Napa City Council
October 4, 2022

955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
www.cityofnapa.org

CITY OF NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Vice Mayor Mary Luros
Councilmember Liz Alessio
Councilmember Bernie Narvaez
Councilmember Beth Painter
3:30 PM City Hall Council ChambersTuesday, September 20, 2022 3:30 PM Afternoon Session
6:30 PM Evening Session
3:30 P.M. AFTERNOON SESSION

1. CALL TO ORDER: 3:31 P.M.

1.A. Roll Call:

Councilmember Alessio, Councilmember Narvaez, Vice Mayor Luros, and Mayor Sedgley

Present: 4 -
Councilmember PainterAbsent: 1 -

2. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS:

City Clerk Carranza announced the following supplemental documents:

Item 3.A.: PowerPoint Presentation from City staff.

Item 4:
- Email from Mark and Barbara Gardner
- Email from Cronan
Item 6.B.: PowerPoint Presentation from City Staff.
(Copies of all supplemental documents are included in Attachment 1) Following City Clerk's report out of supplemental documents, City Manager Potter took a moment to thank Vin Smith for serving as the interim Parks and Recreation Director and introduced newly hired Parks and Recreation Director, Breyana Brandt. Director Brandt provided brief remarks.

3. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:

3.A. 313-2022
Council Spotlight - Employee Recognition Awards

ATTACHMENT 1

September 20, 2022CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
(See supplemental document in Attachment 1)
Assistant City Manager Liz Habkirk provided the staff report honoring the awardees.

Mayor and Councilmembers thanked the awardees.

There were no requests to speak from the public.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT:
(See supplemental documents in Attachment 1)
Maria - shared health and public safety concerns regarding 3558 Jefferson Street.

Zack Diviak - shared health and public safety concerns regarding 3558 Jefferson Street.

Dr. Monica Bowen - shared public safety concerns regarding 3558 Jefferson Street following a dog attack outside of the property.

Unidentified speaker - shared public safety concerns regarding 3558 Jefferson Street.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR:

Approval of the Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Vice Mayor Luros, seconded by Councilmember Alessio, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Alessio, Narvaez, Luros, and Sedgley4 -

Absent: Painter1 -

5.A. 337-2022
City Council Meeting Minutes
Approved the Minutes for the August 23, 2022 Special Meeting, and the September 6, 2022 Regular Meeting of the City Council.

5.B. 299-2022 City of Napa 2022-2024 Biennial Conflict of Interest Code Update Adopted Resolution R2022-079 approving the 2022-2024 City of Napa Conflict of Interest Code, as required by the Political Reform Act.

Enactment No: R2022-079

5.C. 340-2022 Building and Fire Code Board of Appeals and Disability Access Board of Appeals Membership

ATTACHMENT 1

September 20, 2022CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft

1. Reappointed two incumbents, Ben Neuman, and David Ericksen, to the Building and Fire Code Board of Appeals, with a two-year term expiring September 30, 2024; and

2. Reappointed two incumbents, James R. Krider, serving as a Disability Community member, and Ben Neuman to the Disability Access Board and of Appeals, with a two-year term expiring September 30, 2024.

5.D. 341-2022
Housing Authority of the City of Napa Board Membership
Appointed incumbents, Carol Hamilton and Johanna Moore, to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Napa for terms effective immediately and ending on September 30, 2024.

5.E. 342-2022
Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Membership
Mayor Sedgley recognized Mr. Woodruff who was in attendance and thanked him for his service on the Committee.

Approved the recommended appointment of incumbent Gary Woodruff as the City of Napa representative to the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for a two-year term to begin the date of the approval by the Napa Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors.

5.F. 343-2022
Monthly Budget and Investment Statement
Received the Monthly Budget and Investment Statement as of June 30, 2022.

5.G. 332-2022 Salary Schedules for Full-Time Employees
Adopted Resolution R2022-080 documenting the salary schedules for Full-Time Employees.

Enactment No: R2022-080

5.H. 316-2022 Soscol Junction Project Funding Agreement Adopted Resolution R2022-081 (1) authorizing the Public Works Director to execute on behalf of the City a Funding Agreement with Napa Valley Transportation Authority for construction support services in an amount not to exceed $848,800.60 in Fair Share Mitigation Fees for the Soscol Junction project; (2) approving a budget adjustment in the Fair Share Mitigation Fees Fund increasing revenue and expenditure budgets by $848,800.60 as documented in Council Budget Amendment No. 135; and (3) determining that the actions authorized by this resolution were adequately analyzed by a previous CEQA action.

Enactment No: R2022-081

5.I. 209-2022
Amendments to Telecommunications Site Lease Agreements
Authorized the Utilities Director to execute (1) an Amended and Restated Cell Site Lease with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC for lease of a portion of the City-owned Foster Road water tank site located at 1542 Foster Road for

ATTACHMENT 1

September 20, 2022CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
telecommunications facilities purposes; and (2) Amendment No. 1 to Agreement C7971 with GTE Mobilenet of California Limited Partnership, dba Verizon Wireless for lease of a portion of the City-owned water tank site located at 3691 Montana Drive for telecommunications facilities purposes, and determine this action is exempt from CEQA.

6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:

6.A. 269-2022
Proclamation of Local Emergency to Respond to the Coronavirus (COVID-19)
City Manager Potter provided the report.

There we no requests to speak from the public.

A motion was made by Councilmember Alessio, seconded by Vice Mayor Luros, to continue the Proclamation of Local Emergency authorizing the City Manager to take actions necessary to respond to the Coronavirus (COVID-19); and ratify actions taken by the City Manager in implementation of the Proclamation of Local Emergency. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Alessio, Narvaez, Luros, and Sedgley4 -

Absent: Painter1 -

6.B. 339-2022
Cooperative Joint Powers Homeless Services Agreement with Napa County and Update on Homeless Services System
(See supplemental document in Attachment 1)
Deputy City Manager Molly Rattigan provided the report.

Ms. Rattigan responded to brief Council comments.

There were no requests to speak from the public.

A motion was made by Vice Mayor Luros, seconded by Councilmember Alessio, to adopt Resolution R2022-082 authorizing the City Manager to execute the Cooperative Joint Powers Homeless Services Agreement with the County of Napa in an amount of up to $765,000 per fiscal year.. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Alessio, Narvaez, Luros, and Sedgley4 -

Absent: Painter1 -

Enactment No: R2022-082

7. CONSENT HEARINGS:

Approval of the Consent Agenda
Mayor Sedgley announced the consent hearings. There were no requests

ATTACHMENT 1

September 20, 2022CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
to speak; the hearings were opened and closed without comment.

A motion was made by Councilmember Narvaez, seconded by Councilmember Alessio, to approve the Consent Hearing Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Alessio, Narvaez, Luros, and Sedgley4 -

Absent: Painter1 -

7.A. 346-2022
City Attorney’s Office Staffing Plan Update
1) Approved the first reading and introduction of an ordinance amending Napa Municipal Code Section 2.24.070 regarding the designation of appointive officers in the City Attorney’s Office; and
2) Adopted Resolution R2022-083 (a) approving the classification specification, compensation, and benefits for the Legal Assistant position; and (b) amending the budget staffing plan for the City Attorney’s Office by: (i) deleting one Legal Secretary position and adding one Legal Assistant position, (ii) reclassifying and deleting one Deputy City Attorney position, and (iii) adding one Assistant City Attorney position.

Enactment No: R2022-083

7.B. 333-2022
City Manager’s Office Staffing Plan Update
1) Approved the first reading and introduction of an ordinance amending Napa Municipal Code Section 2.08.090 regarding the designation of appointive officers in the City Manager’s Office; and
2) Adopted Resolution R2022-084 (a) approving the classification specification, compensation, and benefits for the Risk Manager position and (b) approving the classification specification revisions and adopting a new salary range for the Deputy City Manager position; and (c) amending the budget staffing plan for the City Manager’s Office by deleting one Deputy City Manager position, and adding one Risk Manager position.

Enactment No: R2022-084

8. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER:

City Manager Potter acknowledged Hispanic Heritage Month was September 15 - October 15, and he shared a proclamation would be prepared for the October 4, 2022 City Council Meeting.

9. CLOSED SESSION:

City Attorney Barrett announced the closed session items.

9.A. 347-2022
• CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54957.6): City designated representatives: Heather Ruiz, Liz Habkirk, MJ Tueros, Kelly Trujillo, Anne Cardwell, Steve Potter, and

ATTACHMENT 1

September 20, 2022CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
Michael Barrett. Employee organization: Napa Chief Fire Officers, and Police Management Unit.

9.B. 348-2022 • CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54957.6): City designated representatives: Heather Ruiz, Liz Habkirk, Kelly Trujillo, Anne Cardwell, Steve Potter, and Michael Barrett.

Employee organization: Administrative, Managerial and Professional Employees.

CITY COUNCIL RECESS: 4:32 P.M.
6:30 P.M. EVENING SESSION

10. CALL TO ORDER: 6:33 P.M.

10.A. Roll Call:

Councilmember Alessio, Councilmember Narvaez, Vice Mayor Luros, and Mayor Sedgley

Present: 4 -
Councilmember PainterAbsent: 1 -

11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

12. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS:

City Clerk Carranza announced the following supplemental documents:

Item 14.A.:
- PowerPoint Presentation from City Staff.
- 103 submitted written comments.
(Copies of all supplemental documents are included in Attachment 2)

13. PUBLIC COMMENT:

Jim Hinton - provided comments suggesting more investment into City Parks facilities, including additional and upgraded restrooms.

Tess Lawley - provided comments regarding the lack of enforcement of the Napa Municipal Code relating to commercial food trucks parked in residential areas.

14. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

14.A. 323-2022
General Plan Adoption
(See supplemental documents in Attachment 2)

ATTACHMENT 1

September 20, 2022CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
Mayor Sedgley opened the meeting.

Senior Planner Michael Walker provided the report.

Mayor Sedgley called for disclosures; Councilmembers provided them.

Mayor Sedgley opened public testimony.

1. Lynne Posner - provided comments supporting the re-designation of Foster Road Mixed Use to Greenbelt.

2. Mary Reid - provided comments supporting the re-designation of Foster Road Mixed Use to Greenbelt.

3. Adam Ghisletta, on behalf of Ghisletta family - shared that there were no proposed development plans or agreements for the property yet. He also provided a brief history of the property, and spoke in support of staff's recommendation of the Foster Road Mixed Use designation.

4. Ila Hohmann - provided comments in support of the removal of the Linda Vista Avenue extension.

5. Tom Andrews - provided comments in support of the removal of the Linda Vista Avenue extension.

6. Robin Anglin on behalf of Ghisletta family - spoke in support of staff's recommendation of the Foster Road Mixed Use designation.

7. Deborah Macdonald - provided comments supporting the re-designation of Foster Road Mixed Use to Greenbelt.

8. Margan Holloway - provided comments supporting the removal of the Linda Vista Avenue extension.

9. Allison Bencisk, American Canyon Student and Co-leader of Napa Schools for Climate Action - thanked council for supporting the Climate Emergency Resolution and for their commitment to go net zero by or before 2030; would like to see the same level of commitment in the General Plan.

10. Michael Murray - spoke in support of staff's recommendation of the Foster Road Mixed Use designation.

11. Mike Basayne - spoke in support of staff's recommendation of the Foster Road Mixed Use designation.

ATTACHMENT 1

September 20, 2022CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft

12. Bayard Fox on behalf of Napa Climate Now! - thanked Council and staff for stronger, more direct, language in the revised Climate Change and Sustainability Element; and recommended an additional change to CCS1-1 to read "implement immediate and sustained action in support of achieving net zero climate pollutants from public and private operation within the City by 2020." He also shared that Napa Climate Now! supported all recommendations submitted by the Napa Working Families Coalition.

13. Tony Norris, member of Napa Working Families Coalition - provided comments regarding previous changes and policy suggestions that the Coalition submitted to staff regarding climate change, workforce development and equity.

14. Sarah Gillihan, Visit Napa Valley - spoke in support of staff's recommendation of the Foster Road Mixed Use designation.

15. Kyle Iverson - spoke in support of staff's recommendation of the Foster Road Mixed Use designation.

16. Maureen Trippe, Co-founder of Slow Down Napa - asked council to support the inclusion of the following goal: "to protect our residential neighborhoods from high-speed and high-volume traffic and its effects".

17. Cindy Deutsch - provided comments in support of the removal of the Linda Vista Avenue extension.

18. Craig Isham - provided comments supporting the re-designation of Foster Road Mixed Use to Greenbelt.

19. Darrell Hutton - provided comments in support of the removal of the Linda Vista Avenue extension.

20. Brad Isham - provided comments supporting the re-designation of Foster Road Mixed Use to Greenbelt.

21. Carol Whichard, representing Progressive Women of Napa Valley, who are members of the Napa Working Families Coalition - thanked Council for consideration of language suggestions provided by the Coalition and shared she would like to see more discussion regarding Project Labor Agreements and Card Check Neutrality.

22. Kara Vernor, Executive Director, Napa County Bicycle Coalition - would like mode shift goals included in general plan and asked for a level of service standards included for those who walk and ride as well.

ATTACHMENT 1

September 20, 2022CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft

23. Joseph Keebler - provided comments regarding zoning of his property.

24. Ginger Gregory - provided comments supporting the re-designation of Foster Road Mixed Use to Greenbelt.

25. Jeff Prather - provided comments in support of the removal of the Linda Vista Avenue extension.

26. Patti - provided comments supporting the re-designation of Foster Road Mixed Use to Greenbelt.

27. Susanne Evans - provided comments supporting the re-designation of Foster Road Mixed Use to Greenbelt.

28. Cass Walker, representing the Napa Housing Coalition - encouraged that all public serving properties be used for residential mixed use development when they are no longer needed for public use, spoke in support of staff's recommendation of the Foster Road Mixed Use designation, and would like any large portion of housing built at the location to be targeted for workforce housing.

29. Jim Wilson - echoed statements made by Bayard Fox and Allison Bencisk regarding the Climate Change and Sustainability Element and provided additional comments regarding climate change. Asked for an inconsistency in goal CCS 1-1 to be corrected.

30. Linda Brown, Co-Founder of Napa Climate Now! - called upon council to recommend modification of language in CCS 1-1 to delete the reference of 2040. She also provided additional comments regarding climate change.

31. Debbi Hamilton - shared many uses and activities of the Napa Valley Horseman's Association property and supported the re-designation of Foster Road Mixed Use to Greenbelt.

32. Robert Cherry - provided comments supporting the re-designation of Foster Road Mixed Use to Greenbelt noting specific concerns regarding earthquake zones.

33. Jane Milan - provided comments supporting the re-designation of Foster Road Mixed Use to Greenbelt.

34. Peggy Squires - provided comments supporting the re-designation of Foster Road Mixed Use to Greenbelt.

ATTACHMENT 1

September 20, 2022CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft

35. Rick Johnson - provided comments supporting the re-designation of Foster Road Mixed Use to Greenbelt.

36. Jon Riley, Executive Director of Napa Solano Labor Council and Boardmember of Napa Working Families Coalition - thanked staff, Commission members, and Councilmembers for consideration of their suggested changes regarding climate, child care and workers rights.

37. Richard Tippitt - provided comments supporting the re-designation of Foster Road Mixed Use to Greenbelt

38. Tim Frank, Napa Working Families Coalition - appreciated inclusion of suggested language regarding child care and construction labor.

Suggested additional verbiage regarding Card Check Neutrality and Labor Peace for cannabis facilities. Additionally he shared their support for the recommendations of the Napa County Bicycle Coalition.

39. Glen Loveall, Napa Working Families Coalition - provided comments regarding sustainable and equitable growth. He thanked Staff, Commissioners and Council for the inclusion of previous suggestions made by the Coalition and encouraged further consideration of additional labor provisions and protection of renters rights.

40. Jim Hinton - provided comments regarding the Ghisletta property and Visit Napa Valley and shared his support of the Foster Road Greenbelt designation and the removal of the Linda Vista Avenue extension.

A motion was made by Councilmember Alessio, seconded by Vice Mayor Luros to close the public testimony. The motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Sedgley called for a break at 8:49 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 P.M.

Mayor Sedgley turned the discussion over to Council for deliberations.

Councilmembers provided individual comments and considerations for suggested updates to the Plan, and identified specific changes in which Council was in general consensus agreement on.

Further discussion ensued regarding the Land Use and Community Design and Transportation Elements, specifically relating to the Foster Road Mixed Used Designation and the Linda Vista Avenue Extension.

Staff responded to various questions and provided further clarification.

ATTACHMENT 1

September 20, 2022CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
A motion was made by Vice Mayor Luros, seconded by Councilmember Alessio, to adopt Resolution R2022-085 certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Napa 2040 General Plan, and adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and determining that the General Plan may serve as a Mitigation Monitoring Plan in compliance with CEQA. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 4 - Alessio, Narvaez, Luros and Sedgley

Absent: 1 - Painter
Brief additional Council discussion ensued.

Following discussion and deliberation, Council consensus was to direct staff to come back on October 18, 2022 to incorporate the changes that were discussed during deliberations, in which individual consensus was reached by Councilmembers, including options on the Linda Vista Avenue Extension.

A motion was made by Mayor Sedgley, seconded by Councilmember Narvaez, to continue the Public Hearing on the General Plan Adoption to the Regular City Council Meeting on October 18, 2022 at 6:30 P.M. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 4 - Alessio, Narvaez, Luros and Sedgley

Absent: 1 - Painter

Enactment No: R2022-085

15. REPORT ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION:

City Attorney Barrett announced there was no reportable action.

16. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER:

Councilmember Narvaez asked Councilmembers if they supported a request to direct staff to provide an annual workshop/training for Planning Commissioners that would include a review of roles as well as a review of Council priorities. Brief discussion ensued. Council consensus was to defer to staff to determine the most efficient method to communicate the information to support the commission.

ATTACHMENT 1

September 20, 2022CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft

17. ADJOURNMENT: 10:39 P.M.

Submitted by:
_______________________________
Tiffany Carranza, City Clerk

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS &
COMMUNICATIONS Office of the City Clerk
City Council of the City of Napa
Regular Meeting
September 20, 2022

FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA
AFTERNOON SESSION:

SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

3. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:

3.A. Council Spotlight – Employee Recognition Awards
• PowerPoint presentation from City Staff.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT:
1) Email from Mark Gardner and Barbara Gardner received on September 19, 2022. 2) Email from Cronan received on September 19, 2022.

6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:

6.B. Cooperative Joint Powers Homeless Services Agreement with Napa County and Update on Homeless Services System
• PowerPoint presentation from City Staff.

ATTACHMENT 1

MONTHLY
SPOTL
IGHT
CITY

OF NAPA
2021
Outstanding
Performers
City Council Regular Meeting
9/20/2022
Supplemental - Item 3.A.

ATTACHMENT 1

202
1 Outstanding Performers Awards
• Presented
to employees who
• go above
and beyond their regular duties
• exhibit exemplary attitudes
• embody the
values of their department
and the City
• Recipients are nominated
by Executive Team
members and selected by the City Manager
• Awards are
given to both teams and
individuals.
• 2021 Awa
rd Winners were presented during
small group presentations and virtual events

ATTACHMENT 1

Enterprise
Resource
Planning (ERP)
for Human Capital
Management & Utility
Billing Implementations
“This
team was critical to the
launch of the first phases of the
new ERP system and took
responsibility for a challenging
undertaking during a
pandemic!”
Linda Zv
arcova, Accounting Technician
Morgan Simone, Accounting Technician
Jennie Lathum, Payroll Specialist
Ashley Titus, Management Analyst
Anette Heun, Senior Accountant
Prapti Aryal, Accountant
Michele Huang, Accountant
Owen Hershey, Systems Administrator
Frank Herrera, Accountant
Christina Pavao, Accounting Technician
Miriam Betancourt, Accounting Technician
Sara Vavricka, Account Clerk
Tracy Thompson, Accounting Supervisor
Elizabeth Cabell, Finance Manager
Pat Costello, Water Resource Analyst
Ken Hurst, Supervising Service Worker

ATTACHMENT 1

Officer Isabella R
omero
and Officer Adam Gilbert
Arriving within tw
o minutes of the
emergency call, Officers Gilbert
and Romero provided immediate
medical care and issued Narcan
“that saved the subject’s life from a
fentanyl overdose.”

ATTACHMENT 1

Frank
Herrera
Accountant I
Held
the lead role in the
implementation of the new Tyler
Munis utility billing system.
“Frank advocated for his team and
partners in other departments and
maintained a calm, confident
presence through setbacks and
frustration.”

ATTACHMENT 1

Sergean
t Garrett Smith,
Officer Eric Koford, and
Officer Nate Kistner
First resp
onders on scene of a
reported stabbing at an
elementary school in August
2021.

From Napa Fire: “The medical
aid they provided saved the
victim’s life.”

ATTACHMENT 1

Linda Zv
arcova
Accounting Tech
Dedic
ated specifically to the ERP
project implementation, serving
as a “critical asset to the team
and demonstrated mastery in
system configuration.”

ATTACHMENT 1

Josh Stok
es
Water Conservation Specialist
Represented
the City regularly at
community events and spearheaded
new events during COVID to continue
to educate community members.
“Josh approaches his various roles with
energy and enthusiasm, garnering
frequent praise from satisfied
customers.”

ATTACHMENT 1

Tim Kit
tel
Utilities Code Compliance
Coordinator
Enthusi
astically took on new
challenges that stemmed from the
COVID-19 pandemic and
expanded his knowledge in
critical areas.
“Tim carries out his duties in a
positive and unassuming, but highly
effective manner.”

ATTACHMENT 1

Bret
Leuthold
Engineering Aide
Steppe
d up to take on new and different
roles during staffing challenges including
the lead role for encroachment permit
duties.
“Bret is conscientious and makes sure his job
is completed accurately while providing
excellent customer service…”

ATTACHMENT 1

Ashley
Titus
Management Analyst
Serv
ed as the Functional Lead for
Human Resources in the
developing the new ERP System
“Ashley is to be commended for
her positive attitude and her
unwavering commitment to
improvement.”

ATTACHMENT 1

Jay
Gelardi
Equipment Mechanic Master
Ser
ved as an integral part of the Fleet
Operations team by helping to improve
procedures and policies that affect
efficiency, effectiveness, and the positive
experience of the end users.
“Jay’s dedication, expertise and work ethic
make him an outstanding performer.”

ATTACHMENT 1

Debi Johnson
Sen
ior Engineering Aide
Serv
ed as the project coordinator
for the implementation of new
Construction Management software.
“Debi has demonstrated a
commitment to excellence, has a
keen attention to detail, is
conscientious and has impressive
institutional knowledge that she is
willing to share with all.”

ATTACHMENT 1

“We are proud
to honor the recipients
of the 2021 Outstanding Performers
Awards for their resilience, forward-
thinking attitudes, and collaborative
spirits. Napa continues to thrive
because of the hard work and
dedication of these individuals.”
-Steve Potter, City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Mark Gardner
Subject: Re: Dear city council
Date: September 18, 2022 at 12:00:52 PM PDT
To: Barbara Gardner
Cc: Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>, Liz Alessio <[email protected]>, Beth Painter <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected]

[EXTERNAL]

Hi Mr. Mayor and Council:

I utmost agree with my wife’s sentiment!
Sincerely,
Mark and Barbara Gardner

On Sep 18, 2022, at 11:56 AM, Barbara Gardner wrote:

Hi, My husband and I live in the Napa Abajo area. We frequently walk through the downtown area, sometimes with our dog, and sometimes to have dinner or shop. We LOVE that Main Street is closed to traffic between Second and Third Streets. That area has become a destination for both locals and visitors. In fact, we were sitting outside at dinner last night, on that block, between 7 and 9 PM, watching groups of people walking around the promenade, enjoying the vibe of the area, despite the chill and threat of rain. We believe the town will continue to benefit from keeping the block closed to traffic. This allows for increased seating at restaurants, and for a festive feel to the Downtown area, particularly as it abuts Veteran’s Park, a natural area for congregation and live performances. Please do as many other cities and towns have done, and support the continued closure of the street.

Item 4. Public Comment

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

Homeless Services Partnership Report
September 20, 2022
City Council Regular Meeting
9/20/2022
Supplemental - Item 6.B.

ATTACHMENT 1

Homeless Services Partnerships Report
System Redesign – Progress Report

ATTACHMENT 1

Homeless Services Partnerships Report
System Redesign – Progress Report

ATTACHMENT 1

Homeless Services Partnerships Report
System Outcomes
• Fiscal Year 2021-2022
Shelter = 430 Individuals
Housing = 131 Individuals
38 PSH, 93 RRH
Prevention = 73 Households (166 Individuals)

ATTACHMENT 1

Homeless Services Partnerships Report
System Outcomes
• Fiscal Year 2021-2022
Shelter = 430 Individuals
Housing = 131 Individuals
38 PSH, 93 RRH
Prevention = 73 Households (166 Individuals)

ATTACHMENT 1

Homeless Services Partnerships Report
System Outcomes
Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Coordinated Entry List
309 Individuals
VI-SPDAT Score “Breaks”
10+ (PSH) = 181
5-9 (RRH) = 131
1-4 (P/D) = 15

ATTACHMENT 1

Homeless Services Partnerships Report
System Workflow

ATTACHMENT 1

Homeless Services Partnerships Report
Updates
Valley Lodge Apartments (Project Homekey Round 2)
December 2022
Permanent Supportive Housing
54 Units
Heritage House & Valle Verde
December 2023
Permanent Supportive & Low-Income Housing
88 Units
Homekey Round 3 – Early 2023 (expected)
Encampment Resolution– Early 2023 (expected)
Housing Choice and Mainstream Vouchers

ATTACHMENT 1

Homeless Services Partnerships Report
Updates
• Motor Homes/Trailers
• Park and Ride Facilities
• Issues in South Napa Around Homeless Shelter

ATTACHMENT 1

Homeless Services Partnerships Report
Requested Action
Requested Action: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Cooperative Joint Powers Homeless
Services Agreement with County of Napa in an amount of
up to $765,000 per fiscal year.

Questions?

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk
City Council of the City of Napa
Regular Meeting
September 20, 2022

FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA
EVENING SESSION:

SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

14. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

14.A. General Plan Adoption Hearing
• PowerPoint presentation from City Staff.
• Letter from Kevin Teague, Holman Teague Law Firm, dated 9/9/2022 received on September 13, 2022.
1) Email from Lee Miller received on September 6, 2022. 2) Five letters from Katherine Lambert, two received on September 13, 2022. 3) Email with three attachments from Glenn Loveall, Napa-Solano Labor Council, received on September 14, 2022.
4) Email with one attachment from Margan Holloway received on September 14, 2022. 5) Email from Andrew and Marguerite Treweek received on September 15, 2022. 6) Email from Heather Croshaw received on September 15, 2022. 7) Email from David Dunlap received on September 15, 2022. 8) Email and letter from Charles Shinnamon on behalf of GPAC Members received on September 16, 2022.
9) Email and letter from Charles Shinnamon on behalf of the Napa Housing Coalition received on September 16, 2022.
10) Email from Daniel and Linda Kinder received on September 16, 2022. 11) Email from Cynthia Deutsch received on September 16, 2022. 12) Email from Melissa Moravec received on September 16, 2022. 13) Email from Kara Vernor, Napa County Bicycle Coalition, received on September 16, 2022. 14) Email from Cole Croshaw received on September 15, 2022. 15) Email from Bob Massaro received on September 15, 2022. 16) Email from Adam Ghisletta received on September 14, 2022. 17) Email from Kurt Reaume received on September 16, 2022. 18) Email from Ruth McCrum and Charles McCrum received on September 19, 2022. 19) Email from David Graves received on September 19, 2022. 20) Email from Brian Kelly received on September 19, 2022. 21) Email from Eron Munoz-Ledo received on September 19, 2022. 22) Email from Lorraine Fazzolare received on September 19, 2022. 23) Email from Christiane Robbins received on September 19, 2022. 24) Email from Stanley Chen received on September 19, 2022. 25) Email from Pam Hightower received on September 19, 2022. 26) Email from Donna Kingsford received on September 19, 2022. 27) Email from S Segalwood received on September 19, 2022. 28) Email from Judy Donovan received on September 19, 2022. 29) Email from Nina Cutler received on September 19, 2022. 30) Email from Lynne Posner received on September 19, 2022. 31) Email from Barbara Proft received on September 19, 2022. 32) Email from Josie Givogri received on September 19, 2022. 33) Email from Peter Trouw received on September 19, 2022. 34) Email from Naomi Chamblin received on September 19, 2022

ATTACHMENT 1

35) Email from Karena Zajicek received on September 19, 2022 36) Email from Paul Han received on September 19, 2022. 37) Email from Christine Benz on behalf of Napa Climate Now! received on September 19, 2022. 38) Email from Steven Price received on September 19, 2022. 39) Email from Charles and Marco Simonsen received on September 19, 2022. 40) Email from Jeff Dodd, Coblentz Patch Duffy and Bass received on September 19, 2022. 41) Email from the Sierra Club received on received on September 19, 2022. 42) Email from Peggy Squires received on September 19, 2022. 43) Email from DeAnna Bowers received on September 19, 2022. 44) Email from Jill Techel received on September 19, 2022. 45) Email from Hugh Linn received on received on September 19, 2022. 46) Email from Randy Gularte received on September 19, 2022 47) Email from Pat Burke and Katherine Burke received on September 19, 2022 48) Email from Jacqui Musgrave received on September 19, 2022. 49) Email from Jim Engle and Lora Engle received on September 19, 2022. 50) Email from Christopher Burton received on September 19, 2022. 51) Letter from Greg and Shirley Crompton received on September 19, 2022. 52) Email from Stephanie DiStefano received on September 19, 2022. 53) Email from Mark Lesti received on September 19, 2022. 54) Email from Jim and Debra Huntsinger received on September 19, 2022. 55) Email from Gina Massolo on behalf of the Napa Valley Horsemen’s Association received on September 19, 2022.
56) Email from Benjamin F. Harrison received on September 19, 2022. 57) Email from Dave Ahlberg received on September 19, 2022. 58) Email from Mark & Jo Ann Schaefer received on September 19, 2022. 59) Email from Paul Hicks received on September 19, 2022. 60) Email from Sylvia Vannucchi received on September 19, 2022. 61) Email from Chris Canevari received on September 19, 2022. 62) Email from Jeri Hansen received on September 19, 2022. 63) Email from Michael Silkwood received on September 19, 2022. 64) Email from Sarah Engle received on September 19, 2022. 65) Email from Eve Ryser received on September 19, 2022. 66) Email from Thomas Stockwell received on September 20, 2022. 67) Email from Genji Schmeder received on September 20, 2022. 68) Email from Deborah Macdonald received on September 20, 2022. 69) Email with Letter from Craig and Renee Isham received on September 20, 2022. 70) Email from Meg Shea-Chiles Hayman received on September 20, 2022. 71) Email with letter from Debra Dommen received on September 20, 2022. 72) Email from Robin Slusher received on September 20, 2022. 73) Letter from David Morrison on behalf of the Count of Napa Planning, Building and Environmental Services (PBES) Department received on September 20, 2022. 74) Email from Jeff Hayman received on September 20, 2022. 75) Letter from Joseph and Rosemarie Keebler received on September 20, 2022. 76) Letter from Christiane Robbins on behalf of Keep Napa’s Gateways Green received on September 20, 2022.
77) Email from Michele and Richard Gandolfo received on September 20, 2022. 78) Email from Alexandra Hayman received on September 20, 2022. 79) Email from Tad Bassett received on September 20, 2022. 80) Email from Todd Walker received on September 20, 2022. 81) Email from Cindy Bassett received on September 20, 2022. 82) Letter from Drew C. received on September 20, 2022. 83) Letter from Greg and Shirley Crompton received on September 20, 2022. 84) Email from Barry Marcillac received on September 20, 2022. 85) Letter from Councilmember Beth Painter received on September 20, 2022. 86) Email from Doris Gentry received on September 20, 2022. 87) Email from Marjorie Trammell received on September 20, 2022. 88) Email from Tom Andrews received on September 20, 2022. 89) Email from the Mendenhall Family received on September 20, 2022. 90) Email from Peter Nissen received on September 20, 2022. 91) Email from Judith Rose received on September 20, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 1

92) Email from Kevin Teague, of HolmanTeague Law Firm, on behalf of Ghisletta family, received on September 20, 2022.
93) Letter from the Suscol Intertribal Council received on September 20, 2022. 94) Two emails from Travis Stanley received on September 20, 2022. 95) Email from Victoria Lancaster received on September 20, 2022. 96) Email from Robert Cherry received on September 20, 2022. 97) Email from Allison Bencsik received on September 20, 2022. 98) Email from Kathleen Summers received on September 20, 2022. 99) Email from Michael Morris received on September 20, 2022. 100) Email from Philip Amormino received on September 20, 2022. 101) Email from Mark Johnson and Nancy Johnson received on September20, 2022. 102) Email from Rose Blake received on September 20, 2022. 103) Email from Carol Barge received on September 20, 2022.

SUBMITTED DURING OR AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

14. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

14.A. General Plan Adoption Hearing
104) Email from Laurie Rich received on September 20, 2022. 105) Email from Robert Cherry received on September 20, 2022. 106) Email from Jerry received on September 20, 2022.
107) Email from Nancy and Brian Kaemmer received on September 20, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 1

General Plan
Adoption
September 20, 2022
City Council Regular Meeting
9/20/2022
Supplemental - Item 14.A.

From City Staff

ATTACHMENT 1

Agenda
• Recommended Action
• General Plan Timeline
• Summary of Public Review Comments
• Focused Discussion
– Working Families Coalition
– Linda Vista Bridge
– Foster Road Mixed Use
• Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

ATTACHMENT 1

Recommended Action
• Review Edits to Draft General Plan
• Receive Public Comment
• Provide Further Direction to Staff
• Action on EIR and General Plan

ATTACHMENT 1

How We Got Here
• Vision, Guiding Principles, & Land Use
– 16+ GPAC Meetings
– Community Workshops
– 3 Planning Commission Hearings
• Draft GP - Released February 16, 2022
– Kickoff Meeting Via Zoom
– Planning Commission Meetings
– Joint Session of Planning Commission & City
Counci
l
• Public Review Period thru May 6, 2022

ATTACHMENT 1

Draft General Plan
• Community Driven
Plan
• R
esponsive to
Comm
unity Vision
– Land Use
– Housing
– Public Health
– Climate Change

ATTACHMENT 1

Public Review Comments
Primary Focus
• Land Use &
Comm
unity Design
Element
• Land Use Map
• Transportation
Elem
ent
• Climate Change &
Sust
ainability
Element
Minor Comments
• Community Services,
Park
s & Recreation
• Historic & Cultural
• Natural Resources
• Safety & Noise
• Public Health &
Equit
y
• Economic
Devel
opment

ATTACHMENT 1

Edits & Comments
Edits
• Land Use Map
– Clean-Ups
– Updat
e Parcel Lines
• Text Changes
– Enhanced Language
• Goals & Policies
– Actionable Language
– New Goals & Policies
Comments
• Working Families
Coalit
ion
• Linda Vista Bridge
Ext
ension
• Foster Road Mixed
Use

ATTACHMENT 1

Working Families Coalition
• Added Language to Economic
Developm
ent Strategies to incorporate
Childcare and Construction in Workforce
Development
• Incorporated edits into Policy ED2-1 to
seek partnershi
ps with other local and
regional organizations
• Specific Policies related to PLAs and
other ini
tiatives – outside of GP scope

ATTACHMENT 1

Linda Vista Bridge
• Roadway Connections
– Connected Transportation Network is Key
– Aligns with GP Goals & Policies
• Linda Vista Avenue
– Evaluation as Study Corridor
• Work Collaboratively with Community
• Options For Emergency-Onl y / Pedestrian/Bike
Only

ATTACHMENT 1

Foster Road History
• 1975 – RUL Established
• 1982 – General Plan Designations
• 1998 – General Plan Designations
• 2020-22 – Napa 2040 G eneral Plan
– Foster Road Mixed Use
– NO project is proposed, NO proj ect is
approved with the adoption of the 2040
General Plan

ATTACHMENT 1

1982 General Plan
• Medium Density
Resident
ial (6-12
units per acre)
• High Density
Resident
ial (12-
25 units per acre)

ATTACHMENT 1

1998 General Plan
• Corporate Park
• Multifamily
Resident
ial (15-
20 units per acre)
• Single Family Infill
(3-8 unit
s per
acre)

ATTACHMENT 1

2040 Draft
• Medium Density
Resident
ial (8-18
units per acre)
• Residential Mixed
Use (16-40 uni
ts
per acre)
• Low Density
Resident
ial (3-8
units per acre)

ATTACHMENT 1

2040 Proposed
• City Council
Direct
ion 4/20/21
• Foster Road
Mixed U
se
Designation
• Specific Area
Polic
ies

ATTACHMENT 1

Foster Road Mixed Use
• 9 Specific Policies
– Master Plan
– Environmental
– Visual Impacts
– Gateway
– Cohesive Planning
– Horsemen’s
– Trail System
– Housing Types
– Supporting Non-
Resi
dential

ATTACHMENT 1

Foster Road Summary
• 40+ years designated for development in City
General
Plans
• GPAC and Planning Commission provided
direc
tion to move forward with mix of
residential land uses
– City Council provided direction for the Foster
Road Mi
xed Use Designation on April 20,
2021

ATTACHMENT 1

Environmental Review
• Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
– “Program Level” EIR
– Evaluate Impacts of General Plan
– Not Site-Spec ific Analysis
– Does Not Approve or Disapprove the General
Plan

ATTACHMENT 1

Environmental Review
• Project Impact & Mitigation Measures
– General Plan Policies Intended to Minimize or
Mit
igate Significant Impacts
– Significant & Unavoidable Impacts
• Air Quality
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Agricultural & Forestry Resources
– Benefits Outweigh Potential Impacts (SOC)

ATTACHMENT 1

Environmental Review
• Public Review Period
– March 10 through April 25, 2022
– Extended through May 6, 2022
• 57 Days Total (45 Days Required)
• Twelve Comments Received
• Partial Recirculated Draft EIR
– Agricultural & Forestry Resources
– June 17 through August 1, 2022
• 45 Days Total

ATTACHMENT 1

Recommended Action
Final Action by the City Council to:

1. Adopt a Resolution Certifying the EIR for the
General
Plan Update

2. Provide direction to Staff on the General Plan;
direc
t Staff to return to Council with Final
General Plan incorporating direction; and
continue the hearing to October 18, 2022

ATTACHMENT 1

Questions?

ATTACHMENT 1

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

ATTACHMENT 1

Holman
Teague
real
estate law ‣ land use law ‣ business law ‣ climate change law

Holma
n Teague Roche Anglin LLP ‣ 1455 First Street, Suite 217, Napa, CA 94559 ‣ 707-927-4280 ‣ www.htralaw.com

September 9, 2022

Michael Barrett, C
ity Attorney
City of Napa
1600 First Street
Napa, CA 94559

Re: Planning Commission Recommendation on General Plan Update - Violations of Law

Dear Michael,

I write on behalf of the Ghisletta family whom I have personally known for nearly 40 years, and I have represented for the past 20 years. I write to alert you that the Planning Commission’s recent recommendations on the General Plan contained serious and egregious errors of law that if affirmed by City Council could lead to significant liabilities on the part of the City.

While the 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 City, the family members who manage the family property also have a duty to preserve and protect the family’s interests in the property. It is because of this long cooperative relationship, we want to alert you to these issues so that the City can avoid litigation and damages resulting from the erroneous direction recommended by the Planning Commission.

On Thursday, 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 the City’s 1975 adoption of the Rural Urban Limit Line, the voters adoption of Measure A, the City’s 1983 General Plan and the current 2000 General Plan, the City, County and LAFCO adoption of the Sphere of Influence, the Flood Control Project) and the nearly four years of planning on this General Plan Update which included multiple hearings and meetings, the recommendations by GPAC, and the prior recommendations by the Commission and City Council to maintain the site as a future housing opportunity under 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 violates several laws, including but not limited to:

City Council Special Meeting
9/15/2022
Supplemental - Item 4.A.

ATTACHMENT 1

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

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Lee Miller
Subject: Foster Rd
Date: September 6, 2022 at 12:49:20 PM PDT
To: Mary Luros <[email protected]>, Scott Sedgely <[email protected]>, Liz Alessio <[email protected]>, [email protected], Beth Painter <[email protected]>

[EXTERNAL]
Greetings Leaders,

I’m taking a moment to urge you to ignore the planning commission recommendation and proceed with the general plan’s current zoning of housing for that location. It seems every proposed housing project is met with such public outcry Napa will never be able to increase inventory. One home per 20 acre parcel is no way to achieve adding housing.

I didn’t take notes during the campaign but I suspect each of you mentioned the importance of adding more housing. (Odds are)

Thanks for receiving my input.

Cheers,
Lee W Miller
DRE# 01958362
Avenue8
Living with Passion in Napa

If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are dead and rotten, either write things worth reading or do things worth the writing.

Benjamin Franklin
Item 14.A.

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Katherine Lambert <[email protected]>
Subject: Upcoming Napa City Council Meeting on Sept. 20, 2022 - Foster Rd. Mixed Use Designation Date: September 13, 2022 at 2:26:37 PM PDT
To: Mluros <[email protected]>

[EXTERNAL]

Dear Vice Mayor Luros,

Please see the attached letter regarding comments made at the last Napa Planning Commission meeting and in preparation for the upcoming Sept. 20th City Council meeting.

I am very appreciative of your efforts and I have some thoughts about the Foster Rd. Mixed Use Corridor that I hope you may consider as a potential path forward.

All best,

Katherine

--
Katherine Lambert, AIA, IIDA
Metropolitan Architectural Practice

Item 14.A.

Email #1

ATTACHMENT 1

Vice Mayor Luros K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
Dear Vice Mayor Luros,
I write in regard to the City Council’s upcoming critical vote regarding the proposed draft General Plan Napa 2040 and the DEIR. As our Vice Mayor to the City Council our specific concerns focus upon the recommendation by the Napa Planning Commission that the Designation for your suggested re-zoning to the “ Foster Rd. Mixed Use Corridor ” delineated in the General Plan be changed to a re-zoning of Greenbelt for the Gateway Parcels - aka as the Ghisletta Parcels, the NVHA and the Wilcoxson Parcel. As you may assume, I fully support the Planning Commissions recommendation for this crucial change and encourage you to vote to adopt the General Plan 2040 with the changes for Greenbelt as recommended by the Napa Planning Commission.

I know about your support for housing, I remember your comments during some Napa Housing Coalition meetings earlier this year. Respectfully, housing on these Foster Rd. parcels is not the answer to Napa’s housing needs. I am part of a community spreading throughout the City of Napa that has become increasingly knowledgable, engaged and committed in our advocacy for keeping the Gateway Parcels zoned as either AGW or Greenbelt. As such there are a significant number of concerned citizens and organizations who are NOT in support of the City’s “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation outlined in the proposed draft Napa General Plan 2040. We are all appreciative to the Planning Commission for recommending to you this change to Greenbelt.

During the GPAC process numerous Napan’s initiated a discussion of a Greenbelt designation for the Gateway Parcels similar to TimberHill and the Napa Oaks- these parcels all share the same high-risk site conditions making them unsuitable for housing. In part, our advocacy for Greenbelt was due to the relatively scant amenities offered to residents of Southwest Napa - in your district 2. There are limited (if any) parks. Point in fact, the site conditions of Alden Park is almost a mirror image of the site conditions of the Gateway Parcels, i.e. the West Napa Fault runs directly through both parcels. Throughout this process and in good faith, we offered alternative visions that offered horse and bike trails, parks, and community activities at the Gateway as both welcoming and necessary.

Responses to our community voices were mixed but frequently met with a response noted by appointed GPAC Chair and developer Chuck Shinaman, that the Ghisletta parcels WILL be developed - that these parcels have been in the plan for development for 50 years….it’s a done deal. Contrary to representations, the GPAC did not share a unified position on the Gateway parcels, with a number of GPAC members advocating for Greenbelt along with the community.

GPAC recommendations were compromised, selective and managed. They failed to meet standards that represented true community participation. Despite the flawed recommendations by the GPAC, Sr. Planner Michael Walker reversed even their recommendations and issued a memo dismissing these GPAC recommendations for what had been tagged Foster Rd.

Following City Council’s direction in Spring, 2022, City Planning staff renamed the entire area the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation and created detailed goals and policies for the land’s eventual annexation and development - a roadmap, if you will for development via a Master Plan for the area. This was perplexing as you well know, opposition to this up-zoning,

ATTACHMENT 1

Vice Mayor Luros K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
annexation and development has been fierce for more than fifteen years and remains increasingly so. It was as if the City Council had turned a deaf ear to Napa citizens. Apparently, it also did not register as to how galvanizing these actions were to our communities - feeling as if our suggestions and ideas were not only patronized but continually being discounted and dismissed throughout the entirety of this draft General Plan Napa 2040 process. This flew in the face of the realities that plagued this draft General Plan - that it was replete with factual inaccuracies and misleading half-truths that remained inexplicably hidden until 09.01.2022.

We ask that the City choose not to move forward with this misguided proposal from the Planning Division for the Foster Road Mixed Use. To do so would render an irrevocable decision based on factual inaccuracies and crucial uncertainties. It would ignore the will of the people, the broad spectrum of high-risks associated with these parcels, and inscribe disavowed social practices with the proposed change in zoning for these parcels in the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation. As professionals, we realize that the SOI is a recommendation - not a decision set in stone. It is one subject to the varying influences of time and conditions. It is not a hard and fast rule. The Planning Commissioners who voted to change the land use to Greenbelt all noted how time and new information has influenced their decision to reverse course. I urge you also to take up the recommendation of the Napa Planning Commission.

Commissioners Massaro, Heuther, Kelley and Shotwell all realized there isn’t a project under review, but that the Goals and Policies of the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation lay the foundation for ushering in just such a project. It is impossible not to discuss one without the other. As you know, Napa Oaks and Timber Hill are all parcels with very similar site constraints where previous housing was slated. Neither serve the City as its Gateway. There is no need for a different set of standards being applied for the proposed “Foster Rd Mixed Use Corridor” than to those parcels making up Napa Oaks or Timber Hill.

Housing Needs, Affordable and Otherwise
Despite numerous attempts by citizens at securing accurate housing numbers, Michael Walker explained to the Napa Planning Commissioners that the Foster Rd. Mixed Use corridor would not be necessary in order to reach the tier 1 RHNA numbers for housing.

This news was welcome relief to those commissioners who were attempting to make an informed decision about adopting the General Plan. For the public, this information was also welcome. A number of citizens have been requesting updated numbers on accurate housing forecasts and infill housing locations. We have been advocating for developing the “Focus Area” corridors on Jefferson, Soscal and Trancas for housing and mixed use, but these numbers were never forthcoming, often shifting and nearly always inaccurate and questioned.

The number of potential housing units envisioned along the major boulevard and corridors of Jefferson, Soscal and Trancas remains woefully underestimated.

CEQA
I had written City Planning staff with comments to the DEIR and RDEIR that they lacked mitigation measures and alternatives in the areas of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Air Quality, Traffic, Noise and Environmental Justice issues relative to the Foster Rd. Mixed Use Corridor.

There are a number of mitigation measures to be taken. The City states these mitigation measures are unavoidable and there are no acceptable alternatives. This is inaccurate and untrue. Nevertheless, my concerns and comments were dismissed by Michael Walker.

ATTACHMENT 1

Vice Mayor Luros K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
Our proposal to mitigate the effects of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Air Quality, Traffic, Noise and Environmental Justice issues is simple and direct. If the city postponed indefinitely any possibility of annexation of these parcels that make up the “Foster Rd Mixed Use Corridor” (adopting Greenbelt instead) and are required by the City Council/Planning Commission to first develop the identified focus areas of(Jefferson, Soscol, Lincoln and Trancas), this would definitely mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions/AQ and the effects of Global Warming.

Therefore, the Napa Planning Commission agreed that densifying the city was a mitigation measure in recommending to you to change the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” corridor to “Greenbelt”.

As you well know, it’s infinitely preferable to densify an already urbanized area to keep transportation demands concentrated and deter automobile usage. To provide the mix of housing needs along these corridors revitalizes communities and businesses, and is regenerative to neighborhoods. Many of these existing shopping centers are truly fallow and businesses struggling. Owners could be incentivized using state and federal funding to create vibrant mixed use corridors. Such an alternative plan would not be adding more cars, air, noise, and light pollution to the edges of the city. Rather it would rightly focus the housing in already urban areas, not create sprawl and a dystopian environment at the rural urban interface.

I appeal to you as our elected Vice Mayor for Napa to exhaust all other alternative viable land and development locations prior to changing the zoning, annexing and developing one of the last vestiges of the Agricultural land at the edge of the city. The City’s plan only paves the way for leap-frog development, over-development and sprawl. This has been a key issue for Napans since 1968.

I also advocate to you to change the language of the draft General Plan Napa 2040 to specify and require a priority to advance development first in already urbanized corridors within the city proper to produce the number of RHNA units anticipated in order to reduce sprawl. In so doing, this will reduce the particulate matter, greenhouse gas emissions and maintain air quality.

Without question, developing the existing main corridors and focus areas will provide more of the much-needed housing stock options, revitalizing the city neighborhoods and supporting new and existing businesses.

Thank you very much for your service to Napa and I look forward to your responses to the issues outlined in my letter. Given that you represent the entire city, we appeal to you to support the General Plan 2040 WITH the recommended language changes put forth by the Planning Commission and preserve the Gateway to Napa.

All best,
Katherine Lambert, AIA, IIDA

ATTACHMENT 1

City Council Member Painter K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
Dear Council Member Painter,
I write in regard to the City Council’s upcoming critical vote regarding the proposed draft General Plan Napa 2040 and the DEIR.

As our District 2 Representative to the City Council our specific concerns focus upon the recommendation by the Napa Planning Commission that the Designation for your suggested re-zoning to the “ Foster Rd. Mixed Use Corridor ” delineated in the General Plan be changed to a re-zoning of Greenbelt for the Gateway Parcels - aka as the Ghisletta Parcels, the NVHA and the Wilcoxson Parcel. As you may assume, I fully support the Planning Commissions recommendation for this crucial change and encourage you to vote to adopt the General Plan 2040 with the changes for Greenbelt as recommended by the Napa Planning Commission.

As you also realize, I am part of a community spreading throughout the City of Napa that has become increasingly knowledgable, engaged and committed in our advocacy for keeping the Gateway Parcels zoned as either AGW or Greenbelt. As such there are a significant number of concerned citizens and organizations who are NOT in support of the City’s “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation outlined in the proposed draft Napa General Plan 2040. We are all appreciative to the Planning Commission for recommending this change to Greenbelt.

During the GPAC process numerous Napan’s initiated a discussion of a Greenbelt designation for the Gateway Parcels similar to TimberHill and the Napa Oaks- these parcels all share the same high-risk site conditions making them unsuitable for housing. In part, our advocacy for Greenbelt was due to the relatively scant amenities offered to residents of Southwest Napa - in your district 2. There are limited ( if any) parks. Point in fact, the site conditions of Alden Park ( in your own neighborhood of Brown’s Valley) is almost a mirror image of the site conditions of the Gateway Parcels, i.e. the West Napa Fault runs directly through both parcels.) Throughout this process and in good faith, we offered alternative visions that offered horse and bike trails, parks, and community activities at the Gateway as both welcoming and necessary.

Responses to our community voices were mixed but frequently met with a response noted by appointed GPAC Chair and developer Chuck Shinaman, that the Ghisletta parcels WILL be developed - that these parcels have been in the plan for development for 50 years….it’s a done deal. Contrary to representations, the GPAC did not share a unified position on the Gateway parcels, with a number of GPAC members advocating for Greenbelt along with the community.

GPAC recommendations were compromised, selective and managed. They failed to meet standards that represented true community participation. Despite the flawed recommendations by the GPAC, Sr. Planner Michael Walker reversed even their recommendations and issued a memo dismissing these GPAC recommendations for what had been tagged Foster Rd.

When you ran for City Council, you were helpful in sharing your knowledge and insights about the Ghisletta parcels and the entire annexation process during and immediately after the KNGG candidate forum. Nevertheless, and despite requests for clarification, residents in District 2, especially those of us in south Napa and Coventry Manor remained unclear about your position on development of the Gateway Parcels. We were aware of your unequivocal support for the Item 14.A.

Email #2

ATTACHMENT 1

City Council Member Painter K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
Greenbelt designation for Napa Oaks and Timber Hills in Browns Valley. It would logically follow for you to support Greenbelt for the Gateway parcels too.

But, as you assumed your position on the City Council, and the General Plan 2040 came before your body for preliminary review, it was you who offered the suggestion for a Master Plan that would usher in the necessary re-zoning, annexation and up-zoning thus ensuring the proposed Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor development of the Gateway Parcels.

As an experienced expert in Land Use and Urban Planning, you are uniquely aware of the entire lengthly process, the necessary predicates and how best to seamlessly move this annexation, up-zoning and development forward. Annexation has been key to achieving your unstated goals. For years you have professionally advocated for a Master Plan knowing full well how instrumental it is to the successful annexation process of the entire area.

Following your direction in Spring, 2022, City Planning staff renamed the entire area the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation and created detailed goals and policies for the land’s eventual annexation and development - a roadmap if you will for development. This was perplexing as you well know, opposition to this up-zoning, annexation and development has been fierce for more than fifteen years and remains increasingly so. You had failed to reach out or meet with the communities known to be opposed to re-zoning as represented in the proposed draft General Plan Napa 2040 during the maturation of this process. It was as if most of Southwest Napa was not part of your district - with only Napa Oaks and the Ghisletta Family Trust and attorney Kevin Teague registering on your radar screen.

It was as if you had turned a deaf ear to your own district that you were elected to represent.

Apparently, it also did not register as to how galvanizing these actions were to these communities - feeling as if our suggestions and ideas were not only patronized but continually being discounted and dismissed throughout the entirety of this draft General Plan Napa 2040 process. This flew in the face of the realities that plagued this draft General Plan - that it was replete with factual inaccuracies and misleading half-truths that remained inexplicably hidden until 09.01.2022.

We ask that the City choose not to move forward with this misguided proposal from the Planning Division for the Foster Road Mixed Use. To do so would render an irrevocable decision based on factual inaccuracies and crucial uncertainties. It would ignore the will of the people, the broad spectrum of high-risks associated with these parcels, and inscribe disavowed social practices with the proposed change in zoning for these parcels in the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation. As professionals, we realize that the SOI is a recommendation - not a decision set in stone. It is one subject to the varying influences of time and conditions. It is not a hard and fast rule. The Planning Commissioners who voted to change the land use to Greenbelt all noted how time and new information has influenced their decision to reverse course. But the City Planning staff, commissioner Hurtado, and some council members continue to reference this as if it if it’s written in stone. This is purposefully misguided and simply inaccurate.

Commissioners Massaro, Heuther, Kelley and Shotwell all realized there isn’t a project under review, but that the Goals and Policies of the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation lay the foundation for ushering in just such a project. It is impossible not to discuss one without the other. As you know, Napa Oaks and Timber Hill are all parcels with very similar site constraints where previous housing was slated. Neither serve the City as its Gateway. There is no need for

ATTACHMENT 1

City Council Member Painter K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
a different set of standards being applied for the proposed “Foster Rd Mixed Use Corridor” than to those parcels making up Napa Oaks or Timber Hill.

Housing Needs, Affordable and Otherwise
Despite numerous attempts by citizens at securing accurate housing numbers, Michael Walker explained to the Napa Planning Commissioners that the Foster Rd. Mixed Use corridor would not be necessary in order to reach the tier 1 RHNA numbers for housing.

This news was welcome relief to those Commissioners who were attempting to make an informed decision about adopting the General Plan. For the public, this information was also welcome. A number of citizens have been requesting updated numbers on accurate housing forecasts and infill housing locations. We have also been advocating for developing the corridors on Jefferson, Soscal and Trancas for housing and mixed use, but these housing numbers were never forthcoming, often shifting and nearly always inaccurate and questionable.

The number of potential housing units envisioned along the major boulevard and corridors of Jefferson, Soscal and Trancas remains woefully underestimated.

CEQA
I had written Planning staff with comments to the DEIR and RDEIR that they lacked mitigation measures and alternatives in the areas of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Air Quality, Traffic, Noise and Environmental Justice issues relative to the Foster Rd. Mixed Use Corridor. There are a number of mitigation measures to be taken. The City states these mitigation measures are unavoidable and there are no acceptable alternatives. This is inaccurate and frankly makes a mockery of the this entire process. Nevertheless, my concerns and comments were dismissed by Michael Walker.

Our proposal to mitigate the effects of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Air Quality, Traffic, Noise and Environmental Justice issues is simple and direct. If the city postponed indefinitely any possibility of annexation of these parcels that make up the “Foster Rd Mixed Use Corridor” (adopting Greenbelt instead) and are required by the City Council/Planning Commission to first develop the identified focus areas of(Jefferson, Soscol, Lincoln and Trancas), this would definitely mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions/AQ and the effects of Global Warming.

Therefore, the Napa Planning Commission agreed that densifying the city was a mitigation measure in recommending to you to change the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” corridor to “Greenbelt”.

As you well know, it’s infinitely preferable to densify an already urbanized area to keep transportation demands concentrated and deter automobile usage. To provide the mix of housing needs along these corridors FIRST, revitalizes these corridors and neighborhoods.

Many of these shopping centers are truly fallow and businesses failing. Developers/owners could be incentivized using state and federal funding to create vibrant mixed use corridors. Such an alternative plan would not be adding more cars, air, noise, and light pollution to the edges of the city. Rather it would rightly focus the housing in already urban areas, not create sprawl and a dystopian environment at the rural urban interface.

I appeal to you as our elected representative for Napa and district 2 to exhaust all other alternative viable land and development locations prior to changing the zoning, annexing and developing one of the last vestiges of the Agricultural land at the edge of the city. The City’s plan

ATTACHMENT 1

City Council Member Painter K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
only paves the way for leap-frog development, over-development and sprawl. This has been a key issue for Napans since 1968.

I also advocate to you as City Council member to change the language of the draft General Plan Napa 2040 to specify and require a priority to advance development first in already urbanized corridors within the city proper to produce the number of RHNA units anticipated in order to reduce sprawl. In so doing, this will reduce the particulate matter, greenhouse gas emissions and maintain air quality. Without question, developing the existing main corridors and focus areas will provide more of the much-needed housing stock options, revitalizing the city neighborhoods and supporting new and existing businesses.

Thank you very much for your service to Napa and I look forward to your responses to the issues outlined in my letter. Given that you represent District 2, we appeal to you to support the General Plan 2040 WITH the recommended language changes put forth by the Planning Commission and preserve the Gateway to Napa and the city we all love.

All Best,
Katherine Lambert, AIA, IIDA

ATTACHMENT 1

City Council Member Alessio K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
Dear Council Member Alessio,
I write in regard to the City Council’s upcoming critical vote regarding the proposed draft General Plan Napa 2040 and the DEIR.

As our District 1 Representative to the City Council our specific concerns focus upon the recommendation by the Napa Planning Commission that the Designation for your suggested re- zoning to the “ Foster Rd. Mixed Use Corridor ” delineated in the General Plan be changed to a re-zoning of Greenbelt for the Gateway Parcels - aka as the Ghisletta Parcels, the NVHA and the Wilcoxson Parcel.

As you may assume, I fully support the Planning Commissions recommendation for this crucial change and encourage you to vote to adopt the General Plan 2040 with the changes for Greenbelt as recommended by the Napa Planning Commission.

As you might recall, you listened to our KNGG presentation about the Gateway Parcels at a Napa Housing Coalition meeting earlier this year. I am part of a community spreading throughout the City of Napa that has become increasingly knowledgable, engaged and committed in our advocacy for keeping the Gateway Parcels zoned as either AGW or Greenbelt. As such, there are a significant number of concerned citizens and organizations who are NOT in support of the City’s “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation outlined in the proposed draft Napa General Plan 2040. We are all appreciative to the Planning Commission for recommending this change to Greenbelt.

During the GPAC process numerous Napan’s initiated a discussion of a Greenbelt designation for the Gateway Parcels similar to TimberHill and the Napa Oaks- these parcels all share the same high-risk site conditions making them unsuitable for housing. In part, our advocacy for Greenbelt was due to the relatively scant amenities offered to residents of Southwest Napa - in your district 2. There are limited ( if any) parks. Point in fact, the site conditions of Alden Park ( in your own neighborhood of Brown’s Valley) is almost a mirror image of the site conditions of the Gateway Parcels, i.e. the West Napa Fault runs directly through both parcels.) Throughout this process and in good faith, we offered alternative visions that offered horse and bike trails, parks, and community activities at the Gateway as both welcoming and necessary.

Responses to our community voices were mixed but frequently met with a response noted by appointed GPAC Chair and developer Chuck Shinaman, that the Ghisletta parcels WILL be developed - that these parcels have been in the plan for development for 50 years….it’s a done deal. Contrary to representations, the GPAC did not share a unified position on the Gateway parcels, with a number of GPAC members advocating for Greenbelt along with the community.

GPAC recommendations were compromised, selective and managed. They failed to meet standards that represented true community participation. Despite the flawed recommendations by the GPAC, Sr. Planner Michael Walker reversed even their recommendations and issued a memo dismissing these GPAC recommendations for what had been tagged Foster Rd.

Following City Council’s direction (primarily proposed by Beth Painter) in Spring, 2022, City Planning staff renamed the entire area the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation and created detailed goals and policies for the land’s eventual annexation and development - a roadmap, if you will for development. This was perplexing as you well know, opposition to this up-zoning, annexation and development has been fierce for more than fifteen years and remains increasingly so. It was as if the City Council had turned a deaf ear to Napa citizens. Apparently, it also did not register as to how galvanizing these actions were to these communities - feeling as if our suggestions and ideas were not only patronized but continually being discounted and dismissed throughout the entirety of this draft General Plan Napa 2040 process. This Item 14.A.

Email #3

ATTACHMENT 1

City Council Member Alessio K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
flew in the face of the realities that plagued this draft General Plan - that it was replete with factual inaccuracies and misleading half-truths that remained inexplicably hidden until 09.01.2022.

We ask that the City choose not to move forward with this misguided proposal from the Planning Division for the Foster Road Mixed Use. To do so would render an irrevocable decision based on factual inaccuracies and crucial uncertainties. It would ignore the will of the people, the broad spectrum of high- risks associated with these parcels, and inscribe disavowed social practices with the proposed change in zoning for these parcels in the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation. As professionals, we realize that the SOI is a recommendation - not a decision set in stone. It is one subject to the varying influences of time and conditions. It is not a hard and fast rule. The Planning Commissioners who voted to change the land use to Greenbelt all noted how time and new information has influenced their decision to reverse course.

But the City Planning staff, one commissioner, and some council members continue to reference this as if it’s written in stone. This is purposefully misguided and simply inaccurate.

Commissioners Massaro, Heuther, Kelley and Shotwell all realized there isn’t a project under review, but that the Goals and Policies of the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation lay the foundation for ushering in just such a project. It is impossible not to discuss one without the other. As you know, Napa Oaks and Timber Hill are all parcels with very similar site constraints where previous housing was slated. Neither serve the City as its Gateway. There is no need for a different set of standards being applied for the proposed “Foster Rd Mixed Use Corridor” than to those parcels making up Napa Oaks or Timber Hill.

Housing Needs, Affordable and Otherwise
Despite numerous attempts by citizens at securing accurate housing numbers, Michael Walker explained to the Napa Planning Commissioners that the Foster Rd. Mixed Use corridor would not be necessary in order to reach the tier 1 RHNA numbers for housing.

This news was welcome relief to those commissioners who were attempting to make an informed decision about adopting the General Plan. For the public, this information was also welcome. A number of citizens have been requesting updated numbers on accurate housing forecasts and infill housing locations. We have been advocating for developing the “Focus Area” corridors on Jefferson, Soscal and Trancas for housing and mixed use, but these numbers were never forthcoming, often shifting and nearly always inaccurate and questioned. The number of potential housing units envisioned along the major boulevard and corridors of Jefferson, Soscal and Trancas remains woefully underestimated.

CEQA
I had written Planning staff with comments to the DEIR and RDEIR that they lacked mitigation measures and alternatives in the areas of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Air Quality, Traffic, Noise and Environmental Justice issues relative to the Foster Rd. Mixed Use Corridor. There are a number of mitigation measures to be taken. The City states these mitigation measures are unavoidable and there are no acceptable alternatives. This is inaccurate and makes a mockery of the this entire process. Nevertheless, my concerns and comments were dismissed by Michael Walker.

Our proposal to mitigate the effects of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Air Quality, Traffic, Noise and Environmental Justice issues is simple and direct. If the city postponed indefinitely any possibility of annexation of these parcels that make up the “Foster Rd Mixed Use Corridor” (adopting Greenbelt instead) and are required by the City Council/Planning Commission to first develop the identified focus areas of(Jefferson, Soscol, Lincoln and Trancas), this would definitely mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions/AQ and the effects of Global Warming. Therefore, the Napa Planning Commission agreed that densifying the city was a mitigation measure by recommending to you to change the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” corridor to “Greenbelt”.

ATTACHMENT 1

City Council Member Alessio K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
As you well know, it’s infinitely preferable to densify an already urbanized area to keep transportation demands concentrated and deter automobile usage. To provide the mix of housing needs along these corridors revitalizes communities and businesses, and is regenerative to neighborhoods. Many of these existing shopping centers are truly fallow and businesses struggling. Developers/Owners could be incentivized using state and federal funding to create vibrant mixed use corridors. Such an alternative plan would not be adding more cars, air, noise, and light pollution to the edges of the city. Rather it would rightly focus the housing in already urban areas, not create sprawl and a dystopian environment at the rural urban interface.

I appeal to you as our elected representative for Napa and district 1 to exhaust all other alternative viable land and development locations prior to changing the zoning, annexing and developing one of the last vestiges of the Agricultural land at the edge of the city. The City’s plan only paves the way for leap-frog development, over-development and sprawl. This has been a key issue for Napans since 1968.

I also advocate to you as a City Council member to change the language of the draft General Plan Napa 2040 to specify and require a priority to advance development first in already urbanized corridors within the city proper to produce the number of RHNA units anticipated in order to reduce sprawl. In so doing, this will reduce the particulate matter, greenhouse gas emissions and maintain air quality. Without question, developing the existing main corridors and focus areas will provide more of the much-needed housing stock options, revitalizing the city neighborhoods and supporting new and existing businesses.

Thank you very much for your service to Napa and I look forward to your responses to the issues outlined in my letter. Given that you represent District 1, we appeal to you to support the General Plan 2040 with the recommended language changes put forth to you by the Napa Planning Commission and preserve the Gateway to Napa - the city we all love.

All Best,
Katherine Lambert, AIA, IIDA

ATTACHMENT 1

City Council Member Narvaez K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
Dear Council Member Narvaez,
I write in regard to the City Council’s upcoming critical vote regarding the proposed draft General Plan Napa 2040 and the DEIR. As our District 4 Representative to the City Council our specific concerns focus upon the recommendation by the Napa Planning Commission that the Designation for your suggested re-zoning to the “ Foster Rd. Mixed Use Corridor ” delineated in the General Plan be changed to a re-zoning of Greenbelt for the Gateway Parcels - aka as the Ghisletta Parcels, the NVHA and the Wilcoxson Parcel. As you may assume, I fully support the Planning Commissions recommendation for this crucial change and encourage you to vote to adopt the General Plan 2040 with the changes for Greenbelt as recommended by the Napa Planning Commission.

I know about your support for housing on these parcels. Respectfully, housing on these Foster Rd. parcels is not the answer to Napa’s housing needs. I am part of a community spreading throughout the City of Napa that has become increasingly knowledgable, engaged and committed in our advocacy for keeping the Gateway Parcels zoned as either AGW or Greenbelt.

As such there are a significant number of concerned citizens and organizations who are NOT in support of the City’s “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation outlined in the proposed draft Napa General Plan 2040. We are all appreciative to the Planning Commission for recommending to you this change to Greenbelt.

During the GPAC process numerous Napan’s initiated a discussion of a Greenbelt designation for the Gateway Parcels similar to TimberHill and the Napa Oaks- these parcels all share the same high-risk site conditions making them unsuitable for housing. In part, our advocacy for Greenbelt was due to the relatively scant amenities offered to residents of Southwest Napa - in your district 2. There are limited (if any) parks. Point in fact, the site conditions of Alden Park is almost a mirror image of the site conditions of the Gateway Parcels, i.e. the West Napa Fault runs directly through both parcels. Throughout this process and in good faith, we offered alternative visions that offered horse and bike trails, parks, and community activities at the Gateway as both welcoming and necessary.

Responses to our community voices were mixed but frequently met with a response noted by appointed GPAC Chair and developer Chuck Shinaman, that the Ghisletta parcels WILL be developed - that these parcels have been in the plan for development for 50 years….it’s a done deal. Contrary to representations, the GPAC did not share a unified position on the Gateway parcels, with a number of GPAC members advocating for Greenbelt along with the community.

GPAC recommendations were compromised, selective and managed. They failed to meet standards that represented true community participation. Despite the flawed recommendations by the GPAC, Sr. Planner Michael Walker reversed even their recommendations and issued a memo dismissing these GPAC recommendations for what had been tagged Foster Rd.

Following City Council’s direction (primarily proposed by Beth Painter) in Spring, 2022, City Planning staff renamed the entire area the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation and created detailed goals and policies for the land’s eventual annexation and development - a roadmap, if you will for a detailed master plan for its development. This was perplexing as you well know, Item 14.A.

Email #4

ATTACHMENT 1

City Council Member Narvaez K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
opposition to this up-zoning, annexation and development has been fierce for more than fifteen years and remains increasingly so. It was as if the City Council had turned a deaf ear to many Napa citizens - in favor to just a few. Apparently, it also did not register as to how galvanizing these actions were to our communities - feeling as if our suggestions and ideas were not only patronized but continually being discounted and dismissed throughout the entirety of this draft General Plan Napa 2040 process. This flew in the face of the realities that plagued this draft General Plan - that it was replete with factual inaccuracies and misleading half-truths that remained inexplicably hidden until 09.01.2022.

We ask that the City Council choose not to move forward with this misguided proposal from the Planning Division for the Foster Road Mixed Use. To do so would render an irrevocable decision based on factual inaccuracies and crucial uncertainties. It would ignore the will of the people, the broad spectrum of high-risks associated with these parcels, and inscribe disavowed social practices with the proposed change in zoning for these parcels in the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation. As professionals, we realize that the SOI is a recommendation - not a decision set in stone. It is one subject to the varying influences of time and conditions. It is not a hard and fast rule. The Planning Commissioners who voted to change the land use to Greenbelt all noted how time and new information has influenced their decision to reverse course. I urge you also to take up the recommendation of the Napa Planning Commission.

Commissioners Massaro, Heuther, Kelley and Shotwell all realized there isn’t a project under review, but that the Goals and Policies of the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation lay the foundation for ushering in just such a project. It is impossible not to discuss one without the other. As you know, Napa Oaks and Timber Hill are all parcels with very similar site constraints where previous housing was slated. Neither serve the City as its Gateway. There is no need for a different set of standards being applied for the proposed “Foster Rd Mixed Use Corridor” than to those parcels making up Napa Oaks or Timber Hill.

Housing Needs, Affordable and Otherwise
Despite numerous attempts by citizens at securing accurate housing numbers, Michael Walker explained to the Napa Planning Commissioners that the Foster Rd. Mixed Use corridor would not be necessary in order to reach the tier 1 RHNA numbers for housing.

This news was welcome relief to those commissioners who were attempting to make an informed decision about adopting the General Plan. For the public, this information was also welcome. A number of citizens have been requesting updated numbers on accurate housing forecasts and infill housing locations. We have been advocating for developing the “Focus Area” corridors on Jefferson, Soscal and Trancas for housing and mixed use, but these numbers were never forthcoming, often shifting and nearly always inaccurate and questioned.

The number of potential housing units envisioned along the major boulevard and corridors of Jefferson, Soscal and Trancas remains woefully underestimated.

CEQA
I had written City Planning staff with comments to the DEIR and RDEIR that they lacked mitigation measures and alternatives in the areas of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Air Quality, Traffic, Noise and Environmental Justice issues relative to the Foster Rd. Mixed Use Corridor.

There are a number of mitigation measures to be taken. The City states these mitigation

ATTACHMENT 1

City Council Member Narvaez K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
measures are unavoidable and there are no acceptable alternatives. This is inaccurate and untrue. Nevertheless, my concerns and comments were dismissed by Michael Walker.

Our proposal to mitigate the effects of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Air Quality, Traffic, Noise and Environmental Justice issues is simple and direct. If the city postponed indefinitely any possibility of annexation of these parcels that make up the “Foster Rd Mixed Use Corridor” (adopting Greenbelt instead) and are required by the City Council/Planning Commission to first develop the identified focus areas of(Jefferson, Soscol, Lincoln and Trancas), this would definitely mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions/AQ and the effects of Global Warming.

Therefore, the Napa Planning Commission agreed that densifying the city was a mitigation measure in recommending to you to change the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” corridor to “Greenbelt”.

As you well know, it’s infinitely preferable to densify an already urbanized area to keep transportation demands concentrated and deter automobile usage. To provide the mix of housing needs along these corridors revitalizes communities and businesses, and is regenerative to neighborhoods. Many of these existing shopping centers are truly fallow and businesses struggling. Owners could be incentivized using state and federal funding to create vibrant mixed use corridors. Such an alternative plan would not be adding more cars, air, noise, and light pollution to the edges of the city. Rather it would rightly focus the housing in already urban areas, not create sprawl and a dystopian environment at the rural urban interface.

I appeal to you as our elected representative for Napa and district 4 to exhaust all other alternative viable land and development locations prior to changing the zoning, annexing and developing one of the last vestiges of the Agricultural land at the edge of the city. The City’s plan only paves the way for leap-frog development, over-development and sprawl. This has been a key issue for Napans since 1968.

I also advocate to you as City Council member to change the language of the draft General Plan Napa 2040 to specify and require a priority to advance development first in already urbanized corridors within the city proper to produce the number of RHNA units anticipated in order to reduce sprawl. In so doing, this will reduce the particulate matter, greenhouse gas emissions and maintain air quality. Without question, developing the existing main corridors and focus areas will provide more of the much-needed housing stock options, revitalizing the city neighborhoods and supporting new and existing businesses.

Thank you very much for your service to Napa and I look forward to your responses to the issues outlined in my letter. Given that you represent District 4, we appeal to you to support the General Plan 2040 with the recommended language changes put forth by the Planning Commission and preserve the Gateway to Napa and the city we all love. While the Ghisletta family supported your candidacy, please do not be influenced in voting for the development of these lands. Many others supported you candidacy as well, and we appeal to you to hear our concerns.

All best,
Katherine Lambert, AIA, IIDA

ATTACHMENT 1

City Council Member Narvaez K.Lambert, 09.12.2022

ATTACHMENT 1

The Honorable Mayor Sedgley K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
Dear Mayor Sedgley,
I write in regard to the City Council’s upcoming critical vote regarding the proposed draft General Plan Napa 2040 and the DEIR. As our Mayor you have a crucial key vote in the future of our city, and I hope to influence your thinking about where housing development is needed and where it is not. I wish to impress upon you our specific concerns that focus upon the recommendation by the Napa Planning Commission that the Designation for the suggested re- zoning to the “ Foster Rd. Mixed Use Corridor ” delineated in the General Plan be changed to a re-zoning of Greenbelt for the Gateway Parcels - aka as the Ghisletta Parcels, the NVHA and the Wilcoxson Parcel. As you may assume, I fully support the Planning Commissions recommendation for this crucial change and encourage you to vote to adopt the General Plan 2040 with the changes for Greenbelt as recommended by the Napa Planning Commission.

I know about your support for housing, I remember your comments during the City Council meeting earlier this year. Respectfully, housing on these Foster Rd. parcels is not the answer to Napa’s housing needs. I am part of a community spreading throughout the City of Napa that has become increasingly knowledgable, engaged and committed in our advocacy for keeping the Gateway Parcels zoned as either AGW or Greenbelt. As such there are a significant number of concerned citizens and organizations who are NOT in support of the City’s “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation outlined in the proposed draft Napa General Plan 2040. We are all appreciative to the Planning Commission for recommending to you this change to Greenbelt.

Please accept their recommendations, because it is critical to the future of our city.

During the GPAC process numerous Napan’s initiated a discussion of a Greenbelt designation for the Gateway Parcels similar to TimberHill and the Napa Oaks- these parcels all share the same high-risk site conditions making them unsuitable for housing. In part, our advocacy for Greenbelt was due to the relatively scant amenities offered to residents of Southwest Napa - in your district 2. There are limited (if any) parks. Point in fact, the site conditions of Alden Park is almost a mirror image of the site conditions of the Gateway Parcels, i.e. the West Napa Fault runs directly through both parcels. Throughout this process and in good faith, we offered alternative visions that offered horse and bike trails, parks, and community activities at the Gateway as both welcoming and necessary.

Responses to our community voices were mixed but frequently met with a response noted by yourself as well as by appointed GPAC Chair and developer Chuck Shinaman, that the Ghisletta parcels WILL be developed - that these parcels have been in the plan for development for 50 years….it’s a done deal. Contrary to representations, the GPAC did not share a unified position on the Gateway parcels, with a number of GPAC members advocating for Greenbelt along with the community.

GPAC recommendations were compromised, selective and managed. They failed to meet standards that represented true community participation. Despite the flawed recommendations by the GPAC, Sr. Planner Michael Walker reversed even their recommendations and issued a memo dismissing these GPAC recommendations for what had been tagged Foster Rd.

Following City Council’s direction in Spring, 2022, City Planning staff renamed the entire area the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation and created detailed goals and policies for the land’s eventual annexation and development - a roadmap, if you will for development via a Masterplan Item 14.A.

Email #4

ATTACHMENT 1

The Honorable Mayor Sedgley K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
for the area. This was perplexing as you well know, opposition to this up-zoning, annexation and development has been fierce for more than fifteen years and remains increasingly so. It was as if the City Council had turned a deaf ear to many Napa citizens, in favor of just a few.

Apparently, it also did not register as to how galvanizing these actions were to our communities - feeling as if our suggestions and ideas were not only patronized but continually being discounted and dismissed throughout the entirety of this draft General Plan Napa 2040 process.

This flew in the face of the realities that plagued this draft General Plan - that it was replete with factual inaccuracies and misleading half-truths that remained inexplicably hidden until

09.01.2022.

We ask that the City Council choose not to move forward with this misguided proposal from the Planning Division for the Foster Road Mixed Use corridor. To do so would render an irrevocable decision based on factual inaccuracies and crucial uncertainties. It would ignore the will of the people, the broad spectrum of high-risks associated with these parcels, and inscribe disavowed social practices with the proposed change in zoning for these parcels in the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation. As professionals, we realize that the SOI is a recommendation - not a decision set in stone. It is one subject to the varying influences of time and conditions. It is not a hard and fast rule. The Planning Commissioners who voted to change the land use to Greenbelt all noted how time and new information has influenced their decision to reverse course. I urge you also to take up the recommendation of the Napa Planning Commission.

Commissioners Massaro, Heuther, Kelley and Shotwell all realized there isn’t a project under review, but that the Goals and Policies of the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” designation lay the foundation for ushering in just such a project. It is impossible not to discuss one without the other. As you know, Napa Oaks and Timber Hill are all parcels with very similar site constraints where previous housing was slated. Neither serve the City as its Gateway. There is no need for a different set of standards being applied for the proposed “Foster Rd Mixed Use Corridor” than to those parcels making up Napa Oaks or Timber Hill.

Housing Needs, Affordable and Otherwise
Despite numerous attempts by citizens at securing accurate housing numbers, Michael Walker explained to the Napa Planning Commissioners that the Foster Rd. Mixed Use corridor would not be necessary in order to reach the tier 1 RHNA numbers for housing.

This news was welcome relief to those Commissioners who were attempting to make an informed decision about adopting the General Plan 2040. For the public, this information was also welcome. A number of citizens have been requesting updated numbers on accurate housing forecasts and infill housing locations. We have been advocating for developing the “Focus Area” corridors on Jefferson, Soscal and Trancas for housing and mixed use, but these numbers were never forthcoming, often shifting and nearly always inaccurate and questioned.

The number of potential housing units envisioned along the major boulevard and corridors of Jefferson, Soscal and Trancas remains woefully underestimated.

CEQA
I had written City Planning staff with comments to the DEIR and RDEIR that they lacked mitigation measures and alternatives in the areas of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Air Quality, Traffic, Noise and Environmental Justice issues relative to the Foster Rd. Mixed Use Corridor.

There are a number of mitigation measures to be taken. The City states these mitigation

ATTACHMENT 1

The Honorable Mayor Sedgley K.Lambert, 09.12.2022
measures are unavoidable and there are no acceptable alternatives. This is inaccurate and untrue. Nevertheless, my concerns and comments were dismissed by Michael Walker.

Our proposal to mitigate the effects of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Air Quality, Traffic, Noise and Environmental Justice issues is simple and direct. If the city postponed indefinitely any possibility of annexation of these parcels that make up the “Foster Rd Mixed Use Corridor” (adopting Greenbelt instead) and are required by the City Council/Planning Commission to first develop the identified focus areas of(Jefferson, Soscol, Lincoln and Trancas), this would definitely mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions/AQ and the effects of Global Warming.

Therefore, the Napa Planning Commission agreed that densifying the city was a mitigation measure in recommending to you to change the “Foster Rd. Mixed Use” corridor to “Greenbelt”.

As you well know, it’s infinitely preferable to densify an already urbanized area to keep transportation demands concentrated and deter automobile usage. To provide the mix of housing needs along these corridors revitalizes communities and businesses, and is regenerative to neighborhoods. Many of these existing shopping centers are truly fallow and businesses struggling. Owners could be incentivized using state and federal funding to create vibrant mixed use corridors. Such an alternative plan would not be adding more cars, air, noise, and light pollution to the edges of the city. Rather it would rightly focus the housing in already urban areas, not create sprawl and a dystopian environment at the rural urban interface.

I appeal to you as our elected Mayor of Napa to exhaust all other alternative viable land and development locations prior to changing the zoning, annexing and developing one of the last vestiges of the Agricultural land at the edge of the city. The City’s plan only paves the way for leap-frog development, over-development and sprawl. This has been a key issue for Napans since 1968.

I also advocate to you as Mayor to change the language of the draft General Plan Napa 2040 to specify and require a priority to advance development first in already urbanized corridors within the city proper to produce the number of RHNA units anticipated in order to reduce sprawl. In so doing, this will reduce the particulate matter, greenhouse gas emissions and maintain air quality. Without question, developing the existing main corridors and focus areas will provide more of the much-needed housing stock options, revitalizing the city neighborhoods and supporting new and existing businesses.

Thank you very much for your service to Napa Mayor Sedgley and I look forward to your responses to the issues outlined in my letter. I appeal to you to support the General Plan 2040 WITH the recommended language changes put forth by the Planning Commission and preserve the Gateway to Napa and the city we all love.

While I cannot attend the upcoming meeting on Sept. 20th a number of our community members will be there to share their thoughts on this important decision before you.

All best,
Katherine Lambert, AIA, IIDA

ATTACHMENT 1

The Honorable Mayor Sedgley K.Lambert, 09.12.2022

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Glenn Loveall
Date: 9/13/22 3:53 PM (GMT-08:00)
To:

Subject: Napa Working Families Coalition - Tomorrow/Wednesday, 9/14 at 10 AM on Zoom

Good afternoon everyone,

The Napa Working Families Coalition will assemble tomorrow at 10 AM on Zoom. Our primary updates will entail our continued efforts to influence the Napa General Plan in the direction of sustainable, equitable, pro-worker growth. Primarily, we will be preparing to mobilize to speak with the Napa City Council meeting next Tuesday, 9/20. Please see the attached agenda and memo regarding these updates.

Napa Working Families Coalition
Tomorrow/Wednesday 9/14, 10 AM on Zoom https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85866937233 Meeting ID: 858 6693 7233 One tap mobile +16699009128,,85866937233# US (San Jose) +13462487799 ,,85866937233# US (Houston) Dial by your location +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) Meeting ID: 858 6693 7233 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kb4rQAhQsU

Thank you!

Glenn Loveall
Special Projects Coordinator
Napa-Solano Central Labor Council (AFL-CIO)

https://napasolanoclc.org/

ATTACHMENT 1

1 Napa Working Families Coalition
City of Napa – General Plan

We are writing as members of the Napa Community Benefits Coalition, which is a project of the Napa Working Families Coalition. This Coalition is a combination of labor, environmental, housing, and other community groups active across the City and County of Napa. We agree with the vision expressed in the plan of making Napa a great place to live, work and play. We also agree with the goals of reducing Napa’s climate emissions and creating more quality jobs.

The picture the plan needs to paint is fundamentally a puzzle, made up of a lot of little parts that all need to be carefully shaped to fit together. For example, new affordable housing can be a climate solution if it is built in the right place to high performance green building standards. If the construction is done with high road contracting standards, it can be a source of quality jobs too. Co-locating childcare services with affordable housing, when practical, is a best practice that can add an additional layer of benefits. Attending to this sort of detail is what we do.

Our mission is to improve the quality of life of our community by building public support, through collaborative partnerships, for projects and policies that help make our communities inclusive, sustainable, and economically vibrant with quality jobs, services, and housing for all.

To that end, we offer our commentary on how the general plan draft could be improved to meet our community’s myriad needs.

Climate Change and Sustainability
We appreciate the changes in the redlined copy addressing our comments on short lived climate pollutants and also revisions limiting new fossil fuel stations and promoting zero emission vehicles.

Economic Development

The General Plan Economic Development Element should have policies aimed at increasing the number of high quality jobs available in Napa, with a special emphasis on providing enhanced economic mobility for targeted populations including women, minorities, residents of low income communities, the formerly incarcerated and veterans.

We recommend the following changes in bolded text each with a parenthetic note indicating an addition or deletion:

10.3 Economic Development Strategies

ATTACHMENT 1

2 Workforce Development and Equity:
“there is a gap in workers supporting manufacturing, professional and technical services, healthcare, (ADD) childcare, construction, and management professionals. (DELETE) as compared to the region. ”
(ADD) Childcare: After housing, childcare is the largest expenditure for families with small children. Early care and after school care are required in order for a parent to work outside the home. There is 1 (one) licensed childcare spot for every 4 children who need care in Napa. (ADD) Construction: The shortage of skilled construction workers in Napa reflects a pattern found throughout the region and presents a constraint on the potential of every other sector that relies on construction to support growth.

10.4 Economic Development Element Goals and Policies
ADD a goal to “Maintain and grow the number of childcare facilities, programs and trained providers to ensure quality childcare for every family in need of this service.” GOAL ED-2: “Promote training, education and labor support programs that enhance the quality of the city’s workforce and support more equitable economic opportunities.” ED 2.1: …”Strengthen partnerships with and among local institutions such as NVC, Culinary Institutes of American WANB, the Small Business Development Center, (ADD) Napa Solano Labor Council, Napa Solano Building Trades Council and other countywide, regional and local organizations for workforce development, especially in local production, manufacturing, information technology, healthcare, (ADD) childcare, construction, and culinary arts, with an emphasis on outreach to Hispanic and Latinx communities.” ED 2-5 Continue and expand local-hire initiatives, training, apprenticeships, and partnerships with employers, WANB, NVC, (ADD) Napa Solano Labor Council, Napa Solano Building Trades Council and others to develop a job pipeline in targeted and growth industry sectors in Napa. (ADD) ED 2 –7 Work with the Building Trades to research and discuss a Project Labor Agreement for publicly funded construction projects. Include a local and targeted hire requirement in the agreement with an emphasis on women, minorities, residents of low-income communities, the formerly incarcerated and veterans.
(ADD) ED 2- 8 Research and discuss the use of best practices in workforce development for construction, including the use of apprentices and provision of employer paid health care for work on privately financed construction projects greater than 50,000 square feet of building area. (ADD) ED 2 – 9 Create an incentive program for new hospitality development to employ card check neutrality.
(ADD) 2 – 10 All Cannabis businesses with 10 or more employees, seeking or holding a license, are required to have a signed Labor Peace agreement with a bona fide labor Union".

Public Health and Equity

ATTACHMENT 1

3 There are two changes we would recommend here. One is to include explicit support for child care as a home based business in PHE 4 -2. This complements the goals and policies with respect to child care we are recommending in the Economic Development element. The other change we are recommending regards tenant protections in PHE 6 - 3. We were proud to have worked as a coalition to help publicize and promote efforts to limit evictions during the pandemic, and are convinced that ongoing effort to help protect tenants is essential. We agree with the notion expressed in PH 6 -3 that a just cause eviction ordinance would help, but would also like the city to work on developing an appropriate rent stabilization ordinance as a natural complement to just cause policies in order to protect against unexpected sudden large increases in rent.

PHE 4-2 Update the City's zoning regulations pertaining to home-based occupations (including cottage food (ADD) and child care) in residential areas to support complete neighborhoods and diverse communities that provide opportunities for micro-businesses and entrepreneurship, as well as recognize an increase in remote work. Also see Chapter 10: Economic Development for further discussion regarding equity and home-based occupations.

PHE 6-3 Develop and monitor indicators such as change in share of low-income households, average rent and sales price, supply of affordable units, and evictions and foreclosures within the City. Use this data to identify at-risk neighborhoods, and develop programs and resources to assist, including renter protections such as (ADD) rent stabilization and just cause eviction ordinances, within the limitations of City Charter Section 172.

Rent stabilization, if properly moderated by vacancy decontrol (allows market correction between tenants), new construction exemptions and some allowance for revenue growth can provide protections for renters against the extreme increases, while allowing the market to function smoothly.

ATTACHMENT 1

9-13-2022

Good afternoon NWFC E-Board members,

We have strategic updates on the Napa General Plan in advance of tomorrow's Napa Working Families Coalition meeting.

First, I would like to thank everyone who managed to speak or have representatives of your organizations speak at the Planning Commission- we had a good presence there.

Second, I want to thank everyone who participated in the Zoom meetings with several of the Planning Commissioners.

In the meeting, we got a good number of comments in favor of our language, several commissioners spoke in support, and City Staff are in the process of incorporating recommended language from Commissioners/the public. Tim and I met with several of the relevant City Staff to further discuss our language, and the staff will be releasing their latest edits/additions to the General Plan on Friday.

This is where we're at- the City Council is to review and work to adopt the finalized General Plan at its meeting next Tuesday 9/20, presumably 6:30 PM (their agenda is currently in development). I recommend the following - 1) we attend the City Council meeting of 9/20 in force, turning out leaders and rank-and-file of all of our organizations so that we are the largest presence in the room, larger even that the local homeowners or neighborhood associations, which are engaged on usually just one particular issue; 2) We secure some meetings with City Councilmembers over the course of this week to overview our language; 3) We adapt our message accordingly once Staff releases its updated General Plan language on Friday (that's when we'll know how much of our language is in and ready for sign off and what we have to advocate for at the City Council meeting).

The big action to get our vision of sustainable and equitable development into the General Plan is here, and we are ready to press forward.

Thank you,

Glenn Loveall
Special Projects Coordinator
Napa-Solano Central Labor Council (AFL-CIO)

https://napasolanoclc.org/

ATTACHMENT 1

The AFL-CIO and the Napa Solano Central Labor Council is committed to providing an environment free from discrimination and harassment. We ask all meeting participants to embrace our values of equity and equality and conduct themselves I all meetings consistent with t hose values. We have designated the President or the Executive Board Officer running the meeting as the first point of contact for anyone who thinks they have experienced discriminatory, harassing or otherwise unacceptable behavior, and we urge you to contact (him/her) in you have any concerns.

Napa Working Families Coalition
Wednesday, September 14th, 2022 at 10 AM

Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85866937233 Meeting ID: 858 6693 7233
One tap mobile +16699009128,,85866937233# US (San Jose), +13462487799,,85866937233# US (Houston)

Chair – Jon Riley
First Vice Chair – Carol Whichard
Second Vice Chair – G. Anthony Phillips
Secretary – Chris Benz
Treasurer – Johanna O’Kelley
Outreach Chairs – Pablo Zatarain, John Gomez

Agenda

Mission Statement - To improve the quality of life of our community by building public support, through collaborative partnerships, for projects and policies that help make our communities inclusive, sustainable, and economically vibrant with quality jobs and housing for all.
❖ Meeting called to order
❖ Introductions
❖ Guests
❖ New Business
o Solano Community Benefits Coalition – Fairfield General Plan, Next Meeting on Monday, 9/26 at 1 PM o Napa Community Benefits Coalition – Report from Tim Frank- Napa General Plan mobilization at Napa City Council (Tuesday 9/20), Next Meeting on Tuesday, 9/27 at 1 PM ❖ Report of Organizations
o Business
o Labor
o Community
❖ Agenda Items for Next Meeting
o This is an opportunity for you to identify items you would like to see on the next agenda. ❖ Upcoming Events
❖ Adjournment

ATTACHMENT 1

From:

Subject: General Plan 2040 - Proposed Linda Vista Bridge Date: September 14, 2022 at 10:46:58 AM PDT
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley and City of Napa Council Members,

I am a resident of Napa and live on the south side of the Napa Creek in Blane Meadows, the area where the Linda Vista Bridge has been proposed since 1966. I have attached a letter regarding my opposition to the Bridge and wanted to share that information with you prior to the City Council Meeting, September 20, 2022.

If you have any questions please reach out to me by phone or email. I plan on attending the meeting as well.

Thank you,

Margan Holloway

ATTACHMENT 1

September 14, 2022

RE: Proposed Linda Vista Bridge over Napa Creek

Dear Mayor Sedgley and City of Napa Council Members,

I live in the Blane Meadows area on the south side of the Napa Creek where the Linda Vista Bridge has been proposed. This proposal has been in the General Plan since 1966 and has never moved forward. I urge you all to remove this idea from the Plan. I have been opposed to this since 2014 when it was introduced to the City Council. Four years later, in 2018, the City of Napa, Planning Division, presented a study that they conducted regarding the bridge with the goal of “ensuring the safe and efficient movement of people and goods”. The findings were not favorable in many aspects of the study:

1. Proposed Street Cross Sections do not meet street alignment standards and is 20’ narrower than the requirements resulting in sidewalks on one side only.

2. The streets do not align with Linda Vista Avenue.

3. Traffic will increase on both sides of the bridge; 2500 cars per day on Robinson and an additional cars 1200 on Linda Vista.

4. More than 54 trees will be removed.

5. Residents will lose land.

I have additional concerns:

• Safety – of children and adults and pets. There are four schools along the proposed route with a combined enrollment of over 1,200 children. Streets where children play ball, ride bikes and adults and pets walk daily.

Additional cars will put everyone at greater risk.
• Traffic increases – moving 2500 cars per day along Robinson equates to 156.25 cars per hour in a 16-hour period which is not acceptable. Traffic will increase on Browns Valley Road in the South and on Linda Vista in the North and all connecting streets by those cars trying to avoid the gridlock. • Environment – a bridge will displace countless species of plants and animals who call the creek their home; deer, racoons, fox, river otters, salmon, steelhead trout to name a few. The loss of more than 50 trees and the increased car exhaust and noise in the neighborhoods, adding to the carbon footprint. • Budget – the city of Napa has far more important items to spend the millions on what the bridge will cost. At a time when affordable housing is at a critical low, the bridge is not needed. • Decreased property values and increased crime – On both sides of Napa Creek.

Routing traffic from one neighborhood to another is not a solution to traffic circulation from one side of the city to another.

That’s what Highway 29 is for. When that General Plan item was included in 1966, the population of Napa was about 29,000.

Today the population is over 79,000. Things change. A bridge serves only to ruin many neighborhoods and the quality of life for those residents and more importantly the safety of all.

I urge you, Mayor Sedgley and Council Members, to remove the proposed Linda Vista Bridge over the Napa Creek from the General Plan 2040.

Thank you for your continued work and commitment to preserving and promoting the unique quality of life that is Napa.

Sincerely,

Margan Holloway

Margan Holloway

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Beth Painter <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 5:34 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Linda vista extension and bridge

Begin forwarded message:

From: Andrew Treweek
Subject: Linda vista extension and bridge
Date: September 14, 2022 at 4:44:03 PM PDT
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

[EXTERNAL]

Dear Council members;
I am writing in support of removing the Linda Vista extension and bridge from the General Plan as approved by the Planning Commission.

As a resident of the area I strongly oppose the bridge. It will greatly increase the traffic in a neighborhood that is not designed for this. The road after the Brown Creek bridge was not designed for sidewalks and is used for most residents as a pedestrian and biking route.

Thank you for you consideration.

Sincerely,
Andrew and Marguerite Treweek

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Heather Croshaw
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 10:47 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>; Liz Alessio <[email protected]>; Beth Painter <[email protected]>; Mary Luros <[email protected]>; Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>; Patricia Baring <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan- Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor

[EXTERNAL]
To whom it may concern,
Annexing rural lands can only be a last resort. I request that you honor and accept in-full the City of Napa’s Planning Commission recommendation of September 1, 2022 to designate the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor parcels as Greenbelt in the proposed draft General Plan Napa 2040.

Best,
Heather Croshaw

ATTACHMENT 1

From: David Dunlap
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 12:37 PM
To: Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>
Cc: Emily Cosby
Subject: Gateway Parcels

[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Council Members,

I was the foreman who worked to build the auxiliary building on the Ghisletta Property in 1979. The property should remain an agricultural property welcoming those who live here in Napa and those who come to visit the valley.

For years now the City of Napa has been made aware of our serious concerns regarding the proposed “re-zoning, annexation, up-zoning and development “ of what is alternatively known as the Gateway Parcels, the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor, the Ghisletta Parcels, NVA, Wilcoxson Parcel. There is is no reason to reiterate these reasons here as the City’s archives bears witness to innumerable documents registering our concerns and opposition to this proposal.

We simply request that you honor and accept in-full the City of Napa’s Planning Commission recommendation of September 1, 2022 to designate these parcels as Greenbelt in the proposed draft General Plan Napa 2 040.

Respectfully Submitted,

David W Dunlap
Retired General Contractor

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Charles Shinnamon
To: Council Members; Clerk
Subject: General Plan - Council Hearing - September 20
Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 9:24:48 AM
Attachments: General Plan Comments - City Council hearing 9-20-2022.pdf Comments on Draft General Plan - Joint Letter 3-26-2022.pdf [EXTERNAL]
Mayor Sedgely and Councilmembers,

Enclosed are two letters from a group of GPAC members.

Thank you for your consideration,

Chuck

Charles W. Shinnamon, P.E.

“If you don’t like the news, go out and make some of your own.” (Wes “Scoop” Nisker)

ATTACHMENT 1

September 20, 2022
Napa City Council
Re: Draft General Plan and Draft EIR Via Email
Dear Mayor Sedgley and Council Members,
Enclosed is the March 26, 2022, letter that we, writing as individuals having served on the City's General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), sent to you and the Planning Commission for your joint study session.

In that letter we made a number of recommendations for improvements to the draft General Plan based on our more than two years of work as members of the GPAC. We clearly noted that these were exclusively our personal comments and not the opinions of other GPAC members, or the GPAC as a whole . It is important to note that additional members of the GPAC may have supported adding their names to such a letter, but it was unclear whether the Brown Act would prohibit such action.

Throughout the 3-plus year process of developing a new General Plan for the City of Napa, you have heard from hundreds of interested residents, business own ers, and local workers about the many challenges our community must face as we plan for the next 20 years. But one theme was clearly dominant - the need to quickly and equitably address our severe housing shortage while maintaining the quality of life and character of neighborhoods that make Napa such a desirable place to live and raise a family.

At public meetings of the GPAC, we heard numerous concerned residents speak about the reasons why Timberhill and Napa Oaks should be designated as “Green Belt” and thus limit future housing on the western hills. They provided us with substantial background information and research as to why those designations make sense. The GPAC unanimously agreed and recommended that those areas be designated as such; that continues to hold true in the current draft.

The GPAC also heard from residents concerned about the Foster Road corridor, who encouraged the GPAC to extend Green Belt designation to the Ghisletta and Horsemen’s Association properties. While the GPAC was not unanimous in our recommendations for this area, a significant majority of the GPAC supported development of a detailed Master Plan / Specific Plan that would take into account all of the challenges associated with this site. For the better part of three years, this has been the direction of each iteration of draft General Plan language, and what we supported in our March 26th letter to you.

We were surprised by the Planning Commission’s September 1st decision to reverse course and recommend to Council that this area be designated Green Belt. We agree with members of the public who rightly want to avoid anything like the walled community across the highway, yet this area remains a key opportunity site for a future neighborhood that can help meet our critical housing shortage. One consideration raised by Planning Commissioners, though, resonated strongly with us. We agree that this area, when developed, should contain a significant share of permanently deed-restricted affordable and workforce housing.

Future development of the Foster Road corridor must include accessible parkland in conjunction with the Snow School open space. Any plan needs to take into account the wetlands and drainages with appropriate setbacks near Golden Gate Drive ; to account for the large buffer around the earthquake fault when it is accurately located by a well-qualified geologist; and to carefully incorporate the various slopes and knolls within a broader context worthy of Napa's southern gateway. Additionally, this future neighborhood must be planned with active transportation as a key mode of travel, with separated bike and pedestrian facilities along both Foster and Golden Gate Drive and mixed use retail to reduce the need for residents to travel long distances for basic necessities. In whatever way the lands are potentially designed and developed, they need to support a welcoming entrance to our city while also providing very real and tangible opportunities for housing needed by all elements of our community.

ATTACHMENT 1

Napa City Council – General Plan
September 20, 2022

We continue to stand with the recommendations we made in our March 26th letter with the added comments related to future affordability.

Thank you for your consideration. We wish you well as you discuss and make the difficult decisions about the future of our community.

Respectfully submitted,
Danielle Barreca Patrick Band Michelle Dahme Chuck Shinnamon Howard Siegel Ted Ward

Danielle Barreca Patrick Band Michelle Dahme Chuck Shinnamon Howard Siegel Ted Ward

ATTACHMENT 1

March 26, 2022

Napa City Council and Napa City Planning Commission
Re: Draft General Plan and Draft EIR Via Email
Dear Mayor Sedgely, Council Members, and Planning Commissioners, We, the undersigned, had the honor of serving on the General Plan Advisory Committee and we offer the following as our personal comments regarding the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR. They are not intended to reflect the opinions or recommendations from anyone other than ourselves and are not the official position of the GPAC.

KEY OVERARCHING POINTS:
• The new General Plan needs to be both a living document as well as having planned flexibilit y built into it. These needs have been made clear to us with Covid and with the new reality of potential annual fires.
• Focus on climate change, sustainability, and resilience. All actions and policies in the General Plan and its implementation should emanate from this focus. The future of our local economy and community, as we know them, rely upon bold action in the next 5 years, and through the 20-year planning horizon of this Plan.
• Focus urban development within the existing RUL to continue to ensure the long-term viability of our agricultural lands and heritage.
• Focus first on locals a nd then on visitors. Although seemingly insignificant, juxtaposition and choice of words throughout the GP in the Vision & Guiding Principles (including but not limited to Guiding Principle #3), as well as numerous Goals, and Policies should always reflect that priority. We appreciate that the Draft GP includes these distinctions.
• Focus first on alternative transportation (bicycle, pedestrians and transit) connectivity throughout the City when transportation improvements, changes, and budgets are being planned and implemented. Our residents must be able to safely navigate around our community without having to drive in a car. • Focus on the creation of a diverse array of new housing to meet the needs of all segments of our population, both current and future residents. We need new housing in every neighborhood in our City.

Densities and heights will probably need to increase given the State’s and ABAG’s housing requirements. Good, thoughtful design needs to be expected and demanded , while streamlining permitting to expedite project approval and construction. • For long-term balance and health of our community, ensure, through land use choices and policies, that many young families can continue t o afford to live in Napa and, thusly, preserve a strong and viable public school system.

LAND USE COMMENTS (based on February 22, 2022 Draft and Land Use Map):

We are generally supportive of the Land Use designations shown on the Map and expand on various areas in the following.

ATTACHMENT 1

• We applaud the continuation of the current GP’s usage of “gross” acreage rather than “net” acreage. • Neighborhood delineations. We applaud the continuation of these valuable designations , while also encouraging stronger language to expedite annexation of unincorporated “islands” to ensure that all of those in a given neighborhood benefit from the policies, programs, and improvements outlined in t his Plan.
• Allowance, by right, of duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes in existing single family neighborhoods.

Clearly, new standards will need to be created that delineate minimum lot sizes, setbacks, allowed building sizes, etc. A number of other cities are already in the forefront of this effort. Clearly, this is a significant issue that needs more work and study. We urge the Commission and Council to adopt a Policy Statement that the City intends to explore such an effort as part of the GP Implementation Plan and/or the new Housing Element.
• Ghisletta and Horsemen’s Properties. These properties have been within the City’s RUL for almost forty years with an underlying housing designation for that entire period. We support the creation of a thoughtful Master Plan / Specific Plan that considers all of these lands, primarily for hous ing. Such a planning process should include consideration of best practices from other areas around the country. It needs to include consideration for the known earthquake fault, slopes, flooding and wetlands, water supply, visual and greenbelt issues, and neighbors’ concerns. We also support inclusion of a separated Class I pedestrian and bike facility along Foster Road and possibly along Golden Gate Drive. It should be a “complete” neighborhood with trails, open space / park, and small neighborhood-serving retail.

The Horsemen’s Association property has, in our view, uniquely approved land usage in the County’s unincorporated area. At such time as the larger area including Ghisletta and others is considered for formal annexation into the City, those existi ng legal uses outlined in Napa County approvals should continue to be appropriately maintained within the City’s jurisdiction while the Horsemen continue to use the property. Such usage might create some “right -to-farm” challenges that should be addressed through the Master/Specific Plan process.
• Big Ranch Road . We agree with the Medium Density residential designation as proposed. Such a designation allows for detached and attached single family homes, which we need. We suggest, as well, that other vacant/underutilized parcels on the west side of Big Ranch Road from Trancas Street to the RUL on the north should have this same designation.

As our land within the RUL is precious and needs to be used wisely, we strongly disagree with proposed LUCD 24-3, which would lower densities near this area’s border. It is important to address “right to farm” concerns but we don’t believe that feathering does much to resolve an issue that can better be addressed through other, more effective tools.
• Focus Areas / Major Corridors . We like the idea of repurposing older shopping centers for higher density mixed uses and are supportive of the proposed land use designations on these corridors. We especially support making these corridors safe and accessible for pedestrian and bicycle users, and with far greater tree canopy and shade to reduce the “urban heat island” effect. We also support the NVTA plan for Imola Avenue and, especially, the Mixed Use -High designation for the River Park Shopping Center. Similar plans should be prioritized, as outlined in the City’s existing adopted Bicycle Plan.

As your Monday study session is appropriately focused on the big picture, some or all of us will have further comments on these areas as they are studied in greater detail at the Planning Commission. One area needing more study is that of Floor Area Ratios (FAR’s) in these Corridors. We th ink that the proposed FAR’s may be too low especially as we are trying to achieve densities that are economically viable.

ATTACHMENT 1

• Downtown and its Periphery: We applaud the inclusion of LUCD 22-2 as it has become clear that the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) needs to be updated. These are some of our specific concerns related to Downtown and to the update of the DTSP:
o As the 2012 DTSP doesn’t appear to adequately address or create conditions for ho using development, we are curious how a reliable estimate can be made for the number of housing units that might develop Downtown as outlined on Table 2-2.
o We agree that more discussion needs to be had about the number of Downtown hotels; please see more discussion about hotels in a following section.
• Oxbow District: We applaud the inclusion of LUCD 22-1 regarding the need for a separate land use update for the Oxbow District that would follow the Urban Land Institute recommendations. And, critically, the Napa River needs to remain as its heart. • Hotel Estimates: We are deeply concerned about the amount of land ascribed for potential new hotels and the estimate of possible new rooms. We recognize that not all will be approved or built. Yet, over the life of t he General Plan, including those rooms currently in the pipeline, the number of rooms in 2040 could be two and a half (2 ½) times the number in existence in January 2021 (as shown in Dyett & Bhatia’s report to GPAC). As there is a large difference between the January 2021 D&B tabulations and those in the Draft General Plan, we suggest that there needs to be greater clarity in these numbers:
o Existing (February 2022).
o Approved, not built.
o Approved under construction.
o Applied for but not approved.

Added to these concerns are the large number of below market housing units that would be needed to accommodate hotel employees. Hotels take up sites that are also prime multifamily sites. Building the hotels without housing further exacerbates the jobs/housing imbalance especially for affordable needs.

We strongly suggest that we have reached the point at which it is time for a community conversation about the number of new hotels that should be developed. Have we reached the proverbial Zero -Sum game where newly-approved hotels simply take business and employees away from existing hotels? How does that help the City or anyone other than those who own the newly-built hotels? • “Ritz” Site at First Street and Silverado Trail: This is currently shown in the Draft Plan as “Hospitality Commercial”. The site was initially approved for hotel use in 2002 and subsequently in 2008. Although we have endured the Covid slowdown, there have been two strong economic cycles since these approvals were granted. It is pretty clear that the owners have no plans to move forward with a hotel.

As such, we suggest that it have an alternate designation added, either “High Density Residential” or “Residential Mixed Use”.

We also believe that the “Ritz” site underscores the ne ed to establish more stringent guidelines for issuance of extensions to project approvals. What may have been appropriate in 2002 or 2008 may not be appropriate today, or five years in the future. As our community develops and changes, the standards and requirements for previously approved, undeveloped projects may need to change as well. • “Public Serving” Lands: Pg 2-12/13 in the Draft General Plan suggests that public serving properties, if converted, might be used for residential or residential mixed-use with densities in keeping with the surrounding areas as those are reflected in the Draft General Plan. We like this but we also see a missed opportunity. We suggest that these sites be given either a n underlying “Medium Density” or “High Density” residential designation or a “Residential Mixed-Use” designation. With the Housing Element

ATTACHMENT 1

update literally just around the corner, there is going to be a strong effort to find sites for housing that is affordable, especially sites with higher densities.

We are thinking especially of Harvest Middle School, the City Corporation Yard on Lincoln, the Caltrans Yard on Jefferson, and Justin Siena High School, among others. We are also surprised to see no discussion of the planned 700+ bed student housing projec t at Napa Valley College. Although outside the direct jurisdiction of the City, such a project would undoubtedly have ripple effects into several of our local neighborhoods.
• Light Industrial Lands : We need to ensure that there are sufficient lands with Lig ht Industrial designations in various parts of the City to serve our current and future needs. One area of particular concern is the potential shift from Light Industrial to Hospitality Commercial in the Jordan Lane area.

Let’s not force existing important uses into being legally non-conforming. • Soscol Avenue, Auto Row, and City Entry : What is the future of car dealerships ? Are there only showrooms in our future? How do we make Auto Row more attractive as one of our entry points to Napa? How does the Draft Land Use Plan conform to the adopted “Soscol Corridor/Downtown Riverfront Development & Design Guidelines”? We see that these Guidelines finally show up in LUCD 18-1 but they need to be more prominently used and referenced. Is our new southern “entry” to Napa near Napa Pipe?
As we think that the world of auto sales may change dramatically over the life of the General Plan, if not much sooner, we suggest that the Auto Row “General Commercial” designation have an underlying “Mixed Use” designation such that we allow for future higher density housing along one of our primary entries to Napa.
• Long Term Infrastructure Planning. Although difficult to contemplate as we debate land use for the coming twenty years, we think that it is important to at least think about how we plan for infrastructure beyond that time horizon. When roads, water and sewer lines, power systems, etc, are planned, there needs to be some Commission and Council guidance to staff over the coming years . This issue is not something that necessarily needs to be addressed now but it is something that needs to be kept in our thinking.

GOALS AND POLICIES:

As we all review the “Goals and Policies” sections of the Draft GP, we need to fully acknowledge that language and choice of words is vitally important. There are huge differences between “promote” and “create” or between “should” and “ensure or will”. We especially need to set stretch goals and policies, particularly related to Climate Change and Sustainability and to how we ge t around in our fair city.

Prioritizing connectivity and safety for pedestrians and cyclists should be at the forefront of issues related to our infrastructure. These feed right into the Climate Change and Sustainability sections.

We broadly agree with the comments made by the individuals and organizations at the March 17th Planning Commission meeting, who called for greater specificity and language changes within the Goals and Policies sections of the Climate Change & Sustainability and Transportation elem ents. We believe that a General Plan can and must provide sufficiently specific language to ensure that City staff have appropriate direction to implement the Plan, and that residents, business owners, and other stakeholders can make informed decisions.

BIG PICTURE:

As you discuss and debate the fine points in the Land Use Plan, we urge you to also keep the big picture in mind and to discuss the basic tenets of the Plan. Who are we planning for? How do we make it possible for our own children and grandchild ren to live here? How do we ensure a broad spectrum of housing types such that we maintain the richness of a broad and inclusive citizenry?

ATTACHMENT 1

Finally, we fully expect that both the Commission and Council will want to study many of the finer details of the General Plan and Draft EIR in your coming sessions. We intend to continue to comment, whether collectively or individually, on many of these vital details.

Thank you for your consideration. We wish you well as you discuss and make the difficult decisions about the future of our community.

Respectfully submitted,
Danielle Barreca Patrick Band Michelle Dahme Chuck Shinnamon Howard Siegel Ted Ward

Danielle Barreca Patrick Band Michelle Dahme Chuck Shinnamon Howard Siegel Ted Ward

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

Napa Housing Coalition
______________________________________________________________________________ c/o 1040 Main Street, Napa, CA 94559

September 15, 2022

Napa City Council
Napa, CA

Re: Draft General Plan
Foster Road Land Use; Public Serving Lands

Dear Mayor Sedgley and Councilmembers,
We at the Napa Housing Coalition are pleased that the General Plan is moving toward adoption.

One key reason for our pleasure is that the Draft General Plan both recognizes the need for housing and it has created land use designations that support housing. As you are well aware, the need for good, quality housing that is affordable frequently rises to the top when locals are asked about critical needs.

Our State, our region, and our community face a housing crisis that has been brewing for many years. As a result of our current lack of adequate housing that is affordable, many employees are forced to drive long distances to and from work. The terrible gridlock that impacts our county every day on Highways 29 and 12 (inbound in the morning and outbound in the afternoon) is a significant symptom of this problem.

We believe that there are two remaining significant housing / land use issues before the Council at your September 20th meeting: the “Foster Road Mixed Use” area and the wording outlined in the “Public Serving” land use designation.
“Public Serving” Land Use Designations:

We applaud the philosophy in the General Plan that “Public Serving” properties might also be used for residential or residential mixed -use development. We fully agree that any proposed development of these lands for uses other than “public” should have full and open review. We believe that these properties should be ascribed with the highest possible underlying General Plan densities in keeping with their neighboring General Plan land use designations. We don’t know whether that is best done in the General Plan or in the following updates to the Zoning Code. Either way, please make it as seamless as possible to create housing when our public lands are no longer needed for their original public uses.

Foster Road Mixed Use Area:

We recognize and understand some of the reasons for the Planning Commission’s concerns about this area. Why should we, as a communit y, allow a prime and highly visible piece of land to be developed with no real local benefit. As such, if this area is to be used for housing, we at the Housing Coalition will only support its development if it significantly addresses the issues outlined

ATTACHMENT 1

Napa City Council
September 15, 2022

above. We will demand assurances that a large proportion, e.g. 20% to 30% of the homes built there, be set aside for housing that is affordable in the 60% to 140% AMI range (which covers deed restricted affordable and workforce).

We have no idea of how or when these lands might develop. The land use designations for these properties combined with the proposed land use policies create a very high bar that needs to be reached for any development to occur. The General Plan requirement of a Master Plan / Specific Plan for this area will provide a significant opportunity to address all of the issues that have been raised by the neighbors and by the GPAC in their discussions. If and when such a Plan is moved forward, there will be many opportunities for open discussion and debate. And, as noted above, we at the Housing Coali tion will be actively involved to ensure that the issues of affordability outlined above are fully addressed and implemented.

We have an overriding concern of ensuring that we make progress at addressing the lack of affordable, workforce housing that is fo rcing families to leave our community. We need to incentivize housing creation in every neighborhood in our City and we believe that the draft General Plan does a good job of doing just that.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,
Cass Walker Dave Whitmer Grania Lindberg Chuck Shinnamon Cass Walker Dave Whitmer Grania Lindberg Chuck Shinnamon Member NHC Member NHC Member NHC Member NHC

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Linda Vista Bridge/Extension
Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 10:22:47 AM
Begin forwarded message:

From: Cynthia Deutsch < >
Subject: Linda Vista Bridge/Extension
Date: September 16, 2022 at 10:20:10 AM PDT
To: Mary Luros <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mary,
I have outlined below my reasons why the Linda Vista Bridge/Extension should be taken out of the General Plan. I hope you can vote to do that on Tuesday evening. Please contact me if you have any questions?
Linda Vista Bridge Extension
It is my understanding that the Planning Department is currently taking the following position on the Linda Vista Extension:
"With regard to the Linda Vista Avenue extension to Robinson Lane, it is recommended that the City continue to evaluate the need for that connection in the future and that project has been included in the future Study Corridors. This will allow Staff, community members, and the City Council the opportunity to work collaboratively on the best possible solutions for this corridor which may include alternatives such as an emergency vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle only connection.

The residents of the neighborhoods on both sides of this bridge/extension oppose it. So, does the Planning Commission which voted 5 - 0 to remove it from the General Plan.

Questions for Public Works and the Planning Division?
COST:

Public Works currently estimates that the bridge to connect Linda Vista and Robinson Lane would cost $5million. Given that the bridge is a medium to long term project, we can expect this cost will go up every year.

Does the $5 million include the cost to upgrade infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists so that they have safe places on both sides of the bridge.

ATTACHMENT 1

<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Currently there are no bike lanes on the streets that are impacted by this bridge:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Most cars that come down Linda Vista currently turn onto West Lincoln. At the juncture of Lone Oak and West Lincoln, the road is only wide enough for two car lanes. There is no room for sidewalks or bike lanes without removing trees on both sides and also moving utility poles. West Lincoln at this point is also a blind curve. It does not seem wise to direct even more traffic down West Lincoln without including bike lanes and sidewalks.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->Linda Vista has no bike lanes.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Lone Oak has no bike lanes and intermittent sidewalks.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->Robinson Lane is only 40 feet wide according to 2018 PW staff report. Unless parking is banned on both sides of the street, there is no room for bike lanes - bike lanes in both directions require 10” and traffic lanes are each 11 - 12”. Together the traffic lanes and parking require (22’ plus 16’) 38 feet leaving no room for bike lanes. These facts mean bikes would need to ride in the traffic lanes on Robinson Lane.

None of these pedestrian bike issues go away, even if the extension is an emergency vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle only connection.

EQUITY IMPACTS:

The Linda Vista neighborhood is not nearly as affluent as Browns Valley as demonstrated in real estate values. Is this extension a way for Browns Valley residents to cut some time from their transport to North Napa at the expense of a less affluent neighborhood. The block of Linda Vista between West Park and Lone Oak contains Section 8 housing with many small children living there.

Across the street is the West Park elementary school. Are these children to be put in harms way by almost doubling the traffic moving on Linda Vista.

SAFETY:

In 2019, the CA Office of Traffic Safety ranked Napa #6 out of 105 comparable size communities in terms of our Fatal and Injury crashes with 405 fatal and injury crashes. (https://www.ots.ca.gov/media-and-research/crash-rankings- results/?wpv-wpcf-year=2019&wpv-wpcf-
city_county=Napa&wpv_filter_submit=Submit)
This is a terrible safety record!!
The recent Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) that the City will be adopting includes six Viable Safety Projects for which the City will be seeking grant funding. These six projects total $16 million. As they will not be implemented

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

natural resources and plate tectonics can realistically support it.

We are not expressing a NIMBY point of view.

There is nothing wrong with standing up for our community and organizing with fellow neighbors to preserve a neighborhood. Not everything about development and growth is worth accepting. We have the right and the duty to speak out to protect the things we care about. As a matter of fact, it is wrong not to. We proudly stand together to defend this beautiful area of Napa and all areas of Napa that deserve that protection.

We simply request that you honor and accept in-full the City of Napa’s Planning Commission recommendation of September 1, 2022 to designate these parcels as Greenbelt in the proposed draft General Plan Napa 2040.

Respectfully Submitted,
Melissa Moravec
Napa, Carneros

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Kara Vernor
To: Clerk
Subject: Comments for City Council Meeting on 9/20 - RE: 2040 General Plan Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 9:37:22 AM
Attachments: Draft 2040 GP Comments for 092022.pdf
[EXTERNAL]
Greetings,
Please find our comments for the 9/20 evening council meeting attached. We would appreciate you distributing them to the councilmembers.

Kind regards,
Kara
--
Kara Vernor (she/her)
Executive Director
Napa County Bicycle Coalition
(707) 258-6318
League Cycling Instructor #6818
B
ecome an NCBC Member

ATTACHMENT 1

P.O. Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org

September 15, 2022

RE: Napa Council Meeting 09/20/22 – Draft 2040 General Plan

Dear City of Napa Councilmembers,

The Napa County Bicycle Coalition—which works to make biking in Napa County safe, convenient, and accessible—thanks the City for some significant and positive changes to the Draft General Plan within the Transportation Element that stand to make Napa a more bicycle- friendly community. Particularly powerful is the addition of TE 1-3, “Develop and maintain a low Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) connected bicycle network consistent with the adopted Bike Plan.”

Of the changes we were hoping to see, two that are critical to meeting the City’s mode share targets and reducing vehicle miles traveled remain unadopted. We continue to request that “Work toward a transportation mode share of 10% for bicycling and 10% for walking by 2035” be added as a policy under Goal TE-6 or to the Goal itself, so it would read: “Support policies and programs to reduce automobile mode share, reduce automobile dependency, and encourage alternative forms of transportation. Work toward a transportation mode share of 10% for bicycling and 10% for walking by 2035.”

City representatives asked Public Works about this request, and it was reported at the previous Planning Commission meeting that Public Works "is comfortable" with leaving the goal in the Bike Plan given that the General Plan refers to the Bike Plan. (Only part of the language requested is in the Bike Plan). However, the language in the General Plan that supports the Bike Plan is focused on infrastructure and bike facilities—essentially only one of the four goals of the Bike Plan ("Connectivity"). That City leaders checked in only with Public Works demonstrates why this goal needs to be in the General Plan—because it will take others outside of Public Works (i.e., strategies in addition to engineering) to make this goal a reality. The four other goals of the Bike Plan: Equity, Safety, and Education & Encouragement are mostly outside the scope of Public Works. It will take collaboration and coordination with other elements (land use, climate change, natural resources conservation, public health) as well as other departments and entities (Police, schools, nonprofits) to achieve the goal. If it is tucked away in the Bike Plan, it is much less likely all the parties who will need to work toward the goal will know that the goal exists or what the target is, and we will be less likely to meet it.

We also ask for the following deletion in Policy TE 1-1: “Explore opportunities to develop multi- modal level of service (LOS) objectives and performance targets with different priorities depending on road type.”

Please urge staff to include LOS standards for all modes, not just for automobiles. Leaving active transportation modes out of Level of Service (LOS); which measures comfort, convenience, and efficiency; disenfranchises active transportation users and prioritizes automobiles, which will very likely skew multi-modal planning and subvert the City’s mode share goals. We ask for equal consideration of the experience of people when they choose to walk and bike.

ATTACHMENT 1

P.O. Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org It will take study and gathering new data to set LOS targets for other modes, which is not likely to happen if doing so is optional. Without LOS targets for all modes, driving will continue to receive priority and preferred treatment, which certainly will not help to reduce vehicle miles travelled or climate change.

Again, thank you for the improvements that have already been incorporated. We hope you’ll consider these further suggestions that are aligned with the General Plan’s goals.

Should you have any questions about the above comments, please contact me at (707) 258- 6318 or at [email protected]. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Kara Vernor
Executive Director

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

happen. However, after countless hours of discussion on this item at PC with staff, I was not given any reassurances that this could be guaranteed. Essentially staff has their hands tied by the City’s laws.

At PC we heard a lot about a Master Plan being the solution. But in the end I could not be given any assurances that a Master Plan would or even could insist on housing that is affordable. The very large development at Stanley Ranch had a Master Plan, but in the end it was not required to build housing for the dozens of new employees that it hired. Instead it elected, under its Master Plan, to pay the required in lieu fee. Master plans are not necessarily a guarantee that housing that is affordable is built.

I asked if a Master Plan that included housing that is affordable be added to the GP at this point. I was told that could not happen, due to legal constraints. In fact, the only thing currently in Napa’s Municipal code that would be required of a housing developer on the Ghisletta property would be to pay the in lieu fees, and not be required to build anything affordable. My guess is that most of you did not know this.

The Ghilsetta site would be very expensive to build on. The geology is mostly rock, and the cost to bring all the infrastructure to the site would be very high. Any homes built on this site would sell (by my estimate, and 5-7 years down the road), between $1.5 Mil and $5.0 Mil. The new townhomes being built on Foster Rd on the old radio station site are being listed at $1.25 Mil. To quote one of the other Planning Commissioners re: homes to be built on the Ghisletta property… “these are not the houses for people that need it most”.

In the end I was faced with two choices. Accept the possibility that only very expensive homes would be built on the site, and that all the developer would have to do was pay an in-lieu fee… or leave it as green space. Thus my vote for green space. There were other reasons for my vote, e.g. avoiding urban sprawl vs building in the City’s core, build up not out, encroaching into the RUL, and other things, but lack of affordability was the main one. Let me make this very clear... in the end I would have voted for housing on the site if I knew that a good portion would meet the needs of those that most need good housing, and those that are the back bone of our economy.

So here is the word of caution. If you are going to make your opinion known on this subject, and I hope that you do, I suggest you not fight just “for housing” on this property, and run the risk of 1200 homes built

ATTACHMENT 1

as 2nd homes or homes for the wealthy. Instead you should fight for assurances that a large proportion, e.g. 20% to 30% of the homes built there, be set aside for housing that is affordable in the 60% to 140% AMI range (which covers deed restricted affordable and workforce.) I would bet that every Council member agrees with this statement of homes for the wealthy vs homes that are affordable.

Joelle and Teresa, I ask that you give me time at the Housing Coalition at some future meeting to lead a discussion how we that support housing that is affordable can make sure that situations like this never happen again. I learned a lot, and I want to pass it along, and help strategize.

Thanks for listening.

Bob
p.s. There are people, including some of you, that specifically stated that they wanted to hear from me and understand my reasoning, before possibly critiquing my vote. These people I very much appreciate.

On Sep 14, 2022, at 10:45 AM, Charles Shinnamon
< > wrote:

Folks,
As you know, the City Council is holding a hearing this coming Tuesday, September 20th, to consider the Final EIR and Draft General Plan for adoption. The Planning Commission has held a number of hearings followed by the numerous public meetings and Zooms held by the GPAC.

I strongly believe that the Housing Coalition needs to support the Draft General Plan especially as it relates to housing. Although there are probably a number of issues that the Council will face and address on Tuesday, I think there are two key issues for which our input might be helpful:
“Public Lands” – we at GPAC advocated for underlying land use designations for public lands that would support housing and/or mixed use development at such time as they no longer serve the public uses for which they were originally developed. Think of the Caltrans yard on Jefferson Street, Harvest Middle School, the City Corporation Yard on Lincoln. How can we make such a transition more seamless? We all watched the debacle of the Health and Human Services site on Old Sonoma Road. If there had been an underlying housing designation for that property, I think that things would have gone much more smoothly.

Beth Painter has been working hard along with some of you and the Community Foundation to get a clearer path for the School District and

ATTACHMENT 1

the Harvest MS site. I would hope that our advocacy for a clearer approach would have some resonance with the Council.
“Foster Road” area – as you probably also know, the Planning Commission recommended that this area be designated as “Green Belt”. I personally disagree with that recommendation for a number of reasons.

At GPAC, we heard multiple speakers and neighbors speak about the reasons why Timberhill and Napa Oaks should be designated as “Green Belt”. They provided us with substantial background information and research as to why those designations make sense. The GPAC unanimously agreed and recommended that those areas should have that “Green Belt” designation; that continues to hold true in the current document.

We also heard from some Foster Road neighbors who encouraged us to also designate the Ghisletta and Horsemen’s Association properties as “Green Belt”. While the GPAC was not unanimous in our
recommendations for the area, a significant majority of the GPAC was in favor of the approach outlined in the Draft General Plan. Essentially, we recommended that a detailed Master Plan / Specific Plan be prepared taking into account all of the issues raised by members of the GPAC as well as by the neighbors.

Bob Massaro as a Planning Commissioner voted for the Green Belt designation; although I disagree with Bob, I also know that he works his tail off for housing and has been a strong voice for housing in Napa. I know he will provide us his thoughts.

As noted above, I think the Coalition needs to weigh in with support for housing and the General Plan. I have prepared the attached draft for your consideration and comment. On the Foster Road portion, I have tried to create language that respects concerns that Bob raised while also supporting housing throughout Napa.

I urge you to review the attached letter and to provide comments and support. Further, it would be great if folks could come to the Council meeting on Tuesday to provide support for the Plan’s focus on housing. I will not be able to attend personally as I will be in Spain (hooray!!!) but I will be there in spirit and will also provide my personal comments to the Council separately.

Thanks,
Chuck
Charles W. Shinnamon, P.E.
“If you don’t like the news, go out and make some of your own.” (Wes “Scoop” Nisker) <City Council - GP - Foster & Public Serving 9-13-2022.docx> --
Bob Massaro, CEO

ATTACHMENT 1

Healthy Buildings Construction Group, Inc.

Healthy Buildings Management Group, Inc.
630 Airpark Rd, Suite A. Napa, CA 94558
(707) 320-3243 direct (707) 676-8999 office
www.hbusa.net

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Mary Luros
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Foster Rd Ranch History
Date: Thursday, September 15, 2022 2:34:20 PM
Attachments: Ghisletta Family Ranch History.pdf
Begin forwarded message:

From: Adam Ghisletta <[email protected]>
Subject: Foster Rd Ranch History
Date: September 14, 2022 at 8:04:19 PM PDT
To: Mary Luros <[email protected]
>, [email protected]
[EXTERNAL]
Hi Mary,
Really nice talking to you today. I've attached a brief history of our ranch. I hope we'll have your support Tuesday.

Thank you very much,
Adam
--
Adam Ghisletta
Avenue 8
Cell: 707-363-5868
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.GhislettaRealty.com
DRE: 01724657
I am never too busy for referrals. I would be honored to assist your friends and family

ATTACHMENT 1

Ghisletta Family Ranch History
• The Ghisletta family has owned the property since 1913, now 107 years. I mention this because I have read allegations that there is a developer looking to make a quick buck. That is simply untrue. This is a multi-generational family property that predates the nearby neighborhoods. There is no developer, nor has there been one involved in promoting development of the property.

• The ranch was originally a dairy farm that stretched from Foster Road to the Napa river. The cows used to cross the old frontage road where Highway 29 is located now as party of the normal dairy life. With the development of Highway 29 in the 1970s, the state severed the ranch. The family worked with the state to allow this to happen because that is what the community needed, even though that forever impacted the dairy operation and ultimately led to its shut-down.

• In 1975, the City, in cooperation with the County established the Rural Urban Limit Line or "RUL" in order to create real boundaries to contain urban growth and development. The RUL established a line where development proposals and urban growth would be absolutely discouraged if located outside the RUL. The Ghisletta Family Ranch has always been located within the City’s RUL.

• In 1980, Measure A became effective. Measure A was approved by the voters and requires a vote of the people to expand the RUL. Under Measure A lands outside the RUL are reserved for resource use, agriculture and low-density residential uses, and lands inside the RUL are reserved for urban uses, primarily residential development. This core Rural/Urban policy was a basis for the City’s 1982 General Plan and the Napa County General Plan, which designated the ranch as Urban Reserve for future residential development within the City of Napa. The family cooperated with the City in these processes.

• In the early 1990’s, through a public process, LAFCO included the ranch within the City's Sphere of Influence under the direction that the Ranch would be developed within a couple of decades to assure orderly development consistent with the City's General Plan and housing needs,

ATTACHMENT 1

consistent with the RUL, Measure A and the City and County Planning. In 1992, the City conducted a detailed land use and availability inventory as the basis for the current General Plan, which examined lands within the City’s RUL, and the ranch was included in that study. Although not interested in development, the family once again cooperated with local government.

• Around the same time, vineyard growth was occurring all around Napa. After extensive study and attempts, the land was determined to not be viable for agriculture due to soil types.

• In 1998, the City went through its general plan process for the Vision 2020 General Plan in place today. The process is similar to the one occurring now. The General Plan designated the ranch both Corporate Park and Single Family Residential. Then in 2003 the City prezoned the ranch to Master Plan, requiring a planning process in order to implement those General Plan designations. The family did not necessarily agree with these approaches and designations, but again cooperated with the agencies because it was in the interest of the community.

• In 2000, the flood project acquired the family lands between the Highway and the Napa River as part of the wetland mitigation for our regional flood project. The family also had the City and the Flood District set aside some of their former lands for a future park in that area.

• In 2005, LAFCO did a report to update its Sphere of Influence. Based on the confirmation that the property should be part of the City, the City applied to LAFCO to annex the property. The family cooperated with the City. After a lengthy process, the City and County did not come to an agreement on the property tax sharing between the jurisdictions, a prerequisite to annexation. Because of this, the City withdrew its annexation petition in 2008.

• In 2010 an initiative was rejected that attempted to alter the City’s processes for future planning of the property. Through each of these

ATTACHMENT 1

stages there has not been any development planned or
pursued. Instead, the family has cooperated with the agencies to further the community needs, often sacrificing their own needs.

• In 2015 the City and County entered into an agreement regarding Napa Pipe that provided a final tax sharing agreement that applies to all properties in the Sphere of Influence.

• When development of the now existing neighborhoods along Foster Road was originally planned, some residents and development opposition in the neighborhood asked the family to fight that development where many Napans call it home today. The family did not oppose those neighboring housing projects and left it to the City to work on and make decisions.

• The Ghisletta Family Ranch is not only important to the City for meeting its future housing needs and goals to house us, our children, our workforce and even some new Napans, but it also is important to balance these needs the important community goals of good planning and design, and preserving and protecting open space in the areas outside of the RUL that protect the Napa’s rural, agricultural heritage.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

our water resources, especially in this era of climate change, increasing drought, and catastrophic fire. We must take seriously seismic dangers in south Napa as well, as became abundantly clear in 2014. Finally, we must protect scenic viewsheds, which are central to wine country tourism and local quality of life. I urge you to keep these four concerns — urban infill before annexing rural land, limited water resources, seismic stability, and scenic viewsheds — firmly in mind as you consider how to provide much-needed, affordable housing in Napa while conserving the agricultural land and open space that draws people here in the first place.

As James Hickey said when implemented the Agricultural Preserve, “Urban uses belong in urban areas.” He also said, “If Napa can’t be saved, no place can.” That responsibility rests in our collective hands.

Annexing rural lands can only be a last resort -- and only to the extent our finite natural resources and plate tectonics can realistically support it.

We are not expressing a NIMBY point of view.

There is nothing wrong with standing up for our community and organizing with fellow neighbors to preserve a neighborhood. Not everything about development and growth is worth accepting. We have the right and the duty to speak out to protect the things we care about. As a matter of fact, it is wrong not to. We proudly stand together to defend this beautiful area of Napa and all areas of Napa that deserve that protection.

We simply request that you honor and accept in-full the City of Napa’s Planning Commission recommendation of September 1, 2022, to designate these parcels as Greenbelt in the proposed draft General Plan Napa 2040.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kurt Reaume
Napa, Carneros

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Ruth
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2022 1:02 PM
To: Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>; Liz Alessio <[email protected]>; Beth Painter <[email protected]>; Mary Luros <[email protected]>; Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>; Patricia Baring <[email protected]> Subject: Foster Rd needs to remain Greenbelt

[EXTERNAL]

Dear City Council Members,

For years now the City of Napa has been made aware of our serious concerns regarding the proposed “re-zoning, annexation, up-zoning and development “ of what is alternatively known as the Gateway Parcels, the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor, the Ghisletta Parcels, NVA, Wilcoxson Parcel. There is is no reason to reiterate these reasons here as the City’s archives bears witness to innumerable documents registering our concerns and opposition to this proposal.

We simply request that you honor and accept in-full the City of Napa’s Planning Commission recommendation of September 1, 2022 to designate these parcels as Greenbelt in the proposed draft General Plan Napa 2040.

Respectfully Submitted,

RUTH AND CHARLES MCCRUM

ATTACHMENT 1

From: David Graves
Date: September 18, 2022 at 8:45:39 PM PDT
To: Beth Painter
Subject: General Plan hearing
Dear Beth:

I was flabbergasted to read that the Planning Commission voted to designate the Foster Rd. area as Greenbelt. That the vote was 4-1 was even more discouraging. I found Commissioner Huether’s comments to be particularly puzzling. The triumphant reaction from the KNNG group has been particularly galling.

Please overturn the Commission’s error and eliminate the Greenbelt designation for the Foster Road area.

David Graves

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Brian Kelly
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 4:40 AM
To: Liz Alessio <[email protected]>; Beth Painter <[email protected]>; Mary Luros <[email protected]>; Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>; Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Brian Kelly
Subject: Re: 144 Acre area near Foster Road & Golden Gate Drive

[EXTERNAL]
Mayor Sedgley and Council Members -

Napa needs more housing. The Ghisletta property has always been located within the City’s RUL - where housing is to be built. That is the purpose of the RUL.

Is seems ridiculous to all of a sudden change the rules to be for extremely limited housing. This is a perfect property to help handle the future housing needs of the city of Napa. This property has been in the plan for housing for decades.

I strongly encourage you to overturn the Planning Commission’s recent action.

Thank you for your consideration.

Brian
Brian Kelly

ATTACHMENT 1

From: missb
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 11:11 PM
To: Liz Alessio <[email protected]>; Beth Painter <[email protected]>; Mary Luros <[email protected]>; Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing in Napa

[EXTERNAL]

Dear Mayor Sedgley and City Council

We desperately need housing in our community. Hundreds and perhaps Thousands of people drive hours to and from work each day. They do this because they cannot afford to live in Napa, and this is because there is not enough housing. Our schools are suffering because of this. Schools which have been around for decades are being shut down. There is a solution. You must look to the future by allowing housing in our community.

Sincerely,
Eron Munoz-Ledo

ATTACHMENT 1

From: lorraine fazzolare <
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:25 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Napa General Plan -- Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor

[EXTERNAL]
I am writing to you as a very concerned resident and worried for the future of the southwest corner of Napa Valley. Everyone in Napa Valley knows and loves the bucolic, rolling hills and 'oreo' cows as they enter the valley. The thought of turning this area into something that resembles an extension to route 29 heading south into American Canyon with strip mall after strip mall is truly destructive to the gateway of the valley. Keep the high density areas on the more commercial Soscol Ave.

Please consider the traffic jams in this area. The intersection of Imola and Golden Gate/Rte 29 is a parking lot during school hours and rush hours. This area of town has been neglected for over 25 years, as the small stretch of W. Imola Ave between Golden Gate Dr and Foster Rd is a patchwork of asphalt from years of potholes, never in 25 years has this stretch of Imola Avenue been paved. It is, arguably, the worst road on a major thoroughfare. The thought of adding an additional 1,100 residences to this area (or approximately 2-3,000 additional cars) will create a worse bottleneck at the two exits in this corner of town. Please consider a study of this intersection, it is already at its maximum capacity, perhaps beyond.

At a time when all Napa residents are asked to conserve water, what would the impact of these additional homes be in the year 2040?

Finally, I have heard that there will be 20,000 sf of retail & office space created on Golden Gate Dr. The paradigm has shifted in the last two years and we are witnessing boarded up storefronts and office space. Other cities are looking into converting big-box stores and shopping centers into low income housing. How can the city council be thinking of 1) adding retail space in Napa and 2) turning pastoral fields into retail space? This prospect just doesn't make sense and does not seem to be in the best interest of Napa Valley.

I have witnessed a great deal of growth in Napa in the last 5-10 years, only to find out that such a small percentage goes to low income housing. Who really stands to gain from this development besides the developers? I ask that you please maintain this parcel of land as green space and the beautiful gateway to Napa Valley.

Respectfully,

Lorraine Fazzolare

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Christiane Robbins
Subject: KNGG Response to Napa Register Article in today's issue Date: September 18, 2022 at 6:17:52 PM PDT
To:

In case you have seen this article in today’s paper, here is the link! https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/napa-city-council-to-weigh-foster-road-zoning-as-general- plan-process-nears-end/article_a24e7f9a-361b-11ed-a3bd-731fef4ac502.html#tracking-source=home- top-story

OMG! Attorney Kevin Teague is clutching his pearls again …. my, what a web he has woven for himself and his clients.

One would think that he would tire of placing himself in such a tenuous position …. not to mention the citizens of Napa as well as the City Council. As he did with Napa Oaks, he is doing it again with the Gateway Parcels - aka the Ghisletta Parcels - owned by his clients. His clients who, even in this very paper, cried wolf stating that they have NO development project in mind nor plans drawn up - Council member Mary Luros, do you agree do you agree - there is no project, right?

Teague has now resorted to bullying and threats of intimidation of Napa’s City Council with frivolous lawsuits/litigation following the recent judicious and diligent decision rendered by the Planning Commission to designate these parcels as Greenbelt. For Teague to insult the integrity and ethics of the Planning Commissioners and to threaten the City Council with lawsuits speaks volumes as to his motives and those of his clients. Who does he aspire to be, Tom Hagen in The Godfather or Noah Cross in Chinatown ? " It’s about evil lurking right under the sun—a film noir told not in high contrast shadows, but in the brightness of day.?” or in this case in the bright pages of the Napa Register.

Of course, housing is needed - no one has ever denied it - in fact many of us have long supported YIMBY . And the Planning Commission has assured the citizens of Napa that affordable and mixed-income housing will be built throughout all of the SAFE and affordable sites already identified by the City as urban infill - and this speaks to 21st century “smart growth directives” . This is diametrically opposed to Teague’s retro 1950’s viewpoint of perpetuating urban sprawl - the very sprawl that gave us the unthinkable climate change that we are battling today. But I don’t think he is able to grasp anything beyond his transactional thinking, appropriation and co-opting of racist tropes for financial gain by ushering in one of, if not the, the largest, probably segregated developments in the history of Napa, if not the State of California. It makes the mid-century Lakewood Development in Southern California look like a cakewalk: "Lakewood Developers are credited with "altering forever the map of Southern California.”

Let’s talk about Kevin Teague’s “race lighting” where his letter gaslights the covert racism in this proposal for the Foster Road Mixed Use - one that was authored by the Planning Division. Their proposal segregates people of lower income ( often people of color ) by creating a whole new city in South Napa - rather than offering them the same amenities and privileges associated with housing spread throughout the city of Napa ( as it should be legally speaking), such as in neighborhoods where he and the members of the City Council live, such as Browns valley and Alta Vista, etc. No ... that would

ATTACHMENT 1

be way too much for his faux-liberal, happy talk to deliver equitable housing that would offer everyone the ability to afford ( or even secure a mortgage ) and enjoy the same financial appreciation on their investment …and basically live in relative comfort and safety from the West Napa Fault Line, Flood Plains and Landslide areas - not to mention gas emissions from Hwy 29 and additional 3000 people + commercial ventures and transients.

OR because they will soon discover that it is way too expensive to build on such a high risk site - a site that the Ghisletta and their developer interests seem far too eager to offload onto the city’s ability to up-zone for gigantic profit …. only to find that affordable housing is way too costly to build and lo and behold, golly gee, we just won’t be able to built it for that price. As the California State Geologist recently mentioned, sites like the Ghisletta parcels are good for one of two things: Greenbelt or Golf courses.

Unlike Napa Pipe ( similar in scale ) the Ghisletta parcels are considered Prime Agricultural Lands by LAFCO ( a state agency ) - despite what Michael Walker would have us believe. They are not Superfund sites or industrial wasteland begging for welcome reclamation like Napa Pipe. These parcels are the City’s of Napa’s “last Crop” of AG land - once they are gone they are gone and we will all be the poorer for it.

For the City Council to render such an irrevocable decision based on NO NEED for Housing development on this Prime AG site, a mega-drought, factual inaccuracies in population and housing forecasts, half- truths, 21st red-lining and threats of intimidation is irresponsible - at best. They have discretionary mechanisms that are always available to them that will allow them to make responsible, sensible decisions once all of the information is confirmed - exactly what they did with the Napa Pipe project’s general amendment to the General Plan.

We see through you Kevin ….we all do… its time to hang it up and move on to faux greener pastures.

ATTACHMENT 1

Christiane Robbins

K E E P N A P A's G A T E W A Y S G R E E N

( www.savefosterroad.org )

Power is exercised by those who show up.

The information contained in this electronic mail message (including any attachments) is confidential information covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510- 2521,
and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. _____________________

If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication to anyone, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject

ATTACHMENT 1

to access, review and disclosure by the sender's email administrators.

Please be advised that no agreement can be formed by this email under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any similar law unless the email explicitly states that is the case.

Thank you.

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Stanley Chen
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 4:57 PM
To: Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Patricia Baring <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: The General Plan

[EXTERNAL]
Hi Mayor Sedgley and Mrs. Patty Baring, I was recently informed of a plan to develop the area surrounding Foster road. As a proud home and business owner in this neighborhood, I trust you to to do what is best for the residents of this beautiful little corner of Napa. Please use your best judgement to maintain what beautiful greenery and nature is left in this city, while ensuring that Napa continues to prosper ecnomically. I trust in your decision making.

One item that definitely needs to be addressed are the power lines across from Irene Snow elementary school. These power lines are not only an incredible fire hazard to our children, but also leave harmful EMF radiation that can hurt the development of the future generation of Napa citizens. These power lines need to be moved or buried.

Thank you!

Stanley Chen
Vice President

BerryClean gifts now available
Give the gift of Clean!

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Pam Hightower
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 1:25 PM
To: Beth Painter <[email protected]>; Liz Alessio <[email protected]>; Mary Luros <[email protected]>; Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>; Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>
Cc: Pam Hightower < Cindy Deutsch CSW
Tom Andrews
Subject: Linda Vista Bridge/General Plan

[EXTERNAL]

Dear Council Members,

I hope you are well today.

I am writing in regards to the city council meeting this week in which the Linda Vista Bridge Extension is to be discussed. I would like to express my support in removing this project from the general plan.

I am a homeowner on Linda Vista near the Lone Oak intersection and can tell you from experience that we are already experiencing a high traffic flow and also traffic traveling at high rates of speed. I believe that the emergency response questions were answered several years ago to everyone’s satisfaction, so this is no longer an issue.

The only other issues have to do with the high cost of the project, the environmental impacts to the creek, as well as the removal of mature trees, and the impact to the existing neighborhoods. The infrastructure on Linda Vista is not sufficient to make this a major thoroughfare and this is even worse on West Lincoln, which already poses safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists.

We also have Westpark Elementary. When school is in session at 2 times per day the traffic is very heavy in the present situation as well as young children in the cross walks and darting between cars. Further north on Linda Vista is another school; Pueblo Elementary with similar issues. So, 2 Elementary schools in the path of this project to be considered. We also have section 8 housing in our area which includes families with small children and disabled seniors regularly on the street near Westpark. There is also an athletic field as part of Westpark elementary where families regularly enjoy soccer and baseball practices and tournaments. It is already a very congested area here without inviting yet more traffic and speeding cars.

I knew when I purchased my home in 2010 that there would be traffic on Linda Vista. No doubt.

However, if this bridge were to ever be built the impact on our neighborhood would be quite devastating. The street is simply too narrow for the current flow of traffic that has developed over the last 12 years of living here. We are already experiencing greater traffic flow as our community grows.

I ask that you please consider removing this project once and for all from the general plan. There is simply no good reason environmentally, financially, or logistically for it. Let’s keep our neighborhood safe.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Pamela Hightower

Homeowner, Tax Payer, Citizen, Voter

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Donna Kingsford
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 2:32 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: FosterRoad

[EXTERNAL]

Dear City Council Members, Scott Sedgley, Liz Alessio, Beth Painter, Mary Luros, Bernie Narvaez, and Patty Baring, For years now the City of Napa has been made aware of the citizens serious concerns regarding the proposed “re-zoning, annexation, up-zoning and development of what is known as the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor, the Ghisletta Parcels, NVA, and Wilcoxson Parcel. There is no reason to reiterate those reasons here as the City’s archives bears witness to the citizens concerns and opposition to this proposal. Please honor the Napa Planning Commission’s recommendation to designate these parcels Greenbelt! It is the right thing to do!
Sent from my iPad Most sincerely, Donna J. Kingsford

ATTACHMENT 1

From: segalfoto
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 1:09 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan

[EXTERNAL]
Dear All Council Members,
I am completely AGAINST the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor for a slew of reasons.

Why are you even considering building more houses when we are in a drought! This is foolish thinking.

If this project is allowed to go through it will bring a huge amount of traffic to Foster Road and Golden Gate. In addition, It will seriously impact traffic at Snow Elementary School. What will happen when children are going to school. Cars drive to fast already. Add more cars because of this development and you are asking for a disaster. Children will be seriously injured, if not killed. That will leave blood you your hands because of your foolish decision if you vote for this project.

This land is the gateway to the Napa Valley. I am of the opinion that it must stay rural and not be developed.

You already have brand new homes at TRIO on Linda Vista. They have not sold out and you want more and more development.

Please consider all of the above arguments why you should not allow this project to go forward now or in the future.

Sincerely,
S SegalWood

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Judy DONOVAN
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:32 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Foster road Mixed use corridor

[EXTERNAL]

To Whom It May Concern,
I object strongly to the General Plan for this area!! This is a beautiful countryside and deserves to stay that way. We do not need more building in this part of Napa. The charm of that entrance to Napa will be completely destroyed if this is implemented. Once this is done it cannot be undone. I implore you to think of the environment, traffic impact, water impact, as well as natural beauty. Think ahead, without thinking of profits!!!
Sincerely,
Judy Donovan

Sent from my iPhone

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Nina Cutler
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:40 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Foster Rd mixed use project-General Plan

[EXTERNAL]

How can so many of the assets of Napa Valley be squandered by yet more developments? When we first viewed it 25 yrs ago, the diversity of agriculture,livestock, beauty of landscape and character of Napa inspired us to move here. Most of this has been lost .

The safety of our citizens is a huge issue with this proposition, endangered by lack of water, an earthquake fault throughout , plus a difficult traffic situation.

Napa has no public transport,this project affects both our roads and one highway hugely if several thousand more vehicles are using them than currently.

Please protect Napa from sprawl!!!
Nina Cutler

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Lynne Posner <
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2022 2:38 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Please forward to the Mayor and members of the City Council

[EXTERNAL]

Dear City Council members,

For many years now our organization, known as Save Foster Road and Keep Napa Gateway Green, has made clear our determination to stop the development of the beautiful property along Foster Road. This property presents Napa in its pristine beauty. People traveling from the densely populated East and South Bay and people who live in Napa,all feel at ease when seeing its pristine beauty. We must keep the entrance to Napa welcoming and beautiful. We do not want to lose it because we will not gain it back.

The property lacks water and sits on an earthquake fault. How could those two serious problems make it at all useful for housing? Perhaps the property owner would like to sell it and make a big profit. But the expense to people who live there would be tremendous!

Keep Napa beautiful -- to be enjoyed by all people!

SAVE FOSTER ROAD ! KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN!!

-- Lynne Posner

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Barbara Proft
Date: September 17, 2022 at 9:42:14 AM PDT
To: Beth Painter <[email protected]>
Subject: Foster Road Redevelopment

[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Council Members,

For years now the City of Napa has been made aware of our serious concerns regarding the proposed “re-zoning, annexation, up-zoning and development “ of what is alternatively known as the Gateway Parcels, the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor, the Ghisletta Parcels, NVA, Wilcoxson Parcel. There is is no reason to reiterate these reasons here as the City’s archives bears witness to innumerable documents registering our concerns and opposition to this prop osal.

We simply request that you honor and accept in-full the City of Napa’s Planning Commission recommendation of September 1, 2022 to designate these parcels as Greenbelt in the proposed draft General Plan Napa 2040.

Respectfully Submitted,

Barbara Proft

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Josie Givogri
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2022 9:19 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Foster rd mixed use corridors

[EXTERNAL]

Hi,

I am writing in the response in the talks of housing going in on the Foster rd mixed use corridore. This land is one of the most beautiful views you see as you enter Napa. With the rolling hills and grazing cows it is just breathtaking and to potentially lose that to housing will take away from Napas charm which is a huge draw for locals and tourists. Also I see so many people enjoying walks down foster to get away from the noise. This is so needed for mental health and wellness for our community. Please do not build on this land.

Sincerely,

Josie Givogri

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Peter Trouw
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2022 8:19 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Foster Road

[EXTERNAL]

We are against the development of this proposed mega city.

Peter Trouw
R-Biz Associates

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Naomi Chamblin
Date: September 16, 2022 at 8:39:43 PM PDT
To: Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>, Mary Luros <[email protected]>, Beth Painter <[email protected]>, Liz Alessio <[email protected]> Cc: Eric Hagyard
Subject: Fwd: Zoning map

[EXTERNAL]
Good evening, Council Members!
I would not normally write to you late on a Friday night but my husband and business partner Eric just received an email about the GP Plan Adoption hearing on Sept 20.

I emailed Scott Sedgley below and hope that I can also put this on your radar.

For those who don't know, we signed a contract to purchase a commercial space in Register Square in November 2016!! The following year the City Council approved a zoning change so we could run our business in a "mixed use" zone. Eric emailed with Mike Walker in March 2021, who assured us that the zoning would be correct for the new GP. See attached email from Mike. I'm guessing it just slipped through the cracks.

We are finally supposed to close on the sale after all this time next week. Our space has been ready since May and it has been a dreadfully painful process watching the developers finish the housing and the common areas. Our contractor has a 4-5 buildout of our space but he couldn't start until we have the title due to SBA loan restrictions.

Thank you so much for helping us in any way possible. The Building Dept has been great to work with and we have always felt so much support from the City Council so I'm hopeful we can work this out.

Sincerely,
Naomi, Co-owner of Napa Bookmine
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Naomi Chamblin
Date: Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 8:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: Zoning map
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Kern <[email protected]>, Eric Hagyard

Hi Scott,
You may remember many years ago we successfully applied for a General Plan amendment to make our new bookstore's location downtown mixed use so that our store could operate as a permitted use. It was approved in November 2017.

Eric had emailed with Mike Walker from Planning who assured him in March 2021 that the new General Plan would reflect this updated use.

I hate to take this email to the top but we are supposed to close as early as the middle of next week and I'm hoping to get this amended to prevent further hold ups. Apologies that we just noticed that the GP wasn't included our use as promised.

Thank you for directing me or this email to anyone who can help us. This project has truly taken forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) It was so nice to see you earlier this week! Sincerely,
Naomi

ATTACHMENT 1

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Eric Hagyard
Date: Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 8:10 PM
Subject: Zoning map
To: < >, <[email protected]>

Tom,

This is the map about to be adopted and our zoning looks wrong.

We need to try and fix this asap!!

Thank you,

ATTACHMENT 1

Eric

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Karena Zajicek <
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 9:59 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Foster Road mixed- use corridor

[EXTERNAL]
Dear CC members,

Please pause a moment and realize what an important decision you are about to make.

Not only for this generation but all other generations coming after us.

Once this property is developed it will be gone forever.

We already have done so much damage so much harm to our environment.

Please do the the right thing, we all know how devastating this will be for our well being. Last thing we need is more congestion, pollution, traffic and noise.

We need to give the earth a chance to breathe and heal.

Please vote against developing Foster Road.

Thank you for your time,

Karena Trouw
Cory Zajicek
Nicholas Zajicek
Tessa Zajicek

ATTACHMENT 1

Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2022 4:14 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan

[EXTERNAL]
This message is for the City of Napa City Council and the Mayor:

I am a 29 years resident of the City of Napa. I am here to express my strong opinion on the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor coming to your attention. Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor should be kept as a green gateway to Napa. That would be the best use for the land.

Thank you for your kind considerations

Paul Han
Napa, CA 94558

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

Napa Climate NOW! Steering Committee members Jim Wilson, Chris Benz, and Linda Brown

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

I hope you will look to the future for our community and the need for housing.

Thank you,
Steven Price

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Clerk
To: Carlyce Banayat
Subject: FW: Letter re General Plan & EIR growth projections Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 3:37:51 PM
Attachments: 2022.09.19 - Letter to City re Napa 2040 General Plan & EIR-c.pdf From: Michael Walker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 3:29 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Tiffany Carranza <[email protected]>; Patricia Baring <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Letter re General Plan & EIR growth projections

Please include attached letter to the City Council.

From: Dodd, Jeff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 3:26 PM
To: Michael Walker <[email protected]>
Cc: Ricky Caperton <[email protected]>; Daniel Doporto <[email protected]> Subject: Letter re General Plan & EIR growth projections

[EXTERNAL]
Mike,

Attached is written correspondence in relation to the City Council’s certification of the EIR for the General Plan update and approval of the General Plan update itself. We have identified mutually- agreeable language that we would like the City Council to incorporate by reference into the approval documents.

Please call me on my cell, 707-337-7609, with any questions. Otherwise, we will see you tomorrow night.

Jeff

Jeff Dodd
Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP
700 Main St, Suite 301
Napa, CA 94559
Direct 415-772-5724
| Office 415-391-4800
[email protected]
www.coblentzlaw.com

This transmittal is intended solely for use by its addressee, and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you receive this transmittal in error, please email a reply to the sender and delete the transmittal and any attachments.

ATTACHMENT 1

017471.0001 4859-1203-5380.1

Jeff Dodd
D (415) 772-5724
[email protected]

September 19 , 2022
City of Napa
Community Development Department
c/o Michael Walker, Senior Planner
1600 First Street
Napa, CA 94559

Sent via email ( [email protected])

RE: Development & growth projections in General Plan Update & Draft Environmental Impact Report

Dear Mike:

On behalf of various local business and property owners , we appreciate the efforts of City staff and its legal counsel to thoughtfully address the issues we raised regarding the various growth and development projections in the draft update to the General Plan’s Land Use Element (“ Draft Plan”) and the accompanying analysis in the draft Environmental Impact Report dated March 2022 (“ EIR”) prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

Based on our discussions, we understand that the City agrees with the discussion copied below in italics regarding the growth and development projections in the Draft Plan and EIR .

To that end, we would appreciate the City Council’s acknowledgment of th e discussion in the administrative record before it certifies the EIR and approves the General Plan to avoid future ambiguity on the topic of these growth and development projections .

As noted in the General Plan EIR, “the General Plan update and analysis of its effects were built on certain assumptions pertaining to future growth.” These assumptions are captured in , among other areas, the General Plan’s Table 2-2 (Development Summary – Project Buildout) and Table 2 -3 (Citywide Growth) of the General Plan and the EIR’s Table 2 -3 (Citywide Growth Projections) (collectively, the “Development Assumptions”).

The Development Assumptions are conceptual only and based on possible development scenarios contemplated under the General Plan and analyzed in the EIR. The Development Assumptions proposed for the number of Housing (Units), Non -Residential Building Area (retail, office, industrial) or the

ATTACHMENT 1

September 19, 2022

017471.0001 4859-1203-5380.1
number of Hotel (Rooms) do not limit or restrict development of those respective uses in the Planning Area, including the Focus Areas therein.

The General Plan and the EIR’s environmental analysis allows for flexibility in location, amount, and type of future development in terms of the precise mix of newly developed land uses and th eir location within the planning area. For example, there can be a mix and match between various land uses (e.g. there can be more retail if less office, as built, or vice versa). Further, individual development projects need not adhere to the Development Assumptions within any Focus Area or Outside Focus Area, but may rely on either individually or a combination thereof (e.g. a project within the Oxbow area can rely on Development Assumptions for the Downtown Core or Outside Focus Areas or both).

The General Plan EIR provides a level of analysis that may eliminate or minimize the need for subsequent CEQA review of projects that could occur under the General Plan as long as the level of development for a specific project remains below the cumulative Develo pment Assumptions estimated in the General Plan and accompanying EIR analysis (or the Downtown Specific Plan and EIR analysis). Under these circumstances, if a project is within the parameters of the cumulative Development Assumptions, that project may be able to utilize CEQA streamlining procedures to eliminate or minimize the need for CEQA review for that project in accordance with applicable CEQA requirements.

Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, this discussion “merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications” to the EIR . Thus , the provision of this context applicable to the EIR (and General Plan) does not require recirculation. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15088.5.)

Please contact me with any questions. Thank you again for the City’ s efforts to resolve the aforementioned issues.

Very truly yours,

Jeff Dodd

ATTACHMENT 1

From:

To: Clerk
Subject: Letter to the city council
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 4:10:08 PM
Attachments: Letter to Napa regardiing Ghisletta property.pdf [EXTERNAL]
Hello Tiffany,

Attached is a letter from the Sierra Club to the city council in respect of the deliberations on the new general plan and the Ghisletta properties.

Best regards,

David

Napa, CA 94558

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall – think of it, always. Mahatma Gandhi.

Go Green! Think before you print.

This email message and any attachments hereto are intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. Thank you
.

ATTACHMENT 1

September 19, 2022
The Mayor and City Council
City of Napa
255 School St.

Napa, CA 94559
Dear Mayor Sedgley and City Councilmembers,
The Napa Group of the Sierra Club wishes to signal its opposition to that part of the proposed City General Plan that contemplates the annexation and up-zoning of the parcels of land commonly known as the Ghisletta property. We believe, for several reasons, that this property is best treated as Greenbelt land, as proposed by the Napa Planning Commission.

We hold that the highest and best use of all land in unincorporated Napa County is that it be maintained as it is currently; farmlands should remain farmland, wildlands should remain wild. A corollary is that cities should not expand into undeveloped areas of the county and urban sprawl must be curtailed. The proposed General Plan violates both tenets.

Development of the Ghisletta property would replace an existing open space that is an active carbon sink with a heat island. It would bring a tremendous number of new vehicles into the Napa area thereby increasing exhaust emissions. It would require significant investment in new infrastructure. It would strain already stressed water resources and it would expose potential residents to the repercussions of earthquakes as a significant fault line traverses the land. Finally, development of that land will completely and permanently alter the south-western approach to our city.

We believe that the City of Napa should pursue development of all the fifty plus housing appropriate in- fill sites in the city before even contemplating annexation and development of county land. We urge the city council not to adopt the proposed General Plan in its existing state. We urge the city council to abandon the notion of annexation and up-zoning of the Ghisletta property,

Yours sincerely

David Campbell
Chair – Land Use Committee
Sierra Club, Napa Group

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

population in the City of Napa at the time of 79,074.

However, since Napa City Council's decisions are driven by citizen input, 77% of those surveyed stated it was very important and were in favor of preserving the natural environment.
63% stated it would make
Napa a better place to work/visit if Napa had parks and open space. A mere 13% surveyed thought housing should be on undeveloped or agricultural land at the edge of the city versus and overwhelming 87% thought housing should be planned downtown, along active corridors like Jefferson and Soscol, and/or to replace older commercial as well as industrial buildings in existing neighborhoods or in other locations.

I support the Planning Commission’s recommendation to change the designation of the Foster Road/Golden Gate Corridor as a Greenbelt in the General Plan 2040 and not as potential mixed use land development.

I urge you to adopt their recommendation without modification and listen to the surveyed requests by
citizens of Napa as to what they
believe would make Napa a better place to work and live reflected in the 2040 General Plan.

Sincerely,
Peggy Squires
Napa, California 94559

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

-----Original Message-----
From: Jill Techel < >
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 2:48 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter to the Council about the General Plan

[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

[EXTERNAL]

September 19, 2022

Dear Napa City Council,
I was very disappointed when the Napa Planning Commission recommended to change the zoning designation of an undeveloped 144 acre area near Foster Road, west of Highway 29, to a greenbelt restricting it to mostly open space.

This property is within the RUL and has been designated for decades as a site for future housing. Protecting the RUL is a huge issue for the City of Napa and to do that we need options within the RUL. This site does that.

When I served on the Napa City Council I saw that past councils had vision for the future and was especially grateful for the water supply options that the City of Napa has. You have a responsibility to future councils who will face the need for housing for those that will be our workforce and their families.

I know it is tough when residents are concerned that their quality of life will change with development, but development can be done right and add to options for teachers, hospitality workers and other that need housing to live and work here. I would rather see the council commit to doing growth the right way and helping Napa be ready with housing that fits the needs of the future. Don’t put more stress on the RUL, protect it by not altering the draft General Plan to redesignate the Foster Road area that includes the Ghisletta Ranch- from Mixed Use to Greenbelt.

Jill Techel
Mayor 2005-2020

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

use designation will likely bring more of the
same.

As much as I understand that some residents
desire for this area to remain unchanged, I
believe that it is important for the General Plan to
look forward and address the growing strains on
our community.

Specifically, we are challenged
with a current housing type that is very attractive
for a second home purchase.

It is my hope that
the Mixed-Use zoning would allow higher density,
lower cost housing with adjacent services that
would be more appealing to younger
professionals such as teachers, fire fighters,
service industry managers, and engineers and
less appealing to second home purchasers.

The continued conversion of family
neighborhoods to shared vacation homes, second
homes, and homes for retirees from the Bay Area
is very concerning and is leaving a big demand
for lower cost work force and family housing.

Having visited communities such as Vancouver
Canada where modern, higher density
communities attract a young and diverse
population, I am confident that Napa would
benefit by reserving a future option of providing
higher density housing development that would
be conditionally allowed under the Mixed-Use land
use designation.

In the context of timing, the last iteration of the

ATTACHMENT 1

General Plan and Supplemental General Plan
Amendments resulted in the development of
Napa Pipe and the Gasser Property. When we
look back and consider how long it took these
projects to go from planning to actual housing,
we can anticipate that the decision to allow the
Mixed Use Zoning on Golden Gate Drive will likely
result in housing in 10 to 20 years from now.

By
that time, the need for higher density modern
housing will be even more critical.

Lastly, please accept my gratitude and
appreciation for taking the time to read and listen
to the multitude of opinions on the specific
elements of the General Plan.

I wish you all the
best with your deliberations on this important
issue.

Respectfully,
Hugh Linn
Napa Ca.

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Randy Gularte <
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:54 AM
To: Michael Walker <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Randy Gularte <
Subject: General plan comments for City Council thanks

[EXTERNAL]

Randy A. Gularte
Golden Gate Sotheby's International Realty Broker Associate LIC #00458347 707.256.2145

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Gularte
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 6:56 AM
To: Randy Gularte <
Subject: Message from "

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Katherine Zimmer <
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 12:54 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Liz Alessio <[email protected]>; Beth Painter <[email protected]>; Mary Luros <[email protected]>; Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>; Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>; Patrick Burke
Subject: Written Comments - Item 14. Public Hearing – General Plan Adoption

[EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council,

Please do not follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation and do not alter the draft General Plan to redesignate the Foster Road area - which includes the Ghisletta Ranch – from Mixed Use to Greenbelt.

The recent General Plan process has been comprehensive and transparent with a high level of engagement. This area and the property have been part of the City of Napa’s plan for housing for 50 years as a site for future housing opportunities; has been located inside the Rural Urban Limit Line (RUL) to define where development and grown can occur since 1975; and was included in the City’s Sphere of Influence in the early 1990’s.

Our community has been very clear that we must have more housing. We are asking for leadership from the City Council.

We don't want to send a message to those who seek to build a business here and to invest in a diverse economy that we aren’t interested in creating housing so that they and their employees find a place to live.

We don't want to send a message to our neighbors that we are not open to helping those who want to move to another, potentially larger home; to buy a home for the first time to create generational wealth through homeownership; to have their children grow up here; or have the ability to live in the place where they work.

We urge the City Council to stay the course, make the right decision and to be on the right side of Napa housing history.

Thank you for your consideration.

Pat & Katherine Burke

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Mary Luros <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:48 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Stop the Linda Vista extension & bridge

Mary Luros
Councilmember, District 3

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

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jacquelyn Musgrave <
Date: September 19, 2022 at 9:43:45 AM PDT
To: Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>, Liz Alessio <[email protected]>, Beth Painter <[email protected]>, Mary Luros <[email protected]>, Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>
Subject: Stop the Linda Vista extension & bridge

[EXTERNAL]
Hello Napa Council Members,

I am writing to voice my opposition to keeping the Linda Vista Extension & Bridge in the General Plan. As you know, the City Council has voted to NOT build the bridge in both 2014 and 2018, and the Planning Commission voted last month to remove the bridge from the General Plan. As a citizen of Blane Meadows, I request the City Council adopt the General Plan as approved by the Planning Commission. The voting has been consistent to not build the bridge. Dragging this out another 4 years is nonsensical.

Respectfully,
Jacqui Musgrave - Napa resident since 2018

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Lora Engle <
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 12:07 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan

[EXTERNAL]
To the City Council:

As Napa residents living in North Napa, we would like to register our opposal to the planned Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor.

We would hate to see this beautiful piece of land that means so much to our community be lost. Please keep our gateway to Napa on Highway 29 as it is, with the trees, vineyards and open fields.

Thank you.

Jim and Lora Engle

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Mark Lesti BRE#01784430
To: Clerk; Scott Sedgley
Subject: Foster Rd. land
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:05:01 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council.

I own Windermere Napa Valley Properties here in Napa. We are a boutique real estate sales brokerage. As such, we are acutely aware of the home inventory shortage here in Napa.

With this shortage, existing home prices are soaring. This makes Napa not affordable to many of our essential workforce.

The housing inventory issue is getting tighter and worse with each passing year.

Simply put, we cannot turn down each and every meaningful chance to provide housing in our community.

I believe that the Foster Rd. land is a great candidate for housing; given its distance from the Ag Preserve and its chance to provide a good number of well planned units for our community.

Thanks.

Mark Lesti
Broker / Owner / CPA (inactive)
BRE#01784430
Windermere Napa Valley Properties
1010 Third St., Napa CA 94559
(707)320-8950 - CELL
(707)226-1823 - OFFICE (707)409-6249 - PRIVATE FAX
[email protected] - email
TheLestiTeam.com (Website for property searches and more) Proud Member of Napa Sunrise Rotary

ATTACHMENT 1

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Huntsinger < >
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:37 AM
To: Scott S
edgley <[email protected]>; Liz Alessio <[email protected]>; Beth Painter <[email protected]>; Mary Luros <[email protected]>; Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>; Patricia Baring <[email protected]>; emorris <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Walker <[email protected]>
Subject: Napa Gateway

[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

[EXTERNAL]

Dear Napa City Council Members,

We ask that you fully accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation pertaining to the general plan which includes designating the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor as Greenbelt.

We know that most, or all, of you recognize the remarkable pastoral beauty of this area and it’s value as the Gateway to the Napa Valley and to the City of Napa so we won’t go into the multitude of reasons why we hope you vote to accept the plan with the Greenbelt Designation- limited geography, lack of water, traffic congestion, earthquake fault-line, plus many other unintended consequences.

I ( Jim ) have been told by an esteemed member of the Council in no uncertain terms that developing the Foster Road site is a “ done deal “. I was very surprised to hear that this member, and apparantely speaking for a majority of the council, had concluded that this decision had already been made. I truly hope this is not the case.

Please don’t destroy the beautiful Gateway to Napa Valley and to The City of Napa. Once destroyed, the fields that grace this Gateway can never be replaced.

Jim and Debra Huntsinger
Napa, CA 94558

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Gina Massolo
To: Clerk
Cc: Michael Walker
Subject: NVHA Comment for 9/20 City Council record - item 14.A.

Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:26:46 AM
Attachments: 9.13.22 Letter to PC Final.pdf
[EXTERNAL]
Good morning,
Please see attached letter to the City Council from the Napa Valley Horsemen's Association. Your time is appreciated!
Thank you,
Gina Massolo

ATTACHMENT 1

1 September 19, 2022

Napa City Council

Re: Public comment on Agenda item 14.A. “General Plan Adoption” on 9/20 evening session agenda.

Dear Mayor Sedgley, Vice Mayor Lu ros and Council members Alessio, Painter, & Narvaez:

As you are already aware the Napa Valley Horsemen’s Association has been tuned in to the General Plan 2040 process for the past two years. Our ex pectations remain the same; preserve/protect our use s under our Napa County CLN at our current location, and to maintain and improve our property, and buildings/structu res.

Working collaboratively with the GPAC and your staff, policies to protect the short and long term future of he NVHA w ere developed and included in the February 2022 public hearing draft. The Napa Valley Horsemen’s Association st rongly supports LUCD-23 6 as proposed in the publi c hearing draft General Plan.

Proposed policy LUCD 23-6 together with the Foster Road Mixed Use designation as recommended in the public hearin g draft will preserve and protect future opportunities for our parcel, and to secure its uses for future members beyon d 2040.

NVHA is greatly appreciative of the time city and county representatives took listening to us, acknowledging our commitment to preserving our operation s and for being willing to incorporate protective policy for this parcel.

Thank you,
Gina Massolo & Sarah Linkenhei l, NVHA Longevity Committee

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Mark Schaefer
To: Clerk
Subject: Proposed Foster Road Mixed-Use Corridor
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:12:44 PM
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley and Members of the City Council,
We believe the proposed Foster Road Mixed-Use Corridor is not in the long-term interest of the citizens of Napa because it will result in the permanent loss of valuable agricultural land and greatly diminish one of our most significant and attractive gateways. Unfortunately, there are many run-down and poorly developed areas within the City limits. Redeveloping and beautifying these areas would be much more beneficial and cost-effective, given the proximity of existing water, power, and sewage infrastructure.

Napa is a unique community in California and the Bay area because of our rural and viticulture-oriented environs. If we succumb to the short-term demands of developers and prioritize sprawl over renewal and renovation, we will become just another over-developed urban center and lose our greatest asset as the nation’s first agricultural preserve—and as a world-renowned winemaking region.

We hope you will protect and celebrate our unique community for the benefit of future generations and oppose actions by those motivated by short-term, profit-oriented development.

Sincerely,
Mark & Jo Ann Schaefer

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

recent comprehensive, publicly vetted General Plan process. I encourage you to stay the course and provide compassionate, thoughtful, and strategic leadership for our entire community.

Respectfully,

Jeri Hansen

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Michael silkwood
To: Clerk
Subject: The General Plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 7:20:08 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley and Council Members,
I ask that you accept in full the Planning Commission's recommendation to remove the Foster Road Mixed-Use Corridor from the Napa 2040 General Plan. As is, the Gateway welcomes travelers and sets Napa aside as uniquely inviting. Replacing it with urban sprawl would be greatly disruptive to the community and environment.

Sincerely,
Michael G. Silkwood

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

Your mission is to preserve and promote Napa's unique quality of life." Allowing development at the southern end of Foster Road will not benefit our community. Please do not amend the general plan to allow development of this agricultural land.

Thank you for your service, and for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Eve Ryser

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

Road Mixed Use (p. 48) proposal is neither supported by the environmental constraints nor supportable for affordable housing. (Take a close look at the tortured language of Foster Road Mixed Use Goal LUCD-23). After taking into account environmental constraints, which are significant, the proposed designation stated in the plan is a slight of hand.

In addition, the draft plan does NOT accurately reflect the deliberations of the GPAC who were selected to underpin the plan with study, advice, and community opinion. A number of us have been appalled by, after volunteering over 2 years and countless hours of our time, the disregard of opinions and input.

Foster Rd. is but one example.

During deliberations, the GPAC asked the staff and consultant to overlay the property in question with preliminary information concerning geologic faults, slopes, unstable soils, and flood hazards.

The resultant buildable area did not support the suggested designation proposed. Despite this, the next draft came back with buildable unit numbers that were misaligned with the environmental constraints.

The GPAC’s concerns and the data were ignored in favor of what appears to be a predetermined outcome now presented to you in the draft plan.

Clearly, the Planning Commission saw this. I urge the City Council to adopt the Planning Commission’s recommendation to amend the draft General Plan to designate the Foster Road property as Greenbelt.

Respectfully,
Deborah Macdonald
*For your reference, below is the text of my previously submitted comments:

I am writing to object to the Foster Road Mixed Use Goal LUCD-23 section of the Draft General Plan (p.2-50-51). As a member of GPAC, I and other members of GPAC, along with members of the general public, objected to the classification of the Foster Road property as Mixed Use during our meetings and I do not believe this designation represents a majority consensus. Although the draft plan mentions developing trails and maintaining some open spaces, and that the development of the property take into account its environmental constraints, this area is unsuitable for the designation assigned and was mentioned as such at GPAC meetings.

Apart from
keeping the gateway to the Napa Valley green to preserve our unique entrance to the valley which many members of the public duly noted at our meetings, the land is replete with geologic faults, slopes, unstable soils, and flood hazards.

No amount of couching the goals
in terms of respecting these characteristics will mitigate the designation of mixed use. This area is not suitable for development. I strongly object to this designation.

ATTACHMENT 1

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Isham < >
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 4:55 PM
To: Patricia Baring <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter for Sept 20 Council Meeting
[EXTERNAL]

ATTACHMENT 1

September 19, 2022
Subject: General plan 2040
Dear Napa Mayor and City Council Members,
Tomorrow evening you will all be tasked to decide on something that will affect all of the citizens of Napa as well as the generations that will follow. The decision that we are referring to, is of course, the adoption of the new General Plan 2040. Of particular concern to us as well as many, many others, is the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor designation that is included in this plan.

This new moniker will open the door for development of high density housing and commercial uses on this pastoral agricultural land located at the very gateway to our city. Once this area is developed it will never go back to what it is today.

As you are all aware, your duty is to be responsible for, and responsive to the citizens that elected you. Your duty is to represent the majority of your constituents and you have been trusted decide what is the greater good for all of us. You are aided in your decisions by the Planning staff as well as the Planning Commissioners that you have appointed to look at planning matters in greater detail.

After attending the September 1 meeting of the Planning Commission we were encouraged that while many members may have had preconceived opinions regarding the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor, they listened carefully to reasons of those in opposition. We commend them for recognizing the gravity of the situation and making a decision that would benefit all of the citizens of our City as well as future generations.

What we now find discouraging is what appears to be the Planing staff’s steadfast resolve to push the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor designation through to the Council level. It is our hope, and the hope of the 77% of the people that were poled as part of the EIR that want to preserve the natural environment, that the Council will agree with the Planning Commission recommendation and approve the new General Plan 2040, including the Commission’s recommendations.

All of the speakers at the Planning Commission meetings and those that you will hear at your meeting tommorow evening all of the correspondence that you and the Commission have received regarding the General Plan 2040 provide an overwhelming number or reasons to remove the Foster Road Mixed Use Corridor designation from The Horsemen’s\Willcoxson \Ghisletta parcels. We are yet to hear a compelling reason to sacrifice prime agricultural land, which also provides a green buffer at the entrance to our city, for high density housing and commercial use. We do not think that anyone, with the exception of those that would reap considerable financial gain, would agree to a general plan that would open the door for this potential development.

Sincerely,
Craig and Renee Isham

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

Mark & Debra Dommen

Napa, CA 94558

Dear Mayor Sedgley and members of the Napa City Council,

My family and I have lived across the road from the Foster Road/Ghisletta parcel for almost 12 years. You may be assuming that, because of that, I am opposed to including this parcel in the General Plan as a study area for housing.

But I strongly support it and have for years. Before we purchased our house, we did our homework. We knew that the parcels across the street were part of Napa’s voter approved Sphere of Influence and were part of the cities future plan for housing.

Furthermore, if the site were to be developed one day, I look forward to being part of the process. I imagine safer areas to walk then up and down Foster Road with speeding cars.

Our community has been telling elected and appointed officials year after year that housing is a priority in our community. Housing of all types and price points. We need housing for our workforce, for young families, for seniors who want to downsize but have no other place to go, to people who want to make a life or start a business here.

Please do not follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation and do not alter the draft General Plan to redesignate the Foster Road area - which includes the Ghisletta Ranch – from Mixed Use to Greenbelt.

This area and the property have been part of the City of Napa’s plan for 50 years as a site for future housing opportunities. We need more sites for housing not less, and we need to plan thoughtfully and intentionally.

We should not change our direction because those who oppose this potential site are living in homes and neighborhoods that were once the site of someone else’s view in the distant past.

I urge the City Council to stay the course, make the right decision and continue to show your leadership on making housing for all a priority.

Sincerely,

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

morning as an alternate route when 29 and the 12/121 get jammed up during every weekday morning and
evening commute.

We enjoy the limited amount of open space and country feeling to walk and ride our bikes with our families!
Please vote (as the Planning Commission did) against this development and take it out of the general plan or change the area to a Greenbelt).

Thank you for your attention!

Sincerely,
Robin Slusher

Robin Slusher | Account Coordinator | TricorBraun WinePak Cell 707-696-2517 | [email protected]
2235 Mercury Way | Suite 205 | Santa Rosa CA 95407

CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE TRICORBRAUN PULSE, YOUR MONTHLY GO-TO SOURCE FOR SUPPLY CHAIN UPDATES AND INFORMATION.

The information contained in this communication may be confidential and may be privileged; it may be disseminated by the recipient(s) only to persons in their own company with a need to know, for their own use only and not for redissemination. This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you believe you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior permission; any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. To the extent this communication pertains to the provision of goods or services it is subject to and includes our terms and conditions which will be stated in writing at such time as we enter into a transaction with you.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

From: Christiane Robbins
To: Clerk; Liz Alessio; Mary Luros; Bernie Narvaez; Beth Painter; Scott Sedgley Subject: KNGG Letter for City Council Meeting_09.20.2022 Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 11:25:58 AM
Attachments: KNGG_CityCouncil_09.18.2022.pdf
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Council members,
Please accept the attached letter intended for this evening’s City Council meeting and public commentary archive - on behalf of KNGG.

Respectfully submitted,
Christiane Robbins
Christiane Robbins
K E E P N A P A's G A T E W A Y S G R E E N
( www.savefosterroad.org )
Power is exercised by those who show up.

The information contained in this electronic mail message (including any attachments) is confidential information covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521,
and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. _____________________
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication to anyone, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of

ATTACHMENT 1

this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's email administrators.

Please be advised that no agreement can be formed by this email under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any similar law unless the email explicitly states that is the case.

Thank you.

ATTACHMENT 1

KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022

KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAYS GREEN
September 18, 2022
Mayor Scott Sedgley,
City Council Members: Liz Alessio, Mary Luros, Bernie Navarez,& Beth Painter City Council of Napa
955 School St.

Napa, CA 94559
Dear Members of the City Council,
On behalf of KNGG a coalition of citizens, businesses and groups throughout the City and County of Napa, we submit this letter responding to the recent release of the FEIR and the more recent Napa Valley Register reportage of the Letter from Attorney Kevin Teague to City Attorney, Michael Barrett, dated 09.09.2022.

As always we remain appreciative of the City's efforts in drafting their proposed General Plan Napa 2040. To reiterate, each of us are here contributing our time expertise, efforts and financial support, as we cherish Napa and the promise of its future — for us all.

With this in mind, we request that you honor the recent recommendation by the Planning Commission's for GREENBELT designation without modification for these Gateway Parcels aka The Ghisletta, NVHA and the Wilcoxson Parcels and also the recently identified Foster Road Mixed Use ( Corridor ).

As you are well aware, for well over a decade members of Save Foster Road and KNGG have been working diligently in staunch opposition to the misguided

ATTACHMENT 1

KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022 proposals for re-zoning, annexing and developing these Gateways Parcels. Our efforts have resulted in having the City of Napa Planning Commission reverse their previous decision for commercial and residential development ( Foster Road Mixed Use) and recommend the zoning designation of GREENBELT for these parcels in the City’s proposed draft General Plan 2040 which is now before you. It is our sincerest hope that the City Council will follow in the steps of the Planning Commission's reversal and re-direct of the City of Napa to a judicious path of approving their recommendation for GREENBELT designation and including it in the approved General Plan Napa 2040.

A Bit of History
© Heather Cox Richardson, 2022
In 1761, 55-year-old Benjamin Franklin attended the coronation of King George III and later wrote that he expected the young monarch’s reign would “be happy and truly glorious.” Then, in 1776, he helped to draft and then signed the Declaration of Independence. An 81-year-old man in 1787, he urged his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia to rally behind the new plan of government they had written.
“I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them,” he said, “For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.” ___________________________________
FEIR
The purpose of a General Plan is to be the “constitution for development” within the City.  This is the City’s rare opportunity to prevent or strongly discourage sprawl development and all of its acknowledged and infamous effects to the environment and our quality of life..

The proposed findings contained in the latest Draft / Final EIR is that conversion of farmland and other indirect adverse impacts on Agriculture allowed by the proposed General Plan are unavoidable.
(See “City of Napa General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report,” September 2022, pp. 1-2, 2-12, 2-13, 3-1–3-5,   .)

ATTACHMENT 1

KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022 The FEIR’s claim that development pressure will force the conversion of farmland is an abdication of the City’s land use planning duties and responsibilities.  Including land use designations for GREENBELT and open space areas of AG and/or open space may not prevent all future development proposals for these sites. That said, it would require solidly informed, well-considered, and future discretionary determinations by the City if a change in land use designation would then be proposed.

To the contrary, designating these sites now for higher intensity mixed use in this General Plan Napa 2040 eliminates a tool and deprives the City of the necessary agency and instrumentality that it would otherwise have available to it. A GREENBELT designation would allow the City to exercise an unencumbered vision, determinative control and the ability to effectively guide any proposed development at these sites in the future.

KNGG has continually raised a number of significant environmental impacts that could result from the conversion of the Gateway Parcels aka the “Ghisletta Parcels” to a "Foster Road Mixed Use" designation. These are well-know to the City for the some time now and are available in the City's archives of public commentary.

As was earlier, the Planning Division's response to comments contained in the Final EIR remain inadequate and do not respond to the seriousness of the task at hand.

That is, in this moment of critical uncertainty, the intention of the General Plan remains a policy statement that expresses a collective vision as to how our city will evolve over a specific time frame ( 2020-2040 ). The foundation of any General Plan is informed by community values: how we all wish to grow and how we all will respond and accommodate the challenges before us through identified goals and objectives.

Simply put, the General Plan is our plan for the future and to:
"preserve and promote the unique quality of life that is Napa” .

In stark contrast to the Final DEIR, these environmental impacts are not "unavoidable "and can be mitigated - contrary to what has been repeatedly stated in iterations of the City's proposed General Plan 2040 and FEIR. These include: the elimination of

ATTACHMENT 1

KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022 important agricultural land, conflicts with existing General Plan policies, urban sprawl, Alquist Priolo Zones, Flood Plains, Landslide Areas, Water Scarcity, Air quality, Traffic and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Native American Cultural/Archeological Sites, noise/ light pollution, WUL, etc. due to the misguided, proposed density of re-zoning, annexation, up-zoning and development planned for this compromised, high risk site,.
"There is No Project"
This has been the intractable and repeated response by the Planning Staff, City representative/officials to serious comments is that there is no specific project planned at this time
therefore it is impossible to measure any effects from their FOSTER ROAD MIXED USE proposal.

This response to public comments remains inadequate. KNGG has consistently raised a number of significant environmental impacts that could result from the conversion of the “Ghisletta Parcels” to a Foster Road Mixed Use designation due to elimination of important agricultural land, conflicts with existing General Plan policies, urban sprawl, air quality, traffic and greenhouse gas emissions due to the density of development planned for this site, etc.. The repeated and disingenuous response to these serious comments is that there is no specific project planned at this time.

This response is also legally invalid, for several reasons.

1. "When a comment raises a significant environmental issue, the lead agency must address the comment "in detail giving reasons why" the comment was "not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice."
(The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 615, citation to CEQA Guidelines, § 15088, subd. (c).)
The City has provided only unsupported, conclusory responses that lack the required good faith reasoned analysis.

Moreover, again, the City's response fails to comply with CEQA’s requirements to study the whole of a project. The General Plan Update includes specific details

ATTACHMENT 1

KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022 regarding development proposed for the Foster Road Mixed Use area, even developing policies specific to this area, taking a significant step to commit the City to the project .

All of which provides more than adequate information to allow for an assessment of impacts associated with this increased intensity of development. Urban Planning Forecasting tools/models are plentiful and easily available. They would offer substantive information and data-sets that would prove instrumental in evaluating Environmental impacts. The City has failed to include any such evaluative modeling/ forecasting in this Final DEIR for the FOSTER ROAD MIXED USE.

Most unfortunately, the City continues to violate CEQA by repeatedly failing to address the impacts associated with this Foster Road Mixed Use development in the FEIR.
"There is No Project" response remains problematic on several levels not the least of which is the specificity of the FOSTER ROAD MIXED USE contained in the FEIR/ General Plan 2040 which serves as the basis for any project development contemplated and impacts anticipated. The often-voiced plea for the proposal is the supposed need for a "Master Plan". This supposed need has echoed throughout this General Plan process and leading this charge has been urban planner and City Council Representative Painter.

To be clear, the Master Plan is an absolute necessity ONLY to usher in both annexation and development as required by the County of Napa's SOI in 2005.

A Master Plan is not required by a designation of GREENBELT. _______________________
As part of the City Council’s General Plan 2040 approval, the City Council must arrive at findings that are contained in and based upon the Final EIR (FEIR).

The proposed finding contained in the latest FEIR is that: conversion of farmland and other indirect adverse impacts on agriculture allowed by the proposed General Plan

ATTACHMENT 1

KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022 2040 are unavoidable. (See “City of Napa General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report,” September 2022, pp. 1-2, 2-12, 2-13, 3-1–3-5, https://napa2040.com/s/NapaGPU_Admin_FEIR_Sept2022.pdf, and attached.) The Staff recommended FEIR finding
The Project’s [the general plan’s] emphasis on in fill growth along major corridors and within key Focus Areas fits with Napa County’s policies, concentrating growth in the urban core and disincentivizing growth in surrounding farmlands. However, development pressures will likely result in the conversion of more farmland, and implementation of the Project [general plan] would result in contributing farmland conversion and indirect affects to agricultural uses. . . . . All impacts identified in Chapter 3, Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR, are less than significant or less than significant with implementation of mitigation, with the exception of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and agricultural resources which are significant and unavoidable. (pp. 3-4–3-5) A suggested revision to the staff recommended FEIR finding:

The Project’s [the general plan’s] emphasis on infill growth along major corridors and within key Focus Areas fits with Napa County’s policies, concentrating growth in the urban core and disincentivizing growth in surrounding farmlands. However, city officials must not allow any such development pressures that will likely result in the arbitrary and capricious conversion of more farmland driven by developer interests, and implementation of the Project [general plan] that would result in contributing to farmland conversion and avoidable and indirect affects to agricultural uses. .

All impacts identified in Chapter 3,  Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR, are less than significant or less than significant with implementation of mitigation, with the exception of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and agricultural resources which are significant and unavoidable. (pp. 3-4–3-5)
The only evidence provided to support the conclusion of "unavoidability" in the Staff FEIR finding is that development pressures will likely overrule the good intentions of the written policies. This finding speaks to sleight of hand conclusions based upon speculation and bias by the City - and is not supported by factual evidence.

Further, a failure by the City Council to honor and accept the PC recommendation of GREENBELT  may also be a cause of  internal inconsistencies within the General Plan 2040 itself  (i.e., LUCD 5-3:)

ATTACHMENT 1

KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022 "Support inclusion and preservation of greenways, open space, riparian corridors, wetland areas and agricultural land when they exist in gateway locations." Napa 2040 General Plan, p. 2-42).

KNGG's proposal to mitigate the effects of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Air Quality, Traffic, Noise and Environmental Justice issues is rather straightforward.

1. Honor, Accept and Inscribe the Planning Commission's Recommendation for GREENBELT Designation for these Gateway Parcels;

2. Require the City Council/Planning Commission to:

First, develop and complete in-fill housing within the city core, specifically to the identified focus areas of(Jefferson, Soscol, Lincoln and Trancas). In so doing, this in itself would definitively mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions/AQ and the effects of Global Warming.prior to other development..

As you realize, it’s infinitely preferable to densify an already urbanized area to minimize transportation demands - rendering them concentrated and a deterrence to automobile usage and parking real estate.

To provide the mix of housing needs along these identified corridors FIRST, thus offering a much needed regenerative incentive for the energetic revitalization of these corridors, neighborhoods and corporate parks. Many of these single-story shopping centers along the identified corridors truly are fallow and businesses failing or shuttered - falling into blight and reflecting poorly on the City.

Developers/owners would be viewed as partners and incentivized using the once-in -lifetime state and federal funding to create vibrant mixed use corridors. Such an alternative plan would not be additive of more cars, air, noise, and light pollution to the edges of the city. Rather it would rightly focus the housing in already urbanized areas, not further creating sprawl and resulting in a segregated and marginalized environment at the rural urban interface of the gateway to the world famous Napa Valley- one of the world's most impressive tourist ( economic ) drivers - second only to Disneyland.

ATTACHMENT 1

KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022 Overriding Considerations
The issue of Overriding Considerations was raised during the Planning Commission meeting on 09.01.2022. To this point, our understanding is that the City Council may only adopt a statement of overriding considerations if substantial evidence is in hand.  It is not.

Following two years of persistent questioning and stonewalling, the Planning Staff finally revealed information on the state's RHNA housing requirements on

09.01.2022. In fact, the re-zoning, annexation, upzoning, and development of the Gateway parcels are not necessary to fulfill the RHNA numbers housing requirements as has been declared by the Planning Staff and a cadre of City/County representatives. There are already more than adequate in-fill housing units to satisfy these requirements. Simply put there is no need, other than to fulfill the request of the Property owner of the Ghisletta Parcels.

RHNA
KNGG understands that RHNA circulates in 8 year cycles, however:

1. unlike other Bay Area municipalities the City and County of Napa have inexplicably not appealed these RHNA numbers, and

2. the State itself has recently issued a scathing report on both the inaccuracy and the inadequacy of reliable evidence for these RHNA numbers and forecasting; On March 17, Michael S. Tilden, the Acting California State Auditor, issued a blistering critique of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and its Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA).

The Auditor found problems in the HCD methodology that may have inflated RHNA requirements by hundreds of thousands of housing units. The Auditor concludes that “The Department of Housing and Community Development must improve its processes to ensure that communities can adequately plan for housing.”
In his letter to the Governor and legislative leaders, the Auditor also states, “Overall, our audit determined that HCD does not ensure that its needs assessments are accurate and adequately supported. …This insufficient oversight and lack of support for its considerations risks eroding public confidence that HCD is informing local governments of the appropriate amount of housing they will need.”

ATTACHMENT 1

KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022

3. the verified decreasing population of the City, the County and State; and

4. the high level of inaccuracies of historical data forecasting, I.e. population for Napa was forecast to be 250,000 in 2020 by the City years ago; It is highly improbable that RHNA numbers will be an issue in the interim years until 2040. In the unlikely event a need arises the City has a number of discretionary measures that could be effectively deployed, such as the General Amendment used with the annexation of NapaPipe.

With this in mind , we advocate that the City Council members change the language of the draft General Plan Napa 2040 to specify and require priority development first in the already urbanized corridors within the city proper to produce the number of RHNA units anticipated in order to reduce sprawl and advance climate resiliency. In so doing, this will reduce the particulate matter, greenhouse gas emissions and advance levels of clean air quality. Without question, developing the existing main corridors with existing infrastructures/systems and focus areas will provide more of the much- needed housing stock options, prove cost-efficient, revitalize the city neighborhoods and supporting new and existing businesses.
◦ KNGG has noted that the City of Napa's own 2015 Napa Housing Element identified at least 51 sites (reasonably accommodating over 1550 housing units) for in-fill housing site equitably situated throughout the City. Most of these sites, if any at all, have not yet been developed. This number itself would yield high % of the ABAG current demand for housing.
◦ Despite KNGG requests the transit corridors identified in the Draft General Plan 2040 seemingly had not been populated with mixed use housing and housing numbers.
◦ The Draft General Plan’s own Consultants housing projections have remained inaccurate and do not align with the States’ own numbers upon which they are based. KNGG has repeatedly brought this to the attention of the City about 2 years ago. These numbers have never been corrected.

ATTACHMENT 1

KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022 Certainly, the city has checked all of the bureaucratic boxes in compliance with municipal process guidelines . But checking boxes belies a dismissal of the spirit of what checking those boxes represents - an authentic community participation and a respect of what the residents of the City of Napa have voiced for decades now. Most unfortunately, this omission speaks to a continued disservice to the residents of Napa and to the future sustainable housing, public good and climate resiliency of our region.

Issues of Social Justice and Equity
Certainly, these are privately held lands and their owners - as any of us - are entitled to realize whatever profit is in keeping with the ( high ) market valuation of Prime Agriculture lands. While highly valued for Agriculture, these parcels are deeply compromised and high-risk for residential and commercial development. That said, the elephant in the room is that these are Prime Agriculture lands, once treasured for their multi-faceted value to the City of Napa, appear to be the sacrificial lamb in a disingenuous ploy to up-zone and develop (affordable/low-income) housing. That ploy itself speaks to an unacceptable degree of environmental racism and ghetto- ization and may be viewed as an updated form of 21st century red-lining.

Affordable housing needs to be ( and can be ) integrated throughout the City of Napa - in every corner where each of us lives. Affordable/Workforce housing should not be situated entirely within one area of the City. The draft Napa General Plan 2040 proposal indicates that well over 300% of all new housing is slated for the development of the Ghisletta and Horseman’s Association parcels and represents approximately 5% of. The City of Napa's population.

But the Planning Commission's recommendation of GREENBELT Designation has assured the citizens of Napa that affordable and mixed-income housing will be built throughout all of the SAFE and affordable sites already identified by the City as urban infill - and this speaks to 21st century “smart growth directives” and to social justice and racial equity .

ATTACHMENT 1

KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022 The FOSTER ROAD MIXED USE proposal (perhaps unintentionally) covertly segregates people of lower income ( often people of color ) by creating a whole new city in South Napa - rather than offering them the same amenities and privileges associated with housing spread throughout the City of Napa ( as it should be legally ), such as in neighborhoods such as Browns Valley and Alta Vista, etc. It is incumbent upon the City Council to deliver equitable housing that would offer everyone ( not matter race, class or gender) the ability to afford or even secure a mortgage and enjoy the same financial appreciation on their investment. And to ensure that residents live in relative comfort and safety from the West Napa Fault Line, Flood Plains and Landslide areas - not to mention gas emissions and other pollutions from Hwy 29 and additional 3000 people + commercial ventures and transient consumers/ workers. We all want this for ourselves and our neighbors throughout Napa.

OR because developers will soon discover that it is way too expensive to build on such a high risk site - a site that the property/developer interests seem far too eager to offload onto the city’s ability to re/up-zone for their gigantic profit …. only to then find that affordable housing is way too costly to build won’t be able to built such housing for an affordable price despite augmented funding sources. Case in point is Napa Pipe whereas the City has an agreement for a minimum of 140 affordable housing units are to be built. Recent reportage indicates that number has now been cut in half.

As the California State Geologist recently mentioned, compromised, high risk sites like the Ghisletta parcels are good for one of two things: GREENBELT or Golf courses.

Unlike Napa Pipe ( similar in scale ) the Ghisletta parcels are considered Prime Agricultural Lands by LAFCO ( a state agency ) - despite what Planning Staff would have us believe. These parcels are not Superfund sites or industrial wastelands begging for welcome reclamation like Napa Pipe.

These parcels are the City’s of Napa’s “Last Crop” of AG land - once they are gone they are gone and we will all be the poorer for it.

ATTACHMENT 1

KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022 Response to Napa Register Article, 09.18.2022
Napa City Council to weigh Foster Road zoning as general Plan process nears end by Edward Boothe As the references in the article are generalized and the Letter of 09.09.2022 has not been released to the public in the Staff Report packet, it is difficult to discern with any degree of certainty what legal claims Attorney. Kevin Teague is actually presenting.

The article states “He also cites California’s Housing Element Law, saying it would place the city in “legal jeopardy by failing to adequately identify housing sites.” Our understanding is that the Housing Element Law does require the City to identify adequate housing sites to meet their RHNA.  As was finally disclosed by City Staff at

ATTACHMENT 1

KEEP NAPA'S GATEWAY GREEN City of napa City Council September 18,2022 the Planning Commission hearing, the Gateway parcels are not required to meet the RHNA. And that other identified sites will meet the required RHNA.

The article also states that Mr. Teague references the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 regarding a “prohibition on any net loss in residential capacity,” In response, the relevant section of the law states:
“This section does not prohibit an affected county or an affected city from changing a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use if the city or county concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity.” Further to this point LAFCO states (Countywide update on Housing and General Plan-10.04.2021):
"Certain actions related to RHNAs are required of the local land use authorities, and certain other actions are strictly advisory. Specifically, jurisdictions are required to zone a sufficient amount of land to accommodate their respective RHNA totals. However, it is only advised that each of these agencies issue housing permits to accommodate their respective RHNA totals." The KNGG response to Mr. Teague's claim is that the City would not be reducing residential capacity, it would just not be changing the current land use designation to a much denser Foster Road Mixed Use - (which we must all remember is not a project).  Moreover, the City is finally acknowledging and increasing residential capacity at other identified sites throughout the City proper, resulting in no net loss in residential capacity.

Bias and Impartiality
During the past two years, KNGG and its members have offered a number of “expert” suggestions, most of which have been dismissed by the various agencies in the City of Napa. Thankfully, the City of Napa did ultimately include a “climate change” addendum in the draft General Plan 2040/FEIR.

Inexplicably, it appears that this notable lack of consideration is in keeping with the lack of inclusion of the earlier Draft General Plan surveys of City’s own residents as well as the City’s own GPAC recommendations. Such continued exclusion by the