SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk
City Council of the City of Napa
Special Meeting
September 15, 2022
FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA
AFTERNOON SESSION:
SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
4. CLOSED SESSION:
4.A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Government Code Sections 54956.9(d)(2) and 94956.9(d)(3)): Significant exposure to litigation in one potential case. 1) Letter from Kevin Teague, Holman Teague Law Firm, dated 9/9/2022 received on September 13, 2022.
From:
Michael Barrett
To:
Tiffany Carranza
Subject:
Supplemental Communication for Council Meeting on September 15, 2022 Date:
Tuesday, September 13, 2022 4:16:43 PM
Attachments:
GP Letter to Counsel.pdf
image001.png
image003.png
Tiffany:
Please incorporate this email and attached letter into the public record for the City Council meeting on September 15, 2022.
The one item on the agenda for Council’s consideration for the September 15 meeting is a closed session discussion of a significant exposure to litigation against the City. The existing facts and circumstances that support the discussion in closed session are as summarized in the attached letter from the Holman Teague law firm to the City Attorney dated September 9, 2022.
Michael
.
Michael W. Barrett
City Attorney
City Attorney’s Office, City of Napa
955 School Street / PO Box 660, Napa, CA 94559
Phone
(707) 257-9516
Email
[email protected]
Website
www.cityofnapa.org
Supplemental Item 4.A.
Holman
Teague
real estate law
‣
land use law
‣
business law
‣
climate change law
Holman Teague Roche Anglin LLP
‣
1455 First Street, Suite 217, Napa, CA 94559
‣
707
-
927
-
4280
‣
www.htralaw.com
Se
ptember 9, 2022
Michael Barrett, City Attorney
City of Napa
1600 First Street
Napa, CA 94559
Re: Planning Commission Recommendation on General Pl
an Update
-
V
iolations
o
f
L
a
w
Dear Michael,
I write on behalf of the Ghisletta family who
m
I have
personally
known
for nearly 40
years,
and I have represented for the past 20 years.
I write to alert
you that t
he
P
lanning
C
ommission
’
s
recent
recommendation
s on
the General Plan
co
ntained
serious and
egregious errors of law that if affirmed by City Council could lead to significant liabilities on the part of the City.
While t
he Ghisletta family has a long
,
109
-
year
history of working with the City and
community and desires
and intends
to maintain that positive relationship
with the
Cit
y, t
he
family members who manage the family property also have a duty to preserve and protect the family
’s interest
s
in the
property.
It is b
ecause
of thi
s
long cooperative relationship,
w
e
want to alert you to these issues so that the City can avoid litigat ion and damages resulting
from the
err
oneous
direction recommended by the
P
lanning
C
ommission.
On Thursda
y, September 1, the Planning Commission recommended
that the City
Council
alter the draft General Plan to redesignate the Foster Road area that includes the Ghisletta Ranch from
Foster Road Mixed Use
to Greenbelt. The Commission did this
notwithstanding the 50 years of
City and community
planning to maintain
the site as a
housing reserve
(including
t
he
City
’s
1975
adoption
of the Rural
Urban Limit Line,
the
vo
ters adoption of
Measure A,
the
City
’s 1
983 Genera
l Plan
and the
current 2000
General
Plan
,
t
he City, County and LAFCO adoption of the Sphere o
f Influence
, the Flood C
o
ntrol
Projec
t)
and the
nearly four
years of planning on this General Plan
U
pdate
wh
ich
includ
ed
multiple hearings and meetings, the
recommendations by GPAC,
and the
prior
recommendations by the Commission and City Council to maintain the site a s a future
housing opportunity
unde
r the
Foster Road Mixed Use
.
In addition to the numerous policy and community reasons ,
the Commission’s
direction is contrary to the mission and goals of the City and direction adopted by this City, the Commission’s direction violate
s
several laws, including but not limited to:
City Council Special Meeting
9/15/2022
Supplemental - Item 4.A.
2 • California’s Housing Crisis Act of 2019: The Planning Commission’s recommendation reduces the intensity of land use designated on a property in direct violation of the law’s prohibition on any net loss in residential capacity. • California’s Housing Element Law: The Planning Commission’s recommendation places the City’s Housing Element in legal jeopardy by failing to adequately identify housing sites. • United States Constitution (and the State of California Constitution): The Planning Commission’s recommendation violates the United States Constitution’s prohibiting the taking of private property for public use without just compensation and other constitutional protections, as well as 42 U.S. Code § 1983 – for the deprivation of civil rights. The Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council would expose the City to liability from actions by the State Attorney General, private citizens, housing interest groups and affected property owners. Please let me know if you would like to discuss these items further. This may be unnecessary as the family has confidence that the City Council understands these matters far better than the Planning Commission and would not support such extreme policy and legal errors. Sincerely, Kevin Teague