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
3:45 PM City Hall Council ChambersThursday, September 15, 2022 SPECIAL MEETING - 3:45 PM
A Special Meeting for the City Council of the City of Napa was called on Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:45 p.m. to be held at City Hall Council Chambers, 955 School Street, Napa, California, for the purpose identified on the Agenda. This Special Meeting was called in accordance with California Government Code Section 54956.
1. CALL TO ORDER: 3:45 P.M.
1.A. Roll Call:
Councilmember Alessio, Councilmember Narvaez, Vice Mayor Luros, and Mayor Sedgley
Present: 4 -
Councilmember PainterAbsent: 1 -
2. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS:
City Clerk Carranza announced the following supplemental item:
Item 4.A.: Letter from Kevin Teague, Holman Teague Law Firm, dated September 9, 2022.
(A copy of the supplemental document is included in Attachment 1)
3. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER: None.
4. CLOSED SESSION:
Deputy City Attorney Sabrina Wolfson announced the Closed Session item.
ATTACHMENT 1
September 15, 2022CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
4.A. 350-2022 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Government Code Sections 54956.9(d)(2) and 54956.9(d)(3)): Significant exposure to litigation in one potential case.
There were no request from the public to comment.
The meeting recessed to Closed Session at 3:47 P.M.
The meeting adjourned at 4:35 P.M.; there was no reportable action.
5. ADJOURNMENT: 4:35 P.M.
Submitted by:
_______________________________
Tiffany Carranza, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 1
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk
City Council of the City of Napa
Special Meeting
September 15, 2022
FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA
AFTERNOON SESSION:
SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
4. CLOSED SESSION:
4.A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Government Code Sections 54956.9(d)(2) and 94956.9(d)(3)): Significant exposure to litigation in one potential case. 1) Letter from Kevin Teague, Holman Teague Law Firm, dated 9/9/2022 received on September 13, 2022.
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
Supplemental Item 4.A.
ATTACHMENT 1
Holma
nTeague
rea
l estate law ‣ land use law ‣ business law ‣ climate change law
Hol
man Teague Roche Anglin LLP ‣ 1455 First Street, Suite 217, Napa, CA 94559 ‣ 707-927-4280 ‣ www.htralaw.com
September 9, 2022
Michael Barrett, City 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