c. Only one winery shall be permitted on site.
d. The winery conducts limited public tours-arnftastings, sells wine..:related-items of-holds private wine marketing events and winery events with a use permit.
e. Noise shall be restricted to a decibel level of 55 dba at property boundaries. f. A minimum of 75 percent of the fruit used to make wine produced on site must be grown within the County of Napa. Of that, a minimum of 30 percent of the wine produced on site shall originate from fruit grown on the parcel with modifications only approved through the use permit process. g. The number and frequency of private wine marketing events and winery events shall be strictly limited and reviewed during the use permit process. A maximum of four events per calendar year may be allowed. The maximum number of guests allowed at any event shall be determined during the use permit process. This maximum capacity shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the winery building.
Use permit conditions may impose stricter limitations if residential development on adjoining parcels is in close proximity to the winery use.
h. All events shall be held within the confines of the on-site residential unit, the production area ofthe large winery building, or outside.
i. The establishment of on-premises wine sales shall be determined through the use permit process. If wine sales are to be allowed, they shall be restricted only to wine that is produced on the premises. j. The hours of public tours and tastings and sales shall be by appointment only as reviewed during the use permit process.
k. There can be no advertising in publications produced for general distribution for private wine marketing events or winery events and all attendees shall be specifically invited to participate in an event by the large winery owner/operator.
I. All the requirements of CMC Title 19 shall be met.
m. Notwithstanding CMC 17.14.040, buildings and structures used for winery operations shall be located at least 50 feet from the front lot line, and 20 feet from any side lot line, and SO feet from any dwelling on an adjacent lot, not including perimeter fencing.
9. Bed and breakfast inns and facilities, in accordance with Chapter 17.35 CMC.
10. Uses determined by the Planning Commission to be similar in nature as provided by the procedures in Chapter 17.03 CMC.
11. Contractor storage yards.
C. Accessory Buildings and Uses. The following accessory buildings and uses are allowed; provided, that no accessory building or use shall be constructed or established prior to the construction of a main building, or on a lot separate from the main building.
1. Garages, storage sheds, workshops, pool houses, playhouses, corrals, coops, hutches, pens, stables and similar structures.
2. Student projects associated with agricultural education.
3. Home occupations in accordance with Chapter 17.43 CMC.
4. Family child care, small, as defined and operated in accordance with State law.
5. The keeping of up to six domestic chickens, subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.06 CMC.
D. Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited in the RR district:
1. Transient commercial occupancies of dwelling units.
2. Other uses not specified in subsections (A) through (C) of this section. (Ord. 732 § 2(2), 2018; Ord. 729 § 2.3, 2017; Ord. 710 § 3, 2015; Ord. 700 § 2(1), 2014; Ord. 699 § 2, 2014).
17.14.030 Lot area and dimensions.
Minimum lot area and lot dimensions in the RR district are as follows:
A. Minimum lot area is as follows, except that the maximum allowable density shall be determined by the Rural Residential Land Use Designation of the Calistoga General Plan:
1. Eighty thousand square feet if both on-site water and wastewater disposal are proposed.
2. Forty thousand square feet if either on-site water or wastewater disposal is proposed.
3. Twenty thousand square feet if City water and wastewater services are provided.
B. Minimum lot width: 100 feet.
C. Minimum lot depth: 200 feet. (Ord. 740 § 2 (Exh. A), 2018; Ord. 699 § 2, 2014). 7 Item #8.1.
17.14.040 Development standards.
The following standards apply to development within the RR district:
A. Minimum setbacks for principal buildings are as follows:
1. Front yard: 20 feet.
2. Interior side yard: 10 feet, except that 20 feet is required for nonresidential.
3. Street side yard, corner lot: 15 feet.
4. Street side yard, reverse corner lot: 20 feet.
5. Rear yard: 20 feet.
B. Minimum setbacks for accessory buildings and structures shall be maintained as provided by CMC
17.38.050.
C. Maximum lot coverage: 30 percent.
D. Maximum height of buildings and structures: 25 feet. (Ord. 740 § 2 (Exh. A), 2018; Ord. 699 § 2, 2014).
17.14.050 Other development requirements.
Additional requirements that apply to development in the RR district include, but are not limited to, the following.
A. Design review, per Chapter 17.06 CMC.
B. Affordable housing, per Chapter 17.08 CMC.
C. Off-street parking and loading, per Chapter 17.36 CMC.
D. General provisions and exceptions, per Chapter 17.38 CMC.
E. Use permits, per Chapter 17.40 CMC.
F. Fences, hedges or walls, per Chapter 17.52 CMC.
Chapter 17 .35
BED AND BREAKFAST INNS AND FACILITIES
Sections:
17.35.010 Purpose.
17.35.020 General regulations.
17.35.030 Use permit required.
17.35.040 Permit regulations.
17.35.010 Purpose.
A. It is the purpose of this chapter to establish regulations for the location, use, character, parking, signing and processing of applications for bed and breakfast inns and facilities in residential zones within the City.
B. Proposed conversions in residential zones to Band B facilities which would eliminate an existing rental unit or units shall not be permitted, unless otherwise provided herein. This admonition pertains to, inter alia, units which contain independent cooking and bathroom facilities.
C. It is further the purpose of these regulations to encourage the restoration of historic structures. An example of an historic structure is one which is listed by Federal, State and/or recognized Napa County agencies as having architectural or historic significance.
D. It is further the purpose of these regulations to provide for bed and breakfast facilities which are accessory to and secondary to the primary residential use of land in residentially zoned areas. The terms "accessory" and "secondary" mean that the establishment of bed and breakfast facilities in residential zones shall not exceed 49 percent of the use of the land and/or building area on and in which the facilities are to be located. (Ord. 667 § 2, 2010; Ord. 421 § 2, 1987; Ord. 416 § 2, 1986; Ord. 396 § 2, 1984; Ord. 390 § 2, 1983).
17.35.020 General regulations.
8 Item #8.1.
A. For the purposes of this title and Chapter 13.18 CMC (Rates, Billing, Payment and Charges), Band B facilities -located-in re-sidential zo-ning districts shaU-be--ronsidered commerciai-tKes.-
8. The establishment of bed and breakfast inns and facilities shall be harmonious with the character of the neighborhood and zone in which they are to be located.
C. Adequate and surplus off-street parking is of primary concern in the establishment of bed and breakfast inns and facilities_ The requirements and development standards for parking as established in Chapter 17.36 CMC shall apply to all Band B facilities, unless otherwise provided herein.
D. Any facility operating contrary to the terms of this section shall be subject to immediate closure and permit revocation.
E. No facility shall be operated without a current business license.
F. Operation of any Band B facility on a permanent basis shall be by the resident property owner(s) or resident manager. No off-site management shall be permitted, unless otherwise provided herein.
G. No meals may be served after noon or to persons who are not paying guests, except for those persons who are nonpaying personal guests of the occupying owner-manager of the Band B inn or facility. Occasional special events which involve meals shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Building.
H. All facilities shall be inspected on an annual basis by the Planning and Building Department for conformance with use permit conditions and the regulations established in this title. Inspection reports shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for informational purposes, as necessary. (Ord. 667 § 2, 2010).
17.35.030 Use permit required.
All bed and breakfast inns and facilities shall require a use permit subject to the provisions of Chapter
17.40 CMC. (Ord. 667 § 2, 2010).
17.35.040 Permit regulations.
A. All applications for a bed and breakfast facility shall be on forms provided by the Planning and Building Department and accompanied by the appropriate fee as established by Council resolution.
B. Bed and breakfast inns and facilities shall be permitted only where an occupying owner or resident manager maintains his or her primary place of residence on site. The bed and breakfast inn and facility shall be operated as an accessory use to the owner's/manager's residence. No mix of rental units and B and B units on a single property shall be permitted.
C. Bed and breakfast inns and facilities shall be limited by spacing and to the number of rental rooms or units by zones as follows:
1. Spacing. R-R, RR-H, R-1, R-1-10, R-2 and R-3 zones: not more than one bed and breakfast facility per each side of a City block or one facility per each 500 feet where conventional blocks are not present.
2. Number of Units.
a. R-R, RR-H, R-1, R-1-10 and R-2 zones: not more than two units or rooms; b. R-3 zone: not more than three units or rooms.
3. Maximum. The maximum number of bed and breakfast rental units may be increased in the R-R, RRH, R-1, R-1-10, R-2 and R-3 zones, subject to a major use permit, when the special circumstances as stated below exist. In no case shall such increase permit the total number of units to exceed six bed and breakfast rental units. Special circumstances to be considered shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Proximity to a State highway or major arterial as indicated in the General Plan circulation element; and
b. The historical character and/or significance of the structure(s) in which the units are to be located; and
c. The character of the proposed site relative to its surroundings; and d. The nature of ingress and egress; and
e. The adequacy of the number and location of off-street parking spaces and maneuvering areas; and f. Provision of rooms accessible to the developmentally disabled. 9 Item #8.1.
4. Exception. The Planning Commission may authorize an exception to subsections (B), (C) and (D) ofthis section and CMC 17.36.BO(C), parking requirements, subject to a major use permit, when the special circumstances as stated above and below e><ist:
a. A bed and breakfast inn and facility or other visitor accommodation located on the property was authorized by the City on or before January 1, 2010; and b. The property is located within an R-1-10 zone; and
c. The property is established with no more than 10 rental units; and d. Minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The Planning Commission, in considering all of the above special circumstances, shall establish written findings to support approval of bed and breakfast rental unit increases.
D. Signs identifying bed and breakfast inns and facilities shall comply with the provisions of Chapter
17.58 CMC.
E. All approved use permits for bed and breakfast inns and facilities shall include a condition requiring conversion of all existing water fixtures by installation of conservation devices.
1. Excepting therefrom, upon Planning Commission approval, authentic historic fixtures.
F. To obtain a use permit, a finding shall be made that the proposed bed and breakfast inn and facility would not result in a net loss of housing. (Ord. 667 § 2, 2010; Ord. 626 § 1, 2006).
Sent from my iPad
10 Item #8.1.
Zach Tusinger
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Good morning Commissioners,
Zach Tusinger
Thursday, February 13, 2020 10:14 AM
Lynn Goldberg
FW: Calistoga Planning Commission, Letter of objection to Four unit expansion at 1807 Foothill Blvd
Microsoft Word - Brannon Ridge Estates Planning Memo.docx.pdf We have received a second letter regarding the proposed Aurora Park project. Please see attached.
Thank you,
Zach
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2020 12:48 PM
To: Planning & Building
Cc: Alan Morris; Pia Morris; Jennifer Hom; Chris Bates; Mike Lee; Curtis Wilhelm Subject: Calistoga Planning Commission, Letter of objection to Four unit expansion at 1807 Foothill Blvd CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Is safe.
To Calistoga Planning Commission:
Paul Coates
Tim Wilkes
Scott Cooper
Alissa McNair
Doug Allen
Please see attached letter addressing the issue of the proposal to expand the 4 units on the "Designated Remainder parcel of the Brannon Ridge Estates".
Thank you,
Best Regards,
From the owners at 1819 Foothill Blvd
Michael P. Glover
Curtis J. Wilhelm
1 Item #8.1.
February 8, 2020
TO:
Paul Coats, Chair
Tim Wilkes
Scott Cooper
Alissa McNair
Doug Allan
Brannon Ridge Estates
Letter to the Calistoga Planning Department from the Owners of 1819 Foothill Blvd.
Reference: Aurora Cottages 4 Unit expansion
Background:
In 1998 Brannon Ridge Estates was subdivided into 4 buildable lots, and a remaining parcel space identified as "Designated Remainder". Each of the buildable lots is approximately 5 acres. In early 2000, 4 homes were built in the area zoned as RRH.
The space from the original 20 acres known as the "Designated Remainer" is a smaller parcel of land, encased on three sides by properties in the RRH designation. (See City Zoning Map attached)
The 4 lots consist of the following address and estimated current value:
Lot One: 1819 Foothill Blvd ($3.2M)
Lot Two: 1821 Foothill Blvd ($3.4M)
Lot Three: 1825 Foothill Blvd ($1.7M)
Lot Four: 1823 Foothill Blvd ($3.SM)
Designated Remainer: 1807 Foothill Blvd
A Conservation and Scenic Easement was established in 1998. This easement set aside the provisions to maintain the natural and scenic beauty of the existing openness.
An additional easement was established in 1998, driveway, storm drain and utility easement over the 5 lots from Brannon Ridge Estates.
AT ISSUE:
Item #8.1.
1) Building Cottages on the "Designated Remainer" is contrary to the natural environment of the Brannon Ridge Estates, such development is out of place, and would encroach on the natural beauty of the existing space.
a. A large Oak Tree could be endangered (See Exhibits)
2) Drainage would be impeded to the natural dry creek that now exists 3) The Leach field for property Lots 1, 2, 4, could be impeded 4) Shared Road Maintenance would be at Risk for the other owners, the road was built for 4 single family homes, not built for extended commercial traffic 5) Added noise and disturbance to the Residents of Brannon Ridge Estates. (Examples of Past issues:)
a. There has been continued noise disturbance, loud music and talking, coming from the direction of the Cottages, This sound travels directly up our drive b. Trash has been dumped near the side of the road near the leach field c. Our well has been damaged by personal walking near the road d. Repair persons from the Cottages have parked their vehicle on our property, when asked to leave, he refused, saying he was working under the authority of the Patel's.
e. Our Gate and light have been subject to vandalism.
6) Of Particular concern as the owners of Lot 1, {1819 Foothill), most adjacent to the Designated Remainer Space, Our property extends beyond the shared Road space, and ingress/ egress to the Cottages properties would actually have to cross our property, This create a Personal and Financial Liability that we should not be asked to undertake. (See Attached Exhibit)
a. Declaration Number 3, of The Road Easement is to the individual owner of Lots 1,2,3,4, and Designated Remainder, the right to pass is not extended to commercial tenants.
b. As noted in Item 17.35.040 Permit Regulations, Item 3. Specifically states no special use permit would be allowed when the maximum number of rental units that do not adhere to "The nature of ingress and egress" provision. 7) Estimated 10% Property Value Reduction, Cumulative for Lots 1-4, >$1M.
Comments on Proposed Plans:
The property proposal in NOT adequate in size share or location. The four added units are much larger in scope than the existing units. This lot size does not accommodate the size of these proposed units, the back half of the lot is not suitable for building. The four cottages are sized at 600 square feed, the cottages are at 363 square feet, this represent a 65% increase in unit size. Their square footage is 3049, wanting to increase by 1549, for a total of 4598.
Item #8.1.
The set back off the road is not consistent with the existing structures.
The proposed parking space is directly across from our property gate, with the potential added noise and disruption to a previously private street.
Such development creates an Ingress/ Egress issue.
We the owners of 1819 Foothill Blvd, ask that this provision be rejected on these grounds, to leave this property as its name implies as the "Designated Remainder of Brannon Ridge Estates, Not an extension of Aurora Cottages.
In Conclusion:
Any such vote by the Planning Commission at this time is premature, as evidenced by the existing 'DECLARATION OF CONDITIONS, RESTICTIONS AND COVENANTS REGARDING DRIVEWAY, STORM DRAIN AND UTILITY MAINTENANCE OF BRANNON RIDGE ESTATES. This easement outlines the process to which the 5 owners must adhere to the set procedures to approve any changes or improvements of the 40-foot easement, which consist of a 20-foot driveway, and 10 feet extending on each side of the drive. Item 7 of the declaration requires a 7-day written notice of the 5 owners, each having an equal vote with a simple majority to pass for such repairs or improvements. No such meeting has yet been call.
Item #8.1.
EXHIBITS
Land Survey by Hogan Land Services, Santa Rosa, CA,
Long/ Short Dashed line at corner represents Lot 1 boundary beyond roadside.
I --
Item #8.1.
Brannon Ridge Estates
ZDf'IIHG WlllCI MA, ORKilNAI.U' .C.C
'MAP AAtttfJMENTS
Ordn.,rc;e 516, .,dlll]lrd NIW'Clll'tle
Orcl~ncf60'Jflld~t9<1/tt,JI.IS117
Ordnil'()fl$14 !ldop!ll-d09'0flflbe
0rdn:arc.e617,m:lopledFIErUAry
Ordn11r,oe8l9, DdgpmdMay 15, 2
Ordnorce63",ICDplrclNi,wirrf)e>
I Ordnar,oe &ff adDpllO ,\JJc;l\161 18
I Ordnal'C4H1 MoptedMll.'(1S. t I OdNrc,e613, afoplrclJunc, 19, ; \ :=:=k= ~~~~ . 0,~t,a.~09C4m1>$ \ C>dfllru.71 1,~Nla 1 ~ '7::ir---l~~;=;,;~;;;~=-"'==1i_, __ 1i2.~"""1,. ,. :J city parcels
RR: Rural Residential
RR-H: Rural Residential • Hillside
R-1-10-PD: On&-Famlly Residential Planned Development
R-2: Two-Family Residential
• R-3: Multi-Family Residential/ Office
I: Light Industrial
MHP: Mobile Home Park
• P: Public/Quasi-Public
R-1 : One-Family Residential • R-3-VA: Mulll-Family ResldenllaU Office - Visitor Accommodation PD: Planned Development R-1-PD: One--Family Residentlal Planned Development • DC: Downtown Commcrclal • C-A: Commercial Airport R-t-10: One-Family Residential CC: Community Commercial n my iPad
CITY OF
Item #8.1.
Item #8.1.
Oak Tree at entrance to Brannon Estates,
Item #8.1.
Item #8.1.
1819 Property Gate/ Entrance looking at Designated Remainder Item #8.1.
Dry Creek
Item #8.1.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
alan morris
Zach Tysinger
Brannon Ridge Estates please forward to all-thanks Zack Thursday, February 20, 2020 5:45:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Brannon Ridge Estates
February 7, 2020;revised 2/19/20
From: Alan and Pia Morris 1821 Foothill Blvd
Reference: Aurora Cottages 4 Unit expansion
Conclusion: The planning Commission should vote against expansion now and at any time in the future.
Background:
The Aurora Park Cotteges (AP)
I. RESOLUTION PC 2020-XX
Resolution PC 2020-XX states: "The property is located within the R-1-10: One-Family Zoning District. The R-1-10 District conditionally allows bed and breakfast inns with up to ten units. The expanded use is consistent with the R-1-10 District development standards and would comply with the parking requirements associated with this use.
Finding: Will not substantially impair or interfere with the development, use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity.
Substantial evidence: The existing resort property is adequate in size, shape, location, and physical characteristics to accommodate the type and intensity of the proposed structures and associated use. No impacts to surrounding properties are anticipated." I .RESOLUTION PC 2020-XX FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION ARE WRONG, LACKING
HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND CONSIDERATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE AFFECTED AREA SINCE 2000:
A. "The guest cottages on the property have been in use as visitor accommodations since the 1950s. In 1998, a proposal to substantially alter the Aurora Park Cottages was approved by the City, and included architectural changes, enlarged structures and extensive landscaping. The project was ultimately abandoned by a subsequent owner, and in 1999 a substantially lesscomprehensive plan for exterior changes wasapproved." It must be noted that before 1999, Brannon Ridge Estates (BRE),4 home development did not exist. A paved road did not exist, nor did the current drainage system. Rather, the land was of a virgin quality.
In 1998 (BRE) was subdivided into 4 buildable lots, and a remaining parcel space identified as "Designated Remainder" . Each of the buildable lots is approximately 4 acres. In early 2000, 4 homes were built in the area zoned as RRH.
The space from the original 20 acres known as the "Designated Remainer" is a smaller parcel of land, encased on three sides by properties in the RRH designation. (See City Zoning Map attached)
The 4 lots consist of the following address and estimated current value:
Lot One: 1819 Foothill Blvd ($3 .2M)
Lot Two: 1821 Foothill Blvd ($3.4M)
Lot Three: 1825 Foothill Blvd ($1.7M) Lot Four: 1823 Foothill Blvd ($3.5M) Designated Item #8.1.
Remainer: 1807 Foothill Blvd
A Conservation and Scenic Easement was established in 1998. This easement set aside the provisions to maintain the natural and scenic beauty of the existing openness.
An additional easement was established in 1998, driveway, storm drain and utility easement over the 5 lots from Brannon Ridge Estates.
Conclusion 1.: Development of BRE substantially changed the zoning and character of the adjacent area. Therefore the propoesed expansion would substantially impair or interfere with the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity.
2.THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF AP VIOLATES THE PURPOSE OF BRE RRH ZONING.
"17.14.010 Purpose.
The purpose of the RR Rural Residential Zoning District is to allow the development of single-family residences on large lots that serve as a buffer between the agricultural lands around the city and the urbanized part of Calistoga, ... " Conclusion 2.:AP expansion into the area boardering the BRE homes violates the above buffer requirement around urbanized parts of Calistoga. Nothing could be more urban than hotel rooms with extra parking attached.
3.THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF AP WITH INCURSION INTO RRH ZONED AREA
IS PROHIBITED
"D. Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited in the RR district:
1. Transient commercial occupancies of dwelling units." Conclusion 3.: AP expansion would be in violation ofRRH zoning code D
4.THE PROPOSED EXPANSION VIOLATES THE PURPOSE OF 17.35.010 C. "17.35.010 Purpose.
A. It is the purpose of this chapter to establish regulations for the location, use, character, parking, signing and processing of applications for bed and breakfast inns and facilities in residential zones within the City ....
C. It is further the purpose of these regulations to encourage the restoration of historic structures. An example of an historic structure is one which is listed by Federal, State and/or recognized Napa County agencies as having architectural or historic significance." Conclusion 4.: Contrary to 17.35.010 purpose, the proposed structures are new construction, not restored historical structures.
5.AP IS CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION OF THE PURPOSE OF 17.35.010 D "D. It is further the purpose of these regulations to provide for bed and breakfast facilities which are accessory to and secondary to the primary residential use of land in residentially zoned areas. The terms "accessory" and "secondary" mean that the establishment of bed and breakfast facilities in residential zones shall not exceed 49 percent of the use of the land and/or building area on and in which the facilities are to be located. (Ord. 667 § 2, 2010; Ord. 421 § 2, 1987; Ord. 416 § 2, 1986; Ord. 396 § 2, 1984; Ord. 390 § 2, 1983)." Initially, AP was owned and managed by resident owners, as 17.35.010 D requires. That was, Item #8.1.
until the Patel organization bought out the previous owner. It must be noted that the Patels own and run numerous commercial hotel/lodging establishments in Calistoga. AP is not a small owner operator, who also lives there. Rather AP is part of a large commercial endevour.
No Patel lives there. Rather, the person residing in a residence on the property is a paid employee of the Patel organization.
Conclusion5.:AP is in current violation of 17.35.010 D. The proposed expansion would further violate the intent of this zoning stated purpose.
6.AP EXPANSION IS IN VIOLATION OF 17.35.010 REGULATION B "B. The establishment of bed and breakfast inns and facilities shall be harmonious with the character of the neighborhood and zone in which they are to be located." AP expansion would encroach on three of the four properties on BRE zoned RRH.
Conclusion 6.:AP expansion would violate the requirement to be harmonious with the character of the neighborhood and zone in which it is located since the BRE neighborhood consists of four acre single family homes zoned RRH, not a commercial inn zoned R-1-10.
7.AP EXPANSION WOULD VIOLATE CONSERVATION REGULATIONS 19.08.010 Purpose.
"The purpose and intent of these regulations is to protect the public health, safety and community welfare and to otherwise preserve the natural resources of the City of Calistoga.
These regulations have been developed in general accord with the policies and principles of the General Plan, as specified in the land use permit and the open space and conservation element. It is furthermore intended that these regulations accomplish the following:
A. Minimize cut, fill, earthmoving, grading operations and other such manmade effects in the natural terrain;
B. Minimize soil erosion caused by human modifications to the natural terrain; C. Maintain and improve, to the extent feasible, existing water quality by regulating the quantity and quality of runoff entering local watercourses; D. Preserve riparian areas and other natural habitat by controlling development near streams and rivers;
E. Encourage development which minimizes impacts on existing land forms, avoids steep slopes, and preserves existing vegetation and unique geologic features ... " Conclusion 7.: Building in the areas designated for expansion would necessarily violate all the above.
8.AP EXPANSION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH 19.08.050 Erosion hazard areas. "All uses not otherwise prohibited within erosion hazard areas shall comply with all of the following requirements:
A. Erosion Control Plans. No otherwise permitted earthmoving activity, grading, improvement, or construction of a structure shall commence within any erosion hazard area until an erosion control plan which complies with the requirements of CMC 19.08.060 has been submitted to and approved by the City.
B. Minimization of Erosion Potential. Site development shall be conducted in a manner, based upon the topography and soil type, which creates the least potential for erosion.
C. Phasing. The site shall be developed in phases of workable size which can be completed in a single construction season, including vineyard or other agricultural crop development.
Erosion and sediment control measures shall be coordinated with the sequence of grading, Item #8.1.
development, and construction operations so as to avoid leaving any portion of a disturbed site unprotected from erosion between October 15th and April I st.
D. Vegetation Removal. Vegetation removal shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the project and then only as indicated on the approved erosion control plan. The project shall not adversely affect sensitive, rare, threatened, or endangered plants or animals or their habitats as designated by State or Federal agencies with jurisdiction.
E. Temporary Measures. As the permanent vegetation cover is maturing, temporary vegetation or other erosion control measures sufficient to stabilize the soil shall be established on all disturbed areas as needed as each stage of grading is completed. New planting shall be protected by using such measures as jute netting, straw mulching and fertilizing or other means which are specified in the approved erosion control plan.
F. Permanent Measures. Where building permits are required, final clearance shall not be issued until all permanent erosion control measures have been installed which are required by the approved erosion control plan.
G. Maintenance of Erosion Control Facilities. All required erosion control facilities, both temporary and permanent, shall be maintained in accordance with the approved erosion control plan.
H. Completion Deadline for Sediment Retention Devices. All sediment retention devices specified in the approved erosion control plan shall be completed no later than October I st of the calendar year in which the erosion control plan is approved or clearing and/or grading activity has commenced, whichever is later.
I. Deadline for Winterization and Temporary Measures. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, grading activity associated with "winterization" and installation of temporary erosion control measures specified on the approved erosion control plan, other than sediment retention devices, may continue until October 15th of any calendar year.
J. Grading Deadline. Grading and earthmoving activities shall be limited to the period between April 1st and October 15th except that earthmoving or grading activity may continue between October 15th and April 1st, when weather permits, providing that adequate winterization (temporary) erosion control measures have been installed in accordance with the approved erosion control plan, and fieldchecked by the City Engineer or his designee. It shall be the responsibility of the permittee to contact the City Engineer or his designee for a fieldcheck at least three working days prior to continuing activity within the "No Activity Season." Conclusion 8.:In the last few years the BRE residents have all had to deal with the results of erosion due to excessive rain on our mountain side community. AP expansion does not even address this important issue and therefore is in violation of this requirement.
9.AP PARKING IS CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION OF 17.36.090 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. THAT VIOLATION HAS CAUSED ISSUES WITH DRAINAGE
FROM RRH ZONED AREA OF BRE
"C. Adequate and surplus off-street parking is of primary concern in the establishment of bed and breakfast inns and facilities. The requirements and development standards for parking as established in Chapter 1.1..3..6 CMC shall apply to all B and B facilities, unless otherwise provided herein.
17.36.090 Design requirements.
Design requirements for parking lots shall be as follows:
A. Surface.
1. Parking lots shall be surfaced with an asphaltic concrete, concrete, building stone, armor coating or equivalent material approved by the Planning and Building and Public Works Directors."
Item #8.1.
Currently, gravel of some sort covers parking areas. Rain runoff has frequently caused the gravel to move, clogging drainage necessary for BRE and causing major water damage to the BRE drainage system.
Conclusion 9.: Expansion will only exacebate this erosion and sewer blockage causing water backup damage to the BRE properties. This has occurred in the past and has resulted in great expense to the 4 BRE owners. This would only worsen with the proposed expansion.
10.AP IS CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION OF 17.35.020 F GENERAL REGULATIONS "F. Operation of any B and B facility on a permanent basis shall be by the resident property owner(s) or resident manager. No off-site management shall be permitted, unless otherwise provided herein."
Currently, the Patel organization is perpetrating a sham to get around the above regulation. As noted previously, the Patels own a number of hotels in Calistoga. Their desire to expand AP is mainly due to their desire for economies of scale. Their use of an employee manager is merely a way to subvert the intent of the regulations. Make no mistake, the resident manager may check people in and out, but the operation is run by the Patel organization, which violates "No offsite management shall be permitted".
Conclusion 10.: AP is currently in violation of the intent of 17.35 .020F
OTHER REASONS TO VOTE NAY TO EXPAND AP
1. Decrease in property values of lots 1,2,3,4
The owners of lots 1,2,3,4, who pay a large amount of property tax, purchased their property based on the reasonable expectation of the existing secluded, calm, tranquil nature of their small development. Adding any units to AP would significantly and permanently damage the potential use and enjoyment of the four family homes. This damage would result in I) a significant decrease in property values 2) restrict the owners ability to sell in the future and decrease their potential selling price, thus decreasing the tax base 3) immediately result in the owner's petitioning to substantially decrease the property taxes on their homes.
2.Construction of the units would result in an undue burden on the home owners oflots 1-4. 1) Construction vehicles would block use of the driveway to the residents and to the vehicles servicing their property. The driveway is only 1 car wide. Construction vehicles, men and materials will effectively prohibit the egress and ingress to the four residences resulting in various hardships.-who will compensate for that?
2)The driveway and roadway were built to specifications for single family use. Construction vehicles would damage the drive and road-who would pay for that? 3)Construction vehicles and the movement of earth would undermine tl;:ie drainage system that is needed for proper integrity of all uphill lots-who would pay for that? 4 )Construction is likely to damage the adjacent leach field for lots 1,2,4-who will pay for that? 5)Noise pollution during construction would be significant and would result in interfereing with the residents use and enjoyment of their homes. A11 of you are Calistoga residents and are aware how noise travels in the valley.-who will compensate us for that? Item #8.1.
3.Negative permanent impacts due to increased numbers and usage of proposed cottage expansion:
1) Building Cottages on the "Designated Remainder" is contrary to the natural environment of the Brannon Ridge Estates. Such development is out of place, and would encroach on the natural beauty of the existing space. We all purchased our homes, resonably expecting a secluded, peaceful natural environment. We have abundant wildlife that co exist in our quaint area. Deer, turkey, foxes,etc ., populate this tranquil area. Both construction and increased numbers of people would put those species in danger.
a. A large Oak Tree could be endangered (See Exhibits presented by Michael Glover) As with many animals, our oaks are protected.
This violates 19.01.010 purpose:
"A. In enacting this chapter, the Council finds that this City is primarily a residential and tourist community and that the economics of property values is inseparably connected with the rural attractiveness of the area, to which much is contributed by the wooded hillsides and the native and ornamental trees scattered throughout our City. Further, the Council finds that such trees contribute to the health, safety, welfare and well-being of the City and the residents thereof by:
2. The control of damage resulting from soil erosion and flooding; and B. The Council finds that the destruction of trees injures the scenic beauty of the City; causes erosion of topsoil, creates flood hazard and risk of landslides; reduces property values, increases the cost of construction and maintenance of draining systems through the increased flow and diversion of surface waters; and eliminates one of the prime oxygen producers in this area."
2) Drainage from the two natural seasonal creeks would be impeded.
We have frequently experienced torrential rains. Thanks to climate change, it is forecast that significant rain will increase. Our community, built on the hillsides, has 2 seaonal creeks that provide drainage that culminates near the Cottages. It is likely that these creeks would be impeeded due to the additional buildings. Further, the stripping of vegetated land,that would be required,would significantly decrease the lands ability to soak up and hold excess runoff.
This will result in damage to our drainage and will reult in flooding and debris damage to the cottages and homes across from the cottages on Foothill Blvd. 3) The Leach field for property Lots 1, 2, 4, could be impeded 4)The use of the road would be affected.
The road servicing all the homes only allows for one car at a time. One ofus must back up to allow the passage of another vehicle. This is extremely difficult and dangerous on the mountain. As has happened in the past, guests at the cottages often drive up our private road for a look around. This would become a bigger problem with more units. 5) Added noise and distractions to the Residents of Brannon Ridge Estates.
As residents, all of you can relate to how noise floats around in hilly areas. You also know that one of the draws to Calistoga is the beautiful weather,enticing people to enjoy the outdoors and the wineries and brew pubs. Therefore, you understand the noise pollution that will result in extra cottages and drunken guests partying outside. In addition the cars coming and going at all hours of the day and night will degrade enjoyment of the residents. 6)1ncreased traffic with resulting noise, speeding and accidents Foothill, being a main artery carries all the traffic to and from Santa Rosa as well as all traffic to other areas. Cars wanting to tum into the cottages and our property have to wait for the traffic from the north. Those heading north often pass on the right shoulder boardering the homes on Foothill to get around. This results in an accident ready to happen, including injury, death to pedestrians, since no sidewalk exists. This will only be compounded by traffic from Item #8.1.
more units.
7)Estimated 30% Property Value Reduction. This results in Loss of value for lots 1-4 in excess of $3,000,000 which will Result in decreased tax assesment to the state, county and city of Calistoga. In addition ,BRE residents intend on requesting decreasedproperty tax assessments if the expansion is allowed.
CONCLUSION
All the above are negative consequences to ali owners oflots 1,2,3,4 if the extension is allowed. As such, the planning commissioners would be responsible for each element of harm to the property owners. The planning commisioners would be responsible for the resultant property tax decreases due to loss of property value.
Aurora and the planning commissioners would be liable for damage to our roadway and drainage system, as well as erosion exacerbated by development.
Commissioners would be a contributing factor to increased accidents on Foothill Blvd.
Commissioners would ultimately be responsible for higher vacancy rates to all other B&B owners in calistoga. Numerous establishments exist in calistoga and especially lining Foothill Blvd. Many of them are for sale due to high vacancy rates. Adding units to Aurora park can only detract from other B&B's in the area, driving more to close, thus further decreasing the tax base.
Four extra B&B units would not increase the tax base. That has already occured as a result building Solage, Four Seasons, and other new resorts under construction, remodeling and adding units .
AS A RESULT, WE FIND THAT EXPANSION OF AP SHOULD NOT,NOW NOR EVER, BE APPROVED.
Sent from my iPad
Item #8.1.
[Submitted to planning committee by Steve Patel 1/28/20] RESPONSE BY ALAN & PIA MORRIS AT 1821 FOOTHILL BLVD
OVERALL RESPONSE:
CALISTOGA WILL NOT EXPERIENCE ANY BENEFIT FROM APPROVING THE AP EXTENSION.
CALISTOGA WILL HOWEVER BE FACED WITH NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES:
1) DECREASED PROPERTY VALUES OF BRE AND SURROUNDING RESIDENCES WITH RESULTANT DECREASED PROPERTY TAXES.
2) INCREASED NOISE POLLUTION
3) INCREASED TRAFFIC ON FOOTHILL WITH RESULTANT INCREASED TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.
4) DECREASED OCCUPANCY PERCENTAGES FOR ALL BAND B'S IN THE AREA 5) DEGRADATION OF THE BEAUTY AND RURAL ASPECT OF CALISTOGA.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
CURRENT OPERATION
Aurora Park Cottages is a seven unit Bed and Breakfast located at 1807 Foothill Blvd (APN 011-290-051-000) in Calistoga. The seven units are made up of 6 one-bedroom cottages and 1 two-bedroom cottage with a kitchen. Guest reception is handled at the Single Family Residence located directly across the street at 1815 Foothill Blvd ..
RESPONSE: AP ALREADY COMPRISES 7 UNITS.
1) The R-1-10 District conditionally allows bed and breakfast inns with up to ten units.
Therefore, the request to expand AP by 4 units would result in 11 total units, resulting in violation of code R-1-10. It must be noted that it doesn't matter that the Patel's wanted to designate the 2 bedroom unit as guest reception. The code is clear and concise: 10 units.
HISTORY
Our family purchased Aurora Park Cottages, as well as the house at 1815 Foothill Blvd. in early 2015. Aurora Park Cottages (only 6 units at the time) was running at around 45% occupancy.
RESPONSE: THE OCCUPANCY RATE AT AP HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY LOW AND WILL
CONTINUE LOW REGARDLESS OF ANY ADDITIONAL UNITS
THIS IS EVIDENT BY THE FOLLOWING:
1) NEW BUILDING AND EXPANSION OF HOTEL UNITS SUCH AS SOLAGE, INDIAN SPRINGS, FOUR SEASONS,ETC.
2) DECREASE IN VISITORS DUE TO RECENT FIRES.
3) INCREASE IN ILLEGAL VRBO RENTALS.
4) NUMEROUS BAND B'S ON FOOTHILL BLVD. AND THROUGHOUT CALISTOGA. 5) CURRENTLY, AURORA PARK COTTAGES ARE AVAILABLE TO RENT FOR $149/NIGHT.
THIS IS ONE OF THE LOWEST RATES IN CALISTOGA. AS YOU ALL KNOW, SUPPLY AND DEMAND DRIVES ALL BUSINESS. THE $149/NIGHT RATE MEANS THAT THE DEMAND
FOR ANY OF THE UNITS AT AP IS VERY LOW, WHILE THE SUPPLY OF SIMILAR UNITS IS HIGH.
As we became more familiar with the operation, it quickly became evident that the innkeeper/ guest reception facility was not sufficient to meet the demands of today's travelers.
Item #8.1.
While this building was viable for housing an innkeeper, the guest reception area was far too small (really more of a closet) to properly greet and receive guests. Furthermore, this building offered no area for guests to congregate and/or relax other than at their cottage.
In 2016 we moved the innkeeper residence/guest reception across the street to the 1815 Foothill property and converted the former innkeeper residence/guest reception building into a rentable two-bedroom cottage with kitchen. Since that time occupancy has stabilized at 70% range annually.
RESPONSE: I AM NOT SURE BUT I THINK THEY ARE CLAIMING THAT THEIR RISE IN OCCUPANCY IS DUE TO A LARGER AREA IN THE INNKEEPER'S RESIDENCE. AT BEST, THAT IS DISINGENUOUS, AND FALSE. THEIR CLAIM OF 70% OCCUPANCY DOES NOT
MATCH WITH THE PER NIGHT ADVERTISED COST-IT IS ONE OF THE LOWEST FOR CALISTOGA.
PROJECT SUMMARY & SCOPE
Housing continues to be a challenge for the City of Calistoga, its employers, and workforce.
Many of our employees (at Aurora Park Cottages and other hotel properties) commute from other communities such as Santa Rosa, Middletown, and Napa. We have experienced challenges hiring and retaining management level staff due to the shortage of available housing in Calistoga.
Our proposed project intends to move the innkeeper residence/guest reception back to the 1807 Foothill parcel by converting and expanding the two-bedroom cottage with kitchen into a proper guest reception/innkeeper residence building. The 1815 Foothill Blvd. property will be returned to housing stock.
RESPONSE: I THINK THEY ARE CLAIMING THAT THEY WILL IMPROVE THE HOUSING CRISIS IN CALISTOGA BY PLACING THEIR 2 BEDROOM UNIT ON THE MARKET AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE ABSURDITY OF THIS ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO APPROVE THIS EXPANSION IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION. WE ALL KNOW THAT IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THE 2 BEDROOM UNIT IN THE MIDST OF A MULTI UNIT HOTEL COMPLEX COULD BE SOLD. IF IT WERE TO BE SOLD, IT WOULD COMMAND A PRICE THAT LOCAL HOSPITALITY WORKERS COULD NOT AFFORD.
IT APPEARS THAT MR. PATEL THINKS HE CAN MANIPULATE THE PLANNING DIVISION INTO WHATEVER ARRANGEMENT HE THINKS WILL BENEFIT HIM AT THE TIME. THE 2 BEDROOM UNIT IS PART OF AP. IT MATTERS NOT WHAT MR. PATEL DECIDES TO DESIGNATE IT AS.
Additionally, we propose increasing the number of rentable units to 10, which is the maximum number of units allowed per the property's zoning. This would be accomplished by the construction of 4 new one-bedroom cottages on at the currently undeveloped southern end of the parcel. New landscaping to match existing would be extended up to and around the newly constructed cottages.
RESPONSE: R-1-10 IS A ONE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT conditionally ALLOWS BED AND BREAKFAST UNITS WITH UP TO 10 UNITS.
THERE ARE 3 MAIN CONCEPTS 1) ONE FAMILY ZONING 2) CONDITIONALLY ALLOWING BED AND BREAKFAST 3) MAXIMUM OF TEN UNITS.
ONCE BRANNAN RIDGES ESTATES (BRE) WAS DEVELOPED IT CHANGED THE ELEMENTS FOR CONDITIONAL ALLOWANCE OF A B&B. AP IS NOW SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, MOST OF WHICH ARE ZONED RRH. EXPANDING AP DOES NOT, AND WOULD VIOLATE THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF ZONING CODES THAT GOVERN THE AREA. 11 UNITS VIOLATES THE ZONING CODE.
Item #8.1.
This project's scope of work includes the following items:
1. Construct 4 one-bedroom cottages (includes 1 ADA)
2. 6 additional parking spaces (includes 2 ADA) and reconfigure 1 existing
3. Addition and reconfiguration of current two-bedroom cottage w/ kitchen
4. New landscaping at and around new cottages
RESPONSE:
1) THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY CAUSE ISSUES FOR BRE RESIDENTS AND GUESTS AND SURROUNDING RESIDENTS. NOISE POLLUTION, TRAFFIC
CONGESTION, DAMAGE TO THE JOINTLY OWNED DRIVEWAY WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL AND COULD RESULT IN THE LACK OF USABILITY FOR BRE RESIDENTS.
ALSO, THIS WOULD RESULT IN DECREASING THE PROPERTY VALUES OF BRE AND ALL SURROUNDING RESIDENTS.
2) ADDITIONAL UNITS RESULTS IN ADDITIONAL PEOPLE (ASSUME 2 GUEST PER ROOM=8 ADDITIONAL HOTEL GUESTS) AND ADDITIONAL CARS (ASSUME 4). THIS CAN ONLY RESULT IN INCREASED TRAFFIC ISUES AND ACCIDENTS ON FOOTHILL.
ALSO IT INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD OF NOISY DRUNKEN BEHAVIOR FROM THE ADDITIONAL GUESTS. IN ADDITION INCREASED STAFF, MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL WOULD BE REQUIRED WITH THEIR VEHICLES, NOISE AND CONGESTION. 3) EXISTING BAND B'S IN THE AREA WOULD EXPERIENCE DECREASED OCCUPANCY
AND OR DECREASED PRICING POTENTIAL, RESULTING IN DECREASED REVENUE FOR CALISTOGA.
Item #8.1.
ATTACHMENT 4
From: Thomas Adams
To: Public Comment
Subject: Aurora Cottages UP 20221
Date: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 6: 16:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I represent the owners of 1819 Foothill Blvd. Michael Glover and Curtis Wilhelm and we raise the following objections regarding the project and ask for a continuance to allow more time these issues to be further evaluated:
1. Proposes use of a private residential driveway and utility easement for access for commercial uses that are not
allowed by the easement.
2. Conflicts with existing residential users of driveway and emergency vehicle access, especially due to guest having to back into or out of the parking spaces directly into the travel lane. No commercial use of easement is allowed.
Parking stalls 11- 14 are located almost directly across from my client's driveway entrance.
3. Survey prepared by a professional surveyor raised issues regarding the accuracy of the existing survey markers due to them not being consistent with legal description could result in project improvements being located on my
client's property. Should be resolved prior to approval.
4. CEQA Categorical Exemption is inappropriate given
property designation as Very High Fire Hazard. Project is not in an urban area and use of this exception is
inappropriate given recent and increasing fire risks,
Item #8.1.
ongoing fire studies being conducted by the City. CEQA
Initial Study was recently amended to include evaluation of Wildfire Risks associated with new projects and this project should be evaluated for such risks.
s. The City Code provisions allowing for Bed and Breakfast establishments state clearly that such uses are to be
accessory/secondary to the primary residential use of this residentially zoned property (17.35.010). Residential use is proposed to account for no more than 600 SF of a >6000 SF project. This is 90% of the square footage of the use of the property. This is NOT allowed, City Code states that the B&B uses shall NOT exceed 49% of the use of land
and/or buildings. Clearly this is an over commercialization of a residential property proposing to use a private
residential driveway easement for access.
6. The City did not evaluate the City Code requirements in
17.35.040(C)(3) for findings necessary to approve
additional units and instead used the more general
findings for exceptions to standards without evaluating the project against the directly applicable findings necessary to approve an increase in rooms above 2 to a maximum of 6! Instead they propose to approve 10 total units the
project without even analyzing it against the City's own standards. Which required consideration of surrounding
uses and ingress and egress, parking adequacy, and
vehicle maneuvering. This discuss and analysis was not
included in the staff report.
Item #8.1.
7. Request summary of annual inspection reports required by
17.35.020. Should not approve expansion without
evidence of current compliance.
We respectfully ask for a continuance to allow more time these issues to be further evaluated
THOMAS S. ADAMS
PARTNER
DIC 'ENSON, PEATMAN & FOGAR Y 1,
1e will be movina ro a nev. office m rhe Summer of 2022 and ore now accip,ing moil or our new address below:
1500 FIRST srnEIT, STE. 200 I APA, CA. 94559
T· 707 261 7000 I F 707 255 6876
[email protected] I WWW DPF-LA\IV COM
For current wine law news, visit www.leKvini.com
CYBERSECURITY WARNING: Al l communications from Dickenson, Peatman & Fogarty originate from the email domain .QQf:
law.com. Please verify the identity of senders before sharing private or conf idential information If you have any concerns regarding the authenticity of a communication to you, please notify us by telephone at (707) 261-7000 or email at dnf®rtp - law com.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mai l messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to dof@dof-law com or by telephone at (707) 261- 7000, and destroy the original transm1ss1on and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.
Item #8.1.
DPctF
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
April 27, 2020
VIA EMAIL: [email protected] AND CERTIFIED MAIL
1807 Foothill, LLC
ATTN: David Patel and Jagdish Patel
19 Weller Court
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Re: Aurora Park Cottages
Dear Messrs. Patel:
THOMAS ADAMS
[email protected]
We write on behalf of our clients, Michael P. Glover and Curtis J. Wilhelm, regarding their property located 1819 Foothill Blvd. Calistoga, California and your proposed Aurora Park Cottages development on 1807 Foothill Blvd. While my clients have no issue with the additional cottages that have been approved by the City in general, we do take issue with the proposed placement of the new parking lot and commercial use of Messrs. Glover's and Wilhelm's property.
This letter is to inform you that your proposed construction and use of 1819 Foothill Blvd. for commercial parking for the recently approved seven unit Aurora Park Cottages expansion cannot proceed. We have reviewed all applicable easements and have found no legal basis for either the parking lot improvements or any other commercial use of my clients' property. The only easements that do exist over my clients' property were created by reference in grant deeds to parcels maps recorded in 1964 and 1998, respectively. [See Danielson v. Sykes (1910) 157 Cal. 686, 689-690 (holding that when a lot conveyed by a deed is described by reference to a map, such map becomes a part of the deed.)] These easements do not allow for vehicle parking or for that matter, any commercial use of the property. The 1964 parcel map created no rights of access for your property and the 1998 parcel map which does benefit your property, as well as, Parcels 1-4 was expressly for the purposes of providing a "private driveway, storm drain and utility easement." (See Exhibit A 1998 Parcel Map of Brannan Ridge Estates, sheet 3 of 4 stating "Private Driveway ... Easement.") Additional evidence of the intent and scope of the easement created by the 1998 parcel map can be found in: (1) the CC&R's, which refer to the easement as a "private driveway" consistent with the 1998 parcel map; and (2) the Conservation Easement, which restricts each of the four residential parcels created by the 1998 parcel map to only one single family residence. This evidence coupled with the face of the 1998 parcel map reference to a "private driveway," all lead to only one reasonable interpretation, and that is that the easement was created for the limited purpose of a private driveway and utility easement to be used only as a means of ingress and egress for residential purposes in a residential estate setting. As you may or may not be aware, the easement at issue here that was created via the 1998 parcel map is distinct from the 1998 easement that was granted to the Brannan Ridge Estates parcels 1-4 across your property, but even that easement which allows my client access across your property provides evidence of the intended purpose of the use of the road in that prohibits the users from constructing any improvements within the easement on your property without your (grantor's) consent. To somehow interpret your easement 1455 FIRST STREET I SUITE 301 I NAPA, CA 94559 I T: 707 .261.7000 DPF-LAW. COM • ---- ~-- ... - - -1 - - - ---------,,----
... _ = -=------- ---- -~ - - --= - - ~ --- --
Item #8.1.
1807 Foothill, LLC
April 27, 2020
rights across my clients' property to allow for construction and use of a commercial parking lot is clearly erroneous.
Given the limited purpose of the easement, it is unclear as to why you have proposed to place your commercial parking on my clients' property. Not only have we found no legal basis or right for you to construct such commercial improvements but this increase in intensification of the private driveway easement located on my clients' property unreasonably increases the road users' maintenance and legal liabilities since the road was built for four single family homes, not commercial traffic outside of your property. Further, the location of the parking on my clients' property will conflict with ingress and egress due to it being located almost directly across from their driveway entrance. As stated by Mr. Glover during the City Planning Commission hearing there has been continued noise disturbance, including amplified music coming from the existing cottages, trash has been dumped near the side of the road near the leach field, a well has been damaged by your guests, and my clients' gate and light have been subject to vandalism. Given these existing issues, it is reasonable to expect that if the parking spaces were to be located on my clients' property these types of conflicts would only intensify.
In addition to the express language on the 1998 parcel map describing the easement as private in nature, the fact that my clients' property is not zoned to allow for any commercial use also prohibits you from using their property for your commercial purposes. Despite the fact that your property is zoned to allow for Planned Development and commercial use my clients' property is not, it is zoned Rural Residential - Hillside. The court in Teachers Insurance & Annuity Assn. v. Furlotti (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1487, refused to enforce a reciprocal access easement in favor of the owner of commercial building where the access easement straddled the property line between a commercial property and an adjoining residential property on the ground that the residential parcel was not zoned to permit commercial uses. Like our case, the boundary between the commercial and residential zones was the shared property line that ran down the center of the disputed easement.
In sum, you have no legal right to construct commercial parking spaces on my clients' property or to use it for any commercial purpose whatsoever, your easement rights are for private driveway purposes only.
If you have any questions or additional information you would like to discuss with us please feel free to reach out directly to me. We trust that you understand our concerns and will redesign you proposed parking lot so that it is no longer located on my clients' property. Although we prefer an amicable resolution of this matter, failure to move the proposed parking and commercial use off of my clients' property will leave us no other option than to look to the court for relief.
TSA:bab
Enclosure
Sincerely,
DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY
-;;z:----5_/Vt~·· -
Thomas Adams
DPF-LAW.COM
• - - - - - - - - -- I
~- -- - - I
Item #8.1.
EXHIBIT A
Item #8.1.
CNAIMEl!D ltfflNfHt
lollalW'lllillf"iP'Nll.O•,Mt..Clflll"IIOtl!IW.T~:GtOl(,MG.l,lU"'°"IJ'"IUI tlllllW'l"-iCO,C,,~""111,....IUou,IIOH;lffle-"'"'~._,.A,CT""° I..OC,M~&lfWll •J.OICUOl',Mfl. C,041la.,JI.O'LIMl,C ... ITIIA1llWII ,., f'~ W, 1V .. IUT~'I eo,,i,OltW'I TO flilC' ~o Ott C:Cfllarnou.u, .........,,...6A;,,Ut.l'ICIIIM'.•AJff', .... fkAf.U.~~IIAIIIC'Nlcw,JU,Clf>MO OCClfi" Tll!t.f'OflJIOl4f!OCAIHI MiO--"J> t-lijftQ I ,01111~ 1111f ~1. ~ Nl""O ~,... ,I' .. ,.u-z.~-.,g ~~J ~,is;-·@·- t.Jtt:11'..,,.,., ·- ~- - . . - OWHQI' 5JATEMM
WI! Mlfl.laJ«llTIJrltl41'wt:NlrtHEKII.IO-UlOf ,._, M'll MtltGkt, fff\f.Aiffi ,nt1111T9fMVl'On«lttA&.,.O"CATrtlla.VOR\lfflWllif>tflUIOMIIOaltltOfrJI!~ TM:1111U. MO'lft-.TM:ONl.'rll'PIOMiWM1SICO#IIH'll~Mct6UillrTOPA51 C~lA'ITlfU:1'0NIDNICWIIIT'l',ltllO,wfco«MltTf01'Hf:MMWOM«l,IUJCQO,U,OILU' ~:;,.ii:~=:-Off-:=w.:~1~1MI 90AMll llNl.t MIONfllH1 IIIUl+OUftMU«.U" !':u.o:':.:;..~
.. _......£L___ '. '!,. __ •
n .L--:--
A:....:.c.=.....:-:i,,.._'T,',1c. - ---
HOL\RX PllDUC CEBIIOCAU
•rATttl'CAl'~
CCMMfl'DP NIP.A
HAIMY PUDUC CFRtlflCAtf
i~~ . . .. .... -
IIOJIAIUIIU 0,QWNflll o, nc ,ou.O'llflMJ .. ,,111nn M.f,11'11£O1 OMltltbUlfDUI 1111 l'IIOVIIIOtfSOP'll"Cl'10Hll.&II r,F lltf IU90MIIO!tll&d".Cl, TIClll1Nlllllltltli,1Ct1 TlfAY II Cl"fNOT 11.PfN •TO,. ,u !ITU: loHD ltlC 1 IION.-11Htf.l AJll 190f 11:DI.Mt.o , .. INf 00\IVINIIIQ ICIDT l011ttTD.ll911AWU1lltNAOOnlOH IOottlH '1l tu IIOltCtlOl'f&U)\•U~ I0OIUU Pa JIii UIIIWlnt&COtflTMICtOfllUII l'OO!lfli ,-0 H) WAHll•-.un.GW eoo,t IH ,c. :no
~,.V..C Jlrtlt.l>i,llt,11111
,w\lM,C:W.tiur.u:
IHlMt._Y .. tlfll'tll. u,,-,iNi11tl,UWIII
usi•••4IOIO&Uf&.m
u ..... ,tritO,W&Ulll.ln'
MQTA8Y PVIUC CERDff(;All
9tAft0,CALIPOIINl4
ClOUllnTDl'MPA
~~ ~-... :.., ..... e•jl~""•• -r-a."- DO
GITT' EfflJlHEl!"R'S CERJIFH:At:£
='~c:;~~':':U:~~-:::-"~•;:,a~~:t~:!~
•6"'~11:M!l,MK•tt.1•, AAC14""'~41.UJIA o,ttn,u,a;or~nu.fillol.l. QlltNll~O,,-lklADl'nllOfWll'W.1,...MJ.~D~'-"Ca.l..,,.._~, .. 11ncrM1'0,-Af'l1110Wli\.O" ,,. R,N'l.•rM...,HA'IIC: l~ft.l ('OW'la:(11"'11'1AIOfflollfl "'• lo\Tlllll!D 1HA1 MID..,. II netltflC ... LL'I' COl'IIIIC:t ClE!KQfMffOA.APOFSUPERVU~
tlol.llt.&lqJU.rtf!MJ TJil&.~C,ttoif.UldlllQ.\IIKD•n«W1.Wf~,u.J ==~~~:_.~,-(lt~~=.~~~:,wloi\·:..~~ AwrNllfTll£UO.-WIIICkoUK,t,L•f'lllflltUM l\.ll1'0ffffPAY~ i~t~a,~~£0,tl:tA;at.;·~ ~OUNT'I' Of fl":" SlATI OI' c:Al#'ORII~ ~ •/ • • 0 1 , ', ol..l"' ' L r , • .: 1 t
COYHIX 81:®ftDES:ICfllDPICAlE
TH1u,1NIMLID"'UANNAHIHIGtHTAtU·11t111U11T.-cGtl'TIID'CMl.lltGll'IOATl'OII • ~•CUAA~~~.h;;'~"""~~ffr\UO,,,M'rQAftO =~~=-~fto,Uftlll~Mf::::?1r.J~,~~ :~::·'~=·!OJI~-
~~ t&i:.mro1~==~~co ... ~1oo..l'!. __ Ol'MU1 •• , ,uic1~1U .a,<OIIOtft .. ~-o Cc ~ff: ~i"Ji~f ,
COWOl:..IAX
,,...,,~_
toU.Gl(Vt A.WO fOfYPDQH
~
OfFJCE8 CfBTIJw\TE
I ltHU'I' CIW1V'r TlUIT AICCOIIIDIHO to TMa illaQON:lll Of' Y O,,ICl 1 .. 111 iUIIE Na..._.,. tOI: Wlll'_ap 1u11.. <OU'IU. 11111.iCW.-\. OI I.DC.Iii, IUU OIi 1"'1:tsu Man-t.lll'U «-.Liit:l10A1,.u:uaua .., ,~11C11'1Pftvi&.~"'•"°'ro"•'i.au:i~ ,-,,Nafll;l'J .. 1,,1,IO lolc\WOf'W•h4111t•~ .•,t1 .': •; . , , _. , ,,, , , , ,. ~ 1 fM'~~;.:..::!.L ~w.6a:t,w~~ ~.-t, IICDl~IOt(OfncP
VICINITY MAP
~AP ',0 _t,:_;5 __ _
PA.RCf.L MAP OF
BRANNAN RIDGE ESTATES CITY OF CALISTOGA COUNTY OF NAPA STA tt Of CAUF'OR,..IA , ~AIIICll.S • 1'1'.e? 4CIIIS &ND .. ~ ... lli:D 111:YAlkOP - l .... &C TOTM. 11,11,t,C ~~~ 1998 •
IJCIHG A S1Jfl()Wl$1()1ro 0, .- PORTOI OI RANCl-40 CARN( HUWAIIA lN0 l(INC M LAMOS 0, T"Ht OAJllC11 vll.o&IP. ct AL. Dt~ 1111 ~1 NO. ,tttf-C!Gtl,O. H.C.\. • ... ac•c ALSO A f'OIIT'C)I( Of' Tt1l "REW~ TII--"" ~ ,uc,. 4'5 ~,ilrl CN nt£ Ill((~ 0, SUR~T flltO 11-1 IIOOI< II OJ" S\Jff~TS.. Al Pll,C(. 102, HCII 6A\I!. or 9tAltlkCS 114( 'WIUIM"ASll:IIL "f lit([ or PlllttL -... - ... s SMl)WIW Otl IH( lllCORtl OI SMftYlT lll[tl'" ~ II Of ~II{~, U Pat( 101. HC.R . IS INltlt A$ SOIJff,i 13' oo· t«.ST ,,)~ c.r.· (JI) Dl" RrCOIIC) KT'llCO '~"'° WOMUll(.1,ltS Wlt I or • J!Cttl
,..,
Item #8.1.
MJ U• • '
I•,. •
UN( 8(A.ft1H0 i.ttfGfM
!IIW!:E:
St:E IHEET S FOR EA9eMUITS
IU. tHltt • l'o,I! Al.I. LOCAL.t.OblCY"lfOUfUO INFOllMATIOH 11C.ol.090IIOIIIINOICAfllTMleGUNOMYO.tMll,Alll:IL
0, I.NCI NINOIIJNMOC
tu. IHITNICU ANO DOl«IQOQ .UI IMCMM 111 •UT AJIIO DfQ114UTMl•O, Ml:OII011Y\.IIJTIIIUt.utollt01.Maw!CU,..._MN.DO.
4Tffl.l ....,.NOii ...,.,.I.Mll ffl\lCOMHH'l'O.tl:'DNNI ""' OC,.....tlllllotlltOT.UWICU,1•Mlf'f'tOII TW"~au.llC,, BECOBO PATA MOTEi•
11111 IIICOII0~1aNAQCOllD""11:WlT14lUCOAIIC>f'
IUIWU, IIOOII n mo IIIIM'I, ,,.. '°' IIU ... COUff~-~· tttlJMCOMIO..f,.lf(~.-tTMOOCVlll"I ..,, ........... JI 11111 AlCCMII OAlA 1ii1 ACCall-1 W11M MN"A
COUlrh rNtC11, -~ NO IMl•I, ruo IN IOCM I Ofl'AIIC!l...,. .. I &1 l'AOl:11. IICII 1••1 IUICDIIO 041A IN •CcOflCAJIICI WITH'"""'- IIN •AU11t0MriUMIL/90MIDt",A.SD•IOC>llfO, Mlll'MIIOJIIMa"f.&rrMHDMDM ll(.JI
,~ .. :,,,mo,.~'"· UI ltl.-.CIINOl'l f"ll'CI.-CO ... CC '"o• D fOIINtlT4Allll_,,,.UMM1 TAllrlOkC.:.I 11MI IINLIH OTMIJl¥tlll NfllO,
r tOUlll),.....0,,""IU#1.0llflH
IIC:I' ....,.11,COl.wtY•ICotltl
MAP NO, _;:J_: ____ v ·• ' ,•, f 1 'f-f,
PARCEL MAP OF'
Item #8.1.
PRIVATE DIUVEW"Y, ITORM DMINAHD UTILITY IAIEihliNT OV(AAU ,N'Cll.l FOR fHI IE:Ntm ~NJ.OTHER PAA:CEL! tNCLIJOMIOISIOKA.TlD lltt-&wN"Jllt IU attn ,,(MIi AU.I.OCAL MMHCV,41lOUI HO l(f(HtMATl()W
OPEN SPACE EASEMENT
v,w.~1. · -- •"" . 0[51(:tl41t0 ·.--:...: 1 ... , .. " ----- uioow, •
~). -, .. l. ·"'
~t«.D90M&IIIIDICAfft1'l'l~OfTMINC&
ci,~MlilGa&MCllll'aO..
M.I.OllfMIAIMOOIIIMIOIIINIIIHIMtlN,anMO
N~TNMSC»'.
IIICOMfflU.,_.tNIO~MMMltDON
Affl'UI ~,_. NAMLAIIO ffl\t--.wrtDATU,-..
t , IM
T!ll •..-.t11oou.c,s..,.._~,_ffl\.lNMCM.
fteCQftP PATA NORI'
.. ,, MCDRIIIIAto\ailACCOIIIDNIRWffltM'-OIIDO,
IUltffl, IOOllt 11 0, _.., PAOI 101 ill.YA ,...,., ....... f'DI ltlCDMMlo\.o\CCOIIDMCIW!fflDOCU91A'T ND.MN~.•.cJl
111:11 acom m.u. -. "'-'~ Mn! u,,a CautnTNACll.Wil' .. ,JIWf"'-,U• •NC111:1 o, PAACILll4N, •1 PAGI U , 111 CJI (l"I l'IICCIIID D"-"• llt Aa:Dlt04HOI lfflM ""'"'- .U "MIM)l'IAl'.ulM~•.r~ID .. •OOM'OI' lu DII/IIIOIINN'l 6T,ANIUAHDM N.Cl'I J\IIIOM.l,CM I Clliar:IMr..
Kl'llll~--• .. t liOOft~Ca. 1tt U."
0 'OUNII ,.,.,. _,...,.._,. tTMWID ll.0 I 11 ...
UNl.111 OJNl~INOJU
o ,o-,i,.. ,.--0-,...•r,...._.u,w,
• C-.-ACO,llllfl-.c,olOI
~AP NO.!.!.~_:,;. __ ~ - - ' .. (, 'l~F
P ARC£.L l,,IAP OF
BRANNAN RIDGE ESTATES CITY OF CALISTOCA' COUNTY OF NAPA STATI: OF' CALIFORNIA ~ l'AIICQ.I - ,,..,. t.cll'f.l AC, 0£11~_.,l'tO 11(11.....,.0£11' - ...... C 101"'- 11.nolC JULY 1998 '°"'° • M,_.YIPOl' OT • ,c,IIIQll c, .l'IJ,IIIQ-1 ~ (NI)( Wt,IAJ,jA -0 11(,ioe; 'DIE lMtOS "T'C ~ " ~ . ( l ..._, lilt\OIIIC.0 l'I ~I"°' ! ttt,,.QO,tf)O,. N.c.-. .• NfO t(),IC AdO.t. ,C-.IOII OI' n,c •~11,e ~ 1llt(I, 0~00- IHCIIE00111) ~ M vt'I' " tO W 1t001< 11 f/1 Slllt~T'S. U l'AGl Utl, lfCl'I .... 51,, er 8'•11..CS llf{ SOUlMUSIUI. 'f LM Of' P,tr,lla:L ..... AS SHO.., OM fWI' lll(COl'OIJI SU'll,t 'l' lrdD ., 80Dlt 11 OT .M-.ns, U P40f ll)l, lfC ll, IS 1AlltH ... , soo~ 21· 00' IC.Sl }~04• 1)73,0J' lttCOJIW) •tcCH rQUNO WcwuwtNl'1 WIJ J 01 •1,,1tm
"''
Item #8.1.
1MI ..,OIW.I.TIDH 4110 HOTH .HOIIJN MIUON Ml ..,.. INf'OfUIATION ,UIIPOIU atiA.'1', OIK-INQ Ol'fti~ONINT COflDfflONI Al Of' THI D&TI CW n.M, &NOMlt NOT WJIIIIDfO TO l,,ICf IIIG~D tlTUI IIITHln '"•WIOMIAnottWMIJIIIIII\IID•JIOlll•U.OC:.-CCOflN, 41C! DOU i.01'111N'\.Y1HI tOIIMcntlll 0lt "frtltllllC'l'O, tNOII IIICOIIDIDAIIUO!lfll'l'tt'llf!IOMIIII IIICOfllDffTl.llllftUIT._._._lfWtCIIWMIU,IDOII
•tlrUIIIPGIITNIOIIN&,AL...:iiTTT\ICO.MfO..nD.NN
1, 111&
nn NOMC't • ,~, to ,,,. t.Arut ~P
OflDIIU,HCH, IWIOl.lnl(9fl, POIJCWI NtO , ... "°°"'° IT =~•t'9a,-.OfTWIIUI.OM~Q'MW
ITIW(TIIM ■ CM llfUOUIG Mil MOT AU.OMO 11 '"' ONN .,6'1 IJ.CIPf Al Nll!Ml"lla IOA ,_, 111.t.MOIHIINT GIii IMITAU.ATIQtl 1,MCJ IWNTINlollCI' OI e,,,ie ITITllft 4tlO Willi
•IOLIUJIICMlrlllltlQU .... 0POlll.t.CM~JIIIIQIIIT(IIIIUIIICI O, .. IU&tllHll•lhllf
U&DWOINYILOH
LI..CMJIIILD
PlffilATf:DfllVIW10 .... lMlfOIT
OHNIPACli.......r
TOTAL
~r1 , 01 1 .._., , Utt •
t,CMIAC iltAC UOAC IN1',C ONAC u, .. c 0.1'AC ,~1..,c 0.:111-.C ON ~ OIJN; , .. a.c Ht.t.C OU,C: u,AC l91AC • ,-:· ..nz m.z .-.ric
tull.09t0 N>OTIIIIINT IHALL IIO'l' ••c:no IMJf IQVNII "" DH ANTIIHOL.ILOT
41.L C0Nn11ucno,i Of Dl'IIIVlW .. 'l'I, It~ o-. <O
UTll"111MMLlCOMl'L'l"""1NMCOlfWlfOA't101011161190!taiT
llll'OJIT IY PACl"C TIIH C&At OA1W0 OC:fOllllf 1n1
ilLlP .. AC1L•a.a111a.cc,,oticOflltv1WA1',fJOltllDII.U
&HG llftLIT't' 1M11nr:,..,,.cl! OIC:LA,11.1.TIQM lllrCOIICll'O'fWITMt• COUN1 VOflrflP6 AIJ.P~UMIIUtJlCTTOltll)UIIIIMINflO,na~
DIWLOt'MIN'T"-Alrflllif,11.tllilff'K t HICtf'l"twCA._.'JOG4
41.L JIAACIU 11,111 9416KC"f TO tHl 0,lt,I ..-.cz UU-111' lttCO...OIMl'MIMI.COINfffCW,..,.._
SUPPLEMENT AL INFORMATION
M AP NO_._!.,. _ _ __ • ' .,_ f' f' u;;-
PARC£L MAP ►
BRANNAN RIDGE ESTATES CITY OF' CALISTOCA COUNT"t' OF NAPA STATE OF CALIFORNIA • ~•~CILI - l'P e? &C"lltl .... fl OfSION•1'1:0 'ICOOIIIWOt• • I ... C TOTAL II ll4C ' .JULY 1991!1
KlilG I, SUIOl~SIOH OF' 4 POfll'ICW OI IIAHOMO ~C HI/Ila.NA AND 9EJHC THC LA~Dli Of' THC GNINE.U Ol'QJP, [1 "L Dlstltltt:O IN OOCl,#,l[l\lt "°· ,na-OO'f!KI, NC.A, MIO 6CING 1-1.50 A l"OIITlc,,t 0, TH[ ' RCtr,1i1J1r1HC 19 ~· ,t,C" l"IIACT, AS !i,IO'IIIN ON TI-II lltCOII.D r, SUl'l~T r11.LO ... IOOll ,, or s.JIIW:V\. ·" P~t ,oa, ... ~ A VI\~ C, YC•iw.cs IH( SOUTWl:.\i fClt\.1' -....: 11 , .. CCI •.-• , .) ~ u,. "°" AtCOIK> Of" w11~ , h l.(0 ltf 8()0I( II « Sv lh'lf1.. • I UC( ,o,, OI , ,s l,U{lo AS SOVI .. ,e• oo· fllt: $1 Jl!tl),I' (JUOJ' "(COl'IU} • ' -.:1"1 '°"""" ""~"'IS H.tt •Ol t i,c.tfl
....
Item #8.1.
I
I
I
!
l
1 l
I
1 I._,. ...
\
\
\
\
' ' \
' ' \
' ' \
I
I ----- -
L--------------
I L &105 104
101 --- --- --7
&94 1
I
-- SFNF
,,
... ... ~
....
,,-~-• .... 11~.., ......
=
~o.M•11ll,.c
~-.......~
......... - tt•ao•uc.
_,,.
N<OO,r-AAI~[
to.i~o 111· l~DM PIPC r,CGCo IIC[ 1111l
,....,..,_. .. llol•l•U(~ ,.,. ,1 •---wrc•Cill'l-....,1 ~~-,,_ ... ~ .-ttOKoUC
--
GRAPHIC SCALE
("'ftrl)
I illch • 40 fl.
I) Tl-1 [ F'Ufll"OSE Of' THIS MN' IS TO SHOW Th[ R[SUlTS or" 90UNOAAYR£lFIACEMCNTOFLOT1 OFF'ARCELMAPIS<l75 R[CQfl0£0 IN 80011 22 OF PARCEL MAPS Al PACE 80- 83 ANO Tl-IC CONTENT IS RELATIVE JO THE INICNOEO US[ UNAUnt0fl1ZEO CttN-/CCS OR AOO.TIONS TO THE [XISTINC. DATA SHOWN ON nllS MAI' IS STRICTLY PROH18ITED mY USES OF
THIS MAP BCYONO TH( STATEO PURPOSC REQUIRES TH[
.+,JTNlllllt,ltl()h 0, t«M L,l,liO S(~
11 TJfiO
~
""'1,11 gpc.'l ~ <~H\11( 11 ~ • ~rl(l",
l!!oFOMWIOtl ~N d l'tJf ....c-c\ 11,111# I :,QI) =-~i~~:~=t£f=,.,
WHCHC SHOWN WJTH A TIE
J) HORIZONT,\L CONTAOI.. IHON F'IPtS fOUND ,.5 SHOWN ON Ttt[ MAJ> llt:Ji.t .t.
CAlCut.AT[O 9[AAH«; OF N4742'111"E
4) ~lUICAl CONTROi.:
[lfV.\llON OAl\JM IS ASSUM€O AT soo· OVER CP I
1-
a:J
I
>< w
1-
z
w
~
w
u
<(
0:::
1-
w
0:::
Item #8.1.
Via E-Mail Only
tadams@dpf-lawcom
Tod M. Rat.field
A Professional Corporation
1233 Alpine Road
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone (925) 934-3300; Facsimile (925) 934-9775
E-mail: [email protected]
May 12, 2020
Thomas Adams, Esq.
Dickenson, Peatman & Fogarty
Re: Aurora Park Cottages
Dear Mr. Adams:
I represent the owner of Aurora Park Cottages, JagJudy, LP, a California limited partnership. Your letter of April 27, 2020 was forwarded to me for reply.
I am not going to address every detail of your letter and reserve the right to do so at a later date should that be necessary. I am addressing those major points you raise in your letter so that you see the claims will not be successful, and our respective clients can move on. The background facts are quite helpful in this case, so I will start there.
The Aurora Park Cottages were built and operated continuously since the 1950's.
The same road then as now was used for ingress and egress to the cottages. The Map was recorded November 24, 1998, and included four residential lots, the Designated Remainder and some scenic easements. On December 28, 1998 the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions were recorded by the common owner of all the lots and Designated Remainder. In calendar year 2000 your clients purchased Lot 1. They did so having seen and had notice of the commercial use of my client's predecessor's own property and the newly recorded easement for access to and from the Aurora Park Cottages. In 2015 my client purchased the Aurora Park Cottages, increased to a 7th unit, and moved the onsite manager's residence to the adjoining parcel. The cottages have been continuously operating since 2000 using the same recorded easement for commercial purposes without objection, and prior thereto by using the road for ingress and egress to their bed and breakfast inn cottages. Further to your clients' detriment is the CC&R's establish a commercial purpose and intent and not a private easement solely for residential use.
Your clients took title to their lot approximately one plus years after the recording of the CC&R's. At the time of purchase of Lot I your clients manifested their acceptance Item #8.1.
Thomas Adams
Re: Aurora Park Cottages
May 12, 2020
of the CC&R's. Civil Code Section 1352. All the terms of the CC&R's became equitable servitudes and inure to the benefit of and bind all owners of the separate interests in the development. See CC&R 's Par. 14. For this reason the courts have described recorded declarations as "the primary means of achieving the stability and predictability so essential to the success of a shared ownership housing development." Nahrstedt v. Lake ide Village Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 361, 382. Having a single set of recorded covenants and restrictions that applies to an entire common interest development protects the intent, expectations, and wishes of those buying into the development and the community as a whole by ensuring that premises concerning the character and operation of the development are kept. (See Citizens for Covenant Compliance v. Anderson (1995) 12 Cal.4th 345,364 (emphasis added)). Recording of a declaration with the county recorder provides sufficient notice to permit the enforcement of the CC&R's contained therein. Citizens@ pp 364-365.
The CC&R's paragraph 13 state, "A Lot Owner shall be wholly responsible for its tenants' use of the common easement." (emphasis added). Paragraph 10 states, " ... The Owner of the Lot who authorized the vehicle or equipment to use the easement, shall be wholly responsible for the cost of any damages incurred." These paragraphs clearly show the intent of the drafter of the CC&R's to continue to permit the use of the common easement for commercial use, and make any owner whose authorized users that damage the common easement, responsible to fix the damage. My client has insurance which covers the acts of its tenants if they were to damage any part of the common easement or anyone else's property in any way. Simply put, the use of the easement by my client and its tenants was open and continued as it had been done by prior owners since the 1950' s.
To continue with that use, and the intent of the owners of all the lots and designated remainder, the CC&R's confirm and authorize that continued use for commercial purposes by all lot owners in the development.
You cite Teachers Insurance & Annuity Assn. v. Furlotti ( 1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1487 for the proposition the court refused to enforce a reciprocal access easement in favor of the owner of a commercial building on the ground the residential parcel was not zoned to permit commercial uses. In Teachers Insurance, however, the Los Angeles Municipal Code Section I 2.21.C.5(h) did not permit an accessory building or use on a property in a more restrictive zone than that required for the main use. Id@ 1494. This was the case because in Los Angeles a commercially zoned area constituted a commercial use in violation of the zoning restrictions of the more restrictive residential zoning district. Id. That specific set of facts are not present here. The Teachers Insurance case is completely distinguishable and does not apply here based upon the Municipal Code of the City of Calistoga which authorizes such use by use pe1mit, which has been granted.
In the City of Calistoga its General Plan designation for the property allows for Low Density residential. Low Density residential allows for bed and breakfast establishments. See Calistoga Municipal Code Section 17. 16. 020.B.2. This use is also consistent with the City of Calistoga General Plan Objective ED-1.1. The Zoning of the Designated Remainder is within the R-1-10 allowing bed and breakfast inns and facilities Item #8.1.
Thomas Adams
Re: Aurora Park Cottages
Page3
May 12, 2020
with up to 10 guest units. City of Calistoga Municipal Code Section 17.35.040.C.4.C.
The Planning Commission found in its Resolution PC 2020-xx the design and the 3 additional units would not interfere with the development, use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity or area. The facts and law support the use permit and prove the distinguishing nature from your cited authority. More importantly my client is traveling over its own land to get to its units unlike the use by Teachers using half of the residentially zoned alley in violation of the more restrictive residential zoning code in Los Angeles.
The Calistoga police have confirmed since my client has been in operation of the Aurora Park Cottages no calls have been made to the police by your client reporting any disturbances or vandalism of any kind relating to the Aurora Park Cottages or their guests.
Finally, my clients' survey and plans do not have the tenants of Aurora Park Cottages using your clients' property that is not part of the easement. If that were the case, my client would alter its plans to conform its use of the easement and Designated Remainder only for its tenants' use. We will make sure of it again when the plans are submitted for the building permit.
My clients wish to have a good relationship with your clients, and will continue with diligence to operate an upstanding and successful bed and breakfast inn in the City of Calistoga. Should your clients have any concerns in the future, please do not hesitate to reach out to me at your convenience. We are happy to work with you and or your clients to make the development a continued success and everyone live in harmony.
Given the law strongly favors my clients' use is consistent with its prior use, easement, of the City of Calistoga Municipal Code, and CC&R's, it will vigorously defend its permit application should you wish to take it that far. I trust you will see the lack of success your clients will have here, will only serve to spend money unnecessarily, and will ultimately not stop development of the 3 additional units.
I look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.
TMR:kg
cc: Client
Very truly yours,
Tod M. Ratfield
Item #8.1.
..... ,
HECE.\\/ED
ATTACHMENT 5
For ·,
City of Calistoga
City oi Ca\iSt09a Appeal Application Form
Date
By---,6......._,q..._ __ ,.._,~
Appe
• A copy of the City's Municipal Code excerpt regarding appeals and the appeals procedure summary is attached. • The fee to file an appeal is $200.00 and must accompany lhis fonn. • Appeals must be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the action. • Appeals must address issues raised or decisions made. • In order for your appeal to be determined to be complete this form mus! be filled out entirely.
Appellant Information (Please Print)
Appellant Name
Mtchael P. Glover; Curtis J. Wilhelm
Appellant Address City Stale/Zip Code
1819 Foothill Blvd Calistoga CA94515
Appellant Phone I Fax I Email
Representative Address City Stale/Zip Code
1500 First Street, Ste 200 Napa CA, 94559
Represenlative Phone
707.261 . 7000 j Fax
707.255.6876
I Email
[email protected]
IN-le the undersigned do hereby appeal the decision of the:
0 Planning Commission 0 Building Standards Advisory and Appeals Board D Department Director or Department Staff D Other __________ _ Regarding: Aurora Park Cottages (UP 2022·1 and DR 2022-1) {Tille of proj«t or applicalion)
Located at: 1807 Foothill Boulevard, Calistoga CA 94559 (APN 011-290-046) (Address)
Made on: 21912022
- ----------.....-,(De-a-te-de_os,.... · io_n_wa_s_m_a..,.. de-) -------------- The facts of the case and basis for the appeal are: (Additional sheets may be attached) See additional sheet
I/We request that the City Council lake the following specific action(s): (Additional sheets may be attached) See additional sheet
Signed: 2-::;_o--z.2..
(Date)
2 ... 2-o - ;l..~
(Date)
Item #8.1.
Additional Sheet in Support of Appeal
1. The facts of the case and basis for the appeal are:
This appeal is filed on behalf of Michael P. Glover and Curtis J. Wilhelm (the "Appellants"), regarding their property located at 1819 Foothill Boulevard, Calistoga, California and the proposed Aurora Park Cottages expansion on 1807 Foothill Boulevard (the "Project"). It is Appellants' position, for the reasons stated herein, that the Project represents an unacceptable intensification of commercial use on a residentially zoned property in violation of City of Calistoga Municipal Code Chapter 17.35, requiring bed and breakfast uses to be accessory and incidental to the residential uses of the property. Further, the use of CEQA Categorical Exception 15303 is inappropriate due to the rural nature of adjacent properties that share the Project's only driveway and the resulting potential traffic and emergency ingress and egress safety concerns caused by the commercial traffic and parking.
This Project seeks to expand the Aurora Park Cottages by constructing: (1) 3 additional onebedroom cottages; (2) 6 additional parking spaces; and (3) converting an existing two-bedroom guest cottage to a front office reception area and manager's unit. The Project was originally approved by the Planning Commission on February 26, 2020. A one-year extension was granted, which ultimately lapsed per§ 17.40.040(A) of the Calistoga Municipal Code, requiring the Project to be issued "effectively a brand-new use permit and design review project entitlement." (Staff Report,
Despite this being a hearing for the consideration of a new entitlement, the Planning Commission inappropriately relied on a prior now-expired approval of the Project as a basis for not addressing, responding to or even considering the comments and concerns brought to the attention of the Planning Commission by members of the public. These comments, made during the public hearing and also submitted in writing, were not addressed, based on express statements from the Chair and one other Commissioner (both apparently involved in the prior hearing) that the Project had been previously approved and that no further consideration or discussion was in order. At one point, a new Commissioner started to discuss potentially moving the proposed parking as a solution to the neighbors' concerns. Yet this discussion was readily dismissed by the Chair as involving a "civil matter" outside of the scope of the Planning Commission's authority, despite it being directly related to the impacts caused by the Project on the neighbor's use of the shared driveway, as stated in the public comments. This dismissive attitude towards the public in favor of the applicant ignored comments raised regarding City Municipal Code compliance and safety issues that were not even evaluated and discussed during the hearing nor in the Staff Report. The Project was not provided a full and fair hearing by the current Planning Commission, which since the February 26, 2020 approval has two new members. Therefore, it is our position that the approval violates my clients' and the public's right to due process and is not supported by substantial evidence. The approval violates both the City Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 17.35, and CEQA.
The Planning Commission has respectfully failed to adequately consider the following issues:
A. The City Code provisions allowing for Bed and Breakfast establishments state clearly that such uses are to be accessory/secondary to the primary residential use of this residentially zoned property(§ 17.35.010). Residential use is proposed to account for no more than 600 square feet of this >6000 square foo.t Project. This results in at least 90% of the square footage of structures on the property being a commercial bed and breakfast use. This is not allowed -the City Code clearly states that the Bed & Breakfast uses shall not exceed 49% of the use of land and/or buildings(§ 17.35.0lO(D)). This is an over commercialization of a residential property. This Item #8.1.
inappropriate intensification of a commercial use also creates conflicts with the other users of the private residential driveway.
B. The City did not evaluate the City Code requirements in § 17.35.040(C){3) for findings necessary to approve additional units, and instead used the more general findings for exceptions to standards without evaluating the Project against the more appropriate and directly applicable findings necessary to approve an increase in rooms above 2 to a maximum of 6. The Planning Commission approved 10 total units without even analyzing it against the City's own standards for an increase to 6 units. This discussion and analysis was not included in the Staff Report.
C. The CEQA Categorical Exemption is inappropriate given the property's designation as Very High Fire Hazard. The Project is not in an urban area and use of this exception is inappropriate given recent and increasing fire risks and ongoing fire studies being conducted by the City. The CEQA Initial Study was recently amended to include evaluation of Wildfire Risks associated with new projects and this Project should be evaluated for such risks, especially in light of its location and proposed increase in commercial activity utilizing a shared private residential driveway for access.
D. The facilities must be inspected and those reports should be forwarded to the Planning Commission, pursuant to§ 17.35.020{H). Review of compliance history should be considered prior to approving any expansion. These inspections and reports are mandatory per City Code.
2. I/We request that the City Council take the following specific action(s):
Overturn the Planning Commission's approval of the Project. In the alternative, we ask that the approval be overturned and the Project remanded to the Planning Commission for full consideration and analysis of the issues raised as part of this appeal.
Item #8.1.
Item #9.1
CITY OF CALISTOGA
STAFF
REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Derek Rayner, Public Works Director/City Engineer
March 15, 2022
SUBJECT: Non-Routine Encroachment Permit for 1803 Aurora Drive Approved bv
Laura Snideman,
~~ City Manager
DESCRIPTION
Consider adopting a Resolution authorizing a non-routine encroachment permit for an existing 4.5-foot-tall fence on the North Oak Street side of the property located at 1803 Aurora Drive (APN 011-524-002).
RECOMMENDATION
Consider adopting the resolution.
BACKGROUND
In late 2003, the City Council directed the Public Works Director to prepare an amendment to Chapter 12.08 of the Calistoga Municipal Code (CMC), to allow citizens to petition the City for long term, private use non-routine encroachment permits. On July 6, 2004, the City Council approved an ordinance amending CMC Section 12.08 to create both routine and non-routine encroachment permits.
Examples of non-routine encroachment permits include installations of private walls, fences, decks, balconies or architectural projections, dumpster enclosures, or other use within the public right-of-way (ROW). Non-routine encroachment permits require Council approval and provide the City the authority to have the improvements removed if the ROW needs to be reverted-back or utilized for a different purpose.
Item #9.1.
Application for 1803 Aurora Drive
The Public Works Department has received an application for a non-routine encroachment permit from the resident at 1803 Aurora Drive that has already built a 4.5' tall fence in the public right of way to provide safety for their small children, containing pets, and some privacy. The property is a corner lot, and the fence is built along the parcels North Oak Street frontage. The existing improvements are shown in attachment
2. The fence encroaches approximately 5.5-feet into the public right-of-way. Staff sent public notice to all property owners within 300-foot radius of the property.
Staff finds that the encumbered area of Right-of-Way will not be used by the city now or in the near future.
Staff recommends approval of the non-routine encroachment permit with the following permit conditions:
1 . If it is determined in the future that the City is in need of that portion of the public right-of-way utilized for the improvements, then the property owner shall be required to remove the fence and any damage to the public right-of-way repaired at their expense, within 14 days of notification.
The encroachment permit, if approved, will be recorded with the Napa County Recorder's Office to record permit conditions that go with the property, or its future successors.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There will be no fiscal impact to the city. The applicant posted a $500 deposit with the city at the time of application. Staff time to process the non-routine encroachment permit will be charged against this deposit and the remaining funds returned to the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Application and Site Plan
3. Draft Agreement
4. Public Notice
Item #9.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALISTOGA,
COUNTY OF NAPA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A NON-ROUTINE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR A 4.5' TALL FENCE, ON THE NORTH OAK SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1803 AURORA DRIVE (APN 011-524-002) WHEREAS, the Calistoga Municipal Code Section 12.08 allows for the issuance of non-routine encroachment permits for the construction of walls and fences within the public right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, an application for a non-routine encroachment has been received for the a 4.5-foot tall fence already built approximately 5.5-feet into the public right of way to provide safety for their small children, containing pets, and some privacy; and WHEREAS, the fence exists along the properties North Oak Street frontage located at 1803 Aurora Drive; and
WHEREAS, the non-routine encroachment permit will be recorded with the Napa County Recorder's office as notice of conditions to successors in interest or any interested person.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALISTOGA DOES HEREBY find the following:
1. Authorizes the issuance of a non-routine encroachment permit for the existing 4.5-foot tall fence built on the North Oak Street side of the property located at 1803 Aurora Drive (APN 011-524-002).
2. If it is determined in the future that the City is in need of that portion of the public right-of-way utilized for the improvements, then the property owner shall be required to remove the fence and any damage to the public right-ofway repaired at their expense, within 14 days of notification.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of March 2022. I, MARNI RITTBURG, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CALISTOGA, HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing resolution was introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the Calistoga City Council by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Marni Rittburg, CMC, City Clerk Chris Canning, Mayor
Item #9.1.
12/5/2021
To whom it may concern,
ATTACHMENT 2
RECEIVED
DEC O 6 2021
City of Calistoga
Thank you in advance for reviewing the attached non-routine encroachment permit application. Our apologies for any burden that our new fence has caused the City Council as it certainly was not our intent. We were only concerned about the safety of the many small children in our family, in containing our agile pet dog, and in maintaining privacy for all residents. We believed that a safe and aesthetically pleasing fence in the side-yard might ultimately benefit neighborhood home values vs. becoming a cause for concern. We hope to work together toward a resolution. Thank you for your time and consideration.
With gratitude,
-~, --~r\-:~
---:- ~ r/_ . . /(Lh lr-rb-1~
Troy and ammy Harbison
1803 Aurora Dr.
Calistoga, CA 94515
Item #9.1.
z_
0 j
J.-
r
I
\
\
I
-'-\-
\
'-.
•.
·z
K)
f_
11 i
~
OI
-i
-i-_,
i
\
\
-
- - - - -=EX\~~1N~ F~~e
_J
0 .J)
\
·,, -- s~~~i; ;,-~• .. •
s ( 't>E\,.ifA'\..\l..
RECEIVED
DEC O 6 2021
5 v it\ q__tQalistoga --- ---
Item #9.1.
Routine:__ !< Calistoga Public Works- Encroachment Permit Application >!A E!CE~lew Non-routine:'><. 414 Washington Street, Calistoga CA 94515 - P: 707-942-2828 F: 707-942-9472 >=-""-'""""'-~---' ... .................. .......................... .... ............... . ........................... _._. . .......................................... . .................... .
Pie~~ ' !9.~d/fill /n this
Phone: ,c.-i 210 t)qbC) Contractor Lie.# Class: apptr&M;6}{ IR~ottraty.
Questions: Call Public
Works at (707) 942-2828. Fax#:
CELL#: ,D-, () 00 ~~ '"o.v\,~~"'-
Em II Address: '
Work Start Date: l O - IL\ · "L. I
Completion Date: 1 c, - ~, - -z. \
Type of Work to be Performed: (Attach required plans/specs or diagram of proposed work) ~~~ ~""'c,,e. ,,,u \ \ 4\ .:.'""" s.. ... -\--'-'.-.:. ~1.,o,...S#I.~.... -4:M ~°"::,\ -Y":--+ ~ 4--\.-. ?'=°?~ •AV\~ PL,,,0-.Sl~"C >~-l..,, t<-.... ~w,.~\\ ~\.,\~'-~""" Cl"",~ ~...-\.~ . .... It the oennitted work is not comDleted bv the comoletlon data. an authorization for an extension Is mandatorv or a new D81TT1it will be reauired"** With Pennlt approval and to defray Iha costs ot
Inspection, the permlttee shall pay to the City a FEE
equal to five {5%) percent of the esUmated cost of
work as determined by the Department of Public
Works. In addition, an administrative fee oftwenty•flve ($25) dollars shall be charged.
Approval contingent upon proof of the required
insurance certifications, separate additionally insured endorsements and proof of a City Business License.
General Llab.
>
Add'! Insured
>
Estimated Cost of Work: ______ (5% Fee Imposed)
5% Inspection Fee: To be Determined (If Inspections are required} Administrative Fee:_$ 25.00_
Total Due: Payment Upon Approval
Staff
lnltials: ___ DATE Received:. _________ _
Homeowner's
Worker's Comp> __ Llablllty > ___ _ City Bus. Lie. >
Special Public Works Requirements: (Rnallzed PERMIT Required PRIOR to the Start of Work, which includes all the necessary backup Insurances and proof of a city business license) With this Appllcatlon, please submit the followlng If you are a Company/Contractor: 1) Proof /Copy of General Liability Insurance with a, 2) Separate Endorsement naming the "City of Calistoga" as the Additionally Insured. 3) Proof/Copy of Workman's Comp. 4) Proof/Copy of Calistoga City Business License.
For Homeowner's as Applicants, please submit Proof(Copy of your Homeowner's Llablllty Insurance for the workslte address.
The APPLICANT agrees to save, indemnify and hold hannless the City of Calistoga or its representatives from aU liabRities lrriposed by law by reason of injury to or death of any person or persons or damage to property which may arise out of the work covered when permitted and does agree lo de.tend the City In any claim or action asserting such liability. Signing this application or starting any work heretofore, shall constitute acceptance and agreement lo an of the conditions and requirements when work's permitted and the ordinance and speciflcatlons authorizing Issuance of such a permit. When approved, the permlttee is responsible for adhering to all General P · ~menls on Page 2 of the linal permit.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT.,_~=~=-•-· h\.._.~=\..\..:::..~ \a=''..::.JJ...;:::._ ~=-...;:::._ ________________ _ DATE:
APPL. Reviewed by: APPL. Approved by: Field Inspected by:
Date: ____________ Date: ____________ Date:. _________ _ Item #9.1.
DECLARATIONS
We will provide the insurance described in this policy
in return for the premium and compliance with all
applicable provisions of this policy.
Policy Number
Named Insured and Mailing Address
Harbison, Troy & Tammy
1803 Aurora Dr
Calistoga, CA 94515-1179
Coverage afforded by this policy is provided by:
State Farm General lnsura.nce Company
PO BOX 853907
Richardson TX 75085-3907
A Stock Company with Home Offiees-jAJ3IAQ("Aiflgton,
Illinois. H.t:vt:IVCL..l
UL I , II V LULi
City of Calistoga
The Polley Period begins and ends at 12:01 a.m. Automatic Renewal - If the Policy Period is shown as Standard Time at the residence premises. 12 months, this policy will be renewed automatically 12/05/2021 Effective Date subject to the premiums, rules and forms in effect each 12 months • Policy Period succeeding policy period. If this policy is terminated, we 12/05/2022 Expiration of Policy Period will give you and the Mortgagee/Lienholder written 1------------------ -----i notice in compliance with the policy provisions or as Limit of Liability • Section 1 required by law.
$770,400 Dwelling
$577,800 Personal Property (Minimum 75% of Deductibles· Section I $1,000 D II" ) ALL LOSSES In case of loss under this policy, the we ing deductible will be appliad per occurrence and will be Limit of Liability • Section 2 deducted from the amount of the loss. $500,000 Personal Liability
$1,000 Medical Payments to Others
Policy Type Homeowners
A1 • Replacement Cost- Similar Construction
Increased Dwelling Up to $154,080 - Option ID
Location of Premises
1803 Aurora Dr
Calistoga, CA 94515-1179
Forms, Options, & Endorsements
HW-2105 Homeowners Policy
Form 438bfu Ns Lndr Loss Pay
State of Emergency Amendatory
Mortgagee & Addi. Interests
Mortgagee
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE LLC ITS
SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS
c/o Dovenmuehfe Mortgage Inc
PO Box 961292
Fort Worth, TX 76161-0292
Loan Number: 1476226251
Prepared: 11·30-2021
559-916.5
Policy Premium $1721
Ordinance/Law 10% $77,040
Wildfire Response End
Agent Name & Address
Melinda Adams
575 Jefferson St
Napa, CA 94559-3236
(707) 224-3178
Agent's Code:6097
APPLICANT COPY
1000007 2020 127534 219 04-23-2021
Item #9.1.
Item #9.1.
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY OF CALISTOGA
1232 WASHINGTON STREET
CALISTOGA, CA 94515
Attn: City Clerk
Exempt From Recording Fees
Section 27383 Gov't. Code
ATTACHMENT 3
AGREEMENT
The City of Calistoga approved a Non-routine Encroachment Permit (Attachment "2") on March 15, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-0XX (Attachment "1 ") for construction of a fence, herby referred to as the "Improvements" on Oak Street along the frontage of North Oak for the 1803 Aurora Drive Property (APN 011-524-002) with the following condition:
1. If it is determined in the future that the City needs that portion of the public rightof-way that is utilized for the improvements, then the property owner shall be required to remove the enclosures, at their expense, within 14 days of notification.
These requirements are binding upon any successors in interest in the property and shall be recorded with the Napa County Recorder's Office.
I, Troy Harbison, hereby agree that the improvements that were approved by the City Council of the City of Calistoga on March 15, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-0XX will be removed and any damage to the public right-of-way repaired, within fourteen (14) days of receipt of written notification from the City of Calistoga that the City is in need of that portion of the public right-of-way that has been utilized by the Improvements along the North Oak Street side of the property at 1803 Aurora Drive.
Signed:
Troy Harbison Date
NOTARIZED ACKNOWLEDGMENT REQUIRED
Item #9.1.
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION
BY THE CALISTOGA CITY COUNCIL
ATTACHMENT 4
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Calistoga, California will consider a Nonroutine Encroachment Permit (Calistoga Municipal Code Chapter
12.08.070) as a General Government Agenda item on Tuesday, March 15 2022, at or after 6:00 p.m. The item is:
Consideration of a Nonroutine Encroachment Permit for a fence constructed within the public right-of-way at 1803 Aurora Street. The 4.5' tall fence is constructed approximately 5.5' into the right-of-way.
Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this City Council Meeting will be held via teleconference only and will not be physically open to the public. Councilmembers and staff will teleconference into the meeting by audio and/or video. The meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. Instructions for viewing the meeting will be posted by March 8, 2022, at https://www.ci.calistoqa.ca.us/city-hall/city-council/agendas-minutes/- toqgle-allpast.
If you wish to comment on this item, please do so in writing no later than March 11, 2022 to City Clerk 1232 Washington St Calistoga, CA 94515.
No later than Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 4:30 pm, the City Council staff report for this item will be available online at www.ci.calistoga.ca.us, and at the City Clerk's office located at 1232 Washington Street. For additional information, please contact the Public Works office at 707.942.2828.
Item #9.1.