ATCH 15 - Public Comments received after Agenda Publication

●12.5-acre●5 permanent buildings●100 semi-fixed lodging units●Pool●Recreational activity space●Parking area Proposed Camping Hotel in Residential Neighborhood
1 1.OurCommunityandConcernsA.CommunitySupportandConcernsB.SurveyC.SiteHistory2.LegalPosition3.Traffic&SafetyA.TrafficImpactStudyB.TrafficImpactStudy:InaccuraciesC.TrafficAccidentsD.TrafficRightTurnOnlyConcerns4.Fire&SafetyA.Dangers/EvacuationPlanB.BikeSafety5.LandUseA.CityDevelopmentStandards&ComplianceB.AlternativeLocations6.EnvironmentA.CEQAReportConcernsB.Flooding&AirstreamRemovalC.Wildlife7.Noise8.Employees9.AutoCampA.LocationsandAttractionsB.IssuesatLocations10.Summary Table of Contents
2 Website
Petition
Fundraising
2,798 Visitors
1,039 Signatures
$16,000 Raised
1-A. Community Support
3 1-A. Community Concerns
4 1. Land Use & Zoning Conflicts•Approving a 100-room glamping sitein a residential zone sets a dangerous precedentfor future commercial encroachments.•The project violates Napa’s General Plan, lane and area for low-density residential use, not hospitality.2. Environmental & Fire Safety Risks•No Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR)was conducted, leaving unknown impacts on biodiversity, habitat loss, and wildlife corridors.•The site is in a high wildfire risk zone, with 100+ fire pits posing significant danger, and limited staffingto monitor them.3. Traffic Congestion & Public Safety•Silverado Trail is already accident-prone; an underestimated traffic studyfails to account for increased vehicle trips.•No safe left-turn laneand the proposed right-turn solution is unrealistic and unsafe, risking illegal U-turns and accidents.4. Noise, Air, & Water Pollution•The project’s 100+ fire pits, outdoor gatherings, and late-night activitiescreate significant noise disturbances for nearby residents.•Increased air and water pollutionfrom wood-burning fire pits, vehicle emissions, and wastewater runoffthreaten the local ecosystem.5. Floodplain & Inadequate Emergency Planning•The site is in a FEMA-designated floodplain, which flooded just weeks ago, showing its unsuitability for development.•No viable flood evacuation planfor trailers, guests, or infrastructure, increasing risks to property and public safety.Conclusion: Reject the Glamping ProjectThe project violates zoning laws, threatens environmental safety, increases public risk, and lacks adequate mitigation plans. The Napa City Council should reject the proposalto preserve community integrity and public safety. * Survey sent to 300+ Napa residents as well as posted on BadForNapa.com; 70 Responses 92%5%
4%
1-B. Community Survey Results
93%62%60%55%49%43%38%
93%3%4%
5 •2018–City approval for four lot subdivision; no neighbor opposition•2021–Owner requests higher density General Plan designation; denied by City Council•2022–Owner requests findings that, “campgrounds, RV parks, and similar uses” would be allowed in Residential Zones –denied by Planning Commission and opposed by neighbors.•2024–Owner and partners file “Glamping” application using text amendment that would be a Zoning Exception for this One parcel.•2024 –State approves SB 450 (in conjunction w/ SB 9) that require “no net loss”of housing when property is rezoned. 1-C. Site History
6 2. Legal Position: Key Concerns 1. Zoning & Procedural Violations•The project violates existing zoning lawsby introducing a commercial campground into a residential zone.•Instead of rezoning, the City is proposing a text amendmentthat only applies to this project, which circumvents proper planning processes.•Granting this amendment creates a special privilegefor the developer, setting a dangerous precedentfor future projects.2. Environmental & Safety Risks•Fire Hazard: The site is in a high-risk wildfire zone, posing serious evacuation risksfor both guests and nearby residents.•Flooding Concerns: The property sits in a FEMA-designated floodplainand was previously rejected for housing due to flood mitigation issues.•Traffic & Safety: The project adds congestion to Silverado Trail, a key corridor with high accident ratesand limited infrastructure.3. Flawed Traffic Study & Increased Road Hazards•The traffic impact study underestimatesthe actual vehicle trips generated by this project.•No left-turn laneis planned, leading to unsafe U-turns and potential gridlock during peak travel times.•The project lacks proper pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, increasing accident risks.4. Misrepresentation of Project Type & Economic Impact•The development is not a true campground—it functions more like a boutique hotel yet avoids the required hospitality regulations.•No on-site food or amenitiesforces guests to drive off-site frequently, further increasing traffic and emissions.•The City misclassifies the projectto reduce developer fees, impacting local tax revenue.5. Inadequate Environmental Review & CEQA Violations•The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reviewis insufficient, failing to properly assess wildlife, flood risks, and traffic impacts.•The biological impact studydoes not adequately address risks to local species and water resources.Conclusion: Reject The Grange Project•Violates zoning laws and planning processes•Increases wildfire, flooding, and evacuation risks•Creates significant traffic congestion and safety hazards•Fails to meet environmental and CEQA standardsFor the safety, sustainability, and integrity of Napa’s planning laws, the City Council must reject The Grange Project.7 Traffic & Safety ConcernsWe strongly urge you to reject the proposed glamping projecton Silverado Trail due to serious traffic safety concerns, infrastructure deficiencies, and increased accident risks. This project would increase congestion, endanger public safety, and strain an already overburdened road system.1. Flawed Traffic Study & Underestimated Impact•The W-Trans Traffic Impact Study underestimates vehicle trips. An independent Registered Traffic Engineeranalysis suggests that peak-hour traffic could be 30% higher than reported—meaning greater congestion, longer delays, and increased hazards.•This project is entirely car-dependent, with no public transit or shuttle serviceavailable. At full capacity, the site could host up to 400 visitors, resulting in hundreds of additional daily vehicle tripson Silverado Trail, worsening existing traffic issues.2. Dangerous Road Conditions & Infrastructure DeficienciesSilverado Trail is not designed to handle such an increase in traffic safely. Key issues include:•No road shoulders, making it unsafe for stopped or disabled vehicles.•Poor sight distances, creating dangerous conditions for turning and merging.•Lack of a left-turn lane, substantially increasing collision risks.3. High Accident Rates & Fatalities on Silverado TrailThis stretch of Silverado Trail has a documented history of severe accidents:•W-Trans’ TIS reports indicate injury rates are almost double the state average.•Multiple fatalities and serious injurieshave occurred over the past 25 years.•Accident heat mapshighlight this section as a high-risk zone.Adding hundreds of additional vehicle trips per daywill exacerbate these dangers and put lives at risk.4. Planning Commission Recommendation: Left Turn Lane RequiredThe Planning Commission has recommended a left-turn lane if the project is approved. However, this would require major roadway redesigns and right-of-way modifications, further complicating the project’s feasibility.

3. Traffic & Safety
8 5. Right Turn In / Right Turn Out –An Unsafe and Unrealistic SolutionInstead of a left-turn lane, developers propose a Right Turn In / Right Turn Out island, relying on unrealistic traffic redirections:•They assume Google Maps will reroute southbound visitors through a complicated detour—an impractical and unreliable expectation.•In reality, guestswill either illegally cross the double yellow lineor attempt dangerous U-turnsat the Hagen/Silverado/Woodland Drive intersection, creating serious crash risks. U-turns will also be problematic in the Stonecrest neighborhood when Glampers decide to drive up-valley to make winery visits.•The only way to enforce thiswould be a Caltrans-approved center median, which would impose major inconvenience on local residents.The Responsible Choice: Reject This ProjectThe traffic study is flawed, accident risks are high, and the road infrastructure is inadequate. Approving this development would knowingly put the safety of residents, visitors, and emergency responders at risk.For these reasons, we strongly urge the Napa City Council to reject the Silverado Trail glamping project. Public safety must come first

3. Traffic & Safety "Continued”
9 1.Inaccurate Traffic Metrics: The ITE Trip Generation Rate is unsuitable for AutoCamp’sluxury camping model, which generates more traffic than typical campgrounds.2.Unrealistic Trip Distribution:Equal north-south trip distribution assumptions are unrealistic, as most visitors are expected from the Bay Area to the south.3.Safety Concerns:Inadequate sight distance on Silverado Trail near the project entrance creates significant safety concerns.4.Need for Left Turn Pocket: A left turn pocket is essential to manage traffic flow and prevent accidents during peak times.5.Revised Traffic Study Needed:A revised traffic study using data from existing AutoCamplocations is required to accurately assess the project’s impact. *Traffic review performed by Grant Johnson of Prism Engineering 3-A. Traffic Impact Study: Review of Concerns
10 * Source: City of Napa Traffic Count Mapand US Census Bureau Population Density
Traffic Flow
W-TRANS Report –“Trips ARE NOT evenly split”3-B. Traffic Impact Study: Inaccuracies Uber/Food**
** Peak delivery time between 4:30pm-8pm -DoorDash APP for Restaurants in Napa for Delivery Inaccurate traffic data•77% of visitors enter Napa from the south.*•Peak-hour congestion will rise.•Risky left turns increase accident potential.•Traffic study excludes food delivery and ride-share. 11 * Report 279referenced above was taken from a CAMPING site located on the East Coast (1985) Obsolete and Unrelated Study Comparisons
Outdated Traffic Studies-Increase in traffic during peak hours (In + Out)Irrelevant Comparisons-Majority of delivery drivers coming from the south 3-B. Traffic Impact Study: Inaccuracies
W-TRANS Report
12 OverturnedVehicle12/11/2024
Head OnCollision1/31/2025
GrangeGlampingLocation
3-C. Traffic Accidents -Real Life Dangers
13 46 Accidents* (10 Years)17 –Hit Objects18 –Unsafe Speeds10 –DUI’s * Data fromTransportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)
Multiple auto deaths in last 30 years near site.

W-TRANS Report
GrangeGlampingLocation
2x State Avg. Injury Rate
3-C. Traffic Accidents -Real Life Dangers
14 illegal turns

1.Lack of Traffic Study: No traffic study has been conducted to evaluate the impact of the proposed new entrance route.2.Unverified App-Based Traffic Control: The city's planning relies on the developer's claim that traffic can be effectively directed via Apple/Google Maps.

3.Potential for Unsafe Driver Behavior: It is likely that drivers will ignore traffic rules, making unsafe left turns or illegal U-turns at Hagen Road or Silverado Trail. 3-D. Traffic: Right Turn Only Concerns
15 Safe Turnarounds
Conclusion:Visitors coming north on Silverado Trail will struggle with the right-turn-only entrance, likely resorting to unsafe or illegal turns at private driveways or dangerous intersections.

Church LotDistance = 1/2 Mileillegal Turns = 9Rose DriveDistance = 9/10 Mileillegal Turns = 11 GlampingEntrance
Top 3 HazardousTurnsHagan RoadandSilverado Trail
Neighbor driveway@1890 Silverado Trl.

Entrance intoGlamping
3-D. Traffic: Right Turn Only Concerns
16 4. Fire & Safety ConcernsWe urge you to reject the proposed glamping projectdue to its extreme fire risks, evacuation hazards, and air quality impacts. Given Napa County’s history of devastating wildfires, approving this development would be an irresponsible and dangerous decision.1. Extreme Fire Risk –Learn from Napa’s History•A large wildfire in 1964burned from Hagen Road to CoombsvilleRoad, passing through upper Stonecrest—the same area where this development is proposed.•In the past decade alone, Napa County has experienced 12 major wildfires, burning over 30,000 acresand displacing thousands of residents.•CalFire designates over 60% of Napa County as “Very High” wildfire risk—the proposed site is directly within this high-danger zone.•This project includes 100 fire pits, significantly increasing the risk of human-caused fires. Given that guests may bring their own firewood and staff oversight is limited, the potential for ignition is dangerously high.•Bothe State Park, a nearby recreational site, prohibits fires during dry seasons, not just during wind events,to prevent wildfires—yet this project does not include similar precautions.2. Severe Evacuation Risks & Traffic Congestion•Silverado Trail is a critical two-lane evacuation routeand is already prone to traffic congestion during fire emergencies.•This development could bring 400+ visitors and over 100 additional vehicles, blocking evacuation routesand delaying emergency response times.•The Atlas Fire (2017) and Glass Fire (2020)caused severe gridlock, trapping residents and emergency responders—adding unnecessary traffic puts lives at risk.•Napa County’s Emergency Operations Plan identifies Silverado Trail as a key evacuation corridor—approving this project would further compromise emergency planning.3. Smoke & Air Quality Impacts•Wildfire smoke caused a 200% increase in respiratory health issues in Napa in 2021—additional fire pits will exacerbate air pollutionand impact public health.•Residents in nearby neighborhoods will suffer from prolonged exposure to smoke and particulate pollution, further endangering children, seniors, and those with respiratory conditions.

4. Fire & Safety
17 Conclusion: Protect Napa’s Safety and Air QualityFor these reasons—fire danger, evacuation risks, and air quality hazards—we strongly urge the City Council to reject this project. Approving it would jeopardize public safety and put our community in great peril.The responsible choice is clear: Vote NO on the glamping development.

4. Fire & Safety "Continued”
18 4-A. Fire & Safety: Dangers/Evacuation Plan
Glass Fire (2020)Burned:67,484 acresDestroyed 1,555 structures Atlas Fire (2017)Burned:51,397 acresDestroyed 901 structures LNU Lightning Fire (2020)Burned:341,000 acresDestroyed: 800 structures19 Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Risks: Reject the Silverado Trail Glamping Project1. No Safe Bicycle Access•No designated bike laneson Silverado Trail near the site.•Roads without bike lanes experience 40% more accidentsthan those with cycling infrastructure.•Silverado Trail is a popular route for cyclists, yet this project fails to provide safe biking options.•Increased traffic from 400+ visitorswill make conditions even more dangerous for cyclists.2. Unsafe & Incomplete Pedestrian Walkways•Narrow pedestrian walkway lacks protective barriers, creating unsafe conditions for walkers.•Absence of sidewalks increases pedestrian accident risks by 35%.•The project encourages foot traffic but lacks the necessary safety infrastructure.3. Land Ownership Issues & Liability Risks•Private fence placements could restrict public access, leading to right-of-way disputes.•Unresolved liability concerns—who is responsible for accidents on unsafe pathways?•No clear insurance coverage or legal responsibilitybefore approval, exposing the city to costly legal challenges.The Responsible Choice: Reject This ProjectThis development fails to provide essential bike and pedestrian safety measures, putting cyclists, walkers, and motorists at risk.Protect public safety—Vote NO on the Silverado Trail Glamping Project. 4-C. Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Risks
20 We strongly urge you to reject the proposed glamping projecton Silverado Trail due to multiple violations of Napa’s city development standards, misclassification of land use, and infrastructure deficiencies. This project does not comply with essential regulations and sets a dangerous precedentfor future developments.1. Failureto Meet Underground Utility Requirements•Napa requires underground utilities for larger developments, yet this project has not been required to comply.•The 2018 subdivision approval required this work which was subsequently removed due to the small scale of the project. The Glamping project is now a $25 million hotel.•Above-ground utilitiespose safety, aesthetic, and maintenance concerns, increasing wildfire risks and long-term infrastructure costs.•Future road widening by Caltranswill require these utilities to be relocated—forcing taxpayers to cover the cost of a private developer’s project.2. Road Widening Requirements & Site Impact•Caltrans mandates a right-of-way dedicationfor road widening, which significantly impacts the project footprint.•The developer has failed to account for this expansion—meaning future roadwork could require tree removal and major site redesign.•Infrastructure improvements must be fully incorporated into the plan before approval, rather than left as an unresolved issue.3. Misclassified as Recreational Use –It’s a Hotel, Not a Campground•The City has wrongly classified this development as "recreational use, "allowing the developer to underpay feesmeant for large hospitality projects.•This is not a campground—it's a hotel.With up to 100 permanent Airstreams, guest services, and long-term lodging, the project functions as a hotel and should be classified as such.•Allowing this misclassification sets a dangerous precedent, opening the door for future developers to exploit zoning loopholesand avoid appropriate fees and regulations. 5-A. Land Use: City Development Standards & Compliance
21 4. Unrealistic Site Renderings & Lack of Transparency•The developer’s renderings fail to accurately depictthe true impactof the project.•More realistic visuals are necessaryto properly assess scale, environmental impact, and neighborhood compatibility.•Misleading imagery concealsthe full extent of the development’s disruption to the surrounding landscape and community.The Responsible Choice: Reject This Project ✔Fails to meet Napa’s underground utility standards
✔Ignores required Caltrans right-of-way dedications
✔Wrongly classified as a recreational facility instead of a hotel ✔Lacks accurate site renderings for proper assessmentThis project does not meet the City’s own development standardsand should not be approved in its current form. We urge the City Council to vote NO on the Silverado Trail Glamping Project. 5-A. Land Use: City Development Standards & Compliance“Continued” 22 5-B. Land Use: Alternate Locations
23 6. EnvironmentKey Environmental Concerns & Recommendation to Reject the Project1. Lack of Environmental Review•No Environmental Impact Report (EIR) conducted, leaving the full impact unknown.•Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s (PhD, Nov 2024) study on the Big Ranch (BR) Annexation applies due to proximity.•CEQA study lacks a proper survey of plants and animals.•Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) fails to outline required mitigations.2. Biodiversity & Wildlife Impact•Over 30 bird speciesobserved and documented by local resident Justin Newberry.•Estimated 174 vertebrate species, including nocturnal wildlife, found at the BR site—likely similar at the proposed site.•Native trees (Live oak, Blue oak, Valley oak, Buckeye) critical to the local ecosystem would be impacted.•Increased traffic would lead to more wildlife collisionsand habitat fragmentation.•Experts recommend at least one year of studyto properly assess biodiversity loss.3. Floodplain & Water Pollution Risks•Project site is in a flood zoneand floodway, increasing safety risks.•Water runoff drains into Milliken Creek, potentially affecting local water quality.•Concerns over sewer system overflows, trailer tank leaks, and contamination from vehicle oil and chemicals.4. Air Pollution•Dr. Clark’s report on Big Ranch emphasizes the City’s responsibility to assess air pollution.•Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) compliance may be required.•Climate change concerns: Increased carbon footprint from tree destruction, grassland loss, trailer construction, increased traffic, and wood-burning fire pits.•Most CA counties restrict or ban wood-burning fireplaces in new developments due to air quality concerns.-Wood Smoke Hazards:•CA Air Quality Board states: “If you can smell smoke, you are breathing smoke.”•Wood smoke contains carcinogens found in cigarette smoke (benzene, formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons).•Autocamp plans only one staff memberto monitor 100 sites—inadequate fire prevention oversight.24

6. Environment “Continued”5. Zoning & Land Use Conflicts•General Plan zones this area for Low-Density Housing.•Proposed commercial use drastically altersthe character and environmental integrity of the area.•Inadequate emergency planning for a FEMA-designated floodplain increases property damage risks.Conclusion & RecommendationThe Grange Glamping Projectpresents significant environmental, safety, and zoning conflictsthat make it unsuitable for Napa. The lack of an EIR, the risk to local biodiversity, increased traffic, pollution, and noise, and flood hazardsall point to an irresponsible development decision.We strongly urge the Napa City Council to rejectthe proposed glamping project to protect the health, safety, and environmental integrity of our community. 25 The report outlines several significant environmental concerns related to the proposed project in Napa. These include:●Water Supply:The project could strain limited water resources, especially during droughts, due to increased water demands.●Traffic and Circulation:Increased traffic congestion and impacts on roads, intersections, and public transit are expected, worsening existing transportation issues.●Air Quality and Emissions:The project may generate high levels of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, potentially exceeding regional limits and contributing to climate change.●Biological Resources:Sensitive plant and animal species and their habitats may be disturbed or damaged.●Cultural and Historic Resources:There is potential for the project to affect archaeological, paleontological, or historic resources if present in the area.Overall, the project poses significant environmental risks in areas such as water supply, transportation, air quality, biological resources, and cultural heritage, all of which require careful evaluation and mitigation. 6-A. Environment: CEQA Report Concerns
26 Environment: Flooding Risks & Airstream RelocationWe strongly urge you to reject the proposed glamping projectdue to serious flood risks, inadequate emergency planning, and the high potential for property damage and safety hazards. This development is unsuitable for a FEMA-designated floodplainand approving it would be a reckless decisionthat endangers both people and property.1. High Flood Risk –FEMA-Designated 100-Year Floodplain•The proposed site is located ina FEMA 100-year flood zone, meaning major flooding is inevitable. Every Napa resident east of Jefferson understands this risk.•Milliken Creek floods far more often and far faster than the Napa River, meaning this site will be inundated early in any storm event—long before an evacuation could be safely executed.•Severe flooding just occurred on February 4th,completely submerging both the site and Silverado Trail. Had Airstreams been on-site, there would have been no safe way to relocate themor evacuate guests in time.•Napa has suffered multiple historic floods, causing millions of dollars in damages—this project adds unnecessary exposure to flood-related destruction.•The site grading plan clearly shows that most of the property would be under 7-10+ feet of waterduring a major flood event. Only a small portion of the parking lot and buildings remain above the flood level.2. No Viable Flood Contingency Plan•The City’s Floodplain Ordinance requires that all Airstream trailers must be moved to a site outside the 100-year floodplain.This project fails to identify any such relocation site.•The developer has not provided a planfor safely relocating 70 Airstream trailers, guests, and staffduring a flood emergency.•Flooding in the parking area alone would make evacuation nearly impossible.Unhooking 70 trailers from water, sewer, and electrical connections while floodwaters rise is not realistic or safe.•Without a clear and enforceable flood response strategy, these Airstreams could become floating debris, further worsening flood damage and public safety risks. 6-B. Environment: Flooding Risks & Airstream Relocation 27 3. Approving This Project Without a Flood Plan is Reckless•FEMA data and local experience confirm this site is highly vulnerable to extreme flooding.Proceeding without mitigation endangers public safety and increases city liability.•The developer must provide a concrete, actionable flood response plan BEFORE any consideration of approval.Without this, Napa taxpayers could bear the cost of future emergency rescues, damage control, and insurance claims.The Responsible Choice: Reject This Project ✔FEMA confirms severe flood risks
✔Recent floods have already proven the site is unsafe
✔No viable evacuation or flood response plan existsThe Silverado Trail Glamping Project puts lives, property, and taxpayer dollars at risk. The City Council must prioritize public safety—Vote NO. 6-B. Environment: Flooding Risks & Airstream Relocation “Continued” 28 6-B1. Environment: Flooding Risks & Airstream Relocation 29 6-B2. Environment: Flooding Risks & Airstream Relocation 30 6-C. Environment: Wildlife
31 We strongly urge you to reject the proposed glamping projectdue to unaddressed noise pollution concerns. This project will be disruptive to the surrounding.1. Significant Noise Pollution Risks –Violates Napa’s Noise Ordinance•Locals know that this area is geophysicallya natural amphitheater and noise is carried uphill for hundreds of feet. Noise from Glampers will be far more disturbing than the background “gray noise” of Silverado Trail.•The project includes outdoor gatherings, fire pits, and late-night activities, which will generate excessive noise disturbances night after night.•No noise mitigation measureshave been proposed in the City’s environmental assessment, despite clear risks to nearby residents and businesses.•Sustained noise levelsfrom transient guests will violate Napa’s noise ordinance, diminishing the quality of life for surrounding neighborhoods.

7. Noise Issues
32 We strongly urge you to reject the proposed glamping projectdue to unaddressed Employee Housing concerns.1. No Employee Housing Plan –Increased Strain on Napa’s Resources•According to the Planning Commission staff report, up to 13 employeesmay be working on-site per day—yet there is no plan for workforce housing.•Napa already faces a severe housing shortage, and without dedicated employee accommodations, workers will be forced to commute from outside the area.•Increased commuting adds to local traffic congestion, further raising vehicle miles traveled (VMT)and increasing environmental impacts.•Without a housing or transportation plan, this development strains Napa’s affordability and infrastructurewhile failing to provide a sustainable employment solution.

8. Employee Housing Issues
33 9. AutoCampAutoCamp, a company specializing in luxury glamping experiences, has faced several challenges and criticisms at its various locations. As residents of Napa, it's important to consider these issues when evaluating the proposed glamping project in our community. Here are some notable concerns:1. Fire Safety Risks•Sedona, Arizona: In 2021, AutoCampproposed a glamping site in a high-risk wildfire area near Bear Mountain. The plan included 100 fire pits, raising significant concerns about potential fire hazards in the drought-prone region. Local opposition highlighted the danger of introducing open flames into such a vulnerable environment. journalaz.com2. Environmental Impact•Sedona, Arizona: The same proposed development near Bear Mountain faced criticism for its potential to degrade the local ecosystem. Residents were particularly worried about the strain on the already stressed environment and the risk of damaging ancient petroglyphs and other tribal artifacts in the area. journalaz.com3. Project Delays and Management Issues•Multiple Locations: AutoCampannounced plans to open new locations in 2023, including sites in Asheville, NC; Hill Country, TX; and Sequoia, CA. However, all but one (Zion, UT) experienced repeated delays, with opening dates pushed into 2024 and beyond. These delays raise questions about the company's project management and reliability. autocampreviews.com4. Guest Experience Complaints•Yosemite, California: Guests at AutoCampYosemite have reported issues such as lack of cellular signal and overcrowding of camp cars, leading to excessive smoke from campfires. These factors have contributed to disappointing experiences for some visitors. tripadvisor.comThese instances highlight recurring challenges associated with AutoCamp'sdevelopments, including environmental concerns, fire safety risks, project management issues, and community opposition. It's crucial for Napa residents and the city council to carefully consider these factors when evaluating the proposed glamping project to ensure the preservation of our community's safety, environment, and character. 34 Joshua Tree: National ParkYosemite: National Park
Cape Cod: CoastCatskills: Mountains
Sequoia: National ParkZion: National Park
Ashville: RiverRussian River: River
9-A. AutoCamp: Locations and Attractions
35 Conclusion:Neither of these activities can be reached without the use of a car because of the distance between these locations and the glamping site.

The 2 most popular activitiestourists engage in while visiting Napa are:1. Wine Tasting and Winery Tours -Visitors explore world-renowned wineries and enjoy tastings of Napa Valley's famous wines, making it the region's primary draw.2. Culinary Experiences and Fine Dining -Tourists indulge in Napa's vibrant food scene, featuring farm-to-table dining and Michelin-starred restaurants 9-A. AutoCamp: Napa Location and AttractionNapa: Wine & Food 36 “AutoCamphas been struggling since 2021 to get its septic system to comply with health and safety regulations. The health board fined the company in February 2022 for noncompliance and later that year ordered AutoCampto pump all effluent off-site while it got its septic system up and running.” -capenews.net Cape Cod: Septic -Multiple Delays
Sedona: Fire Threat -Application Withdrawal“fuels, weather, and topography typical of the area are very conducive to the rapid spread of hot-burning wildfires during peak fire season. The limited road network would present challenges to both safe firefighting operations and the evacuation of local residents.” -Fire review (journalaz.com) Jane Benefield, Planning Commission vice chair, stressed that the project must be suitable for Carpinteria residents. “The only thing we gain from this, I believe, is traffic, noise, glare and disruption of a pristine area.” Benefield said.-coastalview.com Carpinteria: Traffic/Noise -Rejected
9-B. AutoCamp: Issues at Locations
37 10. SummaryThe proposed glamping project poses serious risks to Napa’s zoning integrity, public safety, and community well-being.Key Concerns:•Zoning Violations: The project misclassifies the site to bypass hotel regulations, violating Napa’s General Plan and housing policies.•Fire & Flood Risks: Located in a high-risk wildfire zone, introducing 100 fire pits, and within a FEMA floodplain, with no viable evacuation plan.•Traffic & Safety Failures: Increased congestion, unsafe road design, lack of bike lanes, and increased DUI and speeding risks.•Community Disruptions: Late-night noise pollution, diminished quality of life, and enforcement challenges.•Market Oversaturation: Napa’s hotel occupancy is already at 69.7%, making additional lodging economically unnecessary.Why Reject?1.Contradicts City Policy–Approving this project goes against Napa’s stance on short-term rentals and community protection.2.Unacceptable Fire & Flood Hazard–Endangers lives, property, and emergency response capabilities.3.Unsustainable & Unsafe–Car-dependent, increasing emissions, traffic congestion, and liability risks.4.No Recreational Appeal–Lacks natural attractions essential for a successful glamping operation.5.Alcohol-Related Safety Risks–Increased impaired driving dangers due to the area’s high concentration of alcohol-related tourism.Final Argument: Protect NapaThis project directly contradicts city policies, increases public safety hazards, worsens traffic, and disrupts the community. The City Council must reject this proposal to preserve Napa’s safety, sustainability, and quality of life.Reject the Silverado Trail Glamping Project—Napa Deserves Better. 38 From: Beth Painter
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Glamping
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2025 1:43:13 PM
Begin forwarded message:

From: Paul Franson < >
Subject: Glamping
Date: February 13, 2025 at 9:38:14 AM PST
To: [email protected]
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Beth:

I rarely comment of local government issues, but I feel that I must on this one.

I am against the proposed Grange campground.

It’s the wrong place on an allow-lying area by the river that’s almost guaranteed to flood occasionally (as it should). A far better use would be in its “natural” state, low use park or even ball grounds where floods are accepted.

Also, traffic conditions are terrible along Silverado there anyway. I can’t imagine adding many more cars.

Finally, do we want to add to the image that Napa is so expensive to visit
that we’re offering trailers and tents like in the Grapes of Wrath for visitors?
Regards, Paul
Paul Franson
[email protected] [email protected]

www.napalife.com
Napa, CA 94559

From: James McNamara
To: Clerk
Subject: Glamping
Date: Friday, February 14, 2025 9:15:51 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Wish I could be there Tuesday just to listen to public comment, but here's one for what it's worth. If you do approve the glamping with the allowance for burning "good wood", I'll be resurrecting our fireplace and I'll start burning wood once again, for the first time in well over 10 years. Particulate smoke is particulate smoke regardless of how you choose to measure it.

Just the idea of such a thing makes people with any degree of common sense wonder what your promotion of electric leaf blowers was actually all about.

Jim McNamara
Napa, CA 94558

the event of imminent heavy flooding, how quickly could guests and their belongings be evacuated?
In addition, there is the fact that this portion of Silverado Trail curves in a few spots. Vehicles often take the turns too fast. About two weeks ago when it was also raining, I witnessed a car spin out at one of the curves and hit a tree.

While the driver was largely unharmed, there have been
fatal accidents in this area.

All the concerns that have been expressed by residents in this neighborhood are sincere and valid. Thus, I strongly urge the City Council to reject the resort proposal.

I was born and raised here. With the exception of a 15-year period (1999 to 2014), Napa has been my home. I have seen many changes especially in recent years—some good, others not so much. I appreciate that the community finally figured out a way to bring in visitors especially to the downtown area.

That said, I sometimes do feel like a stranger in those more touristy vicinities.

It would be nice if my neighborhood kept its local
feeling.

Since I may not be able to attend the meeting in person, please accept this E-mail as public comment.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
William Griffiths
2019 California Lawyer Attorney of the Year
ALAN CHARLES DELL’ARIO
Post Office Box 359
Napa, California 94559
(707) 666-5351
LAW OFFICE OF A. CHARLES DELL’ARIO

CERTIFIED SPECIALIST, APPELLATE LAW

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION

AND AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF APPELLATE PRACTICE
www.dellario.org - [email protected]

February 6, 2025

Mayor Scott Sedgley
Councilmembers
City of Napa
via email

Re: Silverado Trail Glamping Project

Greetings:

As a concerned citizen and Alta Heights neighbor, I write in opposition to the proposed development along the Trail for an “autocamp.” I have read Katharine Falace’s January 30, 2025 letter and agree with her legal analysis. As a matter of land use, the proposal to amend the text of the ordinance is simply spot zoning in disguise. Spot zoning occurs when a small parcel is restricted and given lesser rights than surrounding proper and vice-versa, as is the case here. (Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente (2011) 201 Cal.App.4
th 1256, 1268.). The courts have struck down this type of discriminatory zoning at least where the benefit to the greater public good is not served.

This is where I really question this project. How does yet another tourism-driven project, in a greenbelt not previously subject to tourism uses, benefit the public. By public, I mean the people who live here, not business interests. How does this move Napa toward being the family community that all of you campaigned on?

And I cannot see what special benefit justifies the risk of more litigation at public expense. The developers have no vested interest in this property. They are seeking an exception and have not justified it. I urge you deny there application.

Respectfully,

A. Charles Dell’Ario

Alan Charles Dell’Ario

as unforgiving and treacherous as the area leading to and away from this proposed development. I ask members of the Napa City Council to make no decisions until you have personally traveled this highway multiple times during the morning drive to school time, during the noon lunch hour and during
from 3:30 to 5:30 P.M. I realize the value of your time, but submit that health, safety and welfare of life and limb and the reputation of Napa as a safe community will be a significant, vital consideration impacting your ultimate vote. As you examine
the safety of the highway in question,
please note that a portion of the roadway contains a third middle lane from East Street just past the 11 unit Milliken Creek Inn. There is no middle safe turn isle proposed for the project in question.

I am not
writing as a NIMBY. Rather, I would not support this project as currently proposed in anyone's backyard. My personal knowledge of this area comes from living a few blocks away from the relevant portion of Silverado Trail. While trying to enter this road on January 31, 2025 I watched as a firetruck and ambulance drove go by to assist car
occupant(s) who
possibly drove on a blind curve and crossed Silverado Trail ending up on land adjacent to a tree. I have traveled this highway almost daily (south to work and north to return home). Since my retirement I have traveled this highway for 18 years (north to downtown Napa and south to Nob Hill Grocery, CVS drugstore and further west along Trancas to medical appointments). Since my retirement,
The dangers of this stretch of
highway with 7 blind curves can be summed up by my own personal experience: my brother and I were returning to our parents home near this dangerous stretch of two lane blacktop highway. As we proceeded south a car out behind a blind curve proceeding north cut the curve and traveled directly at us in our lane. I pulled my vehicle to the west hoping that a shoulder might exist, For some inexplicable reason the car coming at us continued in our direction and came to a stop inches from the front of our car. Napa Police officer Lee Hart arrived on the scene and took over from there. Given that night, my knowledge the care required to navigate those 7 blind curves, my observations of the propensity for drivers to nevertheless speed in this area, the lack of turning lanes, the impracticality for law enforcement to patrol the area, my knowledge of the tragedies from vehicular accidents that came before me over 20 years , how could I have not share with the Napa City Council my firm belief that a vote of NO

on this proposal is in actuality a vote favoring the health, safety and welfare of safe streets and roads that people traveling within the City of Napa deserve. I urge each member of the City Council to find that this might be a good idea, but absolutely not in this dangerous location.

Thank you,
Ron and Linda Young

road.

INCREASED FIRE DANGER- We are very concerned about the fact that there will be 100 CAMPFIRES! They indicate they will use ” special” firewood in the fire pits. We don’t know what “safe low spark” firewood is, but looking at Youtube videos of fires in the pits at the Guerenville Auto Camp, they look like regular fires to us. The Airstream units only have a microwave so any cooking will have to be done on the campfires. We live in a very high fire danger area. Climate change will only make this issue worse. It is an issue that I hope you are taking very seriously. Our insurance is already exorbitant. Will our insurance become so much that we can’t continue to live here? Will this project cause us to loose our insurance because of the higher risk and our proximity to it? You have to protect your constituents.

PLEASE keep our neighborhood safe.

Additionally, in the event of a fire we will have to share the road with these 100 plus vehicles adding to the congestion and danger.

We will share the same Evacuation Zone.

INCREASED NOISE- The” Grange “will be permitted to have outside events in addition to their guests activities. These events will generate noise and light pollution which are not appropriate for our residential neighborhood . The Grange Project will have a bar (21 guests), a restaurant/kitchen and an outdoor covered patio for 110 guests and a large outdoor Lawn area that is marked as “Event Lawn”.

At the Planning Commission Meeting, the Grange spokesman said they would be “encouraging groups”. There is the potential for outdoor party activity seven days week and 365 days a year from 7AM to 10PM. This is a residential neighborhood not a party district.

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

February 17, 2025

Dear Mayor Sedgley & Members of the Napa City Council

Re: Grange Zoning Text Amendment, File # PL22-0120 APN 052-010-011 Please have the fortitude to reject the above referenced project and Do Not set a precedent by creating a zoning exception for this parcel.

The proposed Glamping project west of Silverado Trail between Hagen Road and Stonecrest Avenue is fraught with many significant issues that have been raised by many others. This project is the equivalent of a 100 room hotel in a flood plain, with the added severe fire risk issue of 100 fire pits in a high wildfire risk zone. The Initial Study did not adequately address traffic, safety, fire, flooding, and the environment. These impacts should have been fully evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report. Is the City allowed to create a new zoning ordinance such as a “Glamping Zone” without a formal review process?
I have owned homes in both the City and County and work in Napa and have travelled this section of Silverado Trail daily for more than 30 years. It is a narrow, winding, stretch of road with no shoulders. It is regularly subject to accidents, near accidents, animal crossings, heavy fog that can reduce visibility to almost zero, flooding and increasingly bad traffic backups. Adding a 100 unit lodging project to this section of the Trail with no turn lane, and a proposed right only turn lane coming from the north will only cause more issues and further cements that this is not a viable project for this property. The applicant is approved for 4 residential home which is what they originally requested.

I live on a rural street north of the city limits also located in a floodplain and have gone through several floods and many “get ready – is it going to flood scenarios”. Flooding is very dynamic and hard to always predict. This most recent storm event in early February went from a NOAA prediction of 24 feet (not flooding) to 29 feet at 6:30 pm at night with little time to prepare, move cars, pick up and tie things up that float (think picnic tables). All of my neighbors were once again scrambling. I cannot imagine what it would take to unhook and secure sewer hook ups, water and electrical for 100 airstreams (possibly in the dark with little notice) and move them to a safe high place. Any applicant should be required to identify how and what it would take to safely complete this type of evacuation in case of flood or wildfire. We all know that fire, wind and flood event frequency is increasing due to climate change.

I would hope that as Council Members you would not approving a project that increases the City’s resources for more service response to accidents, noise, etc. and also possible liability related to predictable accidents and possible death related to traffic, fire and flood.

Respectfully,

Louise Vicencio

Napa K California K 94558 K 707.224.5060 K [email protected] February 14, 2025

Napa City Council
City Hall
955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559

Dear Mayor Sedgley & Members of the Napa City Council

Letter to City Council in Support of Glamping Proposal PL22-0120

With serious consideration as a journalist and architect, I am compelled to provide my support for the so-called Grange Campground proposal. This is a project that I believe deserves to go forward and be approved by the City Council conditionally. While I usually don’t comment on proposed projects, I feel this proposal will be a benefit to the city. It will be a unique and exciting addition to the Napa experiences. We need more visitor opportunities and accommodations. We can’t depend on big hotels to provide the primary source of visitation. I have studied the Planning Commission hearing where it was approved unanimously, discussed project with Staff, and talked to and read the neighborhoods complaints. I will try not to oversimplify what I see are two major issues:

1)Traffic quantity, safety, and traffic calming on Silverado Trail • It appears the left-in and left-out turns will not work with the geography so the right-in and right- out are the only options.
• I don’t believe a 3 car stacking is sufficient: there should be 4 cars. • If some can’t enter, there should be a U-turn option. • The island should be bigger and planted with lights and a slow sign. • There should be a south-bound exit lane along Silverado Trail and plenty of bright colored cones going in and out.
• This is a chance to use Traffic Calming on Silverado Trail. The speed limit should be reduced to 30 or 35 miles an hour and landscape bulb-outs with flashing pedestrian crossings introduced.
2) Fire safety
• Currently the whole site is designed to be all electric, including lighting and unit HVAC. Here is a chance to eliminate propane and gas entirely by electrifying the grills and eliminating wood burning fire pits.
• I propose electric induction grills and electric fireplaces at each unit or in collective areas. This may not resonate with everyone, but I’ve attached a photo of an outdoor electric fireplace. I’ve installed many all electric and it takes a keen eye to discover the difference. It’s the future.

Napa K California K 94558 K 707.224.5060 K fax K 707.257.3742 K [email protected]

• I recommend a sprinkler head with a 30’ diameter range on top of every unit line connected to a waterline for fire protection.
• The planting pallet throughout should be fire resistant, native plants and foliage. • I’m pleased they didn’t propose a Vanity Vinyard for fake charm.

This is a project is much needed to provide alternative visitation options. Therefore, the City Council should reject the appeal, accept the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the project.

I believe there are conditions that the Council should consider staff and the applicant to consider and if necessary, return to the Planning Commission for consistency.

Most Sincerely,

Chris Craiker AIA/NCARB
President/Architect
Cal.Lisc# 013566
[email protected]

From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Napa City Council to decide fate of controversial AutoCamp glamping resort - The Press Democrat Date: Thursday, February 13, 2025 3:53:19 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! Begin forwarded message:

From: David Freed <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Napa City Council to decide fate of controversial AutoCamp glamping resort - The Press Democrat Date: February 13, 2025 at 11:13:43 AM PST
To: Justin Newberry <[email protected]>
Cc: Mary Luros <[email protected]>, David Freed <[email protected]> Hoping for a good outcome Justin - David Freed
Napa City Council to decide fate of controversial AutoCamp glamping resort

The project, backed by Santa Barbara-based outdoor lodging company AutoCamp, would sit along Milliken Creek between Hagen Road and Stonecrest Drive.

Slide 1 of 3
This Oct. 11, 2024, architectural rendering shows the proposed The Grange campground on an a roughly 12.5 vacant acres on the west side of Silverado Trail between Stonecrest Drive and Hagen Road at the north end of Napa. The project would construct a commercial campground with up to five permanent buildings, up to 100 glamping units, and recreational activity space, including the pool area shown here. (RSA+ via City of Napa)

EDWARD BOOTH

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
A luxury glamping resort proposed along Napa’s Silverado Trail has ignited fierce debate, with opponents warning of wildfire dangers and environmental harm, while supporters argue it could bring a much-needed economic boost.

On Tuesday, the Napa City Council will weigh in on The Grange Campground, a proposed 12 1/2-acre resort featuring up to 100 high-end camping trailers and tents, five permanent buildings, trails, and recreation areas. The project, backed by Santa Barbara-based outdoor lodging company AutoCamp, would sit along Milliken Creek between Hagen Road and Stonecrest Drive.

For months, critics have fought to block the development. A group called Residents Against Glamping Establishment, or RAGE, has rallied opposition, arguing the project poses a fire risk, increases traffic and disrupts the area’s natural environment. Their Change.org petition had gathered 1,038 signatures as of Wednesday.

Beyond public opposition, the project could face legal hurdles. Attorney Katharine Falace of the Buchalter law firm in St. Helena sent a Jan. 30 letter to the City Council, alleging the city failed to conduct a sufficient environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

She also argued that rezoning the site to allow a commercial venture on residentially zoned land amounts to granting AutoCamp a special privilege.

Since the Napa Planning Commission recommended project approval in October, AutoCamp representatives say they have worked to address community concerns. Bernie Corea, the company’s director of acquisitions, said they have held community meetings, analyzed public feedback and made adjustments to the plan in response to concerns.

One of the biggest issues raised was bike and pedestrian safety. In response, the developers modified a planned pedestrian path to function as a separate Class 1 bike trail. They also identified a gap in sidewalk access near Milliken Creek and agreed to extend the sidewalk to improve connectivity.

Traffic congestion along Silverado Trail was another key concern, particularly the potential need for a left-turn lane. Although a traffic study found minimal impact, the developers have now limited access to right turns only when entering and exiting the resort.

Corea also defended the project’s fire safety measures, saying the resort would actually reduce wildfire risk by clearing overgrown vegetation from the undeveloped site.

Campfires, he said, would be strictly controlled, with guests required to use AutoCamp’s “GoodWood” fuel, which burns with fewer sparks, and specially designed grills that protect against smoke and sparks. “It’s such a controlled experience that (fire) doesn’t have any ability to leave the campfires themselves,” Corea said.

While the project has drawn strong opposition from residents, it has received backing from Napa’s business community. The Napa Chamber of Commerce has recommended the council approve it, and Corea said business owners, winemakers and restaurateurs see the resort as a way to attract visitors and counter the impact of rising hotel prices and declining wine sales. “We’ve sat down with countless business owners, winemakers, restaurateurs and really understand that they’re feeling the pain,” he said.

As the council prepares for Tuesday’s decision, the debate remains heated. Whether the project moves forward or faces legal challenges could shape the future of similar developments in Napa.

You can reach Staff Writer Edward Booth at 707-521-5281 or [email protected].

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/napa/napa-glamping-campground-autocamp/? utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pd_napa&pupeml=27778

From: linda bancke
To: Clerk
Cc: linda bancke
Subject: Glamping Zoning Text Amendment Item #3802024
Date: Friday, February 14, 2025 11:31:09 AM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
To the Mayor and City Council of Napa,
Please support the development of this camping and recreational area for visitors to our beautiful valley.

Napa
needs an economic and carefully planned camping area that is affordable for people, especially families, to enjoy Napa County.

Linda Bancke

February 14, 2025
RE: Item #3802024
Glamping Zoning Text Amendment
Dear Mayor and City Council of Napa,
This letter supports the project referenced above.

I have lived in Napa for seventy years watching many, many types of projects and changes to the city. Many projects approved aim at expensive high-end experiences.

The character of many of these projects nearly saturates our town and our surrounding county areas with experiences for exclusivity and they weigh on our environment.

The Grange will draw in families and those seeking to spend time in Napa with less fanfare. This project will invite inclusivity and welcome locals as well.

Too often the City of Napa spends time and money bringing about projects that can only be enjoyed by the very wealthy. Or, some beneﬁcial projects are declined due to pressures presented by a small handful of locals that feel a personal disadvantage.

This project is more inclusive to family activities, it supports social responsibility and invites a more natural experience. People of Napa can beneﬁt from this project.

As well, all Napan’s have received the inheritance of generosity and environmental support from the Mead family for generations. They have a long legacy of giving wholeheartedly lands and resources that all Napan’s have had the beneﬁt of.

This project, the Grange, will maintain the basic character of the land it situates and beneﬁt both nature and people. What could be better?
I believe this project should be supported and approved. The delays have cost much time and resources already. Let’s see this approved and let’s move forward.

Thank you for your time in reading this letter.

Sincerely, Shelly Monte

From: Nathan Davis
To: Clerk
Cc: Jeremy Sill
Subject: Glamping Project at Hartle and Monticello - Autocamp Date: Friday, February 14, 2025 11:52:42 AM
Attachments: ATT00001.png
ATT00002.png
ATT00003.png
ATT00004.png
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Hello,
I want to weigh in as a business leader, Visit Napa Valley Board Member, local, and dad of 3 young kids. I support this project for our community as a good thing for our long-term health as a destination.

Napa has a strong brand identity as an adult friendly destination with a foundation of alcohol day drinking as the main past time. In our world today, this just is not enough to remain competitive in the tourist destination marketing arena. Napa has always avoided family travel but today's young families are seeking sophisticated but fun destinations that help them feel welcome, appreciated, and comfortable. Adding a glamping accommodation option to our arsenal of reasons to visit, and in such a fantastic location in proximity to the upvalley experiences and downtown Napa city offerings, propels Napa to a new affluent demographic of traveler. This project helps round out our reasons to visit Napa and is marketing gold. Marketing gold turns into retail, restaurant, lodging, and activity partner revenue boost that then fuels our TOT and general fund to ensure living in Napa sustains at the high level we have grown accostomed.

I support this project and hope we can rely on you for yours,

Nathan Davis
General Manager
1275 McKinstry Street, Napa, CA 94559
(o) 707-251-5213
[email protected]

Take a Tour

From: Bernie Corea
To: Clerk
Cc: Jeremy Sill
Subject: AutoCamp Business Listing - Change in Directions - The Grange Campground Date: Friday, February 14, 2025 2:00:40 PM
Attachments: AutoCamp _ Business Listing Directions.pdf [EXTERNAL]
Hello Clerk,
Please see the attached instructions on how we have previously successfully changed Mapping Services to reroute customers to our driveway when we had to install a right-in right-out only access point on another project in Asheville, NC.

The same process will be followed for the proposed project in Napa.

To clarify statements read in the public comments, a property owner cannot unilaterally request to reroute with Mapping Service provides, but if there is a change in legal circulation, we as a business owner have the ability to identify this change and the Mapping Services will modify according to the legal routing. The Mapping Services will be updated prior to project opening.

Please add this attachment to the record and let me know if you have any questions.

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.

AutoCamp Business Listings - Change to Directions

APPROACH

1. Create a Google Business Proﬁle
Google Maps is populated by the information in the location’s Google Business Proﬁle (AutoCamp Asheville example). In order to make any changes to the map directions, a location representative must create and verify the Google Business Proﬁle.

Steps to create -
Create a Business Proﬁle
● Using a Google compatible email address, follow the prompts to populate the requested information.

phone

number

required

create

the

proﬁle,

and

other

information

can

added

later

date.

Verify a Business Proﬁle
● Invite the local representative to the Google Business Proﬁle using a Google compatible email

address.

● Local representative accepts invitation using their mobile device. ● Local representative clicks “Verify” button. ● The user will be prompted to record a video with the following information - ○ Show surrounding area such as street signs or neighboring businesses (Your location

should

match

the

address

you

entered

○ Show business name printed on permanent ﬁxtures such as signboard (Your business

name

should

match

the

name

you

entered

AutoCamp

Asheville)
○ Access staff-only areas, unlock entrance, or operate cash register (You need to show

you're

authorized

represent

this

business)
● Once the video is submitted and we are veriﬁed we can submit the changes to the star rating

and

directions.

2. Open a support ticket with Google Business Proﬁle Help to change directions The process starts with a generic support ticket to Google Business Proﬁle Help ● When logged in to the same google email address that has access to the Google Business Proﬁle, visit Google Business Proﬁle Help

● Select “New more help? Contact Us”
● Follow prompts by selecting the business and explaining that you need to change the directions

the

business,

then

select

“Wrong

Driving

Directions”

● On Step 2 of the request, you will be prompted to read help articles, ignore these, and click “Next

Step”

● Then, you will be asked to complete a form where you will explain the directions issue as clearly

possible

upon

submission,

you’ll

given

case

ID,

and

Google

will

you

“Case

Received”

notiﬁcation.

Provide additional information
● Reply to the “Case Received” notiﬁcation and describe the issue with as much detail as possible.

Written

instructions

along

with

mock-up

the

Google

map

with

requested

changes

worked

well

AutoCamp

Asheville.

● At this point you should be connected with a human representative at Google who may ask

for

additional

information

such

road

closed

signs,

not

enter

signs,

even

another

video.

● Example of “Do Not Enter” sign at Asheville shared with Google Business Proﬁle Help. ● The next steps are regularly checking Google Maps for updates, and persistently following up

the

with

the

case

ID.
● After 6-8 weeks the issue should be resolved. .

From: Josh Phelps
To: Clerk
Subject: Autocamp Project at Hartle and Monticello
Date: Friday, February 14, 2025 4:36:20 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
To Whom this may concern:

I am reaching out as a local winery owner and Napa Valley native to express my support for the Autocamp Project at Hartle and Monticello.

As someone who has grown up in this valley and witnessed the commercial growth here, I think it is critical that we have ways of welcoming young people (wine consumers) and people of all different demographics. Hotel prices have skyrocketed over the past decade and there are not as many affordable options for people to explore the valley. On top of just the wine business, there are so many ways to enjoy the outdoors here in Napa and a glamping option is perfect for that clientele. I am a St.

Helena Eagle Scout and an avid outdoorsman so I can appreciate that. The location is also ideal with perfect proximity to downtown Napa, BottleRock, and the Silverado Trail to get upvalley.

Thank you for helping Autocamp successfully move forward with this project. It will be a great asset to our community!
Josh

Dear City Council Members:

I am writing to you today to support the Autocamp 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. The Grange will bring experience to Napa which we do not currently have and drive sorely needed foot traffic to downtown.

I believe this project is well conceived and respects the outdoor environment as it includes very little structure 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 that are camping by the creek and leaving their garbage and human waste along the creek causing pollution of the creek. Protecting local waterways in this way is ideal in my opinion.

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-current pollution. With this type of bike trail and boost in E- bikes it’s a simple way to get folks out of their cars and healthy.

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. Our downtown businesses need this type of support so we hope you will give this project your approval.

Sincerely,
Ed Morton
Napa Valley Resident

From: Andrew MacLaggan
To: Clerk
Subject: I support the Grange campground project
Date: Sunday, February 16, 2025 6:56:13 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing today to voice my support for the Grange campground project on Silverado Trail.

As a homeowner in the Alta Heights neighborhood, I look forward to the increased bicycle connectivity on Silverado Trail provided by the Class 1 bike trail to be built as part of the project.

Additionally, I would like to take advantage the other amenities provided by the project, such as the pool and the restaurant.

This is a good use of this difficult site which will flood periodically. It preserves most of the native trees and provides amenities to the city and neighborhood.

Yours truly,
Andrew MacLaggan, AIA
--
Andrew MacLaggan AIA | LFA
From: Beth Painter
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Glamping Project on Silverado Trail
Date: Monday, February 17, 2025 6:12:41 AM
Sent from Beth Painter's IPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Lowell Downey < >
Date: February 16, 2025 at 10:15:34 PM PST
To:

Beth Painter <[email protected]>
Subject: Glamping Project on Silverado Trail
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Councilwoman Painter,
I'm writing to support the proposed Glamping Project on Silverado Trail coming before the City Council on Tuesday. This project speaks to our guests having a unique Napa experience, outside the hotel room, with opportunities to meet fellow travelers and share common space during the day and under the night sky. The creek is being protected, bike lanes and recreation areas added, right turn lanes in and only a right turn out has been created to prevent the hazardous left turn. I believe it will fit well within the community.

The economic pressure on Napa is increasing. This project most certainly will benefit Napa by providing jobs. As a commercial project, this project has a lower impact than building a hotel or, since it is residential, adding housing. My only request is, that on approval, the City require a low lighting impact on the space, preserving the night sky, less impact on migratory birds, and the adjoining neighbors.

Thank you for considering my thoughts.

Lowell
Lowell Downey
Napa, CA 94559

From: Milli Pintacsi
To: Clerk
Subject: Letter of Support for AutoCamp Napa
Date: Monday, February 17, 2025 8:48:02 AM
[EXTERNAL]
RE: Autocamp Napa: The Grange
Dear Napa Council Members,
I have recently learned about an exciting new project AutoCamp Napa that will be in front of City Council tomorrow, Tuesday February 18th. I have had the opportunity to review the plans in detail. What I see is a new business idea that creatively and responsibly uses a piece of land in our city that has sat under-utilized. As someone whose own business focuses on serving Napa families, I am happy to see a business that not only is family friendly, but has also committed to allowing local families and schools to utilize amenities such as a pool without having to be overnight guests. This is a big deal for Napa, families do not have access to spaces like this.

I've also learned of the other possible uses of this property and can see that the impacts to the natural environment as well as the potential risks to our sensitive watershed would be far greater with something like a housing development.

Opponents to this project are citing the very same concerns they have cited in opposition to my project just up the road in Alta Heights, which would be Napa's first dedicated Child Development Center serving children and families from across Napa and would bring a desperately needed childcare facility to our community. We have already seen what damage it can cause when we allow small groups to dictate what the future of this city gets to or doesn't get to look like. The broader needs of the city cannot be overshadowed by the personal preferences of a small group of people unwilling to accept growth and progress, even if it poses a perceived inconvenience to some.

The outstanding group behind this project have already demonstrated their willingness to reasonably accommodate the concerns that neighbors have voiced. They have made good faith efforts to listen and respond to those concerns.

I do not believe that further restrictions on these plans will have any additional impact beyond negatively affecting the viability of this project.

Please vote to approve this project and help bring an exciting new family-focused business to our community.

Sincerely,
Milli Pintacsi
Founder/Head of School
Le Petit Elephant Nursery and Preschool
From: Robert Pintacsi
To: Clerk
Subject: AutoCamp Napa Project
Date: Monday, February 17, 2025 8:56:23 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
RE: AutoCamp Napa
Dear Concilmember,
I'm writing in regards to the Autocamp project that will be presented to the city council this week. As a resident of Napa and a business owner I would like to voice my whole hearted support for this project. After learning in depth details about the scope and planned operation of this site I am convinced it is one of the best uses for this piece of land within our city. Other uses would be far more destructive and disruptive to this sensitive natural landscape. As someone who has used similar campsites in other areas of California I have first hand experience with the expected traffic impact and flow. Learning of the planned mitigation measures already in place I do not believe that the concern of "more traffic" should be an allowable sticking point to prevent this project from receiving approval. In addition, people who use such campsites are coming to enjoy time in nature, be with family and friends, not to party and be rowdy. I feel that concerns over noise are also overblown and out of touch with how a campsite like this operates.

On a broader, yet related note, I would like to voice my concern that in the past few years the City of Napa has seen multiple projects and proposals stalled, stopped, and/or derailed by small groups of people unwilling to accept the idea of any "impact" to their neighborhood.

They use vague environmental concerns to mask their true intentions. This city needs to progress into the 21st century. If we don't want to start using our prized agricultural lands and open spaces for new projects then we need to accept that creative use of empty and underutilized parcels within the city limits is the only way we can further develop our city. A vocal minority, who are only concerned with preserving their personal comforts, should not hold power over a city needing to support the broader economic and social needs of an entire community.

This project will create jobs, diversify and strengthen our economy, and protect a valuable piece of natural landscape along the Napa River. They have demonstrated a commitment to being responsible neighbors and it's a good fit for this community. I urge you to fully approve this project.

Regards,
Robert Pintacsi
606 Seminary St, Napa
Owner: St. Romedius Wine
Co-owner: Le Petit Elephant Nursery and Preschool
From: Karen Kiely
To: Clerk
Subject: Comment on Glamping Hearing 021825
Date: Monday, February 17, 2025 3:25:39 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,
Karen Kiely
Neill Allen
Napa
Sent from my iPad

From: Brendan Lesti BRE#01855197
To: Clerk
Subject: Support for Glamping
Date: Monday, February 17, 2025 5:58:23 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Hello-
Local family here. We wanted to please show our support for the Glamping Project called the grange. We think it would be an excellent addition to the Napa community! Brendan Lesti / Associate Broker
DRE#01855197
707-337-0659
[email protected]
-Sent from my mobile device

From: Josh W.

To: Clerk
Cc: Josh W.

Subject: Glamping site
Date: Monday, February 17, 2025 11:11:27 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
To Mayor Sedgely and City Council Members,

I do apologize for this late email, for I am on travels out of the country with my family. It came to my attention the city had another meeting this week in regards to the proposed glamping project, and being that I could not be at the next council hearing I thought instead to put pen to paper and share my two cents.

As a residential developer and builder I am always looking for the next project. My general thought process is all the good properties have already been developed, so more often than not I am trying to find the diamond in the rough. A lot of the time it is common I am locating abandoned properties, properties that have fallen out of escrow, or properties outside the box can be transformed through time and effort. I am not shy to the efforts and I am always willing to put in the time. So it should be no surprise that I previously reviewed and evaluated the 12.5 acre property off Silverado for construction. The idea was simple, the concept would have been a few single family estate homes. Unfortunately, with the road noise and excessive requirements for fill due to site prep needs, among other issues that did not fit my needs, this project was not feasible for me to pursue.

I was also not a fan of clear-cutting all the trees on the site to accommodate the fill. The appeal to this property is within the charm the natural setting provides. I was not willing to take on a project that would have ultimately destroyed that charm.

Currently I have three development projects within the City of Napa limits. I routinely look at projects and properties for residential home development. I also own three properties in east Napa as well as a couple others within the city limits. Due to my residence I was sent the www.badfornapa.com website which
had a petition link and gofundme pages. I reviewed these and did some of my own investigation, talking also to the City and project applicant.

My review of the opponent documents, website, and petition versus the actual project being proposed led me to write this email to you all. I found many of the bulletpoints in their petition to be blatantly false
. Even to a non-developer/builder
these are easy to see. There are 11 bullet points on their petition website. I wanted to list the ones that I believe are inaccurate and/or misleading.

Increased risk of traffic accidents: Is there a letter somewhere to show me that this is true? I see the project is doing a right in/out and that seems fairly safe to me. I am also aware that several traffic experts have weighed in and have not stated this to be the case.

Increased risk of harm to cyclists: Isn’t the project proposing a separated bike path? I believe out of pocket, and not requested/required by the city. I travel this stretch of road frequently and agree it’s dangerous now. We need this project to install the bike lane to create a safer facility for bikes and walkers. I do feel this would be a huge feature provided to tbe community.

Risk of wildfire from 100 outdoor fire pits: I would presume the proposed controlled fire pits with the compressed wood products the team is proposing to use would be much safer than large outdoor firepits that are allowed to create bonfires as allowed for residential homes. The site has been vacant for a while and these types of vacant sites are usually prone to fires starting from outsiders
Air pollution from 100 outdoor fire pits: I’m not an expert but in my experience the solo stoves and the compressed wood products produce little to no smoke. They are terrible for heat or cooking a steak on. I would venture to guess that if the site could be built out for homes that any amount of homes with outdoor fire pits would produce more smoke burning wood than 100 solo stoves with compressed wood product..

Noise Pollution from 100 noisy tourists : I understand that people who have not been to a glamping site might think this however these are not noisy partiers in the places I’ve been that do glamping. Also wasn’t there a noise study done that said Silverado Trail is noisier than any camping/glamping facility would be to the neighbors?
Rezoning to commercial, if glamping no longer exists will a hotel be built on this? This is obviously someone who didn’t read the staff reports to understand the project or how this project will stay in the same zone.

Destruction of 13 acres of natural habitat: Quite frankly, this use is probably the best use, other than maybe a park for preserving the natural habitat. I see there is a large riparian zone on the plans that is not being touched. I think “Destruction” is a bit misleading.

Increased stress on Napa Resources – water, sewer, electricity. My understanding is projects in the City are allowed to connect to these facilities and the City and other agencies plan for this and also rely on the income produced by rate payers. I also understand this project will be enhancing water and sewer facilities by replacing/repairing some aging facilities.

Building of a hotel/commercial project in a residential area: It’s my understanding that many commercial uses are allowed in residential zones. A quick review of the zoning tables for the RS Zone show this. I don’t see this as a hotel in any fashion. It’s an outdoor experience. I see Milliken Creek Inn just to the south, do the neighbors have an issue with them? Or what about Riverpoint just a stone’s throw away?

As it appears, I would take the petitions and websites out of your consideration as they are obviously created out of anger and not based on facts.

I am a person who believes in property rights. I do think this project is well-crafted and carefully planned out. I urge you to approve the project. Napa deserves a facility like this with an operator like Autocamp. It will be a wonderful feature for the local community

Josh Winston
JIL Development
Sent from my iPhone
From: Edward Primasing
To: Clerk
Subject: Napa Glamping project-letter of support
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 7:25:35 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,

My name is Edward Primasing and I'm the Director of Marketing and Business Development for Pacific Coast Building Products. I wanted to voice my strong support for the Glamping project up for Council review on Tuesday. I live in the Sacramento Area and frequently visit Napa Valley for business purposes as we have multiple businesses in the area. I’m in the building industry and we provide jobs supplying various materials for project just like this. You will see many of our products all over Napa. We manufacture and supply many products such as pavers, retaining wall blocks) drywall, clay brick and other high-quality products to the greater Napa Valley. In fact, one of our businesses (Gladding McBean) is celebrating its 150-year anniversary this year.

In my review of the project and in talking with the development team I understand much of the project will be designed with the environment in mind, placing high importance on permeable surfaces and sustainable building products. These sustainable and permeable elements are usually afterthoughts as they cost more money to purchase and install. Going the extra mile to create a site that respects the environment all while having high quality buildings and features is a rarity and I highly recommend you approve this project.

Respectfully yours,
Edward J. Primasing
Director of Marketing & Business Development | PCCI Marketing Department 10811 International Drive | Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
PH: 916.631.6604 | CELL: 916-534-0505

This communication and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain information that is copyrighted or confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or the entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us at once so that we may take the appropriate action and avoid troubling you further. Thank you for your cooperation. Contact information: Pacific Coast Companies, Inc. 1-916-631-6600 and ask for the e-mail administrator.

February 17, 2025

Dear City Council Members:

I am writing to you today to support the Autocamp glamping project on Silverado Trail.

This project will bring a unique alternative and lower cost lodging and hospitality option to Napa Valley where the prices to come and stay have increased significantly since the pandemic. The style of hospitality is well aligned with many (if not most) wineries and other retail, etc. as it appeals to an (often) “younger” generation and those that seek outdoor experiences in addition to world-class winetasting, shopping and unparalleled culinary experiences.

Currently I live about ½ mile away from the project site and previously I owned and operated two (2) luxury bed and breakfasts here in Napa for over 10 years. So, I feel I can comment on this project with some relevant experience. Additionally, I had a delightful overnight stay at the Autocamp in Guerneville, where I was able to experience first-hand the luxury turnkey camping: well-appointed airstream camper, complete with outdoor seating, firepit and ready-to light eco-friendly wood bundles.

I believe the Napa project is well conceived and respects the outdoor environment as it includes very little structure and retains virtually all of the amazing oak trees on the land.

Additionally, the project will protect the riparian corridor along Milliken Creek and remove the current squatters that are camping by the creek and leaving their garbage and human waste along the creek causing pollution of the creek.

Sincerely,

Darcy Huether
1041 McKenzie Drive
Napa, CA 94559

From: Tiffany Carranza
To: Clerk
Subject: FW: Glamping Supp
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 11:45:13 AM

From: Tiffany Carranza
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 11:44 AM
To: Tiffany Carranza <[email protected]>
Subject: Glamping Supp

[EXTERNAL]

Sent from my iPhone

From: Chuck Meyer
To: Tiffany Carranza
Cc: Steve Potter
Subject: AutoCamp Napa Glamping Project Support
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 1:58:32 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
As a Napa business owner, resident, and someone deeply invested in the long-term economic vitality of our community, I am writing to express my strong support for the AutoCamp Napa project. This innovative outdoor lodging concept presents a valuable opportunity to diversify our local economy while maintaining the integrity and character that make Napa such a special place to live and visit.

AutoCamp’s approach to hospitality offers a fresh, sustainable alternative to traditional accommodations, catering to a broader range of visitors—including younger travelers, families, and outdoor enthusiasts. These are the very groups of people that Napa has historically struggled to attract. I have heard from multiple wineries that these demographics are crucial to their continued success in this extremely challenging economy. By expanding our tourism offerings, this project will drive increased patronage to local businesses, restaurants, and wineries, creating a ripple effect of economic benefits across multiple sectors.

Let's also be clear, Napa is also struggling to attract this demographic as a viable destination for residence. There are certainly many reasons that Napa is struggling to attract younger families, but it could not hurt to bring more of them here to visit. Projects like this can signal that young people and young families are welcome here.

Beyond its economic contributions, AutoCamp prioritizes responsible land use by preserving open space and implementing thoughtful environmental protections. Its design aligns with Napa’s sustainability goals while enhancing public access to recreational spaces. Additionally, the project’s commitment to fire mitigation measures and public safety infrastructure demonstrates a proactive approach to community concerns.

As a resident myself, I certainly understand the concerns of the homeowners near the project and I am sensitive to their concerns. However, I do believe that this project actually increases the possibility that the land adjacent to them maintains its natural beauty and wide-open appeal. From what I have heard, the developers do seem earnest in their commitment to open dialogue with the community.

From job creation and local business partnerships to increased tourism and sustainability initiatives, AutoCamp Napa represents the type of thoughtful, forward-thinking development that will strengthen our region for years to come. I urge the City Council to approve this project and support its potential to contribute to Napa’s continued success.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate your leadership in guiding Napa’s growth in a way that balances economic prosperity with environmental responsibility. --
Chuck Meyer
NAPA PALISADES BEER COMPANY and SALOON
1000 Main St. Suite 100
Napa, CA 94559
cell: 707.980.3111
www.napapalisades.com
[email protected]
From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Grange Glamping Project
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 5:44:21 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: S Freeman < >
Date: February 18, 2025 at 5:07:37 PM PST
To:

Mary Luros <[email protected]>
Subject: Grange Glamping Project
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Ms Luros,
I am encouragi g you to vote NO on this project. Any long time Napan can recall years upon years of flooding in this area. That's just one reason for this project not to proceed. The other reasons are quality of life for residents due to traffic congestion, noise and smoke. You were wlected to be a voice for residents, not a rubber stamp for irresponsible, unwanted development. When will Napa stop, when there is no more open space for anyone?
Regards,
Staci Freeman

From: Jeremy Bates
To: Clerk
Subject: The Grange Campground (AutoCamp) Project Feedback Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 6:44:37 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Hello,
I am writing in support of the above-referenced project. As an Architect and a conservationist, I am usually disappointed in development projects that all too often decimate open space and restrict public access to green belts (for both people and migratory fauna). This one seems like a good blend between commercial and environmental goals. Thank you for your time and consideration,
--
Best Regards,
Jeremy Bates
SIGIL ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN
19201 Sonoma Hwy #384
Sonoma, CA 95476
(707) 343-8920
www.sigilarch.com

Napa City CouncilFebruary 18, 2025

Napa City Council
February 18, 2025