1 RESPONSES TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS ON THE YOUNTVILLE COMMONS PROJECT The questions were based on councilmembers review of staff report that was published on December 5, 2025, for the December 9 public hearing held by the Zoning and Design Review Board (ZDRB). The staff report published today is nearly identical to the previous report with the same attachments. The responses to the questions are provided to the public to provide additional insight and transparency. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
1. It appears the studios will be 316 square feet (page 16 of plan set). Will these units have any balconies or direct outdoor access from the unit? Is there a legal or regulatory limit on how many people can live in a studio of this size? What is the typical size of a commercially available studio apartment? Response: All ground-floor studio units in Creekside Village have adjacent private garden enclosures providing direct outdoor access. The 12 studios in the Village Center share a common exterior front porch. That accounts for almost 90% of all studios. Upper-floor studios do not have individual balconies, but one of the project's defining features is the abundance of car-free shared outdoor spaces, from the common laundry courtyard to the rooftop deck to the meadow and the main paseo in Creekside Village. These areas are designed to give residents many opportunities to enjoy outdoor space without requiring private balconies on every unit.
California building standards are required to impose substantially the same requirements as are contained in the latest version of the Uniform Housing Code. (Health and Safety Code, § 17922, subd. (a).) The Uniform Housing Code requires every dwelling unit have at least one room with a minimum 120 sq. ft. of floor area and, in any room used for sleeping purposes, “the required floor area shall be increased at the rate of 50 square feet for each occupant in excess of two.” (Briseno v. City of Santa Ana (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1380, citing Uniform Housing Code, § 503, subd. (b).) Efficiency units with a minimum floor area of 150 square feet may be legally occupied by two persons. (Health & Safety Code, § 17958.1.). The Department of Housing and Community Development bases its determination of “overcrowding” as based on number of rooms in a dwelling and defines “severe overcrowding” as having more than 1.5 persons per room.
According to the National Apartment Association, the average size of a studio apartment in the U.S. is 457 square feet. (National Apartment Association, “Average Apartment Sizes Increasing” (May 5, 2025).) However, average size varies significantly based on city and region.
2. Finding 1 in Section 3 of the proposed resolution says “The Project does not represent a substantial change in the GP EIR…”. How was this finding made given the original EIR was finished in 2018 with this area not slated for development in the General Plan? The Project will add 150 units and approximately 60,000 square feet; how this was contemplated in the existing EIR for the existing General Plan which did not designate this area for residential or other development? 2 Response: The previous EIR assumes 231 new residential units and 169,646 square feet of nonresidential development. To date, only 15 new residential units and 2,606 square feet of commercial space have been approved (but are not yet constructed). Furthermore, there are limited parcels available to accommodate new growth. A significant portion of the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Public Facilities, which allows for governmental, public utility, and public education facilities developments, as described in Section 2.0, Project Description, of the General Plan EIR. The project would include an amendment to the existing General Plan land use designation; with approval of the project, the site would have a new land use designation of Commons to allow for the proposed mixed-use development. The units and square footage of the proposed project are within the scope of the General Plan buildout assumptions, as shown in Table 1-1, General Plan Land Use Development and Assumptions and Table 2-1, Project Components of the Addendum. The project would not result in major revisions (or changes) to the previous EIR.
3. What constitutes “LTS” or Less Than Significant Impact. How is this defined? Response: A determination that a particular environmental effect would have a “less than significant impact” means that the effect was evaluated against established “thresholds of significance” and found not to exceed those thresholds. CEQA Guidelines defines a “threshold of significance” as “an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, noncompliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant.”(14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15064.7, subd. (a).)
For instance, the Town’s General Plan EIR describes the thresholds of significance used to evaluate air quality and transportation impacts. The Town of Yountville has adopted the following model to determine whether a project would have a less than significant impact on transportation and circulation, based on vehicle miles traveled:
https://townofyountville.primegov.com/meeting/attachment/18731.pdf?name=VMT%20Recommendatio ns/ .
4. In the EIR amendment, the “Project Components” Chart on page 2-3 does not have the square footage for the 150 units, though it shows square footage for the other categories of development. What is the total building square footage of the 150 units described in the Chart? What is the foot print of the 150 units described in the Chart?
Response: The total building area available for residential use is approximately 57,000 square feet which represents about 93% of the total 61,500 SF across all three phases. This figure remains constant whether the project delivers 150 units or closer to 100 units because the building envelopes don't change—only the interior configuration does.
At the maximum of 150 units, you'd have studios ranging from 300 to 350 square feet each. At lower unit counts, these spaces are configured as one-bedroom or junior two-bedroom units, each approximately 650 square feet in size. Two studios become one larger unit. The exterior dimensions, building footprints, and overall massing are identical in either scenario. 3 The EIR analyzes the maximum unit count of 150 because that represents the highest potential impact for things like traffic, water, and sewer demand. In practice, the Town will likely build out closer to 100- 120 units with the larger configurations, which reduces those impacts while using the same 57,000 square feet of residential space.
5. How much runoff will be added to Hopper Creek as a result of the buildings in this project? The report says impermeable space will be decreased by 30 percent as a result of this project. Can you explain how this is calculated since it seems that a lot of baseball area and open fields will be replaced by buildings and parking areas.
Response: While some of the existing fields/lawn will be replaced, there are also two existing buildings and a substantial amount of asphalt and concrete pavement that will be removed with the project. For comparison, over 2 acres of impermeable surfaces will be removed while the current building footprints comprise only about 1.25 acres of impermeable surfaces. These measurements are based on AutoCAD models of the site and a topographic survey of the existing conditions.
6. Some of the parking areas and other developed areas will use what are called “permeable” surfaces. Pavers and similar surfaces can be considered permeable, but are not as permeable as the dirt or grass that now exists on the site and some of these surfaces have ratings as compared to dirt or grass. Does the Town have any estimate of the increased runoff from buildings and other surfaces that will go into Hopper Creek? The EIR addendum mentions the NPDES permit that is applicable to the outlet into Hopper Creek. Is there a specific permit for this outlet and if so, does it have any limits on the amount of water that can be discharged under the NPDES permit? If there isn’t a specific permit, are there any legal limits as to how much water can be discharged into the Creek as a result of this development?
Response: There are a variety of permeable pavement products available with manufacturer data on infiltration rates. These pavers and similar materials typically utilize base layers of rock and void space to collect and convey stormwater. While the underlying soil will affect how much water infiltrates in either case, properly installed permeable pavers can outperform natural turf. The exact pavement product(s) will be selected during the preparation of construction documents and verified with final stormwater calculations. The Town’s Design and Construction Standards require that new development must not increase peak runoff when compared to pre-development conditions. Preliminary calculations indicate that the project will not exceed pre-development runoff based on the extent of proposed permeable surfaces and without the need for stormwater detention. However, if the final project design and stormwater calculations show that stormwater detention is necessary in order to not exceed predevelopment runoff then sufficient on-site detention will be provided to comply with this requirement.
The existing stormwater outfall into Hopper Creek does not have a limit on the amount of water that can be discharged under the NPDES permit or other regulatory agency.
7. Apart from specific regulatory or legal limits, has the Town done any review or calculations as to how much more water can be accommodated in Hopper Creek without causing property damage to houses along Hopper Creek, given some of them, including the Arroyo Grande are built very close to the Creek and are “down stream” from the proposed development? Does this present any legal liability for the 4 Town in the event that increased water flow does damage property or create a safety hazard as a result of the Town’s development of the Project?
Response: As mentioned above, the project is subject to the Town’s Design and Construction Standards that post-development peak runoff may not exceed pre-development conditions. Preliminary calculations support this, and final stormwater calculations will demonstrate that there will be no increase in peak runoff as a result of the project development. As a result, there should be no increase in potential legal liability to the Town due to increased water flow.
8. As part of the development, has any review of the potential impact on the Waste Water Treatment Plant been done with respect to addition the 150 units (an addition of approximately 10% to the existing housing units in Yountville) plus additional development? Response: Please see excerpt from Attachment 6; Addendum No. 1 to the General Plan in the documents page 3-104 that was provided to ZDRB and will be provided to Town Council for the proposed Jan 13th meeting:
• “The wastewater generation of 0.065 MGD associated with adopted General Plan buildout combined with 2017 flows would result in approximately 0.4305 MGD average daily flows, which is within the 0.55 MGD treatment capacity of the JWTP. Since project would be consistent with the development assumptions in the Certified EIR (as described in this section), the JWTP would have adequate wastewater treatment capacity for the project. The project would not result in an exceedance of wastewater flow projects for the adopted General Plan buildout. Therefore, The project would not result in a new significant impact or increase in severity of an impact related to wastewater treatment capacity.”
Also from the engineering perspective, the Town’s JWTP physical capacity is 0.65 mgd, the permitted capacity is 0.55 mgd and the historical flows are in the range of 0.43 mgd indicating there will be no potential impacts to the wastewater treatment plant with the addition of the units in the proposed development.
9. Putting aside the question of the volume of water that might be generated by the development, what mitigation has been proposed to make sure that increased oil and other contaminants from parking and building runoff is not discharged into the Creek? Can the discharge be routed through the Waste Water Treatment Plant?
Response: The Town is required by the Federal Clean Water Act to obtain a permit to discharge stormwater into waters of the U.S., in this case Hopper Creek. This requires the Town to develop and implement the current State Water Board Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements. As such the Town requires for all projects that will add and/or replace more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces to design and construct stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff.
Post Construction stormwater treatment controls proposed by the project include bioretention/treatment areas and the addition of pervious pavement. With the implementation of SWPPP construction best 5 management practices, MS4 stormwater treatment controls the project will not violate any water quality standards or substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.
Stormwater runoff cannot be routed to the wastewater treatment plant.
10. Does the EIR addendum cover the two actions the Council will be taking: 1) the approval of the Project and 2) the change to the General Plan? These are two separate actions, confirming that this will be the only environmental review for both actions.
Response: Correct. The EIR Addendum is required to address the whole of the project including the General Plan Amendment and approval of the project. There will be no additional environmental review.
11. The EIR mentions an overall FAR for the Project. Given there are multiple building parcels, some of which may be sold or leased to other entities, how is the FAR calculated for the development of specific parcels?
Response: A new Commons (C) zoning district is being created for the project site which includes development standards such as floor area ratio (FAR) that will apply to private development. Floor area ratio is calculated based on the gross floor area of a building or buildings on each lot or parcel. (See the definitions for “floor area ratio (FAR)” and “lot of record” provided in Yountville Municipal Code section 17.236.010.) Should a parcel or parcels be sold or leased to another entity, these development standards would apply to each parcel, i.e., FAR would be calculated per parcel.
12. Have any companies expressed interest in managing the property? Response: Yes. Several companies have expressed interest in property management services. Selection of a property manager will go through the Town's normal procurement process at the appropriate time.
13. Is there a plan to survey the local workforce and commercial businesses to gather input and gauge interest?
Response: Yes. The Town has engaged BAE Urban Economics to advise on unit mix, market depth, and pricing. BAE specializes in public-benefit real estate analysis and will develop the data needed to make informed decisions about unit configuration and pricing. Their methodology draws on local employment data, wage distributions, and housing market conditions—which may address the underlying questions a formal survey would answer.
14. How many units are recommended for Parcels 10-18?
Response: The current design accommodates up to 80 units across the Village House buildings on Parcels 10-18. The site plan shows a typical seven-unit configuration per building—studios on the first floor with one-bedrooms on upper floors.
15. Why does the staff report reference eight units maximum when the site plan shows seven? Response: The eight-unit maximum is a code-driven ceiling, not a planning target. Each Village House was designed to meet 2025 California Building Code requirements for single-stair buildings, which limit 6 occupancy to eight units. That maximum applies only when all units are configured as studios (300-350 square feet each). The seven-unit configuration reflects a more likely mix that includes larger onebedroom units (650 square feet) on upper floors.
The building envelope is the same either way—two studios occupy roughly the same floor area as one one-bedroom. The Council doesn't need to lock in a specific unit count now. The EIR analyzes the maximum to ensure environmental impacts are covered, and the Town retains flexibility to configure interiors based on market conditions and policy goals at the time of construction.
16. How will parking be addressed for residents in the Village Houses on Parcels 10-18, given potential car dependency for shopping trips to Napa?
Response: The parking strategy includes 47 spaces in the North Parking Grove and 42 spaces in the South Grove—89 spaces serving 88 units on Parcels 7, 8, and 10-18. This ratio is comparable to adjacent developments like Hopper Creek Condominiums, where parking is similarly separated from living areas.
The shared vehicle program through Envoy or a similar provider is designed for this situation:
workforce housing where residents need occasional car access but can't justify ownership costs. A wellmanaged fleet of 8-10 electric vehicles could serve a significant portion of shopping and errand trips.
Additionally, a critical part of the local preference policy will prohibit tenants from parking personal cars anywhere in Yountville as part of their rental agreement.
The phased approach accounts for uncertainty. Phase 3 includes the option for below-grade parking if Phases 1 and 2 demonstrate that the combination of parking groves, shared vehicles, and lower ownership rates isn't meeting actual need.
17. Could Parcel 12 be reduced to a half Village House to add more parking? Response: That trade-off would sacrifice approximately four housing units to gain perhaps four surface spaces. At current construction costs and given the acute need for workforce housing, that exchange is difficult to justify.
18. Does the project include temporary parking for delivery vehicles like UPS or Amazon? Response: Yes. The design includes a loading and unloading zone to accommodate delivery vehicles— UPS, Amazon, DoorDash, Uber, and similar services. This keeps delivery traffic from circulating through residential areas or occupying resident parking spaces.
19. Can package lockers be added at the Village Center? Response: Yes. Package lockers at the Village Center are a practical addition consistent with the project's approach of consolidating services at logical points. Amazon Hub Lockers, Luxer One, or similar systems are standard in multifamily developments and reduce missed deliveries, porch theft, and repeat delivery attempts.
Yountville's local post office also provides an existing option for package pickup. Distributing pickup across multiple points—the loading zone, Village Center lockers, and the post office—will prevent any 7 single location from becoming congested. The specific vendor and locker configuration will be determined during detailed design.
20. Are the washers and dryers at the Village Center stacked units? Response: No. The five washers and five dryers are commercial high-capacity units arranged on opposite sides of the room, which is the standard layout for a facility of this type. Commercial-grade equipment handles the volume and durability requirements better than residential stacked units.
21. Will the washers and dryers be coin-operated?
Response: No. Payment will be by prepaid card through an on-site vending machine. The same machine typically dispenses detergent and softener. Card systems are more reliable, easier to maintain, and eliminate the security issues associated with coin collection.
22. Is the laundry facility sufficient for all residents, given distance from some Village Houses? Response: The shared laundry facility primarily serves approximately 50 non-accessible studios—not the entire project. All one-bedroom and junior two-bedroom units will have their own stacked washerdryers. All accessible studio units will also be plumbed for individual washer-dryer hookups.
The walk from Parcels 16-18 to the Village Center laundry is comparable to what residents at many multifamily properties experience. The laundry facility is intentionally located at the Village Center to serve a dual purpose—it will also be available to all Yountville residents for heavy-duty items like quilts and comforters.
23. Would a second laundry center closer to Parcels 16-18 be helpful? Response: If usage patterns after occupancy of Phase 2 show the Village Center facility is at capacity, a second location in the Commons House (Phase 3) could be easily accommodated. The current configuration follows accepted multifamily standards for this unit count.
24. How will residents on Parcels 15-18 receive goods and services given the distance from parking? Response: All units on Parcels 15-18 are within 200 feet of the North or South Parking areas or the onstreet spaces on Finnell Road. That distance is consistent with Hopper Creek Condominiums and many other multifamily developments with surface parking separated from buildings.
25. Was an access road from Finnell along the east side of the Dog Patch and Great Lawn considered? Response: Through dozens of community meetings, one priority emerged more clearly than any other:
residents did not want parking lots to dominate the site at the expense of amenities like play areas, the dog park, and open space. A drive aisle and parking along the east side of the Dog Patch and Great Lawn would surrender more of the Commons to the automobile.
The units on Parcels 15-18 are intentionally removed from car traffic. These units offer something rare:
a quiet, walkable setting oriented toward shared green space rather than automobiles.
26. Could Parcel 18 be reduced to a half Village House to allow some parking? 8 Response: Once you account for accessible turnaround space and parking dimensions, you lose approximately 8-12 units to gain only a handful of spaces. The parking supply for Creekside Village is substantial: 47 spaces in the North Parking Grove, 42 in the South Parking area, and 18 on-street spaces along Finnell Road—over 100 spaces for approximately 90 units. That's before accounting for the shared vehicle program and lower ownership rates typical of workforce housing.
27. Where are the 28 additional on-site parking spaces referenced in the staff report located? Response: The 28 additional spaces are distributed around the Oval and are designated for overflow parking. They supplement the primary parking supply and provide operational flexibility for community events at the Village Center, Great Lawn, and other public amenities.
28. What is the ceiling height for the units?
Response: The floor-to-floor height in Creekside Village is 11 feet, which provides ceiling heights in the range of 9 feet to 9 feet 6 inches throughout. The studios will have that same ceiling height—no reduction from the one-bedroom units.
29. Why were casement windows selected over horizontal sliding windows? Response: Casement windows were selected deliberately for several reasons specific to this project.
Ventilation is the primary driver. Casement windows provide nearly 100% operable area, while sliders are limited to 50%. For workforce housing where minimizing utility costs matters, the ability to capture cross-breezes for passive cooling is essential.
Durability and lifecycle performance also favor casements. Slider tracks are inherently vulnerable to water infiltration—water pools rather than draining, and the horizontal seal cannot match a casement's compression seal. Air leakage ratings tell the same story: comparable sliders test at 0.3 CFM per square foot while casements achieve 0.1 or better. Over time, slider roller mechanisms wear, tracks deform, and operation degrades.
From an aesthetic standpoint, sliders read as utilitarian and budget-driven. The Marvin Elevate casement and awning windows specified for this project align with the Town's enhanced durability standards and long-term ownership goals. The modest cost premium is justified by superior performance and lower maintenance over the building lifecycle.
30. How will privacy be protected for ground-floor units facing the plaza at Commons House (Parcel 2), given potential confusion about whether they are public entrances? Response: The ground-floor units facing the plaza are intentionally designed to engage with the public space. These locations are conceived as potential live-work units that could accommodate services, offices, or small shops adjacent to personal residences.
Each unit has an 8-foot-deep exterior garden space facing the plaza that functions as a front porch and threshold—giving a clear signal of transition from public plaza to private residence. This is a traditional pattern found throughout Yountville's historic fabric: ground-floor spaces that address the street or square with a defined but permeable edge.
9 The plaza-facing orientation actually reduces ambiguity about building entries. The primary residential entrances are clearly defined, and the garden thresholds read as private space to anyone familiar with traditional town patterns. Visitors won't mistake a planted front garden with seating for a commercial back entrance.
31. Would removing the phrase "Such buildings shall not exceed 35 feet at the highest point" from LU
2.6—without adding the sentence about Commons buildings exceeding height limits—provide sufficient flexibility for the project?
Response: As currently written, General Plan Policy LU-2.6 only applies to a consideration of threestory elements west of Washington Street and west of Highway 29, so we must add language that specifically references the new Commons land use designation.
32. How will public access and fees for the pool be structured? Response: The pool is included in the plan and the EIR analyzes it as an allowable use on the site. The operational details—how the facility is managed, the fee structure, public access provisions, and the relationship with Yountville Fit or any other operator—are separate decisions that will come back to the Council at the appropriate time. The funding and construction could easily shift into Phase 3 of the project. Those agreements will require Council approval when the project reaches that phase.