TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 70 of 100 6-1
(b) Submittal Appointment. All applications must be submitted to the Town at a pre- scheduled appointment with the Director. Applicants may generally submit one application per appointment, but may schedule successive appointments for multiple applications whenever feasible and not prejudicial to other applicants.
The Planning Department shall use reasonable efforts to provide the applicant with an appointment within five working days after the Planning Department receives a written request and, if applicable, confirms that the applicant complied with the pre-submittal conference requirement. Any application received without an appointment, whether delivered in -person, by mail or through any other means, will not be considered duly filed unless the applicant received a written exemption from the Director at a pre-submittal conference. (4) Applications Deemed Withdrawn. To promote efficient review and timely decisions, and in accordance with SAMC Section 10-3.1604 (Expiration of Applications), any application governed under this Part VI will be automatically deemed withdrawn by the applicant when the applicant fails to tender a substantive response to the Planning Department within 90 calendar days after the Planning Department deems the application incomplete in a written notice to the applicant. The Director may, in the Director’s discretion, grant a written extension for up to an additional 30 calendar days when the applicant submits a written request prior to the 90th day that shows good cause to grant the extension. Good cause for an extension shall include, without limitation, delays due to circumstances outside the applicant’s reasonable control.
(5) Peer and Independent Consultant Review.
(a) Authorization. The Town Council authorizes the Director to, in the Director’s discretion, select and retain an independent consultant with specialized training, experience and/or expertise in telecommunications issues satisfactory to the Director in connection any request for a Section 6409 approval. (b) Scope. The Director may request an independent consultant review on any issue that involves specialized or expert knowledge in connection with wireless facilities deployment or permit applications for wireless facilities, wh ich includes without limitation: ( i) permit application completeness and/or accuracy; ( ii) pre - construction planned compliance with applicable regulations for human exposure to RF emissions; ( iii) post -construction actual compliance with applicable regulations for human exposure to RF emissions; (iv) whether and to what extent a proposed project qualifies for approval under applicable standards and regulations; (v) the applicability, reliability and/or sufficiency of any information, analyses or methodologies used by the applicant to reach any conclusions about any issue with the Town’s discretion to review; and ( vi) any other issue identified by the Director that requires expert or specialized knowledge. The Director may request that the independent consultant prepare written reports, testify at public meetings, hearings and/or appeals and attend meetings with Town staff and/or the applicant.
(c) Consultant Fees; Deposits. In the event that the Director elects to retain an independent consultant in connection wi th any permit application, the applicant
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 71 of 100 6-1
shall be responsible for the reasonable costs in connection with the services provided to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, which may include without limitation any costs incurred by the independent consultant to attend and participate in any meetings or hearings. Before the independent consultant may perform any services, the applicant shall tender to the Town a deposit in an amount equal to the estimated cost for the services to be provided, as determined by the Director. The Director may request additional deposits as reasonably necessary to ensure sufficient funds are available to cover the reasonable costs in connection with the independent consultant’s services. If the deposit exceeds the total costs for consultant’s services, the Director shall promptly return any unused funds to the applicant after the wireless facility has been installed and passes a final inspection by the Building Official or his or her designee. In the event that the reasonable costs for the independent consultant’s services exceed the deposit, the Director shall invoice the applicant for the balance. The Town shall not issue any construction or grading permit to any applicant with any unpaid deposit requests or invoices.
(F) DECISIONS; APPEALS
(1) Administrative Review. The Director shall administratively review a complete and duly filed application for a Section 6409 approval, and may act on such application without prior notice or a public hearing.
(2) Decision Notices. Within five days after the Director acts on an application for a Section 6409 approval or before the FCC shot clock expires (whichever occurs first), the Director shall send a written notice to the applicant. In the event that the Director denies the application, the written notice to the applicant must contain ( a) the reasons for the decision; (b) a statement that denial will be without prejudice; and ( c) instructions for how and when to file an appeal if the applicant so chooses. (3) Required Findings for Approval. The Director may approve or conditionally approve an application for a Section 6409 approval when the Director finds that the proposed project:
(a) involves collocation, removal or replacement of transmission equipment on an existing wireless tower or base station; and
(b) does not substantially change the physical dimensions o f the existing wireless tower or base station.
(4) Criteria for Denial Without Prejudice. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Part VI, and consistent with all applicable federal laws and regulations, the Director may deny without prejudice any application for a Section 6409 approval when the Director finds that the proposed project:
(a) does not meet the findings required in Section VI(F)(3) (Required Findings for Approval);
(b) involves the replacement of the entire support structure; or (c) violates any legally enforceable law, regulation, rule, standard or permit condition reasonably related to public health or safety.
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 72 of 100 6-1
(5) Conditional Approvals. Subject to any applicable limitations in federal or state law, nothing in this Part VI is intended to limit the Director’s authority to conditionally approve an application for a Section 6409 approval to protect and promote the public health , safety and welfare.
(6) Appeals. Any applicant may appeal the Director’s written decision to deny without prejudice an application for Section 6409 approval. The written appeal together with any applicable appeal fee must be tendered to the Town within 10 days from the Director’s written decision, and must state in plain terms the grounds for reversal and the facts that support those grounds. The Town Manager shall be the appellate authority for all appeals from the Director’s written decision to deny without prejudice an application for Section 6409 approval. The Town Manager shall review the application de novo ; provided, however, that the Town Manager’s decision shall be limited to only whether the application should be approved or denied in accordance with the provisions in this Part VI and any other applicable laws. The Town Manager shall issue a written decision that contains the reasons for the decision, and such decision shall be final and not subject to any further administrative appeals. There is no right under SAMC Title 1, Chapte r 4 (Appeals and Official Reviews of Administrative Decisions) to appeal the Director’s decision or the Town Manager’s decision.
(G) STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
In addition to all other conditions adopted by the approval authority, all Section 6409 approvals, whether approved by the approval authority or deemed approved by the operation of law, shall be automatically subject to the conditions in this Section VI(G). The Director (or the Town Manager in the Town Manager’s capacity as the appellate authority) shall have discretion to modify or amend these conditions on a case -by-case basis as may be necessary or appropriate under the circumstances to protect public health and safety or allow for the proper operation of the approved facility consistent with the goals of this Part VI.
(1) Permit Term. The Town’s grant or any approval deemed granted by operation of law of a Section 6409 approval constitutes a federally -mandated modification to the underlying permit or other prior regulatory authorization for the subject tower or base station, and will be regarded as a modification to the underlying approval for the subject tower or base station. The Town’s grant or any approv al deemed granted by operation of law of this Section 6409 approval will not extend the permit term, if any, for any underlying permit or other underlying prior regulatory authorization in connection with the wireless tower or base station to be modified. Accordingly, the term for this Section 6409 approval shall be coterminous with the underlying permit or other prior regulatory authorization for the subject tower or base station, and any renewals thereof. (2) Compliance Obligations Due to Invalidation. In the event that any court of competent jurisdiction invalidates all or any portion of Section 6409 or any FCC rule that interprets Section 6409 such that federal law would not mandate approval for any Section 6409 approval(s), such approval(s) shall automatically expire one year from the effective date
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 73 of 100 6-1
of the judicial order, unless the decision would not authorize accelerated termination of previously approved Section 6409 approvals or the Director grants an extension upon written request from the permittee tha t shows good cause for the extension, which includes without limitation extreme financial hardship. Notwithstanding anything in the previous sentence to the contrary, the Director may not grant a permanent exemption or indefinite extension. A permittee shall not be required to remove its improvements approved under the invalidated Section 6409 approval when it has obtained the applicable permit(s) or applied for such permit(s) before the one-year period ends. (3) Town’s Standing Reserved. The Town’s grant or any approval deemed granted by operation of law of a Section 6409 approval does not waive, and shall not be construed to waive, any standing by the Town to challenge Section 6409, any FCC rules that interpret Section 6409 or any Section 6409 approval.
(4) Strict Compliance with Approved Plans. Before the permittee submits any applications to the Building Department, the permittee must incorporate this Section 6409 approval, all conditions associated with this Section 6409 approval and the a pproved photo simulations into the project plans (the “Approved Plans”). The permittee must construct, install and operate the wireless facility in strict compliance with the Approved Plans. Any alterations, modifications or other changes to the Approved Plans, whether requested by the permittee or required by other departments or public agencies with jurisdiction over the wireless facility, must be submitted in a written request subject to the Director’s prior review and approval. The Director may revoke the Section 6409 approval if s/he finds that the requested alteration, modification or other change may cause a substantial change as that term is defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 6100(b)(7), as may be amended. (5) Build-Out Period. This Section 6409 approval will automatically expire one (1) year from the approval or deemed-granted date unless the permittee obtains all other permits and approvals required to install, construct and/or operate the approved wireless facility, which includes without limitation any permits or approvals required by any federal, state or local public agencies with jurisdiction over the subject property, the wireless facility or its use. The Director may grant one written extension to a date certain, but not to exceed to one (1) additional year, when the permittee shows good cause to extend the limitations period in a written request for an extension submitted at least 30 days prior to the automatic expiration date in this condition.
(6) Post-Installation Certification. Within 60 calendar days after the permittee commences full, unattended operations of a wireless facility approved or deemed -approved, the permittee shall provide the Director with documentation reasonably acceptable to the Director that the wireless facility has been installed and/or constructed in strict compliance with the Approved Plans. Such documentation shall include without limitation as-built drawings and site photographs.
(7) Maintenance Obligations; Vandalism. The permittee shall keep the site, which includes without li mitation any and all improvements, equipment, structures, access routes, fences, hardscape and landscape features, in a neat, clean and safe condition in accordance with the Approved Plans and all conditions in this Section 6409 approval. The permittee shall keep the site area free from all litter and debris at all times. The permittee
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 74 of 100 6-1
shall regularly inspect the wireless facility to determine whether any maintenance is needed. The permittee, at no cost to the Town, shall remove and remediate any graffiti or other vandalism at the site within 48 hours after the permittee receives notice or otherwise becomes aware that such graffiti or other vandalism occurred. (8) Compliance with La ws. The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of law (“Laws”) applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the wireless facility or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized in this Section 6409 approval, which includes without limitation any Laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions and any standards, specifications or other requirements identified by the Director ( such as, without limitation, those requirements affixed to an encroachment permit). The Director may order the facility to be powered down if, based on objective evidence, the Director finds that the facility is in fact not in compliance with any Laws appl icable to human exposure to RF emissions until such time that the permittee demonstrates actual compliance with such laws. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee’s obligations to maintain compliance with all Laws. No failure or omission by the Town to timely notice, prompt or enforce compliance with any applicable prov ision in the San Anselmo Municipal Code, this Policy, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation, shall be deemed to relieve, waive or lessen the permittee’s obligation to comply in all respects with all applicable provisions in the San Anselmo Municipal Code, this Policy, any permit, any permit condition or any applicable law or regulation. (9) Cooperation with RF Compliance Evaluations. At all times relevant to this permit, the permittee and the property owner shall reasonably cooperate with efforts by the Town to evaluate whether the wireless facility complies with all applicable FCC rules and regulations for human exposure to RF emissions. Such cooperation shall be at no cost to the Town and may include, but is not limited to: (1) furnishing the Town with a written affidavit signed by an RF engineer certifying the wireless facility’s compliance with applicable FCC rules and regulations; (2) providing technical data such as the frequencies in use, sustained and maximum power output levels specified in both specific absorption rate and maximum permissible exposure and antenna specifications, reasonably necessary to evaluate compliance with maximum permissible exposure levels set by the FCC; (3) allowing the Town or its designee to have supervised access to the areas near the wireless facility for inspections and field measurements; and (4) promptly responding to all requests by the Town or its designee for information and/or cooperation with respect to any of the foregoing. The Town may conduct random tests to ensure compliance with the FCC’s rules and regulations. In the event that the Town determines that permittee is not in compliance with any legal requirements or conditions, the permittee shall be responsible for all costs and expens es incurred by the Town in connection with the investigation, enforcement and/or remediation of such noncompliance. (10) Affirmation of Radio Frequency Standards Compliance. Following installation of the facility pursuant to the Section 6409 approval, on or before January 30 th in each calendar
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 75 of 100 6-1
year, the permittee acknowledges and agrees that the permittee shall submit: (1) an affirmation, under penalty of perjury, that the proposed installation will be FCC compliant, because it will not cause members of the gene ral public to be exposed to RF levels that exceed the maximum permission exposure levels deemed safe by the FCC; (2) a copy of the fully completed FCC form “A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance:
Appendix A” titled “Optional Checklist for Determination of Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded” for each frequency band of RF emissions to be transmitted from the proposed facility upon the approval of the application. All planned radio frequency emissions on all frequency bands must be shown on the Appendix A form(s) attached to the application. All planned radio frequency emissions are to be entered on each Appendix A form only in wattage units of “effective radiated power”. (11) Adverse Impacts on Other Properties. The permittee shall use all reasonable efforts to avoid any and all unreasonable, undue or unnecessary adverse impacts on nearby properties that may arise from the permittee’s or its authorized personnel’s construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal and/or other activities on or about the site. The permittee shall not perform or cause others to perform any construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal or other work that involves heavy equipment or machines except during normal construction work hours authorized by the San Anselmo Municipal Code. The restricted work hours in this condition will not prohibit any work required to prevent an actual, immediate harm to property or persons, or any work during an emergency declared by the Town or other state or federal government agency or official with authority to declare an emergency within the Town. The Director or the Director’s designee may issue a stop work order for any activities that violate this condition in whole or in part. If the Director or the Director’s designee finds good cause to believe that ambient noise from a facility , including any generators approved with the facility, violates applicable provisions under the San Anselmo Municipal Code, the Director or the Director’s designee, in addition to any other actions or remedies authorized by the permit, the San Anselmo Municipal Code or other applicable laws, may require the permittee to commission a noise study by a qualified professional to evaluate the facility’s compliance. The permittee shall, at its sole cost and expense, repair and restore any and all damages to public and private properties t hat result from any activities performed in connection with the installation or maintenance of a wireless facility. The permittee shall restore such areas, structures and systems to the condition in which they existed prior to the installation or maintenance that necessitated the repairs. In the event the permittee fails to complete such repair within the number of days stated on a written notice by the Director or the Director’s designee, the Director or the Director’s designee may cause such repair to be completed at permittee’s sole cost and expense.
(12) Inspections; Emergencies. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the Town’s officers, officials, staff, agents, contractors or other designees may enter onto the site and inspect the improvements and equipment upon reasonable prior notice to the permittee or at any time during an emergency. Notwithstanding the previous sentence,
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 76 of 100 6-1
the Town’s officers, officials, staff, agents, contractors or other designees may, but will not be obligated to, enter onto the site area without prior notice to support, repair, disable or remove any improvements or equipment in emergencies or when such improvements or equipment threatens actual, imminent harm to property or persons.
The permittee, if present, may observe the Town’s officers, officials, staff or other designees while any such inspection or emergency access occurs. (13) Permittee’s Contact Information. Prior to final inspection and at all times relevant to this Section 6409 approval, the permittee shall keep on file with the Director basic contact and site information. This information shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
(A) the name, physical address, notice address (if different), direct telephone number and email address for (i) the permittee and, if different from the permittee, the (ii) site operator, (ii) equipment owner, (iii) site manager and (iv) agent for service of process; (B) the regulatory authorizations held by the permittee and, to the extent applicable, site operator, equipment ow ner and site manager as may be necessary for the facility’s continued operation; (C) the facility’s site identification number and/or name used by the permittee and, to the extent applicable, site operator, equipment owner and site manager; and (D) a toll-free telephone number to the facility’s network operations center where a live person with power -down control over the facility is available 24 hours -per- day, seven days-per-week. Within 30 days after any change to the foregoing information, permittee shall furnish the Town with an updated form that includes all the most-current information described in this condition. Within 10 business days after a written request by the Town, the permittee shall furnish the Town with an updated form that includes all the most-current information described in this condition. (14) Indemnification. The permittee and, if applicable, the property owner upon which the wireless facility is installed shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Town, Town Council and Town boards, com missions, agents, officers, officials, employees and volunteers (collectively, the “ Indemnitees”) from any and all (i) damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs and expenses and from any and all claims, demands, law suits, writs and other actions or pr oceedings (“ Claims”) brought against the Indemnitees to challenge, attack, seek to modify, set aside, void or annul the Town’s approval of this Section 6409 approval, and (ii) other Claims of any kind or form, whether for personal injury, death or property damage, that arise from or in connection with the permittee’s or its agents’, directors’, officers’, employees’, contractors’, subcontractors’, licensees’, or customers’ acts or omissions in connection with this Section 6409 approval or the wireless facility. In the event the Town becomes aware of any Claims, the Town will use best efforts to promptly notify the permittee and the private property owner (if applicable) and shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the Town shall have the right to approve, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the Town’s defense, and the property owner and/or permittee (as applicable) shall promptly reimburse Town for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the Town in the course of the defense. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the permittee’s indemnification obligations under this condition are a material consideration that
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 77 of 100 6-1
motivates the Town to approve this Section 6409 approval, and that such indemnification obligations will survive the expiration, revocation or other termination of this Section 6409 approval.
(15) Insurance. At all times relevant to this permit, the permittee shall obtain and maintain insurance policies as follows:
(a) Commercial General Liability. Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) on an “occurrence” basis, with limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or $2,000,000 in the agg regate. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. CGL insurance must include coverage for the following: Bodily Injury and Property Damage; Personal Injury/Advertising Injury; Premises/Operations Liability; Products/Completed Operations Liability; Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project; Explosion, Collapse and Underground (“UCX”) exclusion deleted; Contractual Liability with respect to the permit; Broad Form Property Damage; and Independent Consultants Coverage. The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (i) contractual liability; (ii) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (iii) products/completed operations liability; or (iv) contain any other exclusion contrary to the conditions in this permit.
(b) Automotive Insurance. Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering, Code 1 (any auto), or if permittee has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non- owned), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
(c) Workers’ Compensation. The permittee shall certify that it is aware of the provisions of California Labor Code § 3700, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and further certifies that the permittee will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this permit. To the extent the permittee has employees at any time during the term of this permit, at all times during the performance of the work under this permit the permittee shall maintain insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
(d) Errors and Omissions Policy. The permittee shall maintain Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriate to the permittee’s profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim. This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this permit and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the permittee. “Covered Professional Services” as designed in the policy must specifically include work performed under this permit. (e) Umbrella Policy. If an umbrella or excess liability insurance policy is used to satisfy the minimum requirements for CGL or Automobile Liability insurance coverage
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 78 of 100 6-1
listed above, the umbrella or excess liability policies shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying coverages and covering those insured in the underlying policies. Coverage shall be “pay on behalf,” with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits. Permittee shall provide a “follow form” endorsement or schedule of underlying coverage satisfactory to the Town indicating that such coverage is subject to the same terms and conditions as the underlying liability policy.
(f) Endorsements. The relevant policy(ies) shall name the Town of San Anselmo, it s elected/ appointed officials, commission members, officers, representatives, agents, volunteers and employees as additional insureds. The permittee shall use its best efforts to provide thirty (30) calendar days’ prior written notice to the Town of the c ancellation or material modification of any applicable insurance policy; provided, however, that in no event shall the permittee fail to provide written notice to the Town within 10 calendar days after the cancellation or material modification of any applicable insurance policy. (g) Certificates. Before the Town issues any permit, the permittee shall deliver to the Director insurance certificates, in a form satisfactory to the Director, that evidence all the coverage required above. In addition, the permittee shall promptly deliver complete copies of all insurance policies upon a written request by the Town. (16) Performance Bond. Before the Building Department issues any permits required to commence construction in connection with this Section 6409 approval, the per mittee shall post a performance bond from a surety and in a form acceptable to the Director in an amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost to remove the improvements and restore all affected areas based on a written estimate from a qualified contracto r with experience in wireless facilities removal. The written estimate must include the cost to remove all equipment and other improvements, which includes without limitation all antennas, radios, batteries, generators, utilities, cabinets, mounts, bracket s, hardware, cables, wires, conduits, structures, shelters, towers, poles, footings and foundations, whether above ground or below ground, constructed or installed in connection with the wireless facility, plus the cost to completely restore any areas affe cted by the removal work to a standard compliant with applicable laws. The performance bond shall be valid for at least 10 years or the term of the underlying permit or other prior regulatory authorization for the subject tower or base station (whichever is greater). In establishing or adjusting the bond amount required under this condition, the Director shall take into consideration any information provided by the permittee regarding the cost to remove the wireless facility and restore any areas affected by the removal work to a standard compliant with applicable laws. The Director may also consider any other pertinent information, which includes written estimates from contractors with experience in wireless facilities removal and/or site restoration. The performance bond shall expressly survive the duration of the underlying permit term to the extent required to effectuate a complete removal of the subject wireless facility in accordance with this condition. (17) Recall to Approval Authority; Permit Revocation. In accordance with SAMC Section 10-
3.1909 (Revocation of a Discretionary Permit), the approval authority may recall this
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 79 of 100 6-1
Section 6409 approval for review at any time due to complaints about noncompliance with applicable laws or any approval con ditions attached to this Section 6409 approval.
At a duly noticed public hearing and in accordance with all applicable laws, the approval authority may revoke this Section 6409 approval or amend these conditions as the approval authority deems necessary or appropriate to correct any such noncompliance. (18) Record Retention. Throughout the permit term underlying this Section 6409 approval , the permittee must maintain a complete and accurate copy of the written administrative record, which includes without limitation the permit application, the permit, the Approved Plans and photo simulations incorporated into this approval, all conditions associated with this approval, any ministerial permits or approvals issued in connection with this approval, and any records, memoranda, documents, papers and other correspondence entered into the public record in connection with the permit (collectively, “records”). If the permittee does not maintain such records as required in this condition, any ambiguities or uncertainties that would be resolved by inspecting the missing records will be construed against the permittee. The permittee shall protect all records from damage from fires, floods and other hazards that may cause deterioration.
The permittee may keep re cords in an electronic format; provided, however, that hard copies or electronic records kept in the Town’s regular files will control over any conflicts between such Town -controlled copies or records and the permittee’s electronic copies, and complete originals will control over all other copies in any form. The requirements in this condition shall not be construed to create any obligation to create or prepare any records not otherwise required to be created or prepared by other applicable laws.
Compliance with the requirements in this condition shall not excuse the permittee from any other similar record-retention obligations under applicable law. (19) Existing Performance Agreements. To the extent that the permittee has an existing Performance Agreement with t he Town in connection with the subject wireless facility, the standard conditions in Town Council Policy No. 6 -1 Section VI(G) will control to the extent that the requirements are more stringent or advantageous to the Town. The Town Attorney shall have aut hority to interpret and resolve any conflicts or ambiguities between the provisions in any Performance Agreement and the provisions in Town Council Policy No. 6-1 Part VI(G).
(20) Abandoned Wireless Facilities. The transmission equipment authorized under Sectio n 6409 approval shall be deemed abandoned if not operated for any continuous six-month period. Within 90 days after the transmission equipment is abandoned or deemed abandoned, the permittee, property owner and/or structure owner shall completely remove such abandoned transmission equipment and all related improvements and shall restore all affected areas to a condition compliant with all applicable Laws, which includes without limitation the San Anselmo Municipal Code. If neither the permittee, the property owner nor the structure owner complies with the removal and restoration obligations under this condition within said 90-day period, the Town shall have the right (but not the obligation) to perform such removal and restoration with or without notice, and the permittee, property owner and structure owner shall be jointly and severally liable for all
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 80 of 100 6-1
costs and expenses incurred by the Town in connection with such removal and/or restoration activities.
(21) Landscaping. The permittee shall replace any landscape f eatures damaged or displaced by the construction, installation, operation, maintenance or other work performed by the permittee or at the permittee’s direction on or about the site. If any trees are damaged or displaced, the permittee shall hire and pay for a licensed arborist to select plant and maintain replacement landscaping in an appropriate location for the species. Only International Society of Arboriculture certified workers under the supervision of a licensed arborist shall be used to install the replacement tree(s). Any replacement tree must be substantially the same size as the damaged tree or as otherwise approved by the Town. The permittee shall, at all times, be responsible to maintain any replacement landscape features.
(22) Cost Reimbursement. The permittee acknowledges and agrees that (i) the permittee’s request for authorization to construct, install and/or operate the wireless facility will cause the Town to incur costs and expenses; (ii) the permittee shall be responsible to reimburse the Town for all costs incurred in connection with the permit, which includes without limitation costs related to application review, permit issuance, site inspection and any other costs reasonably related to or caused by the request for authorization to construct, install and/or operate the wireless facility; (iii) any application fees required for the application may not cover all such reimbursable costs and that the permittee shall have the obligation to reimburse the Town for all such costs 10 days after a written demand for reimbursement and reasonable documentation to support such costs; and (iv) the Town shall have the right to withhold any permits or other approvals in connection with the wireless facility until and unless any outstanding costs have been reimbursed to the Town by the permittee.
(23) Safety Hazard Protocols. If the Ross Valley Fire Department Fire Chief (or his or her designee) finds good cause to believe that the facility (including, without limitation, its accessory equipment, antenna and/or base station) presents a fire risk, electrical hazard or other immediate threat to public health and safety in violation of any applicable law, such officials may order the facility to be shut down and powered off until such time as the fire risk or electrical hazard has been mitigated. Any mitigations required shall be at the permittee’s sole cost and expense.
(24) Truthful and Accurate Statements. The permittee acknowledges that the Town's approval relies on the written and/or oral statements by permittee and/or pe rsons authorized to act on permittee’s behalf. In any matter before the Town in connection with the Section 6409 approval or the collocation or other modification authorized under the Section 6409 approval, neither the permittee nor any person authorized t o act on permittee’s behalf shall, in any written or oral statement, intentionally provide material factual information that is incorrect or misleading or intentionally omit any material information necessary to prevent any material factual statement from being incorrect or misleading.
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 81 of 100 6-1
(25) Successors and Assigns. The conditions, covenants, promises and terms contained in this Section 6409 approval and the underlying use permit will bind and inure to the benefit of the Town and permittee and their respective successors and assigns. (26) Severability of Conditions. If any provision in these conditions or such provision’s application to any person, entity or circumstances is or held by any court with competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable: ( a) such provision or its application to such person, entity or circumstance will be deemed severed from this Section 6409 approval ; (b) all other provisions in this Section 6409 approval or their application to any person, entity or circumstance will not be affected; and (c) all other provisions in this Section 6409 approval or their application to any person, entity or circumstance will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
(27) Town’s Standing Reserved. The Town’s grant or any approval deemed granted by operation of law of a Section 6409 approv al pursuant to this Policy does not waive, and shall not be construed to waive, any standing by the Town to challenge any FCC rules that interpret the Telecommunications Act, the Spectrum Act or any Section 6409 approval issued pursuant to this Policy.
PART VII. TEMPORARY WIRELESS FACILITIES
(A) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TEMPORARY WIRELESS FACILITIES
Except as provided in Section VII(B) (Temporary Wireless Facilities for Emergencies), the requirements, procedures and standards in this section shall be applicable to all applications for a temporary use permit for a temporary wireless facility.
(1) Applications for Temporary Wireless Facilities. The Director shall not approve any temporary wireless facility subject to a temporary use permit except upon a complete and duly filed application consistent with this Section VII( A)(1) and any other written application requirements or procedures the Director may publish in any publicly -stated format. Applicants for a temporary use permit must submit, at a minimum: (a) a temporary use permit application on the most current form prepared by the Planning Department; (b) the applicable fee for the application; (c) a site plan that shows the proposed temporary wireless facility and its equipment, physical dimensions an d placement on the proposed site relative to property lines and existing structures; (d) an RF compliance report in accordance with the Town’s requirements; and (e) an insurance certificate for general commercial liability that names the Town as an additional insured, includes coverage for the time period in which the temporary wireless facility will be placed and a carries at least $1,000,000 in coverage per occurrence. Applications must be submitted in person to the Director unless the Director grants written consent to receive an application by mail or electronic means. No pre-submittal conference or appointment is required for a temporary use permit application.
(2) Administrative Review for Temporary Wireless Facilities. After the Director receives a duly filed application for a temporary use permit, the Director shall review the application
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 82 of 100 6-1
for completeness. After the Director deems the application complete, the Director shall review the application for conformance with the required findings in Section VII( A)(3) (Required Findings for Temporary Wireless Facilities) and render a written decision to the applicant. Any denials must include the reasons for the denial. The review shall be administrative in nature and shall not require notice or a public hearing. (3) Required Findings for Temporary Wireless Facilities. The Director may approve or conditionally approve a temporary use permit for a temporary wireless facility only when the Director finds all of the following:
(a) the proposed temporary wireless facility will not exceed 50 feet in overall height above ground level; and
(b) the proposed temporary wireless facility will be placed as far away from adjacent property lines as possible, or otherwise in a location that will be least likely to cause adverse impacts on adjacent properties; and
(c) any excavation or ground disturbance associated with the temporary facility will not exceed two feet below grade; and
(d) the proposed temporary wireless facility will be compliant with all generally applicable public health and safety laws and regulations, which includes without limitation compliance with maximum permissible exposure limits for human exposure to RF emissions established by the FCC; and
(e) the proposed temporary wireless facility will not create any nuisance or v iolate any noise limits applicable to the proposed location; and (f) the proposed temporary wireless facility will be identified with a sign that clearly identifies the (I) site operator, (II) the operator’s site identification name or number and (III) a working telephone number answered 24 hours per day, seven days per week by a live person who can exert power -down control over the antennas; and
(g) the proposed temporary wireless facility will be removed within 30 days after the Director grants the temporary use permit, or such longer time as the Director finds reasonably related to the applicant’s need or purpose for the temporary wireless facility (but in no case longer than 90 days); and
(h) the applicant has not been denied a use permit for any permanent wireless facility in the same or substantially the same location within the previous 365 days. (4) Appeals for Temporary Wireless Facilities. Any applicant may appeal the Director’s written decision to deny an application for a temporary use permit. The written appeal together with any applicable appeal fee must be tendered to the Town within 10 days from the Director’s written decision, and must state in plain terms the grounds for reversal and the facts that support those grounds. The Town Manager shall be the appellate authority for all appeals from the Director’s written decision to deny a temporary use permit. The Town Manager shall review the application de novo; provided, however, that the Town Manager’s decision shall be limited to only whether the application should be approved or denied in accordance with the provisions in this Part VII and any other applicable laws. The Town Manager shall issue a written decision that contains the reasons for the decision, and such decision shall be final and not subject to
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 83 of 100 6-1
any further administrative appeals. There is no right under SAMC Title 1, Chapter 4 (Appeals and Official Reviews of Administrative Decisions) to appeal the Director’s decision or the Town Manager’s decision.
(B) TEMPORARY WIRELESS FACILITIES FOR EMERGENCIES
Temporary wireless facilities may be placed and operated within the Town without a temporary use permit only when a duly authorized federal, state, county or Town official declares an emergency within a region that includes the Town in whole or in part. Any temporary wireless facilities placed pursuant to this Section VII(B) must be removed within 15 days after the date the emergency is lifted. Any person or entity that places temporary wireless facilities pursuant to this section must send a written notice that identifies the site location and person responsible for its operation to the Director as soon as reasonably practicable.
PART VIII. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR FEDERAL OR STATE PREEMPTION
(1) Preface. The provisions in this section establish a procedure by which the Town may grant an exception to the standards in this Policy but only to the extent necessary to avoid conflict with applicable federal or state law. When the applicant requests an exception, the applicable approval authority shall consider the findings in subsection ( 2) below in addition to the findings required within the applicable section(s) of this Policy. Each exception is specific to the facts and circumstances in connection with each a pplication.
An exception granted in one instance shall not be deemed to create a presumption or expectation that an exception will be granted in any other instance. (2) Required Findings. The approval authority shall not grant any limited exception pursuant to this section unless the approval authority finds all the following:
(a) the applicant has provided the approval authority with a reasonable and clearly defined technical service objective to be achieved by the proposed project, except for an exemption request under Part VI or Part IX;
(b) the applicant has provided the approval authority with a detailed written statement that explains why: ( i) a denial based on the application’s noncompliance with a specific provision or requirement would violate federal law, state law or both; or (ii) a provision in this Policy, as applied to the applicant, would violate any rights or privileges conferred on the applicant by federal or state law; (c) the applicant has provided the approval authority with a written statement that contains a detailed and fact -specific explanation as to why the proposed project cannot be deployed in compliance with the applicable provisions in this Policy, the Code, the General Plan and/or any specific plan;
(d) the applicant has provided the approval authority with a meaningful comparative analysis with the factual reasons why all alternative locations and/or designs identified in the administrative record (whether suggested by the applicant, the Town, public comments or any other source) are not technically feasible or potentially available to reasonably achieve the applicant’s reasonable and clearly
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 84 of 100 6-1
defined technical service objective to be achieved by the proposed small wireless facility, except for an exemption request under Part VI or Part IX; (e) the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed location and design is the least non-compliant configuration that will reasonably achieve the applicant’s reasonable and clearly defined technical service objective for the proposed project, which includes without limitation a meaningful comparative analysis into multiple smaller or less intrusive facilities dispersed throughout the intended service area, except for an exemption request under Part VI or Part IX; (f) the exception requested by the applicant does not compromise or excuse compliance any fire safety or other public safety standard; and (g) the exception is narrowly tailored such that any deviation from this Policy is only to extent necessary for compliance with federal or state law. (3) Evidentiary Standard. The applicant shall have the burden to prove to the approval authority that an exception should be granted pursuant to this section . The standard of evidence shall be the same as required by applicable federal or state law for the issue raised in the applicant’s request for an exception.
(4) Expert Review. Independent expert and/or consultant review will generally be appropriate when considering an exception request.
(5) Legal Review. Any exception request shall require the consultation of the Town Attorney as to the validity and legal justification for the exception.
PART IX. EMERGENCY STANDBY GENERATORS FOR MACRO CELL TOWER SITES
(A) PURPOSE AND INTENT
(1) Background. On September 29, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 2421, codified at California Government Code Section 65850.75, which provides temporary regulations concerning how cities and counties permit emergency standby generators for certain wireless communication facilities. These temporary regulations went into effect on January 1, 2021 and have a sunset clause for automatic repeal on January 1, 2024. The legislature’s purpose in enacting these regulations is to allow wireless carriers to install emergency standby generators to maintain cellular communications during wildfire events and associated power shutoffs. Local agencies are required to make the installation of an emergency standby generator to serve a qualifying, previously permitted “macro cell tower site,” as defined, a permitted use and must review an application for installation on an administrative, nondiscretionary basis.
A “macro cell tower site” does not include rooftop, so -called small cell, or outdoor and indoor distributed antenna system sites. The regulations also impose a 60 -day decision period for local agencies to approve or deny applications for an emergency standby generator.
(2) Intent. The Town Council intends this Town Council Policy No. 6 -1 Part IX (“ Part IX”) to establish reasonable, uniform and comprehensive standards and procedures for emergency standby generators for macro cell tower sites proposed within the Town’s
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 85 of 100 6-1
territorial and jurisdictional boundaries, consistent with and to the extent permitted under California state law. The standards and procedures contained in this Part IX are intended to, and should be applied to, protect and promote public health, safety and welfare and balance the benefits that flow from robust, advanced wireless services provided by the macro cell tower sites during wildfires and other emergency situations that result in power shutoffs. This policy is not intended to, nor shall it be interpreted or applied to: ( a) prohibit or effectively prohibit any personal wireless service provider’s ability to provide personal wireless services; ( b) prohibit or effectively prohibit any entity’s ability to provide any telecommunications service, subject to any competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory rules, regulations or other legal requ irements for rights - of-way management; ( c) unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services; (d) prohibit any emergency standby generators for macro cell tower sites that the Town may not deny under federal or California state law; or (e) otherwise authorize the Town to preempt any applicable federal or California state law.
(B) DEFINITIONS
The abbreviations, phrases, terms and words used in this Part IX will have the meanings assigned to them in this Section IX(B) or, as may be appropriate, in Part III or SAMC, Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 17 (Definitions), as may be amended from time to time, unless context indicates otherwise. Undefined phrases, terms or words in this section will have the meanings assigned to them in 47 U.S.C. § 702, as may be amended from time to time, and, if not defined therein, will have their ordinary meanings. In the event that any definition assigned to any phrase, term or word in this Part IX conflicts with any applicable federal or state-mandated definition, the federal or state-mandated definition will control.
(1) “emergency standby generator ” means the same as defined in Cal. Gov. Code § 65850.75(a)(1), which defines the term as “a stationary generator used for the generation of electricity that meets the criteria set forth in paragraph (29) of subdivision (a) of Section 93115.4 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.” (2) “macro cell tower site” means same as defined in Cal. Gov. Code § 65850.75(a)(3), which defines the te rm as “the place where wireless telecommunications equipment and network components, including towers, transmitters, base stations, and emergency powers necessary for providing wide area outdoor service, are located. A macro cell tower site does not include rooftop, small cell, or outdoor and indoor distributed antenna system sites.”
(C) APPLICABILITY
(1) In General. This Part IX applies to all applications for authorization to install, modify, replace or remove an emergency standby generator at an existing macro cell tower site,
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 86 of 100 6-1
within the Town’s territorial or jurisdictional limits, whether on private property or in the public rights-of-way, submitted for approval pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 65850.75. (2) Repeal. Consistent with Cal. Gov. Code § 65850.75(h), this Part IX shall remain in effect until January 1, 2024, and as of that date, is automatically repealed without any further action required by Town Council. From and after January 1, 2024, any application for an emergency standby generator at an existing macro cell tower site shall be processed in accordance with all applicable regulations within this Policy and/or the San Anselmo Municipal Code.
(D) PRIOR APPROVALS REQUIRED
(1) Emergency Standby Generator Approval. No person or entity may install, modify, replace or remove an emergency standby generator at a macro cell tower site without an “ESG approval” issued by the Director pursuant to this Part IX. The purpose of an ESG approval is to confirm that a proposed installation or other modification meets the criteria for mandatory approval under applicable state regulations. Each ESG approval shall be deemed to be an amendment to the underlying permit that authorizes the existing macro cell tower site to be modified.
(2) Other Permits and Regulatory Approvals. In addition to an ESG approval required under this Part IX, no person or entity may install, modify, replace or remove an emergency standby generator at a macro cell tower site without first obtaining all other permits and regulatory approvals as may be required by any other federal, state or local government agencies, which includes without limitation any ministerial health and safety permits and/or regulatory approvals issued by other departments or divisions within the Town , such as encroachment permits for work or facilities in the public right -of-way.
Furthermore, any ESG approval granted under this Part IX or deemed approved by law shall remain subject to any and all lawful conditions and/or legal requirements associated with such other permits or regulatory approvals.
(E) APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(1) Application Required. The Director shall not approve any request for an emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site except upon a complete and duly filed application consistent with this Section IX(E) and any other written rules or requirements the Town or the Director may establish from time to time in any publicly-stated format. (2) Application Content. All applications for an ESG approval must include all the content, information and materials required by the Director for the application. The Town Council authorizes the Director to develop, publish and from time to -to-time update or amend permit application requirements, forms, checklists, guidelines, informational handouts and other related materials that the Director finds necessary, appropriate or useful for processing requests for ESG approvals. The Town Council further authorizes the Director to establish other reasonable rules and regulations, which may include without limitation regular hours for appointments with applicants, as the Director deems necessary or
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 87 of 100 6-1
appropriate to organize, document and manage the application intake process. All such rules and regulations must be in written form and publicly stated to provide applicants with prior notice.
(a) Application Form. The applicant shall submit a complete, duly executed application for an ESG approval on the then-current form prepared by the Town. (b) Application Fee. The applicant shall submit the applicable ESG a pproval application fee adopted by Town Council resolution. If no ESG approval application fee has been adopted, then the applicant must submit a signed written statement that acknowledges that the applicant will be required to submit a deposit estimated by the Director to reimburse the Town for its reasonable costs incurred in connection with the application. Should the deposit be inadequate an additional deposit shall be required. If the deposit exceeds the actual costs, the difference will be returned to the applicant.
(c) Construction Drawings. The applicant shall submit true and correct construction drawings, prepared, signed and stamped by a California licensed or registered engineer, that depict all the existing and proposed improvements, equipment and conditions related to the proposed project, which includes without limitation any and all poles, posts, pe destals, traffic signals, towers, streets, sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, driveways, curbs, gutters, drains, handholes, manholes, fire hydrants, equipment cabinets, antennas, cables, trees and other landscape or hardscape features. The construction drawings must: (i) contain cut sheets that contain the technical specifications for all existing and proposed equipment and accessory equipment, which includes without limitation the manufacturer, model number, weight and physical dimensions; (ii) identify all structures within 500 feet from the proposed project site and call out such structures’ overall height above ground level; (iii) depict the applicant’s plan for any utilities for the proposed project, either as approved by the applicable utility company or in a preliminary form if an approved plans is not yet available, which shall include the locations for all conduits, cables, wires, handholes, junctions, transformers, meters, disconnect switches, and points of connection; and (iv) demonstrate that proposed project will be in full compliance with all applicable health and safety laws, regulations or other rules, which includes without limitation all building codes, electric codes, local street standards and specifications, and public utility regulations and orders. (d) Title Report; Property Owner Notification. The applicant must submit: (i) a title report issued within 30 days from the date the applicant filed the application to verify the identity of the property owner ; and (ii) if the applicant is not the property owner, a copy of written notice of this application for an emergency standby generator to the property owner and evidence of transmittal of such notice to the property owner.
(e) Site Survey. For any emergency standby generator proposed to be located within the public rights-of-way, the applicant shall submit a survey prepared, signed and stamped by a California licensed or registered engineer. The survey must identify and depict all existing boundaries, encroachments and other structures within 50
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 88 of 100 6-1
feet from the proposed project site, which includes without limitation all: (i) traffic lanes; (ii) all private properties and property lines; (iii) above and below -grade utilities and related structures and encroachments; (iv) fire hydrants, roadside call boxes and other public safety infrastructure; (v) streetlights, decorative poles, traffic signals and permanent signage; (vi) sidewalks, driveways, parkways, curbs, gutters and storm drains; (vii) benches, trash cans, mailboxes, kiosks and other street furniture; and (viii) existing trees, planters and other landscaping or hardscaping features. Site surveys that are more than a year old require an updated survey certification.
(f) Project Narrative and Justification. The applicant shall submit a written statement that explains in plain factual detail whether and why the proposed wireless facility meets each required finding for an ESG approval as provided in Section IX(F)(3). (g) Regulatory Authorization. The applicant shall submit copies of any and all other permits or approvals obtained for the wireless facility prior to the submission of the application for an ESG approval.
(h) Underground Service Alert Membership. The applicant shall submit evidence that applicant is a member in good standing with the Underground Service Alert of Northern California and Nevada (“DigAlert”).
(i) Environmental Impact Assessment. The applicant shall submit an environmental impact assessment on the then-current form prepared by the Town to determine whether the proposed project is categorically exempt under Article 19 of the CEQA Guidelines, or whether the proposed project will require a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. (j) Compliance with NEPA. All applications shall include confirmation that an environmental assessment, or other application determination, has been completed by or on behalf of the FCC for any emergency standby generator proposed in a location identified in 47 C.F.R. 1.307 (including a floodplain) or as otherwise required by National Environmental Policy Act. (k) Hazards Assessment. A full assessment of the hazards posed by the emergency standby generator in the event of failure due to flood, high wind, high heat, outage, lightning strike or fire must be conducted that includes the presence of nearby vegetation and structures at applicant’s cost. All materials in the emergency standby generator must be disclosed, including hazardous materials in any and all equipment. The assessment mus t identify if any tree removal or tree trimming is required or necessary in order to reduce fire hazard. (l) Truth and Accuracy Statement. Any application submitted pursuant to this Policy shall be signed by the applicant, or a person knowledgeable about the proposed facility and authorized to act on the applicant’s behalf, attesting, that under penalty of perjury, that all information, representations and disclosures in the application are true, correct and complete.
(3) Requirements for a Duly Filed Application. Any application for an ESG approval will not be considered duly filed unless submitted in accordance with the requirements in this subsection (2).
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 89 of 100 6-1
(a) Submittal Appointment. All applications must be submitted to the Town at a pre- scheduled appointment with the Director. Applicants may generally submit one application per appointment. Applicants may schedule successive appointments for multiple applications whenever feasible an d not prejudicial to other applicants. The Planning Department shall use reasonable efforts to provide the applicant with an appointment within five working days after the Planning Department receives a written request. Any application received without an appointment, whether delivered in-person, by mail or through any other means, will not be considered duly filed.
(b) Optional Pre-Application Conference. The Town strongly encourages, but does not require, applicants to schedule and attend a pre -application conference with the Director for all emergency standby generators for an existing macro cell tower site. This voluntary pre-application conference does not cause the 60-day decision period specified at Cal. Gov. Code § 65850.75(c) -(e), as may be amended or superseded, to begin and is intended to streamline the review process through informal discussion that includes, without limitation, the appropriate project classification and review process; any latent issues in connection with the proposed project, including compliance with generally applicable rules for public health and safety; potential stealth or concealment issues or concerns (if applicable); coordination with other Town departments responsible for application review; and application completeness issues. To mitigate unnecessary delays due to application incompleteness, applicants are encouraged (but not required) to bring any draft applications or other materials so that Town staff may provide informal feedback and guidance about whether such applications or other materials may be incomplete or unacceptable. The Planning Department shall use reasonable efforts to provide the applicant with an appointment within five working days after receiving a written request and any applicable fee or deposit to reimburse the Town for its reasonable costs to provide the services rendered in the pre-application conference.
(4) Applications Deemed Withdrawn. To promote efficient review and timely decisions, and in accordance with SAMC Section 10 -3.1604 (Expiration of Applications), any application governed under this Part VI shall be automatically deemed withdrawn by the applicant when the applicant fails to submit a substantive response to the Planning Department within 60 calendar days after the Planning Department deems the application incomplete by written notice. As used in this subsection (4), a “substantive response” must include, at a minimum, the complete materials identified as incomplete in the written incomplete notice.
(5) Authorization to Adopt Additional Application Requirements and Review Procedures.
The Town Council authorizes the Director to develop, publish and from time to time update or amend ESG approval application requirements, forms, checklists, guidelines, informational handouts and other related materials that the approval authority finds necessary, appropriate or useful for processing any application governed under this section. All applications shall, at a minimum, require the applicant to de monstrate that
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 90 of 100 6-1
the proposed project will be in planned compliance with all applicable health and safety laws, regulations or other rules, which includes without limitation all building codes and electric codes. The Town Council further authorizes the Director to establish other reasonable rules and regulations for duly filed applications, which may include without limitation regular hours for submittal appointments with applicants, as the approval authority deems necessary or appropriate to organize, docume nt and manage the application intake process. All such requirements, materials, rules and regulations must be in written form and publicly stated to provide all interested parties with prior notice. (6) Peer and Independent Consultant Review.
(a) Authorization. The Town Council authorizes the Director to, in the Director’s discretion, select and retain an independent consultant with specialized training, experience and/or expertise in telecommunications issues satisfactory to the Director in connection with any request for an ESG approval. (b) Scope. The Director may request an independent consultant review on any issue that involves specialized or expert knowledge in connection with wireless facilities deployment and/or generator deployment, permit app lications for wireless facilities or generators, or ESG approval applications which include without limitation: (1) ESG approval application completeness and/or accuracy; (2) whether and to what extent a proposed project will comply with applicable laws; (3) the applicability, reliability and/or sufficiency of any information, analyses or methodologies used by the applicant to reach any conclusions about any issue with the Town’s discretion to review; and (4) any other issue identified by the Director that requires expert or specialized knowledge. The Director may request that the independent consultant prepare written reports, testify at public meetings, hearings and/or appeals and attend meetings with Town staff and/or the applicant.
(c) Consultant Fees; Depos its. Subject to applicable law, in the event that the Director elects to retain an independent consultant in connection with any ESG approval application, the applicant shall be responsible for the actual and reasonable costs in connection with the services provided, which may include actual and reasonable costs incurred by the independent consultant to attend and participate in any meetings or hearings directly related to the ESG approval application. The Director may also recover the actual and reasonable costs incurred to administer the consultant contract. Before the independent consultant may perform any services, the applicant shall tender to the Town a deposit in an amount equal to the estimated actual and reasonable cost for the services to be provided, as determined by the Director until the Town adopts the initial required deposit by fee schedule. The Director may request additional deposits as reasonably necessary to ensure sufficient funds are available to cover the reasonable costs in connection with the independent consultant’s services. In the event that the deposit exceeds the total costs for consultant’s services, the Director shall promptly return any unused funds to the applicant after the emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower s ite has been installed and
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 91 of 100 6-1
passes a final inspection by the Director. If the reasonable costs for the independent consultant’s services exceed the deposit, the Director shall invoice the applicant for the balance. The Town shall not issue any construction, grading or encroachment permit to any applicant with any unpaid deposit requests or invoices.
(F) NOTICE; DECISIONS; APPEALS
(1) Administrative Review. The Director shall administratively review a complete and duly filed application for an ESG approval and may act on such application without prior notice or a public hearing.
(2) Decision Notices. Within five days after the Director acts on an application for an ESG approval, the Director shall send a written notice to the applicant. If the Director denies the application, the written notice to the applicant must contain (1) the reasons for the decision; (2) a statement that denial will be without prejudice; and (3) instructions for how and when to file an appeal if the applicant so chooses. (3) Required Findings for Approval. The Director may approve or conditionally approve an application any application for an ESG approval when the Director finds that the proposed project:
(a) involves installation, modification, replacement or removal of an emergency standby generator at a macro cell tower site where such macro cell tower site is an existing site that was previously permitted by the Town; and (b) the emergency standby generator:
i. is located not more than 100 feet from the physical structure of the macro cell tower or base station;
ii. is mounted on a concrete pad;
iii. is rated below 50 horsepower;
iv. has a double-wall storage tank that does not exceed 300 gallons; v. has physical dimensions no more than 250 cubic feet in volume, including the storage tank; and
vi. complies with all applicable state and local laws and regulations, including but not limited to air quality regulations and building and fire safety codes. (4) Criteria for Denial Without Prejudice. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Part IX, and consistent with all applicable federal laws and regulations, the Director may deny without prejudice any application for an ESG approval when the Director finds that the proposed project:
(a) does not meet the findings required in Section IX(F)(3); or (b) violates any legally enforceable law, regulation, rule, standard or permit condition reasonably related to public health or safety.
(5) Conditional Approvals. Subject to any applicable limitations in federal or state law, nothing in this Part IX is intended to limit the Director’s authority to conditionally approve an application for an ESG approval to protect and promote the public health and safety.
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 92 of 100 6-1
(6) Appeals. Any applicant may appeal the Director’s written decision to deny without prejudice an application for ESG approval. The written appeal together with any applicable appeal fee must be tendered to the Town within ten calendar days from the Director’s written decision and must state in plain terms the grounds for reversal and the facts that support those grounds. The Town Manager shall be the appellate authority for all appeals from the Director’s written decision to deny without prejudice an applica tion for ESG approval. The Town Manager shall review the application de novo without notice or a public hearing; provided, however, that the Town Manager’s decision shall be limited to only whether the application should be approved or denied in accordance with the provisions in this section and any other applicable laws. The Town Manager shall issue a written decision that contains the reasons for the decision, and such decision shall be final and not subject to any further administrative appeals. There is no right under SAMC Title 1, Chapter 4 (Appeals and Official Reviews of Administrative Decisions) to additionally appeal the Director’s decision or the Town Manager’s decision.
(G) STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
In addition to all other conditions adopted by the Director, all ESG approvals, whether approved by the Director or deemed approved by the operation of law, shall be automatically subject to the conditions in this Part IX(G). The Director (or the appellate authority) shall have discretion to modify or amend these conditions on a case -by-case basis as may be necessary or appropriate under the circumstances to protect public health and safety or allow for the proper operation of the approved facility consistent with the goals of this Part IX.
(1) Permit Term. The Town’s grant or any approval deemed approved by operation of law of an ESG approval constitutes a state-mandated modification to the underlying permit or other prior regulatory authorization for the subject macro cell tower site, and will be regarded as a modification to the underlying approval for the macro cell tower site. The Town’s grant or any approval deemed approved by operation of law of this ESG approval will not extend the permit term, if any, for any underlying permit or other underlying prior regulatory authorization in connection with the macro cell tower site to be modified.
Accordingly, the term for this ESG approval shall be coterminous with the underlying permit or other prior regulatory authorization for the subject macro cell tower site, and any renewals thereof. This condition shall not be applied or interpreted in any way that would cause the term of the underlying permit for the modified facility to be less than 10 years in total length.
(2) Compliance Obligations Due to Invalidation. In the event that any court of competent jurisdiction invalidates all or any portion of Cal. Gov. Code § 65850.75 such that state law would not mandate approval for any emergency standby generators for macro cell tower sites, such approval(s) shall automatically expire one year from the effective date of the judicial order, unless the decision would not authorize accelerated termination of previously approved emergency standby generators for macro cell tower sites or the Director grants an extension upon written request from the permittee that shows good
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 93 of 100 6-1
cause for the extension, which includes without limitation extreme financial hardship.
Notwithstanding anything in the previous sentence to the contrary, the Director may not grant a permanent exemption or indefinite extension. A permittee shall not be required to remove its improvements approved under the invalidated emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site when it has obtained the applicable permit(s) or applied for such permit(s) before the one-year period ends. (3) Town’s Standing Reserved. The Town’s grant or any approval deemed approved by operation of law of an ESG approval does not waive, and shall not be construed to waive, any standing by the Town to challenge Cal. Gov. Code § 65850.75 or any emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site.
(4) Strict Compliance with Approved Plans. Before the permittee submits any applications to the Building Department, the permittee must incorporate this ESG approval, all conditions associated with this ESG approval into the project plans (the “ Approved Plans”). The permittee must construct, install and operate the emergency standby generator in strict compliance with the Approved Plans. Any alterations, modifications or other changes to the Approved Plans, whether requested by the permittee or required by other departments or public agencies with jurisdiction over the emergency standby generator, must be submitted in a written request subject to the Director’s prior review and approval. The Director may revoke the ESG approval if s/he finds that the requested alteration, modification or other change may cause the emergency standby generator to no longer meet the requirements of Cal. Gov. Code § 65850.75. (5) Build-Out Period. This ESG approval will automatically expire one (1) year from the approval or deemed -granted date unless the permittee obtains a ll other permits and approvals required to install, construct and/or operate the emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site, which includes without limitation any permits or approvals required by any federal, state or local public agencies wit h jurisdiction over the subject property, the emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site or its use. The Director may grant one written extension to a date certain, but not to exceed one (1) additional year, when the permittee shows good cause to extend the limitations period in a written request for an extension submitted at least 30 days prior to the automatic expiration date in this condition.
(6) Pre-Installation Property Owner Authorization. Within 15 calendar days after the Town’s grant or any approval deemed approved by operation of law of an ESG approval, the permittee shall submit proof of consent or other authorization from the underlying property owner for the permittee’s installation of the emergency standby generator for a macro cell to wer site to the Director. In no event shall the permittee begin any installation, construction and/or operation of the emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site until the permittee provides such consent or other authorization documentation from the underlying property owner to the Director. (7) Post-Installation Certification. Within 60 calendar days after the permittee completes installation of the emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site approved or deemed-approved, the permittee shall provide the Director with documentation reasonably acceptable to the Director that the emergency standby generator for a macro
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 94 of 100 6-1
cell tower site has been installed and/or constructed in strict compliance with the Approved Plans. Such documentation shall include without limitation as built drawings and site photographs.
(8) Maintenance Obligations; Vandalism. The permittee shall keep the site, which includes without limitation any and all improvements, equipment, structures, access routes, fences, hardscape and landscape features, in a neat, clean and safe condition in accordance with the Approved Plans and all conditions in this ESG approval. The permittee shall keep the site area free from all litter and debris at all times. The permittee shall regularly i nspect the site to determine whether any maintenance is needed. The permittee, at no cost to the Town , shall remove and remediate any graffiti or other vandalism at the site within 48 hours after the permittee receives notice or otherwise becomes aware that such graffiti or other vandalism occurred. (9) Compliance with Laws. The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of law, including those of the appl iable regional Air Quality Management District, (“ Laws”) applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized in this ESG approval. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee’s obligations to maintain compliance with all Laws. No failure or omission by the Town to timely notice, prompt or promptly enforce compliance with any applicable provision in this policy, the San Anselmo Municipal Code, any permit, any permit condition or any other applicable Law, the permittee will not be relieved from its obligation to comply in all respects with all applicable provisions in this policy, the San Anselmo Municipal Code, any permit, any permit condition or any other applicable Law.
(10) Adverse Impacts on Other Properties . The permittee shall use all reasonable efforts to avoid any and all unreasonable, undue or unnecessary adverse impacts on nearby properties that may arise from the permittee’s or its authorized personnel’s construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal and/or other activities on or about the site. The permittee shall not perform or cause others to perform any construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal or other work that involves heavy equipment or machines except during normal construction work hours authorized by the San Anselmo Municipal Code. The restricted work hours in this condition will not prohibit any work required to prevent an actual, immediate harm to property or persons, or any work during an emergency declared by the Town or other state or federal government agency or official with authority to declare a state of emergency within the Town . The Director may issue a stop work order for any activities that violates this condition in whole or in part. The permittee shall, at its sole cost and expense, repair and restore any and all damages to public and private properties that result from any activities performed in connection with the installation or maintenance of an emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site. The permittee shall restore such areas, structures and systems to the condition in which they existed prior to
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 95 of 100 6-1
the installation or maintenance that necessitated the repairs. If the permittee fails to complete such repair within the number of days stated on a written notice by the Director may cause such repair to be completed at permittee’s sole cost and expense. (11) Inspections; Emergencies. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the Town’s officers, officials, staff or other designee may enter onto the site and inspect the improvements and emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site upon reasonable prior notice to the permittee, or at any time during an emergency. The Town’s officers, officials, staff, agents or other designees may, but will not be obligated to, enter onto the site area without prior notice to support, repair, disable or remove any improvements or emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site in emergencies or when such improvements or equipment threatens actual, imminent harm to property or persons. The permittee and/or its authorized personnel, if present, may observe the Town’s officers, officials, staff, agents or other designee while any such inspection or emergency access occurs.
(12) Permittee’s Contact Information. Prior to final inspection and at all times relevant to this ESG approval, the permittee shall keep on file with the Director basic contact and site information. This information shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) the name, physical address, notice address (if different from physical address), direct telephone number and email address for (a) the permittee and, if different from the permittee, the (b) property owner, (c) structure owner, (d) site operator, (e) equipment owner, (f) site manager and (g) agent for service of process;
(b) the regulatory authorizations held by the permittee and, to the extent applicable, property owner, structure owner, site operator, equipment owner and site manager as may be necessary for the facility’s continued operation;
(c) the facility’s site identification number and/or name used by the permittee and, to the extent applicable, property owner, structure owner, site operator, equipment owner and site manager; and
(d) a toll-free telephone number to the facility’s network operations center where a live person with power-down control over the facility is available 24 hours-per-day, seven days-per-week.
The Town may develop a form in connection with such disclosures and, if so, the permittee shall be required to use such form. Within 10 business days after a written request by the Town , the permittee shall furnish the Town with an updated form that includes all t he most -current information described in this condition. Any notices from the Town to the permittee shall be deemed given when delivered to the most current address(es) for the permittee on file with the Town.
(13) Indemnification. The permittee and, if applica ble, the owners of the property and structure upon which the emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site is installed, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Town , Town Council and the Town’s boards, board members, commissions, commissioners, agents, officers, officials,
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 96 of 100 6-1
employees and volunteers (collectively, “ Town Indemnitees”) from any and all (1) damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs and expenses and from any and all claims, demands, law suits, writs and other actions or proceedings (“Claims”) brought against the Town or any Town Indemnitees to challenge, attack, seek to modify, set aside, void or annul this ESG approval, the Town’s granting of this ESG approval or the granting of this ESG approval by the operation of law, and (2) other Claims of any kind or form, whether for personal injury, death or property damage, that arise from or in connection with the permittee’s or its agents’, directors’, officers’, employees’, contractors’, subcontractors’, licensees’, or customers’ acts or omissions in connection with this ESG approval, the Town’s granting of this ESG approval, the granting of this ESG approval by the operation of law, the emergency standby generator or the wireless facility. If the Town becomes aware of any Claims, the Town will use best efforts to promptly notify the permittee and the private property owner and shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. The permittee, property owner and structure owner expressly acknowledges and agrees that the Town shall have the right to approve, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed, the legal counsel providing the Town’s defense, and the permittee, property owner and/or structure owner shall promptly reimburse Town for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the Town in the course of the defense. The permittee, property owner and structure owner expressly acknowledges and agrees that the permittee’s indemnification obligations under this condition are a material consideration that motivates the Town to approve this ESG approval, and that such indemnification obligations will survive the expiration or revocation of this ESG approval.
(14) Insurance. At all times relevant to this permit, the permittee shall obtain and maintain insurance policies as follows:
(a) Commercial General Liability. Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) on an “occurrence” basis, with limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or $2,000,000 in the aggregate. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. CGL insurance must include coverage for the following: Bodily Injury and Property Damage; Personal Injury/Advertising Injury; Premises/Operations Liability; Products/Completed Operations Liability; Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project; Explosion, Collapse and Underground (“UCX”) exclusion deleted; Contractual Liability with respect to the permit; Broad Form Property Damage; and Independent Consultants Coverage. The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverag e for (i) contractual liability; (ii) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (iii) products/completed operations liability; or (iv) contain any other exclusion contrary to the conditions in this permit.
(b) Automotive Insurance. Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering, Code 1 (any auto), or if permittee has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non-
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 97 of 100 6-1
owned), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
(c) Workers’ Compen sation. The permittee shall certify that it is aware of the provisions of California Labor Code § 3700, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and further certifies that the permittee will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this permit. To the extent the permittee has employees at any time during the term of this permit, at all times during the performance of the work under this permit the permittee shall maintain insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
(d) Errors and Omissions Policy. The permittee shall maintain Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriate to the permittee’s profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim. This insurance shall be endorsed to include contra ctual liability applicable to this permit and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the permittee. “Covered Professional Services” as designed in the policy must specifically include work performed under this permit. (e) Umbrella Policy. If an umbrella or excess liability insurance policy is used to satisfy the minimum requirements for CGL or Automobile Liability insurance coverage listed above, the umbrella or excess liability policies shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying coverages and covering those insured in the underlying policies. Coverage shall be “pay on behalf,” with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits. Permittee shall provide a “follow form” endorsement or schedule of underlying coverage satisfactory to the Town indicating that such coverage is subject to the same terms and conditions as the underlying liability policy.
(f) Endorsements. The relevant policy(ies) shall name the Town of San Anselmo, its elected/ appointed officials, commission members, officers, representatives, agents, volunteers and employees as additional insureds. The permittee shall use its best efforts to provide thirty (30) calendar days’ prior written notice to the Town of the cancellation or material modification of any applicable insurance policy; provided, however, that in no event shall the permittee fail to provide written notice to the Town within 10 calendar days after the cancellation or material modification of any applicable insurance policy. (g) Certificates. Before the Town issues any permit, the permittee shall deliver to the Director insurance certificates, in a form satisfactory to the Director, that evidence all the coverage required above. In addition, the permittee shall promptly deliver complete copies of all insurance policies upon a written request by the Town. (15) Performance Bond. Before the building official issues any permits required to commence construction, installation or other work in connecti on with this ESG approval, the permittee shall post a performance bond from a surety and in a form acceptable to the
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 98 of 100 6-1
Director. The bond amount shall be the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost to remove all emergency standby generator equipment and related improvements authorized by the ESG approval, whether above ground or below ground, constructed or installed in connection with the emergency standby generator, plus the cost to completely restore any areas affected by the removal work to a standard compliant with applicable laws. The performance bond shall be valid for at least 10 years or the term of the underlying permit or other prior regulatory authorization for the subject macro cell tower site (whichever is greater). In establishing or adjus ting the bond amount required under this condition, and in accordance with California Government Code § 65964(a), the Director shall take into consideration any information provided by the permittee regarding the cost to remove the emergency standby genera tor for a macro cell tower site to a standard compliant with applicable laws. The Director may also consider any other pertinent information, which includes written estimates from contractors with experience in wireless facilities removal and/or site resto ration. The performance bond shall expressly survive the duration of the permit term to the extent required to effectuate a complete removal of the subject emergency standby generator in accordance with this condition.
(16) Permit Revocation. In accordance with SAMC Section 10 -3.1909 (Revocation of a Discretionary Permit), the approval authority may recall this ESG approval for review at any time due to complaints about noncompliance with applicable laws or any approval conditions attached to this ESG approval . At a duly noticed public hearing and in accordance with all applicable laws, the approval authority may revoke this ESG approval or amend these conditions as the approval authority deems necessary or appropriate to correct any such noncompliance.
(17) Record Retention. Throughout the ESG approval term, permittee must maintain a complete and accurate copy of the written administrative record, which includes without limitation the ESG approval application, ESG approval, the Approved Plans and photo simulations incorporated into this ESG approval , all conditions associated with this ESG approval, any ministerial permits or approvals issued in connection with this ESG approval and any records, memoranda, documents, papers and other correspondence entered into the public record in connection with the ESG approval (collectively, “ Records”). If the permittee does not maintain such Records as required in this condition, any ambiguities or uncertainties that would be resolved by inspecting the missing Records will be construed against the permittee. The permittee shall protect all Records from damage from fires, floods and other hazards that may cause deterioration. The permittee may keep Records in an electronic format; provided, however, that hard copies or electronic Records kept in the Town’s regular files will control over any conflicts between such Town-controlled copies or Records and the permittee’s electronic copies, and complete originals will control over all other copies in any form. The requirements in this condition shall not be construed to create any obligation to create or prepare any Records not otherwise required to be created or prepared by this policy, the San Anselmo Municipal Code or any other applicable Laws. Compliance with the requirements in this condition
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 99 of 100 6-1
shall not excuse the permittee from any other similar record-retention obligations under applicable Law.
(18) Existing Performance Agreements. To the extent that the permittee has an existing Performance Agreement with the Town in connection with the subject wireless facility, the standard conditions in Town Council Policy No. 6 -1 Section VI(G) will control to the extent that the requirements are more stringent or advantageous to the Town. The Town Attorney shall have authority to interpret and resolve any conflicts or ambiguities between the provisions in any Performance Agreement and the provisions in Town Council Policy No. 6-1 Part VI(G).
(19) Abandoned Emergency Standby Generator. The permittee shall notify the Director when the permittee intends to abandon or decommission the emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site authoriz ed under this ESG approval. In addition, the emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site authorized under this ESG approval shall be deemed abandoned if the macro cell tower site is not operated for any continuous six - month period. Within 90 da ys after the emergency standby generator is abandoned or deemed abandoned, the permittee, property owner and/or structure owner shall completely remove emergency standby generator and all related improvements and shall restore all affected areas to a condition compliant with all applicable Laws, which includes without limitation the San Anselmo Municipal Code. The permittee, property owner and/or structure owner may request an extension to complete restoration to 90 days after the emergency standby generator authorized under this ESG approval is abandoned or deemed abandoned, which the Director may grant if the permittee, property owner or structure owner presents evidence of good cause for the extension. If neither the permittee, the property owner nor the structure owner complies with the removal and restoration obligations under this condition within said 90 -day period, the Town shall have the right (but not the obligation) to perform such removal and restoration with or without notice, and the permittee, property owner and structure owner shall be jointly and severally liable for all costs and expenses incurred by the Town in connection with such removal and/or restoration activities.
(20) Landscaping. The permittee shall replace any landscape features damaged or displaced by the construction, installation, operation, maintenance or other work performed by the permittee or at the permittee’s direction. If any trees are damaged or displaced, the permittee shall hire and pay for a licensed arborist to select, plant and maintain replacement landscaping in an appropriate location for the species. Any replacement tree must be substantially the same size as the damaged tree. The permittee shall, at all times, be responsible to maintain any replacement landscape features. (21) Cost Reimbursement. The permittee acknowledges and agrees that (1) the permittee’s request for authorization to construct, install and/or operate the emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site will cause the Town to incur costs and expenses; (2) the permittee shall be responsible to reimburse the Town for all costs incurred in connection with the ESG approval, which includes without limitation costs related to application review, permit issuance, site inspection and any other costs reasonably related to or caused by the request for authorization to construct, install and/or operate
TITLE: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PAGE POLICY NUMBER 100 of 100 6-1
the emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site; (3) any application fees required for the application may not cover all such reimbursable costs and th at the permittee shall have the obligation to reimburse the Town for all such costs 30 days after a written demand for reimbursement and reasonable documentation to support such costs; and (4) the Town shall have the right to withhold any permits or other approvals in connection with the emergency standby generator for a macro cell tower site until and unless any outstanding costs have been reimbursed to the Town by the permittee. (22) Safety Hazard Protocols. If the Ross Valley Fire Department Fire Chief (or his or her designee) finds good cause to believe that the emergency standby generator (including, without limitation, its associated improvements) presents a fire risk, electrical hazard or other immediate threat to public health and safety in violation of any applicable law, such officials may order the facility to be shut down and powered off until such time as the fire risk or electrical hazard has been mitigated. Any mitigations required shall be at the permittee’s sole cost and expense.
(23) Truthful and Accurate Statements. The permittee acknowledges that the Town’s approval relies on the written and/or oral statements by permittee and/or persons authorized to act on permittee’s behalf. In any matter before the Town in connection with the ESG ap proval or the collocation or other modification authorized under the ESG approval, neither the permittee nor any person authorized to act on permittee’s behalf shall, in any written or oral statement, intentionally provide material factual information that is incorrect or misleading or intentionally omit any material information necessary to prevent any material factual statement from being incorrect or misleading. (24) Successors and Assigns. The conditions, covenants, promises and terms contained in this ESG approval and the underlying use permit will bind and inure to the benefit of the Town and permittee and their respective successors and assigns. (25) Severability of Conditions. If any provision in these conditions or such provision’s application to any person, entity or circumstances is or held by any court with competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable: ( a) such provision or its application to such person, entity or circumstance will be deemed severed from this ESG approval; ( b) all other provisions in this permit or their application to any person, entity or circumstance will not be affected; and ( c) all other provisions in this ESG approval or their application to any person, entity or circumstance will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 2:12 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, No me share business model in SFR and other non commercial/hotel zonjngs.
I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7CClerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C3ae40a312f0c4a40d4fa08da0f6d353e%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637839258976441041%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=539zPTvmuKZ5kTI1%2FFyIcB%2FjltuGNJ71GVHbSVwE8Ks%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
Mary Ann Souza
Broker Associate
Compass
#00605390
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 2:15 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cclerk%40cityofnapa.org%7Ca1ca9906541c4a8b035c08da0f6db685%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637839261139735967%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=qu56VSIn83Ay%2FQjexuTNUKW%2B5sgLfLvUclU5ddQ0WBs%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 2:22 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cclerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C88da7787af354af7f77b08da0f6eb65b%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637839265438201662%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=%2BqYlcHfU2CamV3AwwhY8XyKVNEz2Gb%2Fto%2B1GPpmsEb4%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you,
Kathy and Robert Benziger
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 2:26 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
[You don't o en get email fro Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cclerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C7d50 d97ec0453ef9f708da0f6f3158%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637839267518866408%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=wzBrqIkf3jSbeB7ohMU5of0s6MSV4DyY79WWZvQwHrg%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
Jacqueline Kramer
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 2:26 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members,
Thanks for your work for the City that is the "capital" or our Valley.
Please address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan.
Pacaso and other vacation Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the time to review the new regulations Saint Helena put in place this week to restrict Pacaso-style timeshares inside city limits, and review the Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corporations that have found ways to skirt our regulations and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on
the
http://www.StopPacasoNow.com
Patrick Kenealy
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 2:30 PM To: Clerk; Peter French Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT.
These documents can be found on the
Welcome to Stop Pacaso Now!
Welcome to Stop Pacaso Now!
By Stop Pacaso Now
Keep Our Neighborhoods Free of Timeshares!
website.
Our voices are only going to become louder and louder un l we see ac on on this issue.
Thank you
Peter French
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 2:33 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am a Saint Helena resident who has seen what Pacaso homes do to a neighborhood and who has supported the effort to resist them here. We hope our City Council's clarifica on of " me-share" to include the Pacaso model will prevail, but if not, we will con nue our efforts.
We in Saint Helena also support the efforts of our Napa neighbors in resis ng Pacaso. I write to urge you to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan.
Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you for the me spent on this issue and for your careful considera on of the effect of Pacaso on Napa.
Sincerely,
Be y Anne Carlin
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 2:35 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT.
These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website. Thank you
You don't often get email from earn why this is important From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 2:38 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you, April
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 3:01 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from earn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, Please follow St. Helena’s example and take steps to stop Pacaso’s intrusion into Napa neighborhoods.
I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cclerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C64a10f618e8040a6c5fc08da0f74416c%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637839289232753981%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=X8ErTSzGpOLms%2FM1d7SODjLv3golzNpXUcI6q26L3u8%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you,
Susan McWilliams
37-year Napa Valley resident.
Sent from my iPhone
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 3:03 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments on the Napa 2040 General Plan A achments: 2022 GP Linda Vista Extension.docx
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Hello Ms. Carranza,
I have a ached comments regarding the Napa 2040 General Plan, specifically concerning the proposed bridge extension across the Redwood Creek at Linda Vista and Robinson Lane. If need be, I can be reached via email, text or phone.
Thank you,
Margan Holloway
Comments for the Napa 2040 General Plan
The plan to extend Linda Vista to Robinson Lane across the Redwood Creek has been in the General Plan for decades - it has never been implemented. I would argue this extension will never be executed and should not be included the Napa 2040 General Plan.
Why this extension will not be implemented?
• There is strong neighborhood opposition to this extension. Neighbors on both sides of Redwood Creek oppose this new road and either have or will make their opposition known to elected officials.
• The cost of building a bridge across an ecologically sensitive wildlife corridor will be immense due to:
o Environmental review.
o Bridges cost much more than roads.
o The plan calls for a Class I bike trail as part of the extension adding to the expense.
o Special engineering will be required at the Linda Vista end to keep the bridge supports from impeding access to a major water main buried deep at the juncture of the new road with Linda Vista. This water main ruptured within the last two years and required a major excavation of a hole as deep as two SUV’s. o The cost/benefit of this extension will never rise to the level that it will cost.
Basically, this extension will be a dead item in the new Napa 2040 General Plan.
Why this extension should not be implemented:
• The result of the extension would channel even more traffic onto the already busy Linda Vista/Lone Oak/West Lincoln junction. There are already 4500 cars per day on Linda Vista and an extension would increase this by 1000 cars. This neighborhood is a residential area with schools, not a commercial area. The streets are not designed for this traffic load. The intersection where Lone Oak and West Lincoln meet is a blind curve with no shoulders or sidewalks - a very dangerous place for pedestrians or bicyclists. The City should be adding bike lanes and sidewalks to Linda Vista and West Lincoln rather than dumping more traffic in this area.
• The neighborhood on the Robinson Lane side of the creek is truly a quiet residential area with no through streets. This neighborhood will be destroyed by this extension.
Currently 500 cars travel this neighborhood daily, and the extension will add an additional 2500 cars in this small community.
• The extension over the creek will not make it safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, children or animals. The City has said that the roads are 20 feet narrower than they would like for this type of project and there would only be a sidewalk on one side. • For bicycles, there is already a Brown’s Valley Road connection across the creek behind the Crosswalk Church. This class I path empties onto Coffield Avenue. This path is not repaired, maintained or signed. Rather than building new facilities, the City should maintain existing infrastructure and let people know it exists.
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 3:05 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.]
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cclerk%40cityofnapa.org%7Cdb3f7d37771349abb6f608da0f749c9c%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637839291217665166%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=DaiFyDuKv9ZbHim1DAbEHVM7qUolxzFX%2BVbsVAooddg%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 3:15 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, It is crucial to address the impact of Pacaso’s me-sharing 'tech' as you revise and update the General Plan.
Pacaso and other ‘sharing’ models DO NOT build community and DO NOT make residen al housing more affordable.
Now is the me to ban Pacaso and similar ini a ves whose business mission is to capitalize on the abuse of well intended regula ons.
Please stop this scourge before it takes hold!
Thank you,
Dave Sickert
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 3:27 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cclerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C893433a153494cced5d008da0f77dbe7%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637839305160043637%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=SSXazOkyAghAMWWxxLnsxvxOYBW%2BGlrEY9nUc7BA7dA%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
Clare Barr
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 3:39 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, Let’s not push out buyers looking to find their ‘forever’ home and replace them with a me-share.
Inventory is so low as it is.
I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you
Mark Schneidman, GRI
REALTOR
[email protected]
Listen to Real Estate Talk Radio: h p://blog.radiorealestate.com "Goodness is the only investment
that never fails"
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Proper es
3868 State St
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
CalDRE 00976849
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 3:55 PM To: Clerk Subject: General Plan input
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Councilmembers and Napa City Planning
Commissioners,
I’m writing to request that you priori ze the needs of local residents by insis ng that the Napa 2040 General Plan includes a commitment to developing a traffic calming strategy to reduce the impact of traffic on our residen al streets.
Speeding is the top complaint from most Napans and you are doing the city a disservice in ignoring how important solving it is. It should have been a priority for you without so much input from the community because anyone who walks , bikes and lives here can’t help but be aware of it. 2040 is even to far in the future to be planning for it but not pu ng it in the plan is a disgrace and you are not serving the wishes and good of the community. I live on Clay street which was a quiet street before the roundabout was put in, now it is a raceway. People ignore the speed limit signs and no amount of slow down signs change the drivers ac ons.(Please no more dangerous roundabouts).
Your support is essential to help us reign in the dangers of unsafe and reckless driving in Napa. Traffic calming measures can make our streets safer, promote more walking and biking, and embrace the unique appeal that makes Napa such a special place to live. We want to ensure that the City of Napa lives up to its promise to be not just a world-class des na on for tourists, but an equally safe, suppor ve, and vibrant place to start a business, raise a family, and grow old with our loved ones.
Suzanne Tyler
Napa
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 3:59 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7CClerk%40cityofnapa.org%7Cc86f34a1c1d14b0ebca108da0f7c3b86%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637839323944574832%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=MGFvOMRujorK1C24n67L8dFVBIlHhZw4%2FEy7PTBdf8A%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 4:00 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!!!!! We deserve be er in our beau ful Napa Valley and in Napa specifically. Picasso go home.. This is a crime subjec ng our community to the wild par es, noise nuisances and poten al danger in bringing random people into residen al neighborhoods. This is a nightmare to current homeowners, greedily manipula ng the intent of law, prac cing commercial enterprise next to single family homes in residen al neighborhoods.
This is totally unacceptable and we will not stand for
It.
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7CClerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C70abde4e59904e187aed08da0f7c6386%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637839324189916860%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=LNnTc0P8Ss0w6WNzgxAWfsamIzNSM8CapEvObvG7hOQ%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
Kelly Brophy
Golden Gate Sothebys
Sent from my iPhone
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 4:02 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members,
We are taking the time to write you because I believe it is critical to specifically address the impact of Pacaso LLC as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vacation Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the time to review the Ordinances neighboring Cities have adopted as well as the Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs, and then vote to ban Pacaso and other corporations that have found ways to skirt our regulations and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the
http://www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you for your consideration,
Nancy Gardner and Carl Sherrill
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 4:54 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write to you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our Napa Valley residen al neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. Understanding the threat meshares pose to the fabric of our residen al neighborhoods, last week the St. Helena City Council updated and strengthened their ordinances forbidding meshares. These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you,
Sherri Kelly
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 5:23 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write to you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you
From: Kathy Oates Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 5:28 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cclerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C0aa2616080614e89917408da0f88a448%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637839376794103485%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=3zUU5lo%2FXUvquwxMLA8wOX 1RXWJNF0htsJEd%2BuvcM%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
Kathy Oates
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 6:18 PM To: Clerk Cc: Elsa Vare Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am emailing to respec ully request that, as you address the Dra 2040 General Plan, you consider the nega ve impact that Pacaso brings to our Napa Neighborhoods. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our closely knit neighborhoods! When the house next door, at 5 Lutge Court, was demolished last year and rebuilt, my wife and I posted several “Stop Pacaso” signs, hoping the remodeled home would not be purchased by Pacaso and turned in to a de facto meshare. Fortunately the Contractor sold the remodeled new home to a lovely couple who have occupied the residence full me and can par cipate in building neighborhood friendships that endure.
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cclerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C2eac1668dca045cfec6008da0f8 fc0%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637839407786827225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=76433MRnQ8X2zd394hrAI45Q7MkBA2JeX5%2FLsRy5VAQ%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you.
Milt Gaines
Napa, CA 94559
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 6:28 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the time to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vacation Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the time to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Cities have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corporations that have found ways to skirt our regulations and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the www.StopPacasoNow.com website. Thank you Jeff Weinman
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 8:42 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is essen al to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cclerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C50330f46b4604f7fa9bf08da0fa3d507%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637839494004634400%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=uH%2FmUGjbPv0lbdZ1fedWt9NUDZs3dZuKA n%2FKTO28g%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
J Berger
Napa
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 9:29 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7CClerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C84b6d5cfd57e477dab2608da0faa4615%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637839521685464839%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=k454rxHVSeA9VBl8I%2F8wu%2BjuGrXJOSVfqZjOgFt2Y4k%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
Sent from my iPhone
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 11:10 AM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you. Rita Hellewell
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 11:29 AM To: Clerk
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Councilmembers and Napa City Planning Commissioners,
I’m writing to request that you prioritize the needs of local residents by insisting that the Napa 2040 General Plan includes a commitment to developing a traffic calming strategy to reduce the impact of traffic on our residential streets.
Your support is essential to help us reign in the dangers of unsafe and reckless driving in Napa. Traffic calming measures can make our streets safer, promote more walking and biking, and embrace the unique appeal that makes Napa such a special place to live. We want to ensure that the City of Napa lives up to its promise to be not just a world-class destination for tourists, but an equally safe, supportive, and vibrant place to start a business, raise a family, and grow old with our loved ones.
The recent changes to speed limits on Jefferson are a welcome change. I hope it is only the beginning. I have friends who have as pedestrians suffered permanent personal damage as a result of speeding and hit/run driving. I think it is worthwhile to develop a culture of courtesy and calmness on our city streets. I live on Laurel St where everyday we see drivers speeding through our neighborhood. In addition to reducing some speed limits, Napa police should be more active writing tickets for speeders. Hopefully the public will benefit from increased public safety and income to pay additional police officers for enforcement.
As our city continues to grow, it is important that parking and safety on city streets are embedded into all aspects of planning.
Regards,
Tim Weir
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 12:05 PM To: Clerk Subject: Linda Vista Extension
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
The plan to extend Linda Vista across Redwood Creek is ill-conceived. Street connec ons and extensions are usually proposed by the Fire Department to reduce response me. This is rubbish.
The Fire Department can consult a map if they are confused about the quickest way to reach a poten al fire loca on.
Street connec ons encourage higher neighborhood speeds and change the neighborhood character. That is why most immediate neighbors strongly oppose these extensions.
It is me that the City Council listened to the residents who elect them rather than city agencies, unless there is some overriding reason for not doing so. In the 20 years that this has been in the General Plan, if there was an overriding reason – it would have surfaced by now. Spend the money on bike trails that don’t have to cross a creek at a cost of millions of dollars.
Geoff Wood
Napa
Sent from
Mail for Windows
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 12:38 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am in full agreement with the ci zens of Napa over preven ng Pacaso style "frac onal housing" in our neighborhoods. This cannot wait un l 2040. Please take ac on immediately.
Every me a home comes up for sale in our neighborhood, I fear Pacaso will come knocking. If they do, there will be protests in our streets.
I am taking the me to write to you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you,
M. Kathleen Stewart-Lightner
Napa resident
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 1:12 PM To: Clerk Subject: informa on forjMonday Nights mee ng regarding safety in Napa A achments: Le er to Councilmembers and Napa City Planning Commissioners.docx
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
This is in reference to the discussion taking place on Monday evening regarding speeding and safety in Napa.
Renay
Dear Napa City Councilmembers and Napa City Planning Commissioners,
I’m writing to request that you prioritize the needs of local residents by insisting that the Napa 2040 General Plan includes a commitment to developing a traffic calming strategy to reduce the impact of traffic on our residential streets.
There is a blatant disregard for stopping at stop signs, even at four-way intersections and speeding in residential neighborhoods. There seems to be absolutely no enforcement.
One day when I saw a policeman sitting in his car on my street, I went up to him to thank him and saw that he wasn’t even looking at the intersection, he was working on paperwork. When I spoke to him about the problem of people running stop signs and speeding through four-way intersections and suggested that the local police could make some money if they issued tickets, his answer was there was no incentive because the money goes to the County !!. So, we need an incentive to enforce the law??
Your support is essential to help us reign in the dangers of unsafe and reckless driving in Napa. Traffic calming measures can make our streets safer, promote more walking and biking, and embrace the unique appeal that makes Napa such a special place to live. We want to ensure that the City of Napa lives up to its promise to be not just a world-class destination for tourists, but an equally safe, supportive, and vibrant place to start a business, raise a family, and grow old with our loved ones.
Renay Conlin
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 2:14 PM To: Clerk; Michael Walker Subject: Comments on Dra General Plan -- Joint Le er A achments: Comments on Dra General Plan - Joint Le er 3-26-2022.pdf
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgely, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners,
Enclosed is our joint le er outlining our comments and concerns about the Dra General Plan. We intend, either collec vely or individually, to con nue to comment on the Dra GP and Dra EIR over the coming weeks and months as you hold further sessions.
Thank you all for your efforts on behalf of our community!
Danielle Barreca Patrick Band Michelle Dahme Chuck Shinnamon Howard Siegel
March 26, 2022
Napa City Council and Napa City Planning Commission
Re: Draft General Plan and Draft EIR Via Email
Dear Mayor Sedgely, Council Members, and Planning Commissioners, We, the undersigned, had the honor of serving on the General Plan Advisory Committee and we offer the following as our personal comments regarding the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR. They are not intended to reflect the opinions or recommendations from anyone other than ourselves and are not the official position of the GPAC.
KEY OVERARCHING POINTS:
• The new General Plan needs to be both a living document as well as having planned flexibilit y built into it. These needs have been made clear to us with Covid and with the new reality of potential annual fires.
• Focus on climate change, sustainability, and resilience. All actions and policies in the General Plan and its implementation should emanate from this focus. The future of our local economy and community , as we know them, rely upon bold action in the next 5 years, and through the 20-year planning horizon of this Plan.
• Focus urban development within the existing RUL to continue to ensure the long-term viability of our agricultural lands and heritage.
• Focus first on locals and then on visitors. Although seemingly insignificant, juxtaposition and choice of words throughout the GP in the Vision & Guiding Principl es (including but not limited to Guiding Principle #3), as well as numerous Goals, and Policies should always reflect that priority. We appreciate that the Draft GP includes these distinctions.
• Focus first on alternative transportation (bicycle, pedestrians and transit) connectivity throughout the City when transportation improvements, changes, and budgets are being planned and implemented. Our residents must be able to safely navigate around our community without having to drive in a car. • Focus on the creation of a diverse array of new housing to meet the needs of all segments of our population, both current and future residents. We need new housing in every neighborhood in our City.
Densities and heights will probably need to increase given the State’s and ABAG’s housing requirements. Good, thoughtful design needs to be expected and demanded , while streamlining permitting to expedite project approval and construction. • For long-term balance and health of our community, ensure, through land use choices and policies, that many young families can continue to afford to live in Napa and, thusly, preserve a strong and viable public school system.
LAND USE COMMENTS (based on February 22, 2022 Draft and Land Use Map):
We are generally supportive of the Land Use designations shown on the Map and expand on various areas in the following.
• We applaud the continuation of the current GP’s usage of “gross” acreage rather than “net” acreage. • Neighborhood delineations. We applaud the continuation of these valuable designations , while also encouraging stronger language to expedite annexation of unincorporated “islands” to ensure that all of those in a given neighborhood benefit from the policies, programs, and improvements outlined in this Plan.
• Allowance, by right, of duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes in existing single family neighborhoods.
Clearly, new standards will need to be created that delineate minimum lot sizes, setbacks, allowed building sizes, etc. A number of other cities are already in the forefront of this effort. Clearly, this is a significant issue that needs more work and study. We urge the Commission and Council to adopt a Policy Statement that the City intends to explore such an effort as part of the GP Implementation Plan and/or the new Housing Element.
• Ghisletta and Horsemen’s Properties. These properties have been within the City’s RUL for almost forty years with an underlying housing designation for that entire period. We support the creation of a thoughtful Master Plan / Specific Plan that considers all of these lands, primarily for hous ing. Such a planning process should include consideration of best practices from other areas around the country. It needs to include consideration for the known earthquake fault, slopes, flooding and wetlands, water supply, visual and greenbelt issues, and neighbors’ concerns. We also support inclusion of a separated Class I pedestrian and bike facility along Foster Road and possibly along Golden Gate Drive. It should be a “complete” neighborhood with trails, open space / park, and small neighborhood-serving retail.
The Horsemen’s Association property has, in our view, uniquely approved land usage in the County’s unincorporated area. At such time as the larger area including Ghisletta and others is considered for formal annexation into the City, those existing legal uses outlined in Napa County approvals should continue to be appropriately maintained within the City’s jurisdiction while the Horsemen continue to use the property. Such usage might create some “right -to-farm” challenges that should be addressed through the Master/Specific Plan process.
• Big Ranch Road . We agree with the Medium Density residential designation as proposed. Such a designation allows for detached and attached single family homes, which we need. We suggest, as well, that other vacant/underutilized parcels on the west side of Big Ranch Road from Trancas Street to the RUL on the north should have this same designation.
As our land within the RUL is precious and needs to be used wisely, we strongly disagree with proposed LUCD 24-3, which would lower densities near this area’s border. It is important to address “right to farm” concerns but we don’t believe that feathering does much to resolve an issue that can better be addressed through other, more effective tools.
• Focus Areas / Major Corridors . We like the idea of repurposing older shopping centers for higher density mixed uses and are supportive of the proposed land use designations on these corridors. We especially support making these corridors safe and accessible for pedestrian and bicycle users, and with far greater tree canopy and shade to reduce the “urban heat island” effect. We also support the NVTA plan for Imola Avenue and, especially, the Mixed Use -High designation for the River Park Shopping Center. Similar plans should be prioritized, as outlined in the City’s existing adopted Bicycle Plan.
As your Monday study session is appropriately focused on the big picture, some or all of us will have further comments on these areas as they are studied in greater detail at the Planning Commission. One area needing more study is that of Floor Area Ratios (FAR’s) in these Corridors. We t hink that the proposed FAR’s may be too low especially as we are trying to achieve densities that are economically viable.
• Downtown and its Periphery: We applaud the inclusion of LUCD 22-2 as it has become clear that the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) needs to be updated. These are some of our specific concerns related to Downtown and to the update of the DTSP:
o As the 2012 DTSP doesn’t appear to adequately address or create conditions for ho using development, we are curious how a reliable estimate can be made for the number of housing units that might develop Downtown as outlined on Table 2-2.
o We agree that more discussion needs to be had about the number of Downtown hotels; please see more discussion about hotels in a following section.
• Oxbow District: We applaud the inclusion of LUCD 22-1 regarding the need for a separate land use update for the Oxbow District that would follow the Urban Land Institute recommendations. And, critically, the Napa River needs to remain as its heart. • Hotel Estimates: We are deeply concerned about the amount of land ascribed for potential new hotels and the estimate of possible new rooms. We recognize that not all will be approved or built. Yet, over the life of the Gen eral Plan, including those rooms currently in the pipeline, the number of rooms in 2040 could be two and a half (2 ½) times the number in existence in January 2021 (as shown in Dyett & Bhatia’s report to GPAC). As there is a large difference between the January 2021 D&B tabulations and those in the Draft General Plan, we suggest that there needs to be greater clarity in these numbers:
o Existing (February 2022).
o Approved, not built.
o Approved under construction.
o Applied for but not approved.
Added to these concerns are the large number of below market housing units that would be needed to accommodate hotel employees. Hotels take up sites that are also prime multifamily sites. Building the hotels without housing further exacerbates the jobs/housing imbalance especially for affordable needs.
We strongly suggest that we have reached the point at which it is time for a community conversation about the number of new hotels that should be developed. Have we reached the proverbial Zero -Sum game where newly-approved hotels simply take business and employees away from existing hotels? How does that help the City or anyone other than those who own the newly-built hotels? • “Ritz” Site at First Street and Silverado Trail: This is currently shown in the Draft Plan as “Hospitality Commercial”. The site was initially approved for hotel use in 2002 and subsequently in 2008. Although we have endured the Covid slowdown, there have been two strong economic cycles since these approvals were granted. It is pretty clear that the owners have no plans to move forward with a hotel.
As such, we suggest that it have an alternate designation added, either “High Density Residential” or “Residential Mixed Use”.
We also believe that the “Ritz” site underscores the need to establish more stringent guidelines for issuance of extensions to project approvals. What may have been appropriate in 2002 or 2008 may not be appropriate today, or five years in the future. As our community develops and changes, the standards and requirements for previously approved, undeveloped projects may need to change as well. • “Public Serving” Lands: Pg 2-12/13 in the Draft General Plan suggests that public serving properties, if converted, might be used for residential or residential mixed -use with densities in keeping with the surrounding areas as those are reflected in the Draft General Plan. We like this but we also see a missed opportunity. We suggest that these sites be given eith er an underlying “Medium Density” or “High Density” residential designation or a “Residential Mixed-Use” designation. With the Housing Element
update literally just around the corner, there is going to be a strong effort to find sites for housing that is affordable, especially sites with higher densities.
We are thinking especially of Harvest Middle School, the City Corporation Yard on Lincoln, the Caltrans Yard on Jefferson, and Justin Siena High School, among others. We are also surprised to see no discussion of the planned 700+ bed student housing project at Napa Valley College . Although outside the direct jurisdiction of the City, such a project would undoubtedly have ripple effects into several of our local neighborhoods.
• Light Industrial Lands : We need to ensure that there are sufficient lands with Light Industrial designations in various parts of the City to serve our current and future needs. One area of particular concern is the potential shift from Light Industrial to Hospitality Commercial in the Jordan Lane area.
Let’s not force existing important uses into being legally non-conforming. • Soscol Avenue, Auto Row, and City Entry : What is the future of car dealerships ? Are there only showrooms in our future? How do we make Auto Row more attra ctive as one of our entry points to Napa? How does the Draft Land Use Plan conform to the adopted “Soscol Corridor/Downtown Riverfront Development & Design Guidelines”? We see that these Guidelines finally show up in LUCD 18-1 but they need to be more prom inently used and referenced. Is our new southern “entry” to Napa near Napa Pipe?
As we think that the world of auto sales may change dramatically over the life of the General Plan, if not much sooner, we suggest that the Auto Row “General Commercial” designation have an underlying “Mixed Use” designation such that we allow for future higher density housing along one of our primary entries to Napa.
• Long Term Infrastructure Planning. Although difficult to contemplate as we debate land use for the coming twenty years, we think that it is important to at least think about how we plan for infrastructure beyond that time horizon. When roads, water and sewer lines, power systems, etc, are planned, there needs to be some Commission and Council guidance to staff over the coming years . This issue is not something that necessarily needs to be addressed now but it is something that needs to be kept in our thinking.
GOALS AND POLICIES:
As we all review the “Goals and Policies” sections of the Draft GP, we need to fully acknowledge that language and choice of words is vitally important. There are huge differences between “promote” and “create” or between “should” and “ensure or will”. We especially need to set stretch goals and policies, particularly related to Climate Change and Sustainability and to how we get around in our fair city.
Prioritizing connectivity and safety for pedestrians and cyclists should be at the forefront of issues related to our infrastructure. These feed right into the Climate Change and Sustainability sections.
We broadly agree with the comments made by the individuals and organizations at the March 17th Planning Commission meeting, who called for greater specificity and language changes within the Goals and Policies sections of the Climate Change & Sustainability and Transportation elements. We believe that a General Plan can and must provide sufficiently specific language to ensure that City staff have appropriate direction to implement the Plan, and that residents, business owners, and other stakeholders can make informed decisions.
BIG PICTURE:
As you discuss and debate the fine points in the Land Use Plan, we urge you to also keep the big picture in mind and to discuss the basic tenets of the Plan. Who are we planning for? How do we make it possible for our own children and grandchildren to live here? How do we ensure a broad spectrum of housing types such that we maintain the richness of a broad and inclusive citizenry?
Finally, we fully expect that both the Commission and Council will want to study many of the finer details of the General Plan and Draft EIR in your coming sessions. We intend to continue to comment, whether collectively or individually, on many of these vital details.
Thank you for your consideration. We wish you well as you discuss and make the difficult decisions about the future of our community.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle Barreca Patrick Band Michelle Dahme Chuck Shinnamon Howard Siegel
Danielle Barreca Patrick Band Michelle Dahme Chuck Shinnamon Howard Siegel
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 2:20 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I’m taking the me, on a Sunday a ernoon, to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models do not belong in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes our neighboring Ci es have done as well as the Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs that specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7CClerk%40cityofnapa.org%7Ca6 956c61f14610718a08da103780bf%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637840128257201324%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=U2kH2YR8I6gnDqW2jqyHwIytJ5H84bO%2Fu9wMp2I0Gio%3D&reserved=0 website.
With dropping school enrollments and families ge ng priced out of their homes, the wealth divide in Napa is already extreme Let’s not make it worse by turning family housing by neighborhood schools into vaca on homes. Visitors are welcome at any of our many hotels.
Thank you,
LC Arisman
Napa, CA
Sent from my iPhone
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 3:03 PM To: Clerk Subject: Napa General plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
I would like additional detail in the General Plan addressing making our city streets and highways safe through traffic calming technology, additional signage, radar feedback devices, school zone traffic ingress and egress routes during drop off and pick-up. I believe this is both a safety and quality of life issue that requires increased police resources, increased street maintenance budgets and neighborhood focus groups in areas experiencing high incidents of speeding and potential safety issues, especially around schools. Please include the necessary detail in the General Plan to address street safety and traffic calming across the city and county.
Bill Mellberg
Napa 94558
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 3:09 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7CClerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C6077c8f1ee09486d5fa908da103e71bb%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637840158071717352%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=dW9u0VCEZckDtWaHOj0uKjlyGRx19tvVFWtSDBvXrQE%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you,
Doug Armstrong
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 3:21 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you
John Wilkinson
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 3:30 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7CClerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C5176eabac7c5459ab32308da104153ea%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637840170012827568%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=9Ya3Pgw3JD7I7aItKTcEGmbgWTzD2wxx2NNYnWVXuU0%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 5:06 PM To: Bernie Narvaez; Beth Painter; Liz Alessio; Mary Luros; Sco Sedgley Cc: Clerk; Patricia Baring Subject: Dra General Plan Update Joint Mee ng 82-2022 A achments: Linda Vista Bridge 2022.docx
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
All,
Dear Mayor, City Council Members, Planning Commission members, and City Clerk,
Please find a ached a document containing my supplemental wri en comments as I will not be able to a end the mee ng.
I would like them entered into in the record.
Ms. Baring could your please forward the a achment to the planning commission members.
I thank you all for taking a few moments to read my comments be
Respec ully,
Mark Warrington
3/26/2022
Mark Warrington
Napa CA 94558
Subject: Linda Vista Bridge Over Napa Creek Project
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and
Planning Commission.
I would like to request that the Linda Vista Bridge project be removed from the circulation element of our general plan.
Staff reports explained that the bridge would indeed improve Napa Fire Departments response time to the area of Lone Oak and Linda Vista. It also showed that without the bridge the response times were well within the City’s 4 minute parameters for a Fire Department response from three
different fire stations.
Now that AMR has the ability to station or move their
ambulances their ambulances according to situational need they don’t need the bridge to meet their response time
parameter.
The impact of the additional traffic on Linda Vista will cause a huge safety issue. Many Browns Valley Area residents will use Linda Vista as a way to avoid the SR29 and First Street Roundabouts. There are four schools along Linda Vista that will be severely impacted, West Park, Pueblo Vista, St.
Johns Lutheran, and the back entrance to Northwood.
Linda Vista north of Lone Oak and a lot of the area around the proposed project does not have sidewalks on both sides of the street or bike lanes. This causes people to have to walk in between parked cars and northbound traffic to get to West Park Elementary School as the east side of the street.
The increase in traffic will make for a large increase in traffic on West Lincoln Ave. West Lincoln Ave from Solano to
Lone Oak is curvy, narrow, and lacks sidewalks on the
portion west of Chad Ct.
The City of Napa already has a terrible problem with traffic safety. According to California Department of Traffic Safety OTS
https://www.ots.ca.gov/media-and-research/crash-rankings-results/?wpv-wpcf- year=2019&wpv-wpcf-city_county=Napa&wpv_filter_submit=Submit
Were are in a group of 105 cities with populations of 50,000- 100,000.
In 2019 we had some of the worst rankings in the injury or fatal accident tracking
Our composite rating (overall rating) was #10 with #1 being the worst and # 105 being the best.
This expansion would only increase the potential for all along Linda Vista as it’s a surface street that you will in effect convert to a collector street based on the amount of traffic.
The 2014 traffic model said 2500 vehicle trips per day. I am sure now that number is larger with the additional housing that has been built in the last eight years. The reality is that
1500-1900 of those vehicles will travel that street in a 1.5 hour window in the morning and a 2 hour window in the
afternoon / evening.
In a December 2014 City Council Meeting a tentative plan was approved. It was the least expensive but created a engineering problem with a off-set intersection and a
dangerous head-on traffic situation
Because of all of the reasons above and likely more the project as proposed will likely fail the traffic safety element CEQA when it gets there.
This project would likely cost between 10 and 12 million dollars (or more) by the time it’s completed. Its positive aspects, Fire Dept. response times are far overshadowed by all of the traffic safety issues it creates.
Lastly the monies spent on this bridge that accomplishes little could be used for more badly needed projects:
Such as affordable housing for people that work in our city or county, fixing our streets that rate poorly and were all projected to be completely repaved by 2023.
Because of what I have described above and other
environmental reasons I ask that you remove this project from the circulation element of the general plan.
Respectfully,
Mark Warrington
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 5:24 PM To: Sco Sedgley; Liz Alessio; Mary Luros; Beth Painter; Bernie Narvaez Cc: Clerk Subject: COMMENT: Item 3A Dra General Plan Update
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley and Napa City Council Members,
First and foremost, I want to thank you, again, for setting climate action as one of your 2022 priorities.
As I shared with the Napa Planning Commissioners on March 17th, as the parent of a Napa teen and a community member who has been following the unfoldment of (particularly) the Climate Change + Sustainability Element and the Transportation Element of the Napa 2040 General Plan, I feel compelled to take a moment to share how disappointed I was to learn that the details and goals which had been recommended and specified by the GPAC in the Draft Element Framework (4/2021) had been watered down to suggestions in the Public Review Draft of the 2040 General Plan, removing all specific goals and clear, measurable outcomes.
As illustrated, once again, in last month's most recent IPCC report (
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/) and last week’s collapse of what was thought to be a more stable ice shelf in East Antarctica (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/east-antarctica-ice-shelf-the-size-of-new-york- city-collapses-accelerated-melt), our current climate situa on is dire. A 2040 General Plan that shares vague promises that can’t be specifically measured would send a message to our youth that we, the adult leaders of their community, are out of touch with reality and what is needed to “meet the moment” and give them hope for a chance at a livable future.
As a worldwide destination that has the opportunity to serve as an example of what specific, measurable climate goals and outcomes look like, this is our moment to step up, on behalf of our children, and commit to the concrete steps we will take to help heal this crisis and inspire others to do the same. Our 2040 General Plan needs to be our roadmap to healing. Directions must be precise and measurable for the work to get done. I urge you to direct staff and consultants to go back to the Draft Element Framework (4/2021) and include the specific goals and outcomes.
Thank you for all you do to protect the safety and well-being of your community.
Sincerely,
Lori Stelling
(20+ year Napa Resident)
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 5:53 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from . Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7CClerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C2352da68b7a941107f5408da10556265%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637840256584725954%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=NT15B%2B6Ss3SG%2F6fH%2FmijP5R91AafQHQ5TmuixW3bY9Q%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 6:25 PM To: Clerk Subject: Robinson Ln. proposed Bridge
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Please include with public comment of the proposed Robinson Ln Bridge
My background:
Na ve of Napa
60 year resident of
Degree from Agricultural Engineering Dept. CAL POLY SLO 43 years as an engineer and manager for Christain Bros. and Domaine Chandon wineries Cer fied Erosion Control Specialist #768
Consultant to numerous vineyards and wineries
My opposi on to the proposed Bridge:
The jus fica on for the Bridge was based on a 1957 out of date view of west Napa traffic needs prior the Brown Valley area development having the exis ng cross streets like Pinewood Dr. and the various other cross streets.
Introduces commercial vehicle as well increased domes c vehicle traffic to long established residen al neighborhoods to poten al dangerous levels of traffic.
Robinson Ln/Browns Valley Rd. intersec on as well of por ons of Linda Vista will require traffic control systems and or roadway up grades. Traffic controls for Robinson Ln/Browns Valley intersec on will increasing travel me for Browns Valley residents west of this intersec on. The cost for these required upgrades will vastly add to the overall cost of the proposed Bridge.
Bridge construc on and long term opera ons will add sediments and pollu on to Redwood Creek.
Major jus fica on for the proposed Bridge has been expressed by a member of the council for the need to increase fire protec on/EMT services to the West Park Area. Reviewing travel distances from 4 Napa Fire Sta ons servicing the West Park Area is under 2 miles.
The Browns Valley urban area west of West Park area is twice the size and has travel distances of nearly 3 miles in some loca ons.
My sugges ons to address issues:
To improve fire and EMT services for a large number of Napa residents a 6th fire sta on should be constructed in the western area of Browns Valley. This will have a much low cost to Napa tax prayers and improve services for a greater area of Napa.
The bridge that should be built is one that will connect the frontage roads on the north and south sides of Napa Creek. This will allow for a con nuous road parallel to Hwy 29 running from Yountville to Imola Ave. This would result in removing local and commercial traffic from Hwy 29 impac ng a greater number of vehicles trips.
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 6:28 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 6:44 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you Michele Barberi Hyde
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 7:14 PM To: Clerk Subject: Linda Vista Extension
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
To Whom it May Concern:
This note is in protest of the proposed extension of Linda Vista Avenue to Robinson Lane in Browns Valley as outlined in the Napa General Plan.
There is already a connection between Solano Avenue and First Street that is used by both pedestrians and cyclists, negating the need for another pedestrian/bicycle route.
The increase in traffic both on Linda Vista and on Robinson Lane will only decrease the safety of both neighborhoods. There are four elementary schools with access to Linda Vista Avenue: West Park, Pueblo Vista, Northwood, and St. John's Lutheran School. The local neighborhood children will be in increased danger from the increased traffic caused by such an extension. Linda Vista already has a speeding problem that is not controlled with deaths as recent as 6 years ago.
Robinson Lane will surely develop a similar speeding problem if extended.
This extension has been promoted as necessary for fire responses but the Trower Fire Station is only 2 miles from the southernmost West Lincoln/Lone Oak neighborhood and the Browns Valley Fire Station is also within a reasonable distance from the Browns Valley/First Street areas. In addition to the four elementary schools on Linda Vista there are many areas without sidewalks, making it dangerous for the increased use of (speeding) emergency vehicles and nonemergency vehicles as well.
The cost of building the bridge must be weighed against the benefits. As above, emergency response time will not be increased by this extension, at least not to a degree that would justify the financial cost and added risk to child pedestrians in this area. A bridge in this area will require extensive engineering in order to meet flood and safety standards.
This idea has been in the general plan for decades without being implemented, demonstrating it is unnecessary, unwarranted, and unwanted. It is time to bring our general plan current and dismiss the misguided notion that an extension between these two neighborhoods is a sound idea.
Sincerely,
Mark C. Luce
Kathryn P. Luce
Napa, CA
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 7:36 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 8:15 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.]
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members,
I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cclerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C64f21901cb14490ab1d008da106948ae%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637840342070634684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=POHNrxs%2FnhCa0GRl4TE6tr%2BNZphjYxGB329tgP8dtg8%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
Paula Brutocao
☮
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 8:32 PM To: Clerk Subject: Linda Vista Ave Bridge Over Napa Creek
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.]
[EXTERNAL]
Re: Extension of Linda Vista Over Napa Creek - Napa General Plan To whom it May Concern,
It is impera ve that the extension of Linda Vista across the Napa Creek onto Robinson Lane not be implemented. An extension would completely destroy a quiet safe family neighborhood where children play outside and people are able to take walks with their dogs.
The quiet nature of this peaceful safe neighborhood is becoming increasingly rare in Napa. Adding the extension would bring in a dangerous amount of traffic and an increase of crime is sure to follow.
An increase in traffic and crime would also decrease safety to the children a ending the school at the entrance to Robinson Ln as well as West Park Elementary and Pueblo Vista Elementary schools on the other side of the creek.
In addi on to the safety and quiet nature of this neighborhood being destroyed, a dras c change such as this is sure to greatly decrease the propery value of homes in this neighborhood.
In 2018, the extension was strongly opposed by the community and voted down. It’s me to put this issue to rest for good.
Thank you for your me.
Sincerely,
Chris na Rubio
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 6:47 PM To: Liz Alessio; Sco Sedgley; Mary Luros; Beth Painter; Bernie Narvaez; Tiffany Carranza; Samantha Pascoe; Michael Allen Subject: Linda Vista Bridge Project
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
March 27th, 2022
Mike and Jessica Leland
Napa CA, 94558
Dear Mayor Sedgley, City Council Members, Planning Commission Members and City Clerk, We have been residents of Napa for the past three years and have fallen in love with the community and city.
We recently purchased our first home in a neighborhood we love and treasure.
We respectfully ask that you make the decision to cancel the Linda Vista Bridge plan for the safety of our neighborhood, to protect the wildlife in our community, and to allow the funds to be redirected into a project that would better serve the city of Napa.
Allowing this project to continue would create more disruption than good. The argument for faster response times from first responders is easily outweighed by the 2,500 opportunities for accidents that will pass through our beloved neighborhood daily if this project passes.
We ask you to protect the children in our neighborhood and preserve our established community by removing this plan from consideration.
Thank you,
Mike and Jessica Leland
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 9:00 PM To: Clerk Subject: Napa Creek Connector Bridge/ Linda Vista to Robinson
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
To Whom it may concern,
I'm a resident of Street and I strongly oppose the construc on of the bridge across Napa Creek that will connect Robinson Lane to Linda Vista Ave.
This will have a extremely nega ve impact on our quiet neighborhood that is not designed to support the increased volume of traffic. I understand that many improvements can be made to support this but at the end of the day it will change and destroy one of Napa's rare peaceful havens resul ng in unsafe condi ons for the area residents, increased the and other crimes, & decreased property value.
I urge the City to take this bridge off the general plan permanently. There is already sufficient exis ng paths to cross from Browns Valley to the Linda Vista area and the new roundabout project seems to have helped ease conges on significantly.
Thank you for listening to my point of view. It is greatly appreciated.
Warm regards,
Dus n Rubio
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 9:58 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7CClerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C79942166489d49cb2a0408da107796ce%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637840403085689063%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=QMKMC3JzOMOHx%2FlSDpjIUAuGgwtS012t5l8eoRCD9jI%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 10:24 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you,
Summer Hear
Napa, CA
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 12:16 AM To: Clerk Subject: Napa Does Not Care.
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
I will no longer call the police got ANYTHING. Because the city government and the Napa Police Dept. do not care about speeding, fireworks, or anything else that concerns their ci zens. I've called the police for 3 years or more regarding reckless driving and illegal fireworks and they do absolutely nothing they do not even patrol my neighborhood, California at Pueblo.
There have been two major accidents in the last 2 months directly in front of my home. That both could have hit my home. The police don't care. I'm red of was ng my breath and energy on a city government and police department that does not give a . I also will no longer vote. Just a waste of me.
Sandra Graves
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 6:54 AM To: Clerk Subject: comments re need to have a stronger General Plan that will be delivered at tonight's mee ng 3/28/22
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Board of Supervisors/PLanning Commissioners,
This is what I will be saying at tonight's mee ng and I'd like my comments entered into the record.
I’m speaking as a member of Napa Climate NOW! We want to encourage you to use “strong language” in the general plan. By that I mean language that provides solid direc on, language that sets targets and melines, language that is clear and precise. Language like “seek to” and “study” and “promote” will not get the job done when it comes to taking ac on on climate change.
Here are some examples of clear language from the General Plans of near-by jurisdic ons:
From the Santa Rosa 2035 General Plan: Establish a city renewable energy program which will allow the city to generate or receive a significant por on of energy from renewable sources.
From the Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan: Ensure that new development pays its propor onal share of the costs of expanded infrastructure needed to serve new development.
From the San Rafael 2040 General Plan: Protect, maintain, and expand San Rafael’s tree canopy.
From the East Palo Alto 2035 General Plan: Priori ze transporta on system improvements that encourage walking, biking and transit use.
The guiding principles of the Plan provide a clear vision of what we want for our city. Let’s make sure the goals and policies are just as clear and powerful.
Thank you,
Chris ne McClure
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 7:11 AM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, City and County Officials are always talking about needed housing. Do something about it instead of just talking about it. TIME FOR ACTION NOW NOT 2040!!! Napa county is
already full of second homes. Downtown Napa condos are not for those seeking housing, but second homes for the rich.
New housing developments should NOT BE MAC
MANSIONS, but modest homes for those needing housing.
And then there is Pacaso. What a joke, a waste of resources supposedly important to the talked about need for housing.
Stop Pacaso Now. For crying out loud, 2040 will be too late.
I am taking the time to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other
vacation Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the time to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Cities have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban
Pacaso and other corporations that have found ways to skirt our regulations and avoid TOT. These documents can be
found on the www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you.
Anni and Ron Donahue
Napa CA
From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 7:31 AM To: Clerk Subject: Pacaso
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.]
[EXTERNAL]
Hi,
Please pass on to the City Council:
Say NO too Pacaso!
Thank you,
Steve Hare
Napa, CA
From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 8:53 AM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7CClerk%40cityofnapa.org%7Ca61abf76390848ae662208da10d30442%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637840796166236012%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=NAREJ6N69G8ncuJ9HwK9jX9LqTmBBwcdVoNp13ai6%2Bs%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
Sent from my iPhone
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 9:11 AM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you Kerry Aman
From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 9:22 AM To: Sco Sedgley; Mary Luros; Beth Painter; Liz Alessio; Bernie Narvaez; Beverly Shotwell; [email protected];
[email protected];
Cc: Steve Po er; Vincent Smith; Michael Walker; Tiffany Carranza Subject: Le er from Napa Schools for Climate Ac on
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,
Good morning! As you already may know, Emily and I are the Co-Presidents of the local youth-led group, Napa Schools for Climate Ac on. Our goal is to decrease our county's emissions to net zero by or before 2030. It has come to our a en on that today, there will be a joint City Council & Planning Commission mee ng where the topic of discussion will be the General Plan.
Unfortunately, neither Emily nor I will be able to a end the mee ng to make a public comment, which is why we wanted to at least send this short le er to thank you for your dedica on and remind you of several of our asks.
In January, we presented to the Napa City Council and emphasized these asks:
1. We ask that you declare a climate emergency and commit to achieving net-zero climate pollu on by or before 2030.
2. We ask that you always keep climate change in mind when making planning decisions and make sure new development cuts carbon pollu on rather than increases it.
3. We ask that you consider banning new gas sta ons.
4. We ask that you manage forests to protect and enhance sequestra on.
We know that it is challenging to implement these principles and ac ons, but we know that they are necessary and should be part of the general plan.
We have also recently stumbled upon the ar cle about the newly proposed gas sta on/carwash/store that is to be located on Soscol Avenue. It was discouraging to find out that Napa might become home to another gas sta on, but we have faith that you will consider the impact it will have on our community and make the right decision to protect our future.
Thank you so much for all of your hard work, and we look forward to the ac on we will see Napa take in the near future!
Sincerely,
Alisa Karesh & Emily Bit
Class of 2022
Napa Schools for Climate Action Co-Presidents
"No school should be a silent witness to climate injustice."
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 9:35 AM To: Clerk Subject: Linda Vista Bridge A achments: Bridge 3-28-2022.pdf
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Member of the City Council or Planning Commission:
Thank you for your diligent work on behalf of the citizens of Napa in improving our city’s infrastructure and planning for future needs. We appreciate being given the opportunity to provide input on the City of Napa’s General Plan. We commend the professionalism and effort of the City of Napa’s Planning Commission, the Public Works Department and the Napa City Council for realizing many elements of the plan and communicating effectively with the interested public.
We write today to urge you to remove the Linda Vista Bridge circulation element from the General Plan.
On several occasions in the last decade, proposals to study the feasibility and initiate construction of the bridge have been considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. Each of these proposals has been rejected, after widespread objection by citizens and insufficient favorable votes by council members. The Linda Vista Bridge is an unnecessary and outdated circulation element.
Building a bridge over Napa Creek in this area would be expensive and destructive to the ecology of the creek. It would adversely affect the quiet neighborhoods on both sides of Napa Creek. When this circulation element was proposed more than fifty years ago, the needs of Napa were different. There were fewer houses in the neighborhoods on both sides of the creek. The building of a bridge to connect north and south Napa and the conversion of Linda Vista Avenue into a collector street was more necessary and feasible and much less expensive than it would be today. Since that time, there has been significant growth of individual family homes in these neighborhoods. Families have moved into these neighborhoods because they desired the peace and safety made possible by limited traffic. Building the bridge would take land from property owners, remove trees, damage the ecology of the creek, and surround several property parcels with collector streets on three sides.
It is interesting that the Napa Register ran a front page article on March 25, 2022, about improving traffic safety in Napa. Funneling a higher volume of traffic through the narrow passage of West Park Elementary School is less than one block north of proposed street extension. Children walking to West Park Elementary from Lone Oak Avenue, West Lincoln Avenue, and the courts along these avenues would have to cross Linda Vista right at the northern point of the proposed extension. Funneling a higher volume of traffic through the narrow passages of Robinson Lane, Lone Oak Avenue and West Lincoln would not improve traffic safety, but add a high risk to the public, particularly children.
All the traffic studies do not delve into the driver’s state of mind. Being late for an appointment, or forgetting something for dinner are just two the many reasons that can distract a driver’s eyes and mind. We are all guilty of this at one time or another. Add children going to school, playing after-school sports or simply playing, and we are asking for trouble.
As voting taxpayers, we urge the council and commission to stop wasting time and money on a dridge that the people do not want or support.
For all of these reasons, we urge you to remove the circulation element of the Linda Vista Bridge over Napa Creek from the General Plan.
Thank you for your consideration
Darrell and Shennan Hutton
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 10:06 AM To: Clerk Subject: Make Napa Special
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Councilmembers and Napa City Planning Commissioners, I’m writing to request that you prioritize the needs of local residents by insisting that the Napa 2040 General Plan includes a commitment to developing a traffic calming strategy to reduce the impact of traffic on our residential streets.
Your support is essential to help us reign in the dangers of unsafe and reckless driving in Napa. Traffic calming measures can make our streets safer, promote more walking and biking, and embrace the unique appeal that makes Napa such a special place to live. We want to ensure that the City of Napa lives up to its promise to be not just a world-class destination for tourists, but an equally safe, supportive, and vibrant place to start a business, raise a family, and grow old with our loved ones.
Napa could be a model for cities all around who want to be special for things other than wining and dining, i.e., for a safe and welcoming place to live. This is what we citizens want for our town. I think Napa is still small enough that with enough effort this could be a realization.
With appreciation,
Brenda Perry
From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 10:09 AM To: Clerk Subject: supplementary comments for Joint Mee ng tonight A achments: NCN statement to city council 3-28-22.docx
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
I will be making the attached statement. Thank you.
Grania Lindberg
Grania Lindberg
I worked with Napa Valley CanDo on the plastic bag ordinance back in 2014. The bag ban was effective in reducing plastic waste. Napa Recycling and Waste Services reported an
immediate 50% decrease in the amount of plastic bag
contamination in their recycling stream due to the bag ban.
The General Plan should build on this and reduce plastic waste in our community by including a policy to adopt a Disposable Foodware Ordinance. The use of plastic and Styrofoam
foodware greatly increased during COVID as many of us moved from dine-in to take-out for restaurant meals. Fortunately, there are compostable options and reusable alternatives that would greatly reduce the waste load for our City and would also reduce our contribution to the GHG emissions created by plastics.
We ask you to include a policy requiring adoption of a
Disposable Foodware Ordinance in the General Plan.
Thank you.
From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 10:11 AM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the h ps://gcc02.safelinks.protec on.outlook.com/? url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7CClerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C4da08832d1874eb8a16808da10ddf90f%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637840842801168564%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=GalFbAJ9xOtz%2B5hEy5uanRO4VWk36bpqof0mpZdk744%3D&reserved=0 website.
As a Napa resident, I am wary of living next door to someone I perpetually do not know. Someone who doesn’t have an investment in who lives around them.
I live with a physical disability. There have been instances where I needed immediate help. Without giving it a second thought, I called my neighbor. She was on my doorstep the next minute.
If we allow corporate interests into our neighborhoods, where our children go to school, where we know our neighbors, where we live our lives. I’m afraid we will lose something precious and invaluable before we know it’s happened.
Act NOW, stop Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models! I believe there are many of us concerned about this issue. These are the same residents who vote.
Julie Hare
Napa Resident
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 10:18 AM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members,
I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. I live on Bella Drive in Napa and had the unfortunate experience of having an unregulated AirBnB directly next door before Napa City Council modified its code to include the necessary oversight of such businesses within our neighborhoods.
Now Pacaso has come forward as another effort to replace the neighborhoods that are Napa’s backbone. These vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring ci es have passed as well as the Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt local regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you
Nancy Schulz
Napa, CA 94558
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 10:18 AM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Mee ng re: Dra 2040 General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the me to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vaca on Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Ci es have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corpora ons that have found ways to skirt our regula ons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Thank you Thomas Lichtenstein
Napa CA
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 11:27 AM To: Clerk Subject: Linda Vista Bridge/general plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
T o whom it may concern;
I live at and on a daily basis witness speeding between the stop sign at Lone Oak and Westpark (where there happens to be an elementary school.) The area is already quite congested with traffic and frequent violations of speed. This is one of many reasons to discourage the city from moving forward in the general plan with this particular project. Our infrastructure on Linda Vista, Lone Oak and particularly Lincoln will not support the increase in traffic in this area. On this side of the bridge, we are accustomed to increased traffic flow at certain times of day, however, increasing it throughout the day beyond school times will drastically impact our quality of life. While these “problems" may not be of concern to anyone but those of us who live here, the points outlined below are powerful reasons to not continue with this line of thinking for the general plan. I feel that we will be solving one problem by creating another much more dangerous and costly one. Not to mention the environmental impact on Napa Creek and perhaps the new opportunity for vagrant activity under this bridge.
I believe the last time this came up several years ago the emergency access issue was put to rest and do we really need high speed emergency vehicles rushing though these narrow neighborhood roads when other options might be safer? As far as the Browns Vally neighborhood needing another access to get across town, I feel that other options, such as using Solano Avenue should be explored. Let’s get a little more creative.
Below are listed some of the financial and environmental aspects that need to be considered. I realize that there is a lot of pressure from the Browns Valley voters on this.
Please consider that there are others who may not be as wealthy donors to your campaigns that are being affected, or even informed of this project We have low income housing with lots of little kids on this stretch of Linda Vista. There are also sporting events and family activities at Westpark. Let’s find another solution to the Browns Valley “flow” problem, please.
Pamela Hightower
Homeowner/concerned citizen/tax payer/voter
The
plan to extend Linda Vista to Robinson Lane across the Redwood Creek has been in the General Plan for 20 years and even earlier - it has never been implemented. I would argue this extension will never be executed and should not be in the new General Plan. Why this extension will not be implemented? • There
is strong neighborhood opposition to this extension. Neighbors on both sides of Redwood Creek oppose this new road and will make their opposition known to elected officials. • The cost of building a bridge across an ecologically sensitive wildlife corridor will be immense due to: o Environmental review o Bridges cost much more than roads o The plan calls for a Class I bike trail as part of the extension, which just adds to the expense. o Special engineering will be required at the Linda Vista end to keep the bridge supports from impeding access to a major water main buried deep at the juncture of the new road with Linda Vista. This water main ruptured within the last two years and required a major excavation of a hole as deep as two SUV’s. o The cost/benefit of this extension will never rise to the level that it will cost Basically, this extension will be a dead item in the new General Plan. Why this extension should not be implemented: • The result of the extension would channel even more traffic onto the already busy Linda Vista/Lone Oak/West Lincoln junction.
There are already 4500 cars per day on Linda Vista and an extension would increase this by 1000 cars. This neighborhood is a residential area with schools, not a commercial area. The streets are not designed for this traffic load. The intersection where Lone Oak and West Lincoln meet is a blind curve with no shoulders or sidewalks - a very dangerous place for pedestrians or bicyclists. The City should be adding bike lanes and sidewalks to Linda Vista and West Lincoln rather than dumping more traffic in this area. • The neighborhood on the Robinson Lane side of the creek is truly a quiet residential area with no through streets. This neighborhood will be destroyed by this extension. Currently 500 cars travel this neighborhood daily, and the extension will add an additional 2500 cars in this small community. • The extension over the creek will not make it safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, children or animals. The City has said that the roads are 20 feet narrower than they would like for this type of project and there would only be a sidewalk on one side.
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 12:24 PM To: Clerk Subject: Napa City Council / Planning Commission Joint Mee ng
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Re: Agenda Item 3A-Dra General Plan Update. Please send to Council Members and Planning Commission:
In the area bordered by Soscol/Imola/Shurtleff, and the streets within that including near Phillips School, neighbors have been subjected to difficult to iden fy cars racing around the area every night for many months, with loud exhausts and screeching res. They can be heard from a long distance. We need traffic patrol and cke ng in this area. Cars have had to avoid speeders doing donuts, animals have been killed, and in short driving the area, especially in the evenings, is dangerous. The General Plan needs to include returning Napa neighborhoods to safety—traffic calming measures, more stop signs and most importantly Napa police traffic personnel that are present. For instance, Shurtleff has only one stop sign between Imola and Terrace, a long distance that is supposed to be 25 mph but has high traffic and is used as a speedway. Please don't con nue to allow this to be the norm in this neighborhood and others in the City of Napa.
Thank you,
Jeannine Graffin
Napa
From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 12:41 PM To: General Plan Update; Michael Walker; Clerk; Sco Sedgley Subject: Linda Vista Bridge Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley, City Council Members, Planning Commission Members and City Clerk:
We have been residents of Napa for 30 years, and we love it.
We love our community.
We trust our city leadership to make wise decisions on our behalf.
We respectfully request that this 50-year old Linda Vista Bridge Proposal finally be laid to rest and removed from the City’s General Plan.
We ask for your help to
Preserve and Protect:
Our beautiful serene Creekside neighborhood, with beautiful old trees Our community’s safety from excessive traffic
2.500 additional cars per day puts all residents at risk, but especially our children at play and our seniors out for a walk.
4 schools: West Park Elementary School, Pueblo Vista Elementary School, Montessori
School and St. John’s Lutheran School are all in harm’s way from fast moving traffic.
Our Creekside Wildlife
Steelhead trout, owls, bobcats, raccoons, squirrels, wood ducks and many types of birds.
Our Property Values
Napa from Financial Waste
4 years ago, a further $623,000 dollars was budgeted for design and environmental
Review……..What would it cost Now?
4 years ago, the bridge was expected to cost $5 million dollars….What would it cost Now?
Fire and Emergency Access is at an acceptable response time without the bridge
Thank you for your commitment and hard work to
Preserve and Protect our very
special
Community.
Cheryl and Barry Marcillac
Napa, California 94558
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 12:44 PM To: General Plan Update; Michael Walker; Clerk; Sco Sedgley Subject: Linda Vista Bridge Extension - Get it out of the General Plan
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Christopher F. Burton
Napa, CA 94558
Napa City Council
c/o Napa City Clerk Tiffany Carranza
P.O. Box 660
Napa, CA 94559
March 27, 2022
Subject:Comments for the General Plan
Napa City Council,
The plan to extend Linda Vista to Robinson Lane across the Redwood Creek should not be part of the General Plan for the following reasons:
• There is strong neighborhood opposition to this extension.Neighbors on both sides of Redwood Creek oppose this new road and will make their opposition known to elected officials. •The cost of building a bridge across an ecologically sensitive wildlife corridor will be immense. •Environmental Review.
•Bridges cost much more than roads.
•The plan calls for a Class 1 bike trail as part of the extension, which just adds to the expense. •Special engineering will be required at the Linda Vista end to keep the bridge supports from impeding access to a deep major water main at the juncture of the new road with Linda Vista.This water main ruptured within the last two years and required a major excavation of a hole the size of two SUV’s. •The cost/benefit of this extension will never rise to the level that it will cost. •The result of the extension would channel even more traffic onto the already busy Linda Vista/Lone Oak/West Lincoln junction.There are already 4500 cars per day on Linda Vista and an extension would increase this by 1000 cars.This neighborhood is a residential area with schools, not a commercial area.The streets are not designed for this traffic load.The intersection where Lone Oak and West Lincoln meet is a blind curve with no shoulders or sidewalks – a very dangerous place for pedestrians or bicyclists.The City should be adding bike lanes and sidewalks to Linda Vista and West Lincoln rather than dumping more traffic in this area.
•The neighborhood on the Robinson side of the creek is a truly quiet residential area with no through streets.This neighborhood will be destroyed by this extension.
•For bicycles, there is already a Brown’s Valley Road connection across the creek behind the Crosswalk Church.This Class 1 path empties onto Coffield Avenue.This path is not repaired, maintained or signed.Rather than building new facilities, the City should maintain existing infrastructure and let people know it exists.
Thank you for you consideration of my comments.
Sincerely yours,
Christopher F. Burton
MAJOR, US Army (Retired)
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 12:49 PM To: General Plan Update; Michael Walker; Clerk; Sco Sedgley Subject: Linda Vista Bridge Extension
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
Nancy and Chuck Brown
Napa, CA 94558
Napa City Council
c/o Napa City Clerk Tiffany Carranza
P.O. Box 660
Napa, CA 94559
March 27, 2022
Subject:Comments for the General Plan
Napa City Council,
The plan to extend Linda Vista to Robinson Lane across the Redwood Creek should not be part of the General Plan for the following reasons:
• There is strong neighborhood opposition to this extension.Neighbors on both sides of Redwood Creek oppose this new road and will make their opposition known to elected officials. •The cost of building a bridge across an ecologically sensitive wildlife corridor will be immense. •Environmental Review.
•Bridges cost much more than roads.
•The plan calls for a Class 1 bike trail as part of the extension, which just adds to the expense. •Special engineering will be required at the Linda Vista end to keep the bridge supports from impeding access to a deep major water main at the juncture of the new road with Linda Vista.This water main ruptured within the last two years and required a major excavation of a hole the size of two SUV’s. •The cost/benefit of this extension will never rise to the level that it will cost. •The result of the extension would channel even more traffic onto the already busy Linda Vista/Lone Oak/West Lincoln junction.There are already 4500 cars per day on Linda Vista and an extension would increase this by 1000 cars.This neighborhood is a residential area with schools, not a commercial area.The streets are not designed for this traffic load.The intersection where Lone Oak and West Lincoln meet is a blind curve with no shoulders or sidewalks – a very dangerous place for pedestrians or bicyclists.The City should be adding bike lanes and sidewalks to Linda Vista and West Lincoln rather than dumping more traffic in this area.
•The neighborhood on the Robinson side of the creek is a truly quiet residential area with no through streets.This neighborhood will be destroyed by this extension.
•For bicycles, there is already a Brown’s Valley Road connection across the creek behind the Crosswalk Church.This Class 1 path empties onto Coffield Avenue.This path is not repaired, maintained or signed.Rather than building new facilities, the City should maintain existing infrastructure and let people know it exists.
Thank you for you consideration of my comments.
Sincerely yours,
Nancy and Chuck Brown
From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 1:08 PM To: General Plan Update; Michael Walker; Clerk; Sco Sedgley Subject: Linda Vista Bridge Extension
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h p://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on.]
[EXTERNAL]
Jim Lanterman
Napa, CA 94558
To Interested Par es,
I am a ci zen of Napa in a neighborhood most affected by the proposed Linda Vista Bridge. I have lived in my house since 1962. I taught for the school district and was a wrestling coach for 42 years. I would like to humbly ask that the plans for this bridge be removed from the General Plan for a number of important reasons.
Not only would the construc on of this bridge do irreparable harm to the neighborhood I love, bringing thousands of cars through streets where children play and causing traffic delays at each intersec on, it would also harm the environmental beauty and habitat of the creek itself. I o en see blue heron and snowy egret fishing in our creek, not to men on the many animals that call this waterway home.
On top of this tragic environmental outcome, I know what the cost of building an unnecessary bridge would do to finances of the city as a whole. The cost of installa on is simply out of line with City budget and city priori es.
I totally understand the need for more emergency access, and this is even more apparent as we face more and more wildfires. So I will want to know that our en re Browns Valley area has safe and reliable ingress and egress. But this bridge is not the solu on.
At the City Council mee ng regarding this bridge I know it was resolved that the approval of the project was stopped un l a circula on study could be conducted a er both roundabouts were constructed. That study will take some me and considerable funds. And the second roundabout has not even begun construc on.
Due to these concerns over budget disasters, neighborhood sanc ty, environmental damage, and the lack of a revised circula on study I would plead that this item of the Linda Vista Bridge be removed from the General Plan.
Thank you very much for your considera on.
Gratefully,
Jim Lanterman
Molly Adams
Napa C
ity Council
c/o Napa City Clerk Tiffany Carranza
P.O. Box 660
Napa, CA 94559
March 26, 2022
Re: Comments for the Napa General Plan
Napa City Council,
The plan to extend Linda Vista to Robinson Lane across the Redwood Creek should not be a part of the General Plan for the following reasons:
1. There is strong neighborhood opposition to this extension. Neighbors on both sides of Redwood Creek oppose this new road and will make their opposition known to elected officials.
2. The cost of building a bridge across an ecologically sensitive wildlife corridor will be immense.
3. The cost of purchasing the property needed from 8 houses on the Robinson Lane side alone will be more than an additional million dollars at current market rates. The laws of eminent domain in California ensure that the residents will be paid for the property seized.
4. Special engineering will be required at the Linda Vista end to keep the bridge supports from impeding access to a deep major water main at the juncture of the new road with Linda Vista. This water main ruptured within the last two years and required a major excavation of a hole the size of two SUV's.
5. The result of the extension would channel even more traffic onto the already busy Linda Vista/Lone Oak/West Lincoln junction. There are already 4500 cars per day on Linda Vista and an extension would increase this by 1000 cars. This neighborhood is a residential area with schools, not a commercial area. The streets are not designed for this traffic load. The intersection where Lone Oak and West Lincoln meet is a blind curve with no shoulders or sidewalks - a very dangerous place for pedestrians or bicyclists. The City should be adding bike lanes and sidewalks to Linda Vista and West Lincoln rather than dumping more traffic in this area.
6. If this is truly for emergency services response times, then an emergency services bridge and walking/biking path should be built, not a thru road.
The benefit of this extension will never rise to the level that it will cost. Please take this off the Napa General Plan. Napa is a small town and should support sidewalks and bike paths, not traffic roaring through quiet neighborhoods with no sidewalks.
Sincerely,
Molly Adams - Resident
From: Linda Rose
To: Clerk
Subject: Comments for Special Joint Meeting re: Draft 2040 General Plan Date: Saturday, March 26, 2022 2:44:06 PM
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I am taking the time to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vacation Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the time to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Cities have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corporations that have found ways to skirt our regulations and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7CClerk%40cityofnapa.org%7C99febfc3a20d4e66af3008da0f71be8f%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637839278461090547%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=hJgP%2FgyXggkNm%2Fik8zfHHH3xfADbXycv10K47F0dcFI%3D&reserved=0 website.
Thank you
Linda Rose
, r"
c
CITY OF.NAPA^ITY'CLW
-.^AR28 PM^SJ
March 28, 2022
City of Napa
Mayor Scott Sedgley and City Council Members
City Hall
955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
Dear Major Sedgley & City Council Members:
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the Linda Vista Extension Bridge over Redwood Creek Project.
I am strongly opposed to the bridge, and these are the reasons why:
1.) It will greatly disturb the peace and tranquility of the wonderful old neighborhoods in the area
2.) It will take property away from at least three families
3.) It will remove between 50 & 70 trees in the process, which provide cover and food for many species of wildlife, along with contributing to climate change
4.) It will disturb the Redwood Creek which is enjoyed by all the residents of the neighborhood
5.) It will significantly increase traffic on both sides of the creek
6.) It will have a great impact on the schools on Linda Vista Avenue due to increased traffic Please reconsider this project and remove it from the General Plan. The funds that would be expended on this project would be put to much better use to fix the sidewalks from root damage, put in new sidewalks and improve all of Napa in so many ways.
Thank you for your consideration.
^ •^<^H^UAAI(^UO y-
L. Jeanne Andrews
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 2:55 PM To: Clerk Subject: Fwd: Public Comment for Joint mee ng, March 28, 5:30pm
Categories: Unverified Contact
[EXTERNAL]
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Lance H.
Date: Sun, Mar 27, 2022, 1:16 PM
Subject: Public Comment for Joint mee ng, March 28, 5:30pm To: <
[email protected]>
Dear Clerk,
Would you please read my comments into the public
record for item 3A at the March 28 at the 5:30 pm Joint Meeting of Napa City Council and Planning Commission at the City Hall Council Chambers, 955 School St., Napa.
Thank You, Lance Houser
Napa, Ca.
Linda Vista Road Bridge Construction
Dear Council and Committee Members,
I support the construction of a bridge connecting Linda Vista on the northside of Redwood Creek with Linda Vista on the south side of Redwood Creek.
Please know that:
1. There is no north-south lateral access from Hwy 29
to Larkin/Pinewood or Westview. The bridge would
decrease traffic on Westview and Pinewood, and
shorten driving time/distance from southwest to
northwest neighborhoods reducing vehicle pollution
and gasoline usage.
2. The bridge would decrease emergency response time
from Station 5 (Laurel and BV Rd) and AMR to the
Lone Oak/W. Lincoln/W. Pueblo residential area and
schools from BV Road/S.W. Napa
3. The Bridge would provide another emergency
evacuation route in the event of a disaster.
3. The bridge would provide pedestrians and bicyclists
additional recreational opportunities.
4. The bridge would promote educational equity by
making West Park and Pueblo Vista and Redwood
Middle schools more accessible to southwest
neighborhood (Westwood) children
5. Napa City has already set an example of using
common sense when promoting traffic circulation
improvements by punching Wine County Ave through
a previously isolated neighborhood. Other connector
streets constructed against neighbor opposition are
Westview to Redwood Rd, Pinewood to W. Pueblo and
Oxford to Trower. It is time for the Council to provide leadership in construction of the Linda Vista bridge so ALL city residents may enjoy improved traffic
circulation.
Sincerely submitted, Lance Houser
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From:
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 4:09 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comment on 3/28/2022 Agenda item 3A-Dra General Plan Update
[EXTERNAL]
City Clerk,
Please send these comments to members of the City Council and the Planning Commission.
Comments on 3/28/2022 Agenda item 3A-Dra General Plan Update:
Include more specific actions, with timelines, in the General Plan with the goal of net zero climate pollution by 2030.
Some Specific Actions that should be taken:
1) Create a staff position to focus on climate change and sustainability issues. 2) Complete a Climate Action Plan with the county and other cities. 3) Require developers to electrify all future buildings and provide incentives to retrofit existing buildings. 4) Promote the use of Solar Power on future and existing buildings. 5) Increase EV charging stations in Napa.
6) Ban additional fossil fuel gas stations.
7) Make streets safer for bicycles and pedestrians.
8) Adopt a Reusable Foodware and Waste Reduction Ordinance. 9) Halt deforestation of trees to maintain their carbon sequestration.
Linda Dietiker-Yolo
CITYOFNAPA
CtTY'CLERlf
•^2m2B PM^gJ
March 28, 2022
Douglas Walker
Napa, CA 94558
The Planning Commission
955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
Dear Planning Commission,
I wish the Planning Commission would reconsider its efforts regarding the Linda Vista Avenue Bridge over Napa Creek and to remove this project from the General Plan. I spoke before the council eight years ago at the community informational meeting on November 13, 2014. It was at this meeting where I submitted a list of over five hundred signatures of residents of Napa that were against building the bridge. Our organization was named, Preserve Napa Neighborhoods. We felt back then as we do now that this bridge would disrupt the lives of people living north and south of Napa Creek.
This bridge would bring an increase of traffic to and from Browns Valley. Linda Vista Ave has several elementary schools with small children that would be at risk of being hit by a car. Also, people who live along the creek would have their lives disrupted. The time to make these changes has passed.
The Linda Vista bridge issue is still part of the General Plan under the Transportation Element Framework and should be removed ASAP. Twice residents effectively challenged the city's plans and halted preliminary studies on bridge construction.
By removing the wording about the LV bridge and changing the corresponding map this chapter would once and for all end.
Sincerely,
Douglas Walker
Napa. CA 94558
From: Inna Neujahr
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 6:53 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Linda Vista Bridge
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Council members,
I oppose the Linda Vista bridge over Napa creek.
Where to begin..... I’ll cut straight to the most important and significant reason not to increase traffic on Linda Vista;
SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN
I brought up this very “basic” reason at the last city council meeting to this regard. While my children do not attend either West Park or Pueblo Vista ( all three attend St. A’s ) I obviously have occasion to drive on Linda Vista during school drop off and pick up hours. There have been more near misses with cars and children in crosswalks than I care to keep track of. Increasing traffic and creating an emergency high speed thoroughfare would quite frankly be quite the transgression. Anyone can see during school hours, the danger that currently exists. I invite any member who promotes this project to spend one week with me observing the congestion and hazardous environment that already exists. There is absolutely no way, I repeat, no way any human being that possesses any sense of right and wrong could promote such a project. I would go further and say, I don’t believe any promoters of this project that have school age children (assuming of course they care about the safety of their children) would consider allowing their own children to be exposed to the increased risks that this project creates. There are many other very obvious reasons why this project is not viable in this day and age. Which, in my mind begs the question, who is promoting this project and and to what agenda?
Every additional car and/or emergency vehicle forced onto Linda Vista, increases the probability of injuring or killing a young child. From the City of Napa Staff Report; “Relieving the need for some residents to take a more circuitous route” I about fell over when I read that....To keep the children of Napa safer, every Napa resident should be volunteering to take more circuitous routes.
I sincerely hope this does not fall on deaf ears.
From: Bill Peatman <
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 7:11 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments for Special Joint Meeting re: Draft 2040 General Plan
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members,
I am taking the time to write you because I believe it is important to specifically address the impact of Pacaso as you revise the upcoming General Plan. Pacaso and other vacation Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! There are two Pacaso homes in my neighborhood in Coombsville and both are sublet to loud, disrespectful vacationers that erode the quality of life for permanent residents.
Please take the time to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Cities have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to specifically ban Pacaso and other corporations that have found ways to skirt our regulations and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the www.StopPacasoNow.com website.
Bill Peatman
Thank you
From: Pa la French
To: Cler
Subject: Fwd: Comments for Special Joint Meeting of C ty Counc l and P ann ng Commission today Date: Tuesday March 29 2022 3:36:18 PM
Attachments: IMG_7933.PNG
IMG_7934.PNG
IMG 7935 PNG
IMG_7936.PNG
IMG_7937.PNG
IMG_7938.PNG
IMG_7939.PNG
[EXTERNAL]
Tiffany,
I thought I had sent this by noon yesterday for the special joint Council/Planning Commission meeting. I realized I had not received a confirmation of receipt and when I checked, I saw my typo in the address field. I apologize, but is there any way this could be forwarded or entered into the record for the meeting…or simply provided to the Council and Commission members at this time? If it can t be forwarded, please let me know and I will just look up the members individually and send as an email at this time.
Thank you…
Paula French
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paula French
Date: March 28, 2022 at 9:54:49 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Comments for Special Joint Meeting of City Council and Planning Commission today Mayor Sedgley, Council Members, Planning Commission Members, For almost a year now, residents of Mapa have been BEGGING for City Council to take action to protect our neighborhood residential housing stock from acquisition by commercial timeshare-like uses. Many of us in the Bel Air neighborhood took actions to visually and vocally protest the purchase of a property here by Pacaso, the latest company to participate in this transient occupancy use of a residential property within City Limits.
At the time, we were basically advised that because of a lawsuit filed by Pacaso against St Helena, who attempted to take protective action, Napa was not taking any action at that time (though I believed an existing city ordinance under the vacation rental ordinance addressed the situation.)
Regardless, the towns of Sonoma and St Helena have moved forward and took decisive action to protect their housing. Why has Napa not taken any action at all on this??? Most recently, St Helena, who themselves, are being sued by Pacaso, moved forward and approved draft protective language. https://sthelena.civicweb.net/document/60870/Ordinance%20Adding%20Chapter%2017.138%20 Time%20Share%20Use.pdf?handle 0BBFF01EE58F41478682A2511D91AEB6 THERE IS NO REASON FOR Napa to delay any further!
As I sent to Mayor Sedgeley in January, and provide to you today, the following copies of the Sonoma ordinance and the information on the St Helena ordinance (above) THIS IS A ROADMAP FOR YOU! You don’t even need to change the language!
Please take action today to include such language in an emergency update of the general plan, and include it in the 2040 plan.
As sent to Mayor Sedgeley in January… with NO RESPONSE, I might add….
On January 19, the City of Sonoma Council passed an urgency ordinance prohibiting the fractional ownership use of residential properties within City Limits. I have included screen shots of the actual ordinance. Please note that their ordinance also prohibits the advertising of such timeshare-like uses as well. I believe this might prohibit companies like Pacaso from listing properties for fractional sale if the property is within Sonoma City Limits.
I wrote to Mayor Sedgley in the last few months asking for a status of Napa’s efforts to regulate the purchase and sale of timeshare-like properties in Napa. I had been told last year that Council was looking at this issue with an eye toward possibly amending the next general plan? His reply was that there were no staff assigned to this issue. I feel like we’ve been lied to. I also feel like Napa has brushed this community’s concerns under the rug since we have stepped down our very vocal and visual protests of the company, Pacaso.
Sonoma has taken a stand. They’ve done the work to protect their limited supply of properties available for those who live and work there. When is Napa going to do the same? While Sonoma works to support their residents and community, Napa, instead, does nothing. Meanwhile, Pacaso joins the local Chamber of Commerce with a $10,000 annual buy off and within just a short few months is named as “company of the week” by the current Chamber. This company, who is neither based locally, nor good for our community is now lauded by the Chamber? In my opinion, the more business this company does locally, the worse for our community. The Chamber of Commerce and local governments have a very close relationship… how close are you becoming to Pacaso? Has Pacaso joined the Sonoma Chamber ? (I seriously doubt it.) I’m so angry that Napa has done absolutely NOTHING since we met with Liz Alessio and agreed to step down our activity. You should be ashamed. I commit to doing whatever I can to let our community know what’s happening in Sonoma and how little you have done to protect our neighborhoods. Pacaso ”agreeing” to stay above $2m for their properties does NOTHING to protect our neighborhoods, which have become ridiculously overpriced and less and less available to our own workers. Seriously, you need to put some of your “staff” time into looking up what’s happening in Crystal Bay, Incline Village and the rest of Lake Tahoe where officials are PLEADING with remote owners to rent their properties out to local workers.
Who do you think is going to drive from Stockton to work at Meritage for $12 an hour ? How many of those local jobs, like landscaping, house cleaning etc. that Pacaso says they are creating and supporting will be able to find workers who will drive from Clearlake to clean their houses when they leave? SO DO SOMETHING!!! Video of Sonoma Council meeting…start at 58 mark
https://sonomacity civ cweb.net/filepro/document/51628/City%20Council%20-%2019%20Jan%202022.html spl tscreen=true&widget=true&media=true Copy of the Sonoma urgency ordinance…mind you it took effect IMMEDIATELY UPON PASSAGE.
————————————————
Paula French
Napa Resident
Sent from my iPad