Letter to the Editor – Resident calls on Yountville to downsize Commons, slow planning
Dear Editor,
It is with great concern that I write regarding the Yountville Commons. I have attended several town outreach meetings and other planned meetings regarding the development of this project, trying to understand the breadth of it, which is huge for this town of 3,000 people. I am continually amazed at the lack of fiscal responsibility and viability of this project for the town residents and its future.
My main concerns regarding this project are the following:
1. Size of the project: 125 up to 150 units, primarily studios. The ratio of housing is dense with 16 units per acre, versus our current density of 4.4 to 8.6 units per acre. This is too large and dense. This project was initially designed for 72 units. How did it get inflated to 150?
2. Parking: Only 56 new parking spaces allocated. With 80% of the units proposed to be studios, which means one car per studio, this equals 80 parking spaces. It is not realistic to hope that the people living in these units will not have a car, as the architect is stating. More space will be required for the additional units.
3. Swimming Pool: I do not understand how the town can build and subsidize a swimming pool. With one-third of the residents having their own pool or use of a pool through their HOA community facilities, it is irresponsible to build a pool costing upwards of $1 million, along with annual maintenance, unexpected emergencies, plus operating costs of $335,000-$355,000 a year. Why would the town subsidize a pool that would only be used by Yountville Fit or for the Commons residents or more realistically for Napa residents? How can the town justify the expense of a pool and subsidize such a project when it has minimal benefits to the residents? I would like to see the town council and mayor put pressure on the state to allow us to utilize our funds to help repair and use the Veterans Home pool as well as the veteran’s theater (editor’s note: Lincoln Theater), which is empty and is deteriorating.
4. Financial Planning: We need to know now the cost of building and operating the entire project. One figure I have read regarding the development of the Commons is $50,000,000. We know everything always ends up costing double. With this considerable sum, we are putting our town at great risk, leaving us little reserves for unknown necessities and emergencies. Projects worth considering for our future could include undergrounding our utility poles and addressings future water needs.
This project needs to slow down. A business plan is needed before any building commences. We are told the Commons will be built in three phases. We are told if we want to change something after Phase 1 or 2, we can do that. This type of thought process will only increase the cost of this project. The first builder will go bankrupt, as frequently happens in big, phased projects. If it is not successful with the first phase, we have spent enormous amounts of money on nothing.
5. Downsize: The Yountville Commons has developed into its name – something that is common and not appropriate to our town. We have gotten caught up in the trend of providing housing for everyone. How can we afford to do this? Napa has built numerous apartments that are affordable. I never thought that it was a prerequisite to live and work in the same place. We don’t need to sacrifice long-term health for our town to meet short-term popularity. Our job marketplace is changing and shrinking. The Estate Yountville has closed seasonally and JCB has permanently closed. Restaurants are downsizing and tasting rooms are closing. Let us not put all our eggs in one basket.
6. Open Space: One of the biggest concerns I have repeatedly spoken up on is keeping the open space of the existing playing field. With this new plan we are eliminating 48,000 square feet of open space. Once we build over this cherished land, we will never get it back.
7. Future for Yountville: Our town is changing quickly, and it concerns me. I agree we need more affordable housing, but it should not be restricted to just the workforce. I do not believe building up to 150 units is what is best for our town’s health. We need more young families and people who want to establish Yountville as their home, who will contribute to the community and be involved. The town has had a successful history of caring for its residents to perpetuate a close-knit community. To house 150 transient work force people is only going to weaken the warm, small-town community that we love and seek. The town will lose its charm for its residents as well as for our tourists that are valuable to our economy and are seeking something different from where they live. We need to reduce the units, add some moderate-sized houses that could accommodate young families who want to establish Yountville as their permanent home. When our current generation of 65-year-olds plus is gone, who will oversee and really live in this town? I believe with creative planning we can improve and save our town. The Catholic Church land has become available and can be developed for additional housing in the future by a different owner/developer. We can do this with our town council’s guidance. We have elected them to be responsible overseers of our town. Please do just that!
I appreciate the time, consideration, and energy put into this project, but we can do better!
Thank you,
Megan Mason
Yountville
Sponsored
Author
