Yountville council OKs key Commons steps amid concerns
The focus of the Town Council’s special meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 13, was approval of several key steps in the ongoing Commons project. The topic drew a full house, with 21 community members attending to listen and share their concerns.
Agenda items included a proposal to change the zoning district of the former school property from a split designation of public facilities and park space to a newly created Commons district. This change would allow the development envisioned under the Commons project.
The council also considered amendments to the town’s General Plan to address several project-related issues:
- The new Commons district would be defined as primarily workforce housing, with compatible uses permitted.
- A three-story height allowance would be extended to this zone. Currently, the General Plan only allows three-story buildings on the west side of Washington Street. The amendment would also permit buildings in the Commons district to exceed existing height and story limits, provided their design and scale are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
- An amendment was proposed to confirm that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), based on the finding that “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question will have a significant effect on the environment.”
- A Zoning Map amendment was required to show the scope and location of the new Commons district, which is limited to the former school property.
A tentative parcel map was also presented for approval. The map would divide the site into 18 parcels, a plan intended to provide future flexibility and facilitate the design and installation of utilities.
During the presentation, Branden Kelly of Kelly & Morgan Architects offered an interesting and thought-provoking comment: “This is not a housing project. This is a new Commons for the town of Yountville, with housing inside of it.”
Public Comment
After the presentation, 11 members of the public addressed the council. Nearly all began by expressing support for the idea of adding workforce housing to Yountville, while also outlining concerns they felt had not yet been fully addressed by the town manager.
Several speakers raised questions about the proposed pool, particularly whether it is appropriate to use public municipal funds to construct a pool that would be operated as a private facility requiring paid access. Concerns were also expressed about the ethics of building a pool on a workforce housing site if residents would not have access without additional fees.
Parking was again a major topic. Many residents questioned whether the number of parking spaces planned for the project would adequately serve the anticipated number of residents. While designers have suggested that residents will not be allowed to own cars, will have to pay addition fees to own a car or rely on rideshare services, several speakers and council members expressed skepticism that this approach is realistic in a small, relatively isolated town like Yountville.
The proposed mix of units also drew scrutiny. Some speakers noted that the project currently emphasizes studio apartments of approximately 310 square feet, which is generally smaller than a hotel room. This plan seems to be saying that the workforce does not include families, which is not proven to be true by any data. One and two-bedroom units are known to fill quickly in town, while studios can be harder to lease, prompting calls for more data before committing to a studio-heavy design.
Yountville resident Sandy Fagen asked whether the project could ultimately be placed before voters as a ballot measure. She expressed concern about encumbering the community with a potential financial assessment without broad public approval, noting that with only 1,500 or so homes in town, the financial burden would be significant if the project struggled financially. She urged the council to allow residents to review the upcoming detailed cost analyses and funding options in the next few months, and then let the community actually read the specifics, consider the burden and then, as educated people with information in hand, “let us vote on it.”
Long time resident Alan Tenscher spoke in favor of the flexibility offered by the project’s form-based design and parcel layout but emphasized that the economic feasibility of the project has not yet been presented. While Yountville may seem like a great place to live, he cautioned that younger workers may not feel the same. Tenscher suggested conducting a survey of the estimated 1,000–1,550 employees who commute into town daily. He also stressed the importance of selecting a qualified operator through a formal Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process, noting that long-term success depends heavily on choosing an operator who will manages the development successfully. Parking, he added, remains an unresolved issue, warning that “If we get to Phase 3 and have to build an underground parking, as suggested, to meet the unmet parking needs of the new homes, then we have missed the mark with this project when we could have learned that earlier.”
Staff Response and Next Steps
Concerns about financial feasibility prompted Town Manager Brad Raulston to explain that the town has hired BAE Urban Economics to analyze unit mix and pricing. He explained that the report, scheduled for presentation on Feb. 17, will rely on data-driven methodology and will not include a survey of Yountville workers.
Raulston also outlined the upcoming project timeline:
- Feb. 17 – A Town Council study session at which BAE Urban Economics will present its report, followed by decision about what should actually be built.
- March 3 – This Town Council meeting will be the decision point on the funding for Phase 2 of the project.
Council Member Hillery Trippe asked when the council would take an action that would formally allow construction to begin. Town Attorney Gary Bell responded that the project will officially commence when the design-build contract is signed.
Council Action
After enthusiastic support for the Commons was expressed by most of the council members, the vote was taken. It was 4-1 I favor of approval of the changes as listed. Trippe was the no vote as she felt that not enough answers have been provided to her questions and there was still much more information to be gathered for her to approve changes to the General Plan at this time.
The council also announced that Council Member Pam Reeves will assume the role of vice mayor.
