955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
www.cityofnapa.org
3:45 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
Thursday, September 15, 2022
SPECIAL MEETING - 3:45 PM
A Special Meeting for the City Council of the City of Napa was called on Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:45 p.m. to be held at City Hall Council Chambers, 955 School Street, Napa, California, for the purpose identified on the Agenda. This Special Meeting was called in accordance with California Government Code Section 54956.
1. CALL TO ORDER: 3:45 P.M.
1.A. Roll Call:
Councilmember Alessio, Councilmember Narvaez, Vice Mayor Luros, and Mayor Sedgley
Present:
4 -
Councilmember Painter
Absent:
1 -
2. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS:
City Clerk Carranza announced the following supplemental item:
Item 4.A.: Letter from Kevin Teague, Holman Teague Law Firm, dated September 9, 2022.
(A copy of the supplemental document is included in Attachment 1)
3. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER: None.
4. CLOSED SESSION:
Deputy City Attorney Sabrina Wolfson announced the Closed Session item.
CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 9/22/2022
CITY OF NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Final
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Vice Mayor Mary Luros
Councilmember Liz Alessio
Councilmember Bernie Narvaez
Councilmember Beth Painter
September 15, 2022
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
4.A.
350-2022
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
(Government Code Sections 54956.9(d)(2) and 54956.9(d)(3)): Significant exposure to litigation in one potential case.
There were no request from the public to comment.
The meeting recessed to Closed Session at 3:47 P.M.
The meeting adjourned at 4:35 P.M.; there was no reportable action.
5. ADJOURNMENT: 4:35 P.M.
Submitted by:
_______________________________
Tiffany Carranza, City Clerk
CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 9/22/2022
MEETING MINUTES - Final
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
COUNCI
L
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
recommen
dation
reduc
es
the intensity of land use
designated o
n
a
property
in
direct
violation of the
law
’s
prohibition on
any
net l
oss in
residential
capacity
.
•
C
alifornia
’s Housing Element Law
:
The Planning Commission
’s
recommen
datio
n
p
laces
the City’s Housing Element in legal jeopardy
by failing to
adequately
identify housing
sites.
•
U
nited
S
tates
C
onstitution
(an
d the
State of California
Constitution
)
: The
Planning
Commission
’s
recommen
datio
n
violates the U
nited
S
tates
C
onstitution
’
s
prohib
iting
the
taking of
private property
for public use
without just compensation
a
n
d
other
constitutional protections
,
a
s 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
, pr
ivate citizen
s
,
housing interest
groups and
affected
property ow
ners.
Please let me k
now if
you
would like to discuss these items furt
her
.
This may be
unnecessary as the family has
confidence
that the City Council
understands
these matters
far better than the Planning Commission and would no
t su
pport such
extrem
e po
licy and
le
gal errors.
Sincerely,
Kevin Teague