Napa has the singular chance to be a leader among its peers, defining the future of the small, resilient 21st century American City rising to the challenges of impending climate change.
1968
On April 9, 1968, the County of Napa Board of Supervisors, in a 4-0 vote, approved the first Agricultural Preserve in the United States. Land within the County, including the Ghiseletta and Horseman’s Ranch properties, received approval for designation as Ag Preserves.
The following is an excerpt from “How Napa's Ag Preserve beat the odds, and saved the Valley”, Napa Valley Register, L. Pierce Carson, Apr 20, 2008.
“County fathers knew in 1967 they had to do something. They’d seen farmland in other parts of California paved over for a burgeoning population, including once productive fertile orchards.
When earnest county staff came forward with plans for a greenbelt, the county supervisors were all ears. Once lost to concrete and residential development, AG land cannot be reclaimed, one advocate declared as planners opened public hearings.
At first reluctant to be drawn into rancorous debates, respected St. Helena winemaker Louis M. Martini asked rhetorically: ‘Do the citizens of the Napa Valley really believe the future of our land is best served by destroying landmarks and vineyards and replacing them with subdivisions, bleak shopping centers and highway strip developments?’
Martini told county officials he believed the Napa Valley wine industry was ‘headed to a degree of quality not achieved in the past or elsewhere in the world. You let this go and you will have a real catastrophe.’”
1975
In 1975 these Ghisletta lands were brought into the City of Napa’s Rural Urban Limit Line (RUL) under the rubric of the Stewart’s Lands and not to be developed. They were intended to NOT be included in the City’s “Sphere of Influence”.
1976
The Commission initiated an update to Napa’s sphere in 1976 to review and address new land use policies codified in the City’s new General Plan. The update was unanimously adopted by the Commission and reduced the amount of unincorporated land within the sphere by approximately 2,400 acres or nearly one-fifth and marked by the removal of Silverado and the adjacent Monticello Road areas.
The underlying criterion used by the Commission in redesignating the sphere was to generally align – although not uniformly – with Napa’s recently established RUL. The establishment of an RUL coincided with the County of Napa establishing a corresponding zoning assignment for all affected lands requiring annexation to Napa as an alternative to processing any new development applications.
Notable examples of lands within the RUL excluded from the sphere included Stanly Ranch, Stewart Dairy aka the Ghisletta lands, and Big Ranch Road.
1998
In 1998 the City Council generated a comprehensive update of the General Plan 2040.
2000
In 2000 the Ghisletta family reached a purchase agreement for 83 acres using grant funding by the County, the City and the Army Corp of Engineers for the “Ghisletta Wetlands and Open Space”, leaving the remaining 144 acres as Prime Agricultural Lands.
2005
Upon the death of the family patriarch in 2005 (who reportedly wished to leave these 144 acres as Prime Agricultural Lands), the Ghisletta Family, now led by Adam Ghisletta (Realtor) and Kevin Teague (Attorney), approached the City/County to have the City bring this property into the City’s SOI (Sphere of Influence). They did so with the clear intent to up-zone and sell this property for development. Like hand in glove, they received this “pre-designation” by the County.
The County/City of Napa has shifted and evolved dramatically - as has our world, environmental, climate and socio-economic issues and considerations. Any agreement of this vintage reasonably calls into question its own plausibility today. The City is known to call into question and revamp decisions they made just 3-4 years ago. Our understanding is that in the past 50 years this highly contested proposal has been denied at least twice.
2008
The following is an excerpt from “Napa backs out on Ghisletta annexation”, Napa Valley Register, Kevin Courtney and David Ryan, Jan 23, 2008.
“‘I’m ecstatic. That is exactly what I think needs to happen,’ Eve Kahn, chair of Get a Grip on Growth, said of the city’s turnabout on the Ghisletta annexation.”
2010
Three Napa residents filing a “right to vote” initiative with the Napa City Clerk lead to the original Save Foster Road group gathering almost 6000 signatures on a petition submitted to the City from citizens, neighbors and organizations. All requested a voice, “the right-to vote initiative”, in deciding the fate of proposed up-zoning and annexation of the Ghisletta and Horseman’s Ranch Property.
Overwhelmingly, most residents have long stood in opposition to this re-zoning/up-zoning and annexation for a period spanning well over three decades. The public’s understanding and rejection of this irresponsibly proposed re-zoning project has not changed throughout these years.
Point in fact, as more is revealed - such as the Alquist Priolo Zone EQ fault line - public opposition has only grown. The City itself, inscribed an appropriate path forward.
2012
The City denied the proposal for re-zoning and annexation of the Ghisletta Property.
They approved the Napa Pipe Project which was forecasted to satisfy the State’s housing requirements.
2015
In 2015 the City created the Housing Element - offering objectives and goals to be realized thru 2020. The following is an excerpt.
“ 1. Envision Napa 2020, Policy Document 2-Adopted March 2015:
Completed a Specific Plan for the downtown area that identifies housing sites for up to 500-600 housing units, up to half of which could be developed within the 2015-2023 Housing Element planning period. The Downtown Specific Plan Area, along with the Soscol Gateway Area, has been designated as a “Priority Development Area” or PDA in the Bay Area region’s plan. PDA’s are areas where higher density development is encouraged near transit and jobs;
Modified zoning standards to expand use of small lot standards and adopted several other updates for consistency with state laws and to improve green building standards;”
As you may note, the current proposal from the City’s Planning Staff is inconsistent, it is incongruous - it simply does not sync up. In fact, it undermines the guiding smart growth precepts of the Napa General Plan 2040.
To have the City now retro-fit this “accepted” existing designation and re-zone/up-zone this land renders a great disservice to the viability of City/County’s current and future “smart growth” planning directives. These parcels need to remain zoned as AG or designated as the Green Belt buffer zone and not be twisted to accommodate privatized financial interests and blatant political ambitions.
February 2020
The City appointed a General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) to oversee future land use recommendations. The GPAC held several meetings during the past year or so. The land use designations first appeared on the GPAC agenda in February 2020 just prior to the implementation of formal public safety measures for the COVID-19 pandemic.
GPAC reviewed numerous issues and potential changes that will affect all residents as their recommendations, and the subsequent decisions by Planning and City Council, will have lasting impact on us all through at least 2040.
These are the notes representing a selective recap of the most recent GPAC meeting re: land use recommendations. According to our records and understanding we believe these notes are not fully representative of what transpired at the meeting.
April 2020
We were all informed that NO formal action was to be taken on this item at the City Council meeting on April 20, 2020. But the dominoes seem to be falling in place as planned…the City and special interests would like the citizens of Napa to believe that this proposed annexation, re-zoning, up-zoning, spot zoning is a Fait Accompli. Indeed, this annexation aka “development” of the Gateway may be brought to the City of Napa soon.
Even to the most naive, City votes appear to have been strategized or why else would the City Council stand against their own smart growth initiatives in the City’s Draft Napa 2040 General Plan -not to mention the overwhelming replay of opposition by the residents of Napa?
In 2008 about 6000 residents spoke in heated opposition and understood that this annexation was put to rest. And now here we are again, with over 3/4 of Napas surveyed favoring creating a vibrant downtown for everyone - not just tourists. And keeping the last of our Open Space and Agricultural Lands as the underpinnings of a Napa embodying the model of a true Global Destination - not part of a never-ending sprawl of mediocrity.
Essential take-away:
The Planning Division’s actual proposed development - originally proposed in February, 2020, appears to continue to be operative. It is intended to facilitate the development of various medium/high density housing, mixed use and commercial development of up to 2900 housing units + commercial development, graced by the unnecessary, retro-banality of a gas station, strip mall and sound wall.
This ill-considered, high-risk development would result in a quantum leap to approximately 7000-7500 additional people, or 10% of the City of Napa’s current population or replicating the size of the City of St Helena on this 144 acres - all to be sited on these irreplaceable view-shed parcels lining the entry to the Napa Valley.
Napa can and will do better!
Yes, the City Planning’s proposal continues to raise serious issues of infrastructure costs to the city, smart growth principles, the impossibility of affordable housing on such a high risk site, a shared housing burden that is State mandated to be spread throughout the City of Napa, traffic congestion/safety/air pollution, water scarcity and water pollution/safety + innumerable, demanding environmental issues revolving around our climate crisis.
CURB THE SPRAWL - YES TO GREENBELT DESIGNATION - HOLD THE CITY LIMIT
August 2020
These are the notes representing a selective recap of the most recent GPAC meeting re: land use recommendations. According to our records and understanding we believe these notes are not fully representative of what transpired at the meeting.
The video of the August 31 General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting is now available through the City's YouTube Channel. A link is also provided on the General Plan website.
January 2021
Here is a link to KNGG's response to GPAC Draft Napa General Plan Proposal 2040, January 11, 2021. The response is a 5-7 minute read.
February 2021
A recording of the Planning Committee Meeting for February 18, 2021 along with the minutes of that meeting.
March 2021
For your viewing pleasure and reference: March 4, 2021 Planning Commission Agenda and documents.
September 2022
Here is our statement in advance of the General Plan Adoption Hearing - v2.0 - September 1, 2022.
This is the direct link to the City of Napa Planning Commission Meeting, September 1, 2022.
Fair warning: it is over 3 hours long but worth the wait as…
YES! the Planning Commission voted to change their recommendation to “Greenbelt” for the gateway parcels from the earlier “Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor”.
Round 1 down…and 2 more (very tough ones: City Council & County) to come! We will posting more soon - thanks for your patience!
MAKE NO MISTAKE … WE can fight City Hall and despite all odds, WE CAN WIN!
Ginny Simms, 2009 (Napa City Planning Commissioner and County Supervisor 1968-78),
excerpt from the JLDAGFUND Oral Histories (page 215).
October 2022
City Council Meeting: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 - 6:30PM
As most realize, this evening is the City of Napa's City Council meeting at 6:30PM at 955 School St. This is the one that will approval the draft General Plan 2040 for the City of Napa. While KNGG is generally supportive of the General Plan, we remain committed to the removal of the sorely misguided proposed Foster Road Mixed Use - compliments to all of the hard work the City’s Planning Staff who, apparently, unilaterally drove this forward for City Council approval.
KNGG has requested that the City Council reverse its decision to include the FRMU in the DEIR + the General Plan 2040.
The City Council has refused to offer the public any factual evidence for their thinly veiled "Statement of Overriding Consideration”.
Further, and perhaps more disturbingly, it appears that the City Council may well have offered this reasoning in order to get to the next step of avoiding the need for a vote by the citizens of Napa for annexation of these parcels which is our right.
That's right, they will attempt to ram this annexation through without a need for a vote by the citizens of Napa, once again dismissing the voices of the people who have stood in staunch opposition for more than 15 years and overwhelming supported urban infill and open space in the General Plan2040 process.
If true, to our mind, this is an outrageous and covert abuse of the office and power with which we entrusted this City Council.
Why then would they do this? You need to hold them accountable. You can do so this evening - simply by showing up and showing your hands in support. Trust us - they are dreading the possibility that you will show up - much like you did at the first Irene Snow School meeting in 2007 when the County Supervisors fled in shame!
With that in mind, we offer some video clips that we hope will inspire you to come this evening and speak your mind.
The clips are from some prior City Council/County of Napa meeting and represent views that KNGG felt encapsulated a good deal of what has gone on during this process. KNGG is looking to a safe, sustainable future, one based on social and racial justice, rather than keeping to the same ‘ole, same ‘ole for the sake of “Old Friends”(Mayor Sedgley). How about making some new friends in the 21st century, Mr. Mayor?
Citizen of Napa addressing the City Council, 09.20.2022
Citizen of Napa addressing City Council, 09.20.2022
Remember: The Planning Commission considered the above referenced matters at a public hearing on September 1, 2022 and has recommended approval to change the land use designation for the area located in between Foster Road and Golden Gate Drive from “Foster Road Mixed Use” to “Greenbelt.”
December 2022
Unfortunately the City of Napa’s Draft Housing Element (HE) was released on the evening of December 22, 2002 just prior to the Christmas holidays for many of us. Upon receiving the notice of review period on December 23, .2022 KNGG requested a reasonable extension. It was not granted.
January 2023
This already compromised 30 day review period was exasperated by a Major Disaster Declaration issued by President Biden and Governor Newsom. We appreciate that both the City and County are facing pressures of an impending deadline at the end of January to submit their draft HE to the State. We ask that you be considerate of the circumstances and confusion that has been caused by the aforementioned delays as well as the unfortunate confusion to the general public caused by these concurrent processes and lack of public coherence in the outreach efforts, coupled with concurrent deadlines by the City and the County.
With the understanding that the General Plan 2040, Draft Housing Element and Draft Environmental Impact Report are “living documents” we offer additional comments with the hope that the City/County will continue to incorporate them in their respective drafts HE/DEIR.