Napa City Council
February 18, 2025

1230 Pine Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
707.967.9656 Phone
707.963.0771 Fax
BN 85351204v1
707.200.9414 Direct
[email protected]

October 25, 2024
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
City of Napa
955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
City of Napa
Objection of Planning Commission Action
Name and Address
of Objector:

Katharine H. Falace and Carissa Beecham Buchalter,
on behalf of Brian Bennett and related interested neighbors 1230 Pine Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
707-200-9414
[email protected]
Action Subject of
Objection:

Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council to (1) adopt an ordinance approving a Zoning Amendment to
establish the use and standards for a glamping campground; (2) adopt a resolution for a Design Review Permit and Use Permit to authorize construction of a glamping campground with five permanent buildings, 100 glamping units, and recreational activity space; and (3) adopt a resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration determining that the potential
environmental effects of approving this project were adequately analyzed pursuant to CEQA
Action Being
Requested:

Acceptance of this objection, rejection of the Planning Commission’s recommendation
Date of Decision: October 17, 2024
ATTACHMENT 14

BN 85351204v1
ERROR ! R EFER ENCE SOU RCE N OT F OUND.

May

or Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
October 25, 2024

Dear Mayor Sedgley and Members of the Napa City Council:

This letter is an objection to the above-referenced action of the Napa Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”). We are Katharine Falace and Carissa Beecham and we are the attorneys at Buchalter representing Brian Bennett and related interested neighbors who oppose the Grange Zoning Text Amendment, file no. PL22-0120 (the “Project”). For the reasons provided herein, we request that the City Council of the City of Napa (the “City Council”) reject the Planning Commission’s recommendation to (1) adopt an ordinance approving a Zoning Amendment to establish the use and standards for a glamping campground; (2) adopt a resolution for a Design Review Permit and Use Permit to authorize construction of a glamping campground with five permanent buildings, 100 glamping units, and recreational activity space; and (3) adopt a resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration determining that the potential environmental effects of approving this project were adequately analyzed pursuant to CEQA. The entire administrative record for this matter is incorporated herein by reference.

I. Factual Background
The Project seeks to turn an undeveloped 12 ½ acre parcel into a glamping resort with up to 100 ons
ite trailers and tents. The campground is proposed on a dangerous, heavily congested area on the west side of Silverado Trail between Hagen Road and Stonecrest Drive. To be sure, the City has already identified this area as a high injury road. The project site sits along the flood-prone Milliken Creek.

II. Legal Discussion
The purpose of CEQA is to ensure the long-term protection of the environment and i
nformed decision-making and informed participation in decisions that could have environmental impacts. The record demonstrates that the Project will, at minimum, have significant traffic, air quality, and safety impacts, which have not been adequately analyzed or mitigated. Specifically, the Project will result in an exorbitant amount of new activity that will most certainly result in significant environmental impacts. This includes, at minimum, significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, noise, public services, transportation and traffic, and wildfire.

The mitigated negative declaration, and the mitigation measures set forth therein, do not satisfy the requirements of CEQA and there is substantial evidence that the project would result in a significant environmental effect.

ATTACHMENT 14

ERROR ! R EFER ENCE SOURCE N OT FOUND.

Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
October 25, 2024

BN 85351204v1
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the City Council should accept this appeal, and reject the Planning C
ommission’s recommendation to adopt the mitigated negative declaration and approve the Project. The City Council should not approve the Project is inconsistent with all General Plan policies and the zoning ordinance and likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact.

Finally, Mr. Bennett expressly res erves the right to add additional argument, including responding to staff or public.

Very truly yours,

BUCHALTER
A
Professional Corporation
By
Katharine H. Falace
S
hareholder
KHF:jg
cc: Clerk of the Board
[email protected]
Ryder Dilley
[email protected]
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

From: Beth Painter
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: “Glamping” Project
Date: Saturday, November 2, 2024 5:35:58 PM
Sent from Beth Painter's IPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Carol Vorpahl < t>
Date: November 2, 2024 at 5:24:19 PM PDT
To: Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>, Liz Alessio <[email protected]>, Beth Painter <[email protected]>, Mary Luros <[email protected]>, Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]> Subject: “Glamping” Project
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Councilmember,
I’m Carol Vorpahl, a Napa resident since 1979, residing at 101 Woodland Drive off of Hagen Road.

I am HUGLEY against the proposed
“Glamping” project on Silverado Trail between Stonecrest and Hagen Rd for many reasons:

This property is currently zoned for 4 residential homes and is in the flood plain where I have witnessed several floods when I could not leave my hillside property.

Traffic is already a big problem in this area, and it would be dangerous to increase the traffic.

Also of concerns are fire danger, noise and environmental issues.

This huge commercial project does NOT belong in a residential neighborhood, and I beg you to please vote AGAINST it!!!
With many concerns,
Carol Vorpahl
Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT 14

Malcolm D. Plant
420 Stonecrest Dr.

Napa, CA 94558

Ph: e-mail:

November 4, 2024

Mayor Scott Sedgley
Councilmembers: Liz Alessio, Beth Painter, Mary Luros, Bernie Narvaez City Hall
955 School St., Napa, CA 94559

Ref: Glamping Campground proposal, Silverado Trail

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

I am writing in opposition to the proposed Glamping Campground referenced above. At age 71, I am a Napa native, having grown up on Stonecrest Dr. My wife and I are remodeling my family home and anticipate moving back to it in early 2025.

The proposed Glamping Campground presents so many problems. 1) Traffic-Silverado Trail is already really congested, another 100 people at this site will make it much worse. I’m an active cyclist. The stretch from Stonecrest to Hagen Road is by far the scariest section of road I ride on any outing. More traffic means more fear of being hit by a car.
2) Fire Safety-Glamping will mean outdoor fires, barbecues, and undoubtedly consumption of alcohol. All of those together mean a higher likelihood of wildfire.
3) Air pollution-Smoke from the fires mentioned above will increase air pollution and, particularly during fire season, make any one who smells it likely to fear that a wildfire is burning. You can anticipate additional calls to Cal Fire or other first responders from people who smell smoke.
4) Noise pollution. I can easily hear music from Bottle Rock which is 1 ½ miles from my home. This proposed Glamping Campground is 1600 feet from my house.

There is a reason that Zoning restrictions are put in place. I know, I served on the Zoning Board in Berkeley for several years. To re-zone an area so as to make it commercially viable for a developer is not fair to people nearby who make life choices based on laws of the land.

Please deny this rezoning and deny the Glamping site use permits to develop this property.

Sincerely,

Malcolm D. Plant
ATTACHMENT 14

From: Beth Painter
To: Clerk; Steve Potter
Subject: Fwd: concerns about upcoming City Council issue Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 8:18:53 AM
Begin forwarded message:

From: Justin Newberry <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: concerns about upcoming City Council issue Date: November 6, 2024 at 8:10:52 AM PST
To: Beth Painter <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL]
Hi Beth!
I want to thank you so much for meeting with our group last week to discuss the AutoCamp proposed glamping project. A few updates:
1) we have some data from CHP - in the last 10 years, there were 46 accidents on that stretch of Silverado Trail between Lincoln and Trancas, including several fatal accidents.
2) at other Autocamps, including Guerneville, there is music at the restaurant up to 3 nights per week. It seems like this restaurant is an issue that deserves its own debate.

Could we put heavy constraints on this restaurant or deny it all together? 3) parking - only 100 spots for 100 sites. What about sites with multiple parties (Each Yurt and Airstream sleep 4 people, which are potentially two couples/two cars) and staff for the glamping area,
caterers, restaurant staff? They will likely
all park on our streets - Woodland and Syar and Hagan, which would be unacceptable, and they will be crossing the Trail to walk along it. .

Just wanted to share that with you.

Take care and be well,

Justin
Justin Newberry, DDS
Napa Valley Dentistry
3220 Beard Road, Suite A
Napa, CA 94558
p: 707-255-2832
f:
707-254-7513
c: 707-227-0690
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 14

From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Glamping Project on Silverado Trail
Date: Sunday, November 17, 2024 12:22:19 PM
Mary Luros
Councilmember, District 3
City of Napa
PO Box 660 / 955 School Street, Napa, CA 94559
Phone (707) 258-7800 x5284
Email [email protected]
Website www.cityofnapa.org
Social www.facebook.com/CityOfNapa · @CityOfNapa
Begin forwarded message:

From: James Henry < >
Date: November 17, 2024 at 12:08:45 PM PST
To: Mary Luros <[email protected]>
Cc: Beth Painter <[email protected]>
Subject: Glamping Project on Silverado Trail
[EXTERNAL]
Mary and Beth:

Mary you are my District Council Member and Beth a long time Planner so I am sending this to both of you.

First: This property is currently zoned residential for four (4) lots and certainly high end.

Second: What is planned for the vacant property on the North side of Trancas at Silverado Trail? It will become another traffic generator and should be considered. We should not plan in vacuum.

Third: This is a large development on a very busy road. Please go by during commute hours. We are even now having safety issues entering and exiting out of our Riverbend gated community during these times.

Fourth: I would agree to this land use rezoning if the Developer, City, County and State implemented a plan to improve this highway from at least Lincoln to Trancas. The large old Eucalyptus trees are at best a hazard and should have been removed.

Fifth: The latest I have read is a possible wide Bike Trail on the Property. Why? The road needs help right now--Sidewalks, Curbs, Gutters, Left Turn Lanes. (The ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

From: Beth Painter
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Vote no on the grange
Date: Sunday, November 24, 2024 12:38:31 PM
Begin forwarded message:

From: Craig Songer < >
Subject: Vote no on the grange
Date: November 24, 2024 at 11:15:51 AM PST
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], Mary Luros <[email protected]>, [email protected]
[EXTERNAL]
Council Members,
We are writing to express our concerns about the Grange Glamping Plan and urge you not to approve the planned development. The following are some of our concerns:

Zoning Change – Dramatic use permit change from 4 single family units to what is basically a large Hotel. This is precedent setting and opens up other lands and parcels for dramatic
use permits changes.

Increased Traffic - Contrary to the traffic report, traffic will be heavily impacted especially between the morning and afternoon hours when workers travel to their places of work in the morning and home again in the afternoon – the travel impact duration is usually 2 hours or more.

Please
travel on the Silverado Trail at the proposed Glamping location during the above hours.

Bike and Pedestrian Safety – The developers are proposing to install a bike trail along the front of the property, but what happens north and south of the property where there is no sidewalk or bike trail?

Wild Fire Risk and Pollution – Fire and Pollution will increase dramatically from the proposed 100 campfires and 100 proposed barbecue areas. If you turned down drive through eateries due to car exhaust emission, you have to turn this down as well.

Utilities – Increase stress on all of the City of Napa’s infrastructures, such ATTACHMENT 14

as water, sewer, electricity and other service providers such as fire, police departments, public works.

Noise Pollution – 300 to 500 people or more make a lot of noise particularly around pools and community structures. The community structures will be open to the public and entertainment venues.

We urge you to vote NO on the Grange.

Craig and Jane Songer
Stonecrest Neighbors

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: I kindly ask for your time and review of this topic Date: Monday, January 27, 2025 11:34:49 AM
Mary Luros
Councilmember, District 3

City Manager’s Office, City of Napa
PO Box 660 / 955 School Street, Napa, CA 94559
Phone (707) 258-7800 x5284
Email [email protected]
Website www.cityofnapa.org
Social www.facebook.com/CityOfNapa · @CityOfNapa
Pothole? Graffiti? Litter? You can make a service request online here! Begin forwarded message:

From: mary allan < >
Subject: I kindly ask for your time and review of this topic Date: January 23, 2025 at 10:45:57 AM PST
To: Mary Luros <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Dear Council Member Mary Luros,
It is with great personal concern and that of our mutual community that I respectively urge you to vote NO on the “Grange “Glamping" Project on Silverado Trail between Lincoln and Hagen.

First, I love to camp. However, have you been to this property or sat on a chair on the property for an hour or two?
I cannot imagine anyone staying here more than
once due to the excessive traffic, road noise, lack of hiking, and overall lack of peacefulness. I know because I keep my windows and sliding doors closed for that exact reason.

ATTACHMENT 14

The traffic noise on this strip of road is almost constant. Again, this does not add serenity or peacefulness to the camping or glamping experience.

FIRE DANGER: We as Napa residents know all too well the destruction of fires and now we are seeing it again in the southern California fires. Tens of thousands of Napa Valley residents and wineries have already lost their fire insurance. (The southern California fires will not help this problem.) This “glamping” site has 100 open fire pits. We understand and appreciate the due diligence the developers have made in attempting to decrease the fire risk by using such products as “Goodwood” which I understand is supposed to decrease smoke and embers emitted, but does not eliminate them. However, how can we ensure that during off season these firepits will not be misused? There are radio commercials for Californians telling us not to use our own fireplaces and this project is building a campsite with open fire pits in a valley that has seen such destruction from fires.

As City officials you believe this is environmentally sound? What will happen when we lose our fire insurance due to negligent re-zoning of a “very low-density residential property” into this unimaginable project? Will the city council stand and assure Napa residents, “Don’t worry, we have you covered, your property values won’t fall, you won’t be in danger.”
TRAFFIC: I know you have a traffic report which supposedly states there will be little to no measurable increase in traffic. 100 campsites would not impact traffic? Can you really tell the residents of Napa even if everyone camps by themselves that traffic won’t increase? Have you compiled accident records for this strip of road from city and county police, sheriff and fire? I can tell you it is a dangerous road with frequent accidents. I have had to call multiple times and have been hit myself. In the past year I know of 2 rollover accidents where drivers flipped cars, one landed in the ditch another a tree just in front of the property. There were other accidents but those are the ones I
remember occurring recently; how many
more minor accidents have occurred due to intoxication that have not been reported? The probability that many of these campers are coming to Napa for our great restaurants and wineries only increases the probability of more intoxicated drivers on this already dangerous strip of road.

They developers also state the possibility of having some of the structures on the property be available to Napa residents, ie. pool and meeting places. Again, you are saying that this WILL NOT increase traffic?
This is a road used not only by
Napa residents, but also by people who reside out of town yet work in the valley.

It is stated in the plans that some of the structures are to be removed and brought back into the property at different times of the year. The “in and out” movement
of these structures will compound traffic congestion on this 2 lane road. (Have you seen this strip of road when they are trimming the trees to see the back-up of traffic?) And, why do these structures have to be moved? Because, as we all know, it is in a flood zone and has already flooded multiple times this year. It is not appropriate to be re-zoned
this way.

Noise: We as residents are told there will be a curfew. What about the additional noise throughout the day and evening. Again, this was zoned and approved for 4 residential homesites NOT a 100 site campground; the owners knew this years and years ago when they purchased the property. Why the rule changes for one ATTACHMENT 14

family at the great disservice, safety impact, financial impact and environmental impact of fellow Napa residents?
I ask kindly for you to drive both north and south on Silverado along this strip and look at this property viewing it as designed for the Grange Project with all the tents, airstreams and buildings and ask yourself OBJECTIVELY, “is this really environmentally sound and good for Napa?”. The owners purchased the property knowing it was zoned for a very low residential project, most recently 4 homesites. Does a complete campground with 100 units, 5 buildings, pool and parking for all
sound like a “very low impact residential plan?
You were elected as stewards to protect the value, beauty, safety and sustainability of this community. This project will have lasting impact to Napa,
one that cannot be reversed once you allow this rezoning. Please rethink your position, forgetting any tax revenue and look at this project objectively.

Reconsider please the increased fire danger, safety, traffic, noise and negative impact for the Napa residents you were elected to represent. One family’s wants/financial needs does not override Napa residents’ need for safety and all of the above.

PLEASE VOTE NO TO THE GRANGE

PROJECT
Respectively,
Mary Allan

ATTACHMENT 14

From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Barbara Schell, 109 Woodland Dr., Napa.

Date: Friday, December 20, 2024 1:59:13 PM
Mary Luros
Councilmember, District 3

City Manager’s Office, City of Napa
PO Box 660 / 955 School Street, Napa, CA 94559
Phone (707) 258-7800 x5284
Email [email protected]
Website www.cityofnapa.org
Social www.facebook.com/CityOfNapa · @CityOfNapa
Pothole? Graffiti? Litter? You can make a service request online here! * I will be out of the office from December 23 through January 7, 2025.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Barbara Schell <[email protected]>
Subject: Barbara Schell, 109 Woodland Dr., Napa.

Date: December 20, 2024 at 1:20:13 PM PST
To: Mary Luros <[email protected]>
Hello Mary & Jason!
Happy Hanukkah to you and family!
I'm reaching out to you regarding the proposed Grange Glamping project, that would be quite near my property.

I'm not in favor of this project, due
to the narrow Silverado Trail, noise. Project is fine, just not a good choice of location in my opinion.

Needless to say this would of course hamper my vacation rental business too.

Noise is a big issue, increased traffic use of Silverado Trail road, increase of potential traffic accidents. Not good for our neighborhood.

Devaluating of our properties.

Would so appreciate your consideration, and help.

ATTACHMENT 14

Best regards, Barbara
ATTACHMENT 14

From: Ryder Dilley
To: Brian Bennett
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ricky Caperton Subject: RE: The Grange - Applicant Voluntary Measures
Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 1:44:14 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello Brian,

Thank you for your email. I will ensure your concerns are included in the Project file for consideration by the City Council.

Please forward any additional written comments or letters specifically directed to the City Council through the City Clerk at P.O. Box 660, Napa, California, 94559-0660 or at [email protected].

Thanks,

Ryder Dilley
Associate Planner
Office: (707) 257-9225
Email: [email protected]

From: Brian Bennett <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 3:24 PM
To: Ryder Dilley <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ricky Caperton <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: The Grange - Applicant Voluntary Measures

[EXTERNAL]
Hi Ryder,
I wanted to follow up on a couple of outstanding items for clarification:

1. Right Turn Only
Are you requiring an additional traffic impact study for this issue? If not, could you please clarify the basis for not conducting a new traffic impact study?

2. Map App Routing Claim
Both the City and the developer have stated that, "Additionally, Map app creators allow for the Applicant to send info to have all apps route people from the north." ATTACHMENT 14

Could you confirm the data or evidence this claim is based on? Did the developer provide you with specific confirmations from both Google and Apple Maps regarding this capability?
Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your response! -Brian Bennett

On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 5:02 PM Ryder Dilley <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Brian,

Thank you for your follow-up email with your additional concerns. We will review your questions in conjunction with the voluntary measures and respond when we have time to conduct a thorough review.

My question for you, is if you don’t find the voluntary traffic measures to be appropriate in response to some of the community feedback and concerns, what suggestions might you have for additional traffic design features that the Applicant might incorporate into the right-of-way and Project that you would believe could alleviate your anticipated traffic safety concerns?

Thanks,

Ryder Dilley
Associate Planner
Office: (707) 257-9225
Email: [email protected]

From: Brian Bennett <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 4:10 PM
To: Ryder Dilley <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ricky Caperton <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: The Grange - Applicant Voluntary Measures

[EXTERNAL]
Thank you, Ryder, for sharing this information. I have some follow-up questions regarding the proposed “right-turn-only” design for traffic coming south on Silverado Trail from Trancas:

1. Would this new design necessitate an additional traffic study? If not, could you please provide the rationale behind this decision?

2. How would this design impact the calculations and assumptions in the existing ATTACHMENT 14

traffic study?

3. Would a center divider on Silverado Trail be required to prevent illegal left turns? If so, where would the divider begin and end?

4. Would a deceleration lane be necessary to prevent traffic backups caused by vehicles slowing down to turn right?
It’s also important to recognize that not all traffic will approach from the south on Silverado Trail via Trancas. What alternative routes might drivers take to access the property? For instance, this could push traffic onto Hagan Road, leading to illegal U-turns as vehicles attempt to head back southbound. How would this additional strain on Hagan Road be addressed?
Traffic safety is a critical concern and demands a thorough analysis. Last night’s severe accident, which resulted in a flipped car, highlights the ongoing risks in this area.

Addressing these issues is imperative to ensure the safety of everyone on the roads.(FYI:

Trina/Carissa)

-Brian

On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 3:40 PM Ryder Dilley <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Brian,

Thank you for your continual outreach with your concerns regarding PL22-0120 The Grange (ZTA). As part of our efforts to be transparent and keep you informed, I want to share an update regarding voluntary measures proposed by the Applicant in response to neighborhood feedback.

The Applicant has identified a series of voluntary traffic and operational measures ATTACHMENT 14

intended to address concerns raised by the community. These measures are not required for safety compliance but are offered as a gesture to alleviate or address community concerns. The Applicant has also provided a concept exhibit illustrating these measures, which I have attached for your reference.

Applicant’s Voluntary Measures

Modify the entry to allow only a right-in/right-out movement to enter and exit the site. This will be done with a porkchop-type island and signage. Additionally, Map app creators allow for the Applicant to send info to have all apps route people from the north.

Set the gate in from the entry to allow up to 3 cars to stage if the gate is closed.

Should the project have any issues with backup at peak times, the gate can be opened during those times.

Widen the 5’ sidewalk shown on the previous plan to a minimum of 8’ of paving along our project frontage (class I trail).

Propose extending the trail to the south beyond Project frontage as a voluntary off- site improvement.

The goal would be to meet up with the existing sidewalk in front of Milliken Creek. The parcel to the immediate south is owned by the City of Napa.

Further south is Milliken Creek Inn. The project would strive to place the connection in public right-of-way wherever possible. In the case of the City parcel immediately south, the Applicant is showing the trail within the existing paved area used for occasional vehicle access.

This is contingent on the City providing the appropriate right to complete these improvements.

Add a secondary Emergency Vehicle Access at the southern end of the parking lot for emergency ingress/egress purposes only.

Related to individual campfires, the project will only allow low ember, low smoke products, similar to Goodwood or Envirolog.

ATTACHMENT 14

In conjunction with the alternative wood product, the Applicants propose to have low smoke fire grills such as Solo Stoves or similar raised platform products instead of traditional fire pit rings. This further reduces any smoke substantially from the burning of wood products.

The Project will follow all City of Napa noise ordinances for the zoning of the area.

Allow the site to act as an emergency responder station should this be needed.

Please note that the City has not yet had the opportunity to review these measures or the exhibit in detail. A thorough review, including consultation with Caltrans, will likely occur extending into January (after the holidays).

If you have any immediate questions or additional feedback regarding these measures, feel free to share them, and I will ensure they are included in the ongoing discussions.

As a side note, the project will not be going to a Council hearing in the month of December 2024. Timelines are still tentative and unknown at this time. Please feel free to convey that to any interested parties or individuals.

Best regards,

Ryder Dilley
Associate Planner
Planning Division | Community Development Department
1600 1st Street, Napa, CA 94559
Office: (707) 257-9225
Email: [email protected]

Website: www.cityofnapa.org

ATTACHMENT 14

December 18, 2024
City of Napa, Via Email
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Vice Mayor Bernie Narvaez
Councilmembers Beth Painter a nd Mary Luros
Ryder Dilley, Associate Planner
Re: PL22-0 120, The Grange Initial Study, Zoning Text Amendment, Use Permit and Design Review Permit.

We live approximately one third of a mile from the project site in the Ashlar Park neighborhood and d
rive by this location dozens of times a week. We have numerous issues with the project, the Initial Study and the analysis by city staff. Although the Planning Commission has recommended the City Council approve this project we believe additional analysis is necessary and we are sending this letter before the Council hearing has been scheduled in the hopes that staff and the applicant can address these issues.

Traffic
Silverado Trail is a State highway th at is often very busy and sometimes congested. There are numerous curves and occasional wildlife crossing in front of vehicles. Ironically, the night after the Planning Commission meeting, a car lost control in this vicinity and destroyed the Caltrans directional sign.

Another car lost control in this vicinity and ended up in a ditch earlier this week. A traffic study prepared by a traffic engineer was submitted by the applicant, but there is no information in the staff report that this study was critically reviewed by city staff. Several issues were raised at the Planning Commission hearing that have not been adequately addressed. It was noted that the traffic counts taken for the analysis were not done when schools are in session or when harvest is occurring, both of which are the busiest times for traffic in the city and county. It was also noted that the counts were taken on the weekend following a three-day holiday weekend during which Bottlerock occurs and is possibly not indicative of a normal weekend that experiences tourist traffic. The analysis includes a left-turn lane warrant chart that concludes that a turn lane is not required for the project, but the chart is based on what are likely unrealistic traffic counts.

Further, the Traffic Study uses a “hotel” designation for estimating traffic generation from the Institute of T
raffic Engineers Trip Generation manual. That designation typically presumes a hotel in the middle of town where guests are going to walk to dinner, shops, tasting rooms, etc. this site’s location remote from these attractions and the lack of safe walking and bike rouges anywhere will lead guests to use their cares for almost every trip. By relying solely on the traffic generation estimates for a typical hotel we don’t feel the traffic study adequately accounts for these likely additional trips. It appears that a difference in less than 5% of estimated traffic on the roadway would place the warrant diamond on the chart over the line indicating that a turn lane is warranted.

Tw
o of the Planning Commissioners agreed that the lane should be required while two were somewhat less inclined to require it.

Much was discussed regarding the projects impact on the safety of bicycle riders and pedestrians. It is r
ecognized in the traffic study that there are not adequate safe facilities in the area for either, including ATTACHMENT 14

along the project frontage. The study, however states that the highway will eventually be widened and a bicycle lane and pedestrian improvements will be installed by the city (or state) at that time. There is no schedule for this improvement and is therefore not adequate mitigation for safety concerns. It is also inconsistent with city policy to allow commercial development without requiring necessary public improvements and allowing them to be deferred and later installed at the cost of the citizens. The traffic analysis and Caltrans further recommends that right-of-way be dedicated along the frontage to accommodate these improvements, and the recommendation is included in the conditions of approval.

There are no plans provided to show the amount of dedication that would be required. Right-of-way dedication is usually required to be in fee-title which has the effect of relocating the front property line further away from where it currently exists. This could result in the necessity of a redesign of the project to ensure no camping improvements are in the right of way and all setbacks are complied with. Without this information the application should be considered incomplete for processing. When asked about this issue during the public hearing the Public Works representative indicated that this kind of detail would be addressed at the design stage of the project. A condition such as this which could require a significant modification to the design of the project needs to be included before the environment review is concluded and the public and Commission have had an opportunity to review any revisions.

In response to the concerns regarding bicycle and pedestrian safety the applicant has volunteered to in
stall a bicycle lane and pedestrian path along the majority of the frontage that would be separated from the highway travel lanes. This amenity is a positive step towards providing adequate safe facilities for bikes and walkers. However, more analysis is required to determine the feasibility and safety of the improvement. There is no information about who would maintain the path; the applicant, city or Caltrans. If it is proposed to be maintained by a public agency there are no comments indicating whether or not the agency would accept the responsibility. If the maintenance requires that the land be dedicated to the public agency then again, that could change the configuration of the property lines and necessitate a redesign of the project. The application should be considered incomplete until this information is known. Another issue that has not been addressed is the safety of bicycles who are travelling back to the site northbound on the Highway, or bicyclists leaving the site and trying to go northbound to go upvalley. The safety of having to cross the highway to get to the other side is questionable and needs to be addressed in the traffic study. There is virtually no bicycle lane on the east side of the highway and riders returning to the site will have to wait until there is a break in traffic in both directions to cross to return to the site. A turn lane would provide a refuge area when there is a break in north bound traffic while they wait for a break in southbound traffic.

It is my understanding that the applicant may now be proposing a modification to the project that would r
equire only right turns in and out of the main driveway, presumably to eliminate the need for a left turn lane. This amendment has not been analyzed in the traffic study. It is not known how the prohibition will be enforced, whether or not it will encourage drivers to travel to Hagen Road and make a U-turn or whether physical barriers would be constructed in the center of the highway to prohibit customers from making the left turn movement anyway. We do not know if Caltrans would permit any such physical construction in the highway right of way. The new proposal may also include additional off-site frontage improvements to the south for additional bicycle and pedestrian safety. This does not address the significant hazards to bicycles coming to the site from the south travelling on the east side of the highway, unless the applicant is suggesting these riders should illegally ride on the opposite side of the road.

Frontage Improvements
ATTACHMENT 14

Another issue raised at the hearing was the lack of a requirement for the applicant to install normal road frontage improvements which include the undergrounding of existing utilities. This had been a requirement imposed by the Planning Commission when it approved the parcel map dividing the lot into four residential lots. Subsequent to the approval of the tentative parcel map staff made a determination that the cost of the undergrounding requirement was not warranted for a four-lot residential development and it was deleted from the conditions of approval. It is not known by the public what level of financial hardship is required to remove such a condition. However, this project proposes a $25,000,000 commercial development with an expected annual revenue of $10,000,000 which would seem to justify the installation of public improvements imposed on every other commercial development in the city.

The applicant emphasized that the proposed use is environmental ly superior to the existing approved
parcel map. The basis for this assertion was that the development of four house sites and associated driveways would require the importation of fill to raise the improvements above the level of the flood plain, and their project would not require as much fill because the access drive and camping spots would remain in the floodplain and floodway with the improvements removed during the winter rainy season.

While this is true it does not address the loss of almost all of the existing grassland habitat that currently exists and it is arguable that wildlife would be less likely to traverse the site to get to the waterways when there are 100 camping areas covering the parcel. It was also emphasized that the riparian corridor would be protected from development, but the design and conditions of the existing approved tentative parcel map far exceed the minimal protections proposed by this application. In addition to the riparian setback, the building areas on the approved tentative map are located outside of the limits of the floodway, with an additional 50 foot riparian setback and 50 foot wetland setbacks. The required open space and protection of critical habitat areas on the existing approved map far exceed what is proposed by this application, which proposes development within the floodway and wetland areas. Not including a copy of the approved parcel map and conditions for comparison by the Planning Commission and the public is a significant oversight in the staff report.

Aesthetics/Scenic Impacts

The v
isual impact of the project has not been adequately addressed. The Initial Study dismisses the issue as insignificant because travelers only get a few seconds view of the site as they drive by. I enjoy looking at the open field and occasional flock of wild turkeys every day when I drive by. It is one of the most scenic views of a natural area within the city limits. Having it replaced by a sea of shiny silver trailers, parked cars and new buildings will destroy whatever view currently exists. It is likely that a fence will be installed to separate the bicycle path from the campsites but the plans do not show any details of such a fence or how it will look. The Initial Study concludes that the additional lighting from the project will be insignificant because it will be required that new lighting be directed and not onto adjacent properties. There is no discussion of what if any new lighting will be installed to illuminate the project driveway or any analysis of the increase in ambient light in an otherwise dark neighborhood. The applicant, Caltrans and staff have all agreed that the highway will eventually be widened. Those improvements will likely require the removal of all of the trees that currently exist along the frontage, making the project even more visible. Why wasn’t the applicant required to include photo simulations of the project site as it would look to the travelling public? Will the future views be dominated by the plain maintenance structures, trash dumpsters and unscreened silver trailers? This is not an issue that should be deferred to the “design phase” and only be reviewed by staff at an Architectural Review after the project is approved. The public has a right to know what this is going to look like in its entirety.

ATTACHMENT 14

General Plan Consistency
The staff report is written in a manner promoting this project rather than taking a critical and unbiased s
tance in their review and processing of the application. There are so many unanswered questions and gaps in the CEQA analysis and staff report. The staff report cites only those general plan policies that would appear to support this land use but does not include a critical analysis of all of the policies of the Plan that may conflict with the project.

Staff Report General Plan analysis:

Staff Analysis: The Project would allow a new “glamping campground” use not yet considered within the C
ity of Napa and recognizes the intent of the development pattern prescribed with the Very Low Density Land Use Designation. The use would allow the Applicant to develop a historically underutilized and vacant site PL22-0120 – The Grange Zoning Text Amendment 9 allowing flexibility in the land use designation while contributing to the broader General Plan Land Use Goal LUCD-6, which is intended to promote a balanced land use program and ensure the City remains a “complete community” with a diverse array of uses.

There is no context why staff would consider this property to be “historically underutilized”. Properties th
at would be considered under utilized might include the old vacant Safeway parcel in the center of town, but a property in the floodplain, floodway and providing natural habitat should not be labelled as “under utilized”. This statement is in direct conflict with section LUCD of the General Plan:

Lucd 5-3 . Support inclusion and preservation of greenways, open space, riparian corridors, wetland areas and agricultural land when they exist in gateway locations. (121 is identified as an important gateway Lucd 5-1).

Zoning Amendment Resolution Findings Section 3.

A. The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is co
nsistent with the Napa 2040 General Plan by promoting flexible land use that adapts to changing economic needs (Policy LUCD 6-4), enabling development on a historically underutilized site with a newly established use. It generates local revenue through transient occupancy taxes, also contributing 1% of the rent charged by the operator by payment of the transient occupancy special tax for the sole purpose of providing programs and services that increase, improve, or preserve the availability of Affordable and Workforce Housing to Affordable and Workforce Households (Policy LUCD 7-1). The Project enhances pedestrian connectivity along Silverado Trail with the construction of a public walkway extending from the north to the south end of the site (Policy TE 1-2, Goal TE-3). Additionally, the Project protects significant trees and habitat that exist on-site by designing individual campsites around existing trees and the contours of the site, while preventing foot traffic through the riparian areas closer to Milliken Creek (Policy NRC 1- 8). The Project would offer opportunities for the public to engage with the natural environment adjacent to Milliken Creek that otherwise wouldn’t exist due to the site being private property. (emphasis added).

This last sentence appears to be in direct conflict with General Plan Policy NRC 1-5:

ATTACHMENT 14

NRC 1-5 Promote controlled access points in designated areas to prevent unrestricted public access to riparian habitat.

This policy appropriately recognizes that human interaction with sensitive habitat areas like riparian c
orridors can be damaging to plants and animals who rely on these habitats. In our personal experience that some adolescent kids (and some adults) can be purposely destructive to these areas, and 100 camping spots will certainly have numerous curious kids roaming about.

The spreading of glamping sites and associated infrastructure including necessary trenching for water a
nd sewer lines and electrical service, and access roads appears in direct conflict with General Plan Policy NRC 3.2:

NRC 3-2 Encourage, at the time of any discretionary approval, development in sensitive areas to cluster development, or to build vertically, rather than horizontally, so as to retain natural areas and habitat.

Zoning Consistency
It is obvious that the project is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance which is why an amendment to th
e ordinance is proposed. This amendment will carve out an exception for this property to grant it a special provision that potentially allows the project with the approval of a use permit. This alone represents a special privilege applicable to this property not enjoyed by any other properties in the same zoning district in the city. Even so, if the amendment were granted the findings necessary to grant a use permit cannot be made.

The zoning ordinance requires the city to make the following finding when approving use permits:

17.60.070 B.

The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the city.

It should be clear that there is a potential for this project to result in several significant adverse impacts, p
articularly safety impacts related to traffic. Staff made a point of saying that a requirement of a left turn lane would require a financial feasibility analysis. There is nothing in the zoning ordinance that states that financial feasibility is a factor in approving use permits. There is nothing in CEQA or the city ordinances that state that the expense of necessary mitigation should be factored into the decision making process. If an improvement is necessary to protect the public health and safety and it is too expensive for the developer then the proposed project is not located in an appropriate place and the application should be denied.

Other issues that should be addres
sed include the following:

It is stated that the R V’s and associated improvements will be removed and taken to a pre-determined location during the rainy season. This location should be identified before the project is approved. There are not many, if any, locations in the city or county that have room to legally store 100 trailers for a lengthy period.

ATTACHMENT 14

The application states that weddings, auctions, or similar events will be strictly prohibited but the plans state that open space is available for events.

The application states that public transport is not permitted. Does this include winery tour vans and b
uses, and cars such as taxi, uber and lyft services?

The traffic study mentions that food trucks would be parked on site but the plans do not show the l
ocation for these trucks. Will they be taking up parking spaces needed for the project?

The applicant stated that they had tried to get the property designated for additional housing during the r
ecent General Plan update but was denied. They did not elaborate that the reason for this denial was that proper planning practices do not promote dense housing in the flood plain.

In summary, w e do not support changing the zoning ordinance to allow this use. However, if the majority of the Council believe it has merit, they should require a revised application that addresses all of the issues identified by the public and conduct an adequate environmental review to address all of these issues. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Mark and Cindy Phillips

ATTACHMENT 14

From: Keith Allan
To: Ryder Dilley; Ryder Dilley
Cc: Scott Sedgley; Christopher DeNatale; Beth Painter; [email protected]; Bernie Narvaez; Ron Young; Brian Bennett
Subject: Grange: Archaeological findings: Request for Data Date: Saturday, January 18, 2025 1:04:51 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL]
Hello Ryder,

I am an interested and concerned resident of Napa and have a request:

I would like to have the results of the Grange Glamping property per the Archaeological findings on file. That is, if a study has been initiated and conclusions thereof. If no Archaeological study has been completed, I then request that as responsible citizens and civilservants we honor the heritage and contribution of our fellow Native American Indians and initiate an archaeological site study similar to that of what was performed at the 1
st and Silverado vacant lot. Lastly, may I have the findings of the 1st and Silverado Archaeological study forwarded to me as well.

Thank you,
Keith

Keith Allan, MBA., MAOD.
707.299.7174

I can be reached at 707.299.7174
ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

1 Ryder Dilley
From: ytopal tarlagrill.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 9:53 PM
To: Michael Allen
Subject: Autocamp glamping project on Silverado Trail.
[EXTERNAL]
Good evening Mike , Please see below supporting letter for Auto-camp project .

Dear City Council Members,

I am writing to express my strong support for the Autocamp glamping project on Silverado Trail.

This project presents an exciting opportunity to enhance Napa’s offerings by providing a unique and much-needed alternative accommodation. As lodging costs in the area have significantly increased in recent years, this project will offer visitors a more accessible way to experience Napa while also benefiting the local economy.

The development has been thoughtfully designed to respect the natural surroundings, preserving the existing landscape, including its mature trees and ecological features. Additionally, it will enhance environmental stewardship by addressing current issues such as unauthorized camping, which has led to pollution and safety concerns in the area.

Another major benefit of this project is its commitment to improving infrastructure for both locals and visitors. The inclusion of a Class I bike trail will provide a much-needed safe route for cyclists and pedestrians, contributing to Napa’s broader efforts to promote ATTACHMENT 14

2 sustainable, non-vehicular transportation. This addition will not only improve safety but also encourage alternative modes of travel.

Finally, this project will serve as a valuable amenity for both the local community and visitors, offering an experience that aligns with Napa’s reputation for hospitality and outdoor appreciation.

Compared to other potential developments, such as private luxury estates that would benefit only a select few, this project will bring widespread economic and recreational benefits to the entire community.

I urge you to approve this project and recognize the positive impact it will have on Napa’s economy, environment, and infrastructure.

Sincerely,

Yusuf Topal

TARLA GRILL / NAPA VALLEY
707.255.5599
1480 First St., Napa, CA 94559
tarlagrill.com

JAYNA GYRO / EMERYVILLE
510.969.5989
5959 Shellmound St., Kiosk 14, Emeryville, CA 94608
jaynagyro.com

JAYNA GYRO/ SACRAMENTO
916-898.2708
3101 Folsom Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95819

JAYNA GYRO/ ROSEVILLE
916-898.2708
1132 Galleria Blvd Ste 100
ATTACHMENT 14

3 Roseville , Ca 95678

KNIDOS GROUP

GYRO FACTORY
2525 DelPaso Blvd Sacramento , Ca

THE JACQUELYN/CELLAR
114 22nd Street, Sacramento, Ca 95816
www.thejacquelyn.com
ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

Sent from my iPhone
Click to Download
IMG_6313.MOV

28.9 MB
ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

From: Roger Reichenberg
To: Natalia Hernandez
Cc: Roger Reichenberg
Subject: Grange Glamping Grounds
Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:11:10 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
1/28/2025
Napa City Council Members
Dear Members of the City Council,
My name is Roger Reichenberg, and I proudly served the Napa Fire Department for 38 years. I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed Glamping project along Silverado Trail. My family , Daughter, Son in-law and two grand children live across from the proposed development site, and I am gravely concerned about the safety and well-being of my family, their neighbors, and the broader community.

As someone with extensive experience in fire safety and emergency response, I believe this commercial project poses significant risks to the area. It threatens to overburden an already strained infrastructure, creates substantial safety hazards, and potentially compromises the emergency evacuation capabilities for residents in this area.

The Napa Fire Department and Cal Fire ,The Napa Police Department and the Sheriff Department need the have a pre-fire and evacuation plan in place before a disaster in this area occurs. We know it’s coming , we are no different then Altadena , Pacific Palisades and Lahina , You don’t think it will happen then is does and you struggle to reason why you where not prepared.

Infrastructure Concerns

1. Inadequate Road Design: The section of Silverado Trail in question was not designed to accommodate a commercial development of this scale, particularly a 100-unit campground.

2. Existing Traffic Burden: During events at Silverado Country Club, this stretch of Silverado Trail between Trancas and Lincoln becomes heavily congested. Adding a camping facility with the potential for over 100 vehicles entering and exiting daily will exacerbate this issue and unfairly impact local residents.

3. Traffic Volume: The proposed development could generate an additional 600 daily vehicle trips (assuming three trips per car per day), placing a tremendous load on Silverado Trail and Hagen Road.

4. Lack of Turn Lanes: The narrow road design lacks turn lanes, to effectively mitigate this problem will require all arrivals to turn right into the campground coming from the north and exiting the campground turning southbound out of the grounds. With out this rule it will create dangerous traffic bottlenecks and further disrupt the community.

Emergency Evacuation and Fire Danger
ATTACHMENT 14

The City and County must have an evacuation plan that all area residents are familiar with.

Some considerations are :

1. Red Flag Fire Danger: During Red Flag conditions, the campground must be closed, and all campers evacuated to ensure that residents can evacuate safely without being gridlocked by additional traffic from the campground.

2. Restricted Access During Emergencies: Silverado Trail between Trancas/Monticello and Lincoln should be restricted to residents, fire, and law enforcement during emergencies to allow for orderly evacuation and unhindered emergency response access.

3. Traffic Management: In the event of a wildfire in Napa County, traffic from Monticello and Hagen Road must be routed westbound on Trancas to facilitate the evacuation of Silverado Trail residents.

4. Evacuation Alert Systems: As part of this project, the city should install an audible evacuation siren in the Silverado Trail area (NAP-058 in the current evacuation plan).

Such a system should be solar or battery-powered to function during power outages, as text and digital alerts can fail in such situations.

Cultural and Environmental Impact
There may also be a significant impact on the Native American historical sites along Milliken Creek and the Napa River. This aspect warrants thorough investigation and consultation with relevant cultural heritage experts before any project approvals.

Responsible Decision-Making
City council members and planning commissioners have a critical decision to make. Do you want your name associated with preventing a disaster or with enabling one? The risks associated with this Glamping project are too great to overlook.

In my professional opinion, all the concerns and mitigations outlined above must be addressed comprehensively before this project is even considered. The safety of the community should take precedence over commercial interests.

Thank you for taking the time to review my concerns. I am available to provide further insights or assistance as needed.

Sincerely,
Roger Reichenberg
3771 Newark Drive
Napa, CA 94558
Phone: 707-337-6533
ATTACHMENT 14

From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Glamping project
Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 10:35:20 AM
Mary Luros
Councilmember, District 3
City of Napa
PO Box 660 / 955 School Street, Napa, CA 94559
Phone (707) 258-7800 x5284
Email [email protected]
Website www.cityofnapa.org
Social www.facebook.com/CityOfNapa · @CityOfNapa
Begin forwarded message:

From: ELAINE HERRICK < >
Date: February 5, 2025 at 9:19:53 AM PST
To: Mary Luros <[email protected]>
Subject: Glamping project
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Ms. Luros:

I am opposed to the proposed Glamping development off of Silverado Trail.

Napa already has plenty of hotels with vacancies for much of the year. These hotels employ local workers. I would prefer to support these hotel businesses and their staff.

I will not be able to attend the meeting on Feb. 18 but hope this glamping project is not approved by city of Napa.

Elaine Herrick
Sent from my iPad
ATTACHMENT 14

1230 Pine Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
707.967.9656 Phone
707.963.0771 Fax

BN 86871902v1

707.200.9414 Direct
[email protected]

January 30, 2025

Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
Via email:

Clerk of the Board, Napa City Council
[email protected]
Re: Opposition to The Grange Project

Dear Mayor Sedgley and Members of the Napa City Council,

INTRODUCTION

This office has been retained to represent a group of concerns citizens that are opposed to the pr
oject known as The Grange. The Citizens Group has significant concerns regarding The Grange, including the procedural process proposed to approve the project through a text amendment and the insufficient environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The project is pr
oposed for the 12.5 acre parcel west of Silverado Trail, between Hagen Road and Stonecrest Drive (the “property”). The property is vacant and surrounded by agricultural fields and rural residences. The property is accessed via a busy corridor of the SR-121/Silverado Trail.

The property is designated by the City of Napa 2040 General Plan as Very Low Density R
esidential (up to 2.0 dwelling units per gross acre) and is zoned Single-Family Residential (RS 40). The property is also located within the Floodplain Management and Traffic Impact Overlay zone districts.

ATTACHMENT 14

ERROR ! R EFER ENCE SOURCE N OT FOUND.

Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
January 30, 2025

BN 86871902v1
The project would significantly intensify use of the property, allowing for a “glamping” campground with up to five permanent buildings, up to 100 fixed recreational lodging units, a recreational activity space, and a pervious parking area. The 100 fixed recreational lodging units could be a mix of tent spaces, canvas tents on platforms (yurts), and stationary camper trailers.

The recreational activity space would consist of a children’s playground, bocce ball courts, an internal trail space, a lawn, and outdoor game areas. The project includes one driveway from Silverado Trail (State Route 121).

DISCUSSION

As with any land use, adherence to zoning classifications is crucial. Here, The Grange fails to c
omply with the property’s zoning designation. Local zoning is reserved in the City to ensure sound standards to preserve public health, safety, and welfare. Additionally, local zoning is established in the City to mitigate traffic congestion and ensure adequate infrastructure is developed to preserve public welfare and safety. Significant changes to zoning, including rezoning, text amendments, and variances, require ample study and analysis to support these goals. As discussed more fully below, this process was completely ignored in the review of this project.

The property sits alongside Milliken Creek. The property frequently floods during the winter s
eason. Currently, the property is zoned as a four-home subdivision. The subdivision was never built, in part due to financial challenges with flood mitigation. In March 2021, developers sought to increase the number of residential units, but were dissuaded by the Planning Commission because of the site’s environmental constraints.

A. A
Campground Violates Current Zoning and Cannot be Cured by Text Amendment.

In 2024, the developers pivoted to a campground model. A campground is a commercial use, w
hich is not allowed under the property’s current zoning restrictions. Rather than change the zoning for the property, the City and developers have proposed a text amendment to the City of Napa Municipal Code

1. The changes made by this text amendment would only apply to the proposed project site.

This pr
oposed text amendment is wholly improper and is simply an attempt to reverse engineer the process to avoid the analysis that would be required of a rezoning of the property and allow an otherwise impermissible use in a residential zone. By elevating form over substance, the City

1 The email exchanges between the City and developers discussing how to approach the text amendment are attached to this letter for reference.

ATTACHMENT 14

ERROR ! R EFER ENCE SOURCE N OT FOUND.

Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
January 30, 2025

BN 86871902v1
ignores any impact studies that would have to take place with a zoning amendment of this nature.

Stated differently, the City’s
proposed procedural solution is really an illegal variance disguised as a text amendment. “Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.

A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which i
s not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to conditional use permits.” (Cal. Gov't Code § 65906.)

Case law is clear that a variance requires an
“affirmative showing that the subject property
differs substantially and in relevant aspects from other parcels in the zone, [and cannot] amount[] to the kind of ‘special privilege’ explicitly prohibited by Government Code section 65906. [In granting a variance, the City must observe] two important legal principles. First, by requiring that administrative findings must support a variance, we emphasize the need for orderly legal process and the desirability of forcing administrative agencies to express their grounds for decision so that reviewing courts can intelligently examine the validity of administrative action.

Second, by abrogating an unsupported exception to a zoning plan, we conduce orderly and planned utilization of the environment.” (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Cmty. v. Cnty. of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 522.) These principles were wholly ignored by seeking to approve the project through a text amendment applicable solely to the project site.

B. T
he City Cannot Grant Special Privileges to One Applicant.

In addition to the procedural irregularities, the text amendment further gives unfair preferential t
reatment to the developer. Through the text amendment, the City’s “logic” is that transient uses are already allowed in residential zones. While true, these transient uses are heavily regulated. A homeowner can only have a short term rental (STR) with a permit. Right now, new vacation permit rental applications are NOT being accepted by the City of Napa. The maximum number of non-hosted permits is 41 and the website shows a waitlist of 31 applicants. Here, the City is allowing the developer to not only jump the line, but is also somehow allowing 100 additional permits, not attached to any permanent residential use, to issue for this specific location in contravention of the current cap. Again, the City is proposing the grant the project proponents a “special privilege” that is prohibited by the Government Code.

ATTACHMENT 14

ERROR ! R EFER ENCE SOURCE N OT FOUND.

Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
January 30, 2025

BN 86871902v1

C. T he City Has Not Properly Studied the Project’s Environmental Impact.

Moreover, the City’s view of the project as a “campground” has obscured the review and analysis of the project and its impacts. As set forth more fully in the reports, the description of the project as a campground, and the resulting analysis, is simply unfounded. Unlike a traditional campground, there is no indication guests will “pack in and pack out” once. There are no onsite amenities, such as hiking trails, restaurants, etc. Patrons will be leaving the grounds for all meals and entertainment. The underlying inaccuracy in the description of the project has undermined all subsequent review and discussion.

In addition to the above concerns, outside ex
pert consultants have further highlighted other
problems with The Grange. Specifically:

o Fi re : The Grange increases fire risk and poses serious concerns about evacuation for guests at the project, as well as surrounding neighbors. As the current fires in LA have demonstrated, a traffic bottleneck during an evacuation creates a catastrophic situation.

o T
raffic : All available evidence indicates The Grange will have significant impacts to the environment through traffic, including an increase in GHGs. The traffic impact study provided in support of the project is wholly insufficient and adopts several assumptions that are without evidence or plainly wrong.

o B
iological Resources: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife provided comments on the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and noted it did not adequately evaluate or mitigate impacts to biological resources including Swainson’s Hawk and alteration of onsite streams.

Despite evidence of significant impacts, the City determined to analyze the project through a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”). As discussed above, and more thoroughly in the expert reports, the analysis in the MND, and its conclusion that there will be no significant impacts, are wholly insufficient and without substantial evidence. Instead, the expert evidence provided with the letter demonstrates that there is a fair argument the project will have significant impacts to the environment, requiring, at minimum, preparation of an environmental impact report (“EIR”).

As a general r
ule, an agency may not adopt a negative declaration, and must prepare an EIR, if it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact. Substantial evidence means enough relevant factual information exists so ATTACHMENT 14

ERROR ! R EFER ENCE SOURCE N OT FOUND.

Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
January 30, 2025

BN 86871902v1
that a fair argument can be made to support this conclusion even though other conclusions may be reached. The expert opinions gathered by the Citizens Group are substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact. The City cannot simply ignore this evidence and approve the project based on the MND.

D. The Project Improperly Depletes Housing Inventory.

This project does not involve a housing development. The Grange is not a residential project protected under state laws such as the Housing Accountability Act or the Density Bonus Law.

Instead, it is a wholly commercial project serving non-Napa residents. Amending the zoning code to shoehorn in such use to a residential zone is inappropriate and unjustified. To be sure, through the text amendment and project approval, the City is taking property zoned for housing without finding a replacement site. (Napa City Code §17.66.080.) The City is dealing with a current housing crisis and projects that eliminate approved residential sites are incongruent with City goals.

CONCLUSION
Had the City completed the appropriate processes to review the project fully, the Council would find that it should not be approved for this location and that the proposed text amendment should be rejected.

We thank you for your attention to this matter and invite you to forward any questions you may have.

Very truly yours,

BUCHALTER
A
Professional Corporation
Katharine H. Falace
S
hareholder
Encl. email chain
P
rism Engineering Report
ATTACHMENT 14

1 From: Jeremy Sill <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 3:36 PM
To: Ricky Caperton; JB Leamer
Cc: Greg Pitts; Ryder Dilley
Subject: RE: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning Amendment [EXTERNAL]
Ok, we look forward to getting it soon.

On a different note, now that we are a month or so away from the PC meeting we are going to start our outreach and offer visits up to Autocamp in Guerneville. Did either one of you want to also attend a site visit or even overnight stay up there to understand the experience?

Jeremy Sill, P.E. | Project Manager
RSA+ Family of Companies
Engineers | Surveyors | Land Planners | Landscape Architects | Graphic Design | Printing 707-252-3301

From: Ricky Caperton <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 2:20 PM
To: Jeremy Sill <[email protected]>; JB Leamer <[email protected]> Cc: Greg Pitts <[email protected]>; Ryder Dilley <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning Amendment

Unfortunately, we cannot. Once it’s released to you (or anyone else) it has to be available to the public.

Ricky Caperton, AICP
Planning Manager
Office: (707) 257-9604 | Mobile: (707) 696-9433
Email: [email protected]

From: Jeremy Sill <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 2:19 PM
To: Ricky Caperton <[email protected]>; JB Leamer <[email protected]> Cc: Greg Pitts <[email protected]>; Ryder Dilley <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning Amendment

[EXTERNAL]
Ricky, would it be possible for us to get a copy of the draft report? We are wanting to review any mitigations required.

Thanks,

Jeremy Sill, P.E. | Project Manager
ATTACHMENT 14

2 RSA+ Family of Companies
Engineers | Surveyors | Land Planners | Landscape Architects | Graphic Design | Printing 707-252-3301

From: Ricky Caperton <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 8:24 AM
To: JB Leamer <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeremy Sill <[email protected]>; Greg Pitts <[email protected]>; Ryder Dilley <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning Amendment

I’m not going to commit to a date until the CEQA document is released. But yes, we are aiming for September 19th.

We only have PC on the 1st and 3rd Thursdays. If not the 19th, then Oct. 3rd. Then CC will be scheduled for month after PC.

I have Ryder working on a timeline of the project so you and your team have a clear understanding why this project took so long. It will detail the points in which things were in our court and per schedule and will identify points when things were in your court.

We are working as quickly as possible, but also need to pay attention to the details. This is not a project Napa has seen, and while you are pushing to hurry, that’s when mistakes are made. This is a large site, near a river that floods and has wetlands. CEQA is a process that takes some time. I know we are accustomed to exemptions, but this project didn’t qualify for that.

Ricky Caperton, AICP
Planning Manager
Office: (707) 257-9604 | Mobile: (707) 696-9433
Email: [email protected]

From: JB Leamer <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 8:14 AM
To: Ricky Caperton <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeremy Sill <[email protected]>; Greg Pitts <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning Amendment

[EXTERNAL]
Thank you. Sounds promising.

Sorry to clarify; assuming all goes as planned and the documents are released by next Friday….we could feasibly make a 9/25 PC hearing? I understand this is theoretical and not a commitment at this moment.

Sent from my iPhone please forgive typos & grammar

On Aug 14, 2024, at 7:06 AM, Ricky Caperton <[email protected]> wrote:

ATTACHMENT 14

3 Good morning. Just received the screencheck draft yesterday and we are reviewing for final editing.

At this point, it’s just fine tuning. Hoping to have to released by Friday of next week assuming Harris can put the final touches on it.

Ricky Caperton, AICP
Planning Manager
Office: (707) 257-9604 | Mobile: (707) 696-9433
Email: [email protected]

From: JB Leamer <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:04 AM
To: Ricky Caperton <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeremy Sill <[email protected]>; Greg Pitts <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning Amendment

[EXTERNAL]
Ricky
Good morning. Hope all is well. I know we spoke last week regarding the release of the CEQA document for review was close. Have the consultants sent this already?

Sent from my iPhone please forgive typos & grammar

Begin forwarded message:

From: Greg Pitts <[email protected]>
Date: July 30, 2024 at 9:41:25 AM PDT
To: Ryder Dilley <[email protected]>
Cc: Bernie Corea <[email protected]>, JB Leamer <[email protected]>, Jeremy Sill <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning Amendment Hi Ryder,

I hope this finds you well.

Quick question - will there be another PC meeting in August? I see one scheduled for Aug 1 but nothing on the City Calendar after that. Please advise.

As you know, we need to get the hearing for our project scheduled ASAP.

Whatever you and the consultants can do to finalize the CEQA docs this week would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
Greg

Greg Pitts
ATTACHMENT 14

4 PANORAMIC ADVISORS
Hospitality Advisory Services
1432 Main Street | St. Helena, CA
o: 707.967.1150 | c: 707.815.8825
www.panoramicadvisors.com

On Jul 30, 2024, at 9:27 AM, Ryder Dilley
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning Bernie,

Thank you for your follow-up. After issuing our comments/edits to the consultant team, they followed up with us pretty quickly within that week to discuss edits and methodologies moving forward. I do have some additional materials I’ll be providing to them this week to clarify language. I anticipate they’ll be able to finalize an additional draft by the end of next week, but I’ll gauge the timing and get back to your team.

Thanks,

Ryder Dilley
Associate Planner
Office: (707) 257-9225
Email: [email protected]

From: Bernie Corea <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 11:16 AM
To: Ryder Dilley <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Pitts <[email protected]>; JB Leamer <jb@crb- inc.com>; Jeremy Sill <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning Amendment

[EXTERNAL]
Hi Ryder,
Hope all is well and that you had a good weekend. Just
checking in. Any update on when we can expect to hear from the consultant team?

Bernie Corea
Director of Acquisitions & Development
Cell (805) 284-5334

AutoCamp Zion and Field Station Moab are now available to book your next stay.

<image001.jpg>
ATTACHMENT 14

5 On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:08 AM Bernie Corea
<[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks Ryder. Do you have an idea of when we will hear back from the consultant team?

Bernie Corea
Director of Acquisitions & Development
Cell (805) 284-5334

AutoCamp Zion and Field Station Moab are now available
to book your next stay.

<image001.jpg>

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 2:28 PM Ryder Dilley
<[email protected]> wrote:

Jeremy,

Thank you for the confirmation. We won’t be able to provide a copy of the draft and mitigation until we’ll closer to finalizing the document. I will try to provide you all with an update when we’re closer to publishing.

The draft is back with the consultant’s team to adjust the documents based on the City’s feedback. I will keep you advised on the timing of their edits.

Thanks,

Ryder Dilley
Associate Planner
Office: (707) 257-9225
Email: [email protected]

From: Jeremy Sill <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 6:17 AM
To: Ryder Dilley <[email protected]>; Bernie Corea <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Pitts <[email protected]>; JB Leamer <jb@crb- inc.com>
Subject: RE: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning Amendment

[EXTERNAL]
Ryder,

ATTACHMENT 14

6 We’ve discussed internally and are good with using the term “glamping”. Let’s proceed with that.

Also are you able to provide us the draft mitigation measures and CEQA document?

Thanks,

Jeremy Sill, P.E. | Project Manager
RSA+ Family of Companies
Engineers | Surveyors | Land Planners | Landscape Architects | Graphic Design | Printing
707-252-3301
<image002.png>

From: Ryder Dilley <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2024 2:53 PM
To: Jeremy Sill <[email protected]>; Bernie Corea
<[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Pitts <[email protected]>; JB Leamer <jb@crb- inc.com>
Subject: RE: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning Amendment

Hello Jeremy,

Thanks for taking my call yesterday. I just following up in response for the collective group. The preference from the City will be to have a unique identifier similar to “glamping” and not to be confused with “camping.” I can understand the hesitancy with the term “glamping;” however, we already have a use defined as a campground.

If your team can come up with a separate term to be utilized, I can likely make the swap in the draft; however, the City’s preference with the amendment will be to proceed with a term similar to “glamping.”

To speak to timing, we’re still discussing options for whether we proceed with a Planning Commission hearing before or after the comment period. That will dictate a tentative timeline to hearing.

Parry’s interest in processing her extension request for the parcel map is also throwing a curve into timing, so we decided to proceed with her extension request on July 18th. I drafted that report and ancillary attachments for that yesterday. Timing relevant to the comment period will dictate either August/September.

Thanks,

Ryder Dilley
Associate Planner
Office: (707) 257-9225
Email: [email protected]

ATTACHMENT 14

7 From: Jeremy Sill <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2024 9:51 AM
To: Ryder Dilley <[email protected]>; Bernie Corea <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Pitts <[email protected]>; JB Leamer <jb@crb- inc.com>
Subject: RE: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning Amendment

[EXTERNAL]
Hi Ryder,

Thanks for this update. We’ve discussed amongst ourselves and here is our cumulative response/request:

Let’s avoid the term glamping in the ordinance. If we can change the term “glamping permit” to “camping permit” that would be our preference. Please confirm this is ok. If it is then we are good to have it sent out to the CEQA consultant/City attorney for finalization.

A few more items on this I’m hoping you can advise on:

1. I don’t think we received any other draft documents, I think you mentioned sending the draft mitigation measures or
conditions of approval.

1. Timeline: are we tracking for July 18 PC or do we need to push to August 1?

Thanks,

Jeremy Sill, P.E. | Project Manager
RSA+ Family of Companies
Engineers | Surveyors | Land Planners | Landscape Architects | Graphic Design | Printing
707-252-3301
<image002.png>

From: Ryder Dilley <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2024 1:36 PM
To: Bernie Corea <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Pitts <[email protected]>; JB Leamer <jb@crb- inc.com>; Jeremy Sill <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning Amendment

Hello Bernie,

ATTACHMENT 14

8 Yes, I actually had a good discussion with not only our consulting attorney, but also with my Planning Manager, Ricky, this morning. The collective meeting is not encouraged at this time.

The City’s stance is that we’re considering a use and a text amendment requested by your team that is atypical from current norm. With some guidance, we believe that the now approach makes the most sense and that we can support this path moving forward. I understand the “vacation rental” approach may garner concerns, but also believe regardless of the approach, any neighbors or members of the public that may have concerns over the project will take the project and not the approach at face value. So being that the nature of the project does not inherently change depending on the approach, staff’s direction with the approach needs to be formatted in a way that the City can support. We feel this is the appropriate path forward with timing also considered.

Outside of a text amendment prepared and drafted by your team, we’re not fully open to considering other options. If you do elect to propose an alternative approach, your team will need to initially draft the amendment and we would need to review and consider the suggested change. I would advise you that consideration of other approaches may cause unnecessary delays in the timing of the project.

I hope that provides clarity. Please do not hesitate to follow up should you have additional questions.

Thanks,

Ryder Dilley
Associate Planner
Office: (707) 257-9225
Email: [email protected]

From: Bernie Corea <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2024 1:01 PM
To: Ryder Dilley <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Pitts <[email protected]>; JB Leamer <jb@crb- inc.com>; Jeremy Sill <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning Amendment

[EXTERNAL]
Hi Ryder,

Thanks for sending this over. Any luck arranging a meeting with the City Attorney? That would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
ATTACHMENT 14

9 Bernie Corea

Bernie Corea
Director of Acquisitions & Development
Cell (805) 284-5334

AutoCamp Zion and Field Station Moab are now available
to book your next stay.

On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 4:45 PM Ryder Dilley
<[email protected]> wrote:

All,

I believe I have updated the draft to be reflective of our discussion today. Please see attached.

I will follow up if I am able to coordinate with our City Attorney’s office for a greater collective discussion on approach.

Thanks,

Ryder Dilley
Associate Planner
Office: (707) 257-9225
Email: [email protected]

From: Bernie Corea <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:56 AM
To: Ryder Dilley <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Pitts <[email protected]>; JB Leamer <jb@crb- inc.com>; Jeremy Sill <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning Amendment

[EXTERNAL]
Good morning Ryder, just texted with Jeremy and he’s also good for 11 AM. Would you mind sending an invite and call info? Thanks

Bernie Corea
Director of Acquisitions & Development
Cell (805) 284-5334

AutoCamp Zion and Field Station Moab are now available
to book your next stay.

ATTACHMENT 14

10 On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 5:09 PM Bernie Corea
<[email protected]> wrote:
11am works for me - thank you!

Bernie Corea
Director of Acquisitions & Development
Cell (805) 284-5334

AutoCamp Zion and Field Station Moab are now
available to book your next stay.

On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 5:58 PM Ryder Dilley
<[email protected]> wrote:

All,

Please find the attached draft ordinance. We can further discuss the approach on Monday. Be advised that our City Attorney’s Office has not had the ability to fully review this draft yet, so there may be minor tweaks after they do.

Jeremy/Bernie – Let me know if 11:00 a.m. works for you too and I’ll send out an invite on Monday.

Hope you all have a great weekend.

Thanks,

Ryder Dilley
Associate Planner
Office: (707) 257-9225
Email: [email protected]

From: Greg Pitts <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 1:17 PM
To: Ryder Dilley <[email protected]>
Cc: JB Leamer <[email protected]>; Jeremy Sill <[email protected]>; Bernie Corea <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning Amendment

ATTACHMENT 14

11 [EXTERNAL]
Thanks Ryder and look forward to discussing.

Have a great weekend.

Greg

Greg Pitts

PANORAMIC ADVISORS
Hospitality Advisory Services
1432 Main Street | St. Helena, CA
o: 707.967.1150 | c: 707.815.8825
www.panoramicadvisors.com

On Jun 21, 2024, at 1:14 PM, Ryder Dilley
<[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Greg,

I do. I will send the draft ordinance to your team
before the end of the day today, but I’ll go through
and add comments to clarify why sections were
added, so it gives you clarity should you be curious
on the intent over the weekend.

In the end, the intent of the draft is to recognize
and authorize the nature of the project proposed
by your team and give flexibility where possible,
while also defining the use and preventing
concerns of “nuisances” - so to speak. We can
definitely talk through how it started with the
initial approach to where it is at now on Monday.

Thanks,

Ryder Dilley
Associate Planner
Office: (707) 257-9225
Email: [email protected]

From: Greg Pitts <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 12:38 PM
To: JB Leamer <[email protected]>
Cc: Ryder Dilley <[email protected]>; Jeremy
Sill <[email protected]>; Bernie Corea
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Glamping site CEQA docs and Zoning
Amendment

ATTACHMENT 14

12 [EXTERNAL]
Hi Ryder,

Thanks for getting back to us so quickly and
having the time to discuss this important
issue.

Both times are good for me as well.

Is there anything that you have drafted that
you can share in advance of the call?

Ps - you mention adding an “existing
commercial” use into residential zoning but
I don’t think that was ever the intention. The
intention was to clarify in the zoning text
that recreational uses could include
camping / glamping as part of the definition
of recreational use in this zoning district.

All of that said, look forward to discussing!

Have a great weekend!

Greg Pitts
Panoramic Advisors
Hospitality Advisory Services
1432 Main Street | St. Helena, CA
p: 707.967.1150 | c: 707.815.8825
www.panoramicadvisors.com

On Jun 21, 2024, at 12:02 PM, JB Leamer
<[email protected]> wrote:

Ryder
Thank you. Either of these times work for
me. I would prefer 11AM. I am not sure
about the rest of team.

Kindly,
J.B. Leamer | Principal | CR Buildworks, INC.
415-286-3126 | [email protected]

On Jun 21, 2024, at 11:21 AM,
Ryder Dilley
ATTACHMENT 14

13 <[email protected]>
wrote:

Hey Jeremy,

I do have some time available on
Monday around 11:00 a.m. or 2:30
p.m. for a call. Let me know if
either time slot works for your
collective group.

We can talk through the concerns.

The change was at the guidance of
our City Attorney’s Office. The
intent was to supplement the
vacation rental ordinance, which
already recognizes compatible
transient uses in residential zones,
instead of adding an existing
commercial use into residential.

The glamping use would be
authorized via a use permit as a
“vacation rental campground
permit” instead of the normal
“vacation rental permit.” As
drafted, it does not modify the
“vacation rental permit” process
for SFRs – just supplements the
ordinance. In theory, we would
not be opening that discussion at
all.

I can discuss other concerns they
had had during our call in altering
the approach, but the standards
for design/operation would
resemble much of what was
initially drafted.

Thanks,

Ryder Dilley
Associate Planner
Office: (707) 257-9225
Email: [email protected]

From: Jeremy Sill
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024
3:00 PM
To: Ryder Dilley
ATTACHMENT 14

14 <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Pitts
<[email protected]>;
JB Leamer <[email protected]>;
Bernie Corea
<[email protected]>
Subject: Glamping site CEQA docs
and Zoning Amendment

[EXTERNAL]
Ryder,

Our design team, including AC,
just spoke and I mentioned the
vacation rental ordinance zoning
change. There was a lot of concern
about this.

We would like to discuss as soon
as possible. Do you have time
Monday to go over this? Also we’d
like to all discuss the timing of all
document drafts and make sure
the late July hearing is still on the
books. Will you please let us know
if you can make a bit of time for a
meeting or even a call with us?

Thanks,

Jeremy Sill, P.E. | Project Manager
RSA+ Family of Companies
Engineers | Surveyors | Land
Planners | Landscape Architects |
Graphic Design | Printing

<image001.png>
1515 Fourth Street
Napa, CA 94559
Tel: 707.252.3301 | Fax:
707.252.4966
www.rsacivil.com

ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 1

TRAFFIC STUDY REVIEW of

“Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA
(Prepared by W-TRANS and dated August 7, 2024)

This Review Prepared for: Brian Bennett
December 20, 2024

This Report Prepared by:

Traffic Engineering & Transportation Planning
Prepared in accordance with Traffic Impact Analysis study guidelines set forth by: City of Dixon

This document has been
prepared and certified by
Grant P. Johnson, TE,
Principal. CA License #1453

ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 2
Introduction

This letter report outlines the conclusions of our review of the traffic study prepared for the Grange Project in Napa, CA including the trip generation of the project, the trip distribution of the project, as well as the potential for traffic impacts and safety concerns relating to project traffic entering in to and out of the project access on the Silverado Trail highway that fronts the 12.5 acre project property between (a part of the City’s Crucial Corridor).

Trip Generation Considerations

The trip generation assumptions in the
Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project, a report prepared by W -Trans on August 7, 2024, have been reviewed for applicability to the proposed Grange Project. A full traffic analysis was not required due to the project’s trip generation being calculated to be less than the required 50 peak hour trip threshold. However, this review will show that the project’s traffic if calculated correctly with a relevant trip generation rate could easily exceed the 50 peak hour trip threshold. This trip generation rate needs to be surveyed from other AutoCamp venues which are very different than a typical campground experience.

Why the ITE Trip Generation Rate for a Campground (ITE Land Use #416) is not a good fit for the Project.

PRISM Engineering researched the ITE Trip Generation Rates used in the aforementioned traffic study and found the following information for ITE Land Use #146 for a Campground:
• The trip generation surveys were completed in the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, but none were completed in California. • The ITE description for a “campground” is: “ A campground/recreational vehicle park is a recreational site that accommodates campers, trailers, tents, and recreational vehicles on a transient basis. They are found in a variety of locations and provide a variety of facilities, often including restroom s with showers and recreational facilities, such as a swimming pool, convenience store, and laundromat;” however, the Grange Project has a very different description that does not seem to match the ITE surveys. For example, AutoCamp states that their facilities can accommodate groups for events such as corporate retreats, weddings, etc. Their website form asks how many guests would be expected at a company event, or a wedding, etc. • AutoCamp costs about 10 times more than a typical California State Campground. A regular California State Campground with 50-amp hookups can cost around $40/night but an AutoCamp site at the Yosemite location costs $488 per night for an airstream that sleeps 4 (typically two adults and two children). There is parking for one car only per site at each AutoCamp venue. Other AutoCamp locations have costs ranging even higher than Yosemite, such as the Russian River location in Guerneville where an airstream goes for $593 per night to sleep up to 4 people.

ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 3
o This cost difference of an order of magnitude (10x) for an AutoCamp site when compared to the typical California State campground venue, prov es that there is some significant differences in how these different facilities are used, and the clientele that uses each type of campground. For those that do not have a trailer or camper/motorhome, the cost to use these at the AutoCamp are obviously passed on to the customer.

Is AutoCamp Really Like a Typical Public Campground?

It does not appear that the AutoCamp venues were part of the ITE Trip Generation survey data sets collected so long ago, since they are a relatively new type of venue having started small in Santa Barbara in 2013. The AutoCamp website FAQ 1 enumerates some of these significant differences between their facilities and a typical campground facility as follows:
• QUESTION: Can I bring my own tent or RV to AutoCamp?
o AutoCamp ANSWER: Unfortunately, we do not provide spaces for guests to bring their own trailers or tents.
o PRISM Engineering Observation2: This AutoCamp model assumes that the vehicle will be transporting up to 4 people for each site, and that the guests will typically not be bringing any significant equipment such as tents, multiple coolers, a camping trailer, sleeping bags, etc. because there would be very limited room in typical vehicle. If carpooling does not take place as assumed for each room, and guests have to arrive in separate vehicles, it may be likely that Uber-type taxi services will transport guests in and out of the site, and will make multiple trips to do so. This would increase the Trip Generation Rate s ince an Uber would enter and then promptly leave the site creating an additional outbound trip in the same hour. A regular guest car would not immediately leave the AutoCamp but would park and unpack. Uber-type delivery services would also be utilized to bring goods into and out of the AutoCamp site to serve the needs of guests, such as food deliveries from restaurants. It is highly unlikely that a typical campground would have deliveries of restaurant food or other transportation services by way of compa rison. In fact, most meals prepare in a typical camping experience were created from ingredients packed and kept at camp for the endurance of the stay, to make it like “camping.” This results in a significant difference between how many vehicles would/cou ld come into and exit an AutoCamp facility per day vs. a typical “roughing it” campground facility when it comes to food preparation.
• QUESTION: Do you offer buyouts and weddings?

1 https://autocamp.com/faq/
2 In the context of comparing the traffic generating characteristics of an AutoCamp site to a typical public campground site.

ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 4
o AutoCamp ANSWER : Yes! For more information on events at AutoCamp, visit our Gatherings page or fill out this inquiry form.
o PRISM Engineering Observation: In our last meeting it was communicated that a wedding venue was not on the table of services that would be offered at the AutoCamp in Napa, however, the website seems to differ from this assumption having a large group or wedding option right on the reservation form, with this type of service being showcased for at least three of their locations. The business model also tries to accommodate corporate events, retreats, or large and small groups (such as a church group or family reunion, etc.).
• QUESTION: What is the parking situation?
o AutoCamp ANSWER: We offer free parking at all of our locations. Each room accounts for one parking spot onsite.
o PRISM Engineering Observation: This is significant because it is not typical or comparable to a typical public campground where multiple vehicles can be accommodated on a single camp site due to the need to bring significant amounts of equipment and supplies to make a camp, including tents, sleeping bags, coolers, a trailer, or RV, etc. At AutoCamp none of these are required because the majority of activity will have nothing to do with camp setup at an AutoCamp. This difference will affect the trip generation characteristics for the AutoCamp due to its general lack of accommodation for making food preparation at their site more difficult (unless the guests bring their own cooking equipment, foods, and coolers to keep the food). Being highly unlikely, this food consumption need/want will be satisfied/facilitated with vehicles traveling into and out of the AutoCamp site to shop or get food, an activity that is much less common in a typical camp site where food preparation is mostly entirely contained within the camp and completed within the individual camp.
• QUESTION: What is AutoCamp?
o AutoCamp ANSWER: AutoCamp offers overnight lodging and accommodations in modern Airstream suites and luxurious tents at our locations across the United States. Think the traditional camping or glamping experience with all of the amenities and perks of staying at a boutique hotel. AutoCamp brings high -end, boutique-style amenities, mid -century modern design, and welcoming hospitality to some of the world’s most beautiful natural places.
o PRISM Engineering Observation: A boutique hotel often serves locally sourced food and drinks, and may feature a restaurant with local products. However, the AutoCamp model does not offer this feature. For those who want someone else to prepare their food, they might have to leave the site to take their car and go get some food, or travel together to a restaurant, or have the food otherwise delivered. In other words, an AutoCamp facility will have more additional traffic impacts due to food consumption ne eds than would a typical public campground where regular campers bring their own food supplies, coolers, stoves, propane and other utilities and equipment to make all of that possible. If the ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 5
AutoCamp facility were truly like a “boutique hotel” as they state on their website then it would also accommodate the food consumption needs of the clientele either with their own restaurant onsite, or with the availability of very nearby eating establishments within walking distances. Many hotels are popular because of the surround ing commercial establishments that offer added value, such as shows, restaurants, walkability, shopping, etc.. An AutoCamp does not offer these types of nearby amenities because the selling point is that they “…always believed guests should be able to immerse themselves in nature...” A typical hotel, which was compared to AutoCamp in the Trip Generation calculations of this traffic study, are not typically immersed in nature, and are irrelevant to the AutoCamp land use.
• QUESTION: What do I need to bring?
o AutoCamp ANSWER: Whatever you need to make your stay more comfortable. For a full list of things you might consider packing, visit here3, and the website takes you to a page that includes in part these suggestions of what they might want to bring) § Cooking
• Extra cooler if you bring lots of food (small space living means our mini refrigerators have limited capacity)
• Ingredients for Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner if you plan on cooking your own meals during your stay
• Cooking oil and spices (we provide salt and pepper)
• Camping stove (most suites don’t have a stovetop)
o PRISM Engineering Observation: If a guest at AutoCamp wants to bring food to last their entire stay without having to leave the campground to go shop for food and supplies after each meal or each day then the AutoCamp guest would need to bring sufficient coolers and ice to supplement the lack of space in the mini refrigerators offered at AutoCamp sites. The typical behavior at a regular public campground is typified by campers not making multiple trips to the local stores and restaurants due to their sufficient packing of food and drinks in multiple coolers. At an AutoCamp venue a guest would also have to bring a complete cooking apparatus (stove) complete with propane gas, as well as pots and pans to cook complete meals, because AutoCamp has stated that most of their suites and sites do not have a stovetop. All of this additional hassle of packing more equipment to cook food at an AutoCamp site defeats the kind of experience that AutoCamp is trying to offer: luxury and convenience. The AutoCamp experience actually encourages their guests through this model of not supplying a stove or a sufficient ly sized refrigerator, or providing a local eating establishment, etc. This business model actually encourages guests to seek outside sources for such food needs. This means they will travel outside

3 https://autocamp.com/2020/10/15/the-essential-autocamp-packing-list/ ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 6
the campground in their cars to get to a restaurant, or a store, or they will have meals delivered to the AutoCamp site to their site’s trailer. This will result in a significantly different vehicle trip generation that would otherwise take place at a regular public campground, with the AutoCamp trip generation being significantly higher than the ITE Trip Generation Manual rate, a rate which is not compatible with the AutoCamp business model. It is my professional opinion/observation that based on this information provided by AutoCamp and provided by the ITE Trip Generation Manual, that a different and more conservative trip generation rate should be used for analyzing the Grange Project. In fact, there are existing AutoCamp facilities that are for the most part, the exact same business model as the proposed project, the website demonstrates this, and these AutoCamp facilities should be counted and surveyed. Since they are booked year-round, such counts could start tomorrow. In my observation, many sites of AutoCamp showed sold out nights or weekends in the next 4 months. One could go count traffic on such a day and conduct a survey according to established ITE Trip Generation Study Survey standards.

Corporate Group Events as well as Wedding Venues Accommodated and Encouraged at AutoCamps

Group activities such as a corporate event, a church group, a family reunion, or even a wedding are encouraged at existing AutoCamp sites. The project proponent and the City have stated however that the project will not be used for weddings. However the business model also includes corporate events which in some cases can be just as impactful as a wedding depending on the number of guests in the group. The Auto Camp website states that it caters to large group venues, like corporate events or a wedding and lists the Auto Camp locations as follows. It lets you choose the option to book a corporate event, state the number of guests, the company name, or whether it might also be a wedding event. The number of guests lists the number “100” as a suggested data entry number. The form includes all locations:

WHICH LOCATION ARE YOU INTERESTED IN?(REQUIRED)
Asheville
Cape Cod
Catskills
Hill Country, opening in 2025
Joshua Tree
Russian River
Sequoia, opening mid 2024
Yosemite
Zion

ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 7
To my knowledge, this list is the complete list of AutoCamp sites, each of which had a wedding booking option. Here is the form unmodified as shown on the website4:

The marketing language mentions that groups or business meetings are welcome (such as a corporate retreat), stating “Escape the boardroom and get the group outside for an unforgettable meeting, event or celebration.” Groups would likely enter the site on the same day for such an event, making the peak hour traffic nothing like a regular California State Campground facility , where it is possible and likely that a larger platoon or surge of incoming traffic would take place for corporate events who have planned times and activities. In addition, with corporate events such as this, the individual participants may have other business not on the site, or need to travel for a meal, etc., or have meals delivered into the AutoCamp site, creating more traffic impact.

Summary of Conclusions about the Data Assumptions

• The ITE Trip Generation Rate for Campgrounds is not an appropriate trip rate to use in analyzing the very different venue and business model of an AutoCamp venue. It is far too low in comparison to the amount of traffic that I believe would be generated from the AutoCamp facility.

4 https://autocamp.com/gatherings/gatherings-inquiry/
ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 8
The customer base are not the same as the typical camper. It is more like a hotel room in nature, but without the food (unless you bring it and all of the equipment to cook it, not likely), and without the local added value venues that would typically sur round a typical hotel (like shows, restaurants, etc.). Guests at the AutoCamp would need to make trips to outside destinations to get these amenities, since the AutoCamp does not provide food or entertainment. •
5The Trip Distribution for the AutoCamp guests was not believable (reported in the traffic study as a more generic value of 50% to
and from the north, and 50% to
and from the south based on the
location of “regional routes” ). It
was not a believable trip
distribution due to the fact of
where the potential customers
would probably live. Most of the
potential customers live in the
very large proportion of
population centers to the south.

The greater Bay Area, for
instance, has a population center
that is nearly 8 million people and
dwarfs the population centers
near Napa or to the north of it . Since most people going “camping” are traveling to “get away from it all,” it is more probable that the AutoCamp guests will not necessarily be living in the Napa area, since Napa residents already live in a pristine nature area. Recent data shows that in North America 40% of campers traveling to regular campgrounds travel up to 50 miles to get there from home. This means that 60% or the majority travel more than 50 miles to go camping . San Francisco, for instance is only 50 miles from the AutoCamp proposed si te, and this means that 60% would travel even more than 50 miles. The larger population centers would have a more significant pull on the trip distribution pattern. This is how traffic models work: where the population centers are, the larger the “attraction” is to and from places that are not their home.

The main northern population centers include the San Francisco Bay Area (anchored by the cities of San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland), the Greater Sacramento area (anchored by the state capital Sacramento), Redding area south of the Cascade Range, and the Metropolitan Fresno area (anchored by the city of Fresno).
• The population of some of the major population centers listed above are:
o San Francisco Bay Area: 7.76 Million People (81 times larger than Redding to the north)

5 Source: Statista.com
ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 9
o Redding Area South of Cascade Range: 95,000
People
Although this is not an exhaustive analysis of the comparison of various population centers, it does logically place a very heavy factor towards assigning traffic to and from the
proposed AutoCamp project in Napa to be predominately to and from the southern regions . This is what a traffic model would predict which are ubiquitously based on population density being the predominate attraction factor, whether it be a large work place, a large shopping mall, or where most people will travel from. The Bay Area is especially large (actually huge by comparison to Napa regions), and would be the predominant pool of people who all could be interested in traveling to the AutoCamp venue. S uch a facility would be very attractive to people in the Bay Area who typically do not have the space needed to park a car let alone store a trailer, or tents and other camping equipment. Many of these people are living in high-rise apartments or condos, or in other multi housing complexes due to population density, and would probably welcome a simple choice to get out into the nature and stay in an airstream trailer even at a high cost. Many of these people are often using Uber, Waymo, and a host of different delivery services because they do not have a car and depend on paid for hire transportation or transit. They also are used to having things delivered. It is a culture in high density populations, or to shop often or go to a restaurant. Walking is most often very convenient.

In my opinion, since the population of the SF Bay Area is 7.76 Million people, and areas to the north of Napa are much less, the trip distribution pattern (50/50 to the north and south) was not sensitive to this known data, and to the known length of longer camping type trips, Camping trips from home to the site are much longer than the typical trip from home to a store (less than 5 miles, depending on location), or to a movie, or another local venue. In the table that follows, from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) website, the population density and trends for change are compared.

The values in orange represent density. The values in blue represent how fast the population is growing.

Since there is no appreciable growth in or to the north of Napa, CA, it seems logical that most customers of the AutoCamp facility will be coming from the south.

ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 10

Source: MTC6

6 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a regional planning governmental agency for the greater Bay Area ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 11
An additional view of this population density at a
smaller scale to also show the relative comparison to
Napa, CA and areas to the north, shows that while
Napa has some population density, it is in the 0 -5
people per acre category (the lowest one on the MTC
scale), and San Francisco is categorized as more than
40 people per acre on the average. This means, that it
is more likely that AutoCamp customers will
predominantly be coming to and from the areas to
the south of Napa.

Summary of How the Data Assumptions Affect the Analysis

The conclusions of the Grange Project traffic analysis showed in their view, that the project would not have any impact, and that a left turn pocket on the highway for the project entrance would not be needed.

It is my conclusion after considering the true trip generation of the project based on the business model of the AutoCamp facility, and a thorough review of their website and how the business is operated, and how it caters to group and corporate events as well, that the project will have a significan t traffic and safety impact to the local street system that will serve the site. Specifically, Silverado Trail which has a significant number of accidents in the immediate area near to the project between Hagen Road and Stonecrest Drive (14 accidents total in 5 years). In addition, the likely source of customers to the AutoCamp site are from the major population centers south of the project location (such as the greater Bay Area of 7.76 million people) since there is a much higher likelihood of finding more customer connections in those areas, being only 50 miles away and very relevant to the potential customer base as previously explained.

Safety Considerations for Silverado Trail

In the figure below, the accidents as reported to the Highway Patrol via the SWITRS database indicate that there have been 14 accidents in the half mile distance between Hagen Rd. and Stonecrest Dr. The last column in the figure shows an accident diagram to depict the type of accidents that have been taking place. The magnitude of traffic from the project will be much larger than shown in the W-Trans report.

This is because the trip generation needs to be taken from a dire ct survey of other AutoCamp facilities which are expected to have much higher rates of in-and-out traffic during the stay (for meals, deliveries, travel to other places, meetings, etc.). In addition to the trip generation increase, there also needs to be ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 12
the significant consideration that 90% or more of the patrons to this type of project will be comi ng from long distances with the primary customer based in the greater Bay Area as previously discussed . All of this will concentrate inbound traffic that is traveling northbound from the greater Bay Area. Without a left turn pocket, this would create a significant and adverse safety impact to the Silverado Trail Highway.

Accident Locations 2017-2022
In Vicinity of Project Site
Accidents from 2017-2022
Along Project Area Frontage
Accident Diagrams for Accidents in 5
Years 2017-2022

In this same section of the Silverado Trail Highway
there was a recent serious accident that took place on December 11, 2024, where a vehicle overturned after
being rear-ended while traveling in the same vicinity as the proposed Grange Glamping Project. The details of
how the accident happened are not yet known, but the
fact remains that serious accidents are still happening in significant numbers on this section of the highway
fronting the proposed project and are likely related to vehicles either speeding, or stopping / slowing down on the highway to make a left or right turn into a driveway or minor street . There are numerous homes that are
served by a variety of driveways th at are actually long and narrow cul-de-sac streets.

ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 13
The following is a google street view of where th is recent accident took place, and it shows how the highway continually meanders with horizontal curves to the left and to the right for nearly a mile in the vicinity of the proposed project. The photo is showing a view to the south just past the proposed driveway . The speed limit is 40 mph in this section, and there is a curve ahead. Although there are some yellow warning signs i nstalled a t the curves, there are no suggested reduction to speed warning signs in the vicinity of the project .

Most drivers would drive at the 40-mph speed limit past the project, and all safe-stopping-sight-distance analysis should be based on this speed.

The MUTCD specifies that 305 feet of sight distance is needed in order to stop in time should there be a vehicle stopped ahead or an obstruction in the road ahead .

The project is now proposing that there be a “right in / right out” driveway configuration for the project site access to and from the Silverado Trail Highway as shown in the following figure7:

A small pork chop island is being proposed by the developer as a solution.

Even though consideration is being given to the idea of a “right in / right out” restriction for access to the project site in an effort to eliminate a potentially dangerous left turn movement into the project from the northbound highway traffic lane. Unfortunately, there is no way to effectively enforce this constraint or communicate this to drivers unfamiliar with the area without building a true physical barrier in the median

7 Source: Project developer
ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 14
to prevent left turns in or out. This physical barrier in the highway median would require additional roadway width. Even an extreme barrier such as a K- Rail has a 2-foot-wide footprint and would also require widening of the highway by another two feet on each side minimum to install an inside edge line two feet away from the K-Rail base.

Pork-Chop Island Constraint Will Increase U-Turns Made Necessary by Project Traffic Making a U-Turn on the Silverado Highway is highly inconvenient and U-Turns on Silverado Highway at say, Hagen Road (signalized), is not possible as there is insufficient roadway width to make the maneuver.

A driver would have to turn right on Hagen Road, and then find a private drive way to make a 3-point U- Turn maneuver which may not be safe at peak times of the day, especially if many project inbound drivers are trying to make this U-Turn.

The pork chop island constraints for driveways are often ineffective since an unfamiliar driver may find themselves accidentally entering the project site using the outbound lane portion. Or an outbound driver on the project site might not want to turn right to go south on the Silverado Trail highway and choose to turn left instead potentially putting other drivers at risk. The fact remains, that once a vehicle commits to either going south or north o n the Silverado Highway, there is no easy way to make a U -Turn without using private driveways or one-lane neighborhood cul-de-sacs that are also narrow and where a U-Turn is not readily feasible.

The Gate
The Pork chop island driveway concept shown above does show a physical gate for entrance, but with only a 3-car stacking area (absolute best-case), which I believe is insufficient given the surge arrivals that could be expected to take place for a corporate event or retreat , for example . In addition, since this concept is not allowing any vehicles to enter the site coming from the south, which is the significant 90% trip distribution portion estimates based on known population centers in northern California, this means that the majority of guests traveling to the site have to look randomly for a place to make U -turn somewhere into the city areas to the north. This concept merely kicks the can of U -turn impacts to another location, where it is also difficult to make a U -Turn, and where no mitigations are proposed to solve a new traffic problem that would be created by the project elsewhere. It is not unlikely that this can lead to accidents elsewhere as 3-point U-turns are made possibly midblock when drivers to the AutoCamp do not know where to travel to get to their destination. This is why the local northbound left turn pocket is the ideal and safest solution for traffic into the site.

Map App Navigation Options to Direct Traffic to Project. It has been mentioned by the project proponent team that Google Maps, etc. could be programmed to direct drivers to travel a particular pathway that would avoid the choice of making a left into the project (in other words, guide inbound traffic to the intersection of Silverado Trail Highway at Hagen Road and then proceed southbound from that intersection to enter the project site with a right turn inbound. This idea may incorrectly assume that everybody uses google maps or some alternative mapping app. Theses apps also do not all behave the ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 15
same nor do the differing apps always give the same route suggestions. If it were possible, the app might route inbound project traffic from the Bay Area to take Sosco Ave at the signalized intersection with the Silverado Trail Highway instead, and travel north through numerous signalized intersections on Sosco, up to Trancas Street . Next, th e driver would t ravel east back to the Silverado Trail Highway and then backtrack southbound back to the project entrance on Silverado Trail. This detour from a normal and natural route would add more than a mile of distance, and take 11 minutes instead of 7 minutes (the time it takes to travel on Silverado Trail Highway instead). Whether it is possible to get Goo gle Maps / Apple Maps to route traffic from the Bay Area (estimated to be 90% of the project patrons based on population density centers) to suggest this more out -of-the-way path is not the subject of analysis for this review.

But such an idea must be verified and tested to see if it would even be effective given that this is a relatively very small piece of property and other adjacent lots will have no such restrictions. Also, a driver using an app can plainly see the shorter path in the app and the saving of time and may override any initial suggestion by an app.

If a driver decides to tr avel north on Silverado Trail highway instead to go to the project, based on their personal preference and ease of the pathway, and not having any understanding of the dangers of making a left t urn into the project from Silverado Trail highway, they may be facing a dilemma when the time comes to make a left turn, but see it is not possible. They may stop in the highway to study the situation and make a decision to enter illegally or realize that they need to go north and find somewhere to make a U-Turn. It is not an ideal scenario even if it is very likely that this will be happening on a regular basis no matter the configuration of the driveway for the project. This is the main reason that a left turn pocket should be constructed for the project entrance on Silverado Trail highway.

It is possible that during a “surge” of inbound traffic for the project, that more than one vehicle might be stopping on the highway at the ent rance only to realize that an inbound left turn is not feasible. Th e number of cars that might become stacked if say, there is a corporate event or retreat and some car s “caravan” to arrive to the site at a similar time. If there is not a left turn pocket where these vehicles can get out of the way of highway traffic flows, then it might be ex pected that additional accidents will take place on this curved section of highway similar to what i s already taking p lace with existing traffic.

Depending on how traffic into the project might back-up to stop highway traffic flows, the horizontal curve just preceding the proposed project entrance has a limited 250 feet of sight distance for northbound traffic. This is limited because the CA MUTCD specifies that there needs to be a sight distance of 305 feet.

With this highway section having only 250 feet, it
is possible that unsuspecting northbound vehicles
may not be able to stop in time. A vehicle
traveling at 40 mph on the straight section of
highway approaching this curve will not ha ve
enough sight distance to see any stopped traffic
and stop their vehicle in time. This google st reet
view shows how the forward sight distance is
ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 16
constrained in the northbound direction at th e left-hand curve just preceding the proposed project driveway location.

The traffic flows on Silverado Trail highway are more significant in the afternoon (1385 vehicles per hour between 3 pm and 4 pm on a Friday) , but the northbound volume (the critical volume for the project traffic) is 606 vph between 3 pm and 4 pm, and 604 vph between 4 pm and 5 pm. This significant amount of volume traveling at 40 mph does not have a lot of long gaps in traffic. In other words, a vehicle stopping to make a turn can have a significant impact on traffic speeds or even flows alto gether. The highway Capacity Manual states that for a 2-lane arterial it has the following level of service based on the two-way total traffic volume:

This means that if the two-way total exceeds 850 for LOS C for instance, the arterial would be in the LOS D category. Since the highest volume on Silverado Trail is 1385 on a Friday and 1079 on a Saturday, these are both in the LOS D category. LOS D is also defined with the following definition:

LOS D: Approaching unstable flow. Operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by other vehicles. Delays may be more than one cycle during peak hours.

This is the existing condition of the Silverado Highway and it is reasonable to assume that any disruptions to traffic flows from a significant development like the Glamping Project with 100 sites could cause significant impacts to flow, and possibly set the stage for a rear-end accident at one of the curves where sight distance is insufficient to stop in time, as discussed previously.

If 90% of the project traffic comes from the south, and this is most likely given that the population center in the greater Bay Area is 80 times greater than Redding to the north, the vast majority of guests will be coming to the AutoCamp facility from the south. The traffic study reported that during the pm peak hour that only 18 cars would be inbound and 9 cars would be
outbound. This is a total of 27 trip ends projected if all sites are full in a regular campground (non-AutoCamp). A careful review of the ITE Trip Generation chart for normal
campgrounds (see right) shows six surveys for this particular land use in the public campground category. It also shows in the pm peak hour that two of these were outliers. The high value outlier was 50 trips for 145 occupied campsites in the pm peak hour, and the low outlier value was 15 trips for 125 occupied sites. The average ratio is approximately 1 trip end per 3 occupied sites when all 6 sites are averaged together.

It should be remembered that this ITE Trip Rate is for a regular public campground, where you bring all of your own equipment including the tents, the trailer, the camper, the motorhome, the coolers, the food ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 17
and the cooking equipment. It will be lower than an AutoCamp as a default, due to being a more self- contained activity in food preparation, etc. It is very different from the AutoCamp model where they supply a clean and luxurious sleep facility, towels, water and electricity, but an inadequate yet convenient small refrigerator which cannot store any significant amounts of food or drinks. AutoCamp also does not have cooking facilities such as a stove stop in nearly all of their campsites or trailers.

All of these normal camping activities, which tend to significantly reduce trip generation (since the survival activities such as preparing food in a normal campground are mostly self -contained as a part of the camping culture and challenge), are not comparable to an AutoCamp venue which is more like a nature hotel with some similarities of camping. As stated previously, the AutoCamp clientele will be coming from the larger population centers. The trip distribution assumptions in the traffic study need to be significantly adjusted to accommodate the longer lines of inbound vehicles coming from the south potentially on Silverado Trail . There are several back -to-back curves on Silverado Trail, and many accidents are happening in this section near the project site. There is only 2 50 feet of stopping sight distance for 40 mph traffic on the left-hand curve just before the proposed driveway location. This would be an issue if inbound traffic stops northbound Silverado Trail traffic which is currently at LOS D conditions (unstable traffic flow). 40 mph traffic speeds need 305 feet to stop in time for any traffic stopped on the highway blocking the flow of traffic. This means that at one location just before the proposed main access to the project the stopping sight distance would be deficient without having left turn pocket protection.

Entry Channelization Not Effective to an Unfamiliar Driver.

Traveling north on the highway, a driver headed to the AutoCamp site may not know that a left turn is discouraged, or even prohibited. They may try to enter using the exit portion of the driveway, and there may be some confusion. Some drivers may actually stop on the highway to determine what they need to do next to get into the site. Confusing traffic situations can lead to accidents when unexpected turn moves occur, especially if a U- Turn is attempted . If an out-of-town driver is prohibited from entering into this driveway from northbound traffic lane, the question is raised: where then will they make a U-Turn? And will this lead to dangerous turnarounds on busy narrow streets further to the north? (or to the south for outbound project traffic).

Conclusions

The evidence actually supports a finding of significant impacts to traffic including safety. This conclusion is laid out and explained in the paragraphs that follow. Some of these impacts would depend on whether a left turn pocket for the project is installed, or not, on the highway. The proposed project access would be safest if the highway could be widened by an additional 12 feet minimum of pavement to accommodate the new median lane. This extra width could be taken fr om the project site property on the west side of the Silverado Trail highway with appropriate realignment of the centerline to make this possible. A 100-foot left turn pocket should be sufficient to accommodate the storage needs for inbound ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 18
traffic, and especially since there is a gate propose d that could cause backing into the highway at peak entrance times.

A relevant trip generation study needs to be performed that matches the project, since the type of land use is not specifically covered in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. There is better evidence available to inform the analysis of this project including observation of other AutoCamp venues. The traffic study should be required to survey other AutoCamp sites that now exist and which are now in operation in order to determine the actual Trip Generation per “occupied site” at two or more of the AutoCamp locations in California that are in full operation, and would most closely represent the type of surroundings and/or cities and population that would be similar to the proposed project site. The website reservations page shows that there are many days that are “full” in the next several months at different locations where you cannot make a reservation for certain amounts of people (such as 4 adults, but it is possible for 2 adults, indicating some occupancy taking place). Either way, many of these camps are still in operation.

The conclusion of the current TIS, that there will be no significant impacts to the environment through traffic, are unsupported. In fact, there are several significant impacts to safety that would result in merely granting basic traffic access to the project site from the highway. Without a left turn pocket on the highway, which would be warranted if the proper trip generation rates were used (expected to more than double the current estimate), the project would occasionally block traffic on the highway. This is especially critical for northbound highway traffic that would approach the proposed driveway location from behind a horizontal blind left-hand curve as previously di scussed, and where the speed limit is 40 mph. There is not enough sight distance (only 250 feet) to come to a complete stop before a collision would happen (305 feet is needed).

The trip distribution in the study needs to be adjusted to increase the volume of traffic entering during the pm peak hour, which would give an indication of how long the left turn pocket needs to be, or if traffic is entering from SB Silverado Trail to turn right into the project, whether the 3-car stacking is sufficient (not likely given the increases in trip generation). The left turn pocket length needs to be compatible with the expected worst case for the project so as to not have left turn poc ket overflows which would cause NB traffic on Silverado Trail to come to a stop. If that were to happen the preceding horizontal curve has only 250 feet of sight distance which is insufficient to have a vehicle stop in time (305 feet needed for 40 mph).

The project would contribute significantly to an increase of Green House Gas (GHG) emission impacts .

The patrons of a campground typically are not a local user, but travel significant distances from their homes that are often in other counties or even states. If the project were a land use such as a fast-food restaurant (mostly ubiquitous in all locations), there is no need to travel a far distance to get to one. When a fast-food restaurant is approved, it rarely if ever creates a GHG emission impact because this type of traffic is already on the road and traffic merely shifts slightly between all the choices or variety of fast- food restaurants. But in the case of a highly specialized and unique venue such as AutoCamp, patrons will ATTACHMENT 14

Traffic Study Review: “Updated Transportation Impact Study for the Grange Project” in Napa, CA

www.prism.engineering

p. 19
be traveling for the most part, from remote areas and bringing in air quality impacts that are new . This new traffic to the Napa region will increase GHG creating a new impact to air quality in the Napa region.

This significant trip distribution of the project was discussed in some depth in the body of this report.

K-Rail or Other Options in the Median to Prevent Left Turns In or Left Turns Out. A physical barrier such as a K-Rail similar to those seen on freeways would work, but there needs to be more width to the highway added in order to make enough room so that the K -Rail has a reasonable safe distance from the actual travel lane in each direction of the highway. This is not possible without major construction to widen the highway as the K -Rail itself is actually 2.0 feet at the base. There would also need to be some space between the K-Rail and the painted inside edge line (at l east two feet). This would add the need for an additional 6 feet of pavement width to the highway to accommodate this, and the land could come from the project side. The danger of installing a K-Rail in the center of a road is the collision hazard that could present itself to oncoming traffic in each direction. This option could be replaced with a raised one or two foot wide median in the center of the road to replace the double yellow line median, but on a high-volume highway this is less practical and requires even more roadway way widening to accommodate the taper of lanes to widen the road an additional 3 to 4 feet in the median area . It also presents a potential for “curb-hopping” hazard where a vehicle hits the curb by accident and then potentially vaults over the curb into the oncoming traffic. This is especially true as the driveway location being blocked for left turns is on a curve. With these limitations to physical barriers , the only other possible safer option would be the installation of a left turn pocket on the highway installed by striping (and widening to accommodate the additional 12-foot width). This options needs to be studied in a traffic engineering design study to see how the lane transitions form and whether there would be adequate stopping sight distance if the left turn pocket were ever to fill up and overflow, blocking northbound traffic on the highway. There is also the major construction and highway widening project that would need to accompany such an improvement, and all of the impacts of construction traffic control during that process.

ATTACHMENT 14

From: Beth Painter
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Glamping Hotel
Date: Friday, February 7, 2025 8:06:16 AM
Begin forwarded message:

From: William Allen < >
Subject: Glamping Hotel
Date: February 7, 2025 at 7:28:59 AM PST
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
From: William Allen < >
Subject: Glamping Hotel
Date: February 7, 2025 at 7:28:59 AM PST
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
I
don’t want the Glamping Hotel in my neighborhood!.

Bill Allen
Napa
ATTACHMENT 14

Attachment available until Mar 11, 2025
From: Beth Painter
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: flooding
Date: Sunday, February 9, 2025 7:37:58 PM
Begin forwarded message:

From: Mary Allan < >
Subject: flooding
Date: February 9, 2025 at 1:30:21 PM PST
To: Beth Painter <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Good morning Council Member,
I am not sure if your daily commute takes you near the proposed Grange Project on Silverado Trail but this is the all too common flooding that occurs here every year.

As I stated previously, I think glamping might be a nice idea for Napa but not in a location that they can only use a portion of the year. Why not find a safer, more peaceful location that would be to the benefit of the city, (more tax revenue), the developers, (because with the right location the people might come back more than once), the immediate neighbors (that would not have to worry about fires, air quality, noise, accidents and traffic), and workers in the napa valley that use this thoroughfare for their commute? There was also another single car accident on this strip of road last week.

Thank you very much for your time,
Respectfully,
Mary Allan
Sent from my iPhone
Click to Download
IMG_6338.MOV

29.9 MB
ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

driveway by an out of control car traveling too fast. The car ended up in the ditch. I have almost been rear-ended hundreds of times by speeding cars, unaware of my turn signal. These accidents cause road closures in both directions. The additional increase in cars, along with this new attitude of “me first” will only add to more accidents.

As the number of vehicles on this section of Silverado Trail has increased, so has the number of deer, turkey and other wildlife killed by these vehicles.

The flock of turkey that regularly crosses the road from the proposed camping location, to my property, will be threatened even further by the loss of habitat and/or the increased risk of being hit by a car.

This section of Silverado Trail has flooded more times than I can count. The road floods due to water on both sides of the street. On the river side of the road, the water rises due to heavy rain and the tides. On the other side, the drainage culvert can’t accommodate the run-off from the hills, resulting in the water flowing crossing the road to reach the river.

Raising the land in the
proposed location will only add to further flooding if the run-off is not able to reach the river.

As many people have noted, the danger of having fires in this location is of great concern.

Napa has had enough loss from fires, and what will the sky look like if 100 people are burning campfires throughout the day and night?

On a personal note, the view from my house looking out to the mountains is breathtaking.

Morning sunrise and evening sunsets are spectacular. The thought of looking out at 100 campsites, dealing with the additional traffic, seeing the smoke from the fires, and listening to the noise from possibly over 100 campers is not what I want my future to look like.

Thank you,
Paula Timmons
ATTACHMENT 14

Andrew Dickson
Napa, Ca
Subject: Urgent Request for River Access and Support for Outdoor Recreation Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to you today with great urgency and deep concern regarding the recent loss of our city contract, which has resulted in the unfortunate elimination of our river access on the Napa River. This
decision has had a devastating impact—not only on my family but also on the thousands of guests we have welcomed to the Napa Valley over the past 14 years. The inability to access the river significantly hampers our ability to provide the high level of service and experience expected when visiting this world-renowned region.

What began as a simple river adventure for wine club members has since evolved into a regional adventure company
, guiding visitors through the three distinct ecosystems of the Napa River, the Napa-Sonoma Marsh, and the breathtaking Point Reyes National Seashore & Tomales Bay. We recognize the need to diversify the Napa Valley economy by providing family-friendly, adventure-based activities that promote environmental appreciation, health, and sustainable tourism.

To date, we have hosted over 20,000 paddlers on the Napa River, introducing them to its beauty and ecological significance. Our customer base reflects the changin g demographics of our region—aging
baby boomers and their millennial-generation children, who are now in the prime years of raising their own families. This project aligns perfectly with their desire for shared outdoor experiences that foster lasting memories and a deeper connection to nature.

Our vision is to establish a seamless, well-planned river access point that serves as a welcoming gateway to the Napa River experience. This location would not only faci litate easy and organized launch points but
also offer a venue to host group events post-paddle. After exploring the wetlands, witnessing the renaissance of downtown Napa, and paddling through the lush northern reach, our guests deserve a thoughtfully designed space—one where they can reflect on their journey, engage with artistic renderings of the Napa River Living River Restoration Project, and learn about the river’s rich history and ecology.

Over the years, we have hosted more than 100 groups, including some of the most recognized brands in the world. Y
et, despite Napa’s global reputation for hospitality, these customers have often been forced to stand in a dusty parking lot while we provide pre-paddle instructions or await transportation. This time could be far better spent enhancing their understanding of the region’s natural and cultural heritage.

We know our community leaders value opportunities for families to unplug, get outside, and connect with the environment. This project embodies that vision and will serve as a long-term
asset to Napa’s residents and visitors alike. With your support, we can create a lasting legacy that preserves and celebrates the Napa River while bolstering the local economy and improving outdoor access for all.

We kindly request the City Council’s support in restoring our river access and moving forward with this much-needed project. W
e would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss how we can work together to make this vision a reality.

ATTACHMENT 14

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Andrew Dickson
Napa Valley Paddle, Owner
ATTACHMENT 14

From: Robyn Stuhr
To: Clerk
Subject: Comment on Glamping Hearing 021825
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:40:05 AM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City of Napa Council Members,
I was happy to learn that the proposed glamping resort on Silverado Trail would include a Class I bike path along the frontage of the property and to the south of it down to Milliken Creek Inn. Bike facilities on Silverado have been in City plans for 29 years without any progress thus far. This project presents a unique opportunity to implement a bike path that is appropriate given speeds and volumes of adjacent vehicle traffic, one where the developer has agreed to bear the brunt of the cost, and one that could occur concurrently with nearby road improvements, potentially increasing integration with other City of Napa bike facilities.

I would appreciate being able to ride from downtown to Trancas, first along the flood project’s coming path from the Oxbow to Lincoln Avenue and then along Silverado to Trancas, on separated and protected bike facilities.

Making this route safer will increase opportunities for recreation and active transportation, for locals and tourists alike, and will increase access to further riding on Monticello Road and the iconic Silverado Trail—one of the most popular and beautiful places to ride in the Valley. This in turn could both increase support for businesses in those areas and grow Napa Valley’s reputation as a bike-friendly destination.

Thank you for your consideration,
Robyn Stuhr
Napa, CA 94558
Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

From: Joe Keebler
To: Clerk
Subject: Comment on Glamping Hearing 021825
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 11:31:36 AM
[You don't often get email from j . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City of Napa Council Members,
I was happy to learn that the proposed glamping resort on Silverado Trail would include a Class I bike path along the frontage of the property and to the south of it down to Milliken Creek Inn. Bike facilities on Silverado have been in City plans for 29 years without any progress thus far. This project presents a unique opportunity to implement a bike path that is appropriate given speeds and volumes of adjacent vehicle traffic, one where the developer has agreed to bear the brunt of the cost, and one that could occur concurrently with nearby road improvements, potentially increasing integration with other City of Napa bike facilities.

I would appreciate being able to ride from downtown to Trancas, first along the flood project’s coming path from the Oxbow to Lincoln Avenue and then along Silverado to Trancas, on separated and protected bike facilities.

Making this route safer will increase opportunities for recreation and active transportation, for locals and tourists alike, and will increase access to further riding on Monticello Road and the iconic Silverado Trail—one of the most popular and beautiful places to ride in the Valley. This in turn could both increase support for businesses in those areas and grow Napa Valley’s reputation as a bike-friendly destination.

Thank you for your consideration.

As members of the NV Bicycle Coalition, we agree with and support their position stated above.

Joseph & Rosemarie Keebler
ATTACHMENT 14

From: Susan Crosby
To: Clerk
Subject: Comment on Glamping Hearing 021825
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 11:31:45 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City of Napa Council Members,
Preparatory to anything else, are you really certain you should approve the proposal for such a large development the Silverado Trail? Glamping, indeed. Thinking of the additional traffic and the dangers the owners of the resort will have to contend with from flooding… it seems like a singularly bad idea, profit-motivated, ill-considered, and unhelpful in the long run both for the city of Napa and the natural world. But then, this is an era of such things.

However if you do give the go-ahead, at the very least the developers should be required to include a Class I bike path along the frontage of the property and to the south of it down to Milliken Creek Inn. Bike facilities on Silverado have been in City plans for 29 years without any progress thus far. This project presents a unique opportunity to implement a bike path that is appropriate given speeds and volumes of adjacent vehicle traffic, one where the developer has agreed to bear the brunt of the cost, and one that could occur concurrently with nearby road improvements, potentially increasing integration with other City of Napa bike facilities. I would appreciate being able to ride from downtown to Trancas, first along the flood project’s coming path from the Oxbow to Lincoln Avenue and then along Silverado to Trancas, on separated and protected bike facilities. Making this route safer will increase opportunities for recreation and active transportation, for locals and tourists alike, and will increase access to further riding on Monticello Road and the iconic Silverado Trail—one of the most popular and beautiful places to ride in the Valley. This in turn could both increase support for businesses in those areas and grow Napa Valley’s reputation as a bike-friendly destination.

Thank you for your consideration,
Susan Crosby

Alta Heights resident
ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

From: Ahna Jotter
To: Clerk
Subject: Comment on Glamping Hearing 021825
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 1:11:57 PM
[You don't often get email from a . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City of Napa Council Members,
I was happy to learn that the proposed glamping resort on Silverado Trail would include a Class I bike path along the frontage of the property and to the south of it down to Milliken Creek Inn. Bike facilities on Silverado have been in City plans for 29 years without any progress thus far. This project presents a unique opportunity to implement a bike path that is appropriate given speeds and volumes of adjacent vehicle traffic, one where the developer has agreed to bear the brunt of the cost, and one that could occur concurrently with nearby road improvements, potentially increasing integration with other City of Napa bike facilities.

I would appreciate being able to ride from downtown to Trancas, first along the flood project’s coming path from the Oxbow to Lincoln Avenue and then along Silverado to Trancas, on separated and protected bike facilities.

Making this route safer will increase opportunities for me to commute to work by bike, recreation and active transportation, for locals and tourists alike, and will increase access to further riding on Monticello Road and the iconic Silverado Trail—one of the most popular and beautiful places to ride in the Valley. This in turn could both increase support for businesses in those areas and grow Napa Valley’s reputation as a bike-friendly destination.

Thank you for your consideration,
Ahna Jotter
I live in Downtown Napa
And work on Silverado Trail
Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

Subject: FW: I am still working on two City Projects

Joy,
Please see comments about Milliken below.

Ricky,
Additional comments about Silverado Trail project below.

Steve

From: Steve Potter <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:11 AM
To:

Cc: Mary Luros <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: I am still working on two City Projects

James,
Thank you for sharing your comments and concerns. Vice Mayor Luros forwarded your email to me for both awareness and to get a response to you regarding the Milliken Dam. I have sent your email to our Community Development Department so they have your comments about the proposed development on Silverado Trail and to Utilities Director Joy Eldridge for a response regarding Milliken.

Steve Potter

From: James Henry
Subject: I am still working on two City Projects
Date: February 10, 2025 at 4:29:35 PM PST
To: Mary Luros <[email protected]
>

[EXTERNAL]
Mary:

Just a follow up for two projects I wish to see advanced.

I live in Riverbend Townhomes on Silverado Trail and been active in the community until I retired. I have worked on the County Airport issues and providing affordable Housing.

Also I have been asking the City to start
two projects as follows:

First, There is a Glamping Project proposed for Silverado Trail just north of our entrance gate coming to the Council on February 18th.

There is a
number of proposed projects that I do not have any problems with on Silverado Trail. But the “Trailer Hotel “ Is just too large killing four houses and should not be approved. Plus the recent rains have shown that this is ATTACHMENT 14

a Flooding area. This, I believe, will be made worse when the Flood District finishes the west side river wall.

A real issue for building on Silverado Trail is the road it self. It needs a design and build too improve the traffic issues. During commute times we cannot exit our property until some nice driver lets us on the road for a right turn. There is not separation for bicycles, walkers and providing left turns. The area is from Combs Street to Trancas. This urgent to me before more projects are built even without approving the Glamping project.

Second, now that we have a plan to replace the drinking water pipe destroyed by fire with Milliken Dam what is needed now is a design and developing a process to replace/improve the dam?
We own the land
behind the current dam so this should be a great opportunity to save water for drinking and farming. The City and County together should be able get funding for this project. Currently we are wasting an asset.

I have been
thinking about this since holes were drilled.

Jim

James B. Henry

ATTACHMENT 14

From: Cecil Feaver
To: Clerk
Subject: Comment on Glamping Hearing 021825
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 3:29:19 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City of Napa Council Members,
I was happy to learn that the proposed glamping resort on Silverado Trail would include a Class I bike path along the frontage of the property and to the south of it down to Milliken Creek Inn. Bike facilities on Silverado have been in City plans for 29 years without any progress thus far. This project presents a unique opportunity to implement a bike path that is appropriate given speeds and volumes of adjacent vehicle traffic, one where the developer has agreed to bear the brunt of the cost, and one that could occur concurrently with nearby road improvements, potentially increasing integration with other City of Napa bike facilities.

I would appreciate being able to ride from downtown to Trancas, first along the flood project’s coming path from the Oxbow to Lincoln Avenue and then along Silverado to Trancas, on separated and protected bike facilities.

Making this route safer will increase opportunities for recreation and active transportation, for locals and tourists alike, and will increase access to further riding on Monticello Road and the iconic Silverado Trail—one of the most popular and beautiful places to ride in the Valley. This in turn could both increase support for businesses in those areas and grow Napa Valley’s reputation as a bike-friendly destination.

Thank you for your consideration,
Maury Feaver
Alta Heights
Sent from my i phone
ATTACHMENT 14

From: Michael Schwartz
To: Clerk
Subject: Comment on Glamping Hearing 021825
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 4:42:41 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City of Napa Council Members,
I was happy to learn that the proposed glamping resort on Silverado Trail would include a Class I bike path along the frontage of the property and to the south of it down to Milliken Creek Inn. Bike facilities on Silverado have been in City plans for 29 years without any progress thus far. This project presents a unique opportunity to implement a bike path that is appropriate given speeds and volumes of adjacent vehicle traffic, one where the developer has agreed to bear the brunt of the cost, and one that could occur concurrently with nearby road improvements, potentially increasing integration with other City of Napa bike facilities.

I would appreciate being able to ride from downtown to Trancas, first along the flood project’s coming path from the Oxbow to Lincoln Avenue and then along Silverado to Trancas, on separated and protected bike facilities.

Making this route safer will increase opportunities for recreation and active transportation, for locals and tourists alike, and will increase access to further riding on Monticello Road and the iconic Silverado Trail—one of the most popular and beautiful places to ride in the Valley. This in turn could both increase support for businesses in those areas and grow Napa Valley’s reputation as a bike-friendly destination.

In addition, in Blue Zone living studies, increasing the ease of physical benefits increases longevity.

Thank you for your consideration,
Michael Schwartz
[First & Last Name]
[Address, City, or Neighborhood of Residence]
Sent from my iPad
ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

From: Samantha Smith
To: Clerk
Subject: Comment on Glamping Hearing 021825
Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 6:15:03 AM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City of Napa Council Members,
I was happy to learn that the proposed glamping resort on Silverado Trail would include a Class I bike path along the frontage of the property and to the south of it down to Milliken Creek Inn. Bike facilities on Silverado have been in City plans for 29 years without any progress thus far. This project presents a unique opportunity to implement a bike path that is appropriate given speeds and volumes of adjacent vehicle traffic, one where the developer has agreed to bear the brunt of the cost, and one that could occur concurrently with nearby road improvements, potentially increasing integration with other City of Napa bike facilities.

Making this route safer for bicyclists will increase opportunities for recreation and active transportation, for locals and tourists alike, and will increase access to further riding on Monticello Road and the iconic Silverado Trail—one of the most popular and beautiful places to ride in the Valley. This in turn could both increase support for businesses in those areas and grow Napa Valley’s reputation as a bike-friendly destination.

Thank you for your time.

Samantha Smith
Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

From: Rod Tarrago
To: Clerk
Subject: Comment on Glamping Hearing 021825
Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:01:44 AM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City of Napa Council Members,
I was happy to learn that the proposed glamping resort on Silverado Trail would include a Class I bike path along the frontage of the property and to the south of it down to Milliken Creek Inn. Bike facilities on Silverado have been in City plans for 29 years without any progress thus far. This project presents a unique opportunity to implement a bike path that is appropriate given speeds and volumes of adjacent vehicle traffic, one where the developer has agreed to bear the brunt of the cost, and one that could occur concurrently with nearby road improvements, potentially increasing integration with other City of Napa bike facilities.

I would appreciate being able to ride from downtown to Trancas, first along the flood project’s coming path from the Oxbow to Lincoln Avenue and then along Silverado to Trancas, on separated and protected bike facilities.

Making this route safer will increase opportunities for recreation and active transportation, for locals and tourists alike, and will increase access to further riding on Monticello Road and the iconic Silverado Trail—one of the most popular and beautiful places to ride in the Valley. This in turn could both increase support for businesses in those areas and grow Napa Valley’s reputation as a bike-friendly destination.

Thank you for your consideration,
Rod & Sonja Tarrago
, Napa
Browns Valley Neighborhood
ATTACHMENT 14

From: Catherine Courage
To: Clerk
Subject: Glamping Hearing 021825
Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:29:49 AM
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Dear City of Napa Council Members,
As a passionate cyclist and a resident of Napa, I'm writing to express my strong support for the inclusion of a Class I bike path in the proposed glamping resort on Silverado Trail. I was particularly excited to see that the plan incorporates a path along the property's frontage and southward to Milliken Creek Inn.

Frankly, the lack of progress on bike facilities along Silverado Trail over the past 29 years has been frustrating. This project presents a rare and valuable chance to finally create a safe and appropriate bike path, especially considering the speed and volume of traffic on Silverado.

The fact that the developer is willing to shoulder a significant portion of the cost, and that this could coincide with planned road improvements, makes it an even more compelling opportunity.

This would significantly enhance recreational and active transportation opportunities for everyone in our community, both residents and visitors.Think of the possibilities: increased access to the beautiful Monticello Road and the iconic Silverado Trail – a cyclist's paradise! This improved infrastructure could boost local businesses and solidify Napa Valley's reputation as a premier bike-friendly destination.

I sincerely hope you will recognize the long-term benefits of this project and prioritize the inclusion of this vital bike path. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Catherine Courage
ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

Shinnamon Family
134 Acacia Avenue
Napa, CA 94558

February 18, 2025

Napa City Council
City Hall
Napa, CA 94559 Via Email: City Clerk ([email protected])

Re: Glamping Proposal, Silverado Trail

Honorable Mayor Sedgely and Councilmembers,

We and many neighbors are opposed to the proposed Glamping project on Silverado Trail for many reasons:
• Land Use: General Plan; Zoning; Creation of Precedent; State HCD / Title 25 definition of “RV Campground”.
• Traffic and Safety: Dangerous corridor; need for left-turn lane; lack of adequate and safe bicycle and pedestrian access.
• Fire Safety: Historic fire danger; use of 100 campfires. • Flooding and Flood Evacuation: Inability to move or store 70 Airstreams in a flood event. • City Development Standards are being ignored.
• Employee Housing is given short shrift.
• Noise Disturbance to the neighborhood caused by partying. • Biological Resources were not completely addressed in the 2024 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration.

We will detail these concerns below.

Land Use:

We believe that the use of an “exception” to create a 100 room hotel within the “Low Density Residential” zoning district is inappropriate for many reasons:
• What precludes expansion of Glamping into neighboring property(ies) such as either of the two parcels to the north that are in the City and in the same Zoning classification? Similar findings regarding flood plain issues, “underutilization” of the properties, etc. could easily be made . With approval of the Glamping proposal, you would set precedent that would be extremely difficult to deny if any of these property owners came forward with a similar proposal. Potentially, these same issues and arguments could be made to allow Creekside Church on Hagen Road to do something similar. • As can be seen on the City’s adopted November 2023 Housing Element, page 29, the four approved lots on this site appear to have been clearly counted in our housing inventory. We question how the City can change the zoning on this one parcel and effectively remove potential housing that was included in its very new Housing Element. The City has also recently adopted its new General Plan that has increased densities in most other part s of our city. Where, specifically, are these four “counted” homes going to be transferred to?
ATTACHMENT 14

Napa City Council
February 18, 2025
Page | 2

“SB 330, the Housing Accountability Act (extended to 1/1/2030 by SB 8) , provides that, where housing is an allowable use, an affected public agency, including its voters by referendum or initiative, may not change a land use designation (general plan or zoning) to remove housing as a permitted use or reduce the intensity of residential uses permitted under the general plan and zoning codes. The exception is if the city concurrently changes the standards applicable to other parcels to ensure there is no net loss in residential capacity.” (Best Best & Krieger, LLP) And further:
“Prohibits a jurisdiction from downsizing property for housing unless the jurisdiction “concurrently” up-zones other property to increase enough permitted density and makes sure there is no net loss in residential capacity city-wide.” (Southern California Association of Governments). “A jurisdiction may not take any action to reduce a parcel’s residential density unless it makes findings that the remaining sites identified in its Housing Element sites inventory can accommodate the jurisdiction’s remaining unmet RHNA by each income category, or if it identifies additional sites so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity.” (YIMBY Law). • By approving the use of Airstream trailers, yurts, and platform tents, you are approving a Recreational Vehicle (RV) campground, which in the future could be converted to the use of “Park Model” trailers.

Having been deeply involved in the permitting of the Calistoga Ranch Resort, we learned that Title 25 of the California State Code defines “Park Models” within the same category as Recreational Vehicles.

There is significant local precedent for such approved modification of projects from RV uses to “Park Model” uses with local governments having no jurisdiction in the matter. These include the River Pointe development on Lincoln Avenue, the Carner os Inn project on the Napa -Sonoma Hig hway, and the Calistoga Ranch Resort. We learned that Title 25 regulations supersede local regulations once a site is approved as an RV campground. As can be seen in the proposed Zoning Text Amendment, a Park Model RV would fit into this definition and State law would overrule City regulations. “Glamping unit” means a lodging unit that is available for rent at the glamping campground and may include trailers, yurts, teepees, or other forms of accommodations that are designed for use as temporary living quarters and approved by the city with its approval of the use permit. • The new City General Plan envisioned areas where “Hospitality Commercial” would be appropriate , which can be seen on the attached excerpt from the General Plan Land Use Map. Indeed, the property at the northeast corner of Silverado Trail and Trancas has that specific land use designation as do a number of parcels to the south . Why harm a residential neighborhood with this hotel use when an appropriately designated property is only half a mile to the north. To our eyes, it has far fewer constraints than this site. We fully understand that particular site is not before you. Yet, the issue of invading this residential neighborhood with its General Plan and Zoning Residential designations is the underlying issue.

In 2022, the Applicants requested that the City find that a commercial campground be found substantially similar to “clubs and lodges” within all residential districts. In their August 4, 2022, report to the Planning Commission, planning staff noted in their recommended denial:
“This is why the only district in the Municipal Code where “campgrounds including RV parks” are allowed is within the Tourist Commercial district. This type of use doesn’t further the desire to encourage new residential development compatible with environmental site constraints or respect and compliment an existing neighborhood character.”
It is abundantly clear that this use should be in an area designated in the General Plan as “Hospitality Commercial” and not in a residentially zoned area.

ATTACHMENT 14

Napa City Council
February 18, 2025
Page | 3

Traffic and Safety:

We believe that there are a multitude of reasons why this particular site is inappropriate for the proposed Glamping project:
• We have driven this section of Silverado Trail for over fifty years on an almost daily basis. Traffic has increased substantially over those years and southbound afternoon traffic has increased exponentially.

We have the good fortune of a continuous left turn / safety lane on Silverado Trail when we are leaving or returning to our Stonecrest neighborhood. There is no such lane or any shoulder on either side of the Trail in the vicinity of the project site. As a former cyclist who regularly trained on Silverado Trail between Trancas Street and Calistoga, I never rode a bike on this section of the Trail as its lack of shoulders terrified me; I would put my bike in my car and drive to a safe parking spot north of Trancas in order to ride.
• There have been multiple fatalities in the vicinity of the project site over the years. A friend of ours was killed in a head on collision twenty five years ago right at the project’s proposed driveway. • The lack of a left turn lane to serve the site is beyond our comprehension for a myriad of reasons. o The Planning Commission, in their deliberations, felt that they could not require inclusion of a left turn lane. Instead, they unanimously recommended that the Council strongly consider requiring a left turn lane if the Council voted to approve the project. o As noted above, afternoon southbound traffic has increased exponentially over the decades. Mid to late afternoons are when the majority of hotel guests will be arriving. To think that a “right turn in / right turn out” configuration is going to preclude guests from making that left turn is wishful thinking. The only way to preclude that from happening is to have a center median, which means road widening and great inconvenience for immediate neighbors to the east. Those neighbors would then be forced to make right turns in and right turns out from their own driveways. That is not fair nor is it reasonable.
o The W-Trans Traffic Report does not consider any movements created by those other than guests.

Other usages that generate traffic: Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, pizza delivery drivers, etc. Further, the developers apparently propose separate pool memberships as project supporters noted in their letters that they look forward to having such memberships for them and their families. An updated traffic report / analysis is clearly needed.
• If a left turn lane is, indeed, required as we have requested, the site design will need to be modified with the increase in right of way dedication, etc. Trees will be lost and utilities will need to be relocated and installed underground.

Further to this point, the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration includes the following mitigation measure:
“TRANS-1: Dedication of Right -of-Way on SR -121/Silverado Trail. Prior to grading permit issuance, grading and excavation activities, and building permit issuance, the project applicant shall ensure that there would be sufficient right-of-way on SR-121/Silverado Trail to accommodate the planned Class II bike lane. If the existin g width of the right-of-way on SR-121/Silverado Trail is insufficient to accommodate the planned Class II bike lane, the additional width needed for this planned improvement shall be dedicated as part of the project, which shall be included on project plans to the satisfaction of the City of Napa’s Public Works Director.” Why is this work not required as part of the entitlement process? The site design may need to be modified with the increase in right of way dedication, etc. Trees could be lost and utilities will need to be relocated and installed underground.

ATTACHMENT 14

Napa City Council
February 18, 2025
Page | 4

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety:

The staff report for the Planning Commission boggled the mind:

▪ “Guests of the campground would use personal vehicles that would be parked onsite upon arrival. Although guests are not forbidden from using their vehicles, the campground is within close proximity to the City’s main tourist attractions and the locations of its most popular events, including Downtown Napa, the Napa Valley Wine Train depot, Oxbow Public Market, CIA at Copia, and the fairgrounds that host the Bottle Rock Music Festival. The campground will be close to public transit. Additionally, the campground will offer complimentary bikes with a community map for guest use to encourage eco-friendly transport while they are visiting the City.”

▪ “The site is located in a walkable area near downtown Napa and is near other tourist attractions.”
The nearest bus route is almost a half mile away without safe walkability from this site; that is not, “…close to public transit”. There are no bicycle or pedestrian lanes or paths within easy proximity to this site. We don’t know which site staff may have visited but it clearly wasn’t this one.

We appreciate that the developers are proposing an eight-foot bicycle and pedestrian path within the project site and a short offsite pedestrian walkway to the south. There are many things to like about these efforts, yet, there are significant issues that need resolution:
• Is it public? Private? Who owns, maintains, and accepts liability? How do off -site users gain access through the fence that is described?
The above questions are seriously important and need to be addressed completely as part of the entitlement process. If it is to be a public trail, maintained by the City, then it cannot be fenced off from public use and an appropriate right of way to the public will be needed. If the trail is to be maintained by the developers / operators, then it needs to be made completely clear that they will need to provide adequate liability insurance covering both private and public users of the trail. Subsequent inability to gain adequate insurance should then preclude site development from proceeding • How many additional trees need to be removed to accommodate the path? The path is shown to be in or adjacent to a wetland and a drainage way. Have these changes been reviewed by Fish & Wildlife? These issues need to be addressed now and not in the future during the design phase. • The developers now propose to have a bicycle / pedestrian path extend to the south only on the west side of Silverado Trail. There is no room for a bike lane on southbound Silverado Trail until at least its intersection with East Avenue, a quarter mile away. Will neighbors who currently use the sidewalk in this area then have to contend with bike riders on the sidewalk? For the northbound lane on the east side of Silverado Trail, there is also no safe bicycle lane for riders past Stonecrest Drive. How are folks to safely access this new bicycle / pedestrian path without either riding on the narrow sidewalk on the west or crossing an unsafe State highway?
Simply put, th e proposed site is not safely or logistically proximate to transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities.

ATTACHMENT 14

Napa City Council
February 18, 2025
Page | 5

Fire Issues:

We understand that the area immediately to the east was significantly impacted by one of the 1964 fires that engulfed many parts of the valley. This particular fire burned from Hagen Road over the top of the Stonecrest area all the way to Coombsville Road. With increased fire occurrences in our valley, we all have reasons to be fearful of fire.

We understand the controls outlined in the October Staff Report and the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Yet, we are all deeply concerned about as many as one hundred (100) campfires burning at the same time. In addition to the fire risk, neighbors will be subjected to the smoke from these fires day in and day out.

How does campground staff police guests’ use of wood they may have brought in or that they foraged for in the woods? With only one staff member overseeing the site in the evenings with the potential of hundreds of guests, how can we all be assured that there is minimal risk of fire? That is an unreasonable risk to us and our homes.

Flooding / Flood Evacuation:

We know that thirty (30) of the Airstreams in the Floodway need to be removed from November through April.

As recently as February 4th this year we saw, once again, how the site and Silverado Trail could be flooded.

Indeed, Silverado Trail was closed from Stonecrest to Hagen Road for several hours from localized and Milliken Creek flooding. It is also important to remember that flood waters from the Creek will quickly inundate the site long before the river’s flooding. This results in an incredibly difficult situation for the site operators. How can they disconnect sewer, water, and utility connections and then move many dozens of Airstreams to high ground while they are standing in knee-deep water? There is lack of clarity in the staff report and/or conditions of approval about what and how the other seventy (70) units get moved and stored. In the Planning Commission hearing, we believe that either staff or the proponent said that they would be moved to “high ground” in the on -site parking area. How do the remaining seventy Airstreams get unhooked from sewer, water, and utilities and then get moved in a matter of hours?
Here is the Condition of Approval related to these remaining seventy trailers:
“EOP (Evacuation Operations Plan) shall include detailed procedures for evacuation of all recreational vehicles (including but not limited to airstream trailer units) and nonpermanent dwelling units (including but not limited to yurts) and associated accessories, and resources required for the removal to a predetermined location outside the floodplain limits in the event of a predicted flood event.” (Our highlights).

Other than a very small area in front of the main office, the entire site is within the predicted flood event area. When one reviews the Site Grading Plans, one can easily see that the majority of paving is at least two feet below the Base Flood Elevation and much of it is three feet, four feet, and even seven feet or more below the Flood Elevation. Conceivably, more fill material could be brought in to lift the parking area above the flood elevation. The dilemma, then, is that the larger fill slope would likely cause the loss of many more trees.

As such, where do all the Airstreams get moved to and how is it accomplished? Planning staff has clarified to us that the requirement to be outside the flood plain limits means exactly that. The requirement does not allow, for example, Airstream trailers to be parked in several feet of water. As such, we suggest that the Applicants’ Engineer be required to prepare a detailed overlay drawing over the proposed Grading Plan to demonstrate how 70 Airstream trailers might be parked and how they are able to be parked outside of ATTACHMENT 14

Napa City Council
February 18, 2025
Page | 6

potential floodwaters. Otherwise, either the Grading Plan needs to be thoroughly redesigned or the Applicants need to tell us all where these Airstreams are going to be moved to.

City Development Standards:
• As noted above, this project should be seen as a commercial hotel and it should be held to the same standards and fees as any other hotel.
• In the Draft Resolution, for example, Street Improvement Fees are calculated using the Land Use category of “Recreation”. When we delved into the City’s Schedule of Fees, there is no specific “Recreation” use. There is a “Golf Course” use and the Street Im provement fees outlined on Page 18 appear to be the same as for a “Golf Course”. Traffic for a “Golf Course” and a “hotel” are very different and fees should be ascribed differently.
• Why is the applicant not required to install normal road frontage improvements which include the undergrounding of existing utilities? This had been a requirement imposed by the Planning Commission when it approved the parcel map dividing the lot into four residential lots. Subsequent to that staff made a determination that the cost of the undergrounding requirement was not warranted for a four -lot residential development and it was deleted from the conditions of approval. It is not known by the public what level of financial hardship is required to remove such a condition. However, this project proposes a $25,000,000 commercial development with an expected annual revenue of over $10,000,000, which would seem to justify the installation of public improvement s imposed on every other commercial development in the city.

Employee Housing:

As with recent hotel projects, City Hotel Policy continues to be ignored as related to employee housing impacts. The Policy clearly outlines that:

Hotel applicants should provide a report or study that provides a comprehensive overview regarding hotel employment. The report or study should be prepared by an independent consultant and include, at a minimum, the following information: the number of employees the hotel would employ, full -time vs. parttime, position titles, wage rates by position, and types of benefits; the anticipated breakdown of employees residing inside or outside the County of Napa, and the rationale for breakdown; and any programs or policies the Applicant or operator will implement in the area of employee housing and congestion management. The City Council has requested this employment information to measure any economic, housing and transportation impacts the hotel would create.

The developers, once again, have only provided lip service to this requirement and have not met the required City standards. Why is this?
As can be seen in Table 1 of the Planning Commission staff report, there is parking for thirteen employees at any one time; perhaps that is a peak weekend period. But, that doesn’t account for other employees who might work during the week. That results in more than thirteen employees overall.

This project, as noted above, is one-hundred-unit hotel. Once again, we have hotels with new employees, half of whom qualify for “affordable housing” based on the City’s own studies. And we continue to only require the payment of minimal fees that don’t begin to offset the new hotels’ impacts on housing. Are they only going to pay in-lieu housing fees based on the size of the Airstreams and yurts?

ATTACHMENT 14

Napa City Council
February 18, 2025
Page | 7

Noise:

Noise is a CEQA issue. The Draft Mitigated Declaration addresses noise related to construction and to road noise but totally ignores the noise from parties and on-site events. Numerous neighbors addressed this issue at the Planning Commission . They have already experienced hearing evening conversations from folks living down by the river. Why should neighbors have to deal with party noise from a one hundred room, “outdoor” hotel in their residential neighborhood?
California courts have found this to be a CEQA issue in the past and one that was used by neighbors to kill residential projects in their vicinity. We do understand that the Legislature just adopted CEQA changes that eliminated “party noise” as a CEQA issue for residential projects. This, though, is a non-residential project and CEQA noise issues need to be more fully addressed.

Biological Resources:

There have been two different biological assessments prepared for this site and for this owner. The first was prepared in 2018 by Monk & Associates, a biological consulting firm. That report was prepared for the 2018 Subdivision Map and that Report and associated mitigation measures remain in effect. The full report is included in the 2018 Staff Report for the Subdivision Map whose expiration date was recently extended by the City.

The second report was prepared by Harris & Associates with an August 2024 preparation date and this report is referenced in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Glamping project. A key point in the Harris Report is that the requisite field assessment was made by their staff on March 22, 2023.

It appears that the 2024 report was prepared with no knowledge that the original 2018 report had discussed many of the same issues . There is a very important distinction that needs to be made. The 2018 Monk Report, which was included in the environmental document for the Subdivision Map, includes two very important Mitigation Measures that remain in effect.

Here are excerpts from the Monk Report that will have a bearing on the Glamping project and the associated environmental determination that is before you. (we have underlined and made Bold key points):
“No special-status plants have been mapped on or adjacent to the project site. However, according to the CNPS Inventory and CDFW’s CNDDB, a total of 12 special-status plant species are known to occur in the region of the project site (Table 3 in the Biological Resources Analysis). Based on the plant communities onsite, two rare plant species have the possibility of occurring onsite and cannot be dismissed without conducting focused surveys.”

“Napa bluecurls (Trichostema ruygtii) is a CNPS Rank 1B.2 species. It has no state or federal status, but if present would receive protections pursuant to the CEQA . This member of the mint family is found in a variety of habitat types including chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools. It is often found in open, sunny areas. This annual herb blooms from June through October. This plant is threatened by agriculture and development. The closest record for Napa bluecurls is approximately 2.3 miles north of the project site (Rare Find Occurrence No. 16). At this occurrence, in 2004, 10 individuals were observed in a 3-acre area. Open, sunny mixed oak woodland habitat on the project site appears suitable for this species (suitable” does not imply that the species is present but only that the habitat conditions are right for this species). As such, completion of surveys for special-status plants will be required to conclude that impacts to this plant species are less than significant pursuant to the CEQA. Please see the Impacts and Mitigations sections below for further discussion.

Narrow-anthered California brodiaea (Brodiaea leptandra) is a CNPS Rank 1B.2 species. It has no state or federal status, but if present would receive protections pursuant to the CEQA. This perennial herb is found in broadleaved upland forest, cismontane woodland, coniferous forest, valley and foothill grasslands, and chaparral habitats. It flowers between May and July. It is threatened by development, foot traffic, and collecting. The closest known occurrence is 2.7 miles east of the project site (Rare Find 5 Occurrence No. 23). The project site’s mixed oak woodland with an herbaceous understory provides suitable habitat for this ATTACHMENT 14

Napa City Council
February 18, 2025
Page | 8

species (“suitable” does not imply that the species is present but only that the habitat conditions are right for this species). As such, completion of surveys for special-status plants will be required to conclude that impacts to this plant species are less than significant pursuant to the CEQA. Please see the Impacts and Mitigations sections below for further discussion.”
Later in the Mitigations section of the 2018 Biological Report, the following mitigation measures were included in the environmental document approved with the 2018 Subdivision Map:

“Special Mitigation Measures:
:

3. Prior to City approval of the development project, special-status plant surveys shall be conducted in appropriate habitats during the appropriate period in which the species are most identifiable. These surveys shall be in compliance with all CDFG (2000), USFWS (1996), and CNPS (2001) published survey guidelines. All surveys for special -status plants shall follow: “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special -Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities”, dated March 20, 2018. Bluecurls and narrow-anthered California brodiaea have blooming periods that overlap in June and July. Thus, rare plants surveys should be conducted in early June and July to determine if these plants could be impacted by the proposed project. Project construction shall not be initiated until all special-status plant surveys are completed and subsequent mitigation, if necessary, is implemented.

If this project is approved to proceed, please ensure that Mitigation Measures from both Biological Reports are included in the adopted requirements. As the Harris team did their field work in March, this means that, amongst other requirements, additional plant surveys will be necessary prior to any grading or site disturbance activities.

Conclusion:

There are several positive and creative aspects of the proposed project but it is in absolutely the wrong location for a myriad of reasons. There are appropriate sites in Napa City limits for such a proposal. Several sites have the necessary General Plan and Zoning designations and appear to have far fewer site and neighborhood constraints than this current proposal.

Please deny this project for the many reasons outlined above. If the development team wishes to build such a hotel project in Napa, they should find a more appropriate site that complies with our General Plan, Zoning Code, and Housing Element.

Thank you for your kind consideration and attention.

Sincerely yours,
Felicia Shinnamon Chuck Shinnamon

Felicia and Chuck Shinnamon

Attachments
ATTACHMENT 14

PROPOSED

LOCATION
ATTACHMENT 14

Grading Plan (Partial)
Flood Plain
Overlay
48' 16' 0 8' 16'
SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0"
PROJECT NO.

REVISIONS
Grange
Campground
Parking Area -
Base Flood Depths
X - 0.3 GRADING PLAN w/ BASE FLOOD DEPTHS OVERLAYED
BASE FLOOD ELEV.

29.0'
BASE FLOOD ELEV.

29.3'

ONLY AREA ABOVE BASE FLOOD
7ft Deep5ft Deep3ft Deep2ft Deep
2ft Deep
4ft Deep
6ft Deep
ATTACHMENT 14

From: Bernie Corea
To: Clerk
Cc: Ryder Dilley
Subject: The Grange Campground Project Letters of Support - 02-12-2025 Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:30:37 PM
Attachments: Support_Mike Holcomb.pdf
Support_Paul Abernathy.pdf
Support_Olivia Anthony.pdf
Support_Alicia Mora.pdf
Support_Heidi Johnson.pdf
Support_Patrick Kirby.pdf
Support_Charlie Wagner.pdf
Support Violet Van Coutren.pdf
Support_Jeremy Bates.pdf
Support_Ben Snead.pdf
Support_Ross Patrick.pdf
Support_Ron Angold.pdf
Support_BKelly.pdf
Support_Alissa Menchaca.pdf
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Hello,
Please see the attached 14 letters of support for The Grange Campground Project.

Please confirm receipt of this email and all 14 attachments. Thank you! Kind regards,
Bernie Corea
Bernie Corea
Director of Acquisitions & Development
Cell (805) 284-5334
AutoCamp Zion
and Field Station Moab are now available to book your next stay.

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

Dear City Council Members:

I am writing to you today to support The Grange Campground glamping project on Silverado Trail.

This project will bring a well-needed alternative and lower-cost option to Napa Valley where the prices to come and stay have ballooned since the pandemic. These high prices impact local businesses and restaurants as fewer people are now coming to Napa.

I believe this project is well conceived and respects the outdoor environment as it includes very few permanent structures and retains virtually all of the amazing oaks on the land. Additionally, the project will protect the riparian corridor along Milliken Creek and remove the current squatters who are camping by the creek and leaving their garbage and human waste along the creek causing pollution

The project will also develop a drastically needed Class I bike trail along its frontage which will make this stretch of the trail safer for bicyclists and walkers and will also serve as a catalyst to create more non-vehicular connections in the City of Napa which will ultimately reduce automobile created pollution.

Finally, this project will also serve as an amenity to locals and visitors alike versus the alternative of four luxury estate lots that would serve very few and prohibit public access to the property.

We support this project and vision and hope that you will vote to approve.

Sincerely,

P. Brendan Kelly (Jan 8, 2025 09:46 PST)
P. Brendan Kelly
P. Brendan Kelly [email protected]
01/08/25
1443 Main St #A200, Napa CA 94559
ATTACHMENT 14

Dear City Council Members:

I am writing to you today to support The Grange Campground glamping project on Silverado Trail.

This project will bring a well-needed alternative and lower-cost option to Napa Valley where the prices to come and stay have ballooned since the pandemic. These high prices impact local businesses and restaurants as fewer people are now coming to Napa.

I believe this project is well conceived and respects the outdoor environment as it includes very few permanent structures and retains virtually all of the amazing oaks on the land. Additionally, the project will protect the riparian corridor along Milliken Creek and remove the current squatters who are camping by the creek and leaving their garbage and human waste along the creek causing pollution

The project will also develop a drastically needed Class I bike trail along its frontage which will make this stretch of the trail safer for bicyclists and walkers and will also serve as a catalyst to create more non-vehicular connections in the City of Napa which will ultimately reduce automobile created pollution.

Finally, this project will also serve as an amenity to locals and visitors alike versus the alternative of four luxury estate lots that would serve very few and prohibit public access to the property.

We support this project and vision and hope that you will vote to approve.

Sincerely,

Ron Angold (Jan 15, 2025 09:16 PST)
Ron Angold
Ron Angold [email protected]
01/15/25
1030 Clark Street Napa Ca 94559
ATTACHMENT 14

Dear City Council Members:

I am writing to you today to support The Grange Campground glamping project on Silverado Trail.

This project will bring a well-needed alternative and lower-cost option to Napa Valley where the prices to come and stay have ballooned since the pandemic. These high prices impact local businesses and restaurants as fewer people are now coming to Napa.

I believe this project is well conceived and respects the outdoor environment as it includes very few permanent structures and retains virtually all of the amazing oaks on the land. Additionally, the project will protect the riparian corridor along Milliken Creek and remove the current squatters who are camping by the creek and leaving their garbage and human waste along the creek causing pollution

The project will also develop a drastically needed Class I bike trail along its frontage which will make this stretch of the trail safer for bicyclists and walkers and will also serve as a catalyst to create more non-vehicular connections in the City of Napa which will ultimately reduce automobile created pollution.

Finally, this project will also serve as an amenity to locals and visitors alike versus the alternative of four luxury estate lots that would serve very few and prohibit public access to the property.

We support this project and vision and hope that you will vote to approve.

Sincerely,

Alissa Menchaca (Jan 9, 2025 17:19 PST)
Alissa Menchaca [email protected]
01/09/25
3163 Dry Creek Rd. Napa CA 94558
ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

Honorable Mayor Sedgley, Members of the City Council
Re: Inappropriate construction along Milliken Creek and the Napa River (Glamping Proposal)

I am writing to provide hydraulic data on the area of the intersection of Milliken Creek and the Napa River. Based on my 20 years of participation and Chairmanship of the Technical Advisory Panel for the Napa River Flood Protection Project, I have observed and learned quite a bit about the hydraulic characteristics of the area proposed for a trailer campground adjacent to Highway 121.

The area for the campground is adjacent to waterways that receive floodwaters from Sarco Creek, Milliken Creek and backwater from the Napa River, and the area is generally between 2ft. to over 7ft. below the design water surface used in the design of the Napa Flood Project. No floodwalls or other protection structures are currently proposed in this area easterly of the River. If compared to the west side of the River with its generally higher elevations and proposed floodwalls (95% plans are currently being circulated), the planned Glamping campground will have a much higher frequency of inundation.

The installation of trailers on a site with frequent inundation will present a danger to downstream structures as they may be carried away during even a minor flooding event. Any intent to retain the trailers onsite will likely be defeated by the saturated soil not supporting the “tie downs”. I would suggest a requirement for complete evacuation of the site during predicted flood events, this requirement should include a stipulation that all exposed sewer connections receive water-tight seals.

ATTACHMENT 14

This site seems to be uniquely inadequate for the use proposed, and from a hydraulic and engineering standpoint, it would seem worthwhile to locate a more suitable location. Several members of the public will be available to expand on this information at the public hearing.

Dennis Rinehart
Member / Chairperson Technical Advisory Panel (1998-2018) RCE 32110

ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14

These are the questions we hope you will consider:

1. Is this project appropriate to be placed in a designated flood zone?

2. What does CalFire & Napa Fire Department feel about the existence of 100 burning campfires and the increased potential for fire in a high fire zone?

3. What impact will it have on the diverse ecosystem (native plants and animals) which exist along the creek and river system as a whole.

4. The property is on a busy state highway. What is Caltran’s or Napa City’s solution to the needed left turn lane?

5. Will the increased noise, light and activity decrease the property values in the Neighborhood?

6. How can a residential parcel that was zoned for 4 houses to be built, turn into a 100 RV Hotel, club house, bar, restaurant, event space and outdoor entertainment patio? Is it just to collect the 12% transient tax? This seems more like a commercial enterprise than a residential one.

This is a NEIGHBORHOOD. Changing the status of a residential parcel to a vacation status is not good for the neighborhood.

Please vote NO on the “Grange Project”. Please Protect our Neighborhood! Sincerely,
Bill & Patti Lefever
ATTACHMENT 14

ATTACHMENT 14