft General Plan and the DEIR are substantial documents, unexpectedly, the DEIR fails to provide a requisite adequate analysis, and both continue to contain factual inaccuracies thus placing the City at risk.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 232 of 264
KNGG August 18, 2022
Response to KNGG's responses continue to be inadequate and deflective. It has been acknowledged that the annexation, up-zoning and subsequent near-future development will approximate one of the largest development in the history of Napa.

Given the sheer magnitude and scope of this project, it’s difficult for a resident of Napa to reasonably understand and accept the proposed practical realities of the City’s Planning Staff and their Consultant's perplexing inference that the proposed Annexation will not result in many changes in the environment.

This assertion is coupled with-the binary positioning of the City's minimal options for Alternatives to Annexation" The City's presentation appears to be one of a false dichotomy: an All (100%- and/or less than Zero (-0 % accepted proposal). This positioning transforms the DEIR's own proposed Annexation, up-zoning and development into the only alternative the City sees as viable.

The City's proposal continues to speak of inconsistencies, fails to adequately address the following issues and other possible alternatives.

The Napa County General Plan Land Use designation for the what we have identified as the Gateway Parcels ( the Ghisletta parcels, the NVHA and the Wilcoxson Parcels - what the City has now identified as the "Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor"2), are located along Foster Road and Golden Gate Drive. They comprise partially rural residential and partially AWOS. (https://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov/uploads/documents/ County_GeneralPlanLandUseMap. pdf)
The intent of the AWOS designation is “To provide areas where the predominant use is agriculturally oriented; where watersheds are protected and enhanced; where reservoirs, floodplain tributaries, geologic hazards, soil conditions, and other constraints make the land relatively unsuitable for urban development; where urban development would adversely impact 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.” (Napa Co General Plan Policy AG/ LU-20.) Uses allowed on AWOS sites include “Agriculture, processing of agricultural products, single-family dwellings.” (Ibid.)
The current zoning of AW-UR for the Ghisletta parcels is inconsistent with the AWOS General Plan designation. This zoning is a combination of Ag Watershed, which is allowed for AWOS designation (see Napa Co General Plan Table AG/LU-B below) with Urban Reserve, which is inconsistent with the AWOS designation because it provides for urbanization of agricultural lands.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 233 of 264
KNGG August 18, 2022
The AW-UR zoning is also inconsistent with the Rural Residential designation for a portion of these parcels. The only zoning determined consistent with the Rural Residential designation is Residential Country (see Napa Co General Plan Table AG/ LU-B), which allows only low density residential development.

Thus, before considering whether the Project is consistent with the existing zoning for these parcels, the zoning for these parcels must be made consistent with their current General Plan land use designations.

Table AG/LU-B), which allows only low density residential development.

Moreover, the DEIR / R-DEIR relies upon factual inaccuracies in support of its claim that the General Plan Update would have a less than significant impact on existing zoning for agricultural use. (RDEIR p. 2-18.) The RDEIR states that “existing zoning for Agricultural Resource would be maintained as either Agriculture or Greenbelt—or as Very Low Density Residential in some very small cases...” This is inaccurate; a portion of the Ghisletta parcels are currently zoned AR, even though they have the inconsistent UR combination.

Under the General Plan Update, the land use designation for this area would become the "Foster Road Mixed Use" designation, which proposes up to 1,210 units for the site along with 44,000 square feet of commercial uses. The R-DEIR acknowledges that zoning would be updated to be consistent with the General Plan land use designation. Thus, the Project would not maintain the existing agriculture zoning for these parcels and would instead allow mixed use and an increased residential density.

Significantly, as the R-DEIR bases its conclusion that the Project would have a less than significant impact due to conflicts with agricultural use on an inaccurate statement of facts, it remains fatally flawed because it is not based upon the required substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines section 15384, subd. (a) [“evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate...does not constitute substantial evidence”].)
The City of Napa has maligned its own citizens by representing us as NIMBYS.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. We are not NIMBYs. Rather we remained responsible citizens who are looking to the smart, responsible, viable and resilient future for our city, county and children - not to burden future generations with an ATTACHMENT 8 Page 234 of 264
KNGG August 18, 2022
unsustainable and high risk-laden future driven by privatized self-interests augmented by corporate housing, over-development, needless sprawl and developer interests.

As has been brought to your attention previously, ample alternatives exist throughout all of the City Napa for equitable housing and incentivization - even in sites in the neighborhoods of the City Council Members, Commissioners and Planners. One only needs to take a 5 minute drive thought town to take in the abundance of opportunities in this single story town replete with fallow, vacant shopping malls and corporate parks. These alternatives speak to judicious and truly equitable and judicious assimilation and integration throughout the City.

These represent some of our concerns. Thank you so very much for your sincere consideration and postponing a final vote of the adoption of this draft general Plan and DEIR..

Respectfully submitted,
Christiane Robbins
On behalf of KNGG
____________________
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 235 of 264
1 Patricia Baring
From: Christiane Robbins <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 6:13 PM
To: Patricia Baring
Cc: Sabrina Wolfson; Vincent Smith; Ricky Caperton; Michael Walker Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Meeting: 08.18.2022-to be read [EXTERNAL]
Hi Patty,
Just following up as it appears that I have not yet received confirmation of the submission to my 08.18.2022 letter to the Planning Commission - as per my earlier request:
"I trust that this letter or response will be included in the document/records archive. Pls confirm. Thx again."
I would appreciate your confirming this by the EOW. Thanks so much.

Christiane
Begin forwarded message:

From: Christiane Robbins <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Planning Commission Meeting: 08.18.2022-to be read Date: August 18, 2022 at 4:33:26 PM PDT
To: Patricia Baring <[email protected]>
Cc: Sabrina Wolfson <[email protected]>, Vincent Smith <[email protected]>, Ricky Caperton <[email protected]>, Michael Walker <[email protected]> Hi Patti,
Be that as it may as, this news to me. You all may realize that PC meetings are much accessible to the public if the City of Napa (as do numerous other Bay Area cities) offers optional attendance via Zoom as well.

I am waiting for a flight at the moment which has been delayed = my attendance in-person to read my letter in response to the late developing inclusion of this agenda item 7B is doubtful.

Nonetheless, thanks for your consideration. I trust that this letter or response will be included in the document/records archive. Pls confirm. Thx again.

C
Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 236 of 264
2 On Aug 18, 2022, at 3:43 PM, Patricia Baring <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Christiane,
We stopped reading letters as of July 2021 when meetings went back to in person.

If you would like, you are welcome to read the letter aloud during public comment. I will forward it to the Planning Commission and we will keep it for the record.

Thank you for your submission.
<image002.png>Patty Baring
Planning Secretary

[EXTERNAL]
Hello Patti,
I just now realized that the Commission has recently changed its protocols for the deadline of submission of letters to be read at the meeting. Obviously, I was unaware of this change and ask that this letter be read at this evening's meeting.

Thanks so much for your consideration!

Christiane Robbins

K E E P N A P A's G A T E W A Y S G R E E N

( www.savefosterroad.org )
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 237 of 264
3 Power is exercised by those who show up.

The information contained in this electronic mail message (including any attachments) is confidential information covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521,
and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged.
_____________________
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication to anyone,
or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's email administrators.

Please be advised that no agreement can be formed by this email under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any similar law unless the email explicitly states that is the case.

Thank you.

Christiane Robbins
K E E P N A P A's G A T E W A Y S G R E E N
( www.savefosterroad.org )
Power is exercised by those who show up.

The information contained in this electronic mail message (including any attachments) is confidential information covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521, and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. _____________________
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication to anyone, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 238 of 264
4 If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's email administrators.

Please be advised that no agreement can be formed by this email under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any similar law unless the email explicitly states that is the case.

Thank you.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 239 of 264
1 Patricia Baring
From: C.Robbins <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 10:57 AM
To: Patricia Baring
Cc: Sabrina Wolfson; Vincent Smith; Ricky Caperton; Michael Walker; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Meeting: 08.18.2022-to be read [EXTERNAL]
Good Morning Patty,

Thx for your response. Don't intend to be a stickler but I just want to ensure that we are all on the same page, "Received "would translate to indicate received and included in the City's documents archive associated with this issue re: the City's proposal of their " Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor" - correct?

Thanks again,

Christiane
-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Baring <[email protected]>
Sent: Aug 25, 2022 8:02 AM
To: Christiane Robbins <[email protected]>
Cc: Sabrina Wolfson <[email protected]>, Vincent Smith <[email protected]>, Ricky Caperton <[email protected]>, Michael Walker <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Planning Commission Meeting: 08.18.2022-to be read Received.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 240 of 264
2 Patty Baring
Planning Secretary

Community Development Department, City of Napa
1600 First Street, Napa, CA 94559 · PO Box 660
Phone (707) 257-9360
Email [email protected]
Website www.cityofnapa.org
Social www.facebook.com/CityOfNapa · @CityOfNapa
From: Christiane Robbins <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 6:13 PM
To: Patricia Baring <[email protected]>
Cc: Sabrina Wolfson <[email protected]>; Vincent Smith <[email protected]>; Ricky Caperton <[email protected]>; Michael Walker <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Meeting: 08.18.2022-to be read [EXTERNAL]
Hi Patty,
Just following up as it appears that I have not yet received confirmation of the submission to my 08.18.2022 letter to the Planning Commission - as per my earlier request:
"I trust that this letter or response will be included in the document/records archive. Pls confirm. Thx again."
I would appreciate your confirming this by the EOW. Thanks so much.

Christiane
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 241 of 264
3 Begin forwarded message:

I am waiting for a flight at the moment which has been delayed = my attendance in-person to read my letter in response to the late developing inclusion of this agenda item 7B is doubtful.

Nonetheless, thanks for your consideration. I trust that this letter or response will be included in the document/records archive. Pls confirm. Thx again.

C
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 18, 2022, at 3:43 PM, Patricia Baring <[email protected]> wrote:

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 242 of 264
4 Hi Christiane,
We stopped reading letters as of July 2021 when meetings went back to in person.

If you would like, you are welcome to read the letter aloud during public comment. I will forward it to the Planning Commission and we will keep it for the record.

Thank you for your submission.
<image002.png>Patty Baring
Planning Secretary

Community Development Department, City of Napa
1600 First Street, Napa, CA 94559 · PO Box 660
Phone (707) 257-9360
Email [email protected]
Website www.cityofnapa.org
Social www.facebook.com/CityOfNapa · @CityOfNapa
From: Christiane Robbins <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 3:37 PM
To: PlanningCommission <[email protected]> Cc: Patricia Baring
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Paul Kelley <[email protected]>; Bob Massaro <[email protected]>; Beverly Shotwell <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting: 08.18.2022-to be read [EXTERNAL]
Hello Patti,
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 243 of 264
5 I just now realized that the Commission has recently changed its protocols for the deadline of submission of letters to be read at the meeting. Obviously, I was unaware of this change and ask that this letter be read at this evening's meeting.

Thanks so much for your consideration!
C
Christiane Robbins
K E E P N A P A's G A T E W A Y S G R E E N
( www.savefosterroad.org )
Power is exercised by those who show up.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 244 of 264
6 If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's email administrators.

Please be advised that no agreement can be formed by this email under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any similar law unless the email explicitly states that is the case.

Thank you.

Christiane Robbins
K E E P N A P A's G A T E W A Y S G R E E N
( www.savefosterroad.org )
Power is exercised by those who show up.

The information contained in this electronic mail message (including any attachments) is confidential information covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521, and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. _____________________
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication to anyone, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

Please be advised that no agreement can be formed by this email under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any similar law unless the email explicitly states that is the case.

Thank you.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 246 of 264
1 Patricia Baring
From: Jim Huntsinger <
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:46 PM
To: Scott Sedgley; Liz Alessio; Beth Painter; Mary Luros; Bernie Narvaez; Patricia Baring; emorris; Michael Walker; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Fwd: Save Foster Road
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
To: City Officials
We are in opposition to the planning divisions proposed Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor and to having it included in the proposed draft general plan 2040 and the DEIR. We are against any future annexation and development as implied by the proposed draft general plan Napa 2040 and the DEIR.

Please don”t destroy the awesome Gateway to The City of Napa. Once destroyed, the fields that grace the Gateway can never be replaced.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jim and Debra Huntsinger
Napa, CA
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 247 of 264
P.O. Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org August 30, 2022
RE: Draft 2040 General Plan Update Revisions, Agenda item 7A, City of Napa Planning Commission meeting, September 1, 2022.

Dear Planning Commissioners,
The Napa County Bicycle Coalition—which works to make biking in Napa County safe, accessible, and convenient—appreciates yours and the City of Napa’s consideration of our previous request for additional updates to the draft General Plan 2040.

We had asked for the inclusion of Level of Service standards for all modes within the Transportation Element, rather than just for motor vehicles; in response Staff pointed to Policy TE 1-1, which includes the statement, “Explore opportunities to develop multi-modal level of service (LOS) objectives and performance targets with different priorities depending on road type.” To clarify, we are requesting a commitment to include this methodology for all modes rather than “exploring opportunities” to do so. “Exploring opportunities” over the next 20 years means LOS objectives may or may not be developed. It does not indicate that they will be adopted or in what timeframe. We request that “exploring opportunities to” be deleted from this policy so that it moves forward as the more committed, “Develop multi-modal level of service (LOS) objectives and performance targets with different priorities depending on road type.” We also ask that this policy be included in the implementation plan as a near- or shortterm objective (first five years).

As well, if the City is committed to adopting LOS methodology for all modes, we would expect to see a description and discussion of LOS for walking and biking as it is discussed in the General Plan’s “Automobile Movement” section (3.3). We understand that a study is needed to establish Napa’s specific LOS performance targets, but including and explaining the methodology as it pertains to active transportation modes seems appropriate if there is a commitment to LOS as a guiding benchmark for muti-modal transportation improvements.

As mentioned previously, leaving active transportation modes out of Level of Service measures disenfranchises active transportation users and prioritizes automobiles, which will very likely skew multi-modal planning and subvert the City’s mode share goals. We ask for equal consideration of the experience of people when they choose to walk and bike. This will also support the General Plan’s second Guiding Principal: “Increase travel options through enhanced walking, bicycling, and public transportation systems, and promote mobility through increased connectivity and intelligent transportation management.” Without the LOS measures and data for all modes, transportation management will be missing a key factor that contributes to its intelligence.

We also asked for the inclusion of active transportation mode shift goals in the General Plan 2040 and understand the need for those to be written as goals rather than commitments, with language such as: “Work toward a transportation mode share of 10% for bicycling and 10% for walking by 2035.” While City staff noted the General Plan already contains language that ATTACHMENT 8 Page 248 of 264
P.O. Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org supports implementing the bike facilities outlined in the Bicycle Plan, it is missing language that states it supports the Bike Plan’s mode shift goal. Improvements in bike facilities will be instrumental to meeting mode shift goals, but facilities—or Engineering as a change strategy—is just one of the “E’s” needed to best ensure this change. It is widely accepted that other “E’s” are required, too, such as Education (how to walk or ride safely, understanding the rules of the road), Encouragement (chances and incentives to try other modes), Enforcement (consequences for those who do not follow the rules of the road), etc. This goal will not be met with improved bike and pedestrian facilities alone; it will take collaboration and coordination from a comprehensive set of strategies and stakeholders.

As well, the related mode shift goal as it currently sits in the General Plan 2040 draft is not supported by any policies that mention the Bike Plan or the Pedestrian Plan or even bike or pedestrian facilities, so the tie between implementing the Bike Plan and mode shift goals is not established. The current goal reads, “Support policies and programs to reduce automobile mode share, reduce automobile dependency, and encourage alternative forms of transportation”; we ask that the following be added as a second sentence: “Work toward a transportation mode share of 10% for bicycling and 10% for walking by 2035.” This will help establish that connection as well as help provide the myriad parties who will work on this goal clarity in what they are trying to accomplish.

Should you have any questions about the above comments, please contact me at (707) 258- 6318 or at [email protected]. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Kara Vernor
Executive Director
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 249 of 264
1 Patricia Baring
From: Lynne Posner <
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 8:27 AM
To: PlanningCommission; Lynne Posner
Subject: Thursday, Sept. 1st planning commission meeting Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
I am writing. to voice my strong objection to the development of Foster Road--item 7-A of the meeting on Sept. 1st.

The area between Golden Gate and Foster is the first look all visitors have of the Napa Valley. It shows Napa as an area of peace and welcome –– not sprawl like other parts of the Bay Area.

The property is right on an earthquake fault --a fact that the commission has chosen to ignore This,means that the Commission -- representatives of the peo\ple, not big money--should be looking at other areas for development. Why aren;t you?
This is a disaster from both a safety and an aesthetic viewpoint for Nap.

KEEP NAPA BEAUTIFUL –- SAVE FOSTER ROAD !!!!
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 250 of 264
1 Patricia Baring
From: Beverly Shotwell < >
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 8:42 AM
To: Patricia Baring
Subject: KNGG: Reminder: Planning Commision Meeting, Thursday, Sept. 1, 5:30PM + Update [EXTERNAL]
Good Morning Patty,
I received the email below from the KNGG organization:

Beverly
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Christiane Robbins <
To: " < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 07:08:35 PM PDT
Subject: KNGG: Reminder: Planning Commision Meeting, Thursday, Sept. 1, 5:30PM + Update Hello Everyone,
Here is yet another reminder re: a forthcoming Planning Commission Meeting this Thursday at 5:30PM, 955 School St.

I realize that we are still in a pandemic and that many are unable to attend these enclosed meetings. Unfortunately, the City is not offering the option a hybrid meeting or virtual participation. With that in mind, pls consider submitting an email/letter to the planning commission to be read at the meeting. You can also watch the live meeting on Channel 28 or online.

Basically, as we have been saying for the past two years - despite overwhelming reasoned evidence, broad inconsistencies, ushering the development of extraordinary high risk parcels that offer little but are great prime Agriculture lands, offer the City of Napa a beneficial Wildfire Urban Interface, widespread community outcry against ushering in annexation, up-zoning and development, and the City’s factual inaccuracies including housing and population numbers - the "Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor” should be removed from inclusion in this proposed draft General Plan Napa 2040.

As the Commissioners themselves stated a week + ago, this project wouldn’t even be built for another 15-30 years… then why include it at all?
With all of these reasons this proposed FRMUC should be removed from the City's proposed draft General Plan Napa 2040, as we will all know so much more in 5- 19-15 years and at that point will be able to make an informed and well-grounded decision as to how best the City move forward. This is responsible and reasoned path forward. As with Napa Pipe, if necessary, an Amendment to the General Plan could be introduced and passed by the voters.

It became apparent at the last PC meeting that 3 of the Planning Commissioners, Chair Gordon Huether, Bob Massaro and Ricky Hurtado were going to vote in favor of this project. The question steadfastly remains why, as to include this proposed FRMUC defies reason and is irresponsible to the citizens of Napa.

It seems as two of these three have obvious business interests that may well be realized should this project move forward. Due to possible conflicts of interest, KNGG recommends that these two commissioners recuse themselves from voting or take an oath that they themselves ( or any affiliated entity- corporate/business ) will not be contracted, engaged, ATTACHMENT 8 Page 251 of 264
2 consulted, or benefit in any way from their vote to include this proposed "Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor” in this draft General Plan Napa 2040. If you agree, pls include this in your comments.

The Save Foster Road Group has been meeting and organizing yet again thanks to continued efforts by Patti Kinder and Lynne Posner! Did you see their AD in the Napa Register?! Here’s hoping that they can realize a repeat performance of their group's earlier, amazing activism … if not for this meeting, certainly and, most importantly, for the City Council Meeting whose meeting date is TBD for sometime in the early Fall.

Ricky Caperton has graciously forwarded the following directions re: submitting a letter (see below ). If anyone would like us to send a list of talking points, KNGG will be happy to do so - or take a look at the website ( https://www.savefosterroad.org ). They will be useful for this PC meeting as well as the upcoming City Council meeting:
-----Original Message-----
From: Ricky Caperton <[email protected]>
Sent: Aug 29, 2022 4:24 PM
To: C.Robbins <
Cc: Sabrina Wolfson <[email protected]>, Vincent Smith <[email protected]>, Michael Walker <[email protected]>, Patricia Baring <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Meeting: 08.18.2022-to be read Hi Christiane,
Correspondence we receive is included in the record either electronically and/or physical copies provided to the decision-making body. Depending on when the communication is received, we make every effort to provide the correspondence as we receive it prior to the hearing; however, if communications are received after 4 p.m. on the day before a hearing (i.e. Wednesday if it is a Planning Commission), it will typically be provided to the decision-makers via a hard copy.

For example, if a letter is received by 4 p.m. on Wednesday leading up to a hearing, it will be provided electronically as “late communication.” Correspondence received after 4 p.m. on that Wednesday is provided via hard copy. However, it is worth noting that communications received after 4 p.m. on the day of a hearing may not leave sufficient time to print and distribute prior to the meeting, but will be provided following the meeting and still be considered part of the record.

One thing I would strongly suggest is that communications should ALWAYS be sent either directly to, or at a minimum copy (CC) the planning commission email [email protected]. To date, all of your communication has been provided to the Planning Commission for consideration.

Thank you,
Ricky
Ricky Caperton, AICP
Planning Manager
Office: (707) 257-9604 | Mobile: (707) 696-9433
Email: [email protected]
As always, thank you so very much for your support!
Christiane
Christiane Robbins
K E E P N A P A's G A T E W A Y S G R E E N
( www.savefosterroad.org )
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 252 of 264
3 Power is exercised by those who show up.

The information contained in this electronic mail message (including any attachments) is confidential information covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521, and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. _____________________
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication to anyone, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

Please be advised that no agreement can be formed by this email under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any similar law unless the email explicitly states that is the case.

Thank you.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 253 of 264
1 Patricia Baring
From: Jannette Hall <
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 9:46 AM
To: PlanningCommission
Subject: General Plan Foster Road
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Re: 7A Thursday night evening matter.

I am Against the general plan and statement of overriding consideration because these are Agriculture Lands!!! I am saying NO to Foster Road being turned into housing. This is a country road! Our water is soooo low, traffic concerns, pollution, safety issues, earthquake fault zone, overcrowding and all the expense but especially the water issue and the population increase on our already unbalanced Napa Police and community services.

My entire family of 55 are against this!! We ask you to not move forward with all of this.

As longtime Napa residents we are begging you!
We will be there Thursday night.

My best!
Jannette Hall
ReMax NorCal Gold
#01204314
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 254 of 264
1 Napa Working Families Coalition
City of Napa – General Plan
We are writing as members of the Napa Community Benefits Coalition, which is a project of the Napa Working Families Coalition. This Coalition is a combination of labor, environmental, housing, and other community groups active across the City and County of Napa. We agree with the vision expressed in the plan of making Napa a great place to live, work and play. We also agree with the goals of reducing Napa’s climate emissions and creating more quality jobs.

To that end, we offer our commentary on how the general plan draft could be improved to meet our community’s myriad needs.

We recommend the following changes in bolded text each with a parenthetic note indicating an addition or deletion:

10.3 Economic Development Strategies
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 255 of 264
2 Workforce Development and Equity:
“there is a gap in workers supporting manufacturing, professional and technical services, healthcare, (ADD) childcare, construction, and management professionals. (DELETE) as compared to the region. ”
(ADD) Childcare: After housing, childcare is the largest expenditure for families with small children. Early care and after school care are required in order for a parent to work outside the home. There is 1 (one) licensed childcare spot for every 4 children who need care in Napa. (ADD) Construction: The shortage of skilled construction workers in Napa reflects a pattern found throughout the region and presents a constraint on the potential of every other sector that relies on construction to support growth.

Public Health and Equity
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 256 of 264
3 There are two changes we would recommend here. One is to include explicit support for child care as a home based business in PHE 4 -2. This complements the goals and policies with respect to child care we are recommending in the Economic Development element. The other change we are recommending regards tenant protections in PHE 6 - 3. We were proud to have worked as a coalition to help publicize and promote efforts to limit evictions during the pandemic, and are convinced that ongoing effort to help protect tenants is essential. We agree with the notion expressed in PH 6 -3 that a just cause eviction ordinance would help, but would also like the city to work on developing an appropriate rent stabilization ordinance as a natural complement to just cause policies in order to protect against unexpected sudden large increases in rent.

ATTACHMENT 8 Page 257 of 264
1 Patricia Baring
From: Donna Kingsford
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 11:51 AM
To: PlanningCommission
Subject: General Plan changes
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Planning Commission, I am writing in regards to #7-A of Thursday, September 1st meeting. I am against the changes to the General Plan because it will allow future building to occur unnecessarily on our Ag. lands, too near active fault lines, water is dangerously low already, and, of course, traffic and pollution concerns. When are you going to listen to the citizens of Napa? NO, is No!! Most sincerely, Donna Kingsford Sent from my iPad
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 258 of 264
ATTACHMENT 8

Page 259 of 264 ends

Napa City CouncilSeptember 20, 2022

Napa City Council
September 20, 2022