ATTACHMENT 1
KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022 City's representatives renders mute any discussion of these parcels - other than those of the acknowledged, selective and unilateral privatized interests supporting this disavowed development - many of whom have been meeting with various representatives of the City of Napa for years now.
To ensure the public’s confidence in the impartiality of Council, the Council must avoid even the appearance of bias or prejudice in its decision-making process. In this situation it has been most unfortunate that, several council members and other government officials, i.e. in the County realm, have made clear statements publicly that the Ghisletta parcels would be developed with the significantly increased intensity of the Foster Road Mixed Use designation. It was often commonly referred to as a :"done deal".
A number of the City's acts and statements were made prior to the City’s review and consideration of the EIR for the Project and prior to the public hearing on the project, demonstrating pre-commitment, a lack of impartiality in decision-making, and thus the unacceptable probability of bias.
Referendum
KNGG and SFR have long enlisted support from residents, business and groups from around the City and County. As in 2007 the Save Foster Road group gathered approximately 5700 signatures for a referendum in response to the City Council voting to annex these parcels. The annexation was then dropped by the City and County of Napa.
If the General Plan Napa 2040 was adopted as proposed with the inclusion of the Foster Road Mixed Use site instead of the recommended GREENBELT designation to in the General Plan Napa 2040, a referendum could be brought once again. Our understanding is that this time however the stakes are much higher as such a referendum would then need to apply to the entire ordinance adopting the General Plan Update.
ATTACHMENT 1
KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022 Summary
The possible up-zoning, annexation and development of these Gateway Parcels cannot be seen as a chess game any longer - as mere tactics to get this past the residents of Napa. Napa is not a bedroom community - as is American Canyon. That is not the mission of the City nor the County of Napa.
For the better part of 75 years the City of Napa has developed its General Plans to carry out a mission of melding vision/foresight, sustainability and measured / reasoned responses to resolving the problems before us. This vision has been exceptional and only served to benefit the City and County of Napa enriching this renown world-class area that we all treasure.
The proposed FOSTER ROAD MIXED USE does not to speak to these directives. It speaks to an “easy way out” that profits privatized interests and a directive which will relinquish the progress and devastate the beauty generated by the wisdom of the last 75 years. Developing high-risk multi-story, multi-family complexes, tract housing and the retro-sprawl of retail, gas stations, and parking lots on these view corridor properties is nothing more than an undeniable BLIGHT to the City’s entry - and reputation - and is exactly what citizens and tourists ( the foundation of Napa's economy) do not want to see nor experience upon arrival.
KNGG requests that the City choose not to move forward with this misguided proposal from the Planning Division for the FOSTER ROAD MIXED USE and honor the Planning Commission's recommendation for GREENBELT DESIGNATION.
For the City Council to approve the FOSTER ROAD MIXED USE would render an irrevocable decision based on a lack of need, factual inaccuracies and critical uncertainties. If nothing else, sound management practices dictate never predicating such a consequential decision on such a tenuous basis. These parcels represent one of, if not the, the "Last Crop: of AGW land ( as currently zoned by the County of Napa ). Once it is gone - it is gone forever. (think Joni Mitchell ).
ATTACHMENT 1
KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022 Furthermore, such a decision would ignore the will of the people,.the broad spectrum of high-risks associated with these parcels, and inscribe disavowed planning and social practices with the proposed change in zoning for these parcels in the “Foster Road Mixed Use” designation.
Four of the Planning Commissioners took note as to how integral was the new introduction of critical information regarding RHNA numbers and the rapid advance of Climate Change. Both factors influenced their decision to reverse their earlier recommendation. They did so without compunction. It is our sincerest hope that you all will honor the implicit trust that you placed in them to render recommendations that serve the whole of the City and its aspirational future well-being. " But the rest of the Bay Area sees a huge difference. If the EP A growth scenarios are correct, Napa Valley will be a regional oasis of agriculture 50 years from now. “We’re going to get squeezed,” Morrison said. “Solano is going be fairly developed, Sonoma’ s going to be fairly developed. Vallejo is like Oakland-level density.” Morrison can envision an alternative future for Napa County. Perhaps land grows far more valuable for home building than grape growing, political re- solve to protect agriculture wains and the agricultural preserve is swallowed by development. “That’s the choice,” Morrison said. “We either fight really hard to keep what we have in terms of agriculture or we’re absorbed into the Bay Area metropolitan region.” Ag preserve, totalitarian- ism and ‘slip-shod semi-city’ That’ s the same choice the county faced at the birth of the agricultural preserve in 1968. At that time, the idea of zoning 23,000 or so acres on the Napa Valley floor as protected agriculture proved controversial....
This was before Napa County’ s future as a prosperous Wine Country was assured, when some thought Napa Valley might go the way of Santa Clara Valley." David Morrison, Director of Planning, Napa County, AG Preserve Success Touted, Napa Register, February 4, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
Christiane Robbins
On behalf of KNGG
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
From:
To: Clerk
Subject: Foster Road Mixed Use Plan
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 12:31:20 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
I am a resident of Napa living just off Foster Road. I am not in favor of the Foster Road mixed use plan as stated.
The area being considered for expansion makes no sense when taking into account all of the property within the current city limits that are available for ‘development’. There is plenty of areas available for lower income and other types of housing that would help Napa meet the Bay Area plan to increase available housing without annexation.
This plan has the stench of insider trading where a few well placed individuals currently holding positions of power stand to benefit financially. Going forward with this plan will likely result in legal actions and fees that will be shouldered by all the citizens of Napa for the benefit of a very few. This would be a waste of taxpayer funds.
Annexation will only reduce the available AG land within the county and threaten the continuation of the very reason so many visitors come to Napa in the first place.
Please follow the planning commission’s recommendations and reject this plan.
Regard,
Tad Bassett
Jacqueline Court
Sent from my iPad
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
Dear Mayor Sedgley and City Council,
Our community desperately need affordable housing.
As an employer, 90% of my employees commute into Napa County to work because there are very few affordable housing options.
As a parent, my wife and I have had to subsidize our kids housing (down payments) to keep our kids and grandkids in Napa. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford this option.
As the population of school age children are declining, we see an increase in the number of kids we serve at the Boys and Girls Club because families child care budgets are getting consumed by housing.
Housing is a real problem! In my opinion, it outweighs keeping the ‘iconic gateway’ to napa clear.
Please plan smart development where it makes sense such as the Ghisletta Family property.
Todd Walker
Napa Ca 94558
ATTACHMENT 1
From:
To: Clerk
Subject: Foster Road Mixed Used Corridor
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 12:49:38 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Mayor Sedgley and Council Members,
As a relatively new resident of Napa I’d like to express my feelings about the proposed changes being considered for the Foster Road corridor. One of the things that has drawn me to the area is the wonderful mix of open space and city amenities. It is so refreshing to drive into Napa from the south and not be met with urban clutter, strip malls and congestion. We don’t want to see Napa become a continuation of the urban sprawl that is Vallejo and American Canyon. Napa Valley is world renowned for its agriculture and beauty. Do we really want visitors to our city to be met with a wall of asphalt and concrete as they enter the valley? There are numerous areas within the city limits that could much more easily be developed without having to add extra infrastructure and disturb the natural feel of our gateway.
In a less emotional and more practical train of thought, how can you justify putting in so many new dwellings when we are in a serious water crisis ?
Please support the planning commission recommendations and vote no to this plan.
Cindy Bassett
ATTACHMENT 1
fi
!, ^ %>
^
^l^.:
^
I ;
)
^V-RI^1^^
!^
^^
0R I^ ^
^^v A?'\i ^
^.^^
^ §
;^r
^ ^&?t?>11^~ i^W:'~Sl&lI'pl. ^
.1'
^
;UJ
i5§l?Ss i'i IIt
t
.^^Jh.
i'<'f^
:tJ s°^^^
tH ^ ^!lb^
liii
* .»
^,^&, \ %
^1"
^11
^
K ??
c
^> \A
^^ V
^.&^ /--
€ '^
f
^'? fs
.^
/? r.
n
i
k ^
^
^
z
Q
-I
m
w
^: i-f ^f:< gf ^^ ^^ '(•'^
^MJ;Ai^lli^NJIii[f
frlBT:il:?it%illjB:fiW: i^ ffK:Sl^iy ?^?^I (r^i KM
:|%ftS|ll^:|t
V, - ;. ;
i\
—.—
^K
^^ .^3 ^^
^~
^^
;/
^]
<c
^
^;<
^
^
Q;
\
"s-
tN^^ ^
^5^
:5A : >i~ ^.'^~;'-;
-\
>I^r
^:;
t f
\
.rlW.I
l^'^^^
,^
^
s'
f r.
•V. :f f;
$^^'
^i ^ S
^^: fit^! ^1^1 ; i ^'I^^U
^lv ^if^it^'^^1^^'SII,IR%tjif
I \ ^
,',
^K mHTf ^i.?-^
sy'fsw
^l'1^"^ 1^^'i ^;^-
^•r i \ \ i ! : W : : : : ;
^^
^
s
i-
^
^
^
"^.
Q
-I
m
LH
^
0 ^. •
^
(
p
'r
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
I am deeply saddened that I cannot attend the Sept. 20 meeting to discuss the 2040 General Plan. This is a milestone moment, and I am fully prepared to participate. However, my health and the health of those around me take priority.
I went back to review the timeline and efforts over the past 4 (+) years. The efforts were comprehensive, welcoming, informative, and involved significant technical and environmental evaluations. •
•
•
Outreach using workshops
Community surveys and open houses
Completion of a robust existing conditions report
Preparing a vision and set of guiding principles to create a framework Establishing the GPAC who worked from December 2018 through February 2021 Planning Commission input starting in March 2021
EIR preparation
Drafting and re-drafting of the plan itself
As many of you may know, I have worked in Land Use and Planning since 1984 so am quite familiar with the requirements of a General Plan. This draft plan exceeds all State guidelines in terms of the required elements.
It honors the historical development of Napa while also creating a vision that Napa will be a city that is inclusive, family-friendly, balanced, sustainable, and flexible to adapt to changing future circumstances (Vision Statement, Page 7). The framework of this plan is solid. Thank you to all the staff, community members, and Commission members who have gotten us to this point.
The draft 2040 Plan includes new visions to achieve desperately needed housing, new language to ensure we continue to do our part to address climate change and new language to address public health and equity.
These are significant steps forward. As a whole, the document is extremely well done. The redline edits added based on comments from the community and from the Planning Commission are substantive and make the document even better.
Significant time was spent by the GPAC, Planning Commission and community members to really drill into the details. Literally hours and hours of discussion on every aspect of the plan. One new land use tool is the creation of the focus areas. (Jefferson, Trancas and Soscol). I do think these new policies work to unify and strengthen the visual character and improve the experience of walking, hiking and driving within these areas.
The plan also sets a framework to encourage more housing along these critical corridors. Time will tell if we have created achievable plans for housing and improved mobility in these important corridors. As we have said so many times, this is a "living document" and we can and will make amendments in the future. I also know we will get annual reports, so my first ask is that these summaries give us updates on each of the focus areas so we can track progress.
I am pleased to see the simplification of the description of Public Serving Lands (page 41) and a new policy (LUCD 6-7) that supports updates to zoning codes to allow for housing on lands designated as Public Serving.
While there is a broad variety of "public serving" parcels, it is evident that some will provide wonderful opportunity for additional housing so we should set a framework to streamline the process.
Clearly, there are a few specific items that require additional discussion. I want to offer my comments on the two key issues to be discussed this evening. While I cannot participate in the meeting, I would appreciate it if my fellow councilmembers could read my remarks.
ATTACHMENT 1
Foster Road
I followed the General Plan update process from the beginning and the question of how to designate the Foster Road area, which is NOT yet in the city limits, but in the Sphere of Influence (SOI) has had a lot of discussion.
Remember where things started. First, all areas in the SO! must have a land use designation in both the City General Plan and the County General Plan. The current designation in the City is Single Family Housing, Multifamily Housing and Corporate Park. The County designation is Agricultural Watershed with an Urban Reserve overlay. There are no policies that specifically discuss the significance of this area in the current General Plan.
As the discussion evolved through GPAC, to the joint Council/PC meeting and then to Planning Commission, policy was added to ensure that a Master Plan or Specific Plan would be done for the area AND the plan would have to carefully consider the site constraints, the visual impacts and include an integrated publicly accessible trail system. Policy specifically encourages the retention of the Horseman's Association as an agricultural use. I believe that the intent of these policies was to ensure that any future plan meets a defined high standard.
Can we honor the visual character, design an integrated project that features access to the area's open space assets AND build housing that we desperately need? I think we can. If or when a project is proposed, it would go through a thorough public review process and would be required to meet these standards. I am NOT in favor of a massive housing project or a strip mail or creation of expensive second homes. I am in favor of housing that is attainable to our local workforce, housing that is built in a sustainable manner, walkable neighborhoods, improvements to the bike and pedestrian facilities along Foster Road, preservation of the scenic corridor, and access to open space on public trails.
LUCD-23 includes 9 policies that are intended to set a high standard for any potential future project. The clustering of any development should not just be promoted, it should be required. It is the only way to ensure the establishment of an open space and trail system that will preserve the scenic values. It is also the tool needed to ensure that housing can be higher density which would allow housing to be more affordable by design. I would propose 4 amendments which are detailed on a stand-alone page with redline to show edits.
The four amendments include:
1. The heading of the section should clearly call out the fact that both Foster Road and Big Ranch Road are in the Sphere of Influence.
2. Amend LUCD 23-1 to include housing to serve the local Napa workforce and preservation of open space as key elements to include in the Master Plan.
3. Amend LUCD-23-3 to require clustered development.
4. Amend LUCD 23-7 to require preservation of open space. 2
ATTACHMENT 1
Linda Vista Bridge
My strong preference is to remove the bridge from the General Plan. To call this out as a Major Collector Street in our future roadway network is just wrong (figure 3-1). Let me remind you that the classification of Major Collector is a road that serves up to 6,300 vehicles daily. This is completely unreasonable for a small residential neighborhood and in direct conflict with our goals to create safe and walkable neighborhoods.
This issue has been brought forward by residents since the very beginning of the General Plan Update effort and their concerns have not been heard at all. Nowhere in the plan are these concerns expressed. So again, my preference is to take it out of the plan. Should this council or a future council want to spend the money to study it more, fine. I am not interested right now in spending money on this kind of study, I would rather just take it out of the plan.
I listened to Planning Commission and agree with Commissioner Kelley's comment that when or if a bridge is needed, the burden should be on the City to add it back in. I do not support adding this additional cut through which conflicts with our goals to work to develop traffic calming measures in our residential neighborhoods.
I support the Planning Commission recommendation to take this out of the General Plan.
In closing, I want to again acknowledge all the work from staff, GPAC, Planning Commission and the consultant team who got us to this point. I know other General Plan topics will be discussed this evening and I am truly saddened that I cannot participate in the discussion, which I know will be robust. I did feel a strong obligation to comment on the two issues that have generated significant public comment.
Thank you taking the time to review my comments.
Beth Painter
Beth Painter
Councilmember, District 2
3
ATTACHMENT 1
SPECIFIC AREA POLICIES
The following area goals and policies apply to specific portions of the Planning area outside of Downtown and the Focus Areas. Foster Road and Bie Ranch Road are within the City's Sphere of Influence but have not been annexed into the City. Napa Pipe was annexed to the City in XXXX.
Foster Road Mixed Use
GOAL LUCD-23 Promote residential development with supporting commercial uses, integrated with site topography and the natural environments.
Amended Policies
LUCD 23-1 Require a cohesive master or specific plan that incorporates all parcels and property owners with the Foster Road Mixed Use designation, while recognizing that parcels may be annexed to the City at different times. Require that the plan outlines, at a minimum, LlLan integrated system of streets, trails and open spaces for the area; (2) a mix of housing types to serve the local Napa workforce and (3) preservation of open space to protect sensitive resources and habitats and viewsheds.
LUCD 23-3 £§SJJ!^cjust6red.deyslppment to minjm[ze grading, pres visual impacts.
LU CD 23-7 Require preservation of open space that will pj-p mote d eyelo p m e nt of an integrated, publicly-accessible trails system,thatcpnnects the area's open space.assrt^^^ schools, and new commercial uses; and provides access to ridgelines and vantage points.
Consider incorporating geologic faults/Alquist Priolo Zones as part of the trails system. -{ Deleted: Promote
•(^Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Deleted: in the area
ATTACHMENT 1
From:
To: Clerk
Subject: Plz read Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 1:27:54 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor, Council and Honored Guests;
I would like to see the entrance to the city along Hwy 29 remain as a green belt. It would be a shame to add 100 or more homes there. We would look like other ugly Metropolitan Cities.
People do not live in Napa or visit Napa to see houses - they want to see the quaint farming community and vineyards that make us unique.
While I support progress. And support homes for others. Infill, ADU’s and unique solutions should be our focus. I personally know each one of you and I know you love and care about our city. Please keep Napa lovely. Do not mess us up with homes at our entrance.
Thanks so much!
Former Vice Mayor at City of Napa
#geterdonenapa
Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
From:
To: Clerk
Cc: Scott Sedgley; Liz Alessio; Mary Luros; Bernie Narvaez; Beth Painter; Vincent Smith; Tom Andrews Subject: Emailing: City Council; Adopt the Eir and General Plan September 12, 2022.pdf Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 1:33:33 PM
Attachments: City Council; Adopt the Eir and General Plan September 12, 2022.pdf [You don't often get email from m. Learn why this is important at https://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Please find my attached recommendations for 2040 General Plan. I will drop of a wet signed original later today...;) Thanks for all of your hard work to get this done!
Tom Andrews
Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
City Council; Adopt the Eir and General Plan September 12, 2022.pdf Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
ATTACHMENT 1
September 20, 2022
To: City of Napa, City Council
Via email and Hand Delivery to: The City Clerk [email protected] From: Thomas Andrews
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
In Consideration of the City of Napa 2040 General Plan.
A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing environmental impacts that could result from adoption of the 2040 General Plan has been prepared. The EIR identifies mitigation measures that would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level that is less than significant. Impacts to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Agricultural Resources have been determined to be significant and unavoidable.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared.
The Planning Commission considered the above referenced matters at a public hearing on September 1, 2022 and has recommended approval to:
(1) Adopt a resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Napa 2040 General Plan, and adopting findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations and determining that the General Plan may serve as a Mitigation Monitoring Plan in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act:
(2) Adopt a resolution adopting the City of Napa 2040 General Plan, The City of Napa General Plan with the following modification: Eliminate the Linda Vista Avenue roadway extension (extending Linda Vista southwest of Lone Oak Avenue and connecting with Robinson Lane) from the Transportation Element.
Sincerely,
Thomas Andrews
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Kevin Teague
To: Scott Sedgley; Clerk
Cc: Vincent Smith; Steve Potter; Tiffany Carranza; Michael Barrett Subject: General Plan Comments, 9-20-22, City Council Item 14A Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 2:03:16 PM
Attachments: Fwd Planning Commission Napa General Plan DiscussionFoster Road Area 2.pdf Fwd Napa County General Plan Comments.pdf
Ranch History.pdf
Fwd KNGG Response to Napa Register Article in todays issue.pdf [EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor and City Council (by bcc),
I write on behalf of the Ghisletta family, whom I have personally known for nearly 40 years, and I have represented for the past 20 years. I am out of town and cannot attend the hearing tonight.
The purpose of this email is to provide you with facts and accurate information regarding the Foster Road area as it relates to the City’s General Plan update. I attach to this email some prior communications I have submitted as part of this nearly 4-year General Plan process. These include a detailed email to the Planning Commission in 2020, an email to City Council from 2021 correcting false information circulated in the community, and a history of the Ghisletta’s property on Foster Road.
I also attach a recent email circulated by opponents to the housing opportunities under the General Plan in the Foster Road area, which I refer to later in this email.
Let me start with recognizing the challenging job you all have. Adopting a General Plan, a 20 plus year vision for the City, is a big deal. You have to weigh competing interests, including short-term desires of residents and long-term priorities of the City.
I appreciate the countless hours you, staff, GPAC and others have put into this multigenerational document. Thank you.
As it relates to the Foster Road area, from both a personal and professional standpoint I simply don’t comprehend why planning for housing is so difficult and despised by so many. Often these objections are prefaced by a statement of support for housing, but then followed by a list of why housing at a particular place is just not a good fit. The central commandment of Jesus to “Love thy neighbour as thyself,” seems to have evolved to love thy neighbor so long as they are in some other neighborhood and not near me.
This disdain for housing led the State of California to pass several recent laws to fight NIMBYism and other acts that diminish the opportunity and ability to provide housing. The reason the state did this is because the Legislature found that the lack of housing is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life, and that the housing crisis harms families across California. According to legislative findings in SB330, our lack of housing has:
“Increased poverty and homelessness, especially first-time homelessness.”
ATTACHMENT 1
“Forced public employees, health care providers, teachers, and others, including critical safety personnel, into more affordable housing farther from the communities they serve, which will exacerbate future disaster response challenges in high-cost, high-congestion areas and increase risk to life.” “Driven families out of the state or into communities away from good schools and services, disrupting family life . . . and increasing health problems.” We have seen these exact effects in Napa across all socio- economic classes. Schools have closed as families can’t find a place to live, we have more unhoused than ever before, staffing jobs at all levels has become nearly impossible due to the lack of diverse housing. At every retreat the Council holds and in every community poll taken we recognize that addressing the housing crisis is Napa’s top priority.
The problem has become so acute that the legislature found “the consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.”
Removing Foster Road as a housing opportunity will simply stoke the flames of our local housing crisis and will lead to the exact outcomes quoted above that the legislature made a law to combat. I have previously written the City about these legal requirements, so I will not repeat that information here. What is important under the law is to not lose or attempt to justify the loss of housing capacity.
This brings me to the email I attached authored by Ms. Robbins. Most of you know me well, so I do not need to point out and correct the personalized false and defamatory statements. You already know I am a proud graduate of Napa High, raised a family here, live in the same small house I have lived in on the “tree streets” for over 20 years, serve on many non-profit boards, and I welcome housing and neighbors near me.
Instead, what I want to point out about that email is that the information being spread to the community about the General Plan and Ghisletta property is not based on facts, policy, or the law. It contains falsehoods and makes personal attacks rather focus than the substance of the designations and matters being addressed in the General Plan. This is not community dialog. This is the type of divisive, fear-based rhetoric that harms communities, the type that frankly has put our nation’s democracy at risk. This should not become the norm in Napa. Facts, truth and civility are important.
The General Plan is about long-term community planning for future generations. It
must be based on fact, law, and sound policy. It is not a document intended to facilitate certain individuals’ perceived entitlement to never have neighbors and ignore
ATTACHMENT 1
sound planning that began many decades ago.
I respectfully request that you support the staff recommendations and support the General Plan, and not remove long planned and much needed housing opportunities as the Planning Commission mistakenly recommended.
Thank you for your hard work on this important milestone.
Kevin Teague
[email protected]
HolmanTeague
HolmanTeagueRocheAnglin LLP Attorneys at Law
1455 First Street, Suite 217, Napa,CA 94559
707.927.4280
707.676.4382(fax)
www.htralaw.com
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Kevin Teague [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission: Napa General Plan Discussion/Foster Road Area Date: September 19, 2022 at 9:19 AM
To:
Email to City on General Plan, 2020
From: Kevin Teague <[email protected]>
Date: September 17, 2020 at 4:29:02 PM PDT
To: Vincent Smith <[email protected]>, Erin Morris <[email protected]>, Michael Walker <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Planning Commission: Napa General Plan Discussion/Foster Road Area Dear Planning Commissioners and staff,
First, I have sent this email to commissioners as a BCC to avoid any inadvertent Brown Act Violations. This communication is for the record for you General Plan meeting tonight. It need not be read into the record.
I write on behalf of the Ghisletta family who I have known since high school and have worked with in my professional capacity ever since I moved back home to Napa in 2002. Since Joe Ghisletta’s passing last year, the family has asked that I speak on their behalf. The purpose of this email is to provide you with some factual information regarding their property on Foster Road. I am sending you this information because I have personally observed misinformation and false information circulating on social media. I believe it is important to have facts as the City contemplates its future in the General Plan. There has been a significant amount of discussion of planning and zoning over the past 40 years regarding the Family’s ranch property between golden Gate Drive and Foster Road. Much of that can be found in the public record.
Here are some key points about the property’s history:
The Ghisletta family has owned the property since 1913, now 107 years. I mention this because I have read allegations that there is a developer looking to make a quick buck. That is simply untrue. This is a multi- generational family property that predates the nearby neighborhoods. There is no developer, nor has there been one involved in promoting development of the property.
The ranch was originally a dairy farm that stretched from Foster Road to the Napa river. The cows used to cross the old frontage road where Highway 29 is located now as party of the normal dairy life. With the development of Highway 29 in the 1970s, the state severed the ranch. The family worked with the state to allow this to happen because that is what the community needed, even though that forever impacted the dairy operation and ultimately led to its shut-down.
In 1975, the City, in cooperation with the County established the Rural Urban Limit Line or "RUL" in order to create real boundaries to contain urban growth and development. The RUL established a line where development proposals and urban growth would be absolutely discouraged if located outside the RUL. The Ghisletta Family Ranch has always been located within the City’s RUL.
In 1980, Measure A became effective. Measure A was approved by the voters and requires a vote of the people to expand the RUL. Under Measure A lands outside the RUL are reserved for resource use, agriculture and low- density residential uses, and lands inside the RUL are reserved for urban uses, primarily residential development.
This core Rural/Urban policy was a basis for the City’s 1982 General Plan and the Napa County General Plan, which designated the ranch as Urban Reserve for future residential development within the City of Napa. The family cooperated with the City in these processes.
In the early 1990’s, through a public process, LAFCO included the ranch within the City's Sphere of Influence under the direction that the Ranch would be developed within a couple of decades to assure orderly development consistent with the City's General Plan and housing needs, consistent with the RUL, Measure A and the City and County Planning. In 1992, the City conducted a detailed land use and availability inventory as the basis for the
ATTACHMENT 1
County Planning. In 1992, the City conducted a detailed land use and availability inventory as the basis for the current General Plan, which examined lands within the City’s RUL, and the ranch was included in that study.
Although not interested in development, the family once again cooperated with local government.
Around the same time, vineyard growth was occurring all around Napa. After extensive study and attempts, the land was determined to not be viable for agriculture due to soil types.
In 1998, the City went through its general plan process for the Vision 2020 General Plan in place today. The process is similar to the one occurring now. The General Plan designated the ranch both Corporate Park and Single Family Residential. Then in 2003 the City prezoned the ranch to Master Plan, requiring a planning process in order to implement those General Plan designations. The family did not necessarily agree with these approaches and designations, but again cooperated with the agencies because it was in the interest of the community.
In 2000, the flood project acquired the family lands between the Highway and the Napa River as part of the wetland mitigation for our regional flood project. The family also had the City and the Flood District set aside some of their former lands for a future park in that area.
In 2005, LAFCO did a report to update its Sphere of Influence. Based on the confirmation that the property should be part of the City, the City applied to LAFCO to annex the property. The family cooperated with the City. After a lengthy process, the City and County did not come to an agreement on the property tax sharing between the jurisdictions, a prerequisite to annexation. Because of this, the City withdrew its annexation petition in 2008.
In 2010 an initiative was rejected that attempted to alter the City’s processes for future planning of the property. Through each of these stages there has not been any development planned or pursued. Instead, the family has cooperated with the agencies to further the community needs, often sacrificing their own needs.
When development of the now existing neighborhoods along Foster Road was originally planned, some residents and development opposition in the neighborhood asked the family to fight that development where many Napans call it home today. The family did not oppose those neighboring housing projects and left it to the City to work on and make decisions.
As you proceed through the process, please keep in mind that the Ghisletta Family Ranch is not only important to the City for meeting its future housing needs and goals to house us, our children, our workforce and even some new Napans, but it also is important to balance these needs the important community goals of good planning and design, and preserving and protecting open space in the areas outside of the RUL that protect the Napa’s rural, agricultural heritage.
The family and I stand willing to work with the City and provide what information we have if it assists you in the process to determine what best meets the City's future needs.
Thank you.
Kevin Teague
[email protected]
HolmanTeague
HolmanTeagueRocheAnglin LLP Attorneys at Law
1455 First Street, Suite 217, Napa,CA 94559
707.927.4280
707.676.4382(fax)
ATTACHMENT 1
www.htralaw.com
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Kevin Teague [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Napa County General Plan Comments
Date: September 19, 2022 at 9:23 AM
To:
Email for Council on General Plan, 2021.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kevin Teague <[email protected]>
Subject: Napa County General Plan Comments
Date: April 20, 2021 at 4: 29:44 PM PDT
To: Clerk <[email protected] >, Tiffany Carranza <[email protected] >, [email protected] Cc: Vincent Smith <[email protected] >, Erin Morris <[email protected] > Dear Mayor and Council,
I will be calling in tonight, but I wanted to provide you with this written comment on some specific facts and false innuendos in the public dialog regarding the Ghisletta property and greenbelts. The purpose of this email is to have accurate information in the record for the remaining part of the process. I attach a neighborhood flyer circulating for your reference to my comments below. I also include a prior history of the property, which is also part of the public record.
Allegation
: The anti-housing advocates state that there will be big box development, 1000s of homes , 3-4 story apartments gas stations and sound walls the size of St. Helena.
Facts
: There is no development project proposed. The City is going through its general plan update process to determine the appropriate designations for the City’s future housing needs. Current zoning is large lot subdivision and corporate park.
The City of St. Helena is over 5 square miles and has a population of over 6000 people.
Allegation: This will be on the iconic Scenic Gateway.
Facts: The City limits begins south of the property along Stanly Ranch. The beginning of urban development in the City is a storage facility. Planning for the future of the property facilitates rather than prevents scenic corridors being considered.
Allegation
: The alleged development is being brought to you by the City Council, private land owners and developers.
Facts: The City is required to go through a General Plan process every 20 years. The private land owner has remained distant from the process to allow the City to go through the process and plan accordingly. No developer is or has been involved.
Allegation
: That planning for future housing needs will cause environmental harm.
Facts: Napa and the State is in a housing crisis. Housing nearer jobs reduces environmental impacts. Housing of all types lessen the social injustice which further reduces environmental and social impacts.
The point here is that facts are important. Falsehoods and misinformation are harmful, not only to the environment but also to community. I ask the Council to make the policy decisions in the general plan based on facts, science, social science and justice. Falsehoods and misinformation lead to bad policy.
If you are looking for input from the family on the General Plan, the only specific point is the draft densities may be a bit too high and not in character for the area. I believe many in the neighborhood may agree. Please consider studying a slightly lower density during the process.
Thank you.
ATTACHMENT 1
Ranch
History.pdf
Kevin Teague
[email protected]
HolmanTeague
HolmanTeagueRocheAnglin LLP Attorneys at Law
1455 First Street, Suite 217, Napa,CA 94559
707.927.4280
707.676.4382(fax)
www.htralaw.com
ATTACHMENT 1
GHISLETTA RANCH REGULATORY HISTORY
The purpose of this writing is to provide the City with factual information regarding the Ghisletta’s Ranch property located between golden Gate Drive and Foster Road.
There has been a significant amount of discussion of planning and zoning over the past 40 to 50 years regarding the Ranch. Much of that can be found in the public record. Here are some key points about the property’s history:
• The Ghisletta family has owned the property since 1913, now 108 years. There are allegations that there is a developer involved in the development of the Ranch. That is simply untrue. This is a multi-generational family property that predates the nearby neighborhoods. There is no developer, nor has there been one involved in promoting development of the property.
• The Ranch was originally a dairy farm that stretched from Foster Road to the Napa river.
The cows used to cross the old frontage road where Highway 29 is located now as party of the normal dairy life. With the development of Highway 29 in the 1970s, the State severed the Ranch. The Ghisletta family worked with the state to allow this to happen because that is what the community needed, even though that forever impacted the dairy operation and ultimately led to its shut-down.
• In 1975, the City, in cooperation with the County established the Rural Urban Limit Line or "RUL" in order to create real boundaries to contain u rban growth and development. The RUL established a line where development proposals and urban growth would be absolutely discouraged if located outside the RUL. The Ghisletta Family Ranch has always been located within the City’s RUL.
• In 1980, Measure A became effective. Measure A was approved by the voters and requires a vote of the people to expand the RUL. Under Measure A, lands outside the RUL are reserved for resource use, agriculture and low-density residential uses, and lands inside the RUL are reserved for urban uses, primarily residential development. This core Rural/Urban policy was a basis for the City’s 1982 General Plan and the Napa County General Plan, which designated the Ranch as Urban Reserve for future residential development within the City. The family cooperated with the City in these processes.
• In the early 1990’s, through a public process, LAFCO included the ranch within the City's Sphere of Influence under the direction that the Ranch would be developed within a couple of decades to assure orderly development consistent with the City's General Plan and housing needs, consistent with the RUL, Measure A and the City and County Planning. In 1992, the City conducted a detailed land use and availability inventory as the basis for the current General Plan, which examined lands within the City’s RUL, and the ranch was included in that study. Although not interested in development, the family once again cooperated with local government.
ATTACHMENT 1
• Around the same time, vineyard growth was occurring all around Napa. After extensive study and attempts, the land was determined to not be viable for agriculture due to soil types.
• In 1998, the City went through its general plan process for the Vision 2020 General Plan in place today. The process is similar to the one occurring now. The General Plan designated the ranch both Corporate Park and Single Family Residential. Then in 2003 the City prezoned the ranch to Master Plan, requiring a planning process in order to implement those General Plan designations. The family did not necessarily agree with these approaches and designations, but again cooperated with the agencies because it was in the interest of the community.
• In 2000, the flood project acquired the family lands between the Highway and the Napa River as part of the wetland mitigation for our regional flood project . The family also had the City and the Flood District set aside some of their former lands for a future park in that area.
• In 2005, LAFCO updated its Sphere of Influence. Based on the confirmation that the property should be part of the City, the City applied to LAFCO to annex the property. The family cooperated with the City. After a lengthy process, the City and County did not come to an agreement on the property tax sharing between the jurisdictions, a prerequisite to annexation. Because of this, the City withdrew its annexation petition.
• In 2010 an initiative was rejected that attempted to alter the City’s processes for future planning of the property. Through each of these stages there has not been any development planned or pursued. Instead, the family has cooperated with the agencies to further the community needs, often sacrificing their own needs.
• When development of the now existing neighborhoods along Foster Road was originally planned, some residents and development opposition in the neighborhood asked the family to fight that development where many Napans call it home today. The family did not oppose those neighboring housing projects and left it to the City to work on and make decisions.
As the City proceeds through the process, please keep in mind that the Ghisletta Family Ranch is not only important to the City for meeting its future housing needs and goals to house us, our children, our workforce and even some new Napans, but it also is important to balance these needs the important community goals of good planning and design, and preserving and protecting open space in the areas outside of the RUL that protect the Napa’s rural, agricultural heritage.
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Kevin Teague [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: KNGG Response to Napa Register Article in today's issue Date: September 19, 2022 at 9:26 AM
To:
Email sent by C. Robbins, 9-18-22
From: Christiane Robbins <[email protected]>
Date: September 18, 2022 at 6:18:22 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: KNGG Response to Napa Register Article in today's issue In case you have seen this article in today’s paper, here is the link! https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/napa-city-council-to-weigh-foster-road-zoning-as-general-plan-process-nears- end/article_a24e7f9a-361b-11ed-a3bd-731fef4ac502.html#tracking-source=home-top-story OMG! Attorney Kevin Teague is clutching his pearls again …. my, what a web he has woven for himself and his clients.
One would think that he would tire of placing himself in such a tenuous position …. not to mention the citizens of Napa as well as the City Council. As he did with Napa Oaks, he is doing it again with the Gateway Parcels - aka the Ghisletta Parcels - owned by his clients. His clients who, even in this very paper, cried wolf stating that they have NO development project in mind nor plans drawn up - Council member Mary Luros, do you agree do you agree - there is no project, right? Teague has now resorted to bullying and threats of intimidation of Napa’s City Council with frivolous lawsuits/litigation following the recent judicious and diligent decision rendered by the Planning Commission to designate these parcels as Greenbelt. For Teague to insult the integrity and ethics of the Planning Commissioners and to threaten the City Council with lawsuits speaks volumes as to his motives and those of his clients. Who does he aspire to be, Tom Hagen in The Godfather or Noah Cross in Chinatown ?
" It’s about evil lurking right under the sun—a film noir told not in high contrast shadows, but in the brightness of day.?” or in this case in the bright pages of the Napa Register.
Of course, housing is needed - no one has ever denied it - in fact many of us have long supported YIMBY . And the Planning Commission has assured the citizens of Napa that affordable and mixed-income housing will be built throughout all of the SAFE and affordable sites already identified by the City as urban infill - and this speaks to 21st century “smart growth directives” . This is diametrically opposed to Teague’s retro 1950’s viewpoint of perpetuating urban sprawl - the very sprawl that gave us the unthinkable climate change that we are battling today. But I don’t think he is able to grasp anything beyond his transactional thinking, appropriation and co-opting of racist tropes for financial gain by ushering in one of, if not the, the largest, probably segregated developments in the history of Napa, if not the State of California. It makes the mid-century Lakewood Development in Southern California look like a cakewalk:
"Lakewood Developers are credited with "altering
forever the map of Southern California.”
Let’s talk about Kevin Teague’s “race lighting” where his letter gaslights the covert racism in this proposal for the Foster Road Mixed Use - one that was authored by the Planning Division. Their proposal segregates people of lower income ( often people of color ) by creating a whole new city in South Napa - rather than offering them the same amenities and privileges associated with housing spread throughout the city of Napa ( as it should be legally speaking), such as in neighborhoods where he and the members of the City Council live, such as Browns valley and Alta Vista, etc. No ... that would be way too much for his faux-liberal, happy talk to deliver equitable housing that would offer everyone the ability to afford ( or even secure a mortgage ) and enjoy the same financial appreciation on their investment …and basically live in relative comfort and safety from the West Napa Fault Line, Flood Plains and Landslide areas - not to mention gas emissions from Hwy 29 and additional 3000 people + commercial ventures and transients.
OR because they will soon discover that it is way too expensive to build on such a high risk site - a site that the Ghisletta and their developer interests seem far too eager to offload onto the city’s ability to up-zone for gigantic profit …. only to find that affordable housing is way too costly to build and lo and behold, golly gee, we just won’t be able to built it for that price. As the California State Geologist recently mentioned, sites like the Ghisletta parcels are good for one of two things:
Greenbelt or Golf courses.
Unlike Napa Pipe ( similar in scale ) the Ghisletta parcels are considered Prime Agricultural Lands by LAFCO ( a state agency
ATTACHMENT 1
Unlike Napa Pipe ( similar in scale ) the Ghisletta parcels are considered Prime Agricultural Lands by LAFCO ( a state agency ) - despite what Michael Walker would have us believe. They are not Superfund sites or industrial wasteland begging for welcome reclamation like Napa Pipe. These parcels are the City’s of Napa’s “last Crop” of AG land - once they are gone they are gone and we will all be the poorer for it.
For the City Council to render such an irrevocable decision based on NO NEED for Housing development on this Prime AG site, a mega-drought, factual inaccuracies in population and housing forecasts, half-truths, 21st red-lining and threats of intimidation is irresponsible - at best. They have discretionary mechanisms that are always available to them that will allow them to make responsible, sensible decisions once all of the information is confirmed - exactly what they did with the Napa Pipe project’s general amendment to the General Plan.
We see through you Kevin ….we all do… its time to hang it up and move on to faux greener pastures.
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 2:09 PM
To: Patricia Baring <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Proposed development Ghisletta Property
[EXTERNAL]
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
ATTACHMENT 1
Suscol Intertribal Council
PO Box 5386
Napa, CA 94581 [email protected]
The Vision of Suscol Intertribal Council is preservation of Native American culture. Also, to develop and maintain Native American "Suskol House" in Chiles-Pope Valley and advocate Human Rights for Indigenous peoples.
09/20/2022
The Mayor and City Council City of Napa 255 School St. Napa, CA 94559
Re: Proposed development of Ghisletta Propert
Dear Mayor Sedgley and City Councilmembers,
The Suscol Intertribal Council a local community based organization wants to voice opposition to that part of the proposed City General Plan that contemplates the annexation and up-zoning of the parcels of land commonly known as the Ghisletta property. We believe, for several reasons, that this property is best treated as Greenbelt land, as proposed by the Napa Planning Commission.
We hold that the highest and best use of all land in unincorporated Napa County is that it be maintained as it is currently; farmlands should remain farmland, wildlands should remain wild. A corollary is that cities should not expand into undeveloped areas of the county and urban sprawl must be curtailed. The proposed General Plan violates both tenets.
Development of the Ghisletta property would replace an existing open space that is an active carbon sink with a heat island. It would bring a tremendous number of new vehicles into the Napa area thereby increasing exhaust emissions. It would require significant investment in new infrastructure. It would strain already stressed water resources and it would expose potential residents to the repercussions of earthquakes as a significant fault line traverses the land. Finally, development of that land will completely and permanently alter the south-western approach to our city.
We believe that the City of Napa should pursue development of all the fifty plus housing appropriate in- fill sites in the city before even contemplating annexation and development of county land. We urge the city council not to adopt the proposed General Plan in its existing state. We urge the city council to abandon the notion of annexation and up-zoning of the Ghisletta property,
Sincerely,
Charlie Toledo, Director
Suscol Intertribal Council
ATTACHMENT 1
September 19, 2022
To: Tiffany Carranza <[email protected]>
Cc: Liz Alessio <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Mary Luros <[email protected]>, Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>, Scott Sedgley <[email protected]
Item 14. Public Hearing – General Plan
Dear Mayor Sedgley, Vice Mayor Luros and Council members Alessio, Narvaez and Painter, Please remain focused on the established direction of the ongoing General Plan, and do not defer from years of hard work, thoughtful community input and planning, and future execution of a one of the city’s most important -- and complete collaborative efforts, to accept the Planning Commission’s short- sighted, last-minute recommendation to change the zoning designation of the Foster Road area – which includes the Ghisletta Ranch – from Mixed Use to Greenbelt.
There's no need for me to go into all the legal, truly necessary reasons why we as a community need you to remain committed to a housing plan established with the Ghisletta family legacy many years ago, as I'm sure you’ve heard them all at this point.
I only ask that we remain consistent with the General Plan designation established through your comprehensive, publicly vetted process.
Please stay the course and provide collaborative, thoughtful, and strategic leadership for our community, and the legacy of a family who’s committed and contributed so much to that community.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful consideration.
Travis Stanley
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Travis Stanley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 3:29 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Liz Alessio <[email protected]>; Beth Painter <[email protected]>; Mary Luros <[email protected]>; Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>; Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 14. Public Hearing - General Plan
[EXTERNAL]
Attached is correspondence from the Napa Chamber of Commerce.
Travis Stanley
President/CEO
Napa Chamber of Commerce | 1556 First Street | Napa, CA 94559 [email protected] | 707.254.1146
ATTACHMENT 1
September 19, 2022
To: Tiffany Carranza
Re: Item 14. Public Hearing – General Plan
Dear Mayor Sedgley, Vice Mayor Luros and Council members Alessio, Narvaez and Painter:
Please remain focused on the established direction of the ongoing General Plan, and do not defer from years of hard work, thoughtful community input and planning, and future execution of one of the city’s most important -- and complete collaborative efforts, to accept the Planning Commission’s short -sighted, last -minute
recommendation to change the zoning designation of the Foster Road area – which includes the Ghisletta Ranch – from Mixed Use to Greenbelt.
There's no need for me to go into all the legal, truly necessary reasons why we as a community need you to remain committed to a housing plan established with the Ghisletta family legacy many years ago, as I'm sure you’ve heard them all at this point. I only ask that we remain consistent with the General P lan designation established through your comprehensive, publicly vetted process.
Please stay the course and provide collaborative, thoughtful, and strategic leadership for our community, and the legacy of a family who’s committed and contributed so much to that community.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
/s/
Travis Stanley
President/CEO
Napa Chamber of Commerce
cc: Liz Alessio, Beth Painter, Mary Luros, Bernie Narvaez, Scott Sedgley
Board of Directors
Chair, Greg Brun, Napa Valley Wine Train
Austin Allison, Pacaso
Michael Basayne, SBDC
Andrea Clarke, M.D., Kaiser Permanente
Alonso Corona, SSAM, Inc.
John Evans
Christi Coors Ficeli, Goosecross Cellars
Ken Frank, La Toque
Adam Ghisletta, Avenue 8 Real Estate
Dave Graham, Bottlerock Presents
Gordon Huether, Gordon Huether Studio
Mike Murray, NRWS
George Nielson, Nielson Construction
Richard Rybicki, Rybicki & Assoc.
Kevin Teague, Holman Teague
1556 First Street
Napa • CA • 94559
E [email protected]
O 707.226.7455
President & CEO Travis Stanley
E [email protected]
O 707.254.1146
V.P. of Operations Philippa Perry
E [email protected]
O 707.254.1145
Napa Chamber of Commerce is a 501(c)6,
Not-for-Profit Organization
Tax ID# 94-0705300
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Victoria Lancaster
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 3:20 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Agenda Item 14.A. 323-2022 General Plan Adoption
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley and City Council:
With deep concern, I write today to respectfully request strong consideration and adoption of the recommendation by the Napa City Planning Commission to reject the proposed General Plan 2040 which would redesignate the lands between Foster Road and Golden Gate (Foster Road Mixed-Use Corridor) for future development and instead to designate these pastoral and valuable lands as Green Belt.
You have been given a myriad of environmental, physical, emotional and practical reasons to reject this short-sighted plan. I will not repeat them all here, as there are many who will recite them to you again tonight.
What I'd like each of you to consider is how you want this City to develop, to grow and to exist. You all live here, you all have a personal investment in this entire City, not just the District you now represent. You 5 hold the power to redefine how this CIty looks and functions for not only the residents but for those that travel here from the lengths of the globe to experience a piece of our paradise. No one who lives here came or stays for over-development and no one travels here to see urban sprawl they are trying to escape for a few days. Retain our unique and rare gift!
You have only ever been given but one reason to support the proposed General Plan as it pertains to these acres - "we need more housing". No one will dispute that Napa could use more places for people to live. But is the answer to take the easiest approach and throw hundreds of units on land to solve this problem or do we use smart, well- thought-out, long-term planning that will add housing in the city core that is innovative and forward thinking? If our City is to be known world-wide for our beautiful landscape and premium wines, don't we want to also be known as a City who preserved all that we hold dear and a City that used its brain power to solve our housing crisis by smarter means than the same old ones that have been used for decades which have resulted in the sprawl that chokes our beautiful Bay Area?
If you have any doubts about this Foster Road Mixed-Use Corridor, but feel that you must approve it to satisfy the "need for housing" advocates or are swayed by those that threaten lawsuits, take a minute and really envision what this will look like in years to come for all our children and grandchildren and stand against that undue pressure and extreme intimidation. If you can't imagine Napa's gateway as a walled small city that looks like a planning embarrassment, then take this rare opportunity only afforded to a select few of you to make the wise decision to preserve this land and provide Napans and our visitors with a beautiful place to breathe, walk, run, and look across the Valley at the eastern hillsides. You hold this power because you represent the Napans who
ATTACHMENT 1
have placed you in those chairs: to represent what Napans want in their chosen home.
Be the reason we will all be proud to continue to call this beautiful City "home".
I urge you to find other ways, seek other alternatives and take the wise recommendation of the members of your Planning Commission who have made the brave choice to say no to this kind of development on the few open lands we have left.
Thank you for your time and for your thoughtful consideration of this extremely important issue that will shape Napa for generations to come.
Respectfully yours,
Victoria Lancaster
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Robert Cherry
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 3:26 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: SLOW DOWN NAPA - Requested changes to the proposed General Plan
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgely and Council Members:
I’m writing in support of Maureen Trippe and her tireless efforts to address the speeding problem here in Napa.
I understand that she’ll be presenting tonight and her comments will be along the following lines.
Her requests seem completely reasonable and I don’t understand why there would be a problem with agreeing with them.
Thank you all very much for your very hard work.
Rob Cherry
*
The Final Admin Draft of Napa General Plan 2040 does not include an intentional goal to address concerns about speeding and cut-through traffic in residential neighborhoods.
We ask for your support to include this goal: To protect residential neighborhoods from high-volume and high speed traffic and its effects.
This goal was in the General Plan 20 years ago - written exactly this way. It is no less important today. With GPS and delivery vehicles, it is even more important.
Goal TE 2-7 on page 106 of the Draft is a similar sounding goal. It has been edited to include key words, but it does not match the simplicity and the intent to protect residential neighborhoods.
Residents have been speaking out and asking for help. Traffic Calming is needed to protect our neighborhoods.
Please include this purposeful and essential goal exactly as it is written: to protect residential neighborhoods from high-volume and high speed traffic and its effect.
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Allison Bencsik
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 3:26 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment - Agenda Item 14.A.
[EXTERNAL]
Public Comment - Agenda Item 14.A.
Hello, Napa City Councilmembers. My name is Allison Bencsik I am an 11th Grader from American Canyon High School, and along with Liliana Karesh, I am a new co-leader of Napa Schools for Climate Action. Our local youth-led coalition was established back in 2018, and ever since, we have been working towards a livable future for our generation.
On behalf of Napa Schools for Climate Action, we wanted to thank you for listening to our concerns and for proceeding with the Climate Emergency Resolution! It has been incredible to see all the other cities and the county pass a Climate Emergency Resolution and, most importantly, commit to achieving net zero climate pollution by or before 2030. It would be amazing to see the Napa City Council make this same level of commitment in its General Plan. You, along with our schools and cities who have set the same goal, would send the message that we are in a true emergency and that you take your responsibility to our younger generation seriously.
We understand how complicated and time-consuming the process of passing such a Resolution must be, but we want to emphasize how it is already the middle of 2022. Napa must shift toward the direction of net-zero emissions as soon as possible if we are to achieve the 2030 goal together. Unfortunately, there is no other choice if we wish to have a future. Liliana and I will be graduating before long, and we would love to start our new chapters with peace of mind that everyone in the county is now taking action without delay.
Our future lies in your hands, and we trust that you will make the right decision for us and future generations. Thank you for all of your hard work!
--
Allison Bencsik (she/her/hers)
Class of 2024 | American Canyon High School
Napa Schools for Climate Action
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Kathleen S
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 3:43 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: RE The General Plan
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Council Members,
For years now the City of Napa has been made aware of our serious concerns regarding the proposed “re-zoning, annexation, up-zoning and development “ of what is alternatively known as the Gateway Parcels, the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor, the Ghisletta Parcels, NVA, Wilcoxson Parcel.
-The West Napa Fault line runs directly underneath and through this property and lies within the Alquist Priolo Fault Zone. “ Really ….. the plan is to build multiple homes and business along a fault line …..haven’t we had enough experience with earthquakes to know that this is a bad idea?”
-This would eliminate a green buffer zone that serves to protect the City from wildfires.“Have we not learned anything from our past recent fires? The City needs this extra protection.”
-The forecasts of long-term drought and climate change will certainly cause an increasing water scarcity.“There is already water scarcity in Napa Valley.”
And finally ..
People come to Napa Valley to enjoy our rural offerings and to get away from the concrete towns where they live. This proposal would put many homes and business at the “Gateway to the Valley,”
We are a rural Valley, do we want to take that image gone?
We simply request that you honor and accept in-full the City of Napa’s Planning Commission recommendation of September 1, 2022 to designate these parcels as Greenbelt in the proposed draft General Plan Napa 2040.
Kathleen Summers
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Michael Morris
Subject: Time to remove the bridge from the general plan Date: September 20, 2022 at 3:47:51 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
[EXTERNAL]
From: Michael Morris
Subject: Time to remove the bridge from the general plan Date: September 20, 2022 at 3:47:51 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Michael Morris, CPESC #768
June 2, 2018
To: Napa City Counsel
RE: Purposed Robinson Ln. Bridge
I am surprised to learn that again Napa officials are considering constructing Robinson Ln. bridge after so many residents expressed their strong opposition. Below I have listed some of my concerns regarding this purposed project:
Impact to Existing Residential
• Large volume of fast moving vehicle traffic to be placed on streets that have been dead end for 58 years.
• Increased exposure to potential criminal elements.
• Breakdown of neighborhood structure. Our long-term neighbors are moving and placing homes up for sale fearing this project.
• The Robinson Ln.-Browns Valley intersection will be subject to greatly increased traffic volumes creating very dangerous conditions. Lengthy delays can be expected traversing this intersection. • School children will be subject to increased highspeed traffic raising safety concerns.
Impact to an Isolated Reach of Redwood Creek (Blue line stream) • Removal of native vegetative filters during construction has a high possibility for erosion. This will result in sediment entering a stream containing federal listed fish. • Long term effects of the bridge on channel stability resulting in further erosion. • Long term effects to this isolated reach caused by people and vehicles.
Cost Benefit/Lack of Purposed Project vs Extending Freeway Drive. • This project was part of a 1958 design. It was then on the western edge of the city. Much has changed arteries have been developed west of this location that fit the current city footprint.
This now is somewhat of an out-of- way path.
ATTACHMENT 1
• High volume of traffic on Browns Valley is increasing east do the large numbers of apartments current and under construction. The project will have little or no impact on this problem. The impact to traffic flow is caused by the two lane overpass over Hwy 29, and the south intersection of Freeway Dr.
• Extending Freeway Dr. over Napa Creek to the north will divide this high volume of traffic. This allows vehicles to access business and schools north and south of Napa Creek without ever entering Hwy 29. Truck delivery traffic will be able make their stops without travel on Hwy 29.
This bridge will benefit far more of our residents compared to Robinson Ln. bridge.
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Philip Amormino
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 3:52 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor
[EXTERNAL]
Honorable Mayor Sedgley and Council Members,
Napa Valley is one of the natural beauties in the state of California. I have come to Napa Valley for many years - and I come to enjoy the fine wines and the natural ambiance that's second to none in all the world.
I ask the council members to consider carefully what your decision means. When you drive into Napa from the southern corridor, up highway 121, you are taken away by an area that rivels some of the most beautiful landscapes in all of Italy or France. If this construction project on Foster Road is OK'd, you may alter this northern bay area gem, and you may find that you cannot undo the results.
Like the preservation of fine wines, so should it be for the preservation of beautiful locations. The fine wines and beautiful valley go hand in hand - you cannot have one without the other. Do not put congested housing in your beautiful valley. Do the right thing and preserve this beautiful Napa Valley for yourselves, and for the generations to come.
Sincerely,
A Lover of Napa Valley
ATTACHMENT 1
-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Johnson < acbell.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 3:40 PM
To: Patricia Baring <[email protected]>
Subject: Foster Road
[EXTERNAL]
Please share with Mayor Sedgley and Council members. Save Foster Road as a green belt. We need to preserve some of Napa open areas.
Thank you,
Mark and Nancy Johnson
ATTACHMENT 1
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosemarie Blake
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 4:21 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: The Foster Road Mixed Used Corridor
[EXTERNAL]
To: Mayor Sedgwick and Council Members
If there is any white flag blowing in the wind it is for MOTHER NATURE!! We must pay complete attention to the future of our environment… to water…open space…greenhouse gases….traffic on our roads…emergency exits…and on and on!!
We have slapped her, punched her, kicked her, poured grease and oil on her then rolled her up in pollution!!
We must stop and heal Mother Nature!!
I feel deep down in my heart you all know this and will be the hero’s and preserve this last piece of land and vote: GREENBELT
YOU CAN DO IT!!
We are counting on you
Rose Blake
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Carol Barge
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 4:24 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Adoption - Napa Oaks
[EXTERNAL]
Hi Tiffany,
Please share these remarks with the City Council for tonight’s meeting regarding the General Plan adoption as it relates to the Napa Oaks parcel.
On behalf of the Stop Napa Oaks group, I would like to thank the work of the 15 member General Plan Advisory Committee who in 2019 heard our collective concerns and agreed unanimously that the Napa Oaks 78 acre parcel be designated Greenbelt. In addition, I would like to commend the City Planning Department and the Consultant group who agreed to use the unambiguous Greenbelt language proposed by the Browns Valley Action Group that is now part of the Draft Land Use Plan for Napa Oaks.
Several weeks ago I came before the Planning Commission to enthusiastically endorse the development of the former Health and Human Services site proposed by Heritage Housing Partners of Pasadena. This beautifully designed, all homeownership housing community, is exactly what Napa needs. It is focused mainly on locals who work and live in the area. This is the right kind of housing in the right location. It’s possible to be both for and against housing. It all depends on its location and the type of housing proposed. Napa Oaks will never be an acceptable location for housing and its a collective relief for the community that this rugged hillside will be designated Greenbelt in the General Plan.
Thank you!
Carol Barge
Carol Barge
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
reinforce our home due to this. The spectacular views coming into Napa will be destroyed and would never be able to be replaced.
I’m asking you to please consider the many other alternatives that would make more sense, be better for the environment, would keep Napa’s green space green, and would keep Napa as a beautiful place for all to enjoy.
Thank you,
Laurie Rich
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
THAT’S WHY OTHER MUNICIPALITIES CHOOSE “GREENBELTS AND GOLF COURSES” PER THE STATE GEOLOGIST - TRYING TO “MITIGATE” BY MOVING
THE HOUSES JUST LEAVES OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE - LIKE GAS, WATER AND
STREETS - AT RISK
During the recent Planning Commission meeting, members Heuther and Kelley expressed their desires that the Ghisletta property be preserved but seemed resigned that the path of development was unstoppable.
I disagree and urge City Councilmembers to face the facts.
THE FACT IS THAT ZONING FOR MASS HOUSING IN EARTHQUAKE ZONES
WITHOUT STATE GEOLOGIST APPROVAL - WHICH THE STATE GEOLOGIST HIMSELF SAYS THE STATE ISN’T GOING TO BE ISSUING - IS AWFULLY CLOSE TO AN ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY.
I THINK THAT WOULD REQUIRE A CITY
REFERENDUM. THE CITY’S OWN GPAC POLLING INDICATE OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION.
Approving a second twenty year development plan slating these properties for large-scale housing development would seem to demonstrate a pattern of willful disregard of state- mandated restrictions in RZIs.
Experts have been warning for decades that very large
earthquakes are overdue for the entire West Coast from Seattle to Southern California. When such an event finally occurs, there will be an army of class-action lawyers going to work. I suspect an established pattern of willful disregard could easily be painted as reckless disregard.
THE FIRST CALLS AFTER ANY EARTHQUAKE AREN’T FROM FEMA OFFERING HELP - THEY’RE FROM CLASS-ACTION ATTORNEYS?
There are powerful development forces pressing on the Ghisletta properties, but I suggest there are no cookies in that jar to fight over.
The state has provided the city a sufficiently
large hook to hang its legal hat on – it should declare that the assumption of liability for developing in these areas is too great.
IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THE CIT’S “FAULT” THAT ALL PREVIOUS PROMISES AND COMITTMENTS ARE NOW INVALID. THE CITY CAN AVOID THE
INEVITABLE LEGAL CONFLICTS THAT REZONING THESE PARCELS FOR MASS HOUSING WILL IGNITE.
HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY RULE THAT IT HAS TO BE
DONE A DIFFERENT WAY. TAKE THE COOKIES OUT OF THE JAR. WISELY STEP OUT OF THE WAY AND HAND THE FIGHT OVER TO STATE. EACH COUNCIL MEMBER CAN CLAIM TO HAVE FOUGHT A GOOD FIGHT. PERHAPS THIS APPROACH WOULD SAVE ALL MEMBERS FROM EVEN HAVING TO VOTE! A BIG RELIEF FOR EVERYONE.
Or will it be the policy of the City of Napa to knowingly zone for housing in specifically designated earthquake zones?
THIS IS NO LONGER A RETORICAL QUESTION. THIS IS THE SECOND GENERAL PLAN SINCE THESE EARTHQUAKE ZONE DESIGNATIONS WERE ASSIGNED.
ATTACHMENT 1
YOUR VOTE ON THIS REZONING MAY DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU SUPPORT A CITY POLICY OF RECKLESS DISREGARD.
THANK YOU ALL AS ALWAYS FOR YOUR VERY HARD WORK - I PRAY THAT YOU’LL MAKE THE VERY WISE, JUST, PROPER AND CLEVER CHOICE.
Rob Cherry
Old Sonoma Road
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1