Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
No on Measure C, yes on Measure D

No on Measure C, yes on Measure D

  • Updated

Measure C

This initiative states that once 795 acres of oaks and other non-species trees have been removed then this initiative will take effect. The October 2017 fire burned over 30,000 acres in the Agricultural Watershed zone, but we have no idea how many tree acres will need to be removed, therefore it may take years to quantify this number.

The initiative states that there will be building setbacks along streams that are classified 1, 2 or 3 and yet the county has not designated which each stream is classified 1, 2 or 3. This could take years to quantify these classifications.

Then it states that if you have any wetlands on your property then you have to be 150 feet from it to build. This wetland could be a small dried up pond but still soft ground on your property. This initiative states this will affect all properties greater than 1 acre (209 feet by 209 feet is an acre). It also says that you cannot build under 90 percent of the canopy of a tree and if you have to remove a tree you would need to plant three new ones (keep them alive for five years) or pay a fee (not disclosed what that fee of the tree taken down would be).

Most of the discussion has been about the effect on vineyard development, but my concern is the landowner that wants to build, add on or remodel a home. We have hundreds of parcels along Dry Creek Road, Hagen Road, or Putah Creek to name a few where these strict setbacks could occur.

So, bottom line, my concern is the "little guy" in this whole issue. Example, is landowner owns a parcel 210 feet by 210 feet and let's say it has a creek next to it so you need a 125-foot setback - thus only 85 feet left to build upon- but wait -now you have a 20-foot rear setback and you have three or four oak trees inside that 85 feet and there is a wetland on the parcel.

So this "little guy" who dreamed of building or adding on to his home now faces a decrease in land value due to lack of buildable area to build upon. Or due to the time it will take to get all of the above quantified the landowner will have to wait years to determine where he may be able to build on his parcel, if at all, so he holds the property for even a longer period of time. His dreams are lost.

You may say, "Well, that may affect only 50 parcels," but you are not the one of those 50 parcels and loses money due to this initiative.

Please vote 'no' on C.

Measure D

I am a business owner and live near a proposed personal helipad. This initiative would not allow a personal helipad in Napa County.

Two examples will point out it can be used for more than just personal use. Our state and federal elected officials live in this valley or other private property owners throughout this county could bypass the car traffic by having the personal helicopter pick them up at any Bay Area airport and have them delivered to the private helipad. Then someone would pick them up by car to deliver them to their Napa Valley home.

The above would not be commercial use but we can all see the abuse this private helipad (first of many) could cause.

The other is we just went through a major wildfire (October 2017) and what is the protection of onsite fueling of a helicopter. Many propane tanks blew up during this fire.

Vote "yes" to deny personal helipads in our county.

Randy Gularte


Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

  • Updated

I am aghast at the lunacy of a pleasure copter landing in a residential neighborhood strictly for the inconvenience of a 20-minute commute fro…

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.


News Alerts

Breaking News