ATCH 4 - March 28, 2022 Draft Special Meeting Minutes — Napa City Council, April 19, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

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.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2 of 5 ends

• 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.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 3 of 5 ends

• 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 ATTACHMENT 4

Page 4 of 5 ends

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? ATTACHMENT 4

Page 5 of 5 ends

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 ATTACHMENT 4
From:

Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 2:20 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Meeng re: Dra 2040 General Plan

[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council and Planning Commission Members, I’m taking the me, on a Sunday aernoon, 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 vacaon Transient Occupancy models do not belong in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes our neighboring Cies have done as well as the Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs that speciﬁcally ban Pacaso and other corporaons that have found ways to skirt our regulaons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the hps://gcc02.safelinks.protecon.outlook.com/? url=hp%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoppacasonow.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7CClerk%40cityofnapa.org%7Ca6956c61f14610718a08da103780bf%7C7c2235c73aee4099a6c4bde6470cfa85%7C0%7C0%7C637840128257201324%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=U2kH2YR8I6gnDqW2jqyHwIytJ5H84bO%2Fu9wMp2I0Gio%3D&reserved=0 website.

With dropping school enrollments and families geng 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 vacaon homes. Visitors are welcome at any of our many hotels.

Thank you,
LC Arisman
Napa, CA
Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT 4
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
ATTACHMENT 4
From:

Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 3:09 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Meeng re: Dra 2040 General Plan

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

[You don't oen get email from Learn why this is important at hp://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon.] [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 vacaon Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Cies have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to speciﬁcally ban Pacaso and other corporaons that have found ways to skirt our regulaons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the hps://gcc02.safelinks.protecon.outlook.com/? url=hp%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
ATTACHMENT 4
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 Meeng re: Dra 2040 General Plan

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

Thank you

John Wilkinson
ATTACHMENT 4
From:

Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 3:30 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Meeng re: Dra 2040 General Plan

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

[You don't oen get email from Learn why this is important at hp://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon.] [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 vacaon Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Cies have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to speciﬁcally ban Pacaso and other corporaons that have found ways to skirt our regulaons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the hps://gcc02.safelinks.protecon.outlook.com/? url=hp%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
ATTACHMENT 4
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 Meeng 82-2022 Aachments: Linda Vista Bridge 2022.docx

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

[EXTERNAL]
All,

Dear Mayor, City Council Members, Planning Commission members, and City Clerk,

Please ﬁnd aached a document containing my supplemental wrien comments as I will not be able to aend the meeng.

I would like them entered into in the record.

Ms. Baring could your please forward the aachment to the planning commission members.

I thank you all for taking a few moments to read my comments be

Respecully,
Mark Warrington

ATTACHMENT 4
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.

ATTACHMENT 4

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 ATTACHMENT 4
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
ATTACHMENT 4
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 situaon 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)
ATTACHMENT 4
From:

Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 5:53 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Meeng re: Dra 2040 General Plan

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

[You don't oen get email from . Learn why this is important at hp://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon.] [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 vacaon Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!
Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Cies have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to speciﬁcally ban Pacaso and other corporaons that have found ways to skirt our regulaons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the hps://gcc02.safelinks.protecon.outlook.com/? url=hp%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
ATTACHMENT 4
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:

Nave 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 Cerﬁed Erosion Control Specialist #768
Consultant to numerous vineyards and wineries

My opposion to the proposed Bridge:

The jusﬁcaon 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 exisng cross streets like Pinewood Dr. and the various other cross streets.

Introduces commercial vehicle as well increased domesc vehicle traﬃc to long established residenal neighborhoods to potenal dangerous levels of traﬃc.

Robinson Ln/Browns Valley Rd. intersecon as well of porons of Linda Vista will require traﬃc control systems and or roadway up grades. Traﬃc controls for Robinson Ln/Browns Valley intersecon will increasing travel me for Browns Valley residents west of this intersecon. The cost for these required upgrades will vastly add to the overall cost of the proposed Bridge.

Bridge construcon and long term operaons will add sediments and polluon to Redwood Creek.

Major jusﬁcaon for the proposed Bridge has been expressed by a member of the council for the need to increase ﬁre protecon/EMT services to the West Park Area. Reviewing travel distances from 4 Napa Fire Staons 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 locaons.

My suggesons to address issues:

To improve ﬁre and EMT services for a large number of Napa residents a 6th ﬁre staon 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 connuous road parallel to Hwy 29 running from Yountville to Imola Ave. This would result in removing local and commercial traﬃc from Hwy 29 impacng a greater number of vehicles trips.

ATTACHMENT 4
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 Meeng re: Dra 2040 General Plan

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

Thank you
ATTACHMENT 4
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 Meeng re: Dra 2040 General Plan

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

Thank you Michele Barberi Hyde
ATTACHMENT 4
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
ATTACHMENT 4
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 Meeng re: Dra 2040 General Plan

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

Thank you
ATTACHMENT 4
From:

Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 8:15 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Meeng re: Dra 2040 General Plan

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

[You don't oen get email from Learn why this is important at hp://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon.]

[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 vacaon Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!

Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Cies have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to speciﬁcally ban Pacaso and other corporaons that have found ways to skirt our regulaons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the hps://gcc02.safelinks.protecon.outlook.com/? url=hp%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

☮
ATTACHMENT 4
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 oen get email from Learn why this is important at hp://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon.]
[EXTERNAL]
Re: Extension of Linda Vista Over Napa Creek - Napa General Plan To whom it May Concern,
It is imperave 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 aending 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 addion to the safety and quiet nature of this neighborhood being destroyed, a drasc 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,
Chrisna Rubio

ATTACHMENT 4
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

ATTACHMENT 4
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 construcon of the bridge across Napa Creek that will connect Robinson Lane to Linda Vista Ave.

This will have a extremely negave 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 resulng in unsafe condions 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 exisng paths to cross from Browns Valley to the Linda Vista area and the new roundabout project seems to have helped ease congeson signiﬁcantly.

Thank you for listening to my point of view. It is greatly appreciated.

Warm regards,
Dusn Rubio

ATTACHMENT 4
From:

Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 9:58 PM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Meeng re: Dra 2040 General Plan

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

[You don't oen get email from Learn why this is important at hp://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon.] [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 vacaon Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Cies have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to speciﬁcally ban Pacaso and other corporaons that have found ways to skirt our regulaons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the hps://gcc02.safelinks.protecon.outlook.com/? url=hp%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
ATTACHMENT 4
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 Meeng re: Dra 2040 General Plan

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

Thank you,
Summer Hear

Napa, CA
ATTACHMENT 4
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 cizens. 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 wasng 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
ATTACHMENT 4
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 meeng 3/28/22

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

[EXTERNAL]
Dear Board of Supervisors/PLanning Commissioners,
This is what I will be saying at tonight's meeng 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 direcon, 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 acon on climate change.

Here are some examples of clear language from the General Plans of near-by jurisdicons:

From the Santa Rosa 2035 General Plan: Establish a city renewable energy program which will allow the city to generate or receive a signiﬁcant poron of energy from renewable sources.

From the Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan: Ensure that new development pays its proporonal 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: Priorize transportaon 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,
Chrisne McClure

ATTACHMENT 4
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 Meeng 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
ATTACHMENT 4
From:

Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 7:31 AM To: Clerk Subject: Pacaso

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

[You don't oen get email from Learn why this is important at hp://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon.]
[EXTERNAL]
Hi,
Please pass on to the City Council:

Say NO too Pacaso!
Thank you,
Steve Hare
Napa, CA
ATTACHMENT 4
From:

Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 8:53 AM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Meeng re: Dra 2040 General Plan

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

[You don't oen get email from Learn why this is important at hp://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon.] [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 vacaon Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Cies have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to speciﬁcally ban Pacaso and other corporaons that have found ways to skirt our regulaons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the hps://gcc02.safelinks.protecon.outlook.com/? url=hp%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
ATTACHMENT 4
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 Meeng re: Dra 2040 General Plan

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

Thank you Kerry Aman
ATTACHMENT 4
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 Poer; Vincent Smith; Michael Walker; Tiﬀany Carranza Subject: Leer from Napa Schools for Climate Acon

[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 Acon. Our goal is to decrease our county's emissions to net zero by or before 2030. It has come to our aenon that today, there will be a joint City Council & Planning Commission meeng where the topic of discussion will be the General Plan.

Unfortunately, neither Emily nor I will be able to aend the meeng to make a public comment, which is why we wanted to at least send this short leer to thank you for your dedicaon 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 polluon 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 polluon rather than increases it.

3. We ask that you consider banning new gas staons.

4. We ask that you manage forests to protect and enhance sequestraon.

We know that it is challenging to implement these principles and acons, but we know that they are necessary and should be part of the general plan.

We have also recently stumbled upon the arcle about the newly proposed gas staon/carwash/store that is to be located on Soscol Avenue. It was discouraging to ﬁnd out that Napa might become home to another gas staon, 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 acon 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." ATTACHMENT 4
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 Aachments: Bridge 3-28-2022.pdf

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

[EXTERNAL]

ATTACHMENT 4
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
ATTACHMENT 4
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
ATTACHMENT 4
From:

Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 10:09 AM To: Clerk Subject: supplementary comments for Joint Meeng tonight Aachments: NCN statement to city council 3-28-22.docx

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

[EXTERNAL]
I will be making the attached statement. Thank you.

Grania Lindberg

ATTACHMENT 4

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.

ATTACHMENT 4
From:

Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 10:11 AM To: Clerk Subject: Comments for Special Joint Meeng 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 vacaon Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods! Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring Cies have done and Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to speciﬁcally ban Pacaso and other corporaons that have found ways to skirt our regulaons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the hps://gcc02.safelinks.protecon.outlook.com/? url=hp%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 vacaon 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
ATTACHMENT 4
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 Meeng 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 vacaon Transient Occupancy models have no place in our neighborhoods!

Please take the me to review the Ordinance changes other neighboring cies have passed as well as the Cease and Desist orders of South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to speciﬁcally ban Pacaso and other corporaons that have found ways to skirt local regulaons and avoid TOT. These documents can be found on the
www.StopPacasoNow.com website.

Thank you
Nancy Schulz

Napa, CA 94558
ATTACHMENT 4
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 Meeng re: Dra 2040 General Plan

Categories: Unveriﬁed Contact

Thank you Thomas Lichtenstein
Napa CA
ATTACHMENT 4
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 ATTACHMENT 4
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.

ATTACHMENT 4
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 Meeng

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 idenfy 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 ckeng 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 connue to allow this to be the norm in this neighborhood and others in the City of Napa.

Thank you,
Jeannine Graﬃn

Napa

ATTACHMENT 4
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

ATTACHMENT 4
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)
ATTACHMENT 4
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:

Thank you for you consideration of my comments.

Sincerely yours,

Nancy and Chuck Brown

ATTACHMENT 4
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 oen get email from Learn why this is important at hp://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon.]
[EXTERNAL]
Jim Lanterman

Napa, CA 94558
To Interested Pares,
I am a cizen 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 construcon 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 intersecon, it would also harm the environmental beauty and habitat of the creek itself. I oen see blue heron and snowy egret ﬁshing in our creek, not to menon 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 installaon is simply out of line with City budget and city priories.

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 enre Browns Valley area has safe and reliable ingress and egress. But this bridge is not the soluon.

At the City Council meeng regarding this bridge I know it was resolved that the approval of the project was stopped unl a circulaon study could be conducted aer both roundabouts were constructed. That study will take some me and considerable funds. And the second roundabout has not even begun construcon.

Due to these concerns over budget disasters, neighborhood sancty, environmental damage, and the lack of a revised circulaon study I would plead that this item of the Linda Vista Bridge be removed from the General Plan.

Thank you very much for your consideraon.

Gratefully,
ATTACHMENT 4
Jim Lanterman
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
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

ATTACHMENT 4
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
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
, 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
ATTACHMENT 4
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 meeng, 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 meeng, 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
ATTACHMENT 4

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

ATTACHMENT 4
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

ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4

Page 3 of 6 ends

ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4

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
ATTACHMENT 4

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.

ATTACHMENT 4

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

ATTACHMENT 4
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.

ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
————————————————
Paula French
Napa Resident
Sent from my iPad
ATTACHMENT 4

Napa City CouncilApril 19, 2022

Napa City Council
April 19, 2022