SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk
City Council of the City of Napa Regular Meeting
February 18th, 2025
FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA
AFTERNOON SESSION
SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
5.B. FULLER PARK PLAYABLE ART PROJECT
• Presentation from City Staff received February 18, 2025.
SUBMITTED AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
5.B. FULLER PARK PLAYABLE ART PROJECT
Email from Connie Brennan
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk
City Council of the City of Napa Regular Meeting
February 18th, 2025
FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA
EVENING SESSION
SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
12. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
12.A. GLAMPING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
• Memo from City Staff received February 14, 2025.
• Presentation from the applicant representing AutoCamp received February 14, 2025 • Updated presentation from the applicant representing AutoCamp received February 18, 2025.
• Presentation from City Staff received February 18, 2025 • Updated Presentation from City Staff received February 18, 2025. • Memo from City Staff received February 18, 2025 re 1) Additional responses to public comments, 2) a correction to Attachment 3, the Resolution for Design, Review, Permit, and Use permit, and 3) examples of prior zoning amendments approved by City Council. *These public comments were received after the agenda was published on 2/13/25.
Support (the project): 72 emails received
• Email received from Bernie Corea on February 13, 2025 that included letters (1-10) from:
1) Iris Van Coutren
2) Jamie Graff
3) Jenny Patrick
4) Krystina Arona
5) Rudy Hernandez
6) Scott Lee
7) Tim Herman
8) Tom Leonardi
9) Will Burse
10) Wyatt Pitts
11) Email received from Chris d Craiker on February 14, 2025. 12) Email received from Kenneth B. Bley on February 14, 2025. 13) Email received from David Freed on February 13, 2025. 14) Email received from Jeri Hansen_Napa Chamber of Commerce on February 14, 2025.
15) Email received from Cynthia Deutsch on February 14, 2025. 16) Email received from Linda Bancke on February 14, 2025. 17) Email received from Shelly Monte on February 14, 2025. 18) Email received from Nathan Davis_Wine Train on February 14, 2025. 19) Email received from Steve Hatton on February 14, 2025. 20) Email received from Michael Depatie on February 14, 2025. 21) Email received from Bernie Corea_Applicant on February 14, 2025. 22) Email received from Julianne Maurer on February 14, 2025. 23) Email received from Sushi Patel on February 14, 2025 • Email received from Bernie Corea on February 13, 2025 that included letters (24-40) from:
24) Aaron Meneghelli
25) Kelly Schager
26) Serena Pitts
27) Kathy Kabbe
28) Martin Harris
29) Megan V.
30) Von Sall
31) Gordon and Darcy Huether
32) Lilli S.
33) Clint Jackson
34) Mike Giani
35) Cody Orona
36) Michael Roche
37) Nicole Mason
38) Jenn Ryan
39) Bridget Engh
40) Shannon Sill
41) Email received from Josh Phelps on February 14, 2025. 42) Email received from Doug Marx on February 14, 2025. 43) Email received from Heather Dooley on February 15, 2025. 44) Email received from Ed Morton on February 15, 2025. 45) Email received from Russum_Swan on February 16, 2025. 46) Email received from Andrew MacLaggan on February 16, 2025. 47) Email received from Lowell Downey on February 16, 2025. 48) Email received from Milli Pintacsi on February 17, 2025. 49) Email received from Robert Pintacsi on February 17, 2025. 50) Email received from Kiely_Neill on February 17, 2025. 51) Email received from Phil Powell on February 17, 2025. 52) Email received from Brendan Lesti on February 17, 2025. 53) Email received from Steve Haas on February 17, 2025. 54) Email received from Josh Winston on February 17, 2025. 55) Email received from Edward Primasing on February 18, 2025. 56) Email received from Alesha Romero on February 18, 2025. 57) Email received from Darcy Huether on February 18, 2025. 58) Text forwarded from City Manager to City Clerk on February 18, 2025. • Email received from Bernie Corea on February 18, 2025 that included letters (59-68) from:
59) Brad Oldenbrook
60) Brendan Lesti
61) James Culkin
62) Marcus Martinez
63) Samuel Gracy
64) Samuel Herman
65) Sean Grinnell
66) Steven Michael Heun
67) Trent Stoppello
68) Zachary Taylor
69) Email received from Cody Orona on February 18, 2025. 70) Document received from Parry Murray on February 18, 2025. 71) Email received from Matt Connolly on February 18, 2025. 72) Email received from Chuck Meyer on February 18, 2025.
Oppose (the project): 12 emails received
1) Email received from Brian Bennett on February 13, 2025. 2) Email received from Paul Franson on February 13, 2025. 3) Email received from Jim McNamara on February 14, 2025. 4) Email received from William Griffiths on February 14, 2025. 5) Email received from Charles Dell’Ario on February 14, 2025. 6) Email received from Ron Young on February 14, 2025.
7) Email received from Chapouris on February 15, 2025.
8) Email received from June Jasinskas on February 15, 2025. 9) Email received from Bill & Patti Lefever on February 17, 2025. 10) Email received from Niki Williams on February 17, 2025. 11) Email received from Sandra Callahan on February 17, 2025. 12) Email received from Louise Vicencio on February 17, 2025.
SUBMITTED AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
12. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
12.A. GLAMPING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
Email from S Freeman
Email from Mike Dooley
Email from Stuart Knigge
Email from Jeremy Bates
Email from Banan Gallagher
Community Services Bldg: 1600 First Street, Napa CA 94559 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 660, Napa CA 94559 (707) 257-9530 www.cityofnapa.org MEMO
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MOLLY RATTIGAN, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER / INTERIM CDD PREPARED: RYDER DILLEY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 2025
SUBJECT: GLAMPING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (Project No. PL22-0120) Following the publication of the February 18, 2025, City Council agenda, City staff has prepared responses to late comments included in Attachment 14, Public Comments (City Council), of the staff report for the consideration for Glamping (ZTA) project (PL22-0120), identified as Public Hearing Item 12.A.
The attached memorandum (Exhibit A) provides responses to some of these comments in consultation with City staff and the City’s environmental consultant, Harris & Associates, including a technical memorandum prepared by W-Trans, the City’s transportation consultant (Exhibit B).
Community Services Bldg: 1600 First Street, Napa CA 94559 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 660, Napa CA 94559 (707) 257-9530 www.cityofnapa.org
S UPPLEMENTAL MEMO II
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MOLLY RATTIGAN, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER / INTERIM CDD PREPARED BY: RYDER DILLEY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2025
SUBJECT: GLAMPING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (Project No. PL22-0120) Following the publication of the February 18, 2025, City Council agenda, City staff has prepared additional responses to late comments through February 18, 2025, has prepared a correction to Attachment 3, Resolution – Design Review Permit & Use Permit, of the staff report and has provided examples of some prior zoning amendments approved by the City Council to establish the latitude of zoning amendments, for the consideration for Glamping (ZTA) project (PL22- 0120), identified as Public Hearing Item 12.A.,
The attached memorandum (Exhibit A) provides a response to a comment in consultation with City staff and the City’s environmental consultant, Harris & Associates.
A corrected version of Attachment 3 has been provided for reference as an updated attachment to the report for Council’s consideration.
The following ordinances listed below are attached as Exhibit B providing examples of prior zoning amendments approved by City Council:
• O2011-11 – Rezone property from Tourist Commercial (CT) to the Community Commercial district (CC) (Rezone)
• O2014-1 – Amended Planned Development #20 for The Meadows Revised Master Plan (Revision to Adopted Standards)
• O2014-7 – Amendment to the Industrial Park (IP-A, IP-B, & IP-C) districts, expanding winery and hotel uses and adding ancillary uses (Established/expanded land uses) • O2017-005 - Rezone property from Traditional Residential (RT 5) to the Local Commercial district (LC) (Rezone)
City Hall: 955 School Street, Napa CA 94559 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 660, Napa CA 94559 (707) 257-9500 www.cityofnapa.org • O2020-009 – Amendment to Napa Municipal Code Chapters 5.16, 17.10, and 17.52 to authorize a card room as a conditionally permitted use, to increase the number of card tables permitted in the city from five to nine, to increase the allowable number of patrons at a card table from 10 to 15 and to allow alcohol to be consumed in a card room (Establish/expanded land uses)
Annual
Comprehensive
Financial Report
(ACFR)
FY 2023/24
5.A.
PURPOSE
• Present to Council and the Community
on the City’s Annual Comprehensive
Financial Report (ACFR) as of Fiscal
Year Ended June 30, 2024
• Council to accept and file the ACFR for
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024
• Council to provide direction to staff to
return to a future meeting regarding the
allocation of the available General Fund
unassigned fund balance
2 AUDITORS’ OPINION
• The City’s financial audit for fiscal year
ended June 30, 2024 was completed by
independent certified public accounting
firm Lance, Soll and Lunghard (LSL), LLP
• First year of the agreement
• Auditors’ Opinion: Unmodified (clean)
3 GFOA AWARD
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting:
• Received the award for 10th consecutive years
• Submitted for FYE 2024
4 FY 2023/24 AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT
5 GENERAL FUND
6 General Fund Revenue
FY 2023/24
(in thousands)
7 Budget Actual YTD%
Taxes:
Property Tax $ 46,138 $ 45,856 99.39%
Excess ERAF 2,250 2,250 100.00%
Sales Tax 22,407 22,659 101.12%
Transient Occupancy Tax 30,109 29,481 97.91%
Business License Tax 4,399 4,643 105.55%
Other Taxes 2,603 2,733 104.99%
License and Permits 2,976 3,747 125.91%
Charges for Services 6,667 8,083 121.24%
Investment Earnings 800 4,946 618.25%
Intergovernmetnal 1,089 905 83.10%
Misc Revenue (adjusted for GASB 87 and 96) 411 428 104.14% Transfer In 4,900 4,900 100.00%
Total Operating Revenue $ 124,749 $ 130,631 104.72%
General Fund Expenditures
FY 2023/24
(in thousands)
8 Budget Actual YTD%
Salaries, Wages, and Benefits $ 86,466 $ 85,362 98.72%
Materials, Supplies, Services, Misc 32,122 29,331 91.31% Debt Service 129 129 100.00%
Capital Outlay (adjusted for GASB 96) 101 172 170.30%
Transfer Out 12,734 11,123 87.35%
Total Operating Expeditures $ 131,552 $ 126,117 95.87%
General Fund Reserves
FY 2023/24
• Operating Reserve: $5.94 million
– Target: 5% of operating expenditures
• Emergency Reserve: $16.63 million
– Target: 14% of operating expenditures
• Contingency Reserve: $1.19 million
– Target: 1% of operating expenditures
9 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
10 General Fund
FY 2023-24
11 Cash & Investments $11,152,798
AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT
(ARPA) FUNDS
12 ARPA Funds
13 Total
Received
Total
Obligations
Total
Expenditures Unexpended
$15,118,910 $15,118,910 $6,625,942 $8,492,968
CIP PROJECT FUND
14 CIP Reserves
FY 2023-24
• CIP Facilities Reserve
– $8.17 million ending balance for current and
future projects
– Per Fiscal Policy, will also receive end of year
available fund balance from General Fund and
Non-Recurring General Fund
• CIP General Reserve
– $4.34 million ending balance for current and
future projects
15 PENSION & POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FUND
16 Section 115 Trust
• Created to help mitigate increases in future
pension costs
• Balance at 6/30/24: $8.3 million
• Planned usage in FY25 to offset UAL Payment
17 PENSION AND OTHER POST
EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
(OPEB) LIABILITIES
18 Pension and OPEB
FY 2023-24
19 Net OPEB Liability $1,462,072
Net Pension Liability Governmental Business-Type Total
CalPERS Misc. $ 93,917,466 $ 23,672,799 $ 117,590,265
CalPERS Safety 113,043,001 - 113,043,001
Total: $ 206,960,467 $ 23,672,799 $ 230,633,266
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
20 Solid Waste and Recycling
FY 2023-24
(in thousands)
21 Budget Actual YTD%
Charges for Services $ 42,738 $ 43,160 100.99%
Intergovernmental 239 287 120.08%
Investment Earnings 125 644 515.20%
Misc Revenues 57 73 128.07%
Transfers In 1,183 1,183 100.00%
Total Revenues $ 44,342 $ 45,347 102.27%
Salaries, Wages, and Benefits $ 1,691 $ 2,012 118.98%
Materials, Supplies, and Services 41,698 39,510 94.75%
Debt Service 874 293 33.52%
Capital Outlay 3,082 1,653 53.63%
Transfers Out 3,282 3,282 100.00%
Total Expenses $ 50,627 $ 46,750 92.34%
Water Utility
FY2023-34
(in thousands)
22 Budget Actual YTD%
Charges for Services $ 36,739 $ 41,439 112.79%
Intergovernmental 7,011 237 3.38%
Investment Earnings 572 3,472 606.99%
Misc Revenues 347 203 58.50%
Transfers In 15,296 15,296 100.00%
Total Revenues $ 59,965 $ 60,647 101.14%
Salaries, Wages, and Benefits $ 12,824 $ 12,728 99.25%
Materials, Supplies, and Services 21,128 18,025 85.31%
Debt Service 3,328 1,122 33.71%
Capital Outlay 25,231 6,419 25.44%
Transfers Out 18,467 18,467 100.00%
Total Expenses $ 80,978 $ 56,761 70.09%
OPERATING POSITION:
GENERAL FUND
&
NON-RECURRING GENERAL FUND
23 General Fund
Operating Position
FY 2023/24
24 FY
2023/24
Budget
FY 2023/24
Actual
General Fund ($ in millions)
Total Revenues 124.7 130.6
- Operating Expenditures 131.6 126.1
- Contributions to General Fund Reserves - 1.6
Operating Surplus/ Deficit (6.8) 2.9
+ FY 22/23 Fund Balance Appropriation 6.8 6.8
- Mark-to-Market Adjustment 2.7
- Encumbrances - 1.7
Available Fund Balance 0.0 5.3
NR General Fund
Operating Position
FY 2023/24
25 FY 2023/24
Budget
FY 2023/24
Actual
Non-Recurring General Fund ($ in millions)
Beginning Fund Balance 6.5 6.5
+ Revenues 7.9 7.5
- Expenditures 14.3 5.3
Ending Fund Balance 0.1 8.7
Recommendations
• Parks (4th of July Event) - $155K
• Utility Increase (PG&E) - $253K
• Homeless Services and Vehicle Code
Changes (Kennedy Park) - $850K
• Parks
– $1M to CIP Project PK18PR07
• Playground Equipment Replacement - Fuller Park
• PERS UAL
– $2M to Section 115 Trust
• Labor Costs (MOU Implementation)
– $1M 26
Questions and Comments
27 Recommendation to Council
• Accept and file the Annual
Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR)
for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024
• Provide direction to staff to return to a
future Council meeting regarding the
allocation of the available General Fund
unassigned fund balance
28 Annual
Comprehensive
Financial Report
(ACFR)
FY 2023/24
PL22-0120 Glamping
Zoning Text Amendment
February 18, 2025
12.A.
Presentation Agenda
• Public Comments and Late Communication
• Project Location and Site Context
• Project Description, Legal Ad, and Applicant
• Planning Commission
• Public Outreach and Voluntary Design Measures
• Site Plan W/O Measures and Site Plan W/ Measures
Presentation Agenda - Continued
• Elevations, Typical Glamping Units, and Operations
• Flood Measures
• CEQA
• Code Compliance
• Findings
• Recommendation
Public Comments and Late
Communication
• February 13, 2025 - Sixty-seven (67) public comments
(opposition and support) were received in preparation of the agenda for the Council meeting, by the date of
publishing.
• February 14, 2025 – Staff prepared a memorandum
conveying responses to late comments received.
• February 18, 2025 – Staff prepared a second
memorandum conveying a response to comments
received through February 18, 2025, a revision to
Attachment 3, and examples of prior Zoning
Amendments.
Project Location
West Side of Silverado Trail Between Hagen Road And
Stonecrest Drive
Site Context
Project Description
• Zoning Amendment
– Amends Section 17.52.515 Vacation Rental Permits
– Establish Use and Standards for a Glamping Campground – Defines “Glamping Unit”
• Design Review Permit and Use Permit
– Design of the Site and Building Elevations
• 5 Permanent Buildings
• Up to 100 Glamping Units
• Recreational Activity Space
– Operation of the Glamping Campground
What is not being considered:
• A traditional campground where guests would haul their own campers or recreational vehicles to the site.
• An event venue.
Glamping
Zoning Text Amendment
THE GLAMPING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – WEST
SIDE OF SILVERADO TRAIL BETWEEN HAGEN ROAD
AND STONECREST DRIVE (PL22-0120) An application
seeking a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Use Permit, and
Design Review Permit establishing the use and standards for a glamping campground, and authorizing construction of a glamping campground with five (5) permanent buildings, up to 100 glamping units, and recreational activity space.
The property is located within the Very Low-Density
Residential Plan Designation, and the (RS 40) SingleFamily Residential, (FP) Floodplain Management Overlay, and (TI) Traffic Impact Overlay Zone Districts.
Applicant: Parry Murray
Planning Commission
• Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider this application. – October 17, 2024: Recommended approval 4-0, with one commissioner absent • Public Concerns
– Traffic and parking issues
– Proposed bicycle facilities
– Noise, flooding, and fire risk
• Public Support
– Proposed bicycle facilities
– Alternative to traditional lodging
– Protection of trees and flood measures
• Planning Commission Comments
• Systemic traffic issues along Silverado Trail
• Support of the transportation impact study
• Support of voluntary Class I path
• Consideration of a left-turn pocket
Public Outreach & Voluntary Design
Measures
• City staff and members of the Applicant’s team performed separate outreach efforts to engage with and inform some members of the public in opposition of the Project.
• Applicant’s Voluntary Measures Not Required Pursuant to CEQA – Modify the entry to allow only a right-turn in and right-turn out only (no left turns out or into the site) using an island and signage directing customers into the site safely and with minimal disruption to the flow of traffic. The Applicant has indicated that they would contact navigation application creators (i.e. google maps, apple maps, etc.) and ask to have all trips inbound routed from the north to minimize the potential for u-turn movement at Hagen Road from customers arriving from the south. – Add an eight-foot paved shoulder along Project frontage north of the driveway to provide space for right-turning traffic to decelerate outside of the travel lane. – Set the gate back from the entry a sufficient distance to allow up to three (3) vehicles to queue if the gate is closed to prevent vehicle stacking on Silverado Trail.
Public Outreach & Voluntary Design
Measures - Continued
– Should the Project have any issues with backup at peak times, the gate can be opened during peak times to allow free movement of customers onto the site.
– Widen the five-foot sidewalk to a minimum of eight feet of paved width along the Project frontage to create a Class I multi-use trail primarily separated from the vehicular travel lane to allow for a buffer between vehicular traffic, and pedestrians or bicyclists. – Extend the trail to the south beyond the Project frontage to connect to the existing sidewalk at Milliken Creek, to the extent that there is right-of- way to accommodate these improvements, to expand the bicycle and pedestrian facilities along Silverado Trail further improving connectivity. – Add a secondary Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) at the southern end of the parking lot for emergency ingress/egress purposes only to provide an additional point off access for first responders.
Public Outreach & Voluntary Design
Measures - Continued
– The Project would only allow low ember, low smoke products, similar to Goodwood or Envirolog for the individual campfires.
– 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, allowing the Applicant to use the portable outdoor fireplaces in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and conforming to NMC Chapter 15.04 and National Fire Protection Association Standards.
– The Project would follow all applicable City of Napa noise ordinances to operate consistent with the Safety and Noise Element of the Napa 2040 General Plan.
– The Applicants would allow the site to act as an emergency responder station, should this be needed, allowing dual use of the site in the event of an emergency.
Site Plan
Without Voluntary Measures
Revised Right-of-Way Plans
With Voluntary Measures
Elevations
FRONT REAR
Project Renderings
Airstream Units
Yurt Units
Operations
• Check-in and Check-out
– Operate consistent with other transient uses
• Employee(s) On-Site 24 Hours a Day
• The pool, recreation areas and main office would be available to all overnight guests and would also be available to the public on a reservation and space available basis.
• Request the sale and consumption of alcohol considered as part of the permit
– Type 70 (On-Sale General – Restrictive Service)
– Beer, wine, distilled spirits
– Minors are allowed on the premises
Operations - Continued
• Meeting room available for groups looking to reserve the space for small events or meetings, or groups looking to reserve glamping units as part of a larger reservation on a case-by-case basis. • Typical campsite would include a portable outdoor fireplace – Guests would only be allowed to burn “goodwood” material – Operator would prohibit fires on days where wood burning is banned as determined by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District • Applicant would be required to have standard operating procedures to establish rules for renters and guests and address general maintenance, lighting, noise, and other aspects of operation to ensure operational safety and compatibility with neighboring uses.
Typical Campsite
Flood Measures
• The Project is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area “Zone AE” and the floodway.
– Napa Municipal Code Chapter 17.38.
• All glamping units and associated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps, decks, and raised utilities placed within the floodway limits shall be removed yearly for the months of November through April and stored at pre-determined location outside the floodplain limits.
• Flood Evacuation and Operations and Maintenance Plan
would be required on-site, which details removal of glamping units from the floodplain limits in event that a flood warning issued.
CEQA
• The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), and its implementing regulations, Code of California Regulations, Title XIV, Section 15000 et seq. (the “CEQA Guidelines”), require that the City consider the potential environmental impacts of the Project prior to approving any entitlements for the Project • In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, and concluded that the Project, with incorporation of certain mitigation measures, will not have a significant effect on the environment.
• September 5, 2024 - the City posted a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration which identified the review period from September 5, 2024, to October 5, 2024, for review and comment by the public and public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project.
• The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 17, 2024, on the Draft IS/MND and has recommended adoption.
• The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 17, 2024, on the IS/MND and the Project and has recommended approval of the Project.
CEQA - Continued
• In consultation with experts retained by the City, staff evaluated the comments received and propose a substitution of mitigation measures in compliance with CEQA Guidelines 15074.1. The substituted mitigation measures, contained in the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“Final IS/MND”), have been reviewed and determined to be equally effective, or more effective, these substituted measure avoids or reduces the potential impact “to at least the same degree” as the original measure and will not itself create any new adverse impacts than the original measures in mitigating the identified impact.
• The substitution does not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified impacts. As such, recirculation of the IS/MND is not required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. The revised mitigation measures ensure continued mitigation of potential impacts to a less-than-significant level and have been incorporated into the Final IS/MND.
Affordable Housing & Public Art
Napa Municipal Code Chapter 15.94
The purpose of this chapter is to promote the achievement of policy goals identified in the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, by imposing an affordable housing impact fee on every development project. The fees shall be established based on the methodology adopted by the City Council in the implementing resolutions and shall apply to and be calculated according to the land use categories identified in the implementing resolutions. “City policies encourage programs to bridge the affordability gap between market rate and affordable units for lower wage earners.”
Current Rate: Hotel - $6.00 per sq. ft.
Approximate Gross Size: 28,178 sq. ft.
Approximate Fee: $169,068 (To be Paid at Time of Building Permit) Public Art
Pursuant to NMC Section 15.108.040, the Applicant would be required to: (1) install an onsite public art feature approved by Council, (2) request City Council consider placement of a developer-funded piece in a public place nearby - which is identified in the public art master plan, (3) pay the public art contribution, or (4) install public art on the development project site that has a value lower than the public art contribution amount and make an in lieu contribution for the balance of the public art contribution.
Transient Occupancy Taxes
Napa Municipal Code Section 3.20.020
For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of 12% of the rent charged by the operator. Said tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the city which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the city. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient ceasing to occupy space in the hotel. If for any reason the tax due is not paid to the operator of the hotel, the City Collector may require that such tax shall be paid directly to the City Collector.
Transient Occupancy Special Tax - NMC Section 3.20.020
A. For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and shall pay the Special Tax in the amount of 1% of the rent charged by the operator.
B. The City will impose and collect the Special Tax in accordance with the processes used by the City to impose and collect the general tax TOT, as set forth in Chapter 3.20.
C. Each transient must pay the Special Tax in accordance with the requirements, processes, and definitions that apply to the general tax TOT set forth in Chapter 3.20.
D. Each operator must collect, register, report, and pay the Special Tax in accordance with the requirements, processes, and definitions that apply to the general tax TOT set forth in Chapter 3.20.
Zoning Amendment - Findings
Napa Municipal Code Section 17.66.040
Pursuant to NMC Section 17.66.040, the Project requires the approval of a Zoning Amendment.
Napa Municipal Code Section 17.66.080 – Required
Findings
A. The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the General Plan.
B. The public health, safety and general welfare are served by the adoption of the proposed amendment.
C. If a rezoning to district with a larger minimum lot size is proposed, effectively reducing the planned residential density, the city shall also find that the remaining sites in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584; or if not, that it has identified sufficient additional , adequate and available site with an equal or greater residential density in the jurisdiction so that there is not net loss of residential unit capacity.
Design Review Permit - Findings
Napa Municipal Code Section 17.62.050
Pursuant to NMC Section 17.62.050, a design review permit is required for all new nonresidential structures, additions and exterior remodels.
Napa Municipal Code Section 17.62.080 – Required
Findings
A. The project design is in accord with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan design policies.
B. The project design is consistent with applicable design review guidelines adopted by the City Council.
C. The design review permit is in accord with provisions of this title and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare.
Use Permit - Findings
Napa Municipal Code Section 17.60.070 – Required
Findings
A. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, applicable specific plans, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district and overlay district in which the site is located.
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.
C. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance.
Tree Removal - Findings
Napa Municipal Code Section 12.45.090
The City Council’s approval of this Project is subject to the required finding in NMC Section 12.45.090(B)(2)(d) relating to the removal of protected native trees. The Applicant requests the removal of up to eight (8) trees that are each classified as a Protected Native Tree pursuant to NMC Chapter 12.45.
Napa Municipal Code Section 12.45.090(B)(2)(d) –
Required Finding
A. The project has minimized tree loss to the extent possible when balanced with General Plan land uses and policies and applicable design guidelines.
Recommendation
(1) Adopt a resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for a glamping campground on the west side of Silverado Trail between Hagen Road and Stonecrest Drive (APN 052-010-011); and (2) Approve first reading and introduction of an ordinance amending, pursuant to an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, Napa Municipal Code Section 17.52.515 to establish a glamping campground as a conditionally permitted use and to establish standards for a glamping campground on that certain property bearing assessor’s parcel number 052- 010-011 located on the west side of Silverado Trail between Hagen Road and Stonecrest Drive; and
(3) Adopt a resolution approving, pursuant to an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Design Review Permit and a Use Permit authorizing construction and operation of a glamping campground with five (5) permanent buildings, up to 100 glamping units, and recreational activity space on the west side of Silverado Trail between Hagen Road and Stonecrest Drive (APN 052-010-011).
End of Presentation
Pool Renderings
Goodwood
Spare The Air
The Grange
Campground
An Outdoor
Hospitality
Site in Napa
Project
Team
Owner:
● Parry Mead-Murray
Local Development Team:
● JB Leamer : Local Contractor, Local Business Owner
● Jeremy Sill : Local Civil Engineer and Local
Business Owner
● Greg Pitts : Local Real Estate Developer,
Broker & Advisor
Architect
● Brendan Kelly
Kelly + Morgan Architects
Partner & Operator:
● AutoCamp
Represented by Bernie Corea
• 2021 : Planning Commission determined this is not a good high density housing site.
•2022 : Went to Planning Commission to request a Zoning Interpretation to understand if overnight outdoor lodging allowed under Recreation Definition. Response was
overwhelming positive response. Advised to proceed with Staff.
•2022-2023 : Advanced the Project and CEQA process.
•2024 : Project Unanimously Approved by Planning Commission w/ recommendation that a left turn lane be considered.
•2025 : Studied left turn lane, and right-in right-out is safer alternative by eliminating a turn movement against traffic altogether
Project Background:
The Process and Why We Are Here
• Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses
– Bed & Breakfast
– Public and Private Schools
– Vacation Rentals
– Day Care
– Mobile Home Park
– Clubs and Lodges
– Recreation facilities
– Affordable Housing complex using new State Housing laws – Other Public/Quasi-Public : ie (religious, public service, community care facilities)
SOME HAVE CLAIMED THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE. IT IS NOT. IT IS A CLARIFICATION THAT RECREATION INCLUDES CAMPING. THE ZONING ALREADY
ALLOWS VACATION RENTALS, MOBILE HOME PARKS AND RECREATION AND WHAT WE
ARE DOING IS A HYBRID AND THUS, REALLY NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS ALREADY CONDITIONALLY ALLOWED.
RS Zoning - Many uses are allowed
Site Plan
Site Plan
Limited Fill Required
HOUSING PLAN NEW PLAN (60% Less Fill)
8 SG
Who is
AutoCamp?
[AutoCamp
Joshua Tree]
Confidential
[AutoCamp Yosemite]
Our Mission:
We inspire our guests to
create core memories
through meaningful
connections and
unforgettable outdoor
experiences.
Digital Fatigue
+ The Need For Nature
“The 2020 coronavirus pandemic has
dramatically increased public awareness of
the deep human need for nature connection.”
‘Nature Deficit Disorder’ Is Really a
Thing
Studies show:
1. Nature can help us improve our
thinking, reasoning, and other
mental abilities
2. Nature can improve physical
and mental wellness
3. Nature is vital for healthy
childhood development
Guest Love Us Media Loves Us
AutoCamp has been included in
hundreds of publications
including the front cover of Time
magazine’s the “World’s Greatest
Places”Issue.
AutoCamp
Guests
Enhancing Local Community Each AutoCamp property partners with a local conservation non-profit and provides support through
our ‘$1 Per Night’ program. We donate $1 per booked
night, averaging over $20,000 per property per year.
Some of our partners include:
The ZION FOREVER
PROJECT
NATUREBRIDGE
AutoCamp supports partner organizations,
who work to protect the places we inhabit.
MOJAVE DESERT
LAND TRUST
WOODSTOCK LAND
CONSERVANCY STEWARDS OF THE
COAST AND
REDWOODS
CARE (Creating A
Responsible
Environment)
Additionally, we support local community groups and nonprofits by frequently donating the use of properties as a location for them to host events.
Unique
Experience
AutoCamp will provide a unique and highvalue experience within the Napa Valley $$$$
$$
$
$$$
$$$$$
Traditional
Experience
Confidential
[The Garden Napa]
Community
Outreach
Listening To The Community
Outreach Activities
● Hosted multiple community meetings
● Conducted 100+ one-on-one discussions
● Non-Profit Outreach : Napa Chamber of Commerce, Connolly Ranch, Bike Coalition, Redwood Trails Alliance, Boys & Girls Club, Nimbus Arts Key Feedback Categories
1) Local Economy
2) Zoning & Future Uses
3) Traffic & Safety
4) Environmental Impact
We listened and have solutions.
● Experiential Travel is the Future –
Younger travelers prioritize unique, immersive experiences. ● Preventing Napa’s Decline in Tourism –
Without fresh experiences, Napa risks losing visitors to emerging wine regions like Suisun Valley, Paso Robles, and Yakima Valley.
● Restaurants and Wineries have Spoken - they need more heads in beds as people are NOT coming to Napa as it is too expensive.
● Community-Centric Design –
The project includes shared outdoor spaces, providing a welcoming place for locals
● Affordability & Accessibility –
Thi ill ll f i d d f il t t t ffordable price
Community Concern #1:
Local Economy
Attracting a New Generation of Visitors to Support Local Business This is NOT a rezoning
● This application does NOT propose rezoning—the property remains in its current zoning. ● The request is simply to amend the zoning language to explicitly clarify that glamping is a type of recreation.
Controlled Future Use
● If the Project were to cease operations, the property would not automatically allow other commercial uses.
● Any future development would require City Council approval, ensuring alignment with community needs and zoning regulations.
Consistent with Existing Zoning
● Lodges, outdoor recreation, mobile home parks, short-term rentals and B&Bs are already conditionally permitted under the current zoning.
● The Project’s recreational use is fully compatible with the area’s intent and character.
Community Concern #2:
Zoning & Future Uses
Minimal Impact Based on Traffic Study
● A comprehensive traffic study was conducted by CEQA consultants. ● Only a 3.5% INCREASE in daily trips.
● CEQA Consultants concluded NO improvements needed
Proactive Design Adjustments
● Based on community sentiment, we voluntarily incorporated a right-in right-out only access point to further enhance access safety.
Safer Cycling Infrastructure
● We are constructing a Class I mixed use path, above and beyond the General Plan ● The new path will extend beyond the project frontage and has already served as a catalyst for future bike path development in the area for ALL.
Community Concern #3: Traffic & Safety
Concern: Wildfire Risk
Proven Track Record of Safety
● Zero fire incidents across all AutoCamp locations in its history. ● Strict fire prevention protocols ensure continued safety.
Advanced Fire Suppression & Monitoring
● CR Firewerks Fire Suppression Equipment installed on-site for immediate response to fire threats.
● Equipment available to protect neighboring properties in case of regional fire emergencies.
● Conducted a third party assessments of the fire safety of the property as-is and with proposed conditions, findings stated the proposed project is an improvement to fire safety.
Community Concern #4:
Environmental Impact
Active Fire Risk Monitoring & Prevention
● On-site staff regularly monitors adjacent parcels and creek areas for potential fire hazards, including
homeless encampments.
● Strict no wood-burning policy – only Goodwood
provided by AutoCamp permitted.
● Emergency preparedness training for all staff to
ensure swift action in case of fire risk.
Community Concern #4:
Environmental Impact (continued)
Concern:
Air Pollution
Low-Emission Fire Pits –
Only compressed wood products (Goodwood)
will be used, producing minimal smoke.
Solo Stoves for Cleaner Burning –
Advanced design minimizes air pollution while
maintaining guest experience.
Conducted a third party assessments of the smoke caused by Goodwood in combination with solo stove which yielded results indicating a significant decrease in air quality using this combination
Community Concern #4:
Environmental Impact (continued)
Concern:
Noise Pollution
Strict Quiet Hours & Noise Policies – AutoCamp enforces strict quiet hours to maintain a peaceful atmosphere.
Urban Area Context –
The site is within City limits, and the project aligns
with its designated land use and is appropriate with
other recreational and lodging uses nearby.
Community Concern #4:
Environmental Impact (continued)
Concern: Wildlife Impact
& Tree Removal
Low-Impact Design Preserves Natural Habitat – Unlike housing developments, glamping preserves large portions of the site and allows for wildlife movement.
Alternative Development Would Have Greater Impact – The already-approved housing development would clear-cut all trees, require significant land grading, and reshape the landscape.
Minimal Tree Removal –
Only 8 out of ~400 trees will be removed.
Improvement Over Prior Approvals –
The previously approved subdivision would have removed
nearly 80 trees, making this design a significant improvement.
Community Concern #4:
Environmental Impact (Continued)
In Summary -
Why is this needed?
● Based on multiple comprehensive third party studies this IS NOT a negative impact to public safety
● Public Safety - Class I Bike Lane
● Economic - Much needed support to local businesses
● Marketing to the next generation of younger Napa Visitors ● Higher value place to stay for friends and families
● Gathering place for local groups and nonprofits such as Connolly Ranch, Boys & Girls Club, Scouts, etc
● In our opinion, this is the best use of the property as it ● preserves the natural environment and allows future enjoyment of land ● Additional $1,200,000 in Transient Occupancy Tax Annually ● Additional $200,000 in Tourism Improvement District Annually ● Additional $100,000 in Special Tax (Affordable Housing) Annually ● $150,000 in Affordable Housing Fee + Other Permit Fees Thank You.
Project Characteristics
Reconnect with Nature
Provides an immersive outdoor experience in a beautiful natural setting open to public, not just homeowners.
Ultra-Low Density
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of just 5% (29,000 SF of 522,720 SF).
Open Space Preservation
Thoughtfully planned layout preserves 11.5 acres of
open and outdoor space.
Tree Retention
Nearly all existing trees will remain intact.
Minimal Environmental Impact
Requires 60% less fill compared to alternative
developments.
Community Benefits
Community & Connection
Airstream accommodations designed to foster a
welcoming and social atmosphere.
Enhanced Safety & Privacy
On-site staff available day and night; fencing and
landscaping along roads ensure privacy and existing
encampments along the creek will be removed.
Improved Public Access
CLASS I pedestrian and bpath along Silverado Trail
enhances community safety and connectivity.
Supports Local Residents
Provides a welcoming gathering space with nominal
day-use fees for locals.
Site Preservation
From: Beth Painter
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Fuller Park
Date: Sunday, February 16, 2025 9:40:19 AM
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kim Digardi < >
Subject: Fuller Park
Date: February 16, 2025 at 9:16:59 AM PST
To: [email protected]
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] [EXTERNAL]
Hello Beth,
Please reconsider the “art” play structure at Fuller Park. This is a frankly silly concept at an exorbitant cost.
IF the play structure needs replacement (not so last time I was there), then replace the play structures. This park should be for children. Perhaps this an attempt to make the park more attractive to tourists? If so, stop that approach and let kids play and families picnic at Fuller Park.
Respectfully,
Kim Digardi
Napa
Sent from Kim's iPhone
Maureen Trippe
February 14, 2025
Mayor Sedgley
Napa City Council
955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
Dear Mayor Sedgley and City Council Members,
We are writing to express our enthusiasm for the plans for the play area at Fuller Park (2/28/25 Agenda Item 5.B). With an increasing number of families expected to visit, it would be an opportune time to implement traffic calming measures around the park.
It’s relatively inexpensive to enhance crosswalks with fresh striping. Installing bike racks in the corner areas where Daylighting creates unused space would encourage cycling (and ideally, would mean fewer cars around the park). These additions could significantly improve safety and accessibility for all park-goers.
If the Fuller Park neighborhood has applied under the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP), perhaps their application can move forward with plans for park and playground improvements. Early discussions about parking and traffic safety will create engagement and goodwill (especially if there is a lot of construction planned). As mentioned at the recent Council workshop, “meeting people where they are” is a great first step toward enhanced communication and civic engagement.
Thank you for your consideration, continued support for traffic safety and improved neighborhood roads.
Sincerely,
Maureen Trippe and Daniel Harder
Co-Founders, Slow Down Napa
P.S. from Maureen …..apparently, I’m not fully retired yet :)
From: Tiffany Carranza
To: Clerk
Subject: FW: Fuller Park Playground
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 8:19:37 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Screenshot 2025-02-17 at 8.55.27 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-02-17 at 8.55.39 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-02-17 at 8.58.20 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-02-17 at 8.56.55 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-02-17 at 8.57.58 AM.png
From: Gordon Huether <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 9:35 AM
Cc: Steve Potter <[email protected]>; Tiffany Carranza <[email protected]> Subject: Fuller Park Playground
[EXTERNAL]
Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please accept my comments on Fuller Park as coming from a place of deep love for Napa and is in no way meant to be criticisms of any of you or our capable staff.
It is my understanding that the costs for our new playground have doubled to $2.5 million in 12 months, presumably because of the need for more extensive footings and added shade structures.
In the private sector if I were to go to my client and tell them this kind of news someone would be fired and the project cancelled. This project has turned into a boondoggle in my opinion.
It is also my opinion that this is not a good use of City funds. We could use high quality, creative, off the shelf playground equipment and get ‘er done for ½ the cost, maybe a little over $1.0 million. This would create a “surplus” of $1.5 million that could go to other playgrounds, housing, street repair or a variety of other important uses for our City.
Assuming you go ahead with this project there are couple of refinements I hope you will consider:
The budget breakdown currently has 4% for the artist. This is insulting and totally inappropriate. The artist should receive somewhere between 10% and 20%, a standard in the industry.
The illustrations offered are mediocre, cartoon like and of the lowest quality and should be considered unacceptable. All of us deserve to at least understand what this $2.5 million playground is going to look like and in context with the park. I have a attached a couple renderings from our studio for a current project we are doing in Florida as an example and a couple illustrations of the playground for comparison.
I appreciate your consideration and always appreciate your hard work and service to our community.
Gordon
Gordon Huether
Gordon Huether Studio
1821 Monticello Road | Napa, CA 94558
t: 707 255 5954 | f: 707 255 5991
[email protected]
www.gordonhuether.com
art matters
From: Linda Ghiringhelli
To: Clerk
Subject: Today’s agenda item 5.B.
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 10:19:51 AM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Please reconsider your support for spending $2.5 million for “playable art” at Fuller Park. With the atrocious condition of our city streets, that idea is ridiculous!!! Yes, I realize the money is probably earmarked for “art,” not streets. Move the money. You’re the City Council.
Linda Ghiringhelli
various positions regarding the complex issues at hand.
Respectfully,
Nancy Snowden
Emily Harrison
Corey Harrison
Becca Miller
Nick Miller
Irene Harrison
Phil Harrison
Micah Dirksen
Dene Dirksen
Leslie Burma
Sandra Wilber
Victoria Wood
Susan Segal-Wood
Amy Lanoue
Mike Barberi
T Santora
Renee Quinlist
Elise Olsen
● 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. Our Community and Concerns
A. Community Support and Concerns
B. Survey
C. Site History
2. Legal Position
3. Traffic & Safety
A. Traffic Impact Study
B. Traffic Impact Study: Inaccuracies
C. Traffic Accidents
D. Traffic Right Turn Only Concerns
4. Fire & Safety
A. Dangers/Evacuation Plan
B. Bike Safety
5. Land Use
A. City Development Standards & Compliance
B. Alternative Locations
6. Environment
A. CEQA Report Concerns
B. Flooding & Airstream Removal
C. Wildlife
7. Noise
8. Employees
9. AutoCamp
A. Locations and Attractions
B. Issues at Locations
10. 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 site in a residential zone sets a dangerous precedent for 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 staffing to monitor them.
3. Traffic Congestion & Public Safety
• Silverado Trail is already accident-prone; an underestimated traffic study fails to account for increased vehicle trips.
• No safe left-turn lane and 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 activities create significant noise disturbances for nearby residents. • Increased air and water pollution from wood-burning fire pits, vehicle emissions, and wastewater runoff threaten 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 plan for trailers, guests, or infrastructure, increasing risks to property and public safety.
Conclusion: Reject the Glamping Project
The project violates zoning laws, threatens environmental safety, increases public risk, and lacks adequate mitigation plans. The Napa City Council should reject the proposal to 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 laws by introducing a commercial campground into a residential zone.
•Instead of rezoning, the City is proposing a text amendment that only applies to this project, which circumvents proper planning processes. •Granting this amendment creates a special privilege for the developer, setting a dangerous precedent for future projects.
2. Environmental & Safety Risks
•Fire Hazard: The site is in a high-risk wildfire zone, posing serious evacuation risks for both guests and nearby residents.
•Flooding Concerns: The property sits in a FEMA-designated floodplain and 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 rates and limited infrastructure.
3. Flawed Traffic Study & Increased Road Hazards
•The traffic impact study underestimates the actual vehicle trips generated by this project.
•No left-turn lane is 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 amenities forces guests to drive off-site frequently, further increasing traffic and emissions.
•The City misclassifies the project to reduce developer fees, impacting local tax revenue.
5. Inadequate Environmental Review & CEQA Violations
•The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is insufficient, failing to properly assess wildlife, flood risks, and traffic impacts. •The biological impact study does 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 standards
For the safety, sustainability, and integrity of Napa’s planning laws, the City Council must reject The Grange Project.
7 Traffic & Safety Concerns
We strongly urge you to reject the proposed glamping project on 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 Engineer analysis 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 service available. At full capacity, the site could host up to 400 visitors, resulting in hundreds of additional daily vehicle trips on Silverado Trail, worsening existing traffic issues.
2. Dangerous Road Conditions & Infrastructure Deficiencies Silverado 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 Trail
This 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 injuries have occurred over the past 25 years. • Accident heat maps highlight this section as a high-risk zone.
Adding hundreds of additional vehicle trips per day will exacerbate these dangers and put lives at risk.
4. Planning Commission Recommendation: Left Turn Lane Required The Planning Commission has recommended a left-turn lane if the project is approved. However, this would require major roadway redesigns and right-ofway modifications, further complicating the project’s feasibility.
3. Traffic & Safety
8 5. Right Turn In / Right Turn Out – An Unsafe and Unrealistic Solution Instead 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, guests will either illegally cross the double yellow line or attempt dangerous U-turns at 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 this would be a Caltrans-approved center median, which would impose major inconvenience on local residents.
The Responsible Choice: Reject This Project
The 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’s luxury 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 AutoCamp locations 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 Map and 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 279 referenced 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 Overturned
Vehicle
12/11/2024
Head On
Collision
1/31/2025
Grange
Glamping
Location
3-C. Traffic Accidents - Real Life Dangers
13 46 Accidents*
(10 Years)
17 – Hit Objects
18 – Unsafe Speeds
10 – DUI’s
* Data from Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Multiple auto deaths in
last 30 years near site.
W-TRANS Report
Grange
Glamping
Location
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-turnonly entrance, likely resorting to unsafe or illegal turns at private driveways or dangerous intersections.
Church Lot
Distance = 1/2 Mile
illegal Turns = 9
Rose Drive
Distance = 9/10 Mile
illegal Turns = 11
Glamping
Entrance
Top 3
Hazardous
Turns
Hagan Road
and
Silverado Trail
Neighbor
driveway
@
1890 Silverado
Trl.
Entrance into
Glamping
3-D. Traffic: Right Turn Only Concerns
16 4. Fire & Safety Concerns
We urge you to reject the proposed glamping project due 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 1964 burned from Hagen Road to Coombsville Road, 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 acres and 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 humancaused 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 route and is already prone to traffic congestion during fire emergencies.
• This development could bring 400+ visitors and over 100 additional vehicles, blocking evacuation routes and 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 pollution and 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 Quality
For 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 acres
Destroyed 1,555 structures
Atlas Fire (2017)
Burned: 51,397 acres
Destroyed 901 structures
LNU Lightning Fire (2020)
Burned: 341,000 acres
Destroyed: 800 structures
19 Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Risks: Reject the Silverado Trail Glamping Project
1. No Safe Bicycle Access
• No designated bike lanes on Silverado Trail near the site. • Roads without bike lanes experience 40% more accidents than 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+ visitors will 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 responsibility before approval, exposing the city to costly legal challenges.
The Responsible Choice: Reject This Project
This 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 project on 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 precedent for future developments.
1. Failure to 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 utilities pose safety, aesthetic, and maintenance concerns, increasing wildfire risks and long-term infrastructure costs. • Future road widening by Caltrans will 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 dedication for 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 fees meant 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 loopholes and 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 depict the true impact of the project.
• More realistic visuals are necessary to properly assess scale, environmental impact, and neighborhood compatibility.
• Misleading imagery conceals the 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 assessment
This project does not meet the City’s own development standards and 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. Environment
Key Environmental Concerns & Recommendation to Reject the Project
1. 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 species observed 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 collisions and habitat fragmentation. • Experts recommend at least one year of study to properly assess biodiversity loss.
3. Floodplain & Water Pollution Risks
• Project site is in a flood zone and 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 member to 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 alters the character and environmental integrity of the area.
• Inadequate emergency planning for a FEMA-designated floodplain increases property damage risks.
Conclusion & Recommendation
The Grange Glamping Project presents significant environmental, safety, and zoning conflicts that make it unsuitable for Napa. The lack of an EIR, the risk to local biodiversity, increased traffic, pollution, and noise, and flood hazards all point to an irresponsible development decision.
We strongly urge the Napa City Council to reject the 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 Relocation
We strongly urge you to reject the proposed glamping project due 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 floodplain and approving it would be a reckless decision that endangers both people and property.
1. High Flood Risk – FEMA-Designated 100-Year Floodplain • The proposed site is located in a 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 them or 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 water during 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 plan for safely relocating 70 Airstream trailers, guests, and staff during 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 exists
The 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 project due 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 geophysically a 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 measures have been proposed in the City’s environmental assessment, despite clear risks to nearby residents and businesses. •Sustained noise levels from 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 project due 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 employees may 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 infrastructure while failing to provide a sustainable employment solution.
8. Employee Housing Issues
33 9. AutoCamp
AutoCamp, 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, AutoCamp proposed 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.com
2. 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.com
3. Project Delays and Management Issues
• Multiple Locations: AutoCamp announced 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.com
4. Guest Experience Complaints
• Yosemite, California: Guests at AutoCamp Yosemite 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.com
These instances highlight recurring challenges associated with AutoCamp's developments, 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 Yosemite: National Park Joshua Tree: National Park
Cape Cod: Coast Catskills: Mountains
Zion: National Park Sequoia: National Park
Ashville: River Russian 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 activities tourists engage in while visiting Napa are:
1. Wine Tasting and Winery Tours - Visitors explore worldrenowned 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 Attraction
Napa: Wine & Food
36 “AutoCamp has 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 AutoCamp to 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. Summary
The 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 Napa
This 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.4th 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]
N
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]
Websitewww.cityofnapa.org
Socialwww.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. A phone number is required to create the profile, and other information can be added at a 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 to 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 to 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 as possible upon submission, you’ll be given a case ID, and Google will email you a “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 a mock-up of the Google map with requested changes worked well at AutoCamp Asheville.
● At this point you should be connected with a human representative at Google who may ask for additional information such as road closed signs, do not enter signs, or 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 on the email 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 Ebikes 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]
HelloLocal 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.
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. Our downtown businesses need this type of support so we hope you will give this project your approval.
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]
Websitewww.cityofnapa.org
Socialwww.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