Napa City Council
December 3, 2024

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

Community Services Bldg: 1600 First Street, Napa CA 94559  Mailing Address: P.O. Box 660, Napa CA 94559  (707) 257-9530  www.cityofnapa.org

M E M O

TO: CHAIR SHOTWELL, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: MICHAEL ALLEN, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
SUBJECT: BIG RANCH ROAD ANNEXATION (Project No. PL23-0143)

Following the publication of the September 19, 2024, Planning Commission agenda, additional correspondence was received for consideration for the Big Ranch Road Annexation project (PL23-0143) identified as Public Hearing Item 7. A.

The correspondence includes letters and correspondence from the following attached to this memorandum.

• Emily and Patrick Stanton (09-13-2024)
• Deborah Staats (09-16-2024)
• Bruce Silcox (09-17-2024)

ATTACHMENT 10

1 Mayra Esp
inoza
From: Emily
S
Sent: Friday, Septe
mber 13, 2024 4:13 PM
To: Pla
nningCommission
Cc: Pat
rick Stanton;
Subject: Re: Septe
mber 19 City Hall Consent Hearing
Categories: Unverifie
d Contact
[EX
TERNAL]
To:

City of Napa Planning Commission
Regard
ing the Commission's consent hearing to determine item "B. Big Ranch Road Annexation" we challenge the survey CEQA "p
er their guidelines" claim of "adequately analyzed" (Sept. 20, 2022) information as incorrect regarding "no significant environmental impact". There is most assuredly, VERY significant environmental impact to the residents south of the area being considered.

We, the current residents of Rosewood Lane, wish to request the cessation of any development until further action has been taken
to correct the water drainage problem from the fields between Trower and Big Ranch Rd. before the project be all
owed to go forward.

Since the five homes were built here on Rosewood Lane, in approximately 1965, at the end of the road, there has been the development of Vintage high school as well as the homes to the north of Trower, east of Jefferson, toward El Centro.

I'm a resident of Rosewood Lane for over 50 plus years and have experienced many years of trauma due to the drainage from the fields to the North of our property and have sincere concerns that the environmental analysis doesn't have this drainage issue sufficiently addressed. We've had to fill countless sandbags to protect our property when the rains have been extreme as we know once the ground is saturated, and creeks are full- the water from the North has our property in its path.

This area is not considered a flood zone and yet we have maintained flood insurance for many years as we have seen surface water at our door and beyond.

The current existing pipe is open to the field north of Rosewood and goes underground there and through our property and on many occasions over the years we've stayed awake through countless nights to watch the water from the north coming across the surface because the pipe couldn't hold it all.

We've experienced debris from the field coming through and getting caught where the pipe turns, (the pipe turns from north to south towards the east and Pheasant Lane) causing the water to shoot up like a geyser into our yard.

We propose the developers be required to correct the drainage issue and relocate the pipe away from Rosewood Lane entirely.

We also request to have the current insufficient pipe be abandoned and removed as part of the annexation of these properties. Additionally,
as curb and gutters are installed, we request speed bumps as the current gravel road has delivery vehicles multiple times per day at dangerous speeds, in spite of multiple signs to slow down.

Respectfully,
Patrick and Emily Stanton
Rosewood Lane
Napa, CA 94558
You
don't often get email from Lea
rn why this is important
ATTACHMENT 10

To The Planning Commission and The City Council of the City of Napa, I live off Big Ranch Road and Garfield. I would like to be heard regarding the Annexation and change of zoning from single-family residential to Master Plan District and the annexing 53.5 acres of said 66 acres into the cities boundaries. I am against this change for several reasons. Annexing 53.5 acres of said 66 acres into the city boundaries violates the previous restrictions for use of county lands for single family and agricultural. If the city can keep annexing piece by piece county lands then the agriculture that supports this valley will be severely compromised. That was the original reasons for those restrictions and no exceptions should be made because each annexation makes it easier to continue to keep annexing. This change absolutely violates the spirit of what was intended. This change seems contrary to what the city council and planning commission should doing, which is preserving our wine culture and agriculture. Without the viability of the wine culture and agriculture Napa won’t be attractive to visitors or business.

I am also against this change because the infrastructure does not support the traffic that already exists without adding medium density housing into the equation. Big Ranch Road starting at Trancas is a two lane road. It has needed repaving for the last few years from Trancas to the first bridge at Catania due to potholes, and really should also be repaved up to just past Garfield.

Central Ave. is an even narrower two lane road. The traffic from Vintage High School across Central to Big Ranch down to Trancas can be backed up all the way to Garfield several times a day. Backups occur during the morning and evening commute times plus start and end of the school day. Adding medium density housing using these roads instead of the single family homes now there will be a detriment to all the students, teachers, wineries, and residents in that entire area. There will be more traffic, road deterioration, frustration and maybe accidents.

In addition more traffic comes from the use of Garfield Little League Park down Garfield onto Big Ranch before and after both games and practice. Hundreds of cars through another two lane residential street feeding onto Big Ranch several times a day, two to three times a week, for the 4 months of the Little League season. There is inadequate parking for the park so the few streets of residents surrounding the Park are inundated with cars lining the residential streets down both sides of the streets making it difficult to get to our own homes and interfering with our own parking needs, even blocking driveways. We have spoken to the Little League regarding these issues many times. This is more traffic, road deterioration, frustration and maybe accidents which would be greatly increased with this change to medium density.

These issues could not have been adequately analyzed with no further environmental review required. No City Council, Planning Commission or staff member should recommend initiating any petition, or proceedings authorizing annexation of the property, or adopting any ordinance until they have driven down these two lane roads themselves during backup hours and Little League season.

It is actually inconceivable to me that staff are making this recommendation.

I am completely against this entire Annexation and Zoning change. I have discussed this with many neighbors, and the consensus is unanimous that this Annexation and Zoning change be rejected. I will be attending any hearings regarding this issue, as will many of my neighbors.

Thank you, Deborah Staats, Napa, 94558,
ATTACHMENT 10

1 Mayra Esp
inoza
From: Bruce Silc
ox < >
Sent: Tue
sday, September 17, 2024 8:43 AM
To: Pla
nningCommission
Cc:

Subject: Conside
rations for 9/19/24 hearing
[You don'
t oen get email from Learn why this is important at
hps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenficaon ]
[EXTERNAL]
To: City of Napa Planning Commission
From: Bruce Silcox Napa
Regarding hearing on proposed annexaon of Big Ranch Road properes My property lies south of proposed annexaon. We have resided at this address for 22 years.

My concerns that I wish to convey are as follows
The commissioned environmental impact report did not take into consideraon storm waters and the impact it is having on the residents lying south of proposed annexaon.

With the current infrastructure ending at Trower and the Salvador Channel not sufficiently capable of roung storm water, adding any structures over soil, aggravates the exisng problem.

Currently storm waters flow over into the adjacent empty land at the end of Trower.

When ground is at saturaon, the waters path is the corner of my property. The current plan or lack there of by the City of Napa is discharging storm waters onto private property.

This is an annual occurrence and has several mes over the years resulted in property damage.

Building and or addional infrastructure will result in less soil absorpon.

Addionally, Big Ranch Road was never intended, nor designed for high density traffic. Yet, due to constant traffic backups on Hwy 29 and the Silverado Trail, Big Ranch Road is now being used as a commuter path into town. The “new Soscol“ has made Big Ranch a 2nd Highway through town. The backup is 1/2 mile long between 3pm and 5:30pm approaching Trancas.

Without addressing the current problems that the city has a responsibility to consider, adding addional housing would create serious congeson.

Thank you,
Bruce Silcox
ATTACHMENT 10

Community Services Bldg: 1600 First Street, Napa CA 94559  Mailing Address: P.O. Box 660, Napa CA 94559  (707) 257-9530  www.cityofnapa.org

M E M O
TO: CHAIR SHOTWELL, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: MICHAEL ALLEN, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2024
SUBJECT: BIG RANCH ROAD ANNEXATION (Project No. PL23-0143) Following the publication of the September 19, 2024, Planning Commission agenda, additional correspondence was received for consideration for the Big Ranch Road Annexation project (PL23-0143) identified as Public Hearing Item 7. A.

The correspondence includes letters and correspondence from the following attached to this memorandum.
• Simon Holden (09-18-2024)
ATTACHMENT 10

1 Mayra
Espinoza
From: Sim
on < >
Sent: Wedne
sday, September 18, 2024 2:47 PM
To: P
lanningCommission
Subject: C
omments on the Big Ranch Road Annexation - 2275, 2285, 2305, 2331 etc [E
XTERNAL]
Dear P
lanning Commission,
as a Napa resident who lives on Big Ranch Road, I want to write to voice my opposition to this development. Big Ranch Road has become increasingly dangerous with higher speed traffic, and now significant delays from congestion at the Trancas traffic lights.

Adding this development is not to the benefit of the city or the residents of Big Ranch Road, removes yet more valuable farm land, and will significantly increase road dangers and congestion.

Sincerely.

Simon Holden.

Y
ou don't often get email from Le
arn why this is important
ATTACHMENT 10

Community Services Bldg: 1600 First Street, Napa CA 94559  Mailing Address: P.O. Box 660, Napa CA 94559  (707) 257-9530  www.cityofnapa.org

M E M O

TO: CHAIR SHOTWELL, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: MICHAEL ALLEN, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2024
SUBJECT: BIG RANCH ROAD ANNEXATION (Project No. PL23-0143)

Following the publication of the September 19, 2024, Planning Commission agenda, additional correspondence was received for consideration for the Big Ranch Road Annexation project (PL23-0143) identified as Public Hearing Item 7. A.

The correspondence includes letters and correspondence from the following attached to this memorandum.

• Michael Stone (09-18-2024)
• Kerry Lyall (09-18-2024)
• Lori and Ardy Van Winden (09-18-2024)
• Ben Hardisty (09-18-2024)
• Jaqueline A. Hawker-Wessel (09-19-2024)
• Jana Cohen (09-19-2024)
• Ralph Melligio (09-19-2024)
• Doris and Tom Smeltzer (09-19-2024)
• Susan and Ninad Dabadghav (09-19-2024)
• Jim and Connie Caven (09-19-2024)

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

1 Mayra
Espinoza
From: Ke
rry Lyall < >
Sent: Wedne
sday, September 18, 2024 7:13 PM
To: P
lanningCommission
Subject: Big R
anch Annexation
Categories: Unve
rified Contact
[Y
ou don't oen get email from Learn why this is important at hps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenficaon ]

[EXTERNAL]

Napa needs more housing.

I support this project as long as the houses are NOT 5-6 brs 3-4 bath mansions.

We need 2-3 br 1-2 bath 1200 sq houses and 1-2 br 1 bath apts.

No more monster mansions!
We need affordable housing!

ATTACHMENT 10

September 18, 2024

Planning Commission of City of Napa
Re: Big Ranch Road Annexation Proposal

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments for the hearing scheduled for September 19 to discuss the proposed annexation of six parcels near the RUL along and near Big Ranch Road. We are one of the six parcels rejecting inclusion into the city.

We purchased our parcel in 1974 when it was a prune orchard, cleaned it up and began farming cattle feed within two years. A decade later we built our home here and then planted a cabernet vineyard in 2002, which yields a significant portion of our income. We are the longest property owners in the proposed area and are a second-generation farming family in this county.

We are opposed to annexing our property for a number of reasons.

Our farming practices involve nighttime noise from tractors, sprayers, and other equipment use as well as wind machines for frost protection. In addition, it is important we maintain our private lane access to Big Ranch for the many vehicles, laborers, and the large trucks hauling equipment in and out. We paid to develop this private lane for access to our property at the time of purchase.

We host 4H animals on the property and plan to continue doing so.

Another general concern is how this area will accommodate an influx of medium to high-density units and the traffic impact on Big Ranch Road.

We hope you understand how important it is for us to remain in the county.

Thank you,
Ardy and Lori Van Winden

ATTACHMENT 10

B
en Hardisty
Rachel Stark
Napa, CA 94558

City of Napa
Planning Commission

I am writing to voice my opposition to the Big Ranch Road annexation.

As noted in the staff report dated 9/19/2024, for more than 30 years the subject parcels have been pre-zoned with Single-Family Residential zoning designation with varied minimum lot sizes from 5,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. This was the pretext under which we purchased our property, understanding that while development in the future may be possible, it would align with normal and traditional urban development patterns, moving outward where typical densities diminish. The subsequently adopted general plan runs contrary to these development principles.

Given the adoption of the 2040 general plan, it clearly aims to achieve a walkable, connected neighborhood, with easy access to Vintage High School, "stores", and amenities on Trancas street. However, in the general plan development summary, zero retail, office, or industrial development is projected. I find the LUCD-24 Goal to be disingenuous and impractical.

I
n addition, city planning has shown limited competence in providing adequate i
nfrastructure development on Big Ranch Road from Trancas street to the proposed annexation a
rea. There exists a series of developments that are neither connected, nor have provided c
onsistent shoulders to alleviate traffic, for the use of emergency vehicle traffic, pedestrian use, o
r bicycles. It is concerning that the city is eager to approve this annexation for the purposes of d
evelopment without addressing the existing and potentially amplifying impacts to traffic and s
afety.

A
dditional review should be done to assess whether the specific area policies within the general p
lan are in fact in line with the best long-term interest of the residences in the area and the city of N
apa, and not solely a means to comply with the State's Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

R
espectfully,

B
en Hardisty & Rachel Stark

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

1 Mayra
Espinoza
From: Jana
Cohen < >
Sent: T
hursday, September 19, 2024 10:05 AM
To: P
lanningCommission
Subject: Big R
anch Road Annexation
[E
XTERNAL]
Sep
tember 19, 2024
Jana Cohen
To our Napa Planning Commissioners:

I received the notice that there is an application to change the existing pre-zoning of approximately 66 acres to the northeast corner of the City of Napa and within the Rural Urban Limit from single-family residential to a Master Plan District and to authorize staff to submit a petition to the Napa County Loal Agency Formation Commission to annex approximately 53.5 acres into the City’s boundaries.

I am opposed to the annexation for the following reasons:

1. Safety – with the potential of over 1000 homes (medium-density housing), I have concerns about safety given that Vintage High School is adjacent to the area, and with so many cars resulting from the homes, student safety will be at risk.

2. Ac
cess for emergency vehicles – access may be impeded for emergency vehicles in such a huge, densely populated area, with only Big Ranch Road and El Centro.

3. Fi
re hazard – with the potential of over 1000 homes, and with fire a high risk in Napa, there could be entire neighborhoods destroyed by a fire, as happened in Silverado, as well as in Santa Rosa and Sonoma.

4 .

T
raffic on Big Ranch Road – traffic is already an issue on Big Ranch Road, especially in the afternoons after school is dismissed and workers driving south on Big Ranch Road. The increased amount of traffic from these up to 1000 homes would be a disaster. When the Napa 20240 plan was developed, was there any recommendation to address the impact to improve Big Ranch Road?

5. Noi
se and density– noise would be a big factor with the density potential for over 1000 homes. Given the fact that there are currently only 12 farming/agricultural properties in this quiet neighborhood, in the proposed Master Plan, this would significantly change with over 1000 new homes.

6. Ma
rket-based housing – given the current status, with medium-density housing, is consideration given for market-based housing?
If a master plan is developed, has consideration been given to the following:
-setbacks
-roads
-preliminary plans
Y
ou don't often get email from Le
arn why this is important
ATTACHMENT 10

2 -infrastructure plans
-plot plans

I would like to request for a continuance for the decision on annexation given the issues raised by me and many others.

Thank you.

ATTACHMENT 10

Ralph Melligio 19 September 2024
Napa, CA 94558

City of Napa
Planning Commission

I am opposed to the Big Ranch Road annexation.

My family has lived at since Dec 1969. This has been my home of record throughout my military and subsequent civilian careers. I have occupied this home full-time since October 2005.

For more than 30 years the subject parcels have been pre-zoned with Single-Family Residential zoning designation with varied minimum lot sizes from 5,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet.

That type of development would be a better fit than the proposed medium density zoning.

The 2040 general plan clearly aims to achieve a walkable, connected neighborhood, with easy access to Vintage High School, "stores", and amenities on Trancas street. However, in the general plan development summary, zero retail, office, or industrial development is projected. I find the LUCD-24 Goal to be impractical and unrealistic.

I also believe that a site-specific EIR for the proposed annexation be done to address any and all items not adequately addressed under the blanket of the 2040 General Plan (which, by definition, is general), meaning the 2040 General Plan is just a guide – NOT a god, Specifics must be addressed in order to provide thoughtful and sustainable growth in keeping with the overall health of the city and the welfare of its citizens.

In my opinion, city planning has shown limited competence in providing adequate infrastructure development on Big Ranch Road from Trancas street to the proposed annexation area. There exists a series of developments that are neither connected, nor have provided consistent shoulders to alleviate traffic, for the use of emergency vehicle traffic, pedestrian use, or bicycles. It is concerning that the city is eager to approve this annexation for the purposes of development without addressing the existing and potentially amplifying impacts to traffic and safety.

In conclusion, a review should be done to assess whether the specific area policies within the general plan are in fact in line with the best long-term interest of the residences in the area and the city of Napa, and not solely a means to comply with the State's Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

Respectfully

Ralph Melligio HP MP

ATTACHMENT 10

ATTACHMENT 10

1 Mayra
Espinoza
From: Suzanne
Dabadghav < >
Sent: T
hursday, September 19, 2024 1:23 PM
To: P
lanningCommission
Cc: Nin
ad Dabadghav Dabadghav
Subject: C
onversion of 66 acres to town homes
[E
XTERNAL]
To
Whom it May Concern,

My husband and I live on Pheasant Court in Napa and there is a planning commission meeting tonight that we are not able to attend, but we wanted to at least let you know of our huge resistance to this build.

B
ig Ranch Road is already way too congested on a daily basis, and the idea of having 8 to 18 units per acre is ludacris in this space. We already time our departures to and from our home daily to avoid the Big Ranch Road traffic. We are strongly opposed to this build and of any other builds near Big Ranch Road.

This community is already too fragile and cannot handle any more traffic.

Please do not move forward with the building proposition in this area.

Thank you,

Suzanne & Ninad Dabadghav
Napa, CA 94558

--
Suzanne Dabadghav
Y
ou don't often get email from Le
arn why this is important
ATTACHMENT 10

Jim & Connie Caven
Napa, CA 94558

Dear Napa Planning Commission :

We are opposed to the Annexation Plan for Big Ranch Road for the following reasons:

• The commissioned environmental impact report did not consider storm waters and their impact on the residents lying south of the proposed annexation. With the current infrastructure ending at Trower and the Salvador Channel not sufficiently capable of routing stormwater, adding any structures over the soil aggravates the existing problem.

Currently, storm waters flow over into the adjacent empty land at the end of Trower. When the ground is at saturation, the water path is the corner of several properties. The current plan, or lack thereof, by the City of Napa, is to discharge the overflow of the storm waters onto private property at the east end of Trower. This is an annual occurrence and has resulted in property damage several times over the years . The current Salvador Creek/channel plan is unreliable for handling all the street drain water. Until the city knows how to handle this issue, it should not proceed with this annexation.

• Additionally, Big Ranch Road was never intended nor designed for high -density traffic.

Yet, due to constant traffic backups on Highway 29 and the Silverado Trail, Big Ranch Road is now being used as a commuter path into town. The “new Soscol“ has made Big Ranch a 2nd Highway through town. The backup is 1/2 mile long between 3 pm and 5:30 pm, approaching the Trancas stoplights. The failure of the city and county to plan and forecast the increase in traffic from the Napa Valley workforce commuting up and down the valley, causing long backups on Highway 29 and at the traffic lights of Salvador, Wine Country Lane, and Trower, as well as the Silverado Trail and Trancas intersection. These traffic log jams have resulted in the commute traffic moving onto surface streets, i.e., Big Ranch Road, resulting in already congested traffic ; thus, this project should not move forward until this is resolved.

• Disaster Safety is also a concern. Big Ranch Road is the primary and sole exit thoroughfare out of several neighborhoods. Now, you propose to add many more houses to exit the “Country Road” design of Big Ranch. The average age of residents is probably over sixty when you count Valley Club, Willowbrook, Old Vine Way, Rosewood, and the long-term residents of Big Ranch Road itself. This will create an additional crisis.

• Wildlife disturbance. The frogs who inhabit the gardens, the Salvador Creek, the geese are already having problems, coyotes, occasional deer,
ATTACHMENT 10

Community Services Bldg: 1600 First Street, Napa CA 94559  Mailing Address: P.O. Box 660, Napa CA 94559  (707) 257-9530  www.cityofnapa.org

M E M O

TO: CHAIR SHOTWELL, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: MICHAEL ALLEN, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2024
SUBJECT: BIG RANCH ROAD ANNEXATION (Project No. PL23-0143)

Following the deadline for late correspondence for the September 19, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, additional correspondence was received for consideration regarding the Big Ranch Road Annexation project (PL23-0143), identified as Public Hearing Item 7. B

The correspondence includes letters and correspondence from the following attached to this memorandum.

• Jeri and Stan Masuda (09-19-2024)
• John and Peggy Wilkinson (09-19-2024)
• Susan Rushing-Hart (09-19-2024)
• Peter Bartlett (09-19-2024)

ATTACHMENT 10

S
eptember 19, 2024
City of Napa Planning Commission
RE: Big Ranch Road Annexation
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
Currently, we have been residents on Big Ranch Road since 2005, but have lived in Napa since 1989. The proposed Annexation has created disturbing issues and concerns. They are as follows:

1. Lack of communication is inexcusable. Interviewing our neighbors we discovered at least half never received any notification in the mail. We downloaded the copy of the mailing the City of Napa has on file and our name is on it. Fortunately, our fellow neighbors have kept us informed.

2. Recently, the Planning Commission has decided to go from low-density housing to medium-density housing which includes 350+ units without a new Environmental Impact Report specific to the Annexation Proposal.

3. Currently, Monday to Friday from 3pm, southbound traffic starts to back up from Trancas St past Rosewood Lane which creates issues leaving our home.

If there was a medical emergency, First Responders access would have difficulty accessing a resident when seconds count. Cars on Big Ranch Road are unable to pull to the shoulder because there is none. Furthermore, our biggest fear is if there were another wildfire like 2017 where the Napa Valley was surrounded by fire (west, north, east) but in this case the fire rages through the valley floor. How are we going to get out?...WE WON’T!!

4. Finally, we have read all the LATE COMMUNICATIONS (1 to 14) submitted by our fellow neighbors. Thus, we are proud to be associated with people who are passionate about where they live, have integrity and common sense.

We urge the Planning Commission to reject the Big Ranch Annexation.

Jeri Masuda Stan Masuda
ATTACHMENT 10

1 Mayra
Espinoza
From: P
eggy Burgess Wilkinson <
Sent: T
hursday, September 19, 2024 4:30 PM
To: P
lanningCommission
Subject: Oppo
sition to Big Ranch Road annexation
[E
XTERNAL]
To
whom it may concern,

We are property owners, living in the County of Napa and our property boarders the RUL. Our address is

We vehemently oppose the annexation of 2275, 2285,2305,2331 Big Ranch Road and various additional parcels on Rosewood Lane and Tower.

We have lived at our address for over 30 years and participated in the original discussions regarding the Van Winden Growing Grounds property on Big Ranch Road.

The City of Napa has long since supported the concept of residential feathering of density toward the RUL. When this discussion was entertained last regarding this property (to our knowledge 30 years ago) the density proposed for the Van Winden Growing Grounds property was one house per acre with higher density toward to back of the property closer to Vintage High School.

We strongly
oppose any density along the RUL that would allow for the building of homes exceeding on
e home per acre. We have never been given the opportunity to review density changes and we strongly oppose re-zoning the areas in question.

Additionally, the Van Winden Growing grounds is home to many types of wildlife including frogs, owls, many types of birds and hawks and countless other species that would be eradicated should housing fill the area.

There hasn't been adequate study of the area for environmental and wildlife impacts.

Big Ranch Road is a rural road which is already over burdened by traffic and accidents.

Any re-zoning of the Van Winden Growing ground property would adversely impact the safety and enjoyment of our property and that of our neighbors.

There is no way that the property should be developed into anything other than low density housing at some point when Napa needs additional housing.

WE OPPOSE ANY ANNEXATION UNTIL THE DENSITY ISSUES ARE DISCUSSED AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE APPROPRIATELY STUDIED.

Yo
u don't often get email from Learn why this is important ATTACHMENT 10

2 We
will be at the meeting this evening in opposition to the proposed annexation.

John and Peggy Wilkinson
Napa CA. 94558

ATTACHMENT 10

1 Mayra
Espinoza
From: P
lanning Department
Sent: T
hursday, September 19, 2024 4:55 PM
To: Mayra
Espinoza
Subject: FW
: Big Ranch Road Annexation
Hell
o Mayra,

Please see the attached public comment from a neighbor near Big Ranch Road.

Best,
Ang
ela Alvarez-Cendejas
Ass
istant Planner
Planning Division
Community Development Department, City of Napa
1600 First Street, Napa, CA 94559
Direct: 707-257-9639 | Main: 707-257-9530
E: [email protected]

Fro
m: Susan R-H
Sen
t: Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:22 PM
To: Planning Department <[email protected]> Subject: Big Ranch Road Annexation

[E
XTERNAL]
Napa
Planning Commission members

First of all I am very concerned with the loss of ag land. To change the RUL, shouldn't the people of our City, or County vote on whether we want this change?

In the late 90's, a Big Ranch Road Specific Plan was created.

It included an EIR.

Within this plan was the housing density.

Yo
u don't often get email from Learn why this is important ATTACHMENT 10

2 Wit
h the studies, it was determined that there should be higher density near Jefferson St and less density or a "feathering" of housing along Big Ranch Road.

Now, doesn't it appear that the city (land investors or developers) want to increase the density some 10X over along Big Ranch Rd and some distance west?
What studies have shown this to be environmentally sound?

When the 2020 General Plan was implemented, a new EIR was not completed.

I was told the BRRd Specific Plan's EIR would cover the extended area both north and west within the city.

How can the city determine that there are no endangered species north or west without completing a new study?

To the west were wetlands.

An area, along Linda Vista Avr (at the Dry Creek Rd end), is known to flood with heavy rains.

At the east end of Trower, there was a seasonal brook that was a part of a small waterway that passed from the El Centro area by Willow school (formerly known as ElCentro school). It was very recently destroyed.

Soon after the Silverado Creek subdivision was completed, the City, through RCD, held meetings concerning Salvador Creek.

It was determined that the Creek could hold no more water during storm events, and yet the city has continued to approve diversions of storm water to the creek.

Why hasn't the city completed a study from Alston Park to Big Ranch Rd (as well as to the Napa River at Trancas Crossing Park) to mitigate the destruction of seasonal waterways, wetlands, and the loss of open or undeveloped properties that water can infiltrate?

Have there been any environmental studies covering this area of Napa over the past 25 years?

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Susan Rushing-Hart
Napa, Ca 94558
ATTACHMENT 10

N
apa, CA 94558
September 19, 2024
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Napa
955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
Re: Proposed Annexation of Parcels along Big Ranch Road Commissioners:

I’m writing to you as a concerned neighbor of the parcels proposed for annexation into the City of Napa along Big Ranch Road.

What concerns me is not the annexation per se, but rather the upzoning of these parcels that was included in the Napa 2040 General Plan. As I understand it, if the annexation takes place, the zoning designation for these annexed parcels will be medium density residential, allowing for between 8 and 18 units per acre – a total of between 528 and 1,188 new units of housing.

The City’s position is that the proposed annexation doesn’t require any environmental review because it falls within the scope of the Napa 2040 General Plan FEIR.

I, and many of my neighbors, believe that at a future date when the City seeks to adapt a Master Plan for the property, additional environmental review will be warranted and mitigation measures will be necessary for:

1. Traffic/Transportation. As traffic congestion heading out of the valley at the end of the work day has worsened, many commuters leave Highway 29 for Big Ranch Road, leading to long delays at the intersection of Trancas and Big Ranch, frequently backing up as far as Garfield Lane.

2. Walkability. For development at this density, walkability is important, and proximity to services is far from ideal.

3. Environmental. The development of these parcels will result in loss of open space and habitat, increased need for stormwater management, adverse impact to riparian corridors, and increased noise and pollution.

4. Neighborhood character. The density contemplated by the Napa General Plan 2040 for this site is substantial. The amount of units, and the density and massing, could significantly adversely impact the character of the area.

If the annexation goes forward, we will be sure to weigh in on any proposed master plan and any entitlements sought by a future developer.

Sincerely,
Peter Bartlett
ATTACHMENT 10