Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
3 BN 82626259v1
retail
p
roject
, bu
t does not make clear how a day
care
similarly adds “new, more convenient
shopping options, which enable many customers to reduce their trip lengths.” The TIS then reasons that “
there are numerous existing day
care
facilities” and that “many of the
p
roject
trips
would not be newly generated tr
ips but would be th
e result of people changing day
care service
providers.”
The TIS does acknowledge that the
Project
will generate approximately 1,038 new
daily trips to the
Project
site, and also provides recommendations to address safety concerns.
Despite this, the TIS inexplicably concludes the
Project
will have no significant impacts
to
traffic
.
The TIS contains no discussion of greenhouse gas emissions generated from these additional trips or resulting impacts to air quality.
The Planning Commis
sion
Staff Report
(“Staff Report”)
appears to adopt the conclusions
of the TIS, but also recommends
certain conditions of approval, including the installation of bicycl
e parking,
frontage improvements, including sidewalks
, and fair share contribution to
fu
ture construction of a roundabout
. (Staff Report at p. 12.)
The Planning Commission Staff
Report concludes, “
As conditioned
, the
Project
would not result in impacts that would be
detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare of the community and City.” (Staff Report at p.
16.)
Such a
condition
necessarily means the Project is
not
exempt.
B.
Procedural Background
On or about
April 4
, 2024
, the Planning C
ommission adopted a resolution approving a
Use Permit for a childcare facility for up to 250 children “and other youth services” to be located
at 15 C
hapel Hill Drive and determined
that the actions authorized by the resolution are exempt from CEQA.
The Planning Commission’s resolution approving the
Project
, included the
following, among others, conditions
of approval:
34. The Applicant shall provide pedestrian improvements and traffic calming along
Montecito Boulevard between the
Project
s
ite and East Avenue. Pedestrian
improvements shall include the construction of a sidewalk along the north side of
Monte
cito Boulevard, extending along the
Project
’s frontage and continuing west
of the
Project
Site to connect to the existing sidewalk adjacent to Alta Heights
Elementary
School. Curb adjacent sidewalk consistent with the alternate
residential sidewalk section
per City of Napa Standard Drawing S
-
4 shall be
allowed. Final alignment of pedestrian
improvements and traffic calming features
shall be subject to review and approval by the
City of Napa Public Works
Director. Any right
-
of
-
way necessary to complete these
improvements shall be
dedicated to the City of Napa.
35. Public street access points and street corners shall be designed to satisfy the
City of Napa Visibility and Fencing Standard (CON Standards S -
25). The sight
distance
and visibility triangle lines sh
all be shown on the grading and drainage
plans. The
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
4 BN 82626259v1
visibility height limits are measured from the top of the curb of the
fronting street to the
top elevation of the obstruction.
36. The Applicant shall pay a proportionate fair-
share fee, as determined by the
City
Engineer, to the City of Napa for improvements at the intersection of Silverado Trail/Third Street/East Avenue/Coombsville Road to mitigate the addition of
Project
trips
contributing to existing pre-p
roject
Level of Service (LOS)
deficiencies at the
intersection.
On April 15, 2024,
the Coalition timely
appealed
the Planning Commission’s approval.
(N.M.C. §17.70.030.)
C.
Argument
Approval of the
Project
here violates local zoning regulations.
The City is required to
interpret and administer the
zoning ordinance in a reasonable fashion consistent with the public interest of the residents of the city
. This requirement was not met, for all of the reasons set forth herein.
The
Planning Commission also violated
CEQA
in approving the
Project
absent the
necessary environmental review
. The for
emost principle in interpreting CEQA is that the
Legislature intended the act to be read to
afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. ( Cmtys.
for a
Better
Env't
v.
Calif.
Res.
Agency
(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109
.) Here, the Planning Commission did not afford this
protection and instead
shirked its CEQA obligations by improperly determining the Project
was
exempt from such review
.
1. The Project
is inconsistent with zoning regulations.
The
proposed
Project
is located in a
n area designated
Low
-
Density
Residential
General
Plan Designation of the Napa 2040 General Plan and the Single- Family Residential (RS
-10)
Zoning District and Hillside Overlay District (HS).
This designation primarily provides
for the
development of attached and detached single family dwellings. The Planning Commiss ion Staff
Report notes that day
care and residential care facilities are compatible uses that may be
considered, however, it fails to
appreciate
the description of such facilities in the City’s zoning ordinance. Specifically,
permitted d
ay
car
e facilities include family day
care with up to 14
children.
Conditionally
permitted facilities are described as those with 15
+ children and 9 or
more adults. (N.M.C. § 17.08.020.)
While the definition of conditionally permitted facilities does
not pro
vide an
explicit upper limit, a
project
allowing for care of upwards of 250 children, in
addition to various other uses, clearly exceeds the bounds of facilities anticipated in the zoning regulations.
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
5 BN 82626259v1
Pursuant to section 17.08.010, uses allowed in
residential zoning districts must be
“compatible and desirable land uses within residential neighborhoods.” (N.M.C. §17.08.060(D).) A facility the size of the proposed
Project
is simply not compatible with this
neighborhood.
Furthermore
, the additional “youth services” included in the proposed Project
take it well
outside any reasonable scope for the neighborhood.
The various commercial activities
encompassed, misleadingly, by the term “youth services” are not anticipated in the zoning regulations for the neighborhood. Moreover, t
he Staff Report fails to
discuss
any
of the impacts
of the “youth services” under its Required Findings
3 . Accordingly, there is simply no evidence to
support a finding that these accessory uses are compatible with the zoning regulations.
Section 17.08.020 sets forth the applicable land use regulations for each zoning district.
Therein, accessory uses are permitted only if they are “customarily incidental and clearly
subordinate
to permitted and conditional uses pursuant to Chapter 17.04.”
(N.M.C. §17.08.020.)
Likewise, s
ection 17.06.030 defines an accessory use as “a use, building, structure or both subordinate and incidental to the principal use, building or structure on the same lot.” The
Staff Report does note that such uses must be “customarily incidental and clearly subordinate to” to daycare, however, t
he applicant’s own written narrative illustrates
that community
playroom/gymnasium (or other “youth services”)
are
not
part of
, or accessory
or subordinate to,
the daycare program:
•
An indoor playroom shall be open to the public for parents/caregivers to attend with their child for indoor imaginative play, circle/music/story time, gross and fine motor activities and developmentally appropriate curriculum for ages 0-5 years led by an instructor daily. Available to the Napa community on a per day or monthly membership basis and a separate indoor space than our childcare. It will be open to members who join the indoor playroom program, it will be open weekdays 9am- 12pm and then again 2-5pm.
It is a separate use from the daycare, it will not be
licensed for childcare.
The indoor playroom is offered in lieu of an additional 22 spots for daycare activities.
3 There are no findings as to
how many
events could be held or the
size
of the events that could be held. Without
clear parameters or definitions, it defies credulity to accept that this impact was considered.
As the bullet points
from the Staff Report illustrate, questions regarding these metrics are left unanswered.
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
6 BN 82626259v1
•
A large indoor playroom for birthday parties for ages 0- 5 year
s old year round,
available for the Napa community to book and rent. The playroom would be available for rent on Weekends from 9am – 4p
m.
•
A gym space with a full basketball/volleyball court for youth leagues to utilize throughout the year for practices
outside of the childcare center’s hours of
operation. It will be available for the public to rent outside of childcare hours. It
will be available for rent on Weekdays 5:30pm-8pm and Weekends from 9am-8pm.
We plan to make it available for the needs of y
outh in Napa for sports practices,
tournaments, plays, performances, etc.
The space is also available as rentable
indoor community space for special events for Napa residents to rent for retirement/anniversary/birthday parties, Boy/Girl Scouts meetings, Na pa Moms
Preschool performances, plays/musical recitals/community puppet shows on the fully equipped sates. Occupancy and operations can be limited to a reasonable number.
These uses are not customarily incidental
to a daycare, and the Staff Report recog
niz
es this
stating
there would be “minimal overlap with the day-
to
-
day primary use as a daycare
.
” (Staff
Report at p.3) To be sure, “recreation areas,” “clubs and lodges, including for youth,” and “other public/quasi-public uses of an administrative, educational, religious, cultural, communications, or public service nature, including community care facilities not otherwise listed…” are subject to a conditional use
per
mi
t. (N.M.C. §17.08.020.) Accordingly, the Planning Commission should not have approved
the use permit here
, and this appeal should be granted.
2. The Planning Commission abused its discretion in concluding the Project
was categorically exempt from CEQA.
The Planning Commission concluded that the
Project
is exempt from any environmental
review based on CEQA Guidelines
sections
15301, 15302 and 15332. This conclusion is wrong.
Certain “classes of
p
rojects are ‘categorical
ly exempt’ from CEQA
pursuant to
administrative regulation because they do not have a significant effect on the environment.” (
Mountain Lion Foundation
v.
Fish
&
Game
Com.
(1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112–113
;
Pub.
Resources
Code, §§ 21080, subd.
(b)(9)
,
21084, subd.
(a)
.) Categorical exemptions
, however,
are subject to important exceptions based on factors such as location, cumulative impact, or unusual circumstances. (
Cal.
Code
Regs.,
tit.
14, § 15300.2
.)
A categorically exempt
p
roject
, like
a single
-
family residence, loses its exempt status “where the
p
roject
may impact on an
environmental resource of … critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.” ( Cal.
Code
Regs.,
tit.
14, § 15300.2,
subd.
(a)
.) A CEQA exemption
is also inapplicable “when the cumulative impact of successive p
roje
cts of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.” ( Cal.
Code
Regs.,
tit.
14, §
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
7 BN 82626259v1
15300.2, subd.
(b)
.) Nor may a categorical exemption
“be used for an activity where there is a
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances.” (
Cal.
Code
Regs.,
tit.
14, § 15300.2, subd.
(c)
.)
First
, the
City
should decide
whether
a p
roject
is
eligible
for
a
categorical
exemption
as
part
of
its
pr
eliminary
review
of the p
roject
without
reference
to
or
reliance
upon
any
proposed
mitigation
measures.
(
Azusa
Land Reclamation Co.
v.
Main
San Gabriel Basin
Watermaster
(1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1199–1200
.)
Here,
the Planning
Commission
did
propose
mitigation
measures.
To
be
sure,
the Planning
Commission
“recommended
conditions of
approval
such
as
sidewalk
improvements,
and
‘fair
share’
contribution
to
a
future
roundabout
at
the 5-
way
intersection
would
minimize/mitigate
potential
traffic
im
pacts
from
the p
roject
.”
While
titled
“conditions of approval,”
these
requirements
were
clearly
imposed
to
mitigate
p
roject
impacts,
making
them,
in
effect,
mitigation
measures.
This
m
akes
the
Project
ine
ligible
for
any
categorical
exemption
.
Second
, the Planning
Commission
abused
its
discretion
in
determining
the Project
was
categorically exempt from CEQA under the infill exemption set forth
in CEQA
Guidelines
section
15332
. In order for a p
roject
to qualify for the infill exemption, five criteria must be met:
“(a) [t]he
p
roject
[must be] consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations[;] (b) [t]he proposed development occur
s within city limits on a
p
roject
site of no more than five
acres substantially surrounded by urban uses[;] (c) [t]he p roject
site has no value, as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species[;] (d) [a]pproval of the p
roject
[must] not result in any
significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality[; and] [¶] [t]he site [must be able to] be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.” (CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15332.)
The application of CEQA Guidelines section 15332 is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(
See
United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2023)
93 Cal.App.5th 1074 holding “as a general matter, the public agency bears the burden to demonstrate its exemption determination is supported by substantial evidence.”) The
Community Playroom and Gymnasium
are commercial uses
that
are not consistent
with the
zoning
for the
Project
area
, and so the
Project
does not comply with s
ection 15332(a).
And, as
discussed above, the
Project
will result in significant impacts to traffic and air quality in violation of section 15332(d). (At best, the TIS provides
no evidence
to support a finding of no impacts
and hence the Planning Commission’s determination is an abuse of discretion.)
Application of the
existing facilities
exemption
under section 15301 or the replacement
and reconstruction exemption under section 15302 do not save the approval as the Project
includes numerous
new uses
in addition to the building alterations. For section 15301 to apply,
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
8 BN 82626259v1
the Project would have to involve “negligible or no expansion of the use existing at the time the exemption is granted.” The expanded uses squarely pull this Project away from such an exemption. In addressing this issue,
all
of the uses proposed under the Project must be
considered
. This simply was not done.
Third
, the Planning Commission
also improperly analyzed the cumulative impact of the
Project
. Pursuant to
Guidelines section
15300.2
:
(b)
Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive
p
rojects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
(c)
Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an a ctivity where
there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
The
TIS
alone has identified significant effects from the 1000+ additional trips, a circumstance that is independently significant and cumulatively significant with the Alta Heights School. By comparison, the Oxbow Hotel p
roject
recently before the City Council,
p
roject
ed 983
additional trips for the 123-room proposal. In other words, this center will have a grea ter impact
on the traffic than a 125-room hotel on a main thoroughfare.
Moreover, the
TIS
identifies an existing grade
-F, traffic condition at the 5-
way
intersection on Silverado Trail. (
Before and a
fter school, it routinely takes two-
three light
changes
to clear the intersection
4 .) It
p
roject
s the situation can only be meliorated by
implementation of the dual-roundabout proposal that is years away, assuming CalTrans ever approves it. The applicants are expected to pay a “proportionate” share of the cost of the roundabouts, which includes acquiring the necessary rights of way from the neighboring owners.
Other assumptions made by the
TIS
,
such as that most of the trips will be “side trips” of
parents who are working in the City, have no evidentiary support.
Nothing in the
TIS
addresses greenhouse gas emissions. Parents picking up and dropping off children create idling emissions as well as on
-road emissions. The California Emissions
Estimator Model provides the state
-
accepted
means to calculate the emissions but its application
is beyond the ken of ordinary public members. BAAQMD
5 has adopted 660 MT CO2 as the
threshold for a p
roject
of this type. The proponents of the Oxbow Hotel, which generates fewer
4 To illustrate, photograph
taken
during the morning drop
-
off
is
enclosed here
with.
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
9 BN 82626259v1
trips and does not pr
oject
the type of idling emissions, p
roject
ed 827-977 MT CO2, and a
condition of any approval included a requirement of a GHG 6 Reduction Plan to reduce emissions
to that level. No such analysis has been prepared for this Project
but a significant, cumulat
ive
environmental impact cannot be dismissed.
Finally,
the City has never complied with
Guideline
s section
15300.4, which provides:
Each public agency shall, in the course of establishing its own procedures, list those specific activities which fall
within each of the exempt classes, subject to the
qualification that these lists must be consistent with both the letter and the intent expressed in the classes.
(Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15300.4.)
The City has no such list. The Staff Report does not point to any such list. This Project
type would need to be included on the list for the exemption to apply. The purpose of section 15300.4 is to preclude the
ad hoc
determination of exempt activities by discretionary review.
Clearly, such d
etermination was not avoided here.
For all of these reasons, the Planning Commission abused its discretion in applying an exemption and failing to conduct the necessary environmental review before approving the Project
. Thus, the
Project
approval must be rescinded.
3. The Planning Commission abused its discretion in concluding the Project
satisfied emergency access guidelines.
Under CEQA, agencies must analyze “any significant environmental effects the Project
might cause or risk exacerba
ting by bringing development and people into the area affected.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a);
California Bldg. Indus. Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt.
Dist
. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 385.) This includes “any potentially significant direct, indirect, or c
umulative environmental impacts of locating development in areas susceptible to hazardous
conditions (e.g. wildfire risk areas).” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a); see also Clews Land &
Livestock, LLC v. City of San Diego
(2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 193 [recognizing potential for significant environmental effects when p
roject
brings new development to a wildfire-
prone area];
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, §§ IX(g), XX.)
The Project
, by its own description, is adding
numerous people into the neighborhood, including upwards of 1000 vehicle trips per day.
Despite this significant increase, the Planning Commission’s review of the Project
includes no
review of emergency access or evacuation routes.
6 Greenhouse Gases
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
10 BN 82626259v1
Evacuation modeling and analysis should be completed prior to approval of the development. This analysis must include evaluation of the capacity of surrounding roadways and p
roject
impacts on existing evacuation plans.
We are informed the Project
may be seeking
private easements for emergency access. This effort is not descri bed in the use permit application
or reviewing materials, and thus could not be understood by the Planning Commission or public.
Further,
because this Project is in the
(
HS
)
Hillside Overlay District it can be characterized as a
Hazardous Fire Area. Accordingly, the Project should have included the submission of a Fire Hazard Reduction Plan. This failure only highlights the significant prejudice to the public in failing to
perform any environmental review related to approval of this Project
. The
Project
approval must be rescinded unless and until such review is completed.
B
ecause this proposed
Project
conflicts with zoning regulations and is not properly
exempt from environmental review under any categorical exemption, the City Council should grant this appeal and deny approval of the
Project
.
If the City determines to still proceed with the
Project, it must
first
prepare
an adequate initial study, which will indicate
the po
tential
environmental impacts of the
Project
and make clear
the appropriate level of environmental
review. Until then, this
Project
may not proceed. Should the Council choose, however, to uphold the Project approval absent such review, the Coalition is pre pared to pursue all available legal
remedies. We request that
the Coalition
receive notice of any further hearings or review related to the
Project
.
V
ery truly yours,
BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
By
Katharine H. Falace
Shareholder
cc:
Sabrina S. Wolfson
Napa Ci
ty Attorn
ey
From:
lisa rubino
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Re: Le Petit Elephant
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 8:20:46 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Council,
My name is Lisa Rubino and I reside at
I wanted to take this opportunity
to share my concerns about the after hours availability for the daycare/school. Before I share my concerns, I do want to go on the record by saying I appreciate the fact that children and families in Napa deserve
a safe and comfortable place to be
during the day. Furthermore,
parents need peace of mind that their children are safe and happy.
I understand and applaud
the reputation and following that Le
Petit Elephant has earned in the community.
With this being said, I have the following concerns about the after hours availability as follows:
1. Safety during an evacuation should a fire or any other emergency occur. And safety is in reference to the children, parents, first responders and residents.
2. Safety for wildlife in the area
3. Bringing a commercial operation into a residential area just doesn’t make sense and is unfair to the property owners who reside in close proximity to the property.
I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns. I look forward to the meeting on May 21.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Rubino.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From:
Mary Luros
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Fwd: Alta Heights Day Care and Recreation Center
Date:
Wednesday, April 17, 2024 1:35:18 PM
Mary Luros
Councilmember, District 3
City Manager’s Office, City of Napa
PO Box 660 / 955 School Street, Napa, CA 94559
Phone
(707) 258-7800 x5284
Email
[email protected]
Website
www.cityofnapa.org
Social
www.facebook.com/CityOfNapa
· @CityOfNapa
Pothole? Graffiti? Litter?
You can
make a service request online here
!
Begin forwarded message:
From:
William Allen
Subject: Alta Heights Day Care and Recreation Center
Date:
April 17, 2024 at 12:28:38 PM PDT
To:
Scott Sedgley <
[email protected]
>,
[email protected]
,
[email protected]
,
[email protected]
,
[email protected]
[EXTERNAL]
From:
William Allen
Subject: Alta Heights Day Care and Recreation Center
Date:
April 17, 2024 at 12:28:38 PM PDT
To:
Scott Sedgley <
[email protected]
>,
[email protected]
,
[email protected]
,
[email protected]
,
[email protected]
Dear Council,
I am writing to you regarding the appeal of a proposed day care and recreation center to be located on Montecito Blvd. I live on Chapel Hill Drive. As we have been characterized by some, I am an old white guy. I am not, however, a NIMBY who hates children.
When I first spoke with the new owner of the church, I was told that she was planning a day care center. I thought that was a good use of the building and was supportive. However, I feel that I was deceived. I have discovered through meetings and the newspaper article, the plan is for a 5 day a week day care center for over 200 infants and children as well as an evening and weekend recreation facility for basketball, volleyball and other activities as well. A very different use! I recently read the CDSS child care center regulations, which state that day care centers are typically located in a commercial building in a commercially zoned area. This is a residentially zoned area! While a day care center 5 days a week is certainly acceptable, this alternative use is not.
To reiterate some of the points mentioned by our neighbors, should the child care center appeal be considered, please add the following provisos:
Additional commercial and recreational use at the site is outside of our current residential zoning.
The city has decided that a CEQA is not needed for this project.
Restrict use hours to day care and weekdays only.
Deny any off-property parking.
In addition, I still can’t believe that a 1,000 extra vehicle trips a day would not impact our street and Montecito Blvd. And finally, I found it interesting that there is an evacuation plan for the center which doesn’t include the neighborhood. We have evacuated twice and I can’t imagine trying to evacuate in our car with dozens of buses and parents’ care evacuating their children.
Thank you for your consideration!
Bill Allen
From:
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Proposal
Date:
Saturday, April 27, 2024 12:21:23 PM
Attachments:
Screenshot (228) (002).png
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor and City Council,
We will be meeting in your chambers May 21 to appeal the Planning Commission’s approval of the Le Petit Elephant project.
This massive business facility designed for 250 children and operating 7 days per week is not a suitable fit for a residential neighborhood-- particularly not one that presently hosts a 300- child magnet elementary school and 125-child daycare
within a block of the proposed
location.
This is an unsound, ill-considered proposal.
There are legitimate traffic and pedestrian safety concerns as the facility would draw an estimated 1100 additional daily car trips to the location. Wildfire safety concerns, as this location with limited egress has twice been an evacuation zone in recent years. And questions of CEQA and zoning regulation non-compliance.
We are hoping for a fair hearing of our concerns and to be afforded some regard, unlike before the Planning Commission where we were treated as the villains in an LPE fairy story. We understand the dire need for childcare in Napa County but believe a business of this size and scope in Alta Heights would place an untenable burden on one neighborhood and is not the answer.
Robin Ellison
From:
Sergio Novak
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Alta Heights
Subject:
Letter to County Council Members regarding Opposition to LPE Date:
Monday, April 29, 2024 4:23:38 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear County Council Members,
I am writing to you to express my concerns about the size and scope of LPE and the ancillary uses that are being proposed at the Chapel Hill address in the Alta Heights neighborhood. I live on the corner of Montecito Blvd. and Bonita Ave., across from the proposed LPE site.
Initially, I was in favor of a daycare/preschool operating at the former Mormon Church,
UNTIL
I heard about the size, scope, ancillary uses
and the safety concerns that such a proposal would present. Alta Heights is already home to 1 elementary school and 2 preschools within a few block radius. To add another school, the size of the Alta Heights elementary school with after-school care, winter and summer camps and a 7 day a week activity center is irresponsible, unwarranted and unconscionable! We already have a ton of traffic, incessant speeding, parents not following driving laws (illegal U-turns, parking in front of houses and general inconsiderate driving), plus the 5 way intersection that is graded an F! It’s important to note that when they close the 5 way intersection to build the roundabouts, the intersection will be closed for 18-24 months, causing more traffic on our tiny roads, more safety risks to pedestrians, pets and wildlife and a colossal disaster for evacuations during emergencies.
In case you don’t know, all of the streets in upper Alta heights have dead ends, with only 1-2 roads for evacuation via Montecitio or Lakeview. If this proposal is approved and there is an emergency or evacuation, LPE parents, buses, police and fire trucks will be going UP
Montecito Blvd., while residents will be going
DOWN
Montecito in an
attempt to evacuate on one small road that barely accommodates 2 vehicles. Many of the Alta Heights residents recall previous evacuations in which they assisted elderly neighbors to safety and some residents remember flames approaching their back patio. My fear is that while first responders are trying to evacuate infants and children from LPE, senior citizens will be an afterthought and will not be rescued. In addition, Alta Heights is in a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) zone. A WUI code is specifically designed to mitigate the risks from wildfire to life and
property. By approving LPE, Napa County would not be mitigating risks, it would be adding risks to life and property. Many residents in Alta Heights can no longer get home insurance policies. According to the Fire Factor which looks at the likelihood of being in a wildfire, Chapel Hill is classified as a “Major risk”.
Furthermore, by approving this project, the city of Napa will not be compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). By following CEQA, Napa will preserve our environment and climate commitment, improve health and safety, reduce need to spend time in cars. Currently, residents frequently walk, dog walk, exercise, and bike throughout the neighborhood and into downtown Napa. A proposal that adds over 1000+ cars daily, exponentially increases the number of idling cars at the 5 way stop light and Lincoln Ave., and making our small streets unsafe for walking, biking etc. In addition, many elementary schools already have afterschool programs, so the idea of bussing kids from different Napa schools to LPE does not make sense. The LPE proposal does the exact opposite of what CEQA stands for. According to CEQA, it requests that new projects being built be built in a way that allows
MORE
options to drive
LESS.
In terms of the ancillary uses, the proposed plan is not consistent with the character of our neighborhood nor is it zoned for a residential neighborhood. An activity center open 7 days a week from 9:00-8:00pm for birthdays, anniversaries, retirement parties, youth leagues/tournaments, plays, music recitals and big activities will overwhelm our small neighborhood. The LPE proposal indicates that the “weekend use of property would consist almost entirely of indoor spaces”, however, it does not define what ALMOST means. I’m certain that if it’s a beautiful day, the party will head outside for the majority of the event. The proposal does not mention whether alcohol will be permitted on the grounds; it only specifies that alcohol cannot be sold. A huge concern is that large gatherings, excessive noise, speeding and parking off site will be allowed and become the norm. When you have people coming into your neighborhood who do not LIVE here, their investment, consideration and respect for residents, pets, and environment tend to greatly diminish; hence the signs, “Drive like your kids live here.” As earlier mentioned, LPE wants to offer afterschool care by bussing children from elementary schools to LPE. This is a redundant service! Almost all of the elementary schools offer after- school programs, as well as the Boys and Girls Club. Furthermore, LPE wants to provide summer and winter camps for children 5-12 years of age. This endeavor is also redundant! There are many winter and
summer programs available to Napa kids through such organizations as Parks and Recreation, Connolly Ranch, Blue Oak, Napa Valley Summer Camps, Napa Open Space District Camps, Boys and Girls Club, as well as many others.
The meeting with the Planning Commissioners painted Alta Heights residents as child haters, ignorant about childcare needs, racist, elderly, resistant to change and ultra wealthy. There were many inconsiderate statements and incorrect assumptions made towards the opposing side that greatly upset me and my family! Why would I want the proposed owners and LPE parents as neighbors? They are the ones coming to our neighborhood proposing major changes to our way of life. They don’t know us, nor do they want to know us. For context, my husband and I are middle class; I worked as social worker and my husband worked as a correctional officer for over 30 years and he is a veteran.
We have a 25 year old son with Autism. We worked over-time so that we could afford to move to Alta Heights from South Napa for a quiet, peaceful retirement. We pay a ton of taxes, we regularly vote and have lived in Napa for almost 40 years.
In terms of the need for childcare, yes we do need quality childcare.
When I had my son, I signed up as soon as I was pregnant. My husband and I worked alternate shifts and days to mitigate the cost and need for excessive childcare. The idea that LPE has been looking for 9 years may be true, especially if they have been looking for a facility to house 250 children! The average size of a daycare facility is between 30-50 children. There are many different kinds of day cares and creative ways to provide services. Our day care provider bought 2 homes next to each other on Hunt Street in Napa. Some day care centers have 3-4 homes. Three years ago St. John’s Catholic School closed and is now occupied by Mayacamas School. That would have been a fantastic option for LPE. There’s a property at 215 W. Gateway Rd. in Napa that has 14,000 square feet, with 16-18 offices, lots of open space and parking. Why doesn’t LPE jump on that opportunity? In years past, a preschool named “Sunshine and Rainbows” operated on the grounds of Napa State Hospital. The Napa Valley Korean SDA Church located at 28 Highland Ave. may be open to leasing to LPE, as it only provides services on Saturdays. Yes, this church is located in Alta Heights, but it is only 1-2 blocks from Silverado Trail, making it easy to enter and exit.
My point is that there are many different and creative options for daycare programs.
If Napa County really wanted to be leaders in supporting daycare, preschool and children’s activities and programs, why doesn’t the
County lease out Harvest Middle School and turn it into a hub for children’s services? I’m not sure why our Napa schools don’t rent out their spaces on the weekends, especially since there are huge budgetary concerns. Providing space for daycare, pre-school and activities for the Napa Community should not fall on the backs of one small neighborhood! There are other options that are compliant with CEQA, abide by zoning requirements and do not put others in harm’s way.
At the Planning Commission meeting, many parents voiced concerns of having to leave the workforce or leave Napa, due to lack of childcare.
Lack of childcare is a systemic issue that affects our entire country. It's multi-faceted involving employer's lack of flexibility, poor wages for childcare providers, schools ending too early, inadequate maternity and paternity leave, as well as a slew of other challenges. Napa, however has more challenges due to its valley location, high cost of housing and a huge focus on tourism, as opposed to family life. The leaders of Napa County need to take some responsibility for our current situation. It’s important to note that the child population is dramatically decreasing and that by 2035, 1 Napa high school will close. Given this downward trend, will there be as much of a need for childcare in 2035? In closing, the question of whether LPE is a good childcare provider or whether or not Napa needs daycare is NOT being debated. Alta Height’s neighbors were prepared to welcome LPE,
UNTIL
the size,
scope, ancillary uses and safety issues came to light. If you lived on or near Chapel Hill, would you want LPE as your neighbor?
Respectfully,
Sacia Novak
From:
Mary Burrell
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Friday, May 3, 2024 9:08:45 AM
[EXTERNAL]
This is to register our concern and disapproval of the commercial operation and daycare at 15 Chapel Hill. This is a quiet residential area with winding roads, daily to and from school foot and car trafficking. A commercial development would negatively impact the area. The proposed endeavor would generate by their estimate an increase of a thousand trips a day. This proposes a true risk to children and the frequent joggers, walkers and residents of the area.
Mark and Mary Burrell
From:
Dan Meister
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Sunday, May 5, 2024 9:32:54 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Thanks for the opportunity to voice my concerns regarding the Chapel Hill ideas. I attended the informal meeting at Alta Heights school on March 21. One of the attendees asked the owners representative how you would evacuate 200 infants and toddlers in the event of a fire in the First Avenue area. His response was that there are special buses built to accommodate babies. He said that they have unique buggies that look like shopping carts that are strapped inside the bus. Let’s assume each bus can hold 50 babies or small children. That would require four of the special buses and their drivers. Am I to assume that the special buses are on site and the drivers as well? Otherwise, those buses and drivers would have to be brought in from elsewhere . And goodness knows how long that would take not to mention driving those special buses against a wave of evacuates struggling to drive in the opposite direction. I wonder how long it would take to load them all – after they finally get there.
We saw how quickly and fires can move. It’s hard to imagine all those moving parts coming together in 30 minutes – assuming the fire move that slowly.
Perhaps the empty Safeway would make more sense. More centrally located. Emergency service is less than two blocks away. Superior parking situation.
Thank you for taking the time to read my comments and consider my position.
Sincerely, Dan Meister
From:
Mary Luros
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Fwd: Opposition to Le Petit Elephant
Date:
Monday, May 6, 2024 8:34:43 AM
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Edward Matovcik
Subject: Opposition to Le Petit Elephant
Date:
May 6, 2024 at 7:27:24 AM PDT
To:
"
[email protected]
" <
[email protected]
>
[EXTERNAL]
May 6, 2024
Dear Councilmember Luros:
We are writing to respectfully request your assistance in opposing
the Le Petit Elephant Use Permit in its current form.
First, we fully support commercial childcare facilities in Alta Heights, as evidenced by the more than 260 families from throughout the entire Napa County already utilizing current childcare facilities in our neighborhood at Children’s Cottage, Yellow Brick Road and AHES. However, the scope of Le Petite’s petition far exceeds the compatibility of this neighborhood.
It appears that the Planning Commission failed to consider CEQA and its own zoning ordinance when unlawfully approving this project. Past experience suggests this usually leads to a lengthy and costly legal dispute which we understand may already be underway.
We are hopeful that the Council will take the community’s appeal seriously and work toward a solution that addresses childcare needs while not placing the entire burden on a neighborhood and street system ill-equipped to handle such a large, commercial enterprise operating 7 days/week including ancillary evening and weekend events.
Specifically, we are requesting the Use Permit be modified in the following:
Childcare services only. No ancillary uses.
Operational hours only between 7:30am-6:00pm Monday-Friday. (Consistent with normal childcare use.) Maximum Capacity 125 children. (Consistent with Le Petit’s current usage.) No off-premise parking.
We are disappointed that some supporters of this project are attempting to portray our neighborhood as wealthy and elitist. As you may well be aware, the majority of Alta Heights residents are seniors on fixed incomes who have lived in their homes for more than 30 years. Since there are no sidewalks, they get their exercise by walking either alone or with their dogs during the day on our narrow streets. Adding a minimum of 1,000 cars per day to these streets (and the infamous 5-way intersection) poses a significant safety risk the Council should not ignore.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
We remain hopeful that this project can be scaled back in an appropriate manner that avoids litigation while addressing both needs and concerns.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Meyer
From:
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Monday, May 6, 2024 10:11:47 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to appeal the approval for the large commercial operation and daycare at 15 Chapel Hill.
While I understand the need for the city of Napa to provide more daycare centers for our children, our Alta Heights neighborhood should not be transformed into the large commercial operation as the recently approved proposal for Le Petit Elephant operation.
We urge you to retain Alta Heights single home neighborhood characters by prohibit the development of any large commercial operation at Le Petit Elephant.
The safety and security of the children attending the daycare are our upmost concerns.
We were overjoyed when Alta Heights elementary school was fenced, and limited accessibility was imposed to assure students safety.
The proposed commercial operations during the weekends at Le Petit Elephant site will bring traffics and non- residents into our neighborhood.
With the limited security/safety services outside of normal working hours, we are fearful for the children/their families and also our homes.
Please keep our peaceful neighborhood characters by voting down the proposed commercial operations in Le Petit Elephant’s proposal.
Sincerely,
Cam Tu Tran
From:
Gunter Konold
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Tuesday, May 7, 2024 6:50:30 PM
[EXTERNAL]
May 7, 2024
Napa City Council
Napa, CA 94559
Subject : Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Dear Mayor and City Council,
We want to express our serious concerns over the proposed daycare facility “and other youth services” at 15 Chapel Hill Drive.
First, we question the planning staff’s alleged determination that finds the use exempt from environmental review. We agree that infill development and existing facility are significant factors. But there are other major considerations: the proposed use would impact the health and safety of the children it is supposed to serve, and it would cause monumental impacts on the residential neighborhood.
No city should put children and residents at such an extreme risk by allowing a facility with only one street in and the same street out.
Montecito Blvd is already impacted by extensive vehicle traffic and considerable foot traffic, with practically no infrastructure besides a poorly maintained asphalt pavement. Montecito would have to handle ALL traffic to and from the facility.
The Traffic Study reads like it is written by the daycare execs. It finds practically no impacts on Montecito Blvd. No responsible city can accept such a report that has pretty charts and graphs, but omits the most significant aspects.
The report ignores the considerable pedestrian traffic on Montecito Blvd alongside fast-moving vehicular traffic. It glosses over the existence of a nearby elementary school with its own uncoordinated traffic and street parking impact. It ignores the lack of infrastructure that forces mothers to push their baby strollers virtually alongside vehicular traffic. And it does not have the foresight to address the inevitability of
children walking on Montecito Blvd to and from the daycare facility, with or with a parent, within feet of passing traffic. During winter rains, these children would have to walk in the flow of rainwater as it cascades down both side of Montecito Blvd, or move even closer to dangerous car traffic.
It is inconceivable that the City of Napa, which prides itself as being the gateway to a premier wine producing region, and that attracts visitors from all around the world, allows such a situation to prevail and possibly exacerbate it by accepting an inappropriate use in a residential neighborhood.
The Alta Heights area, of which the proposed daycare would be part, has experienced evacuation alerts in the past due to wildfires. Emergency vehicles were taking over Montecito Blvd day and night. Such a possibility in the future is a constant concern and, with Montecito Blvd being the only evacuation route, would present a nightmare scenario in attempting to evacuate the many children from the daycare facility. Not to mention the residents that would be blocked while fleeing on the only escape route.
Incidentally, I must assume that extensive, and expensive, structural improvements will be required to the building for the proposed use, to bring it up to earthquake safety standards.
It is commendable that the Le Petit Elephant owners plan to expand its operation.
There is certainly a need for such a facility. But the proposed residential area with limited access and egress is not the answer. The organization needs to combine its own resources with the generous grant money, seek additional grants which are generally available for children services, conduct a fundraiser and, along with City of Napa incentives, locate a more suitable location with more appropriate and safer access and egress for their precious children and staff. Building a new facility, tailored to its needs, with no expensive earthquake restoration, seems to be a more feasible alternative.
While we support facilities that provide community support for children, we strongly oppose the proposed daycare facility at 15 Chapel Hill Drive, due to its inappropriateness at that location and extreme safety concerns in a residential neighborhood. We strongly urge you to uphold the appeal and deny Use Permit PL23-0159.
Thank you for your consideration and objective approach to the issue.
Gunter Konold
From:
M Wilson-Grills
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Appeal of Le Petit Elephant"s use permit - restrict usage Date:
Wednesday, May 8, 2024 5:42:00 PM
[EXTERNAL]
City Council Members,
My name is Martha Wilson-Grills, my husband Paul and I are residents of Alta Heights. We live at
We understand that the
City of Napa council
members have approved a use permit for Le Petit Elephant daycare,
but we continue
to have concerns regarding the apparent unrestricted use of that permit.
While we are aware of the need for a large daycare facility in the City of Napa, we still do not understand how allowing the daycare in the Alta Heights neighborhood makes good sense for the reasons already mentioned at the City Council meeting when the permit was approved. The applicant has also requested weekend use for parties and "other" social events. East Avenue and Montecito Boulevard are already heavily impacted by a daycare center, the elementary school and events held at the fairgrounds (namely Bottlerock and now La Onda). Our question to the council members, is why is the applicant also being permitted to use the facility as a party event center on the weekends, with no restrictions, when the need is for a daycare? Alta Heights is a residential neighborhood and not zoned for a business event center.
We urge the city council members to reconsider and reject the permit or at the very least restrict the use of the facility to just weekdays and for the sole purpose of a daycare.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Martha and Paul Wilson-Grills
From:
Carolyn Hofacket
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Morman church
Date:
Thursday, May 9, 2024 9:14:53 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Montecito blvd is not the place to have a facility this large. It is a residential area and this would disrupt the neighborhood. Would you want this near your own home? I doubt it.
From:
Kirk Candland
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Oppose the Day Care Center
Date:
Friday, May 10, 2024 8:15:15 AM
[EXTERNAL]
To whom it may concern
I strongly oppose the day care center tentatively approved for 15 Chapel Hill Drive.
The amount of car traffic both
night and day 7 days a week is not safe.
One thing is a day care center but to expand its use to a public hall on weekends isn’t acceptable.
Hopefully the City Council will take a stronger look at the ramifications of their decision.
Thank You
Kirk Candland
Sent from my iPhone
From:
thomas sabo
To:
Clerk
Cc:
KARLA STROMBERGER
;
Thai Pham
;
Joe and Diana Wilcox
Subject:
El Petite Elephant Business
Date:
Saturday, May 11, 2024 10:45:11 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Open Message to All
Napa City Council Members:
Please distribute.
After speaking to elderly and handicapped Neighbors
about the
zoning change for
the Le Petite Business
I realized that my/our
ADA rights are
being violated by this Elephant/zoning change.
We have no sidewalks nor safe access to foot travel
on
our
narrow streets and are obliged to walk,
roll and stagger in
those
streets with a massive
pending increase in traffic.
If one imagines the potential of large busses and speeding parents under time restraints, it gets worse.
The
disabled
and children
walk in these
streets every day to
manage our
disability health
and for every-day living.
Many of
on the hill may be handicapped or
are driving with some
risk to themselves and others due to blind spots and declining ability.
Hurry through
shortcuts
makes it worse
We are all being denied safe use of
public streets
by this Zoning
change.
It is an ADA violation.
I think this is another area we must
explore.
Given
that more than 1000 trips are planned
into the main
streets and the primary residents use the streets to-navigate the neighborhoods, many on blind hillsides and junctions, and that the plans for safety
are
Wildly speculated
and potentially
more
clogging of
the streets,
The City
of Napa is endangering the The elderly,
and
handicapped with
complex traffic changes
by changing the
permit status in the neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Thomas L. Sabo
Maxwell Ave.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From:
Deluca Eubanks
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Saturday, May 11, 2024 3:34:51 PM
[EXTERNAL]
I am writing to express my major concern over the use permit that Le Petit is trying to obtain.
My areas of concern:
- the preschool operation is already extremely inappropriate for a residential neighborhood. - evacuation of current residents, school children, and teachers is too large of a project in an emergency situation.
How can residents safely evacuate when 250 school children’s parents would be trying to get up the hill to their children.
-scoop of project is much greater than a preschool.
Turning this building into a 7 day a week
operation goes far beyond a preschool.
-there are better suited locations in Napa to house a 7 day a week operation that are in commercially zoned areas.
-with several other schools in the area that are no where near capacity this demonstrates that there is not a need in Alta heights for another school. -there are no sidewalks around the church or on most roads around the school. -I hope that the council will follow their own guidelines and not overreach in their decisions.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Anthony Schrauth
Deluca Eubanks
From:
Patrick Fitzpatrick
To:
Clerk
;
Ginevra Augustini
;
Angela Alvarez-Cendejas
Subject:
LPE Appeal - Chapel Hill Drainage Issue
Date:
Sunday, May 12, 2024 9:17:25 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Napa City Councilmembers,
My name is Patrick Fitzpatrick. I own 18 Chapel Hill Dr. and have lived there with my family for over 30 years.
First of all we Alta Heights neighbors are all for a much more reasonable daycare project then the one being proposed for LPE use of the Mormon Church. One with possibly 130 infants, 25 employees and open Monday - Friday only. None of the proposed commercial ventures are reasonable.
When I bought the home there was an easement on the property that makes me the owner of the storm drainage system that services most of Chapel Hill Dr. This includes a concrete pipe that runs under my property and along the side of my home as well as a corrugated pipe I installed about 20 years ago to take all that water from the street, through my backyard, and onto the Napa Water Department service road behind my house.
I have dutifully managed my responsibility for these past 30 years.
The last three years have been both challenging and, at times, terrifying. It appears that the system under my property is breaking or cracking. I have had water back up to the street on at least 4 occasions where the water, with nowhere to drain, pours over the curb flooding my front yard as well as cascading down my steps to my front door. The only solution I have for that is to take a large push broom, get into the backed up pond that is Chapel Hill Dr. and push the water down my driveway which then dumps onto an unprotected hillside. This past winter, while checking my fuse box located above where the concrete pipe runs, I felt as if I was stepping on a water balloon which means water is escaping the concrete pipe and pooling
against my home!!
Once I have been able to control the immediate danger to my home I have twice called the City Public Works to tell them about the problem. Twice they eventually came out, checked the drain and brought in the large truck to power clean the pipes down to the service road. The first time I was told I'd be placed on a "problem drain" list but nothing came of it. The last time I was treated like I was trying to steal something from the city.
With the advent of the commercial LPE venture and the projected 1100 cars that will be using our street like we're LPE's private driveway I realized that to mitigate the problem as I do today would literally put me in harms way. Today I can get out in the street and broom water down my driveway with little concern for life and limb because I know there will be very few if any cars on my street and chances are I'd know those driving by and they'd probably offer to lend assistance. When LPE is running, in order to protect myself from physical harm, I will have to block the street, at my driveway, and begin the process of moving water and then wait for city assistance. This of course will put me in the crosshairs of all employees and parents attempting to get to the property as they will be forced to turn around and use the Montecito driveway.
I have spoken to, and emailed, both Angela Alvarez-Cendejas, Assistant Planner for the LPE project and Ginevra Augustine, Engineer Aide for Development Engineering Division (both receiving copies of this email).. Both have kindly responded to my early concerns but neither has offered resolution to the problem aside from: don't close the street, contact the city. This, of course, is not helpful or acceptable because my property will remain in danger of flooding, or worse, sliding down hill.
I would like to resolve this once and for all if the church is to sell to a person with obvious commercial
intent for it's use and with no concern for those of us who live here. I'd like to finally get out from under the burden of moving Chapel Hill Dr. runoff under my property. I am retired and the financial (and physical) impact on my person is becoming untenable.
Please don't approve this project with the numbers of kids, employees and
commercialization of the
neighborhood.
Regards,
Patrick Fitzpatrick
From:
Patrick Fitzpatrick
To:
Clerk
Subject:
LPE Appeal - Conflicts With City of Napa 2040 General Plan Date:
Sunday, May 12, 2024 2:01:54 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Please consider
the
City of Napa 2040 General Plan
goals as the affect the neighborhood around the
proposed LPE development.
GOAL TE-1
: "
Foster a comprehensive network of safe, accessible roads, trails, sidewalks, and pathways that emphasize a Complete Streets approach, while reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and dependence on single occupancy vehicles."
GOAL
TE 2-4
:
As part of streetscape design, incorporate features that enhance safety for all users.
This project fails because it actually makes the neighborhood LESS SAFE. Introducing all of the car trips past Alta Heights School into very quiet, highly pedestrian neighborhoods would destroy the current use of so many people today. There are no sidewalks much less safe sidewalks.
GOAL TE-3
:
Promote active transportation, support active lifestyles, and encourage physical activity by providing safe pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure citywide.
This is how this neighborhood lives today. This project will impact all those who bike and walk East First, Lakeview, Montecito and Chapel Hill. The project even admits that due to the hill climb required to get to 15 Chapel Hill both pedestrian and bike considerations are negligible at best. It will take automobiles driving toward dead end streets as the primary, or sole method of getting to LPE and the Traffic Statement agrees!
Project Impacts on Pedestrian Facilities
"Although the site is near residential development, given the type of proposed use
it is likely that a
minimal number of project patrons and/or employees will walk, bicycle, and/or use transit
to reach
the proposed daycare."
Please don't accept this project as it is. A much much smaller daycare at this site would be much more appropriate.
My name is Patrick Fitzpatrick. I've lived at 18 Chapel Hill for over 30 years and raised 4 children here.
I coached volleyball at Justin Siena, Vintage and Napa High Schools. I coached for Napa Valley Volleyball Club, Napa/Sonoma Volleyball Club, CRUSH Volleyball Club and EVOLVE.
I was Director for both Napa Valley Volleyball Club as well as Napa/Sonoma Volleyball Club.
At the Planning Commission meeting I (and all in opposition to this project) was told that I hate children by employees of Le Petit Elephant. It was horrible for all of us who had to take the abuse from those who have no idea who we, the residents of Alta Heights, are. We have raised our own families with or without daycare; we have coached many teams without pay; we have volunteered at grammar schools, middle schools and high schools for decades without asking for recognition or thanks. We do not deserve to be abused by Millie or her employees for trying to retain what so many of us have built and sacrificed for.
PLEASE! Don't approve this project as it is.
May 14, 2024
Napa City Council
c/o Napa City Clerk
955 School Street
Napa, Ca. 94559
Re: PL-23-0159
Le Petit Elephant
Dear Napa City Council,
This letter is to inform you that as residents living on East Ave. for the past 22 years, we are both
opposed
to the proposed use of the Chapel Hills church as outlined in the use permit application submitted by the Le Petit Elephant Nursery and Child Development Center and approved by the Napa City Planning Commission.
The Use Permit will allow Le Petit unconditional authority to offer the onsite gymnasium/multi-use space for rent for special events, sports activities/training, plays and performances with the possibility of weddings, birthday and other celebratory events. This creates a potential profit center for Le Petit that goes beyond their stated use as an Infant and Nursery Development Center. These activities will add additional burden on the already aged residential sewer and water systems and will develop noise, traffic, parking and safety issues.
It is our understanding that the RS zoning for this residential area would not accommodate such a unrelated commercial use of this property and therefore should not be included in the permit.
We note that the Planning Commission allowed and approved a traffic study for the area that was not representative of typical traffic patterns as one of the larger traffic contributors, Alta Heights School, was not in session. The traffic study was also only performed on a single day and within a limited scope distance from Chapel Hills Drive. This study did not predict future traffic generated by utilizing the church gymnasium as a for rent space. This study should not be relied upon as a factor of use in the determination of a permit.
It should be noted that this project, as requested, will increase traffic in all arteries leading to and from Chapel Hill Drive to include the already congested 5-way intersection (East, Coombsville, Third, Silverado Trail), Montecito Blvd., Lakeville Drive, 1st Street, East First Street, the entire length of East Ave to Lincoln Ave. and several of the streets that intersect with East Ave.
We have concerns regarding emergency access and egress. Montecito Blvd. is the only exit street for the entire neighborhood built upon this hill which overlooks Alta Heights.
This hill was evacuated during
the 2017 Atlas Fire
. Egress from this area in an emergency would be problematic for management of up to 250 very young children and compounded by the evacuation of the existing residents themselves. The road is without sidewalks and narrows with street parking so that only one car could descend at a time.
Whereas we do not discount the need of child care in Napa, the proposed day care facility with the addition of renting out the gymnasium
for events equates to two separate uses and will have an unfavorable effect on the neighborhood.
We therefore request that the scope of the permit be limited to a child day care facility only and that any ancillary use of the church facilities be denied. We further request that the permit be limited to weekdays.
Respectfully,
Tracy Lynne & Kent Parker
From:
Bruce Halverson
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Wednesday, May 15, 2024 8:24:25 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Members of City Council,
My background and career has been in Early Childhood Education and I firmly believe families have an extreme need for quality childcare.
That said, I can not envision the vast impact this Le Petit may have on the Alta Heights neighborhood.
My concerns are listed below:
1. This facility would undoubtedly serve the workers who can transport and afford childcare at this location..
It will
not serve the population of many hospitality, agriculture, etc. workers who are employed throughout the county and have no means to transport a child to this inconvenient neighborhood. WOULD IT NOT CONTINUE TO DIVIDE OUR CITY ON THE BASIS OF RACE, INCOME, AND ACCESSIBILITY?
2. The speed and number
of cars and construction workers already traveling on Montecito is dangerous.
3. Access to the neighborhood during busy hours and emergencies could present danger to many residents. Access to Silverado along the fairgrounds is currently backed up due to set up of Bottlerock.
This, though, is a temporary
traffic difficulty.
4. Plans for hotel construction at First street intersection will add additional traffic concerns.
5. Environmental impact of car emissions, etc. is certainly another major point.
As many have expressed. a consideration of a more typical run preschool of 10 hours daily would certainly be a more positive approach for this well established neighborhood.
Thank you,
Judy Halverson
From:
Robert Heilig
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Appeal of use permit Le Petit Elephant
Date:
Wednesday, May 15, 2024 4:12:02 PM
[EXTERNAL]
May 15, 2024
To: City of Napa Council Members,
I am writing this email regarding the proposed childcare business coming into the church on Chapel Hill Drive.
I am an 87 year old senior citizen who is still able to take walks on the street where I reside.
Unfortunately, there are no sidewalks here, and I must walk in the street.
On my morning and afternoon walks I very seldom see many cars driving on Chapel Hill Dr. but have learned that the city has approved a use permit to allow a large daycare and community center to open at 15 Chapel Hill, which will bring 1000 car trips to this narrow street.
Because of my age and the medication I take daily, my balance is not good, so walking on this very quiet street is the only opportunity I have for exercise and for my mental well-being.
I suffer from rheumatoid arthritis and the walking exercises are very beneficial to my moving joints, as well as the fresh air that I need, which my healthcare providers all recommend.
The Le Petit Elephant childcare center, when opened, will change my walking routine completely.
I will not feel safe walking on my street if this business is allowed to operate here 7 days a week, and I fear that I will become home bound.
The character of this neighborhood will change from a walkable village to an urban jungle and racetrack for hurried parents and staff.
Please repeal the approval of the use permit for my safety.
All the best,
Robert Heilig
Chapel Hill Dr
1230 Pine Street
St.
Helena, CA 94574
707.967.9656
Phone
707.963.0771 Fax
BN 82626259v1
707.200.9414 Direct
May 15, 2024
Mayor
Scott
Sedgley
Email:
[email protected]
Members of the Napa City Council
Liz Alessio
Email:
[email protected]
Beth Painter
Email:
[email protected]
Mary Luros
Email:
[email protected]
Bernie Narvaez
Email:
[email protected]
R
e:
Letter
in
Support
of
Appeal
of
Approval
for
Le
Petit
Elephant
Application No.
PL23
-0159
Dear
Mayor Sedgley
and Members of the Napa City Council:
This letter supports the appeal of the above-
referenced action of the Napa Planning
Commission (the “Planning Commission”), pursuant to s
ection
17.60.090 of the Napa Municipal
Code (“N.M.C.”). We are Katharine Falace and Carissa Beecham, attorneys with Buchalter.
Buchalter represents the Alta Heights Neighborhood Coalition (the “Coalition”), a group of neighbors that own property in Alta Heights. For the reasons provided herein, we request that the City Council of the City of Napa (the “City Council”) grant this appeal, and
overturn the
Planning Commission’s approval of
the Use Permit for Application File No. PL23
-0159 (herein,
“Use Permit”)
. The entire administrative record for this matter is incorporated herein by reference.
The Coalition’s purpose in filing its app
eal is to preserve the safety and integrity of the
Alta Heights community. The Coalition supports the provision of day care services, and agrees
that services in a size and scope
suitable
to the neighborhood
are entirely appropriate. The
Coalition
has no objection to the applicant providing
such
services
, if studied and conditioned
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
2 BN 82626259v1
appropriately, in this new location. Of note, the applicant currently provides day care services
for
128 child
ren in a separate location
(the “Project”)
.
The
Coalition objects to the proposed
Project
because it is out of scale for the neighborhood,
and
in
cludes
improper “
accessory uses
.
”
As set
forth herein, the “youth services” are clearly
not
subordinate to the proposed day
care use
and are
more properly characterized as unrelated commercial activity; in any event, these additional uses
were not properly studied, and should not be included in the Project.
The Planning Commission violated the City’s zoning ordinances and improperly ignored relevant mandates under
the California Environmental Quality Act (“
CEQA
”)
in approving the
Use Permit for the
proposed
Project
. Accordingly, the Council must grant this appeal and
rescind the ap
proval.
A.
Factual Background
Applicant, Milli Pintacs
i, requested a Use
Permit to authorize
a state
-
licensed daycare
facility with up to 250 children and other “youth services ” to be located
within Alta Heights
residential
neighborhood at a building formerl
y used as a church. The appr
oximately 2.6-
acre
site
has been vacant and unused for several years.
The “youth services” proposed as part of the Project include a community playroom and a gymnasium/multi
-use space, which would be available on both weekdays and weekends for various commercial activities, including but not limited to party rentals. The Planning Commission Staff Report describes these “ancillary uses 1 ” as having
very little overlap
with the
daycare facility.
The Coalition agrees.
In fact, the “youth services
2 ” (a use tha
t is wholly
distinct from a day
care)
component is given
no
consideration at all in terms of its impact.
In support of her application for the Use Permit, the applicant submitted a Transportation I
mpact Stu
dy (“TIS”)
, which purports
to evaluate the impacts of the Project
. Even a cursory
review of
the TIS
, however, reveals that
it
provides no such analysis. In fact, the TIS contains
only a single page discussing the purported
Vehicle
-
Miles Traveled (
VMT
)
impacts from the
Project
. (
See
TIS at p. 13.) This cursory
review
discusses
only the daycare component of the
Project
, not the other “youth serv
ices.” The TIS continues to analogize the daycare center to a
1 The Staff Report’s reference to these uses as “ancillary” is confusing. It appears the A
pplicant is arguing the uses
are “accessory,” not “ancillary.” If they are ancillary, there is no definition of same rendering the application ambiguous. If they are intended to be
“accessory,” they do not fit the
definition
of “accessory uses” in the Cit
y’s
own Code and cannot be approved as such.
2 Anniversary parties, retirement parties, sports tournaments, and general public classes
are all the potential uses that
Staff has coined as “youth services.”
The Coalition is further informed that, while not
described in the application,
the Applicant endeavors to serve alcohol at these events. Inarguably , these uses
have nothing to do with the day
care
center. To be sure, these uses will involve
different
cars,
different
people,
different
days,
different
tim
es
, and wholly
different
types of
commercial act
ivity
. None of these considerations were measured by Staff.
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
3 BN 82626259v1
retail
p
roject
, bu
t does not make clear how a daycare
similarly adds “new, more convenient
shopping options, which enable many customers to reduce their trip lengths.” The TIS then reasons that “
there are numerous existing day
care
facilities” and that “many of the
p
roject
trips
would not be newly generated trips but would be the result of people changing day care service
providers.”
The TIS does acknowledge that the Project
will generate approximately 1,038 new
daily trips to the
Project
site, and also provides recommendations to address safety concerns.
Despite this, the TIS inexplicably concludes the
Project
will have no significant impacts
to
traffic
. The TIS contains no discussion of greenhouse gas emissions generated from these additional trips or resulting impacts to air quality.
The Planning Commission
Staff Report (“Staff Report”)
appears to adopt the conclusions
of the TIS, but also recommends certain conditions of approval, including the installation of bicycl
e parking, frontage improvements, including sidewalks, and fair share contribution to fu
ture construction of a roundabout. (Staff Report at p. 12.) The Planning Commission Staff
Report concludes, “
As conditioned
, the
Project
would not result in impacts that would be
detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare of the community and City.” (Staff Report at p.
16.)
Such a
condition
necessarily means the Project is
not
exempt.
B.
Procedural Background
On or about
April 4
, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving a Use Permit for a childcare facility for up to 250 children “and other youth services” to be located at 15 C
hapel Hill Drive and determined
that the actions authorized by the resolution are exempt from CEQA.
The Planning Commission’s resolution approving the
Project
, included the
following, among others, conditions of approval:
34. The Applicant shall provide pedestrian improvements and traffic calming along Montecito Boulevard between the
Project
s
ite and East Avenue. Pedestrian
improvements shall include the construction of a sidewalk along the north side of Montecito Boulevard, extending along the
Project
’s frontage and continuing west of the
Project
Site to connect to the existing sidewalk adjacent to Alta Heights
Elementary
School. Curb adjacent sidewalk consistent with the alternate residential sidewalk section
per City of Napa Standard Drawing S-4 shall be allowed. Final alignment of pedestrian improvements and traffic calming features
shall be subject to review and approval by the
City of Napa Public Works
Director. Any right
-of-
way necessary to complete these
improvements shall be
dedicated to the City of Napa.
35. Public street access points and street corners shall be designed to satisfy the
City of Napa Visibility and Fencing Standard (CON Standards S-25). The sight distance
and visibility triangle lines sh
all be shown on the grading and drainage plans. The
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
4 BN 82626259v1
visibility height limits are measured from the top of the curb of the
fronting street to the
top elevation of the obstruction.
36. The Applicant shall pay a proportionate fair-
share fee, as determined by the
City
Engineer, to the City of Napa for improvements at the intersection of Silverado Trail/Third Street/East Avenue/Coombsville Road to mitigate the addition of
Project
trips
contributing to existing pre-p
roject
Level of Service (LOS)
deficiencies at the
intersection.
On April 15, 2024,
the Coalition timely
appealed
the Planning Commission’s approval.
(N.M.C. §17.70.030.)
C.
Argument
Approval of the
Project
here violates local zoning regulations.
The City is required to
interpret and administer the
zoning ordinance in a reasonable fashion consistent with the public interest of the residents of the city
. This requirement was not met, for all of the reasons set forth herein.
The
Planning Commission also violated
CEQA
in approving the
Project
absent the
necessary environmental review
. The for
emost principle in interpreting CEQA is that the
Legislature intended the act to be read to
afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. ( Cmtys.
for a
Better
Env't
v.
Calif.
Res.
Agency
(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109
.) Here, the Planning Commission did not afford this
protection and instead
shirked its CEQA obligations by improperly determining the Project
was
exempt from such review
.
1. The Project
is inconsistent with zoning regulations.
The
proposed
Project
is located in a
n area designated
Low
-
Density
Residential
General
Plan Designation of the Napa 2040 General Plan and the Single- Family Residential (RS
-10)
Zoning District and Hillside Overlay District (HS).
This designation primarily provides
for the
development of attached and detached single family dwellings. The Planning Commiss ion Staff
Report notes that day
care and residential care facilities are compatible uses that may be
considered, however, it fails to
appreciate
the description of such facilities in the City’s zoning ordinance. Specifically,
permitted d
ay
car
e facilities include family day
care with up to 14
children.
Conditionally
permitted facilities are described as those with 15
+ children and 9 or
more adults. (N.M.C. § 17.08.020.)
While the definition of conditionally permitted facilities does
not pro
vide an
explicit upper limit, a
project
allowing for care of upwards of 250 children, in
addition to various other uses, clearly exceeds the bounds of facilities anticipated in the zoning regulations.
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
5 BN 82626259v1
Pursuant to section 17.08.010, uses allowed in
residential zoning districts must be
“
compatible and desirable land uses within residential neighborhoods.” (N.M.C. §17.08.060(D).) A facility the size of the proposed
Project
is simply not compatible with this
neighborhood.
Furthermore
, the additional “youth services” included in the proposed Project
take it well
outside any reasonable scope for the neighborhood.
The various commercial activities
encompassed, misleadingly, by the term “youth services” are not anticipated in the zoning regulations for the neighborhood. Moreover, t
he Staff Report fails to
discuss
any
of the impacts
of the “youth services” under its Required Findings
3 . Accordingly, there is simply no evidence to
support a finding that these accessory uses are compatible with the zoning regulations.
Section 17.08.020 sets forth the applicable land use regulations for each zoning district.
Therein, accessory uses are permitted only if they are “customarily incidental and clearly
subordinate
to permitted and conditional uses pursuant to Chapter 17.04.”
(N.M.C. §17.08.020.)
Likewise, s
ection 17.06.030 defines an accessory use as “a use, building, structure or both subordinate and incidental to the principal use, building or structure on the same lot.” The
Staff Report does note that such uses must be “customarily incidental and clearly subordinate to” to daycare, however, t
he applicant’s own written narrative illustrates
that community
playroom/gymnasium (or other “youth services”)
are
not
part of
, or accessory
or subordinate to,
the daycare program:
•
An indoor playroom shall be open to the public for parents/caregivers to attend with their child for indoor imaginative play, circle/music/story time, gross and fine motor activities and developmentally appropriate curriculum for ages 0-5 years led by an instructor daily. Available to the Napa community on a per day or monthly membership basis and a separate indoor space than our childcare. It will be open to members who join the indoor playroom program, it will be open weekdays 9am- 12pm and then again 2-5pm.
It is a separate use from the daycare, it will not be
licensed for childcare.
The indoor playroom is offered in lieu of an additional 22 spots for daycare activities.
3 There are no findings as to
how many
events could be held or the
size
of the events that could be held. Without
clear parameters or definitions, it defies credulity to accept that this impact was considered.
As the bullet points
from the Staff Report illustrate, questions regarding these metrics are left unanswered.
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
6 BN 82626259v1
•
A large indoor playroom for birthday parties for ages 0- 5 year
s old year round,
available for the Napa community to book and rent. The playroom would be available for rent on Weekends from 9am – 4p
m.
•
A gym space with a full basketball/volleyball court for youth leagues to utilize throughout the year for practices
outside of the childcare center’s hours of
operation. It will be available for the public to rent outside of childcare hours. It
will be available for rent on Weekdays 5:30pm-8pm and Weekends from 9am-8pm.
We plan to make it available for the needs of y
outh in Napa for sports practices,
tournaments, plays, performances, etc.
The space is also available as rentable
indoor community space for special events for Napa residents to rent for retirement/anniversary/birthday parties, Boy/Girl Scouts meetings, Na pa Moms
Preschool performances, plays/musical recitals/community puppet shows on the fully equipped sates. Occupancy and operations can be limited to a reasonable number.
These uses are not customarily incidental
to a daycare, and the Staff Report recog
niz
es this
stating
there would be “minimal overlap with the day-
to
-
day primary use as a daycare
.
” (Staff
Report at p.3) To be sure, “recreation areas,” “clubs and lodges, including for youth,” and “other public/quasi-public uses of an administrative, educational, religious, cultural, communications, or public service nature, including community care facilities not otherwise listed…” are subject to a conditional use
per
mi
t. (N.M.C. §17.08.020.) Accordingly, the Planning Commission should not have approved
the use permit here
, and this appeal should be granted.
2. The Planning Commission abused its discretion in concluding the Project
was categorically exempt from CEQA.
T
he Planning Commission concluded that the
Project
is exempt from any environmental
review based on CEQA Guidelines
sections
15301, 15302 and 15332. This conclusion is wrong.
Certain “classes of
p
rojects are ‘categorical
ly exempt’ from CEQA
pursuant to
administrative regulation because they do not have a significant effect on the environment.” (
Mountain Lion Foundation
v.
Fish
&
Game
Com.
(1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112–113
;
Pub.
Resources
Code, §§ 21080, subd.
(b)(9)
,
21084, subd.
(a)
.) Categorical exemptions
, however,
are subject to important exceptions based on factors such as location, cumulative impact, or unusual circumstances. (
Cal.
Code
Regs.,
tit.
14, § 15300.2
.)
A categorically exempt
p
roject
, like
a single
-
family residence, loses its exempt status “where the
p
roject
may impact on an
environmental resource of … critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.” ( Cal.
Code
Regs.,
tit.
14, § 15300.2,
subd.
(a)
.) A CEQA exemption
is also inapplicable “when the cumulative impact of successive p
roje
cts of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.” ( Cal.
Code
Regs.,
tit.
14, §
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
7 BN 82626259v1
15300.2, subd.
(b)
.) Nor may a categorical exemption
“be used for an activity where there is a
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances.” (
Cal.
Code
Regs.,
tit.
14, § 15300.2, subd.
(c)
.)
First
, the
City
should decide
whether
a p
roject
is
eligible
for
a
categorical
exemption
as
part
of
its
pr
eliminary
review
of the p
roject
without
reference
to
or
reliance
upon
any
proposed
mitigation
measures.
(
Azusa
Land Reclamation Co.
v.
Main
San Gabriel Basin
Watermaster
(1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1199–1200
.)
Here,
the Planning
Commission
did
propose
mitigation
measures.
To
be
sure,
the Planning
Commission
“recommended
conditions of
approval
such
as
sidewalk
improvements,
and
‘fair
share’
contribution
to
a
future
roundabout
at
the 5-
way
intersection
would
minimize/mitigate
potential
traffic
im
pacts
from
the p
roject
.”
While
titled
“conditions of approval,”
these
requirements
were
clearly
imposed
to
mitigate
p
roject
impacts,
making
them,
in
effect,
mitigation
measures.
This
m
akes
the
Project
ine
ligible
for
any
categorical
exemption
.
Second
, the Planning
Commission
abused
its
discretion
in
determining
the Project
was
categorically exempt from CEQA under the infill exemption set forth
in CEQA
Guidelines
section
15332
. In order for a p
roject
to qualify for the infill exemption, five criteria must be met:
“(a) [t]he
p
roject
[must be] consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations[;] (b) [t]he proposed development occur
s within city limits on a
p
roject
site of no more than five
acres substantially surrounded by urban uses[;] (c) [t]he p roject
site has no value, as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species[;] (d) [a]pproval of the p
roject
[must] not result in any
significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality[; and] [¶] [t]he site [must be able to] be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.” (CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15332.)
The application of CEQA Guidelines section 15332 is not supported by substantial ev
idence in the record.
(
See
United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2023)
93 Cal.App.5th 1074 holding “as a general matter, the public agency bears the burden to demonstrate its exemption determination is supported by substantial evidence.”) The
Community Playroom and Gymnasium
are commercial uses
that
are not consistent
with the
zoning
for the
Project
area
, and so the
Project
does not comply with s
ection 15332(a).
And, as
discussed above, the
Project
will result in significant impacts to traffic and air quality in violation of section 15332(d). (At best, the TIS provides
no evidence
to support a finding of no impacts
and hence the Planning Commission’s determination is an abuse of discretion.)
Application of the
existing facilities
exemption
under section 15301 or the replacement
and reconstruction exemption under section 15302 do not save the approval as the Project
includes numerous
new uses
in addition to the building alterations. For section 15301 to apply,
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
8 BN 82626259v1
the Project would have to involve “negligible or no expansion of the use existing at the time the exemption is granted.” The expanded uses squarely pull this Project away from such an exemption. In addressing this issue,
all
of the uses proposed under the Project must be
considered
. This simply was not done.
T
hird
, the Planning Commission
also improperly analyzed the cumulative impact of the
Project
. Pursuant to
Guidelines section
15300.2
:
(b)
Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive
p
rojects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
(c)
Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an a ctivity where
there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
The
TIS
alone has identified significant effects from the 1000+ additional trips, a circumstance that is independently significant and cumulatively significant with the Alta Heights School. By comparison, the Oxbow Hotel p
roject
recently before the City Council,
p
roject
ed 983
additional trips for the 123-room proposal. In other words, this center will have a grea ter impact
on the traffic than a 125-room hotel on a main thoroughfare.
Moreover, the
TIS
identifies an existing grade
-F, traffic condition at the 5-
way
intersection on Silverado Trail. (
Before and a
fter school, it routinely takes two-
three light
changes
to clear the intersection
4 .) It
p
roject
s the situation can only be meliorated by
implementation of the dual-roundabout proposal that is years away, assuming CalTrans ever approves it. The applicants are expected to pay a “proportionate” share of the cost of the roundabouts, which includes acquiring the necessary rights of way from the neighboring owners.
Other assumptions made by the
TIS
,
such as that most of the trips will be “side trips” of
parents who are working in the City, have no evidentiary support.
Nothing in the
TIS
addresses greenhouse gas emissions. Parents picking up and dropping off children create idling emissions as well as on
-road emissions. The California Emissions
Estimator Model provides the state
-
accepted
means to calculate the emissions but its application
is beyond the ken of ordinary public members. BAAQMD
5 has adopted 660 MT CO2 as the
threshold for a p
roject
of this type. The proponents of the Oxbow Hotel, which generates fewer
4 To illustrate, photograph
taken
during the morning drop
-
off
is
enclosed here
with.
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
9 BN 82626259v1
trips and does not pr
oject
the type of idling emissions, p
roject
ed 827-977 MT CO2, and a
condition of any approval included a requirement of a GHG 6 Reduction Plan to reduce emissions
to that level. No such analysis has been prepared for this Project
but a significant, cumulat
ive
environmental impact cannot be dismissed.
Finally, the City has never complied with
Guideline
s
section
15300.4, which provides:
Each public agency shall, in the course of establishing its own procedures, list those specific activities which fall
within each of the exempt classes, subject to the
qualification that these lists must be consistent with both the letter and the intent expressed in the classes.
(Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15300.4.)
The City has no such list. The Staff Report does not point to any such list. This Project
type would need to be included on the list for the exemption to apply. The purpose of section 15300.4 is to preclude the
ad hoc
determination of exempt activities by discretionary review.
Clearly, such d
etermination was not avoided here.
For all of these reasons, the Planning Commission abused its discretion in applying an exemption and failing to conduct the necessary environmental review before approving the Project
. Thus, the
Project
approval must be rescinded.
3. The Planning Commission abused its discretion in concluding the Project
satisfied emergency access guidelines.
Under CEQA, agencies must analyze “any significant environmental effects the Project
might cause or risk exacerba
ting by bringing development and people into the area affected.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a);
California Bldg. Indus. Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt.
Dist
. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 385.) This includes “any potentially significant direct, indirect, or c
umulative environmental impacts of locating development in areas susceptible to hazardous
conditions (e.g. wildfire risk areas).” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a); see also Clews Land &
Livestock, LLC v. City of San Diego
(2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 193 [recognizing potential for significant environmental effects when p
roject
brings new development to a wildfire-
prone area];
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, §§ IX(g), XX.)
The Project
, by its own description, is adding
numerous people into the neighborhood, including upwards of 1000 vehicle trips per day.
Despite this significant increase, the Planning Commission’s review of the Project
includes no
review of emergency access or evacuation routes.
6 Greenhouse Gases
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Members of the Napa City Council
May 15, 2024
Page
10 BN 82626259v1
Evacuation modeling and analysis should be completed prior to approval of the development. This analysis must include evaluation of the capacity of surrounding roadways and p
roject
impacts on existing evacuation plans.
We are informed the Project
may be seeking
private easements for emergency access. This effort is not descri bed in the use permit application
or reviewing materials, and thus could not be understood by the Planning Commission or public.
Further,
because this Project is in the
(
HS
)
Hillside Overlay District it can be characterized as a
Hazardous Fire Area. Accordingly, the Project should have included the submission of a Fire Hazard Reduction Plan. This failure only highlights the significant prejudice to the public in failing to
perform any environmental review related to approval of this Project
. The
Project
approval must be rescinded unless and until such review is completed.
Be
cause this proposed
Project
conflicts with zoning regulations and is not properly
exempt from environmental review under any categorical exemption, the City Council should grant this appeal and deny approval of the
Project
.
If the City determines to still proceed with the
Project, it must
first
prepare
an adequate initial study, which will indicate
the po
tential
environmental impacts of the
Project
and make clear
the appropriate level of environmental
review. Until then, this
Project
may not proceed. Should the Council choose, however, to uphold the Project approval absent such review, the Coalition is pre pared to pursue all available legal
remedies. We request that
the Coalition
receive notice of any further hearings or review related to the
Project
.
Ve
ry truly yours,
BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
By
Katharine H. Falace
Shareholder
cc:
Sabrina S. Wolfson
Napa Ci
ty Attorn
ey
From:
lisa rubino
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Re: Le Petit Elephant
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 8:20:46 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Council,
My name is Lisa Rubino and I reside at
I wanted to take this opportunity
to share my concerns about the after hours availability for the daycare/school. Before I share my concerns, I do want to go on the record by saying I appreciate the fact that children and families in Napa deserve
a safe and comfortable place to be
during the day. Furthermore,
parents need peace of mind that their children are safe and happy.
I understand and applaud
the reputation and following that Le
Petit Elephant has earned in the community.
With this being said, I have the following concerns about the after hours availability as follows:
1. Safety during an evacuation should a fire or any other emergency occur. And safety is in reference to the children, parents, first responders and residents.
2. Safety for wildlife in the area
3. Bringing a commercial operation into a residential area just doesn’t make sense and is unfair to the property owners who reside in close proximity to the property.
I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns. I look forward to the meeting on May 21.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Rubino.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From:
Elsa Vare
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Alta Heights proposed use at 15 Chappel Hill
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 9:13:26 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Scott Sedgley and city council members,
Please carefully review the concerns of the neighborhood coalition as set forth in the letter prepared by legal counsel.
In particular, there should be no use permitted for 200-250 infants and small children in any facility without a detailed and viable emergency evacuation plan:
How many school buses will be needed?
Where will they come from?
Will drivers be available on a timely basis?
Is there adequate staff to load & transport
children to safety?
How can you realistically keep parents
waiting at the fairgrounds when their
children are in danger?
These are legitimate questions based on
our experience with two evacuations in the last five years with wildfires. They happen fast and spread faster.
Some
neighborhoods are safer than others. Ours
is a high wildfire risk neighborhood with
narrow no-outlet roads…hazardous evacuation for existing residents.
How can babies be safe?
This is a serious Public Safety issue and should be addressed as such by our city government.
Thank you.
Elsa Vare
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Cindy DeLeo
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Concerns Regarding Traffic Congestion and Safety in Montecito Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 10:09:16 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Council Members,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the potential impact of increased traffic in our neighborhood, particularly in light of recent experiences with evacuation procedures and traffic congestion.
As a resident of Montecito, I experienced firsthand the challenges posed by last year's evacuation. The traffic was not only heavy but also disorganized, making it difficult for residents to navigate safely. The prospect of adding 250 more cars, especially parents picking up infants and toddlers, deeply worries me.
As a mother myself, I understand the instinct to prioritize the safety of our children above all else. I cannot imagine waiting at an offsite location while knowing my child is in need of immediate care. The thought of navigating through even heavier traffic to pick up my child is concerning, to say the least.
I urge the City Council to carefully consider the potential consequences of increased traffic in our neighborhood. Measures must be taken to ensure the safety and well-being of all residents, especially children and families. I believe that thoughtful planning and proactive measures can help mitigate the impact of increased traffic and maintain the livability of our community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that you will take our concerns into consideration as you make decisions regarding traffic management and neighborhood safety.
Sincerely,
Cindy Guida DeLeo
Montecito Resident
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Patrick Fitzpatrick
To:
Clerk
Subject:
LPE Appeal - Boxing In Alta Heights Is Recipe for DISASTER Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 10:33:23 AM
[EXTERNAL]
There are a total of 263 homes in the Alta Heights community. All residents living in homes east of East Street must pass over East Street to enter or exit their community. There are three primary streets that serve all of these homes: Clark, E. First and Silverado Trail at the 5-Way intersection. Because most of us live in an area at the base of Montecito Heights we are at faced with the possibility that any wildfire burning in West Solano County, north Napa (2017)
or at the top of Montecito Drive has the possibility of quickly spreading to all neighborhoods at the base of those hills, which is all of Alta Heights.
All residents in Napa Heights, in the event of wildfire as occurred in 2017 when we were all under mandatory evacuation, must all drive to East Street and exit to safety via Clark, E. First or Silverado Trail.
The worst choice is the 5-Way intersection for multiple reasons but in reality it will have to shoulder the brunt of traffic because it's the closest exit for the neighborhoods of all Montecito Blvd., Monte Vista Drive and all smaller roads leading off of those main streets. In addition all of Chapel Hill, Bonita, Julian and Elan Way all must exit on Montecito just above Alta Heights Grammar School.
Today, hundreds of homes, the Grammar school with hundreds of student and teachers are all trying to escape using Montecito Dr. To add yet another obstacle to this evacuation would be inhuman, insane and possibly illegal. LPE is asking to add as many infants to the Mormon Church facility (250) as Alta Heights School currently supports. It's asking to add more employees each day to LPE than Alta Heights School employs. Very very few of these children and employees live in Alta Heights which means all will drive up Montecito Dr. in single vehicle trips to the LPE site.
If LPE is allowed to open the 250 infant, 55 employee daycare there could be more than 500 additional cars trying to escape Alta Heights via Montecito along with the residents of those streets I've mentioned.
It's a recipe for disaster on a scale with the Oakland Hills fire of 1991 and we are begging you to not allow this to occur.
In addition to this what happens when the 5-Way intersection is being converted to roundabouts?? Where does traffic go? E. First?... When
Napa River Resorts
project begins what will happen to all of that First
St. traffic? In essence Alta Heights is being boxed in with two of it's three access points being significantly modified.
It is imperative that a wildfire evacuation study be conducted with LPE project, 5-Way intersection transition to roundabouts and the
Napa River Resorts
project
be included in the comprehensive
evaluation. Something similar is being done for Sonoma by a firm called KLD Associates.
Anything less is beyond comprehension.
Please help us,
Patrick and Chrys Fitzpatrick
A
LAN
C
HARLES
D
ELL
’A
RIO
Post Office Box 359
Napa, California 94559
(707) 666-5351
A
TTORNEY AT
L
AW
C
ERTIFIED
S
PECIALIST
,
A
PPELLATE LAW
S
TATE
B
AR OF
C
ALIFORNIA
,
B
OARD OF
L
EGAL
S
PECIALIZATION
AND
A
MERICAN
I
NSTITUTE OF
A
PPELLATE
P
RACTICE
www.dellario.org - [email protected]
May 16, 2024
Mayor Scott Sedgley and City Council Members
via email
Re: Appeal of Approval for Le Petit Elephant Application No. PL23-0159 Mayor Sedgley and Council members:
As you know, I am a long-time resident of Alta Heights. I am familiar with the site on which Le Petit Elephant proposes to operate its day-care center and unrelated, social activities. I write to add my voice to the well-reasoned letter by Katharine Falace of the Buckhalter attorneys in opposition to the project.
No reasonable person can object to more day care facilities. But, as they say, there is a time and place for everything. This project is not in the right place at the scope proposed. The traffic impact with concomitant idling emission is significant. Emergency access appears to be jeopardized. I cannot see the justification for all of the accessory “youth services.” The element of the approval that troubles me the most is the characterization of the project as “exempt” from CEQA review. As Ms. Falace points out, among other things, the City has never complied with section 15300.4 of the CEQA regulations by creating a list of specific exempt activities. I have called this omission to staff previously in connection with other recent approvals such as the 2022-2023 Oxbow River Stage. Failure to proceed in the manner prescribed by law is an abuse of discretion, mandates court reversal, and exposes the City to the objectors’ attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
I urge the Council to reject this application as proposed. As a taxpayer, I do not wish to see the City embroiled in wasteful litigation it cannot win.
Respectfully,
A. Charles Dell’Ario
2019
California Lawyer
Attorney of the Year
From:
Laura Corthell
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Laura Corthell
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 11:10:56 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council members,
I am a mother of three children and live on upper Montecito. I fully support the need for quality, safe daycare/childcare in Napa and throughout the United States. However, I can’t support the LPE proposed daycare site at 15 Chapel Hill Drive because I believe it is an unsafe location. During the past 6 years we have had 3 wild fires resulting in two evacuations.
The most important criteria for every parent in evaluating daycare/nursery school/elementary school/middle school/high school/even college is the safety of their child. The parents who have enrolled and will enroll their infants/toddlers at LPE are expecting the City of Napa to have done “due diligence” and followed all required procedures, policies and regulations to ensure the location of this daycare center is safe. The City has not done this.
The proposed site of this daycare center is in a US Forest Service area designated as a WUI (wildland-urban interface). That fact in and of itself should direct the Napa City Council to require an EIR before they decide this is an appropriate location for a daycare center responsible for the safety of 250 infants and toddlers.
The evacuation plan cobbled together by LPE doesn’t consider-
1. The amount of time it will take for the NVTA busses to arrive from their bus routes.
2. The traffic conditions on Montecito-including 160 homes/200+cars evacuating down Montecito/Monte Vista or the 200+ cars/parents coming to Alta Heights elementary to pick up their children. The traffic conditions at the 5-way intersection.
3. The narrow, steep, winding streets in Alta Heights possibly being impassable for the busses.
4. Where the busses will park while loading the infants and toddlers, they could possibly block Montecito from ingress and egress of residents and emergency vehicles.
5. Most of the 200 parents who have children at LPE will not wait for the busses to bring their precious infants/toddlers to a safe location- they will drive there to pick them up adding to the traffic/evacuation
chaos…potential disaster.
6. An evacuation route through Tulocay Cemetery into Coombsville doesn’t consider two of the last three fires were in Coombsville and the exit from Coombsville Road is on to the 5-way intersection already a traffic nightmare. (How will the infants and toddlers get across Montecito from the daycare center to Tulocay?)
7. No evacuation procedures have been proposed for the extensive after hours and weekend activities.
If I appear to be a “fear monger” it is based on actual events and facts. At least 7 of my immediate neighbors have had their property insurance non renewed due to the fire potential in our area. Evidently the insurance companies recognize this issue. I ask you, City Council members to consider all these factors and to follow all regulations before approving this daycare center in this location.
I truly hope we/Napa can provide a safer location for our most precious citizens than in a fire zone.
Thank you,
Laura Corthell
From:
Susan Konold
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Gunter Konold
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 11:31:21 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Council Members:
My hope with this letter is that the members of the City Council consider the legitimate concerns and arguments the residents of Alta Heights who are in opposition of the project proposal and 15 Chapel Hill Drive present to you; that you are not influenced and swayed by the
emotion,
theatre
and the tears that occurred at the last Planning Commission meeting. The hope is that you see that the neighborhood of Alta Heights and opponents to the Chapel Hill project are not child- eating monsters and ogres that hate children.
The Alta Heights neighbors who oppose the Chapel Hill project are parents, grandparents, and great grandparents.
We have or had children and we faced childcare challenges 5, 10, 20
and even
30 years ago.
We believe childcare is important. We also believe in responsibility, appropriate use of property, resources and neighborhoods;
the thorough consideration of projected impacts
to
neighborhoods,
the truthful representation of services and presence and we belie ve our city
leaders must lead with ethics and honor.
Supporters of this project state childcare is important and we agree.
We hear there aren’t enough
childcare options in the City of Napa, and we somewhat
agree, though it must be pointed out
,
other
childcare centers in the town report not-full enrollment.
We also respectfully point out that Alta
Heights already has a thriving day care facility near the corner of Montecito and East Drive, less than a quarter mile away from 15 Chapel Hill.
We’ve heard from the Chapel Hill day
care proposal and
ancillary business supporters that the
people of Alta Heights must ‘sacrifice for the greater good’.
To that
we wonder, “who
determines
those who must sacrifice, the level of their sacrifice and what must be sacrificed for that ‘greater good’”? The supporters of the project tell us the entire community as a whole can dictate what goes into our small neighborhood without regard for the opinions and concerns of the locally impacted residents simply because they are taxpayers.
The close examination of the facts of the Chapel Hill day care proposal reveals Ms Pintacsi is not solving the childcare problem in Napa.
Rather, Ms
. Pintacsi is establishing a business; a large
,
loosely-defined,
for-profit commercial entity under the guise of benevolence and of solving the childcare crisis in the city of Napa.
The extra uses beyond childcare that Ms. Pintacsi calls youth
services will
have considerable
impact
to all residents of the Alta Heights community.
The hours for just those ancillary ‘youth services’
are
weekday evenings until 8pm, and weekend mornings through the evening.
The property will be
available to be
rented out
for Scouts meetings, family gatherings and parties, basketball, dance recitals, anniversary, and retirement parties, etc. No potential use data or forecasts
were provided
for these activities.
Finally, and most importantly, these extra and ancillary uses
are not
part of
childcare and they are, therefore, not within the bounds of the current use permit.
The traffic impact studies are wholly inadequate.
There is just no other way to say it
.
The study did
not account for 11 drop off and pick up times throughout the weekday schedule nor did it account for the
additional 1k minimum car trips per
day. The weekday ancillary
activities were not even
included, nor were those for slated for weekends. There would be 13-14 hours of constant flow of cars.
The traffic study also didn’t consider all the streets (not even the most important ones) in the area and
those closest to the church.
These deficiencies alone indicate a new, more appropriate study needs to be conducted before any decision on the Chapel Hill daycare proposal can be appropriately rendered.
The City Planners did not do an appropriate environmental review
which can be construed as the
City violating its own zoning regulations. The Transportation
and Impact Study and the Vehicle Study
submitted by Ms Pintacsi were egregiously inadequate, and yet the planning commission accepted
the findings
.
People are not the only residents in Alta Heights
There is an
active,
vibrant herd of deer. One
doe
gives birth every year in the same
lot adjacent to the proposed day care center
.
I wonder if the doe
and her
fawns are
the
sacrifices others outside our Alta Heights community are asking us
to make
“for the greater good
”?
What if that sacrifice also
includes the people who live up the hill who won’t
be able to escape in the event of another fire because of the limited ingress and
egress clogged with
panicked parents attempting to rescue their children?
Finally,
this proposal presentation of
LPE
being about solving Napa’s childcare deficit is
disingenuous.
Ms
Pintacsi
’s childcare proposal in reality, is focused on establishing a for -profit
community center in
the midst of a serene residential neighborhood that does not even have the infrastructure to accommodate the safety of current daily flow of dog-walking residents and those seeking to “get in their daily steps.”.
Is the city willing to assume the liability this presents when an unfortunate accident occurs that should have been identified in a legitimate traffic study and mitigated?
Susan Konold
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From:
Susan Fagles
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 1:00:48 PM
[EXTERNAL]
May 16, 2024
To:
RE: Le Petit Elephant Appeal
From:
Susan Fagles
Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the scope of the project proposed for 15 Chapel Hill Drive, Napa.
I have lived at
for 33 years.
My daughter went to Alta Heights
Elementary school and attended the local day care on East Avenue.
I am recently
retired and was hoping to be able to enjoy my wonderful, quiet neighborhood.
That
hope ended when the planning commission, with no concern for the neighborhood safety or well being, unanimously approved Le Petite Elephant’s proposal including all ancillary uses.
One of my main concerns is the effect this enormous increase in traffic will have on our ability to use our roads, to leave and return to our homes.
We have a lot of
wildlife on Chapel Hill.
The female deer are in my yard now, trying to find safe places to have their babies.
The proposal is asking for use 7 days a week.
We have no
break from the constant traffic.
We are a community of walkers.
People come to Alta
Heights to walk the streets.
Our safety is compromised with the large amount of
additional traffic.
Will there be sidewalks for the pedestrians?
Install a lane just for
pedestrians?
The fire evacuation is so very concerning.
How can the City of Napa not care about
the chaos and possible deaths that will occur if there is another fire during day care hours?
250 children, most of them cannot walk on their own will trying to get down
Montecito along with the many hundreds of residents.
When approval was given by planning commission, alcohol consumption was not made clear.
They won’t sell it, but will they be allowed to serve it?
Please make it
clear that no alcohol will be sold, served, or consumed on the premises.
I have no objection to another day care facility in my neighborhood.
A facility with
220 infants and small children is very large and industrialized.
To then add after
school care and summer camp, a party room, basket ball practice / league play and an additional unlicensed playroom is such a large and inappropriate project for our residential neighborhood.
Please re-consider the scope of this proposal.
Day care is needed in Napa, I
understand, but not 250 children in one space.
The owner of the day care has been
looking to replace her current lease because she has been evicted.
She now cares
for 130 children.
That is a reasonable number of children to continue looking after.
The ancillary uses of this building have nothing to do with the day care use, are inappropriate and will overwhelm and greatly detract from the safety we enjoy in Alta Heights.
Thank you,
Susan Fagles
From:
James Twomey
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Support to appeal No. PL23-0159
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 1:47:22 PM
[EXTERNAL]
As a resident of Alta Heights who would be adversely affected by the LPE conversion of 15 Chappel Hill Drive into a commercial endeavor of massive proportion, I urge the council to look past all the hyperbole and make a logically, sound, nonpartisan decision regarding this proposition.Besides all the obvious reasons: Traffic congestion and pollution, noise,Fire evacuation issues, general safety of residents and their animals walking with no sidewalks,this commercial adventure of its scope and size will disrupt the daily life of all who live in Alta Heights.LPEs total disregard for any meaningful compromise, open 7 days a week 365 days a year, daily hrs 7:30-8:00 weekdays , 9-8 weekends!is troublesome.I hope the council will consider both sides and reach a compromise that both sides can embrace.Thankyou Jim Twomey, 10 Montecito Blvd Napa
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Linda and Jack Newberry
May 16, 2024
Mayor Scott Sedgley and Napa City Council
955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
RE: Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Dear Napa City Council,
As members of the Alta Heights
Neighborhood Coalition, we wish to add to the thorough
appeal submitted by our lawyers that seeks to reverse Le Petit Elephant’s Use Permit granted by the Napa Planning Commission.
During the Planning Commission meeting on April 4, 2024, the proponents of the LPE project openly opined that the Alta Heights Neighborhood is made up of elderly home owners who dislike children. Their comments were rude and, most importantly, completely inaccurate. As
grandparents ourselves we know of no neighbors who share their opinions. Additionally, their statements completely miss the point of our appeal.
The issue is not how we feel about adorable, joyful children and a potential child care center in our midst, it is about the scope of the LPE project as detailed in our appeal.
We request that our City Council restrict the use permit granted to LPE by the Planning Commission.
With kind regards,
Jack and Linda Newberry
From:
Lynn Harrison
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Appeal of Approval for No. PL23-0159
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 1:51:20 PM
[EXTERNAL]
I’ve lived in Alta Heights (AH) for the past 8 years.
I live on Montecito Blvd. across the street
from the elementary school.
Obviously I am not adverse to children
or childcare for
children.
There is
a shortage and need for such.
However, I very much hope and will fight
for some kind of compromise to the size and scope of this plan.
I am retired and every day I walk up Montecito past Lakeview to enter Pascale thru the Fire Access Rd.
I walk for most of that time in the street.
As you must know we have few
sidewalks.
It’s a beautiful walk I see deer, lots of birds signing and it keeps me feeling strong.
Many in AH have dogs and walk the hills frequently.
For those that work they walk early
morning and late afternoon.
On weekends it’s like
a freeway of folks walking.
I have the liberty to walk when I like.
So I chose those times when the school is in session and traffic is quiet.
I know well the times to avoid.
If this proposal is not appealed we here in AH will see a massive change in the way of life that we have now.
I understand that there are 190 students attending the elementary school.
The LPE will have
250+ children.
That is a massive number with
all that means, in addition the use on weekends
till 9pm is going to cause problems.
There will be accidents no doubt.
I know well how
harried parents rushing to pick up and drop off their children are.
I also don’t think it’s fair that we are being judged for NIMBY (not in my back yard) people, because that is NOT what most of us are saying.
Please give weight to our position. I strongly urge that we find a compromise that we all can live with.
Lynn Harrison
From:
Susan Velani
To:
Scott Sedgley
;
Liz Alessio
;
Mary Luros
;
Beth Painter
;
Bernie Narvaez
;
Clerk
Cc:
Susan Velani
Subject:
Opposition to PL23-0159LPE
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 1:52:00 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley and City Council Members,
I am writing to express my opposition to the establishment of Le Petit Elephant Nursery and Preschool (
PL23-0159LPE
) in the former Latter-day Saints Church in Alta Heights. The
scope
of this proposal clearly extends beyond residential
zoning, lacks compliance with CEQA, and
would create an undue strain on the neighborhood creating significant safety and traffic concerns.
Safety:
As an Alta Heights/Montecito resident whose property borders last year's Coombsville fire, we watched in horror as an entire field and countless oak trees were engulfed in flames within minutes as it quickly approached our home. The ensuing evacuation was chaotic with
traffic backing up our few neighborhood exits. Of course, this took place in July without the added safety risk of the Alta Heights School children and the additional traffic. Another large school/community center would have made the evacuation untenable.
At the
Planning
Commission meeting in April, it was stated that a neighborhood evacuation plan has not been evaluated or established, only a plan for the actual school.
Traffic:
During peak school hours, the Alta Heights traffic is a burden to all of the streets surrounding the school.
Of course, this is very contained to 5 days a week at very specific times and the
neighborhood has become accustomed to managing this challenge. An additional facility that operates up to 7 days a week, into the evenings, and offers event
space
would create an undue traffic burden (1100+ project
trips per day) to this small neighborhood,
especially narrow streets such as Chapel Hill.
The added traffic and events would also
increase noise and add an additional safety concern to the hundreds of daily walkers on our streets with no sidewalks.
Two further points have escalated our concerns in this area. First of all, the "5-way" intersection (currently rated as an "F") will not be upgraded for several years and it may take 2-years of construction as discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting. Since the April planning meeting, plans for a 350 key hotel have been approved on the corner of Silverado Trail and First Ave, which will further add to traffic and the ability for residents to readily enter and exit the neighborhood, especially in the event of an emergency and/or evacuation.
While I fully support additional childcare in the Napa area, it is imperative that identified sites maintain the integrity of a neighborhood and respect the safety of the residents and children who they are striving to serve. I encourage the CIty Council to consider limiting the scope of the proposal
and exploring facilities which were purpose-built for a school, such as Harvest Middle School that remains closed.
Respectfully,
Susan Velani
Ma
y 1
6, 2024
RE: Application Number PL23
-
0159LPE
We are writing to provide our input on the Use Permit application made by Le Petit Elephant
for the use of the Mormon Church property at 15 Chapel Hill Dr.
Our
understanding of the application is that it requests permission for two primary uses:
-
Operation of a preschool for 2
20-
250
children
-
Use of the facility either by the applicant or third parties for an unspecified number of events
We have concerns that these proposed uses would have serious negative impacts on traffic congestion in the neighborhood endangering the safety of the existing residents ,
students and
the
potential children attending day care and others on the property for various events.
We spoke with the Fire Marshall after the Planning Commission Meeting, who
agreed that there
was
a significant risk from fire in the Alta Heights area.
H
e made the following comments:
-
the fire code deals with regulations to evacuate a building; there are no regulations that deal with the evacuation of a neighborhood
-
the zoning is out of date (i
.
e. not being zoned as WULI) and is probably going to change (possibly at the state level) but for now it offers no basis for restriction
-
he is aware of the red lining designations for our neighborhood done by the insurance companies and has in fact faced the same thing where he lives, so he is empathetic .
The fact that there have been significant environmental changes in our area
due to
climate
change has greatly increased fire risk; an environmental impact report should be required.
Safety of residents and children should be the paramount concern.
Given the lack of regulations the City Council should develop a comprehensive evacuation plan for the neighborhood including additional evacuation routes, measures to deal with congest ed
intersections
etc.
While it is a clear benefit to have the Alta Heights Elementary School in our neighborhood to serve the children of the neighborhood, placing a second school right next to an existing school
is clearly bad
planning
and not done elsewhere for that reason.
The only effort made by the planning commissioners was to have LPE close on red flag warning days but this was not made a requirement of the use permit so safety was not considered a priority.
Traffic Congestion
Since Chapel Hill Drive is a loop, both ends of which feed into Montecito Blvd, all of the traffic generated by these proposed uses would impact access and egress by residents who regularly use Montecito Blvd.
Montecito Blvd is a winding, relatively narrow two
-
lane road with limited capacity, no sidewalks
and limited ways of getting in and out.
In addition, Alta Heights School is located at the terminus of Montecito Blvd a t
East Avenue.
School children being dropped off or picked up either on Montecito Blvd or on First Street, already create
s
a great deal of congestion.
The five
-
way intersection where East Avenue meets Silverado trail is another major point of congestion for
residents and parents of Alta Heights school children. The construction of roundabouts scheduled for 2025 for this intersection will heavily exacerbate traffic needing to access Montecito Blvd and Alta Heights.
In addition, the intersection of First Street and Silverado Trail will be strongly impacted, both during construction and operation, by the hotel project to be located there, further limiting access/egress and creating more congestion.
The traffic study prepared as part of the application for this project is seriously flawed. The study was apparently conducted on a day when school was not in session.
The conclusions are
unsupported by the data.
It concludes, without support, that there would be “no significant impact” from this project. However, the study pointed out:
1)This project would result in a 250% increase in vehicle trips!
2)Two of the intersections mentioned above
have dangerous collision rates.
Because of this and for the reasons indicated above, we and other residents of the area who use these streets on a regular basis, reach the conclusion that there would be a very significant impact in normal times
, severe congestion during construction
and potentially dangerous impact
during a fire or other emergency requiring first responders and/or evacuation.
S
afety
Large areas of Alta Heights represent an urban oak woodlands interface. Unfortunately, in today’s world that means fire is a serious threat. Many of Alta Heights and Montecito residents live with the fear for their safety from the threat of fire. Much of the property in this area is red lined by insurance companies who will no longer offer coverage, an indication that this is not a problem that will go away anytime soon. The evacuation routes are limited. The few potential evacuation routes are already impacted by the congestion from existing uses
mentioned above.
The need to evacuate existing residents and Alta Heights school children already make s
the job
of first responders challenging.
Limiting access to emergency vehicles would greatly increase the risk to this area of the
c
ity.
We have advocated the need for and supported early childhood development and services for children in thi
s community for more than 25
years.
Having been involved with the Boys & Girls
Club of
Napa Valley and active
in the funding and construction of the American Canyon
clubhouse and upgrading the Napa clubhouse, we have been committed and active in providing facilities, in
the right i
.
e. safe and accessible
locations, for the children of our community.
We would like to offer a few additional thoughts that we feel weigh against this project.
-
An afterschool program already exists at Alta Heights School to serve kids in this area without the need for bussing.
NVUSD and the Boys & Girls Club have partnered to
greatly expand after school programs throughout the district.
-
This is not a beauty contest. A parade of proponents who state that LPE is an excellent childcare provider is irrelevant. Just as it would be if those opposed provided statements
to the contrary. The choice of childcare providers is made by t he parents.
We have
spoken to parents on both sides. If a parent does not feel that the childcare facility is right for their child they ca
n and should choose another
.
Testimony on either side is
irrelevant and distracts from the issue at hand
-
SAFETY
-
a
nd the need for a
neighborhood
evacuation plan.
-
In spite of project developers’ claims to the contrary, in the 7 years Applicant states to have been looking, there are indeed other
sites
that would be better located to serve
Napa families without threat of danger to their children.
Napa Pipe, for example, would
welcome a child care facility, especially with a $7 million budget and would be a suitable location.
-
The population of our community is in a long
-
term trend of declining school and
preschool age children. This is clear from the need to close schools
and the decline in
birth rate as was documented in the recent (March29, 2024) article in the NV Register.
The most recent
U.S. C
ensus showed a decrease of 2000 children in the under 5 age population from 8
,
131 in 2010 to 6
,1
39 in 2020. This trend is clearly correlated with the
affordability of housing for families with younger children.
Affordable housing of some
kind on this site would be a better use and would address the root cause.
-
Child care
is best provided in
facilities on a small or medium sized scale. Th
e
large
scale of this
project
(250) is inappropriate for the neighborhood and not in the best interests of the
children or
community.
-
The project application requests use for an
unspecified number of events on weekends.
There is really no justification for the use of the Chapel Hill facility as an events space given the negative impact on the neighborhood.
We hope you will take our input and concerns into account and make a negative determination on this project.
Signed
Peter & Kathleen Stoppello
From:
Laura Meister
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 4:03:28 PM
[EXTERNAL]
City Council,
As a 73-year Alta Heights resident, I am concerned about the safety of my neighbors, students of Alta Heights Elementary, and potential children of an LPE daycare.
·
Montecito Avenue is
not
the only street that will be impacted by an
additional 1,000+ vehicle trips per weekday.
Chapel Hill, Julian, Bonita,
Lakeview, First, East Avenue, Lincoln, Silverado Trail, and several connecting streets north of East First will, no doubt, see traffic increases during drop off and pick up at Alta Heights Elementary and the proposed day care center.
We already deal with inconsiderate and
unsafe drivers; U-turns, blocked driveways, parking in blue, red and white zones, rolling through stop signs, jumping lights at the 5-way intersection, etc.
We very rarely see police presence to deter unsafe
drivers.
·
Only one side of East Avenue has a continuous sidewalk from Silverado Trail to Lincoln, and it took decades for that to happen.
The only
sidewalk on Montecito is directly in front of AH School.
There aren’t any
continuous sidewalks along the streets east of East Avenue!
Only a few
streets adjacent to AH school have marked crosswalks.
Neighborhood
residents and children trying to walk to AH school or the day care center would be even more at risk with the increased traffic.
·
To my knowledge, there has been no demonstrated plan for safely evacuating all Alta Heights residents, elementary school children, 200+ daycare children, and workers
entirely away from the
area
during the
next wildfire.
I read LPE’s plan to get children out of their building but
not off the property.
In the past, residents were given 30-40 minutes to
evacuate.
That isn’t enough time to get LPE’s “special buses”
into
the
area, let alone load up 200+ children and drive to safety.
At a minimum,
any proposal of LPE’s magnitude at the Chapel Hill location must include a real or computer-generated demonstration of what a full emergency evacuation would require in real time and the level of city support services that would be needed.
·
How is it even possible for a business responsible for the safety of hundreds of children in a high-risk fire zone with restricted access, to acquire adequate liability insurance?
Potential LPE parents need to be asking these and so many other questions before they consider placing their children in such a risky situation.
Laura Meister
From:
Thai Pham
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Approve the Appeal of Le Petit Elephant
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 4:21:38 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Thai Pham
City of Napa Council
Re:
Appeal Use Permit Application PL23-0159 Le Petit Elephant
Dear City Council:
I am writing to request you grant the appeal presented by the Alta Heights Neighborhood Coalition and deny the use permit request for Le Petit Elephant.
In meeting with LPE and Councilmember Mary Luros on Monday May 13 th
, a member of
the LPE team stated the revenue generated from non-daycare ancillary uses are required to make this operation financially viable.
This validates why this location is not
appropriate for this business to seek this use permit as a daycare.
It is also not the
responsibility of the City to bend zoning laws in order for a private enterprise “make their numbers work”.
The City would be remiss in its zoning regulations if it were to approve these commercial uses in a residential zone. This use permit is a Trojan Horse fronting as a benevolent daycare, while the true commercial intention becomes more clear each day.
One of the greatest things about this Alta Heights community is the ability to walk its streets and have impromptu conversations with neighbors without the fear of being struck by a vehicle.
By increasing the vehicle trips in the neighborhood by 1,000+ a day, you will diminish this sense of safety and security.
I ask that you vote to preserve the safety and character of the Alta Heights Community and DENY all ancillary uses (including fundraising events which serve alcohol), limiting hours to weekdays only, excluding evenings, and reducing the scope of the daycare
operation.
Thank you,
Thai Pham
Stephanie Hahn and Kevin McElroy
May 16, 2024
Re: Letter of support to uphold appeal of Alta Heights Neighborhood Coalition and DENY use permit for Le Petit Elephant File No. PL23
-
0159)
Dear City Council,
We are writing to respectfully request that you approve the appeal submitted by Alta Heights Neighborhood Coalition and
DENY
Le Petit Elephant’s use permit in its current form for the property 15 Chapel Hill Drive (File No. PL23
-
0159).
We recognize and a
gree that accessible and affordable daycare is important in Napa. What is concerning is the size of the daycare and extensive hours of the proposed business, something which is far greater than
any
neighborhood could support. It drifts well away from the i ntent of
the current zoning in size and scope. In what way are ticketed events and event center space for rent considered appropriate for a neighborhood? This is NOT a daycare. It is an event and recreation center under the guise of daycare and has not bee n completely or appropriately
reviewed for impact.
The size of the
daycare alone
should require further analysis into the impacts to Alta Heights and the surrounding neighborhoods. The project lacks a full impact study and needs a more robust assessment.
It is not a like/as use infill and therefore not exempt from CEQA. As such, we request that the City complete the due diligence required for this type of proposal. Specific areas that we feel have been overlooked and need to be addressed are:
Event Cente
r Uses
−
There is no definition or limit on the number of people around the ancillary events and activities. Without clear limits on the ancillary activities, how can the total impact be evaluated? Without defined scope, one cannot calculate what the real i mpact is. How
could this have been calculated based on the current proposal with open ended scope.
Anything not within the childcare permit MUST be removed.
−
RS10 is not zoned for events, parties, public rental. All of the event center/ancillary uses that a
re being proposed are of a ticketed or rental nature and not under the childcare license. They are unrelated activities that are thus not incidental and secondary to the childcare use and must be removed.
−
Planning Commission stated the no alcohol could be
sold on premise. There should be NO
alcohol on property at all and it must be prohibited at all times. If this is truly a childcare and focused on children, alcohol has no place on the property.
Traffic/Environmental Impact
The traffic study is flawed. I
t is vague and incomplete, reaching conclusions that are not logical or supported.
−
While the study notes “local” nowhere does it define local or provide support or have insight to where the trips to the site are coming from.
−
Assumptions made by the study
such as that most of the trips will be “side trips” of parents who are working in the City have no evidentiary support.
−
Traffic Study does not consider the cumulative/aggregate impact to the surrounding areas and neighborhood. It does not address greenho
use gas emissions.
−
Off
-
peak use impact is not accounted for and does not take into account the aggregate impact of traffic over the course of seven days, into and out of the neighborhood. Traffic that does not currently exist in the neighborhood and under
the previous use of the
Church.
−
Chapel Hill and Montecito (where I live) will bear significant daily and cumulative impact from the project. Nowhere in the traffic study are these streets addressed nor is impact to the streets adjacent to and surrounding
the site.
−
The “GOAL TE
-
3”
–
“Promote active transportation, support active lifestyles, and encourage physical activity by providing safe pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure citywide.” Is completely being ignored. This project is the creates the opposit e
–
hazardous
conditions for a neighborhood that is very active, by driving in over 1,000 additional vehicle trips per day driven by the childcare ALONE!
−
The neighborhood lacks sidewalks and has narrow roads with blind corners and little separation between vehicle and pedestrian. The fact that the applicant is being asked to/required to put in sidewalks in a section on Montecito further highlights the inapp
ropriateness of the project in this location. It is an admission that alterations must be made and further study should be done.
I would ask you, if a project like this was being put in your neighborhood, with childcare alone
generating an average of two
more cars per minute down your street, for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening
–
not including the myriad of additional uses being
proposed
-
would you not also ask that due diligence be done with regard to traffic, environmental impact,
and neighborhood safety
,
and
that
the scope be reduced to be in line
with a residential neighborhood
?
Again, I respectfully request that City Council to
approve the appeal
submitted by Alta Heights
Neighborhood Coalition
and
DENY
Le Petit Elephant’s
use permit in its current form.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Si
ncerely,
Stephanie Hahn and Kevin McElroy
From:
Steve Heilig
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Appeal of Use Permit Application PL23-0159 Le Petit Elephant Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 5:42:46 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley and Council Members Alessio, Luros, Narvaez and Painter I am a resident of Chapel Hill Dr, adjacent to the proposed daycare center at 15 Chapel Hill. I am writing to request you support the appeal of the use permit request for Le Petit Elephant and overturn the Planning Commission’s approval.
I understand the need for quality affordable daycare in Napa, and I am not opposed to having a reasonably sized daycare open on our quiet street. What I am opposed to, is all the undefined and unregulated social activities that are planned at the site that are not related to the daycare business. The commercialization of the site does not align with the current residential zoning for this use permit.
The Planning Commission was remiss in approving all of these non daycare related business, and this is an opportunity for City Council to correct that error to avoid future legal jeopardy.
I am the caretaker for my 87-year-old father, and he currently utilizes our street to get exercise to maintain his health and well-being. I am concerned that the proposed daycare and community center business will generate an additional 1100 car trips on our street, and his safety will be in jeopardy, as our street does not have any sidewalks. He will be forced to remain inside, where he will not get the exercise he needs. I’m also a senior citizen who regularly walks and jogs on the streets in Alta Heights, and these additional car trips are a concern for my safety as well.
The applicant’s written proposal of running a business in this location that would operate 7 days a week, until 9 p.m. should not be allowed in a residential area. While I understand Napa needs more daycare, there is a state mandate to add more housing. This location would be better served if it were converted into housing.
Thank you,
Stephen Heilig
From:
Lach Reed
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 6:13:29 PM
[EXTERNAL]
I wish to add my voice in objection to the proposal that Le Petit elephant day care center is located at the Mormon Church site in Alta Heights; the safety and traffic issues that will be created far outweigh the Lachlan Reed
Joan and Michael Conversano
May 16, 2024
Mayor Scott Sedgley and Members of the Napa City Council
955 School St
Napa CA 94559
RE: Appeal of the Approval for Le Petit Elephant Application No. PL23 -
0159
Dear
Mayor Sedgley and Members of the Napa City Council,
We are writing to request that you deny the permit approval for Le Petit Elephant /LPE
that was
approved by the Napa Planning Commission
referenced above.
We are both full
-
time working
parents and we had our children in daycare when they were younger.
So,
we
are not against
child
ren or childcare
in our neighborhood, however the scope of this project was not properly vetted by the planning commission.
It needs further review
for consideration.
•
Infrastructure
-
15 Chapel Hill operated as a church since it was built back in the 1950s.
Again, hosting people only on Sunday and a smaller number from the congregation on Wednesdays. There were some weddings held there, but never r ented to the outside
community. This is a neighborhood with an infrastructure built starting in the 1940s.
We are now looking at adding 250 children for the daycare, 50 staff and an undetermined number of events to be held in the evenings and all day on the weekend.
We are concerned about the road and sewage capacity increase that will be demanded of this additional use. If 20 homes were built on this site, with an average of 5 occupants that would only be an additional 100 persons. This new use as app roved is
adding 300 (children and staff) plus an undetermined number of people at events for the additional time. There is easily the potential to double the number each week with additional events.
•
Traffic Study
-
The traffic study
identifies that an additional 1038 vehicles will utilize the roads in Alta Heights as a result of the 250 children approved for the daycare , plus 50
staff.
It attempts to justify that since these cars are already on the road and headed to a destination
,
that it is not relevant where that destination is. It compares the trip to
the daycare to be similar to that of a shopping center
.
The three main roads into Alta
Heights are Silverado Trail, First St and Clark. Silverado Trail is already
an intersection
rate “F”, the worst possible rating, due to the length of time it takes to pass through the intersection and for the number of accidents. This is before introducing these additional cars. For those families that would enter from Clark, they will need to
take East Ave to
the daycare and either travel up First St and around Lakeview or navigate the already congested traffic
up Montecito Blvd
by Alta Heights Elementary/AHE. East Ave already
has a problem with speeding and cars that want to bypass the light s at First St. and
Silverado Trail and Clark.
We
have witnessed in
our
20 +
years living in Alta Heights
these cars speeding along East Ave to do this bypass. There is nothing to slow these “cut through” vehicles as they reach speeds of 35
miles per hour
to travel along East Ave
from Silverado
Trail
to where East Ave exits again at Silverado Trail.
The addition of
250
families that will be added to East Ave as a result of the daycare approval
will only add
to this
dangerous traffic issue
and add more tra
ffic to an already overburdened street.
The other issue with the Traffic Study is that it
does not
address any of the vehicle traffic
that would result from the ancillary uses approved by the Planning Commission. These ancillary uses are all the
non
-
dayc
are
uses that LPE is planning to offer to the Napa
community. The uses are
described as
the rental of the facility for clubs, birthday
parties, sports etc. The approval was granted with no clear definition as to how many people would attend these events
and what type of vehicle traffic it would create.
Without any information about the
exact
number of events, it would be impossible for
the traffic study to say that it analyzed these additional uses. Therefore, this means that there would be a greater number of vehicle trips entering Alta Heights than the 1000+ that it states.
•
CEQA
-
Environme
ntal Impact
-
The Planning Commission states that since this is an
existing structure in the neighborhood that it is exempt from an environmental review.
However,
the previous use of this building was far different than how it would be used by LPE. The ch
urch met
only
on Sundays and in the evenings on Wednesday. There
were on average 150
-
200 persons on the property at one time and they would not have all traveled in their own individual vehicles, since families typically attend church together and arrive
in 1
-
2 cars.
So,
they are not like uses
.
Also, the Planning
Commission recommended that there be the addition of sidewalks, bike racks etc. as mitigation for the traffic and if there is mitigation then a Use Permit cannot be exempt from CEQA.
In concl
usion, we feel this project needs further review to approve.
Regards,
Joan and Michael Conversano
From:
Elsa Vare
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Alta Heights proposed use at 15 Chappel Hill
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 9:13:26 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Scott Sedgley and city council members,
Please carefully review the concerns of the neighborhood coalition as set forth in the letter prepared by legal counsel.
In particular, there should be no use permitted for 200-250 infants and small children in any facility without a detailed and viable emergency evacuation plan:
How many school buses will be needed?
Where will they come from?
Will drivers be available on a timely basis?
Is there adequate staff to load & transport
children to safety?
How can you realistically keep parents
waiting at the fairgrounds when their
children are in danger?
These are legitimate questions based on
our experience with two evacuations in the last five years with wildfires. They happen fast and spread faster.
Some
neighborhoods are safer than others. Ours
is a high wildfire risk neighborhood with
narrow no-outlet roads…hazardous evacuation for existing residents.
How can babies be safe?
This is a serious Public Safety issue and should be addressed as such by our city government.
Thank you.
Elsa Vare
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Cindy DeLeo
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Concerns Regarding Traffic Congestion and Safety in Montecito Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 10:09:16 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Council Members,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the potential impact of increased traffic in our neighborhood, particularly in light of recent experiences with evacuation procedures and traffic congestion.
As a resident of Montecito, I experienced firsthand the challenges posed by last year's evacuation. The traffic was not only heavy but also disorganized, making it difficult for residents to navigate safely. The prospect of adding 250 more cars, especially parents picking up infants and toddlers, deeply worries me.
As a mother myself, I understand the instinct to prioritize the safety of our children above all else. I cannot imagine waiting at an offsite location while knowing my child is in need of immediate care. The thought of navigating through even heavier traffic to pick up my child is concerning, to say the least.
I urge the City Council to carefully consider the potential consequences of increased traffic in our neighborhood. Measures must be taken to ensure the safety and well-being of all residents, especially children and families. I believe that thoughtful planning and proactive measures can help mitigate the impact of increased traffic and maintain the livability of our community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that you will take our concerns into consideration as you make decisions regarding traffic management and neighborhood safety.
Sincerely,
Cindy Guida DeLeo
Montecito Resident
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Patrick Fitzpatrick
To:
Clerk
Subject:
LPE Appeal - Boxing In Alta Heights Is Recipe for DISASTER Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 10:33:23 AM
[EXTERNAL]
There are a total of 263 homes in the Alta Heights community. All residents living in homes east of East Street must pass over East Street to enter or exit their community. There are three primary streets that serve all of these homes: Clark, E. First and Silverado Trail at the 5-Way intersection. Because most of us live in an area at the base of Montecito Heights we are at faced with the possibility that any wildfire burning in West Solano County, north Napa (2017)
or at the top of Montecito Drive has the possibility of quickly spreading to all neighborhoods at the base of those hills, which is all of Alta Heights.
All residents in Napa Heights, in the event of wildfire as occurred in 2017 when we were all under mandatory evacuation, must all drive to East Street and exit to safety via Clark, E. First or Silverado Trail.
The worst choice is the 5-Way intersection for multiple reasons but in reality it will have to shoulder the brunt of traffic because it's the closest exit for the neighborhoods of all Montecito Blvd., Monte Vista Drive and all smaller roads leading off of those main streets. In addition all of Chapel Hill, Bonita, Julian and Elan Way all must exit on Montecito just above Alta Heights Grammar School.
Today, hundreds of homes, the Grammar school with hundreds of student and teachers are all trying to escape using Montecito Dr. To add yet another obstacle to this evacuation would be inhuman, insane and possibly illegal. LPE is asking to add as many infants to the Mormon Church facility (250) as Alta Heights School currently supports. It's asking to add more employees each day to LPE than Alta Heights School employs. Very very few of these children and employees live in Alta Heights which means all will drive up Montecito Dr. in single vehicle trips to the LPE site.
If LPE is allowed to open the 250 infant, 55 employee daycare there could be more than 500 additional cars trying to escape Alta Heights via Montecito along with the residents of those streets I've mentioned.
It's a recipe for disaster on a scale with the Oakland Hills fire of 1991 and we are begging you to not allow this to occur.
In addition to this what happens when the 5-Way intersection is being converted to roundabouts?? Where does traffic go? E. First?... When
Napa River Resorts
project begins what will happen to all of that First
St. traffic? In essence Alta Heights is being boxed in with two of it's three access points being significantly modified.
It is imperative that a wildfire evacuation study be conducted with LPE project, 5-Way intersection transition to roundabouts and the
Napa River Resorts
project
be included in the comprehensive
evaluation. Something similar is being done for Sonoma by a firm called KLD Associates.
Anything less is beyond comprehension.
Please help us,
Patrick and Chrys Fitzpatrick
A
LAN
C
HARLES
D
ELL
’A
RIO
Post Office Box 359
Napa, California 94559
(707) 666-5351
A
TTORNEY AT
L
AW
C
ERTIFIED
S
PECIALIST
,
A
PPELLATE LAW
S
TATE
B
AR OF
C
ALIFORNIA
,
B
OARD OF
L
EGAL
S
PECIALIZATION
AND
A
MERICAN
I
NSTITUTE OF
A
PPELLATE
P
RACTICE
www.dellario.org - [email protected]
May 16, 2024
Mayor Scott Sedgley and City Council Members
via email
Re: Appeal of Approval for Le Petit Elephant Application No. PL23-0159 Mayor Sedgley and Council members:
As you know, I am a long-time resident of Alta Heights. I am familiar with the site on which Le Petit Elephant proposes to operate its day-care center and unrelated, social activities. I write to add my voice to the well-reasoned letter by Katharine Falace of the Buckhalter attorneys in opposition to the project.
No reasonable person can object to more day care facilities. But, as they say, there is a time and place for everything. This project is not in the right place at the scope proposed. The traffic impact with concomitant idling emission is significant. Emergency access appears to be jeopardized. I cannot see the justification for all of the accessory “youth services.” The element of the approval that troubles me the most is the characterization of the project as “exempt” from CEQA review. As Ms. Falace points out, among other things, the City has never complied with section 15300.4 of the CEQA regulations by creating a list of specific exempt activities. I have called this omission to staff previously in connection with other recent approvals such as the 2022-2023 Oxbow River Stage. Failure to proceed in the manner prescribed by law is an abuse of discretion, mandates court reversal, and exposes the City to the objectors’ attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
I urge the Council to reject this application as proposed. As a taxpayer, I do not wish to see the City embroiled in wasteful litigation it cannot win.
Respectfully,
A. Charles Dell’Ario
2019
California Lawyer
Attorney of the Year
From:
Laura Corthell
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Laura Corthell
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 11:10:56 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council members,
I am a mother of three children and live on upper Montecito. I fully support the need for quality, safe daycare/childcare in Napa and throughout the United States. However, I can’t support the LPE proposed daycare site at 15 Chapel Hill Drive because I believe it is an unsafe location. During the past 6 years we have had 3 wild fires resulting in two evacuations.
The most important criteria for every parent in evaluating daycare/nursery school/elementary school/middle school/high school/even college is the safety of their child. The parents who have enrolled and will enroll their infants/toddlers at LPE are expecting the City of Napa to have done “due diligence” and followed all required procedures, policies and regulations to ensure the location of this daycare center is safe. The City has not done this.
The proposed site of this daycare center is in a US Forest Service area designated as a WUI (wildland-urban interface). That fact in and of itself should direct the Napa City Council to require an EIR before they decide this is an appropriate location for a daycare center responsible for the safety of 250 infants and toddlers.
The evacuation plan cobbled together by LPE doesn’t consider-
1. The amount of time it will take for the NVTA busses to arrive from their bus routes.
2. The traffic conditions on Montecito-including 160 homes/200+cars evacuating down Montecito/Monte Vista or the 200+ cars/parents coming to Alta Heights elementary to pick up their children. The traffic conditions at the 5-way intersection.
3. The narrow, steep, winding streets in Alta Heights possibly being impassable for the busses.
4. Where the busses will park while loading the infants and toddlers, they could possibly block Montecito from ingress and egress of residents and emergency vehicles.
5. Most of the 200 parents who have children at LPE will not wait for the busses to bring their precious infants/toddlers to a safe location- they will drive there to pick them up adding to the traffic/evacuation
chaos…potential disaster.
6. An evacuation route through Tulocay Cemetery into Coombsville doesn’t consider two of the last three fires were in Coombsville and the exit from Coombsville Road is on to the 5-way intersection already a traffic nightmare. (How will the infants and toddlers get across Montecito from the daycare center to Tulocay?)
7. No evacuation procedures have been proposed for the extensive after hours and weekend activities.
If I appear to be a “fear monger” it is based on actual events and facts. At least 7 of my immediate neighbors have had their property insurance non renewed due to the fire potential in our area. Evidently the insurance companies recognize this issue. I ask you, City Council members to consider all these factors and to follow all regulations before approving this daycare center in this location.
I truly hope we/Napa can provide a safer location for our most precious citizens than in a fire zone.
Thank you,
Laura Corthell
From:
Susan Konold
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Gunter Konold
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 11:31:21 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Council Members:
My hope with this letter is that the members of the City Council consider the legitimate concerns and arguments the residents of Alta Heights who are in opposition of the project proposal and 15 Chapel Hill Drive present to you; that you are not influenced and swayed by the
emotion,
theatre
and the tears that occurred at the last Planning Commission meeting. The hope is that you see that the neighborhood of Alta Heights and opponents to the Chapel Hill project are not child- eating monsters and ogres that hate children.
The Alta Heights neighbors who oppose the Chapel Hill project are parents, grandparents, and great grandparents.
We have or had children and we faced childcare challenges 5, 10, 20
and even
30 years ago.
We believe childcare is important. We also believe in responsibility, appropriate use of property, resources and neighborhoods;
the thorough consideration of projected impacts
to
neighborhoods,
the truthful representation of services and presence and we believe our city leaders must lead with ethics and honor.
Supporters of this project state childcare is important and we agree.
We hear there aren’t enough
childcare options in the City of Napa, and we somewhat
agree, though it must be pointed out
,
other
childcare centers in the town report not-full enrollment.
We also respectfully point out that Alta
Heights already has a thriving day care facility near the corner of Montecito and East Drive, less than a quarter mile away from 15 Chapel Hill.
We’ve heard from the Chapel Hill day
care proposal and
ancillary business supporters that the
people of Alta Heights must ‘sacrifice for the greater good’.
To that
we wonder, “who
determines
those who must sacrifice, the level of their sacrifice and what must be sacrificed for that ‘greater good’”? The supporters of the project tell us the entire community as a whole can dictate what goes into our small neighborhood without regard for the opinions and concerns of the locally impacted residents simply because they are taxpayers.
The close examination of the facts of the Chapel Hill day care proposal reveals Ms Pintacsi is not solving the childcare problem in Napa.
Rather, Ms. Pintacsi is establishing a business; a large, loosely-defined,
for-profit commercial entity under the guise of benevolence and of solving the childcare crisis in the city of Napa.
The extra uses beyond childcare that Ms. Pintacsi calls youth
services will
have considerable
impact
to all residents of the Alta Heights community.
The hours for just those ancillary ‘youth services’
are
weekday evenings until 8pm, and weekend mornings through the evening.
The property will be
available to be
rented out
for Scouts meetings, family gatherings and parties, basketball, dance recitals, anniversary, and retirement parties, etc. No potential use data or forecasts
were provided
for these activities.
Finally, and most importantly, these extra and ancillary uses
are not
part of
childcare and they are, therefore, not within the bounds of the current use permit.
The traffic impact studies are wholly inadequate.
There is just no other way to say it.
The study did
not account for 11 drop off and pick up times throughout the weekday schedule nor did it account for the
additional 1k minimum car trips per
day. The weekday ancillary
activities were not even
included, nor were those for slated for weekends. There would be 13-14 hours of constant flow of cars.
The traffic study also didn’t consider all the streets (not even the most important ones) in the area and
those closest to the church.
These deficiencies alone indicate a new, more appropriate study needs to be conducted before any decision on the Chapel Hill daycare proposal can be appropriately rendered.
The City Planners did not do an appropriate environmental review
which can be construed as the
City violating its own zoning regulations. The Transportation
and Impact Study and the Vehicle Study
submitted by Ms Pintacsi were egregiously inadequate, and yet the planning commission accepted
the findings
.
People are not the only residents in Alta Heights
There is an
active,
vibrant herd of deer. One
doe
gives birth every year in the same
lot adjacent to the proposed day care center
.
I wonder if the doe
and her
fawns are
the
sacrifices others outside our Alta Heights community are asking us
to make
“for the greater good”?
What if that sacrifice also
includes the people who live up the hill who won’t
be able to escape in the event of another fire because of the limited ingress and
egress clogged with
panicked parents attempting to rescue their children?
Finally,
this proposal presentation of
LPE
being about solving Napa’s childcare deficit is
disingenuous.
Ms
Pintacsi’s childcare proposal in reality, is focused on establishing a for-profit community center in
the midst of a serene residential neighborhood that does not even have the infrastructure to accommodate the safety of current daily flow of dog-walking residents and those seeking to “get in their daily steps.”.
Is the city willing to assume the liability this presents when an unfortunate accident occurs that should have been identified in a legitimate traffic study and mitigated?
Susan Konold
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From:
Susan Fagles
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 1:00:48 PM
[EXTERNAL]
May 16, 2024
To:
RE: Le Petit Elephant Appeal
From:
Susan Fagles
Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the scope of the project proposed for 15 Chapel Hill Drive, Napa.
I have lived at
for 33 years.
My daughter went to Alta Heights
Elementary school and attended the local day care on East Avenue.
I am recently
retired and was hoping to be able to enjoy my wonderful, quiet neighborhood.
That
hope ended when the planning commission, with no concern for the neighborhood safety or well being, unanimously approved Le Petite Elephant’s proposal including all ancillary uses.
One of my main concerns is the effect this enormous increase in traffic will have on our ability to use our roads, to leave and return to our homes.
We have a lot of
wildlife on Chapel Hill.
The female deer are in my yard now, trying to find safe places to have their babies.
The proposal is asking for use 7 days a week.
We have no
break from the constant traffic.
We are a community of walkers.
People come to Alta
Heights to walk the streets.
Our safety is compromised with the large amount of
additional traffic.
Will there be sidewalks for the pedestrians?
Install a lane just for
pedestrians?
The fire evacuation is so very concerning.
How can the City of Napa not care about
the chaos and possible deaths that will occur if there is another fire during day care hours?
250 children, most of them cannot walk on their own will trying to get down
Montecito along with the many hundreds of residents.
When approval was given by planning commission, alcohol consumption was not made clear.
They won’t sell it, but will they be allowed to serve it?
Please make it
clear that no alcohol will be sold, served, or consumed on the premises.
I have no objection to another day care facility in my neighborhood.
A facility with
220 infants and small children is very large and industrialized.
To then add after
school care and summer camp, a party room, basket ball practice / league play and an additional unlicensed playroom is such a large and inappropriate project for our residential neighborhood.
Please re-consider the scope of this proposal.
Day care is needed in Napa, I
understand, but not 250 children in one space.
The owner of the day care has been
looking to replace her current lease because she has been evicted.
She now cares
for 130 children.
That is a reasonable number of children to continue looking after.
The ancillary uses of this building have nothing to do with the day care use, are inappropriate and will overwhelm and greatly detract from the safety we enjoy in Alta Heights.
Thank you,
Susan Fagles
From:
James Twomey
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Support to appeal No. PL23-0159
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 1:47:22 PM
[EXTERNAL]
As a resident of Alta Heights who would be adversely affected by the LPE conversion of 15 Chappel Hill Drive into a commercial endeavor of massive proportion, I urge the council to look past all the hyperbole and make a logically, sound, nonpartisan decision regarding this proposition.Besides all the obvious reasons: Traffic congestion and pollution, noise,Fire evacuation issues, general safety of residents and their animals walking with no sidewalks,this commercial adventure of its scope and size will disrupt the daily life of all who live in Alta Heights.LPEs total disregard for any meaningful compromise, open 7 days a week 365 days a year, daily hrs 7:30-8:00 weekdays , 9-8 weekends!is troublesome.I hope the council will consider both sides and reach a compromise that both sides can embrace.Thankyou Jim Twomey,
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Linda and Jack Newberry
May 16, 2024
Mayor Scott Sedgley and Napa City Council
955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
RE: Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Dear Napa City Council,
As members of the Alta Heights
Neighborhood Coalition, we wish to add to the thorough
appeal submitted by our lawyers that seeks to reverse Le Petit Elephant’s Use Permit granted by the Napa Planning Commission.
During the Planning Commission meeting on April 4, 2024, the proponents of the LPE project openly opined that the Alta Heights Neighborhood is made up of elderly home owners who dislike children. Their comments were rude and, most importantly, completely inaccurate. As grandparents ourselves we know of no neighbors who share their opinions. Additionally, their statements completely miss the point of our appeal.
The issue is not how we feel about adorable, joyful children and a potential child care center in our midst, it is about the scope of the LPE project as detailed in our appeal.
We request that our City Council restrict the use permit granted to LPE by the Planning Commission.
With kind regards,
Jack and Linda Newberry
From:
Lynn Harrison
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Appeal of Approval for No. PL23-0159
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 1:51:20 PM
[EXTERNAL]
I’ve lived in Alta Heights (AH) for the past 8 years.
I live on Montecito Blvd. across the street
from the elementary school.
Obviously I am not adverse to children
or childcare for
children.
There is
a shortage and need for such.
However, I very much hope and will fight
for some kind of compromise to the size and scope of this plan.
I am retired and every day I walk up Montecito past Lakeview to enter Pascale thru the Fire Access Rd.
I walk for most of that time in the street.
As you must know we have few
sidewalks.
It’s a beautiful walk I see deer, lots of birds signing and it keeps me feeling strong.
Many in AH have dogs and walk the hills frequently.
For those that work they walk early
morning and late afternoon.
On weekends it’s like
a freeway of folks walking.
I have the liberty to walk when I like.
So I chose those times when the school is in session and traffic is quiet.
I know well the times to avoid.
If this proposal is not appealed we here in AH will see a massive change in the way of life that we have now.
I understand that there are 190 students attending the elementary school.
The LPE will have
250+ children.
That is a massive number with
all that means, in addition the use on weekends
till 9pm is going to cause problems.
There will be accidents no doubt.
I know well how
harried parents rushing to pick up and drop off their children are.
I also don’t think it’s fair that we are being judged for NIMBY (not in my back yard) people, because that is NOT what most of us are saying.
Please give weight to our position. I strongly urge that we find a compromise that we all can live with.
Lynn Harrison
From:
Susan Velani
To:
Scott Sedgley
;
Liz Alessio
;
Mary Luros
;
Beth Painter
;
Bernie Narvaez
;
Clerk
Cc:
Susan Velani
Subject:
Opposition to PL23-0159LPE
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 1:52:00 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley and City Council Members,
I am writing to express my opposition to the establishment of Le Petit Elephant Nursery and Preschool (
PL23-0159LPE
) in the former Latter-day Saints Church in Alta Heights. The
scope
of this proposal clearly extends beyond residential
zoning, lacks compliance with CEQA, and
would create an undue strain on the neighborhood creating significant safety and traffic concerns.
Safety:
As an Alta Heights/Montecito resident whose property borders last year's Coombsville fire, we watched in horror as an entire field and countless oak trees were engulfed in flames within minutes as it quickly approached our home. The ensuing evacuation was chaotic with
traffic backing up our few neighborhood exits. Of course, this took place in July without the added safety risk of the Alta Heights School children and the additional traffic. Another large school/community center would have made the evacuation untenable.
At the
Planning
Commission meeting in April, it was stated that a neighborhood evacuation plan has not been evaluated or established, only a plan for the actual school.
Traffic:
During peak school hours, the Alta Heights traffic is a burden to all of the streets surrounding the school.
Of course, this is very contained to 5 days a week at very specific times and the
neighborhood has become accustomed to managing this challenge. An additional facility that operates up to 7 days a week, into the evenings, and offers event
space
would create an undue traffic burden (1100+ project
trips per day) to this small neighborhood,
especially narrow streets such as Chapel Hill.
The added traffic and events would also
increase noise and add an additional safety concern to the hundreds of daily walkers on our streets with no sidewalks.
Two further points have escalated our concerns in this area. First of all, the "5-way" intersection (currently rated as an "F") will not be upgraded for several years and it may take 2-years of construction as discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting. Since the April planning meeting, plans for a 350 key hotel have been approved on the corner of Silverado Trail and First Ave, which will further add to traffic and the ability for residents to readily enter and exit the neighborhood, especially in the event of an emergency and/or evacuation.
While I fully support additional childcare in the Napa area, it is imperative that identified sites maintain the integrity of a neighborhood and respect the safety of the residents and children who they are striving to serve. I encourage the CIty Council to consider limiting the scope of the proposal
and exploring facilities which were purpose-built for a school, such as Harvest Middle School that remains closed.
Respectfully,
Susan Velani
Ma
y 1
6, 2024
RE: Application Number PL23
-
0159LP
E
We are writing to provide our input on the Use Permit application made by Le Petit Elephant
for the use of the Mormon Church property at 15 Chapel Hill Dr.
Our
understanding of the application is that it requests permission for two primary uses:
-
Operation of a preschool for 2
20-
250
children
-
Use of the facility either by the applicant or third parties for an unspecified number of events
We have concerns that these proposed uses would have serious negative impacts on traffic congestion in the neighborhood endangering the safety of the existing residents ,
students and
the
potential children attending day care and others on the property for various events.
We spoke with the Fire Marshall after the Planning Commission Meeting, who
agreed that there
was
a significant risk from fire in the Alta Heights area.
H
e made the following comments:
-
the fire code deals with regulations to evacuate a building; there are no regulations that deal with the evacuation of a neighborhood
-
the zoning is out of date (i
.
e. not being zoned as WULI) and is probably going to change (possibly at the state level) but for now it offers no basis for restriction
-
he is aware of the red lining designations for our neighborhood done by the insurance companies and has in fact faced the same thing where he lives, so he is empathetic .
The fact that there have been significant environmental changes in our area
due to
climate
change has greatly increased fire risk; an environmental impact report should be required.
Safety of residents and children should be the paramount concern.
Given the lack of regulations the City Council should develop a comprehensive evacuation plan for the neighborhood including additional evacuation routes, measures to deal with congest ed
intersections
etc.
While it is a clear benefit to have the Alta Heights Elementary School in our neighborhood to s
erve the children of the neighborhood, placing a second school right next to an existing school
is clearly bad
planning
and not done elsewhere for that reason.
The only effort made by the planning commissioners was to have LPE close on red flag warning days but this was not made a requirement of the use permit so safety was not considered a priority.
Traffic Congestion
Since Chapel Hill Drive is a loop, both ends of which feed into Montecito Blvd, all of the traffic generated by these proposed uses would impact access and egress by residents who regularly use Montecito Blvd.
Montecito Blvd is a winding, relatively narrow two
-
lane road with limited capacity, no sidewalks
and limited ways of getting in and out.
In addition, Alta Heights School is located at the terminus of Montecito Blvd a t
East Avenue.
School children being dropped off or picked up either on Montecito Blvd or on First Street, already create
s
a great deal of congestion.
The five
-
way intersection where East Avenue meets Silverado trail is another major point of congestion for
residents and parents of Alta Heights school children. The construction of roundabouts scheduled for 2025 for this intersection will heavily exacerbate traffic needing to access Montecito Blvd and Alta Heights.
In addition, the intersection of First Street and Silverado Trail will be strongly impacted, both during construction and operation, by the hotel project to be located there, further limiting access/egress and creating more congestion.
The traffic study prepared as part of the application for this project is seriously flawed. The study was apparently conducted on a day when school was not in session.
The conclusions are
unsupported by the data. It concludes, without support, that there would be “no significant impact” from this project. However, the study pointed out:
1)This project would result in a 250% increase in vehicle trips!
2)Two of the intersections mentioned above have dangerous collision rates.
Because of this and for the reasons indicated above, we and other residents of the area who use these streets on a regular basis, reach the conclusion that there would be a very significant impact in normal times, severe congestion during construction
and potentially dangerous impact
during a fire or other emergency requiring first responders and/or evacuation.
S
afety
Large areas of Alta Heights represent an urban oak woodlands interface. Unfortunately, in today’s world that means fire is a serious threat. Many of Alta Heights and Montecito residents live with the fear for their safety from the threat of fire. Much of the property in this area is red lined by insurance companies who will no longer offer coverage, an indication that this is not a problem that will go away anytime soon. The evacuation routes are limited. The few potential evacuation routes are already impacted by the congestion from existing uses mentioned above.
The need to evacuate existing residents and Alta Heights school children already make s
the job
of first responders challenging.
Limiting access to emergency vehicles would greatly increase the risk to this area of the
c
ity.
We have advocated the need for and supported early childhood development and services for children in this community for more than 25
years.
Having been involved with the Boys & Girls
Club of Napa Valley and active
in the funding and construction of the American Canyon
clubhouse and upgrading the Napa clubhouse, we have been committed and active in providing facilities, in
the right i
.
e. safe and accessible
locations, for the children of our community.
We would like to offer a few additional thoughts that we feel weigh against this project.
-
An afterschool program already exists at Alta Heights School to serve kids in this area without the need for bussing.
NVUSD and the Boys & Girls Club have partnered to
greatly expand after school programs throughout the district.
-
This is not a beauty contest. A parade of proponents who state that LPE is an excellent childcare provider is irrelevant. Just as it would be if those opposed provided statements
to the contrary. The choice of childcare providers is made by the parents.
We have
spoken to parents on both sides. If a parent does not feel that the childcare facility is right for their child they can and should choose another .
Testimony on either side is
irrelevant and distracts from the issue at hand
-
SAFETY
- a
nd the need for a
neighborhood
evacuation plan.
-
In spite of project developers’ claims to the contrary, in the 7 years Applicant states to have been looking, there are indeed other
sites
that would be better located to serve
Napa families without threat of danger to their children.
Napa Pipe, for example, would
welcome a child care facility, especially with a $7 million budget and would be a suitable location.
-
The population of our community is in a long
-
term trend of declining school and
preschool age children. This is clear from the need to close schools
and the decline in
birth rate as was documented in the recent (March29, 2024) article in the NV Register.
The most recent
U.S. C
ensus showed a decrease of 2000 children in the under 5 age population from 8
,
131 in 2010 to 6
,1
39 in 2020. This trend is clearly correlated with the
affordability of housing for families with younger children.
Affordable housing of some
kind on this site would be a better use and would address the root cause.
-
Child care is best provided in facilities on a small or medium sized scale. Th e
large
scale of this
project
(250) is inappropriate for the neighborhood and not in the best interests of the
children or
community.
-
The project application requests use for an unspecified number of events on weekends.
There is really no justification for the use of the Chapel Hill facility as an events space given the negative impact on the neighborhood.
We hope you will take our input and concerns into account and make a negative determination on this project.
Signed
Peter & Kathleen Stoppello
From:
Laura Meister
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 4:03:28 PM
[EXTERNAL]
City Council,
As a 73-year Alta Heights resident, I am concerned about the safety of my neighbors, students of Alta Heights Elementary, and potential children of an LPE daycare.
·
Montecito Avenue is not
the only street that will be impacted by an
additional 1,000+ vehicle trips per weekday.
Chapel Hill, Julian, Bonita,
Lakeview, First, East Avenue, Lincoln, Silverado Trail, and several connecting streets north of East First will, no doubt, see traffic increases during drop off and pick up at Alta Heights Elementary and the proposed day care center.
We already deal with inconsiderate and
unsafe drivers; U-turns, blocked driveways, parking in blue, red and white zones, rolling through stop signs, jumping lights at the 5-way intersection, etc.
We very rarely see police presence to deter unsafe
drivers.
·
Only one side of East Avenue has a continuous sidewalk from Silverado Trail to Lincoln, and it took decades for that to happen.
The only
sidewalk on Montecito is directly in front of AH School.
There aren’t any
continuous sidewalks along the streets east of East Avenue!
Only a few
streets adjacent to AH school have marked crosswalks.
Neighborhood
residents and children trying to walk to AH school or the day care center would be even more at risk with the increased traffic.
·
To my knowledge, there has been no demonstrated plan for safely evacuating all Alta Heights residents, elementary school children, 200+ daycare children, and workers
entirely away from the
area
during the
next wildfire.
I read LPE’s plan to get children out of their building but
not off the property.
In the past, residents were given 30-40 minutes to
evacuate.
That isn’t enough time to get LPE’s “special buses”
into
the
area, let alone load up 200+ children and drive to safety.
At a minimum,
any proposal of LPE’s magnitude at the Chapel Hill location must include a real or computer-generated demonstration of what a full emergency evacuation would require in real time and the level of city support services that would be needed.
·
How is it even possible for a business responsible for the safety of hundreds of children in a high-risk fire zone with restricted access, to acquire adequate liability insurance?
Potential LPE parents need to be asking these and so many other questions before they consider placing their children in such a risky situation.
Laura Meister
From:
Thai Pham
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Approve the Appeal of Le Petit Elephant
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 4:21:38 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Thai Pham
City of Napa Council
Re:
Appeal Use Permit Application PL23-0159 Le Petit Elephant
Dear City Council:
I am writing to request you grant the appeal presented by the Alta Heights Neighborhood Coalition and deny the use permit request for Le Petit Elephant.
In meeting with LPE and Councilmember Mary Luros on Monday May 13 th
, a member of
the LPE team stated the revenue generated from non-daycare ancillary uses are required to make this operation financially viable.
This validates why this location is not
appropriate for this business to seek this use permit as a daycare.
It is also not the
responsibility of the City to bend zoning laws in order for a private enterprise “make their numbers work”.
The City would be remiss in its zoning regulations if it were to approve these commercial uses in a residential zone. This use permit is a Trojan Horse fronting as a benevolent daycare, while the true commercial intention becomes more clear each day.
One of the greatest things about this Alta Heights community is the ability to walk its streets and have impromptu conversations with neighbors without the fear of being struck by a vehicle.
By increasing the vehicle trips in the neighborhood by 1,000+ a day, you will diminish this sense of safety and security.
I ask that you vote to preserve the safety and character of the Alta Heights Community and DENY all ancillary uses (including fundraising events which serve alcohol), limiting hours to weekdays only, excluding evenings, and reducing the scope of the daycare
operation.
Thank you,
Thai Pham
Stephanie Hahn and Kevin McElroy
May 16, 2024
Re: Letter of support to uphold appeal of Alta Heights Neighborhood Coalition and DENY use permit for Le Petit Elephant File No. PL23
-
0159)
Dear City Council,
We are writing to respectfully request that you approve the appeal submitted by Alta Heights Neighborhood Coalition and
DENY
Le Petit Elephant’s use permit in its current form for the property 15 Chapel Hill Drive (File No. PL23
-
0159).
We recognize and agree that accessible and affordable daycare is important in Napa. What is concerning is the size of the daycare and extensive hours of the proposed business, something which is far greater than
any
neighborhood could support. It drifts well away from the intent of the current zoning in size and scope. In what way are ticketed events and event center space for rent considered appropriate for a neighborhood? This is NOT a daycare. It is an event and recreation center under the guise of daycare and has not bee n completely or appropriately
reviewed for impact.
The size of the
daycare alone
should require further analysis into the impacts to Alta Heights and the surrounding neighborhoods. The project lacks a full impact study and needs a more robust assessment.
It is not a like/as use infill and therefore not exempt from CEQA. As such, we request that the City complete the due diligence required for this type of proposal. Specific areas that we feel have been overlooked and need to be addressed are:
Event Cente
r Uses
−
There is no definition or limit on the number of people around the ancillary events and activities. Without clear limits on the ancillary activities, how can the total impact be evaluated? Without defined scope, one cannot calculate what the real impact is. How could this have been calculated based on the current proposal with open ended scope.
Anything not within the childcare permit MUST be removed.
−
RS10 is not zoned for events, parties, public rental. All of the event center/ancillary uses that are being proposed are of a ticketed or rental nature and not under the childcare license. They are unrelated activities that are thus not incidental and secondary to the childcare use and must be removed.
−
Planning Commission stated the no alcohol could be sold on premise. There should be NO alcohol on property at all and it must be prohibited at all times. If this is truly a childcare and focused on children, alcohol has no place on the property.
Traffic/Environmental Impact
The traffic study is flawed. I
t is vague and incomplete, reaching conclusions that are not logical or supported.
−
While the study notes “local” nowhere does it define local or provide support or have insight to where the trips to the site are coming from.
−
Assumptions made by the study
such as that most of the trips will be “side trips” of parents who are working in the City have no evidentiary support.
−
Traffic Study does not consider the cumulative/aggregate impact to the surrounding areas and neighborhood. It does not address greenho
use gas emissions.
−
Off
-
peak use impact is not accounted for and does not take into account the aggregate impact of traffic over the course of seven days, into and out of the neighborhood. Traffic that does not currently exist in the neighborhood and under
the previous use of the
Church.
−
Chapel Hill and Montecito (where I live) will bear significant daily and cumulative impact from the project. Nowhere in the traffic study are these streets addressed nor is impact to the streets adjacent to and surrounding
the site.
−
The “GOAL TE
-
3”
–
“Promote active transportation, support active lifestyles, and encourage physical activity by providing safe pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure citywide.” Is completely being ignored. This project is the creates the opposit e
– hazardous
conditions for a neighborhood that is very active, by driving in over 1,000 additional vehicle trips per day driven by the childcare ALONE!
−
The neighborhood lacks sidewalks and has narrow roads with blind corners and little separation between vehicle and pedestrian. The fact that the applicant is being asked to/required to put in sidewalks in a section on Montecito further highlights the inapp
ropriateness of the project in this location. It is an admission that alterations must be made and further study should be done.
I would ask you, if a project like this was being put in your neighborhood, with childcare alone
generating an average of two
more cars per minute down your street, for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening
–
not including the myriad of additional uses being
proposed -
would you not also ask that due diligence be done with regard to traffic, environmental impact,
and neighborhood safety
, and that
the scope be reduced to be in line
with a residential neighborhood
?
Again, I respectfully request that City Council to
approve the appeal
submitted by Alta Heights
Neighborhood Coalition
and
DENY
Le Petit Elephant’s
use permit in its current form.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Si
ncerely,
Stephanie Hahn and Kevin McElroy
From:
Steve Heilig
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Appeal of Use Permit Application PL23-0159 Le Petit Elephant Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 5:42:46 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley and Council Members Alessio, Luros, Narvaez and Painter I am a resident of Chapel Hill Dr, adjacent to the proposed daycare center at 15 Chapel Hill. I am writing to request you support the appeal of the use permit request for Le Petit Elephant and overturn the Planning Commission’s approval.
I understand the need for quality affordable daycare in Napa, and I am not opposed to having a reasonably sized daycare open on our quiet street. What I am opposed to, is all the undefined and unregulated social activities that are planned at the site that are not related to the daycare business. The commercialization of the site does not align with the current residential zoning for this use permit.
The Planning Commission was remiss in approving all of these non daycare related business, and this is an opportunity for City Council to correct that error to avoid future legal jeopardy.
I am the caretaker for my 87-year-old father, and he currently utilizes our street to get exercise to maintain his health and well-being. I am concerned that the proposed daycare and community center business will generate an additional 1100 car trips on our street, and his safety will be in jeopardy, as our street does not have any sidewalks. He will be forced to remain inside, where he will not get the exercise he needs. I’m also a senior citizen who regularly walks and jogs on the streets in Alta Heights, and these additional car trips are a concern for my safety as well.
The applicant’s written proposal of running a business in this location that would operate 7 days a week, until 9 p.m. should not be allowed in a residential area. While I understand Napa needs more daycare, there is a state mandate to add more housing. This location would be better served if it were converted into housing.
Thank you,
Stephen Heilig
From:
Lach Reed
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 6:13:29 PM
[EXTERNAL]
I wish to add my voice in objection to the proposal that Le Petit elephant day care center is located at the Mormon Church site in Alta Heights; the safety and traffic issues that will be created far outweigh the Lachlan Reed
Joan and Michael Conversano
May 16, 2024
Mayor Scott Sedgley and Members of the Napa City Council
955 School St
Napa CA 94559
RE: Appeal of the Approval for Le Petit Elephant Application No. PL23 -
0159
Dear
Mayor Sedgley and Members of the Napa City Council,
We are writing to request that you deny the permit approval for Le Petit Elephant /LPE
that was
approved by the Napa Planning Commission
referenced above.
We are both full
-
time working
parents and we had our children in daycare when they were younger.
So,
we
are not against
child
ren or childcare
in our neighborhood, however the scope of this project was not properly vetted by the planning commission.
It needs further review
for consideration.
•
Infrastructure
-
15 Chapel Hill operated as a church since it was built back in the 1950s.
Again, hosting people only on Sunday and a smaller number from the congregation on Wednesdays. There were some weddings held there, but never r ented to the outside
community. This is a neighborhood with an infrastructure built starting in the 1940s.
We are now looking at adding 250 children for the daycare, 50 staff and an undetermined number of events to be held in the evenings and all day on the weekend.
We are concerned about the road and sewage capacity increase that will be demanded of this additional use. If 20 homes were built on this site, with an average of 5 occupants that would only be an additional 100 persons. This new use as app roved is
adding 300 (children and staff) plus an undetermined number of people at events for the additional time. There is easily the potential to double the number each week with additional events.
•
Traffic Study
-
The traffic study
identifies that an additional 1038 vehicles will utilize the roads in Alta Heights as a result of the 250 children approved for the daycare , plus 50
staff.
It attempts to justify that since these cars are already on the road and headed to a destination
,
that it is not relevant where that destination is. It compares the trip to
the daycare to be similar to that of a shopping center
.
The three main roads into Alta
Heights are Silverado Trail, First St and Clark. Silverado Trail is already
an intersection
rate “F”, the worst possible rating, due to the length of time it takes to pass through the intersection and for the number of accidents. This is before introducing these additional cars. For those families that would enter from Clark, they will need to
take East Ave to
the daycare and either travel up First St and around Lakeview or navigate the already congested traffic
up Montecito Blvd
by Alta Heights Elementary/AHE. East Ave already
has a problem with speeding and cars that want to bypass the light s at First St. and
Silverado Trail and Clark.
We
have witnessed in
our
20 +
years living in Alta Heights
these cars speeding along East Ave to do this bypass. There is nothing to slow these “cut through” vehicles as they reach speeds of 35
miles per hour
to travel along East Ave
from Silverado
Trail
to where East Ave exits again at Silverado Trail.
The addition of
250
families that will be added to East Ave as a result of the daycare approval
will only add
to this
dangerous traffic issue
and add more tra
ffic to an already overburdened street.
The other issue with the Traffic Study is that it
does not
address any of the vehicle traffic
that would result from the ancillary uses approved by the Planning Commission. These ancillary uses are all the
non
-
dayc
are
uses that LPE is planning to offer to the Napa
community. The uses are
described as
the rental of the facility for clubs, birthday
parties, sports etc. The approval was granted with no clear definition as to how many people would attend these events
and what type of vehicle traffic it would create.
Without any information about the
exact
number of events, it would be impossible for
the traffic study to say that it analyzed these additional uses. Therefore, this means that there would be a greater number of vehicle trips entering Alta Heights than the 1000+ that it states.
•
CEQA
-
Environme
ntal Impact
-
The Planning Commission states that since this is an
existing structure in the neighborhood that it is exempt from an environmental review.
However,
the previous use of this building was far different than how it would be used by LPE. The ch
urch met
only
on Sundays and in the evenings on Wednesday. There
were on average 150
-
200 persons on the property at one time and they would not have all traveled in their own individual vehicles, since families typically attend church together and arrive
in 1
-
2 cars.
So,
they are not like uses
.
Also, the Planning
Commission recommended that there be the addition of sidewalks, bike racks etc. as mitigation for the traffic and if there is mitigation then a Use Permit cannot be exempt from CEQA.
In concl
usion, we feel this project needs further review to approve.
Regards,
Joan and Michael Conversano
From:
tim williams
To:
Clerk
Subject:
La Petit Day Care
Date:
Friday, May 17, 2024 2:07:10 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Alta Heights is a residential neighborhood that does not need or want a for profit, 7 days a week business. We already have have 3 daycares and an elementary school in the immediate area. This proposed business does not belong in a neighborhood church.
Sent from my iPhone
From:
tim williams
To:
Clerk
Subject:
La Petit daycare
Date:
Friday, May 17, 2024 4:01:24 PM
[EXTERNAL]
To the Mayor and members of the City Council, Alta Heights is a residential neighborhood in a area that already has 3 daycare and a elementary school it is not a area that needs nor wants a 7day a week for profit business that will greatly impact the residential community. Thank you, I hope you can see through this .
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Beth Painter
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Fwd: Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Sunday, May 19, 2024 3:22:05 PM
Sent from Beth Painter's IPad
Begin forwarded message:
From:
robin-ellison
Date:
May 19, 2024 at 12:47:41
PM PDT
To:
Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>, Mary Luros
<[email protected]>, Liz Alessio <[email protected]>, Beth Painter <[email protected]>, Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]> Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor and City Council,
We have been told from the start and repeatedly, by the LPE business owner and the Planning Commission, that the Alta Heights church is the only suitable location available to her in Napa. There is a childcare crisis and without this only location, there would be no options. She will not be able to stay at her present location on Laurel. This is what was said. Of course, it never made sense. How could that be, no other place in Napa, especially when Ms. Pintacsi could operate two smaller centers instead of one colossal one?
Then last night I read a Napa Register article from summer, June 15, 2023, “Napa County boosts child care funding.”
And there it was:
“Le Petit Elephant is to receive two forgivable loans. One for $450,000 will allow it to remain at its Laurel Street location in the city of Napa. The landlord wants the center’s current building for another use, so Pintacsi plans to renovate another building at the same site for child care. That will preserve 128 child care spots.
Without funds, she would have to close operation or find new space to move into, she said.
“Le Petit Elephant is also to receive a $750,000 loan to renovate an office building on California Boulevard at the city of Napa roundabouts. That will allow it to expand the operation and offer 70 new child care spots, 30 for infants.”
So, she received grants for two separate locations-- one at the present LPE site-- but apparently decided that Alta Heights was her dream location and she would combine the two grants. She literally presented herself to City as the long-
awaited solution to their problem and the City decided to facilitate this plan, with lack of transparency.
I want to note that we have been subjected to LPE’s relentless campaign against the residents of Alta Heights. It was evidenced at the Planning Commission hearing and has been promulgated further on social media. One LPE parent writing days ago that AH falsely claim traffic and safety concerns because they would be too embarrassed to state the real reasons for not wanting the childcare (racism, elitism, child-hating).
This is truly vile stuff, all originating with Ms.
Pintacsi.
What is being done by the City to its Alta Heights citizens is wrong. I urge you to overturn approval of this project as is.
Robin Ellison
From:
tim williams
To:
Clerk
Subject:
La Petit Day Care
Date:
Friday, May 17, 2024 2:07:10 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Alta Heights is a residential neighborhood that does not need or want a for profit, 7 days a week business. We already have have 3 daycares and an elementary school in the immediate area. This proposed business does not belong in a neighborhood church.
Sent from my iPhone
From:
tim williams
To:
Clerk
Subject:
La Petit daycare
Date:
Friday, May 17, 2024 4:01:24 PM
[EXTERNAL]
To the Mayor and members of the City Council, Alta Heights is a residential neighborhood in a area that already has 3 daycare and a elementary school it is not a area that needs nor wants a 7day a week for profit business that will greatly impact the residential community. Thank you, I hope you can see through this .
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Beth Painter
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Fwd: Le Petit Elephant Appeal
Date:
Sunday, May 19, 2024 3:22:05 PM
Sent from Beth Painter's IPad
Begin forwarded message:
From:
robin-ellison
Date:
May 19, 2024 at 12:47:41
PM PDT
To:
Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>, Mary Luros
<[email protected]>, Liz Alessio <[email protected]>, Beth Painter <[email protected]>, Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]> Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor and City Council,
We have been told from the start and repeatedly, by the LPE business owner and the Planning Commission, that the Alta Heights church is the only suitable location available to her in Napa. There is a childcare crisis and without this only location, there would be no options. She will not be able to stay at her present location on Laurel. This is what was said. Of course, it never made sense. How could that be, no other place in Napa, especially when Ms. Pintacsi could operate two smaller centers instead of one colossal one?
Then last night I read a Napa Register article from summer, June 15, 2023, “Napa County boosts child care funding.”
And there it was:
“Le Petit Elephant is to receive two forgivable loans. One for $450,000 will allow it to remain at its Laurel Street location in the city of Napa. The landlord wants the center’s current building for another use, so Pintacsi plans to renovate another building at the same site for child care. That will preserve 128 child care spots.
Without funds, she would have to close operation or find new space to move into, she said.
“Le Petit Elephant is also to receive a $750,000 loan to renovate an office building on California Boulevard at the city of Napa roundabouts. That will allow it to expand the operation and offer 70 new child care spots, 30 for infants.”
So, she received grants for two separate locations-- one at the present LPE site-- but apparently decided that Alta Heights was her dream location and she would combine the two grants. She literally presented herself to City as the long-
awaited solution to their problem and the City decided to facilitate this plan, with lack of transparency.
I want to note that we have been subjected to LPE’s relentless campaign against the residents of Alta Heights. It was evidenced at the Planning Commission hearing and has been promulgated further on social media. One LPE parent writing days ago that AH falsely claim traffic and safety concerns because they would be too embarrassed to state the real reasons for not wanting the childcare (racism, elitism, child-hating).
This is truly vile stuff, all originating with Ms.
Pintacsi.
What is being done by the City to its Alta Heights citizens is wrong. I urge you to overturn approval of this project as is.
Robin Ellison
From:
Brittany Lin
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Hubby
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant
Date:
Tuesday, May 21, 2024 1:09:35 PM
Dear City of Napa,
Hello, we are Alvin Yu and Brittany Lin, proud parents of two children (Conner and Aria) who both attend Le Petit Elephant (LPE). We are writing to support LPE’s petition for ancillary uses at its new Alta Heights facility.
We moved to Napa during the pandemic and had our kids shortly thereafter. With full time jobs and no family in California, we have depended on LPE as our lifeline. Milli, the founder of LPE, and the rest of the LPE staff have been integral in helping our children thrive.
Unfortunately, LPE can currently only offer services during the weekdays. Along with many other parents of young children, we struggle to find activities nearby on the weekends to continue to engage them.
Currently, we often travel 1-2 hours outside Napa on weekends to areas that can provide these activities. Milli is proposing a way for families like us to enjoy indoor and outdoor activities close to home on the weekends. This includes indoor and outdoor play areas and a place to hold events such as birthday parties. This even includes the opportunity for tired parents like us to enjoy an elusive date night from time to time. We fully support Milli and LPE’s petition to offer these services, as it would greatly enrich our lives and those of our children’s.
We strongly hope you uphold Milli and LPE’s permit to provide these services for the Napa community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Brittany Lin and Alvin Yu
[EXTERNAL]
Item 15.A.
From:
Jeri Hansen
To:
Tiffany Carranza
;
Clerk
Subject:
Item 15A: Childcare is economic and community development Date:
Tuesday, May 21, 2024 2:03:38 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley and members of the Napa City Council,
The Napa Chamber of Commerce supports the development of childcare facilities within our community, which aligns with the Chamber’s commitment to economic development and supporting local businesses.
Childcare enhances productivity and economic stability.
Currently, many working parents face significant challenges in finding reliable childcare, which can affect their productivity and job stability.
Too often, working parents are forced
to make difficult choices between
employment or childcare. Reliable childcare allows parents to enter and remain in the workforce. Additionally,
parents who have access to
childcare can advance their educational and professional development, which leads to income mobility and economic growth.
Childcare helps with employee retention
.
Knowing their children are in a safe, nurturing environment allows employees to focus on their work, improving overall job performance.
Quality childcare reduces work absences due to childcare issues, enhancing employee reliability and efficiency. Businesses benefit from lower turnover rates as employees are less likely to leave their jobs due to childcare concerns; this in turn reduces the costs associated with recruiting, hiring, and training new employees.
Childcare helps with employee recruitment
.
The presence of adequate childcare facilities can be a key factor when deciding to relocate to a new community or accept a new position, giving local
businesses a competitive edge in recruiting talent.
By
working to address the shortage in childcare options, we can make our community more appealing to families and businesses.
Repurpose and reuse of the building.
In addition to the community and economic development benefits of creating more childcare, the Napa Chamber is encouraged by the adaptive reuse of an existing building in an appropriately zoned area, such as in the case of this project. Finding opportunities to using existing building stock to serve the changing needs of our community is essential and helps reduce waste, save energy, and conserve resources by avoiding demolition.
Expanding childcare programs and infrastructure is not only beneficial for individual families but also for the broader economic and social fabric of the community.
We appreciate your careful consideration of this issue.
Sincerely,
Jeri Hansen
President & CEO
Napa Chamber of Commerce
Jeri Hansen
President/CEO
Napa Chamber of Commerce |
1556
First Street | Napa, CA
94559|
[email protected]
707.254.1146
(Direct)
707.226.7455
(Main)
From:
Robert Pintacsi
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Petition for Le Petit Elephant Use Permit
Date:
Tuesday, May 21, 2024 4:56:27 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Hello, I would like to enter the following into public record for the Le Petit Elephant use permit. The link to the full petition is
https://www.change.org/p/urge-napa-city-council-to-approve-child-development-center-in-alta-heights? recruiter=1338555992&recruited_by_id=88c6d540-1215-11ef-be60- a939fbbd437a&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_for_starters_page&utm_medium=sms
Thank you,
Robert Pintacsi
May 21, 2024
Dear
Members of City Council
,
We are writing to express our gratitude for the childcare provided by La Petit Elephant Nursery (LPE) for our 2
-
year
-
old daughter, Riley. Access to affordable childcare providers, like LPE, is becoming
increasingly scarce these days but remains a vital resource for families like ours.
Without access to affordable childcare, many working parents would find themselves in a difficult financial position. Balancing young children and full
-
time careers is never easy, and a lack of affordable
childcare options can create a financial strain for
families relying on dual incomes to meet household
expenses. If we want our community to prioritize families, then we must ensure continued access to affordable childcare providers such as LPE.
It is also important to provide childcare opportunities outside normal business hours. Kelly is an RN who works 12 hour shifts during weekend and holidays, and having extended childcare opportunities would be greatly beneficial to our family.
We hope you recognize the crucial role LPE's childcare services play in our community. Families are the foundation of our communities, and it's essential to support them by preserving resources like childcare.
Thank you for your understanding and support.
Sincerely,
Kelly and Lance Winkler
From:
Lori B
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Support LPE Napa
Date:
Tuesday, May 21, 2024 6:13:59 PM
Good afternoon,
I am a teacher in Fairfield and my husband and I drove through two cities every day to drop off and to pick up my daughter at Le Petit Elephant in Napa. I just received my master's degree in early childhood education and my daughter attended this preschool last year only because of the amazing staff, programming, and facility. My students at my public school have a playground, but my daughter felt like she got to play at a park every day!
She adored
her preschool because of all the dynamic play opportunities. I adored it because I knew how all this play translated to learning and brain development. Like her, I also adored the staff.
Even though she's at my school now, she mentions her preschool and Ms. Lorena frequently during each week that passes.
This child care center and preschool is an exemplar for how education and care for young children should be.
Please do what you can to support this
amazing educational facility in their efforts to provide more opportunities to expand the minds of tiny humans that will impact our future!
Thank you!
Lori Becerra
TK teacher FSUSD
[EXTERNAL]
From:
Rose Sheehan
To:
Clerk
Cc:
missmilli
Subject:
Public Comment for City Council evening session of the May 21st Meeting re Upholding LPE Date:
Tuesday, May 21, 2024 8:12:56 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Council Members, thank you for your time! My deepest regrets for not being able to stay to speak on my
public comments directly.
As you already know, childcare is one of the biggest challenges for our cities and our County, this includes issues
around availability and affordability.
Childcare is important for the health of our community and, currently, we DO NOT have enough spaces to care for
the children in our community.
This affects our working families, our local government, and our businesses that want to attract an adequate number
of qualified employees.
For those families that live elsewhere and commute here to work, their and everyone’s lives could be greatly
improved! When you live close to where you work:
* You get more family time
* You pay less for gas
* There is less wear and tear on the roads that our city is already struggling to maintain due to inadequate funds * You shop locally, keeping revenue circulating within our cities.
When you spend less on gas, you have more money for food, housing, and education.
BOTTOM LINE: Families without childcare cannot work; when they can’t work they can’t afford to pay rent or buy
a house, so they leave. It’s as simple as that!
LPE is one solution to this crisis, a solid one. It is a for-profit business AND there is nothing wrong with that! They
also provide subsidies for their staff, for low income families, for single moms, AND domestic violence survivors.
One of the common concerns I’ve been hearing from those in opposition, is the concern for safe evacuation during
disasters. The circles project is still 5 years out and not a timely solution to address these concerns adequately.
Please know that I am in full support upholding the permit approval by the Planning Commission for LPE AND at
the same time, if this has not already been considered, have the City review the existing evacuation/ disaster plans
for this area and expand to include more evacuation routes. Wherever possible.
Thank you all so much for your amazing service to our community! With deepest appreciation and respect,
Rose Sheehan
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Beth Painter
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Fwd: Proposed daycare/event space in old Mormon church on Montecito Blvd Date:
Wednesday, May 22, 2024 3:20:03 PM
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Sherry Fournier
Subject:
Proposed daycare/event space in old Mormon church on
Montecito Blvd
Date:
May 22, 2024 at 3:13:25 PM PDT
To:
[email protected]
Hello,
I’m writing in strong opposition to this profoundly
inappropriately-scaled commercial operation seeking
approval to do business in the residential neighborhood of Alta Heights.
A day care could perhaps work in that location; at a
much, much more neighborhood-friendly size, including
hours and scope of operation.
I sincerely hope will not vote to
approve this.
Sincerely,
Sherry Fournier
Napa resident
[EXTERNAL]