955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
www.cityofnapa.org
3:30 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
Tuesday, May 21, 2024
3:30 PM Afternoon Session
6:30 PM Evening Session
3:30 P.M. AFTERNOON SESSION
1. CALL TO ORDER: 3:41 P.M.
1.A. Roll Call:
Councilmember Luros, Councilmember Painter, Vice Mayor Narvaez, and Mayor Sedgley
Present:
4 -
Councilmember Alessio
Absent:
1 -
2. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS:
City Clerk Carranza announced the following supplemental document:
Item 8.A. - PowerPoint presentation by City staff.
(A copy of the supplemental document is on file in the City Clerk's department)
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
3.A.
135-2024
National Public Works Week
Mayor Sedgley and members of Council read the proclamation. Julie Lucido, Public Works Director, accepted the proclamation and provided remarks.
3.B.
168-2024
Proclamation for Older Adults Month
Mayor Sedgley and members of Council read the proclamation. Richard White, Advisory Council Member at Napa Solano Area Agency on Aging accepted the proclamation and provided remarks.
CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 6/11/2024
CITY OF NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Final
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Vice Mayor Bernie Narvaez
Councilmember Liz Alessio
Councilmember Mary Luros
Couincilmember Beth Painter
May 21, 2024
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
4. PUBLIC COMMENT:
Yvonne Baginski - shared projects she was thinking about and suggested Council consider the adoption of ordinances to ban fake grass and limit idling engines.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Approval of the Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Councilmember Luros, seconded by Councilmember Painter, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:
Luros, Painter, Narvaez, and Sedgley
4 -
Absent:
Alessio
1 -
5.A.
175-2024
City Council Meeting Minutes
Approved the minutes from the May 7, 2024 Regular Meeting of the City Council.
5.B.
155-2024
Electric Vehicle and Ebike Charging Planning Grant
Adopt Resolution R2024-044
(1) Authorizing the City Manager, on behalf of the City to, accept a grant from the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) in the amount of $439,796 (“Grant”) for preparation of a City of Napa Electric Vehicle (EV) and Ebike Charging Plan with a City in-kind matching contribution in the amount of $35,000; and (2) Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Grant Agreement with CARB and all other documents necessary for acceptance of the Grant; and (3) Authorizing the City Manager to execute subgrantee agreements with Napa County Resource Conservation District in the amount of up to $160,000 and with the Napa County Bicycle Coalition in the amount of up to $60,000 for education and outreach activities; and
(4) Approving a budget amendment in the Non-Recurring General Fund increasing revenue and expenditures in the amount of $439,796 as documented in Council Budget Amendment No. 362P11.
Enactment No: R2024-044
5.C.
163-2024
Revenue and Audit Consulting Services from Hinderliter, de Llamas and Associates (HdL)
Authorized the Finance Director to execute Amendment No. 3 to Agreement C2020-091 with Hinderliter de Llamas & Associates (HdL) for Revenue and Audit Consulting Services, in the increased amount of up to $500,000 for a total contract amount of up to $1,850,000 and extending the agreement for an additional year to June 30, 2025.
CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 6/11/2024
MEETING MINUTES - Final
May 21, 2024
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
5.D.
166-2024
OpenGov, Inc. Budgeting & Planning Software
Authorized the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 4 to City Agreement No.
C2020-138 with OpenGov, Inc. in the amount of $275,863 for the purchase of an integrated web-based electronic budgeting and planning platform, implementation services, and support services, for a three-year term for a total not-to-exceed amount of up to $537,758.
5.E.
127-2024
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
Adopted Resolution R2024-045 (1) approving the City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Policies; (2) authorizing the City Manager and Public Works Director to establish administrative regulations to implement the City of Napa Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program; and (3) determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA.
Enactment No: R2024-045
5.F.
147-2024
Fleet Replacement Schedule
Adopted Resolution R2024-046 (1) approving an Amended Appendix H, Fleet Replacement Schedule of the Approved Fiscal Year 2024 City of Napa Operating & Capital Budget, (2) authorizing the Public Works Director to execute contracts on behalf of the city for the purchase of replacement vehicles and equipment based on the descriptions and dollar amounts identified on the Amended Appendix H, and (3) adjusting the current expenditures budget of the Fleet Replacement Funds by $468,300 as documented by Budget Adjustment No. 372P11
Enactment No: R2024-046
5.G.
153-2024
Amendment to Water Treatment Chemical Purchase Contracts (1) Authorized the Utilities Director to execute Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No, C2023-618 with Brenntag Pacific, Inc., increasing the compensation from $125,000 to an amount not to exceed $225,000 for the supply of water treatment chemicals; and
(2) authorized the Utilities Director to execute Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. C2023-633 with SNF Holding Company, dba SNF Polydyne, Inc., to increase the compensation from $125,000 to an amount not to exceed $450,000 for the supply of water treatment chemicals; and
(3) determined that the actions authorized by this item are exempt from CEQA.
6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 6/11/2024
MEETING MINUTES - Final
May 21, 2024
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
6.A.
161-2024
Appointments of Two (2) Retired Annuitants to Serve as Part-Time Employees
Heather Ruiz, Human Resources Director, provided the report.
There were no requests to comment from members of the public.
A motion was made by Councilmember Painter, seconded by Councilmember Luros, to (1) Adopt Resolution R2024-047 authorizing the appointment of Lori Borg as a retired annuitant part-time employee (Technical Associate - Public Safety Dispatcher II), to be employed within 180 days of the employee's retirement. (2) Adopt Resolution R2024-048 authorizing the appointment of Paula O'Rourke as a retired annuitant part-time employee (Technical Associate - Public Safety Dispatcher II), to be employed within 180 days of the employee's retirement. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:
Luros, Painter, Narvaez, and Sedgley
4 -
Absent:
Alessio
1 -
Enactment No: R2024-047 R2024-048
7. CONSENT HEARINGS:
Approval of the Consent Agenda
Mayor Sedgley announced the consent hearing. There were no requests to speak; the hearing was opened and closed without comment.
A motion was made by Councilmember Luros, seconded by Vice Mayor Narvaez, to approve the Consent Hearing Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:
Luros, Painter, Narvaez, and Sedgley
4 -
Absent:
Alessio
1 -
7.A.
141-2024
Abandonment of a portion of Second Street near California Boulevard with the Reservation of a Public Utility Easement
Adopted Resolution R2024-049 (1) vacating and abandoning a 792 square foot portion of Second Street near California Boulevard and reserving therefrom a Public Utility Easement; (2) declaring that the abandonment area is exempt surplus land; (3) authorizing the conveyance of the City’s fee simple interest in the abandonment area to the adjoining property owner, Elm House Napa, LLC; and (4) determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from CEQA.
Enactment No: R2024-049
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 6/11/2024
MEETING MINUTES - Final
May 21, 2024
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
8.A.
137-2024
City of Napa FY 2024/25 Proposed Mid-Cycle Budget Update Mayor Sedgley opened the public hearing.
Rajneil Prasad, Finance Director, and Seth Anderson, Budget Officer, provided the report.
Mayor Sedgley called for public comment; there were no requests to speak.
A motion was made by Vice Mayor Narvaez, seconded by Councilmember Painter, to close public testimony. The motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Sedgley called for disclosures. Councilmembers shared they had briefings with staff, but no additional disclosures.
Discussion was turned over to Council. Brief individual comments and questions ensued.
A motion was made by Councilmember Painter, seconded by Councilmember Luros, to provide direction to staff to finalize the proposed FY 2024/25 Mid-Cycle Budget and the City-Wide Position Staffing Plan and present those documents for final review and approval at the regularly scheduled meeting on June 04, 2024.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:
Luros, Painter, Narvaez, and Sedgley
4 -
Absent:
Alessio
1 -
9. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER: None.
10. CLOSED SESSION:
Interim City Attorney Wolfson announced the closed session items.
10.A.
185-2024
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54957.6):
City designated representatives: Steve Potter, Liz Habkirk, Heather Ruiz, MJ Tueros, Rajneil Prasad, Sabrina Wolfson and Jesse Lad.
Employee organization: Napa City Employees Association (NCEA).
10.B.
186-2024
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54957.6):
City designated representatives: Steve Potter, Liz Habkirk, Heather Ruiz, MJ Tueros, Rajneil Prasad, Sabrina Wolfson and Jesse Lad.
Employee organization: Napa Police Officers Association (NPOA).
CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 6/11/2024
MEETING MINUTES - Final
May 21, 2024
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
10.C.
187-2024
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54957.6):
City designated representatives: Steve Potter, Liz Habkirk, Heather Ruiz, MJ Tueros, Rajneil Prasad, Sabrina Wolfson and Jesse Lad.
Employee organization: Napa City Firefighters Association (NCFA).
10.D.
188-2024
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government
Code Section 54956.8).
Property: (1) an approximately 8,000 square foot property located at 1126 First Street (APN 003-166-017), and (2) an approximately 0.75 acre property located at 1051 – 1199 Pearl Street (APNs 003-166-008; and 003-166-011).
City Negotiators: Steve Potter, Vin Smith, Neal Harrison, and Sabrina Wolfson.
Negotiating Parties: City of Napa and Coombs Street LLC.
Under Negotiation: price and terms of payment.
10.E.
189-2024
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government
Code Section 54956.8).
Property: (1) Southeast corner of 2nd Street and Randolph Street (APN 003-212-001);
(2) Property at the northeast corner of 2nd Street and Randolph Street (APN 003-211-006);
(3) Second Street Garage at 2nd Street between Coombs and Brown St. (APN 003-214-013);
(4) 0.89 acres of property at 1057 Freeway Drive (APN 004-081-012); and (5) 0.86 acres of property at 1061 Freeway Drive (APN 004-081-013).
City Negotiators: Steve Potter, Vin Smith, Neal Harrison, and Sabrina Wolfson.
Negotiating Parties: City of Napa and James F. Keller, 1351 Second Street LLC, Keller Yountville Vineyard LLC, and William R. Keller and Dorothy C. Keller, Trustees of the Bill and Dottie Keller Revocable Trust.
Under Negotiation: price and terms of payment.
CITY COUNCIL RECESS: 4:33 P.M.
6:30 P.M. EVENING SESSION
11. CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 P.M.
11.A. Roll Call:
Councilmember Luros, Councilmember Painter, Vice Mayor Narvaez, and Mayor Sedgley
Present:
4 -
Councilmember Alessio
Absent:
1 -
CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 6/11/2024
MEETING MINUTES - Final
May 21, 2024
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
12. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
13. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS:
City Clerk Carranza announced the following supplemental documents:
Item 15.A.:
- PowerPoint presentations from City staff, the appellant and applicant. - (4) Neutral/Information documents to include a report from the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, a letter from Congressman Mike Thompson's office, City staff's analysis on a petition to appeal the application, and a memo from City staff.
- (64) submitted emails or letters in support of the project. - (46) submitted emails or letters in opposition of the project. (Copies of all supplemental documents are on file in the City Clerk's department)
14. PUBLIC COMMENT:
Dorothy Glaros - provided comments and concerns regarding Measure U.
15. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 6/11/2024
MEETING MINUTES - Final
May 21, 2024
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
15.A.
172-2024
Le Petit Elephant Use Permit Appeal
(Supplemental documents were provided and are on file in the City Clerk's Department)
Mayor Sedgley opened the public hearing.
Assistant Planner, Angela Alvarez-Cendejas, provided the staff report.
Mayor Sedgley turned discussion over to Council for brief, individual questions. Staff responded.
Mayor Sedgley called for disclosures; Councilmembers provided them.
Mayor Sedgley called for the appellant's testimony. Katherine H. Falace of Buchalter, on behalf of the appellants, Alta Heights Neighborhood Coalition, provided a report.
Mayor Sedgley called for the applicant's testimony. Milli Pintacsi, applicant, provided a report.
Mayor Sedgley opened public testimony.
1. Bill Chadwick - spoke in support of the project.
2. Lynne Hobaugh - spoke in opposition of the project.
3. Sylvia Andrews - spoke in opposition of the project.
4. Michele Grupe, Director of Communities Leader Coalition - spoke in support of the project.
5. Joelle Gallagher - spoke in support of the project.
6. Tuesday Allison - spoke in opposition of the project location due to health concerns.
7. Karla Stomberger - spoke in opposition of the project.
8. Kate Harland - spoke in support of the project.
9. Jeri Hanson, Napa Chamber of Commerce - spoke in support of the project.
10. Monica Naman - spoke in support of the project.
CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 6/11/2024
MEETING MINUTES - Final
May 21, 2024
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
11. Stephanie Han - spoke in opposition of the project.
12. Tom Sabo - spoke in opposition of the project.
13. Sacia Novak - spoke in opposition of the project.
14. Cheryl Woods - spoke in support of the project.
15. Thai Pham - spoke in opposition of the project.
16. Lucy Devlin - spoke in support of the project.
17. Sergio Novak - spoke in opposition of the project.
Mayor Sedgley called for a break at 8:12 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:18 P.M.
18. Brent Shortridge - spoke in opposition of the project.
19. Laura Corthell - spoke in opposition of the project.
20. Daniel Harder - spoke in support of the project.
21. Deluca Eubanks - spoke in opposition of the project.
22. James Rosen - spoke in support of the project.
23. Matt Eisenberg - spoke in opposition of the project.
24. Jason Teravest - spoke in support of the project.
25. Hillary - spoke in opposition of the project.
26. Allison Wilson - spoke in support of the project.
27. Michael Abernathy - spoke in support of the project.
28. Jeff Berger - spoke in opposition of the project.
29. Erika Lubensky, Executive Director of Community Resources for Children - spoke in support of the project.
30. Carole - spoke in opposition of the project.
CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 6/11/2024
MEETING MINUTES - Final
May 21, 2024
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
31. Jay Golik - spoke in opposition of the project.
32. Kevin McElroy - spoke in opposition of the project.
33. John Millea - spoke in support of the project.
34. Katy Mayall - spoke in support of the project.
35. Betsy Teravest - spoke in support of the project.
36. Maria Freitas Creech - spoke in opposition of the project.
37. Michael Moffett - spoke in support of the project.
38. Dylan McCapes - spoke in support of the project.
39. Noah Lovitz-Wolfson - spoke in support of the project.
40. Ashley Ponne - spoke in opposition of the project.
41. Dennis Bertolucci - spoke in opposition of the project.
42. Joan Kisthardt - spoke in support of the project.
43. Jessica Bresin - spoke in support of the project.
44. Tara Doran Muccitelli - spoke in support of the project.
45. Adrean Takemoto - spoke in support of the project.
46. Daniel Sanchez, County of Napa - provided comments as to why the Napa County Board of Supervisors decided to select Le Petit Elephant for American Rescue Plan Act funding.
47. Nick Burton, Napa Solano SBDC - provided comments regarding childcare and the project's viability to bring childcare to Napa.
48. Unidentified speaker - spoke in support of the project.
49. Unidentified speaker - spoke in support of the project.
50. Steven C. spoke in support of the project.
51. Scott Wagner - spoke in support of the project.
CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 6/11/2024
MEETING MINUTES - Final
May 21, 2024
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
52. Dorothy Salmon - spoke in support of the project.
53. Amanda - spoke in support of the project.
54. Robert - spoke in support of the project.
There were no additional requests to speak.
A motion was made by Vice Mayor Narvaez seconded by Councilmember Painter to close the public testimony. The motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Sedgley called for the appellant's rebuttal.
Ms. Falace provided the rebuttal and shared comments in support of the appeal and encouraged Council to further define and study the impacts of the accessory uses of the daycare center and stated additional CEQA analysis should be done.
Mayor Sedgley called for the applicant's rebuttal.
Ms. Pintacsi provided the rebuttal and shared additional clarification on the proposed ancillary uses and the funding the uses would provide. She also responded to concerns regarding potential mold and other concerns regarding the safety of the facility.
Discussion was turned over to council for deliberation. Individual comments, questions and discussion ensued.
Rebecca Schenk, from Napa Valley Transportation Authority, responded to questions regarding evacuation plans.
Councilmember discussion ensued regarding potential conditions to impose on the project.
A motion was made by Vice Mayor Narvaez, seconded by Councilmember Luros, to adopt Resolution R2024-050 denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval of a Use Permit to authorize a daycare with up to 250 children and other youth services, with reduced parking, on the property located at 15 Chapel Hill Drive, and affirming the Planning Commission's determination that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as recommended by staff, with the following amendments to the use permit conditions #30 through #33 to read as follows:
" 30. The Applicant's use of the Site shall be limited to the uses identified in Attachment 1 to this resolution, except that for the following uses are prohibited:
a. Adult-only parties or events, weddings, anniversary parties, retirement parties, and/or sports tournaments;
b. Rental of any outdoor spaces; and/or
CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 6/11/2024
MEETING MINUTES - Final
May 21, 2024
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
c. Any use determined by the Community Development Director that is not subordinate, similar, or otherwise ancillary to the primary use.
31. The Applicant shall make a presentation to the City Council 1-year from the date of commencement of daycare operations on the Site to demonstrate compliance with the obligations of the Use Permit.
32. The Site shall not be used for more than one (1) special event per year, and the maximum attendance at such event shall be 150 people.
33. No more than one (1) single-day license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) may be used on the Site per calendar year." The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:
Luros, Painter, Narvaez, and Sedgley
4 -
Absent:
Alessio
1 -
Enactment No: R2024-050
16. REPORT ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION:
Interim City Attorney Wolfson announced that there was no reportable action taken in Closed Session.
17. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER:
Vice Mayor Narvaez invited members of the public to attend the Memorial Day service at Veteran's Memorial Park at 11:30 a.m. on May 27, 2024.
18. ADJOURNMENT: 10:28 P.M.
The next regularly scheduled meeting for the City Council of the City of Napa is June 4, 2024.
Submitted by:
_______________________________
Tiffany Carranza, City Clerk
CITY OF NAPA
Printed on 6/11/2024
MEETING MINUTES - Final
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk
City Council of the City of Napa
Regular
Meeting
May
21 , 2024
FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF NAPA
AFTERNOON SESSION:
SUBMITTED
PRIOR TO
THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8.A. City of Napa FY 2024/25 Proposed Mid
-
Cycle Budget Update
•
PowerPoint Presentation from
Staff.
Mid
-
Cycle Budget Review
FY 2024/25
Presentation to the
City Council
City Council Regular Meeting
5/21/2024
Supplemental -
Item 8.A.
From: City Staff
AGENDA
•
General Fund
•
FY 2023/24 Projections
•
FY 2024/25 Financial Overview
•
Summary of Proposed Adjustments & Budget Packages
•
Non
-
Recurring General Fund
•
FY 2023/24 Projections
•
FY 2024/25 Financial Overview
•
Summary of Proposed Adjustments & Budget Packages
•
Other Funds
•
Proposed Adjustments & Budget Packages
•
CIP Changes
•
Proposed Staffing Adjustments
•
Recommended Action
General Fund
FY 2023/24 Projections
$124.7
$131.5
$124.7
$130.7
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
Revenues
Expenditures
Millions
FY 2023/24 Adjusted Budget
FY 2023/24 Projected
General Fund
FY 2024/25 Adopted Budget
$126.4
$125.5
80.0 90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
Revenues
Expenditures
Millions
Proposed General Fund
Adjustments
General Fund
-
FY 2024/25
Revenue Adjustments
General Fund
Revenue
Adjustment
(millions)
Property Tax
$2.62
Sales Tax
$0.08
Transient Occupancy Tax
($4.29)
Business License Tax
$0.20
Other Taxes
($0.13)
Licenses and Permits
$0.60
Charges for Services
$0.49
Intergovernmental
$0.01
Investment Earnings
$1.07
Miscellaneous Revenues
$0.06
Financing Revenues
($0.02)
Total
$0.71
General Fund
-
FY 2024/25
Expenditure Adjustments
General Fund
Expenditures
Adjustment
(millions)
PERs UAL Prepayment
$1.90
3 New Fire Captains
$0.72
Bus. Lic. Discovery & Recovery Cost
$0.18
Additional Contribution to CIP Reserves
$0.11
Additional Contribution to GF Reserves
$0.17
Other Adjustments
$0.55
Total
$3.63
Proposed General Fund
Budget Packages
General Fund
Budget Packages
–
FY 2024/25
City Manager
Amount
Climate Action/Sustainability
$175,000
Total
$175,000
General Government
Amount
Civic Plus Website
$30,000
Total
$30,000
General Fund
Budget Packages
–
FY 2024/25
Police
Amount
Flock ALPR Camera Software
51,000
$
Total
51,000
$
General Fund
-
FY 2024/25
Proposed Adjustments
$127.1
$129.4
$126.4
$124.8
$0.7
$3.5
$0.3
$0.9
120.0
121.0
122.0
123.0
124.0
125.0
126.0
127.0
128.0
129.0
130.0
Revenues
Expenditures
Millions
FY 2024/25 Adopted Budget
Proposed Adjustments
Proposed Budget Packages
Transfers to GF Reserves
General Fund
–
FY 2024/25
Revenue Adjustments
General Fund
Revenue
Adjustment
(millions)
Excess ERAF (Property Tax)
$0.50
Transfer In from Section 115 Trust
$2.00
Total
$2.50
General Fund
-
FY 2024/25
Proposed Adjustments
$126.4
$124.8
$3.2
$3.5
$0.3
$0.9
120.0
121.0
122.0
123.0
124.0
125.0
126.0
127.0
128.0
129.0
130.0
Revenues
Expenditures
Millions
FY 2024/25 Adopted Budget
Proposed Adjustments
Proposed Budget Packages
Transfers to GF Reserves
$129.6
$129.4
General Fund
One
-
Time Revenues
7.9 5.5
3.5 2.2
9.5 5.0
20.0 40.0
60.0 80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
FY 2019/20
Actual
FY 2020/21
Actual
FY 2021/22
Actual
FY 2022/23
Actual
FY 2023/24
Revised
Budget
FY 2024/25
Proposed
Budget
Millions
Operating Revenue
One-Time Revenue
Expenditures
General Fund
FY 2024/25
General Fund (millions)
FY 2024/25
Adopted
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2024/25
Proposed
Operating Revenues
$123.94
$0.71
$124.65
Expenditures
$124.77
$3.72
$128.50
Reserve Contributions
$0.75
$0.17
$0.92
Operating Surplus / (Deficit)
($1.58)
($4.77)
Non-Operating Revenue
$2.50
$2.50
$5.00
Net Surplus / (Deficit)
$0.92
$0.23
Non
-
Recurring
General Fund
Non
-
Recurring General Fund
FY 2023/24
-
Projections
$5.9
$12.3
$5.9
$11.2
-
2.0 4.0
6.0 8.0
10.0 12.0
14.0 Revenues
Expenditures
Millions
FY 2023/24 Adjusted Budget
FY 2023/24 Projected
Non
-
Recurring General Fund
FY 2024/25
-
Adopted Budget
$1.7
$2.0
-
0.5 1.0
1.5 2.0
2.5 Revenues
Expenditures
Millions
Non
-
Recurring General Fund
Budget Packages
-
FY 2024/25
Non-Recurring General Fund
Amount
Police - Range Ammunition
35,000
$
Total
35,000
$
Non
-
Recurring General Fund
FY 2024/25
Proposed Adjustments
$1.7
$2.0
-
-
$0.04
1.0 1.2
1.4 1.6
1.8 2.0
2.2 Revenues
Expenditures
Millions
FY 2024/25 Adopted Budget
Proposed Budget Packages
Non
-
Recurring General Fund
FY 2024/25
Non-Recurring General Fund
(millions)
FY 2024/25
Adopted
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2024/25
Proposed
Revenues
$1.65
$0.00
$1.65
Expenditures
$2.01
$0.04
$2.05
Operating Surplus / (Deficit)
($0.36)
($0.40)
Projected Ending Fund Balance
$0.93
$0.89
Adjustments to Other Funds
Other Funds
–
FY 2024/25
Solid Waste & Recycling
SWR Adjustments
(millions)
Revenue
Expenditure
PERS UAL Prepayment Increase
$0.03
Operational Revenue Adjustments
$0.74
Operational Expenditure Adjustments
$0.72
Transfer In/Out from Operating Fund
Balance to CIP
$0.77
$0.77
CIP Changes
$0.55
Total
$1.51
$2.07
Other Funds
–
FY 2024/25
Water
Water Adjustments
(millions)
Revenue
Expenditure
Increase to Water Rates
$6.37
Operational Expenditure Adjustments
$0.26
PERS UAL Prepayment incease
$0.22
CIP Change - BJTP Chain & Flight
Renovation
($0.40)
Budget Package - Asset Management
System Coordinator into Senior Civil
Engineer
$0.04
Total
$6.37
$0.13
Other Funds
–
FY 2024/25
Special Revenue
Special Revenue Fund Adjustments
Revenue
Expenditure
Gas Tax
($0.24)
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
(RMRA) Fund
($0.09)
Measure T Fund
($0.43)
$1.10
EIFD Fund
($0.40)
Parking Fund
$0.04
$0.04
Measure F 1% to AH
($0.31)
$0.00
Lake Park Fund
$0.07
River Park Maintenance Fund
$0.13
Tourism Improvement District
($0.15)
$0.00
Total
($1.38)
$1.14
Other Funds
–
FY 2024/25
Capital Projects
Captial Fund Changes
Revenue
Expenditures
Increase General Fund Contribution to
Reserves
$0.11
Paving/Sidewalks (PERS UAL)
$0.04
CIP Changes
$1.69
$2.08
Total
$1.79
$2.12
Other Funds
–
FY 2024/25
Internal Service
Internal Service Fund Adjustments
Revenue
Expenditure
Fleet Management
(Includes Apparatus Prepayment)
$0.06
$1.96
Risk (Budget Correction)
$2.82
Risk Budget Package - Environmental Legal,
Testing & Technical Services
$0.06
Total
$0.06
$4.84
CIP Changes
CIP Project Changes
FY 2024/25
General Fund Building Reserve - CIP Changes
Adjustment
Increase Project Budgets
Police & Fire HVAC Chiller
500,000
$
Reduce Project Budgets
Surface Repair City Parking Lots
(22,592)
$
Total
477,408
$
Other CIP Changes
Adjustment
Increase Project Budgets
Surface Repair City Parking Lots
22,592
$
Total
22,592
$
CIP Project Changes
FY 2024/25
Measure T Fund - CIP Changes
Adjustment
Increase Project Budgets
Westwood Sidewalks
1,100,000
$
Total
1,100,000
$
CIP Project Changes
FY 2024/25
Water Fund - CIP Changes
Adjustment
Increase Project Budgets
Browns Valley Rd Water Main Replacements
2,500,000
$
Reduce Project Budgets
BJTP Chain & Flight Renovation
(400,000)
$
Milliken TP Upgrades
(2,500,000)
$
Total
(400,000)
$
CIP Project Changes
FY 2024/25
Solid Waste & Recycling Fund - CIP Changes
Adjustment
Add New Project
MDF Recycled Water Connection
125,000
$
MDF Stormwater Mitigation Improvements -
Phase I
675,000
$
Postpone Project Budgets
MDF Partial Fence Replacement
(250,000)
$
Total
550,000
$
Proposed Staffing Changes
Proposed Staffing Adjustments
FY 2024/25
•
Full
-
Time Positions
–
Parking
•
1 Community Service Officer
–
Parking Enforcement
(Limited
-
Term) Extension
•
Reallocation
–
Utilities
-
Water
•
Deletion
-
1 Asset Management Systems Coordinator
•
Addition
–
1 Senior Civil Engineer
FY 2024/25 Net Impact on FTEs
–
(1)
Recommended Action
Recommended Actions
1. Provide direction to staff to amend and finalize
the proposed FY 2024/25 Mid
-
Cycle Budget
and the City
-
Wide Position Staffing Plan, and to
present those documents for final review and
approval at the regularly scheduled meeting on
June 04, 2024.
Questions?
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk
City Council of the City of Napa
Regular
Meeting
May
21 , 2024
FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
EVENING
SESSION:
SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1 5
. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1 5
.
A
.
Le Petit Elephant Use Permit Appeal
•
PowerPoint Presentation from Staff.
•
PowerPoint Presentation
from
the
Applicant
received on May 21, 2024.
•
PowerPoint Presentation from the Appellant on May 21, 2024.
Neutral/Informational:
1)
Report from Napa Valley Transportation Authority
.
2)
Letter from Representative Mike Thompson emailed
May 17, 2024.
3)
City Staff
analysis on petition to appeal Le Petit Childcare application received on May 20, 2024.
4)
Memo from City Staff received on May 21, 2024.
Support (
the project
):
1)
Email from
County of Napa
received on
May
1, 2024
.
2)
Email from
Sadie Julin
received on
May
1, 2024
.
3)
Email from
Nancy Morse
received on
May
1 , 2024
.
4)
Email from
Iris Barrie
received on
May
6 , 2024
.
5)
Email from
Sarah Gillihan
received on
May
9 , 2024
.
6)
Email from
Christine Tedstrom
received on
May
14 , 2024
.
7)
Email from
Stevie
Stacionis
received on
May
14 , 2024
.
8)
Email from
Callan deBruyn
received on
May
14 , 2024
.
9)
Email from
Kay Wilson
received on
May
15 , 2024
.
10)
Email from
Abernathy
received on
May
15 , 2024
.
11)
Email from
Katy Mayall
received on
May
15 , 2024
.
12)
Email from
Milli
Pintacsi
received on
May
16 , 2024
.
13)
Email from
Millea
Hinko
received on
May
16 , 2024
.
14)
Email from
Scott Wagner
received on
May
17 , 2024
.
15)
Email from Joana Beas received on May 17, 2024
.
16)
Email from Marisol Ruiz received on May 17, 2024.
17)
Email from Lucie
Brunetiere received on May 17, 2024.
18)
Email from Allie and Matt Redford received on May 17, 2024.
19)
Email from Lauren Skuchas received on May 17, 2024.
20)
Email from the Fenwick
Family
received on May 17, 2024.
21)
Email from Tyler Street and Kate Kent received on May 17, 2024.
22)
Email from Megan Robinson received on May 17, 2024.
23)
Email from the Woodrow Duckhorn Weinert Family received on May 17, 2024.
24)
Email from Michelle Grancheff received on May 17, 2024.
25)
Email from Dustin and Jen Boss Received on May 17, 2024.
26)
Letter from Erika Lubensky on behalf of Community Resources for Children received on May 17, 2024.
27)
Letter from Allison Wilson received on May 17, 2024.
28)
Email from Toni Rasavong received on May 17, 2024.
29)
Letter from Savanna Petri received on May 17,
2024.
30)
Email from Anastasia Vizcarra received on May 17, 2024.
31)
Email from Lia Contursi received on May 17, 2024.
32)
Email from Erin & James Rosen received on May 17, 2024.
33)
Email from Emily Peoples received on May 17, 2024.
34)
Email from Noah Lovitz
-
Wolfson received on May 17, 2024.
35)
Email from Joan Kisthardt received on May 17, 2024.
36)
Email from Daniele Riboni & Alexandra Hayman received on May 17, 2024.
37)
Email from Cameron & Florence Tangen received on May 17, 2024.
38)
Email from Alice & Time Salles received on May
17, 2024.
39)
Email from Lucie Brunetiere received on May 17, 2024.
40)
Email from Reid Family received on May 17, 2024.
41)
Email from Kate Harland received on May 17, 2024.
42)
Email from Allison Spear received on May 18, 2024.
43)
Email from Karen Sieloff received on
May 18, 2024.
44)
Email from Audrie Walsh received on May 18, 2024.
45)
Email from Nida Garchitorena received on May 18, 2024.
46)
Email from Mary Ann Garchitorena received on May 18, 2024.
47)
Email from Jason TerAvest received on May 18, 2024.
48)
Email from Adrean
Takemoto received on May 19, 2024.
49)
Email from Eva Rubalcava received on May 20, 2024.
50)
Email from Mathilde Depresle received on May 20, 2024.
51)
Email from Jessica
&
Jeremy Breslin received on May 20, 2024.
52)
Email from Julian Christian & Kathryn Siegfried received on May 20, 2024.
53)
Email from Brett Freeland received on May 20, 2024
.
54)
Email from Paul Dugoni received on May 20, 2024
.
55)
Email from Adiba & Julien Issenmann received on May 20, 2024.
56)
Email from Jacqueline Wall received on May 20, 2024.
57)
Email from
Mikaela McDermott received on May 20, 2024.
58)
Email from Jessica Silverman on behalf of Cope Family Center received on May 20, 2024.
59)
Email from Pepe Lopez Waldron received on May 20, 2024.
60)
Email from Owen McAdams received on May 20, 2024
.
61)
Email from Dylan McCapes received on May 20, 2024.
62)
Email from Mary Stump received on May 20, 2024.
63)
Email from Lilea Duran received on May 21, 2024.
64)
Email from Brandon Quackenbush & Kathryn Bousquet received on May 21, 2024.
Oppose (the
project
):
•
Petition received via email on May 13, 2024.
1)
Email from
William Allen
received on
April 17
, 2024.
2)
Email from
Robin Ellison
received on
April
2 7
, 2024.
3)
Email from
Sacia Novak
received on
April 29
, 2024.
4)
Email from
Burrell
received on
May 3
, 2024.
5)
Email from
Dan Meister
received on
May 5
, 2024.
6)
Email from
MatovcikMeyer
received on
May 6
, 2024.
7)
Email from
Cam Tu Tran
received on
May 6
, 2024.
8)
Email from
Lynne Hobaugh
received on
May 6
, 2024.
9)
Email from
Gunter Konold
received on
May 7
, 2024.
10)
Email from
Wilson
-
Grills
received on
May 8
, 2024.
11)
Email from
Carolyn Hofacket
received on
May 9
, 2024.
12)
Email from
Kirk Candland
received on
May 10
, 2024.
13)
Email from
Thomas Sabo
received on
May 11
, 2024.
14)
Email from
Deluca Eubanks
received on
May 11
,
2024.
15)
Email from
Patrick Fitzpatrick (1)
received on
May 12
, 2024.
16)
Email from
Patrick Fitzpatrick (2)
received on
May 12
, 2024.
17)
Email from
Kent Parker
received on
May 14
, 2024.
18)
Email from
Judy Halverson
received on
May 15
, 2024.
19)
Email from
Robert
Heilig
received on
May 15
, 2024.
20)
Emailed l
etter from Katharine H. Falace
and Carissa Beecha
m
, Buchalter,
on behalf of
Alta Heights Neighborhood Coalition
received on May
15 , 2024
21)
Email from
Lisa Rubino
received on
May 16
, 2024.
22)
Email from
Elsa Vare
received on
May 16
, 2024.
23)
Email from
Cindy DeLeo
received on
May 16
, 2024.
24)
Email from
Patrick Fitzpatrick (3)
received on
May 16
, 2024.
25)
Email from
Chuck Dell’ Ario
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
26)
Email from
Laura Corthell
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
27)
Email from
Susan Konold
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
28)
Email from
Susan Fagles
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
29)
Email from
James Twomey
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
30)
Email from
Newberry
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
31)
Email from
Lynn Harrison
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
32)
Email from
Susan Velani
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
33)
Email from
Stoppello
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
34)
Email from
Laura Meister
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
35)
Email from
Thai Pham
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
36)
Email from
Hahn
&
McElroy
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
37)
Email from
Steve Heilig
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
38)
Email from
Lach
lan
Reed
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
39)
Email from
Conversano
received on
May 17
, 2024
.
40)
Email from Tim Williams received on May 17, 2024.
41)
Email from Tim Williams received on May 17, 2024.
42)
Email from Robin Ellison 2 received on May 19, 2024.
43)
Emailed l
etter from Katharine H. Falace
and Carissa Beecha
m
, Buchalter,
on behalf of
Alta Heights Neighborhood Coalition
received on May 20, 2024
.
44)
Email from Napa Valley Unified School District & Alta Heights Elementary School received on May 17, 2024.
45)
Email from Tom Sabo received on May 21, 2024.
46)
Email from Ashley Powne received on May 21, 2024.
SUBMITTED AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
15. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
15.A. Le Petit Elephant Use Permit
Appeal
Support (
the project
):
1)
Email from Brittany Lin received on May 21, 2024.
2)
Email from Jeri Hansen received on May 21, 2024.
3)
Email from Robert Pintasci received on May 21, 2024.
4)
Email from Kelly Dugan received on May 21, 2024.
5)
Email from Lori
Becerra received on May 21, 2024.
6)
Email from Rose Sheehan received on May 21, 2024.
Oppose (the
project
):
7)
Email from Sherry Fournier received on May 22, 2024.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk
City Council of the City of Napa
Regular
Meeting
May
21 , 2024
FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAPA
EVENING
SESSION:
SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1 5
. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1 5
.
A
.
Le Petit Elephant Use Permit Appeal
•
PowerPoint Presentation from Staff.
•
PowerPoint Presentation
from
the
Applicant
received on May 21, 2024.
•
PowerPoint Presentation from the Appellant on May 21, 2024.
Neutral/Informational:
1)
Report from Napa Valley Transportation Authority
.
2)
Letter from Representative Mike Thompson emailed
May 17, 2024.
3)
City Staff
analysis on petition to appeal Le Petit Childcare application received on May 20, 2024.
4)
Memo from City Staff received on May 21, 2024.
Support (
the project
):
1)
Email from
County of Napa
received on
May
1, 2024
.
2)
Email from
Sadie Julin
received on
May
1, 2024
.
3)
Email from
Nancy Morse
received on
May
1 , 2024
.
4)
Email from
Iris Barrie
received on
May
6 , 2024
.
5)
Email from
Sarah Gillihan
received on
May
9 , 2024
.
6)
Email from
Christine Tedstrom
received on
May
14 , 2024
.
7)
Email from
Stevie
Stacionis
received on
May
14 , 2024
.
8)
Email from
Callan deBruyn
received on
May
14 , 2024
.
9)
Email from
Kay Wilson
received on
May
15 , 2024
.
10)
Email from
Abernathy
received on
May
15 , 2024
.
11)
Email from
Katy Mayall
received on
May
15 , 2024
.
12)
Email from
Milli
Pintacsi
received on
May
16 , 2024
.
13)
Email from
Millea
Hinko
received on
May
16 , 2024
.
14)
Email from
Scott Wagner
received on
May
17 , 2024
.
15)
Email from Joana Beas received on May 17, 2024
.
16)
Email from Marisol Ruiz received on May 17, 2024.
17)
Email from Lucie
Brunetiere received on May 17, 2024.
18)
Email from Allie and Matt Redford received on May 17, 2024.
19)
Email from Lauren Skuchas received on May 17, 2024.
20)
Email from the Fenwick
Family
received on May 17, 2024.
21)
Email from Tyler Street and Kate Kent received on May 17, 2024.
22)
Email from Megan Robinson received on May 17, 2024.
23)
Email from the Woodrow Duckhorn Weinert Family received on May 17, 2024.
24)
Email from Michelle Grancheff received on May 17, 2024.
25)
Email from Dustin and Jen Boss Received on May 17, 2024.
26)
Letter from Erika Lubensky on behalf of Community Resources for Children received on May 17, 2024.
27)
Letter from Allison Wilson received on May 17, 2024.
28)
Email from Toni Rasavong received on May 17, 2024.
29)
Letter from Savanna Petri received on May 17,
2024.
30)
Email from Anastasia Vizcarra received on May 17, 2024.
31)
Email from Lia Contursi received on May 17, 2024.
32)
Email from Erin & James Rosen received on May 17, 2024.
33)
Email from Emily Peoples received on May 17, 2024.
34)
Email from Noah Lovitz
-
Wolfson received on May 17, 2024.
35)
Email from Joan Kisthardt received on May 17, 2024.
36)
Email from Daniele Riboni & Alexandra Hayman received on May 17, 2024.
37)
Email from Cameron & Florence Tangen received on May 17, 2024.
38)
Email from Alice & Time Salles received on May
17, 2024.
39)
Email from Lucie Brunetiere received on May 17, 2024.
40)
Email from Reid Family received on May 17, 2024.
41)
Email from Kate Harland received on May 17, 2024.
42)
Email from Allison Spear received on May 18, 2024.
43)
Email from Karen Sieloff received on
May 18, 2024.
44)
Email from Audrie Walsh received on May 18, 2024.
45)
Email from Nida Garchitorena received on May 18, 2024.
46)
Email from Mary Ann Garchitorena received on May 18, 2024.
47)
Email from Jason TerAvest received on May 18, 2024.
48)
Email from Adrean
Takemoto received on May 19, 2024.
49)
Email from Eva Rubalcava received on May 20, 2024.
50)
Email from Mathilde Depresle received on May 20, 2024.
51)
Email from Jessica
&
Jeremy Breslin received on May 20, 2024.
52)
Email from Julian Christian & Kathryn Siegfried received on May 20, 2024.
53)
Email from Brett Freeland received on May 20, 2024
.
54)
Email from Paul Dugoni received on May 20, 2024
.
55)
Email from Adiba & Julien Issenmann received on May 20, 2024.
56)
Email from Jacqueline Wall received on May 20, 2024.
57)
Email from
Mikaela McDermott received on May 20, 2024.
58)
Email from Jessica Silverman on behalf of Cope Family Center received on May 20, 2024.
59)
Email from Pepe Lopez Waldron received on May 20, 2024.
60)
Email from Owen McAdams received on May 20, 2024
.
61)
Email from
Dylan McCapes received on May 20, 2024.
62)
Email from Mary Stump received on May 20, 2024.
63)
Email from Lilea Duran received on May 21, 2024.
64)
Email from Brandon Quackenbush & Kathryn Bousquet received on May 21, 2024.
Oppose (the
project
):
•
Petition
received via email on May 13, 2024.
1)
Email from
William Allen
received on
April 17
, 2024.
2)
Email from
Robin Ellison
received on
April
2 7
, 2024.
3)
Email from
Sacia Novak
received on
April 29
, 2024.
4)
Email from
Burrell
received on
May 3
, 2024.
5)
Email from
Dan Meister
received on
May 5
, 2024.
6)
Email from
MatovcikMeyer
received on
May 6
, 2024.
7)
Email from
Cam Tu Tran
received on
May 6
, 2024.
8)
Email from
Lynne Hobaugh
received on
May 6
, 2024.
9)
Email from
Gunter Konold
received on
May 7
, 2024.
10)
Email from
Wilson
-
Grills
received on
May 8
, 2024.
11)
Email from
Carolyn Hofacket
received on
May 9
, 2024.
12)
Email from
Kirk Candland
received on
May 10
, 2024.
13)
Email from
Thomas Sabo
received on
May 11
, 2024.
14)
Email from
Deluca Eubanks
received on
May 11
,
2024.
15)
Email from
Patrick Fitzpatrick (1)
received on
May 12
, 2024.
16)
Email from
Patrick Fitzpatrick (2)
received on
May 12
, 2024.
17)
Email from
Kent Parker
received on
May 14
, 2024.
18)
Email from
Judy Halverson
received on
May 15
, 2024.
19)
Email from
Robert
Heilig
received on
May 15
, 2024.
20)
Emailed l
etter from Katharine H. Falace
and Carissa Beecha
m
, Buchalter,
on behalf of
Alta Heights Neighborhood Coalition
received on May
15 , 2024
21)
Email from
Lisa Rubino
received on
May 16
, 2024.
22)
Email from
Elsa Vare
received on
May 16
, 2024.
23)
Email from
Cindy DeLeo
received on
May 16
, 2024.
24)
Email from
Patrick Fitzpatrick (3)
received on
May 16
, 2024.
25)
Email from
Chuck Dell’ Ario
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
26)
Email from
Laura Corthell
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
27)
Email from
Susan Konold
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
28)
Email from
Susan Fagles
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
29)
Email from
James Twomey
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
30)
Email from
Newberry
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
31)
Email from
Lynn Harrison
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
32)
Email from
Susan Velani
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
33)
Email from
Stoppello
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
34)
Email from
Laura Meister
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
35)
Email from
Thai Pham
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
36)
Email from
Hahn
&
McElroy
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
37)
Email from
Steve Heilig
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
38)
Email from
Lach
lan
Reed
received on
May 16
, 2024
.
39)
Email from
Conversano
received on
May 17
, 2024
.
40)
Email from Tim Williams received on May 17, 2024.
41)
Email from Tim Williams received on May 17, 2024.
42)
Email from Robin Ellison 2 received on May 19, 2024.
43)
Emailed l
etter from Katharine H. Falace
and Carissa Beecha
m
, Buchalter,
on behalf of
Alta Heights Neighborhood Coalition
received on May 20, 2024
.
44)
Email from Napa Valley Unified School District & Alta Heights Elementary School received on May 17, 2024.
45)
Email from Tom Sabo received on May 21, 2024.
46)
Email from Ashley Powne received on May 21, 2024.
SUBMITTED AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
15. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
15.A. Le Petit Elephant Use Permit
Appeal
Support (
the project
):
1)
Email from Brittany Lin received on May 21, 2024.
2)
Email from Jeri Hansen received on May 21, 2024.
3)
Email from Robert Pintasci received on May 21, 2024.
4)
Email from Kelly Dugan
received on May 21, 2024.
5)
Email from Lori Becerra received on May 21, 2024.
6)
Email from Rose Sheehan received on May 21, 2024.
Oppose (the
project
):
7)
Email from Sherry Fournier received on May 22, 2024.
PL23
-
0159 Le Petit Elephant Use Permit Appeal
May 21, 2024
City Council Regular Meeting
5/21/2024
Supplemental - Item 15.A.
From: City Staff
Agenda Item 15.A:
Le Petit Elephant Use Permit Appeal
A
request
that
the
City
Council
reverse
the
Planning
Commission’s
April
4 ,
2024
,
approval
of
a
Use
Permit
authorizing
a
daycare
facility
for
up
to
250
children
and
other
youth
services,
as
well
as
reduced
parking,
located
at
15 Chapel
Hill
Drive
.
Appellant:
Alta Heights Neighborhood Coalition
Project Applicant:
Milli Pal Pintacsi
Supplemental Information
•
Late communications received include letters of
opposition, and support.
•
Staff provided a memorandum clarifying
misinformation included in a petition being
circulated.
•
Staff provided a memorandum responding to a letter
from
Buchalter
(law firm representing appellants).
•
Staff presentation should clear up some of the
misinformation.
Project Location
15 Chapel Hill Drive
Site Context & History
•
2.6 Acre site with improvements
•
Low
-
Density Residential General Plan
•
Zoned RS
-
10 (Single Family Residential)
–
Daycare with 15 or more children allowed with Use Permit –
Ancillary uses allowed with Use Permit
•
Between Chapel Hill Drive and Montecito Boulevard
•
Alta Heights Neighborhood
•
Existing structure is approximately 19,745 sq ft
–
Former church
–
Operated from 1956 to approximately 2021
–
Existing facilities within the building
Use Permit
•
NMC
17 .
08 .
020
allows
a
daycare
with
15 or
more
children
with
the
approval
of
a
Use
Permit
•
NMC
17 .
08 .
020
allows
“other
uses
and
structures
customarily
incidental
and
subordinate
to
conditional
uses”
(“youth
services”)
with
the
approval
of
a
Use
Permit
•
NMC
17 .
54 .
050
(B)
allows
a
modification
to
parking
standards
with
the
approval
of
a
Use
Permit
Project Description
•
Childcare (Primary Use)
–
220 Children (Ages 0
-
5)
–
30 Children (Ages 5
-
12)
•
Community Playroom (Ancillary)
–
860 Square Feet
–
Capacity for 20 children
•
Gymnasium / Multi
-
Use space (Ancillary)
–
3,567 Square Feet
–
1 basketball court, no built
-
in seating
–
1 stage
•
Reduced parking
•
Minor improvements to the Site & building
–
Security and safety improvements (fencing, landscaping, lighting) –
Outdoor open space (shading and play structures)
–
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) improvements
–
Limited exterior changes (steeple removal, elevator construction)
Operations (Uses)
USE
ACTIVITIES
Childcare (Primary Use)
•
Daycare/afterschool care/holiday camp
•
Date nights 1 x per month
Community Playroom (Ancillary Use)
•
Instructor
-
led play time during daycare
hours
•
Birthday party space (on weekends)
Gymnasium/Multi
-
Use (Ancillary Use)
•
Existing sports facilities
•
Existing stage
•
Open gymnasium (reservations required)
NOTE:
A staff of up to 55 employees are anticipated, including 53 teachers and 2 administrative staff
Operations (Days/Hours)
USE
DAYS
TIMES
Childcare
(Primary Use)
Monday to Friday
Date Night (1x per month)
7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Community Playroom
(Ancillary Use)
Monday to Friday
Saturday and Sunday
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Gymnasium/Multi
-
Use
(Ancillary Use)
Monday to Friday
Saturday and Sunday
5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Outdoor Play Schedule
Time
Activity
7:30 a.m.
–
9:00 a.m.
Morning drop
-
off and outdoor playtime
10:30 a.m.
–
12:00 p.m.
Outdoor playtime
3:30 p.m.
–
5:30 p.m.
Afternoon pick
-
up and outdoor playtime
Existing Site Plan
Proposed Site Plan
Proposed Floor Plan (Ground Floor)
= Infant (5 rooms) (75 total spaces)
= Toddler (3 rooms) (61 total spaces)
Proposed Floor Plan (Basement & 2
nd
Floor)
= Preschool (3 rooms) (64 total spaces)
= Community Playroom (860 sq. ft.)
Circulation & Parking
•
2 Points of ingress and egress
–
Chapel Hill Drive and Montecito Boulevard
–
Eleven (11) spaces reserved for drop
-
off/pick
-
up during peak times
•
Drop
-
off and Pick
-
up times
–
Morning Drop
-
off window is 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
–
Afternoon Pick
-
up occurs at 12:00 p.m., then again from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. •
97 On
-
Site parking spaces
–
95 useable since 2 would be occupied by Le Petit vans
•
Parking requirements per NMC
–
Daycare: One (1) space per 12 children & one (1) space per employee –
Ancillary uses: One (1) space per 30 square feet
•
Parking reduction
–
Weekday: 105 spaces required,
-
10 space deficit
–
Weeknight: 119 spaces required,
-
24 space deficit
–
Weekend: 148 spaces required,
-
53 space deficit
Traffic Impact Study
•
Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”) provided by W
-
Trans
–
Study conducted January 11
th
, 2024
–
Local schools were in session
•
Scope of the TIS was prepared with input and reviewed by City Public Works staff
•
Studied 4 nearby intersections
–
First St./Silverado Trail
–
First St./East Ave.
–
Montecito St./East Ave
–
Third St
-
East Ave
-
Coombsville
Rd/Silverado Trail (i.e. 5
-
way intersection)
•
1,002 net new vehicle trips per day
•
197 net new trips in morning peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) •
199 net new trips in the evening peak hours (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
Traffic Impact Study (cont.)
Note: City of Napa General Plan standard for Level of Service (LOS) is mid -
range LOS
D or better
Traffic Conclusion
•
While traffic would slightly increase, the increases are within acceptable ranges of applicable City Standards. Therefore,
–
Adequate emergency access would still be provided
–
Level of Service (i.e. traffic delay) is within the acceptable range of City standards
–
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) would be less than significant (expanded upon in the next slide)
–
Recommended conditions of approval such as sidewalk improvements, and “fair share” contribution to a future roundabout at the 5 -
way
intersection would minimize/mitigate potential traffic impacts from the Project
•
TIS reviewed by Public Works staff
•
Emergency access reviewed by Fire Department staff
Traffic Conclusion: Continued
•
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) would be less than
significant
–
The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) does not
provide specific guidance on assessing daycare land uses –
Practitioners compare traffic patterns to local
-
serving retail,
which similarly generates trips within the City, contributing less to VMT than people coming into the City from outside of the region
–
The Applicant’s existing daycare at 2645 Laurel Street
serves 128 students who would be ‘transferred’ to this new location, meaning that the existing VMT will be directed to the Site
Alta Heights Bell Schedule Compared to
Daycare
•
Operation of Alta Heights Elementary and the proposed daycare differ –
School starts at 8:05 am
•
Daycare AM drop
-
off is between 7:30 am and 9:30 am
–
TK and K ends at 12:35 pm
•
Community playroom morning session is 9 am to 12 pm
•
Daycare half
-
day pick
-
up is at 12:30 pm
–
Mon., Tue., Thu., Fri. school ends at 2:10 pm
•
Daycare PM pick
-
up is between 3:30 pm and 5:30 pm
•
Community playroom afternoon session is 2 pm to 5 pm
–
Early Release Days school ends at 12:45 pm
General Plan Consistency
•
Policy LUCD 6
-
4:
Support flexibility in land use designations to
respond to changing and evolving economic needs. Promote a mix
of uses
in appropriate locations and settings.
•
Policy LUCD 10
-
1 : Preserve the character of existing residential
neighborhoods while promoting “
complete neighborhoods
” with safe
and convenient access to the goods and
services needed for daily
life
.
•
Policy LUCD 10
-
3:
Allow for convenient supporting services by
permitting daycare
and congregate living facilities when they meet
the neighborhood development, design, and compatibility standards. •
Policy CSPR 4
-
7 Support efforts for high
-
quality and affordable
preschool and childcare facilities
and programs to reduce the equity
divide in education.
General Plan Consistency (Continued)
•
Policy LUCD 6
-
1:
Maintain a balance of land uses, including residential and commercial uses, and
—
given the City’s position as the principal urban center of Napa County
—
industrial and service commercial uses that support the broader Napa Valley economic needs
.
•
Policy TE 1
-
2:
Foster a more connected system of streets, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities as redevelopment is undertaken or as opportunities are presented. •
Policy PHE 6
-
5:
Monitor market conditions and assess opportunities to provide additional incentives for developments that include significant community benefits, such as childcare
. Incentives may include expedited permitting, fee deferrals, and other items.
•
Goal PHE
-
4:
Promote “complete neighborhoods”
–
where residents have safe and
convenient access to goods and services on a daily or regular basis –
that address
unique neighborhood needs, and support physical activity, including walking, bicycling, active transportation,
recreation, and active play
.
General Plan Consistency (Continued)
-
30 of the 2040 General Plan
Planning Commission Meeting Summary
•
Meeting held on April 4, 2024
•
Commission inquisitive about project review
–
Especially in areas of concern (e.g. traffic, safety,
evacuation, etc.)
–
City staff and applicant’s team responded to
commissioner’s questions
•
65 Speakers for public comment
–
18 in opposition, 46 in support, 1 neutral
•
The Planning Commission voted to approve the Use
Permit (4
-
0, one recusal) with added conditions.
Planning Commission Added Conditions
1. The Applicant shall adhere to the uses identified in Attachment 3, Project
Description, included in the
accompanying Planning Commission staff report, and
shall prohibit the following uses:
a.
Weddings, or ceremonial gatherings
b.
Any use involving the sale of alcohol
c.
Any use determined by the Community Development Director that is not subordinate, similar, or otherwise ancillary to the primary use.
2. The Applicant shall make a presentation to the Planning Commission one (1) year from the date of being issued
building occupancy to demonstrate compliance with the
obligations of this Use Permit.
Appeal Information
•
Appeal was received on April 15, 2024, from the Alta
Heights Neighborhood Coalition
•
In general, the basis of the appeal identifies concerns related to the intensity of the ancillary uses, and the environmental analysis
•
The request is unclear, as the Appellant requests that the scope of the Project be reduced, but also requests that the project be denied at the end of the letter.
•
Appellant requests that the City Council grant the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval and that they
deny the Use Permit
Appeal Analysis
•
Project meets intent, goals, and policies of the
Napa 2040 General Plan
•
The Project, as conditioned, meets the
requirements of Napa Municipal Code (“NMC”)
Title 17, Zoning.
•
The proposed ancillary uses, are consistent with
General Plan and Zoning requirements
Appeal Analysis
–
Accessory Uses
Appellant:
-
The a
ncillary uses must be subordinate and customarily incidental to the primary use -
“Customarily” incidental means that there must be a precedent of the ancillary uses existing with daycares
-
Daycare facilities in Napa, Solano, and Sonoma counties do not have similar ancillary uses -
The approved a
ncillary uses are commercial and should not be allowed in a residential zone -
There should be no ancillary uses or facilities at the Site Staff:
-
The Community Development Director determined that the ancillary/accessory uses were both subordinate and customarily incidental to the primary daycare use -
Projects are reviewed on a case
-
by
-
case basis, so the absence of the proposed uses at
similar facilities in the City and regionally does not necessarily render it inapplicable to this property
-
The Community Development Director
has the discretion to determine the applicability and
relationship of ‘other’ uses as identified in NMC Section 17.04.050(C)
Table of Proposed Uses
Use
Weekday Hours of
operation (M
-
F)
Weekend hours of
operation (Saturday &
Sunday)
Total hours of
operation per
7 -
day week
Total SQ FT
Childcare
50 hours
(10 hours/day x 5 days)
0 hours
(0 hours/day x 2 days)
50 hours
18,885 SQFT
Community
Playroom
30 hours
(6 hours/day x 5 days)
14 hours
(7 hours/day x 2 days)
44 hours
860 SQFT
Gymnasium
& Multi
-
Use
12.5 hours
(2.5 hours/day x 5 days)
22 hours
(11 hours/day x 2 days)
34.5 hours
3,567 SQFT
Appeal Analysis
–
Operations & Parking
Appellant:
-
The parking reduction request was only related to the ancillary uses —
since the appellant is
requesting a denial of ancillary uses, the parking reduction should be denied as well -
There is insufficient evidence for the decision to waive parking requirements, namely that the required findings per NMC 17.54 were not made.
-
The ancillary uses and facilities should be denied, subsequently limiting the hours and days of operation to weekdays only and no evenings.
Staff:
-
Although a Use Permit is required to modify parking requirements, only general Use Permit findings in Chapter 17.60 are required.
-
NMC 17.54.040(B): “The parking standards for any specific use listed may be modified with a use permit in order to provide adequate and well
-
designed parking which is fair, equitable, logical, and consistent with the intent of this chapter.”
-
The parking requirement applied to ancillary uses (1 space per 30 square feet) is the requirement for auditorium/sports arenas.
-
A modification to the parking requirement would be logical because the proposed ancillary uses are far less intensive than an auditorium/sports arena, and the Project has been conditioned to expressly prohibit parking
-
intensive uses such as weddings and tournaments.
-
Parking calculations are often predicated on worst case scenario, and although there could be periods when the parking lot is full, it is unlikely to occur as the norm -
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission’s approval, including the ancillary uses, reduction in parking, and the proposed operating hours
Appeal Analysis
–
Environmental Review
Appellant:
-
CEQA Guidelines Sec.15301 is inapplicable since that section would apply to a small family day care home, which the Project is not.
-
CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15332 is inapplicable because there is insufficient evidence to use the section, and the ancillary uses are inconsistent with zoning requirements. -
Conditions of approval include mitigation measures from the Transportation Impact Study -
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, the cumulative impact of the project makes any categorical exemption inapplicable
Staff:
-
Staff did not rely on the home daycare provision of Section 15301, 15301(p) -
The proposed ancillary uses were determined to be subordinate & customarily incidental to the primary use, consistent with Title 17, subject to the approval of a Use Permit -
The suggestions from the TIS are not mitigations for the purpose of mitigating environmental (
traffic)
impacts in the context of CEQA, which is measured using VMT. -
The TIS concluded that VMT impacts would be less than significant, which is the metric by which CEQA traffic impacts are measured.
-
There is no evidence suggesting that emergency access would have a significant cumulative impact.
-
Section 15300.2
defines exceptions to categorical exemptions, which the Project would not come within.
In Conclusion…
•
The P
roject meets many General Plan goals and policies that support a mix of uses, including within residential neighborhoods. •
Adaptive reuse of an existing structure/site reduces potentially environmentally significant impacts by reducing the need for construction, reliance on new materials, reduces waste by not demolishing an existing structure, and will result in greater energy efficiencies through upgrades such as adding LED light fixtures, etc.
•
While some impacts would occur, Staff determined they would not be at a level that would exceed acceptable standards or cause a substantial safety issue
•
Mix of uses in neighborhoods can reduce traffic by placing critical services (i.e. daycares) near homes and places of business. •
CEQA was conducted and prepared in a manner consistent with industry standards for exemptions, and while the appellant asserts deficiencies in the analysis, no substantial evidence has been provided contrary to the analysis
Recommendation
Staff
recommends
that
the
City
Council
adopt
a
resolution
denying
an
appeal
and
upholding
the
Planning
Commission’s
approval
of
a
Use
Permit
to
authorize
a
daycare
for
up
to
250
children
and
other
youth
services,
with
reduced
parking,
on
the
property
located
at
15 Chapel
Hill
Drive,
and
affirming
that
the
Planning
Commission’s
determination
that
the
actions
authorized
by
this
resolution
are
exempt
from
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
.
End of Presentation
Alta Heights Bell Schedule(s)
Alta Heights Bell Schedule(s)
Alta Heights Bell Schedule(s)
Alta Heights Elementary Enrollment
Le Petit Elephant
C hi ld Developmen t C en ter
15 Cha pel Hill Drive, Na pa
City Council Regular Meeting
5/21/2024
Supplemental - Item 15.A.
From: Applicant
Milli Pal Pintacsi
•
Founder of Le Petit Elephant Nursery and Preschool, est. 2015 •
Bachelor’s Degree Developmental Psychology, University of California San Diego, emphasis in Developmental Neuroscience •
Master’s Degree in Developmental Psychology, Columbia University Graduate School of Education
•
5 years as an Developmental Behavior Specialist
•
Former adjunct professor of Psychology at Napa Valley College •
First 5 Napa Florecer Mentor, 2022
-
present
•
Fuller Park Thematic Committee Member (present)
•
Family Tent/Children’s Area Sponsor Bottlerock 2016
-
present
NUMBERS
INFA NT S
50 PRESCHOOLERS
78 AFTER CARE
0 PL AY ROOM
0 CURREN TLY EN RO LLED
TOTAL
128
CURRENT DAILY NUMBERS
INFA NT S
75 PRESCHOOLERS
125
AFTER CARE
30 PL AY ROOM
20 PROPOSE D
FUTURE EN RO LLM EN T
TOTAL
250
C HAP EL HILL REALIS TIC DAILY US E
School Closure Dates
(pe r s c hool ye ar)
L abor D ay
I ndi genous Peopl e
’
s Da y
V eterans D ay
Th a n ks g ivin g Bre a k
Winte r Bre ak
Ma rt in Lu t h e r Kin g 's Birt h d a y
Presi dent's Day
Memori al D ay
J uneteenth
I ndependence D ay
Summe r Bre ak
Quarterl y Staff Trai ni ng D ays
T otal of
27 -
28 days
TRAFFIC
PATTERNS
7:30 AM
8:00 AM
8:30 AM
9:00 AM
Pickup/Drop Off Events LPE vs AHE
Weekend Birthday/Playroom Traffic Patterns
AFTER HOURS
and
P UBLIC US E
Napa Sunday Journal
August 30, 1 953
Gymnasi um
•
Full Basketball court with wood floor (no spectator space) •
Full Stage with curtains and stage lighting
•
Attached kitchen/prep space
After hours and Weekend Use
•
Child
and
Family
centered activities only
•
LPE hosted events such as puppet shows, family pizza and movie nights, game nights, family art activities, etc.
•
Available to rent for youth sports related activities (no tournaments), scouts meetings, rehearsal space, etc.
•
Available as a space for a child’s indoor birthday.
⚬
D esperatel y needed for ki ddos wi th bi rthdays duri ng the rai ny season, ex tr eme heat, smok e season.
•
E v ents wi l l be ti ck eted/r eser v ati on based and attendance wi l l capped to not overfl ow the parki ng l ot.
•
Weekdays: Indoor
“my
-
little
-
and
-
me”
playroom for
children 0
-
5yrs
•
Weekends: Small
indoor birthday
parties for children
0 -
5yrs
Playroo
m
Playroom
LPE Ho s te d
Eve n t s / Ac t ivit ie s
Third Party
Re nta ls
Fin a n c ia l Aid &
Scholarshi ps
Livin g W a g e s
Prof essi onal
D ev el opmen t
Tu it io n
S t a b ilit
y
A f ter H our s and Weekend U ses
W h a t w e w ill NOT b e d o in g
•
This
will
not
be
an
EVENT
center
•
No
weddings
•
No
adults
-
only
parties/events
•
No
anniversary
or
retirement
parties
•
No
sports
tournaments
•
No
drop
-
in
care
for
tourists
•
No
rental
of
any
outdoor
spaces
•
No
Sale
of
Alcohol
•
We
Will
not
be
expanding
the
building
into
the
parking
lot
•
We
will
not
be
building
out
the
parking
lot
into
a
multi
-
story
building
with
a
parking
garage
.
SAFETY
and
EMERGENCIES
Saf ety and E mer genci es
•
NFD was the first city department we consulted.
•
Building was retrofitted in 2005.
•
All 19,600+ sf will have fire sprinklers.
•
Licensing requires an emergency evacuation plan.
•
In addition we have an Out
-
Of
-
Neighborhood evacuation
plan finalized with NVTA.
•
Signed up for Genasys Protect, Napa County ALERT,
IPAWS, and Pulse Point.
•
We closely monitor weather conditions including air
quality during fire season.
•
If/When conditions are unsafe (or unhealthy, e.g. AQI
150+) we close the school or alter our operations.
•
Closures are determined on a case
-
by
-
case basis after
consulting all available information as well as consulting with relevant authorities.
Napa County
The State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of data or maps.
Obtain FRAP maps, data, metadata, and publications at https://frap.fire.ca.gov.
For more information, please call 916
-
633
-
7655 or email [email protected].
Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of California
Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources,
California Natural Resources Agency
Daniel Berlant, Acting State Fire Marshal,
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Data Sources:
CAL
FIRE
Fire
Hazard
Severity
Zones
(FHSZSRA_
23 _
2 )
CAL
FIRE
State
Responsibility
Areas
(SRA
22 _
2 )
h
t
t
p
s
:
//o
s
f
m
.
fir
S
e
c
.
a
c
n
a
.
o
g
r
o
c
v
li
/
ck
fh
th
s
e
z/
tt
p
s
:
/
/
o
s
f
m
.
f
ir
Q
e
R
.c
c
a
o
.
d
g
e
o
f
v
o
/
r
f
m
h
o
s
r
z
e
/
h
t
tp
s
:
//
o
s
f
m
.
f
ir
information
and to
h
ttp
s:
//
os
f
m
.
f
ir
visit the
interactive
FH SZ viewer.
hsz/
t
t
p
s
:
//
o
s
f
m
.
fire.ca.gov/fhsz/
h
t
t
p
s
:
//
o
s
f
m.
fire.ca.gov/fhsz/
Public Resources Code 4201
-
4204 directs the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to map fire hazard within State Responsibility
Areas (SRA) based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors present, including areas where winds have bee
n identified by the department
as a major cause of wildfire spread. These zones, referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), classify a wildland zone as
Moderate, High, or Very High
fire hazard based on the average hazard across the area included in the zone.
Access PDF versions of the maps at
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/fhsz
-
maps
. For more information, please visit the Frequently Asked Questions document for the 2023 Fire Hazard Severity Zones at
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/fhsz
or scan the QR code at right. If you have further questions, please call 916
-
633
-
7655 or email
FHSZcomments@ fire.ca.gov
.
0 5
Miles
10 051015
Kilometers
Projection: NAD 83 California Teale Albers
Scale: 1:340,000 at 11" x 17"
MARIN
COUNTY
SONOMA
COUNTY
Calistoga
LAKE
COUNTY
St. Helena
Angwin
Yountville
Napa
American
Canyon
YOLO
COUNTY
SOLANO
COUNTY
3 2
1 Hig
h
Very
High
Moderate
78,296 Acres
265,172 Acres
17,552 Acres
Federal
Responsibility
Area
(FRA)
Local Responsibility Area
(LRA)
Waterbody
Fire H azard Severity Z ones in
State R
L
e
a
s
b
p
e
o
l
nsibility
A
A
r
c
e
r
a
e
s
(
T
S
e
R
xt
A)
Fire
Protection
Respons ibility
A reas
(non
-
SRA)
12 8
2 9
2 9
22 1
1 2
8 0
12 1
12 8
The information depicted in this map has been gathered from sources deemed reliable. Though we do not doubt its accuracy, we do
not guarantee it. Note: Property boundary designations are approximate.
La ke
Hennessey
La ke
Ber r
yessa
La ke
C urry
Sa n
Fra ncisco
Ba y
June 15, 2023
State Responsibility Area
Fire Hazard Severity
Zone s
NAPA COUNTY
Site
C urrent
Lakeview Dr
Montecito Blvd
Potenti al
Pascale Place
Oak Grove Way
Tulocay Cemetery
NVTA Path of Travel and Evacuation Points
Thank you and
pleas e s upport N apa
’
s fa m ilie s ,
chi ldren and teachers
Gymnasi um After
-
Hours and Weekend
Event Attendance Guardrai ls
Available for Small Gatherings
1 -
45 Chi ldren + thei r grownup(s)
M
-
F 5: 30p
-
8: 00p
Sat
-
S u n 10 a
-
7p
A vai l abl e for L arge Gatheri ngs
46 -
90 chi ldren + thei r grownup(s)
M ax of 4 per month
M
-
Th N ot A vai l abl e
Fri 5 :3 0
-
8: 00p
Sat
-
Sun 1 0: 00a
-
7 :0 0 p
Napa General Plan Guiding Principal
#
10
One reason childcare
shouldn’t be located in
commercial/industrial areas
CEQA
Presentation
BN
82712498v1 >
1 >
www.buchalter.com
www.buchalter.com
Opposition by Alta Heights
Neighborhood Coalition
May 2024
KATHARINE H. FALACE
CARISSA BEECHAM
City Council Regular Meeting
5/21/2024
Supplemental - Item 15.A.
From: Appellant
CEQA
Presentation
BN
82712498
v
1 >
2 >
www.buchalter.com
Le
Petite Elephant is proposing to move its operation from a High Density Residential Zone, to a Low Density Residential Zone.
The Proposed Project Would Exist in the Low Density Residential Zone
An Event Center is not a Proper Accessory Use in the Proposed Zone
CEQA
Presentation
BN
82712498v1 >
3 >
www.buchalter.com
Zoning Change
CEQA
Presentation
BN
82712498
v
1 >
4 >
www.buchalter.com
Napa Municipal Code section
17.08.020
(B)
NMC
§
17.08.020 section (B) expressly
conditions
any public or quasi
-
public uses on approval from the City Council. In considering such conditional uses, the City Council must first determine whether the use satisfies the permitted “non -
residential uses.” Here, the Applicant has state
d the “Playroom” and “Gymnasium”:
•
Would
not
be licensed for childcare
purposes;
•
Would operate year
-
round, 7 days a week;
•
Would
include the following (among other uses
):
o
Multi
-
use meeting space
o
Venue for anniversary parties
o
Venue for private events
o
Flexible work space for
adults
o
Monthly memberships
o
Alcohol served
These uses do not fall in the category of administrative, educational, religious, cultural, communications or public service nat
ure as required.
CEQA
Presentation
BN
82712498v1 >
5 >
www.buchalter.com
Napa Municipal Code section 17.08.020(C)
Alternatively, if the
Applicant asserts its Project is permitted pursuant to
NMC
§
17.08.020
(C
) it must be
“
customarily
incidental
and
clearly subordinate
”
to the permitted use
.
NMC
§
17.06.030
defines an accessory use as a use that is
subordinate
and
incidental
to the principal use. The proposed Resolution
provides the Project may not allow:
“
30 (c). Any use determined by the Community Development Director that is not subordinate, similar or otherwise ancillary to the primary use.
”
Yet,
Staff does not provide clear limitations on this use.
Unlike
the church that previously occupied the building and used the space for gatherings with their own congregation
; here, the
gymnasium and community playroom are distinct from the daycare center. To be sure, the Staff Report acknowledges
“
Youth
Services
”
uses have
“
very little overlap
”
with the daycare
program.
CEQA
Presentation
BN
82712498
v
1 >
6 >
www.buchalter.com
Overview of Operations
Applicant is proposing accessory uses that exceed
the scope and scale of the primary use
.
As the Table in the Staff Report illustrates, the hours for the Community Playroom and Gymnasium
exceed the Daycare Center.
CEQA
Presentation
BN
82712498v1 >
7 >
www.buchalter.com
CEQA
ANALYSIS
The Project
is not exempt from environmental review:
•
The conditions placed by the Planning Commission
evidence that the Project is not
exempt and the City
Council should
not approve an undefined Project with
mitigation measures disguised as conditions so as to
avoid
CEQA
review.
•
The
TIS discusses only the daycare component, not the
“
youth services
”
because these events
“
would occur
outside the periods evaluated and when the daycare is
inactive,
so they were not included in the analysis as
they would not add to the peak period trips
.
”
However, Table
1 of the Staff Report demonstrates a
clear overlap during peak hours:
CEQA
Presentation
BN
82712498
v
1 >
8 >
www.buchalter.com
Mitigation Measures do not Make a Project Exempt
The City
Council cannot
rely on proposed mitigation measures to make a project exempt. (
Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San
Gabriel Basin
Watermaster
(1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1199
–
1200.)
•
The Commission adopted
Staff’s
“recommended conditions of approval such as sidewalk improvements, and ‘fair share’ contribution to a future roundabout at the 5
-
way intersection [which] would minimize/mitigate potential traffic impacts from the
project.”
CEQA
Presentation
BN
82712498v1 >
9 >
www.buchalter.com
CEQA
Guidelines sections 15332 and 15301
CEQA
Guidelines section
15332
, the infill exemption, relevant criteria:
•
“
(a) [t]he project [must be] consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as
well as
with applicable zoning designation and regulations[;] . . . •
(d) [a]
pproval
of the project [must] not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. . . ”
For
section
15301
, existing facilities, to apply, the Project would have to involve “
negligible or no expansion of the use existing at the
time the exemption is granted.
”
CEQA
Presentation
BN
82712498
v
1 >
10 >
www.buchalter.com
CEQA
Guidelines section
15300.2
Guidelines section 15300.2 further prohibits the use of a categorical exemption here:
•
(b
)
Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the
same type in the same place, over time is significant.
•
(c)
Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that th e
activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances .
CEQA
Presentation
BN
82712498v1 >
11 >
www.buchalter.com
The Project Does Not Satisfy Emergency Access
Guidelines
The
City must analyze
“
any significant environmental effects the Project might cause or risk exacerbating by bringing development and people into the area affected.
”
(
CEQA
Guidelines
§
15126.2
(a);
California Bldg. Indus. Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist .
(
2015
)
62 Cal.
4 th
369
,
385
.) This includes
“
any potentially significant direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental impacts of locating development in areas susceptible to hazardous conditions (e.g. wildfire risk areas). ”
(
CEQA
Guidelines
§
15126.2
(a, Appx. G,
§§
IX(g), XX);
see also Clews Land & Livestock, LLC v. City of San Diego
(
2017
)
19 Cal.App.
5 th
161
,
193
.)
CEQA
Presentation
BN
82712498
v
1 >
12 >
www.buchalter.com
The Project is Undefined in Terms of Scale and Scope
The
“Youth Services” uses
proposed are not subordinate to
daycare center.
As the Staff Report illustrates, the “Youth Services” are actually more impactful in terms of hours and are unknown in terms of scope and scale. Without more
information, the City
Council is
approving a use that is wholly unknown. The Project must be properly defined, and then reviewed under CEQA
,
to understand and
appropriately mitigate the environmental impacts
. Since this analysis was not performed, the Coalition respectfully requests that the appeal is granted and the Project is denied.
From:
Clerk
To:
Clerk
Subject:
FW: Le Petit Evacuation Plan
Date:
Friday, May 17, 2024 11:07:21 AM
From:
Schenck, Rebecca <
[email protected]
>
Sent:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 1:59 PM
To:
Timothy Wood <
[email protected]
>
Cc:
Angela Alvarez-Cendejas <
[email protected]
>
Subject:
Le Petit Evacuation Plan
[EXTERNAL]
Tim,
To follow-up on my phone call,
here is the Evacuation Plan the transit team at NVTA developed after our site visit on 5-14-24 to 15 Chapel Hill Drive with a paratransit vehicle. Since this evacuation would be during our fixed route and paratransit operating hours, NVTA would cease service on existing routes and, upon direction from the Napa County Office of Emergency Services, reroute buses and drivers to this site. Let me know if you need any further information.
Thanks,
Rebecca
Rebecca Schenck, Program Manager – Public Transit
625 Burnell Street Napa, CA 94559
T: 707-259-8636
E:
[email protected]
nvta.ca.gov
|
vinetransit.com
Le Petit Elephant Nursery and Preschool: Emergency Action Plan
15 Chapel Hill Dr Napa, CA 94559
Out
-
of
-
Neighborhood Evacuation Plan
: In the event of a neighborhood wide evacuation order during operating hours the following plan will be initiated.
Evacuation
routes/exits:
Children are cared for on both the first, second floor and the lower level.
1st Floor:
There are 6 fire exits. Classrooms will use the nearest and safest exit.
2nd Floor:
Classrooms on the second floor will exit out to the second floor breezeway and descend the exterior stairs.
Lower Level:
There is an exterior door in the classroom and one in the stairwell between 1st and lower floor.
Evacuating
Infants/Toddlers (0
-
2y):
●
Children will be evacuated together using evacuation cribs, 2 -
4 per crib.
●
The site owns 18 evacuation cribs which are staged to be ready to push to the nearest exit without obstruction.
Preschool (2
-
5y) and School Age (5
-
12y):
●
Chi
ldren will be escorted by class to the nearest and safest exit.
Notification:
Upon receiving the order to evacuate the neighborhood from NFD or CalFire, LPE leadership will make contact via 911 to initiate the evacuation procedur
e and NVTA will be deployed as the transportation unit
of the
Napa County Office of Emergency Services
Parents will be notified via our emergency communication app. They will be instructed to wait for their child at the designated out
-
of
-
neighborhood eva
cuation site.
Once all children are safely evacuated to the designated area in the lower parking lot LPE leadership will again make contact via 911 and confirm numbers of infants/toddlers, preschoolers, and staff.
Emergency
Kits/Information:
Each class w
ill exit the building with their designated emergency kit. Each kit includes:
●
Each child’s emergency contact info
●
Mylar blankets and glow sticks
●
First Aid Kit
●
Non
-
perishable food
●
A photo of each child’s family for comfort
Evacuation Sites:
Napa
Valley Expo (0.6 Miles)
575 3rd St, Napa CA, 94559
Back Up Site
:
(2.5 Miles)
Crosswalk Community Church
2590 1st St, Napa CA, 94558
Transportation
to Evacuation Site
Locations:
Infants/Toddlers (Non
-
Mobile 0
-
2y):
●
Under the direction of Napa
County Office of Emergency Services, Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) would deploy 9 paratransit vehicles (28 ft or less) each capable of holding 3 cribs, 4 staff members and 8 infants
●
Evacuation cribs will be rolled on to NVTA vehicles
●
Infants
and toddlers will ideally be removed from cribs and be held by staff (1 staff with two infants) for the duration of the trip to the designated out -
of
-
neighborhood evacuation site (0.6
Miles).
Preschool/School Age (Mobile 2
-
12y):
●
Under the direction of Napa
County Office of Emergency Services, NVTA would deploy 5 (35 ft)
Le Petit Elephant Nursery and Preschool: Emergency Action Plan
15 Chapel Hill Dr Napa, CA 94559
buses each capable of holding 2 cribs and 27 staff/children
●
Children would board buses with staff and each sit in a seat
●
Student to staff ratio would be anywhere from 8:1 to 12:1 depending on the ages of children and
their needs.
Vehicle
Evacuation Points
•
There are two main pick
-
up locations that are both accessible by NVTA vehicles, allow for vehicle ramp deployment and where the cribs can be rolled along a path to the pickup loca tions
.
The two
pickup locations are identified in the attached
m
ap
of the
property at 15 Chapel Hill Drive.
Evacuation Point 2
Evacuation Point 1
May 17, 2024
Mayor Scott Sedgley
City Hall 955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
Dear Mayor Sedgley,
I continue to hear concerns from constituents with children about the affordability and availability of childcare. As you know the cost and availability of childcare options is a significant issue that impacts families, and also businesses that benefit from a strong childcare network.
The limited availability of high-quality affordable childcare is not unique to our community, and I will continue to support federal programs including extending the Child Tax Credits, the Head Start Program and the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) program, which together help families pay for and expand childcare options.
Thank you for your ongoing commitment and support of expanding affordable high-quality childcare opportunities to families in Napa. Please do not hesitate to contact my office if you are ever in need of assistance.
Sincerely,
Mike Thompson
Member of Congress
M
E
M
O
TO:
MAYOR SEDGLEY
, MEMBERS OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
ANGELA ALVAREZ
-
CENDEJAS
,
ASSISTANT PLANNER
DATE:
MAY 2
1 , 202
4 SUBJECT:
LE PETIT ELEPHANT USE PERMIT
(Project No. PL
23 -
0159
)
Following the publication of the
May 21
, 2024,
City Council
agenda, additional correspondence
was received for consideration for the
Le Petit Elephant
daycare
project (PL2
3 -
01 59
) identified
as Public Hearing Item
15 .A.
A
letter from
the law firm
B
uchalter
was received, dated May 15, 2024.
While the intent of this
memorandum (memo) is not to rebut
each point identified in the letter, it rather is intended to clarify some of the broader topics, including the authori ty of determining of what constitutes an
“use,” and the
adequacy for the basis of the environmental determination under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
A
CCESSORY
USE(S)
As discussed more fully in the May 21, 2024
,
City Council staff report,
accessory
uses not explicitly
identified
in the Napa Municipal Code
but
that are
customarily incidental and clearly subordinate
to uses which are permitted or conditionally permitted
by the Code may be approved
by the
Community Development
Director. In this instance, the
accessory
uses are youth
-
related and
operate at a level subordinate to the primary use of a daycare. Moreover, the accessory
uses were
determined to be complimentary to
the primary daycare use. In addition, there are several General Plan goals and po
licies identifying the need and supporting a mix of uses that foster more
“complete” neighborhoods.
This project site is unique in its large size and presents an opportunity for a use that would directly meet many of the General Plan policies and secondarily support housing and economic goals by providing
a service (i.e. daycare and youth
-
related services)
critical to supporting working families.
Further, NMC Section 17.08.020(D)
, Other Uses, allows for “
other similar permitted or condition
al
uses found consistent with the General Plan
and applicable district pursuant to Chapter 17.04.
”
The accessory uses proposed by the Project are
like
those allowed at schools
, such as the use of
the gymnasium for private rental,
sports practices,
and other gatherings.
Since the NMC allows
for public schools by
-
right, and conditionally permits private school
s
, within
residentially zoned
districts,
the determination was made that the accessory uses proposed by the Project were similar
enough
to those that would be customarily incidental
or accessory to a school use
.
According to the Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD) Facility Use Policies & Procedures
for External Users
(July 1, 2020), facilities available for rental include:
•
Athletic facilities
for practice or tournaments
(gymnasiums, swimming pools, football
stadiums
, tracks, tennis courts, basketball courts, baseball fields, and parking facilities. )
•
Performance
facilities (theaters
, auditoriums, and multi
-
use rooms)
•
Outdoor facilities including quads and courtyards
•
Conference rooms accommodating from 10 to 200 people
•
Classrooms and meeting rooms for corporate or non
-
profit organizations.
•
After school enrichment programs
Therefore, staff is confident in its determination and recommendation that the youth
-
oriented
services
can properly
be considered
accessory uses
to the daycare
under the applicable provisions
of the Municipal Code
within residential districts
.
CEQA
The letter asserts the CEQA analysis is deficient; however, the authors have
not provided any
technical studies or substantial evidence
to support their claim.
Staff completed the exemption
determination in
compliance with industry standards and consistent with City procedures. In particular, the traffic analysis
was prepared with City input and conducted by a professional traffic consultant with decades of experience and many years of experience with projects in and around the Napa Valley and greater bay area.
As described in more detail in the Council staff
report, although there would be
additional traffic related to the Project, those
impacts would
not be at a level that would exceed
the
applicable thresholds
under the California Environmental
Quality Act
.
This
letter
further compares the CO2 emissions
of the recently approved
Oxbow
Hotel
to that of
the
P
roject, however, the
Oxbow
Hote
l
in
cluded air quality impacts from construction of the
hotel, as well as hotel operations. In the case of the
daycare
Project, the building already
exists,
and
its reuse will involve
minimal construction to improve Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
access
and other hardscape for pedestrian circulation
, which
would be vastly minimal compared
to the construction and operation
of a hotel.
The letter further tries to link the CO2 number to
project trips, however, the CO2 emissions mentioned in the letter referencing the hotel
were not
from the trips generated by the hotel alone, but rather the project in its entirety including construction of operation, which again is vastly different from the daycare
Project, which is an
adaptive reuse of existing buildings
.
As it relates to the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis, the Office of Planning and Research
(OPR)
, the State of California’s CEQA authority,
provides no guidance on assessing the specific
use of daycares, nor does it provide definitive thresholds. Therefore, jurisdictions and practitioners look to the broader guidance within the OPR Technical Advisory on how to analyze VMT
impacts. In this case, OPR concludes that other than regional retail uses (50,000 square feet and greater) that have the potential to draw traffic from a broader region (thereby increasing VMT)
, most retail uses simply redistribute rather than generate net new VMT. Although d
aycare
is not retail, the premise remains that
daycares are considered more
local serving
than a use that
draws from a broader region.
For example, people aren’t necessarily driving from out of town to attend a daycare unless they already work in the area in which case that trip would be made anyways.
With regard to the argument of the daycare increasing its existing capacity to 250, the presumption is that because of the need for childcare, those additional children would have or
are already receiving care
somewhere else
, so the trips might be redistributed, but not necessarily increasing in the region from a VMT perspective.
Also, daycares are generally selected by
convenience meaning that for someone dropping off a child at daycare is more likely to choose a daycare that is on the way of their typical daily trip whether that’s to and from work or the grocery store, etc.,
thus, daycares are considered local
serving uses.
This is evidence
d
in other cities such as the Town of Windsor
, City of Vallejo, and the County of
Sacramento, which have listed daycare facilities as “screening out” of VMT and presumed to have a less
-
than
-
significant VMT impact due to its local serving nature.
Lastly, according to the Bay Area Air Quality Management’s (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines, screening
thresholds are provided and are presumed to be less
-
than
-
significant if a project would not
increase traffic volumes at
affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
Further,
BAA
QMD identifies screening criteria
for
operations
of specific types of land uses, and daycare
centers of less than 232,000 square feet are
presumed to
h
ave a less
-
than
-
significant impact
related
to air pollutants.
Because th
e project involves minimal construction and the existing structure is well below the screening size,
the Project would be unlikely to exceed applicable air
quality impact thresholds.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, while the correspondence from Buchalter
claims that
the zoning code and CEQA
were
not properly
applied
to the Project application
,
City Staff disagrees with those claims and
notes that Buchalter has not offered any
substantial evidence
to support its claims.
City Staff
are
confident in both how the zoning code was applied and that it followed all appropriate steps of the City’s Municipal Code and
CEQA in making the recommendation.
County Executive Office
1195 Third Street
Suite 310
Napa, CA 94559
www.countyofnapa.org
Main: (707) 253
-
4421
Fax: (707)
253
-
4176
Ryan J Alsop
County Executive Officer
Napa City Counsel
1600 First Street
Napa, CA 94559
Dear
Members of the City Counsel
,
The Napa County Board of Supervisors support
s
all recipients of the Childcare Infrastructure
Forgivable Loan
program. All program participants were selected as part of a competitive process
for their ability to make a substantial positive impact in the childcare market
by
increasing the supply of chil
dcare spots.
Le Petite Elephant Nursery and Preschool continues to
be one of the most exciting
projects in our community.
Napa County received $26.7 million from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).
The Board of
Supervisors directed $3.8 million dollar
s to develop a childcare
infrastructure
investment
program for one
-
time childcare provider expenses.
This program was created after Napa County
conducted
research on the childcare needs of the community.
Napa County
hired
a consultant
through a competit
ive process, UpFront,
a consultant
specializing in the childcare market,
to complete
the
Napa County Child Care Assessment
Report
.
The report was intended to understand where gaps in childcare needs existed
.
The
report found that childcare
costs and lack
of availability
disproportionately
impacts women
,
especially those in middle income households, who do not qualify for subsidies.
Furthermore,
the report found that
infant childcare spots were the greatest
local
need
.
All
providers either had
no availab
le infant spots or all had long wait lists.
Additionally, after
-
hours childcare (
after
5:00pm) was identified in the report as a community need, especially since much of the local Napa workforce is in the hospitality industry.
As a result of these factors, the research found that
women were more likely to leave the workforce.
The con
sultant recommende
d several solutions,
among them a grant for
one
-
time costs for
childcare facilities,
specifically
for
those who can
provide infant childcare spots.
In
June
2023
, the Napa County Board of Supervisors established the Childcare Infrastruct ure
Forgivable Loan program to make a positive impact on the childcare market.
The program was
structured as a one
-
time forgivable loan for
expenses such as acquiring or renovating a facility.
Napa County received 26 applicants.
Seven applicants were s
elected using a competitive process
that placed
weight
on infant childcare spots.
Le Petit Elephant Nursery and Preschool, by Milli Pintacsi, was one of the strongest applicants
.
Le Petit Ele
phant Nursery and Preschool’s
plan
is to
create or preserve ov
er a hundred childcare
County Executive Office
1195 Third Street
Suite 310
Napa, CA 94559
www.countyofnapa.org
Main: (707) 253
-
4421
Fax: (707)
253
-
4176
Ryan J Alsop
County Executive Officer
spots,
many of which would be for infants.
In return for funding, any
property improvements or
purchased property over one million dollars would have a ten
-
year
deed on the property
to
ensure that childcare is provided according to
the terms of the agreement.
Based on research
conducted by Upfront, Napa County believes that
the selected childcare proposals, including Le
Petit Elephant Nursery and Preschool
, would provide substantial benefit to the community. The benefits of this pr
oject would be particularly impactful to women
in need of infant childcare
,
who might otherwise be forced out of the
job market.
The
service
of childcare providers, specifically Le Petit Elephant
is especially pressing for the
local workforce. Without childcare, research has found that potential employees are more likely to leave the already tight labor market. For this reason, after hours care is also vital to the local
workforce.
The Napa Cou
nty Board of Supervisors supports all selected
recipients
and
continues to support
the childcare providers
to ensure they are successful in meeting this vital community need.
Daniel Sanchez
Senior Management Analyst
(707) 253
-
4825
daniel.sanchez@countyo
fnapa.org
Napa County
From:
Sadie Julin
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal - Please dismiss the appeal
Date:
Wednesday, May 1, 2024 6:21:03 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Council Members,
I live less than half a mile from the proposed daycare, on the corner of East and First. I would have attended previous meetings in support, but I work full time and am a parent.
Please approve the use permit for Le Petit Elephant, including the non daycare uses outside normal operating hours.
As you know, Napa has very limited daycare options. It also has very few publicly available indoor spaces for kids recreation activities.
My partner and I have a 4-year-old, and we regularly have to drive to Fairfield to access indoor play areas. As far as I am aware, there is only one other place in Napa with similar facilities - Las Flores Community Center.
We greatly look forward to having more child-centered activities available in our neighborhood.
While you are at it, could we also please have a swimming pool? Sincerely,
Sadie Julin
From:
Nancy Morse
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant appeal
Date:
Wednesday, May 1, 2024 10:18:16 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City of Napa Council members,
I live at 120 First St, Napa, One of the three busy streets going in and out of Alta Heights. I fully support the Le Petit elephant preschool going into our neighborhood. I understand the traffic issues. I think it will be a great addition to Alta Heights. You have my support in approving it to locate there.
Nancy Morse
From:
Iris Barrie
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant discussion at 5/21 City Council meeting Date:
Monday, May 6, 2024 8:12:12 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Hello,
I understand that I can relay my comments via email regarding this issue which is to be discussed at the 5/21 City Council meeting.
Here are my comments:
I live directly across the street on Montecito from this proposed childcare center.
I am wholeheartedly in favor of a
childcare center in this location.
I am not overly concerned about an increase in traffic, noise or evacuation in case of emergency.
After school basketball/volleyball practice in the gym, summer day camp, early evening “date night” child care for parents, indoor use for caregivers and their charges during inclement weather is fine with me.
My concerns are for extended use of the property, above childcare.
While I understand the need of the owners to
make the property financially viable, renting out the facility for weddings, birthday/other parties, sports leagues/competitions would impose undue stress on this residential neighborhood.
As the Council considers this use permit, I urge you to set these limits on the property’s use.
Iris Barrie
From:
Mary Luros
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Fwd: Approve Le Petit Elephant - Do Not Be Swayed by NIMBY Voices Date:
Thursday, May 9, 2024 10:23:59 AM
Mary Luros
Councilmember, District 3
City of Napa
PO Box 660 /
955 School Street, Napa, CA 94559
Phone
(707) 258-7800 x5284
[email protected]
Website
www.cityofnapa.org
Social
www.facebook.com/CityOfNapa
· @CityOfNapa
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Sarah Gillihan
Date:
May 9, 2024 at 8:42:27
AM PDT
To:
Mary Luros <[email protected]>
Cc:
Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>, Liz Alessio
<[email protected]>, Beth Painter <[email protected]>, Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>
Subject:
Approve Le Petit Elephant - Do Not Be Swayed by NIMBY Voices
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Ms. Luros and valued members of our Napa City Council, Thank you for your service to our community. As a constituent in your district and homeowner in Alta Heights,
I'm writing in support of the proposed site
for Le Petit Elephant at 15 Chapel Hill Drive.
I trust you will not let a
minority of 'Not In My Backyard" voices sway your decision to approve a trusted childcare provider from expanding to serve more families in our community, as well as utilize a large piece of Alta Heights real estate that has gone left unused.
While I do not have childcare-aged children, I do see how vital LPE has been to friends, who are trying to build a life here and contribute to our economy and community. Without this childcare option, my friends would have to
make some very tough decision when it comes to their careers and whether they could stay in Napa County.
As you know, the reality is parents in Napa Valley are in a childcare crisis.
There is only one childcare spot for every four children in the county, and most are for the ages 2 and over.
The lack of availability and cost of
childcare prevents parents like my colleagues and friends from staying in the workforces.
Napa County is aging, and not allowing successful childcare facilities like LPE to expand to meet the demand prevents families (and their tax dollars) from staying in Napa Valley. I am saddened by the voices and actions of my neighbors who are raising false flags to garner your attention. I believe that LPE can address concerns around traffic and safety as effectively on 15 Chapel Hill as it has at its current location on Laurel Street.
I hope you'll join me in supporting the next generation of Napa natives by supporting this valued business.
Sincerely,
Sarah Gillihan
From:
Christine Tedstrom
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Scott Sedgley
;
Beth Painter
;
Charlie Tedstrom
Subject:
LPE Advocates
Date:
Tuesday, May 14, 2024 12:29:15 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Good Afternoon,
We hope this email finds you well. We are writing on behalf of LPE and in support of the new site they would like to open in Alta Heights.
Our family has been with LPE for over a year and
we
are expecting our second baby,
who arrived just before Easter, to also receive care from LPE starting this summer.
Our older son did not start his childcare journey at LPE and his care prior to his enrollment in LPE left a lot to be desired, especially considering the expense of infant care.
As parents we made the call to move him to LPE at the age of one and we have not regretted that decision for a single moment. Since starting at LPE, we have seen our son blossom in his development as well as see a visible change in his demeanor outside of school.
He is more confident, curious, and interactive with us and other people.
He is given the opportunity to be outside frequently, learn valuable new skills, and form some of his first friendships.
He is very clearly happy and excited to attend
school every day. We have never once doubted his comfort or safety while in the hands of LPE's well-trained staff, who we hold the utmost trust in guiding our son through these critical development years.
As parents, it is hard to find the trusting and collaborative relationship we have found with LPE. This is made especially hard by how few options there are for infant care in the valley. It would be a huge blow to the community to deny this permanent space for LPE both in terms of our children's development and parents' abilities to contribute to the community.
We sincerely hope this project gains the support of the community to move forward.
Thank you for your time,
Christine + Charlie Tedstrom
--
Christine Tedstrom
From:
Stevie Stacionis
To:
Clerk
;
Scott Sedgley
;
Liz Alessio
;
Beth Painter
;
Mary Luros
;
Bernie Narvaez
Subject:
Support for Child Development Center in Alta Heights
Date:
Tuesday, May 14, 2024 12:34:33 PM
[EXTERNAL]
To Whom It May Concern:
The Childcare Crisis in America--but especially in Napa--is out of control and destroying residents' and especially small business owners' ability to function in society. We are all losing as a result. It blows my mind that any resident of Napa would contest using an existing space for a new and improved childcare center that could benefit so many local families.
Please take this as a strong vote in support of Le Petit Elephant's expansion and the Child Development Center in Alta Heights.
Thank you.
--
Stevie Stacionis
author,
Resilient Wine
owner,
Bay Grape
Oakland & Napa
owner,
MAMA Oakland
founder,
Bâtonnage Forum
shop line: 510-686-3615
From:
Callan DeBruyn
To:
Clerk
;
Scott Sedgley
Subject:
Letter of Support for Le Petit Elephant Moving to Chapel Hill Date:
Tuesday, May 14, 2024 2:50:31 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Hello Mayor Sedgley and Napa City Clerk Team,
Thank you for your consideration of LPE's use of the Chapel Hill site for their new facility.
I will be at a trade show in Chicago the evening of the council meeting so unable to attend in person. I appreciate your advance review of my remarks as an operator of a business in Napa County and as an LPE parent.
My name is Callan deBruyn and my husband and I relocated from the Midwest to the North Bay in 2018. We made this transition so that I could grow my family's business, US Wine Transport, which had just moved from Sonoma County to Napa County. This was an exciting
opportunity for my career, but it was also a gamble. We knew that we wanted to start a family and that the Napa area offered less support for parents and children than what we could find in Minnesota. Additionally, we were moving away from most of our family support and understood that reliable, affordable, childcare was going to be a critical, but hard to find resource.
In taking this leap, we
have been able to grow my family business from six employees who work in our American Canyon office to 14. We also achieved our goal of expanding our family by having our first daughter in the summer of 2022.
Our business takes being family owned and operated to heart. We pride ourselves on providing a job and benefits that allow our employees to take the best care of their families and thrive in the Napa area. This commitment gets harder and harder to meet with our newfound understanding of how rare and expensive most childcare options in Napa
are
though.
I have a colleague who had a daughter about a year before we had ours. She didn't know that she had to get on a waitlist for daycare in her first trimester to have a shot at getting in by the time her maternity leave ended and was therefore left scrambling to piecemeal childcare options together. She has a really good job, but a private nanny will cost conservatively $25/hour in Napa, at 40 hours per week and conservatively $4,000/month, this wasn't functional for her. As a business, we adapted and she brought her daughter in to work some days, and she works from home some days while she waits
to get off of a waitlist for daycare. I am proud of how we responded to her need as a company, but this has been stressful and taxing for all of us and disappointing that there aren't more viable options available to her and her family.
Luckily, I learned from her experience and was on the waitlist at LPE before we had even publicly announced our pregnancy. Should we decide to have another baby, LPE will once again be the first to know to ensure that our infant spot is secured before I return to work.
I'm sure you'll get many letters of support about LPE's program, it is indeed stellar. The community that Milli has developed is wonderful and her holistic view of what it takes to raise a family and the role that a childcare facility can play in that raising is truly unique.
The lack of turnover in her staff is incredible and gives us great confidence that our daughter is well cared for and will be well prepared for kindergarten. It's such a gift that her teachers can afford to live where they work. We utilize her monthly date nights every chance we get and have never once had a traffic problem getting into the parking lot for drop off or pick up.
As someone who operates a business in Napa County though, I'm hopeful that my experience can help shed a little more light on the critical need that LPE fills from a broader community perspective. I have colleagues that are holding off on starting families because they have seen how difficult it is to find childcare; even with our generous policies around paid family leave giving them as much time as possible to plan for it. From a recruiting perspective, I don't know that I could honestly endorse a young family moving here that didn't have incredible means or a desire to not have children. I am hopeful this will change.
I have empathy for the Alta Heights neighbors who don't want to see this addition to their neighborhood. What I would ask of you and of them is to give us a chance. We want nothing more than to be a positive part of the community and I am confident that we'd be an asset. As a group, we are respectful, kind, and most interested in knowing that our kids are loved and cared for while we are at work. There are many parts about LPE's expansion that would be a direct potential benefit to these neighbors. As fro the things that that they see as inconvenient or troublesome, I can assure you that we'll do our part to make them as functional as possible. Any community needs new life to grow and sustain itself. Without LPE, it would be impossible for us to stay. I am hopeful that you'll endorse Milli's plan and make it just a little easier for more families living in this area to access the same wonderful benefits that our daughter gets to experience.
Thank you again for your consideration.
Callan deBruyn
Callan DeBruyn
Business Development
Direct:
612-232-4879
Email
:
[email protected]
www.uswinetransport.com
From:
Katy Wilson
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Scott Sedgley
;
Mary Luros
Subject:
Re: LPE Support
Date:
Wednesday, May 15, 2024 9:51:09 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Hi Again-
I want to clarify the issues with the parking lot. The parking lot as a whole is never full, but because all of the teachers have to park in the back as
required by the landlord, that area becomes full. There is always space in the front parking area, but the parents are always wanting to park closer to where the kids are and it ends up being in the same area where the teachers are required to park.
Thank you!
Katy
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 6:22
AM Katy Wilson
wrote:
Good Morning-
My name is Katy Wilson. My
husband
David Meneses and I live at
. Our 2 year old attends LPE
and we do not know what we would do without it. When we first started at LPE a year and a half ago, we were out of options. We have some family helping, but we both work full time. I have a very demanding job running our own winery and also working as a consulting winemaker for four other wineries. LPE has been a lifesaver.
On the weekends, we are often heading out of town for
activities. There are very few family-centered activities in Napa. We would love to be able to stay in town more often and spend our time in the town that we live in.
We often take advantage of the Date Night that LPE offers once per month. We usually go out to a restaurant and almost always run into other parents who are out on a date night as well. The Date Night are good for all of the parents and also good for local's support of Napa's restaurants.
The parking lot at LPE's
current location has been an issue. It can be very crowded and I am constantly worried that a kid is going to run out in front of me. It is hard to navigate.
I am not able to attend the meeting on Tuesday, but I hope that you will take my letter of support into consideration.
Thank you,
--
Ma
y
1 5
, 2024
To The Ladies & Gentlemen of the Napa
City Council
We are writing today in support of the Le Petit Elephant (LPE) permit application at 15
Chapel Hill Dr. in the Alta Heights neighborhood
to create a new campus for our nursery school and
the greater community. Currently our
two
year old is enrolled and attends LPE. The program at LPE has been absolutely wonderful for our child to begin her learning adventure and allowing her to gain social skills with peers. The teaching and admin team at LPE are incredibly kind, professional a nd
personable.
They also p
rovide extremely reliable childcare, which seems to hard to come by in Napa. Both my wife and I are working professionals as well as homeowners in Napa. Without quality childcare we would have to consider being a single income household, which is not a f
easible option for most due to the high cost of living in Napa. That decision would also likely lead to us having to consider moving away from Napa and seeking new employment elsewhere. LPE has been good stewards of the community and a good neighbor in o ur current leased location in the
Westwood neighborhood on Laurel St.
The new proposed location would allow our campus to find a full time home and no longer deal with worries of whether or not the landlord at our current campus will discontinue or not renew our lease.
If that were to happen then that would lead to
some 100 or so families looking for a new school program and childcare, which is not readily available in Napa. A fact to support this argument is that most early year (0 -
5 year) childcare
pro
grams in Napa are on waitlists that can take up to a year or so for a space to open.
We understand there has been and will be opposition to this application. We’ve seen negative comments online about our school and founder, which is not very neighborly as they have no basis. A lot of the opposition we’ve seen also circles around traVic
congestion and how that
inconveniences the residents of Alta Heights. While we can sympathize with their concerns, we personally live a few houses down from McPherson Elementary on Yajome St . So we know about
the short surge in traVic in the morning an
d afternoon pick
-
up windows, however we do not view its
as a nuisance or inconvenience. We see this as a need and part of a family community. A positive of LPE in regards to traVic is that unlike schools in the NVUSD, we do not have set drop oV and pic k
-
up times. Rather families can drop between 7:30
-
9:00 AM and pick
-
up between 3:30
-
5:30P . So the
additional traVic for the proposed LPE campus in Alta Heights will not have a major impact the on the current traVic issue since not all families drop oV/ pick up at the same time.
The new proposed
campus will allow LPE to service and oVer childcare to more Napa families, as well as after school programs for children 5
-
12 after NVUSD schools let out further helping Napa families. The increased enrollment will also require and crea
te more jobs
.
Additionally the campus will be
available as a community center for rent outside of LPE school hours. Lastly the LPE proposal is set to oVer a set number of spaces for “camps” when NVUSD has scheduled breaks, furth er helping
working families in the Napa community. The positives that this proposal oVers far outweighs the short surge of traVic inconvenience
.
If the Planning Commission and its members want Napa to be home to working families, then we strongly urge a Yes vote and approval on this LPE application as well as others that may be brought to a vote in the future
. The Napa Planning Comm
ission
unan
imously passed this project
with glowing reviews
Sincerely,
Michael, Erin and Stella Abernathy
County Executive Office
1195 Third Street
Suite 310
Napa, CA 94559
www.countyofnapa.org
Main: (707) 253
-
4421
Fax: (707)
253
-
4176
Ryan J Alsop
County Executive Officer
Napa City Counsel
1600 First Street
Napa, CA 94559
Dear
Members of the City Counsel,
The Napa County Board of Supervisors supports
all recipients of the Childcare Infrastructure
Forgivable Loan
program. All program participants were selected as part of a competitive process
for their ability to make a substantial positive impact in the childcare market by
increasing the supply of childcare spots. Le Petite Elephant Nursery and Preschool continues to be one of the most exciting projects in our community.
Napa County received $26.7 million from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The Board of Supervisors directed $3.8 million dollar
s to develop a childcare
infrastructure
investment
program for one-
time childcare provider expenses.
This program was created after Napa County
conducted research on the childcare needs of the community.
Napa County hired
a consultant
through a competitive process, UpFront,
a consultant
specializing in the childcare market, to complete
the
Napa County Child Care Assessment
Report
. The report was intended to understand where gaps in childcare needs existed
.
The
report found that childcare
costs and lack
of availability
disproportionately
impacts women
,
especially those in middle income households, who do not qualify for subsidies.
Furthermore,
the report found that
infant childcare spots were the greatest local need
.
All
providers either had
no availab
le infant spots or all had long wait lists.
Additionally, after-hours childcare (
after
5:00pm) was identified in the report as a community need, especially since much of the local Napa workforce is in the hospitality industry.
As a result of these factors, the research found that
women were more likely to leave the workforce.
The con
sultant recommended several solutions,
among them a grant for one-
time costs for childcare facilities,
specifically
for those who can
provide infant childcare spots.
In
June 2023, the Napa County Board of Supervisors established the Childcare Infrastruct ure
Forgivable Loan program to make a positive impact on the childcare market. The program was structured as a one-time forgivable loan for expenses such as acquiring or renovating a facility.
Napa County received 26 applicants.
Seven applicants were selected using a competitive process
that placed
weight on infant childcare spots.
Le Petit Elephant Nursery and Preschool, by Milli Pintacsi, was one of the strongest applicants.
Le Petit Ele
phant Nursery and Preschool’s plan
is to
create or preserve ov
er a hundred childcare
County Executive Office
1195 Third Street
Suite 310
Napa, CA 94559
www.countyofnapa.org
Main: (707) 253
-
4421
Fax: (707)
253
-
4176
Ryan J Alsop
County Executive Officer
spots, many of which would be for infants. In return for funding, any property improvements or purchased property over one million dollars would have a ten
-
year
deed on the property to
ensure that childcare is provided according to
the terms of the agreement.
Based on research
conducted by Upfront, Napa County believes that the selected childcare proposals, including Le Petit Elephant Nursery and Preschool, would provide substantial benefit to the community. The benefits of this project would be particularly impactful to women in need of infant childcare, who might otherwise be forced out of the job market.
The service
of childcare providers, specifically Le Petit Elephant is especially pressing for the local workforce. Without childcare, research has found that potential employees are more likely to leave the already tight labor market. For this reason, after hours care is also vital to the local
workforce.
The Napa Cou
nty Board of Supervisors supports all selected
recipients
and continues to support
the childcare providers
to ensure they are successful in meeting this vital community need.
Daniel Sanchez
Senior Management Analyst
(707) 253-4825
[email protected]
Napa County
From:
Sadie Julin
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Appeal - Please dismiss the appeal
Date:
Wednesday, May 1, 2024 6:21:03 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City Council Members,
I live less than half a mile from the proposed daycare, on the corner of East and First. I would have attended previous meetings in support, but I work full time and am a parent.
Please approve the use permit for Le Petit Elephant, including the non daycare uses outside normal operating hours.
As you know, Napa has very limited daycare options. It also has very few publicly available indoor spaces for kids recreation activities.
My partner and I have a 4-year-old, and we regularly have to drive to Fairfield to access indoor play areas. As far as I am aware, there is only one other place in Napa with similar facilities - Las Flores Community Center.
We greatly look forward to having more child-centered activities available in our neighborhood.
While you are at it, could we also please have a swimming pool? Sincerely,
Sadie Julin
From:
Nancy Morse
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant appeal
Date:
Wednesday, May 1, 2024 10:18:16 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City of Napa Council members,
I live at 120 First St, Napa, One of the three busy streets going in and out of Alta Heights. I fully support the Le Petit elephant preschool going into our neighborhood. I understand the traffic issues. I think it will be a great addition to Alta Heights. You have my support in approving it to locate there.
Nancy Morse
From:
Iris Barrie
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant discussion at 5/21 City Council meeting Date:
Monday, May 6, 2024 8:12:12 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Hello,
I understand that I can relay my comments via email regarding this issue which is to be discussed at the 5/21 City Council meeting.
Here are my comments:
I live directly across the street on Montecito from this proposed childcare center.
I am wholeheartedly in favor of a
childcare center in this location.
I am not overly concerned about an increase in traffic, noise or evacuation in case of emergency.
After school basketball/volleyball practice in the gym, summer day camp, early evening “date night” child care for parents, indoor use for caregivers and their charges during inclement weather is fine with me.
My concerns are for extended use of the property, above childcare.
While I understand the need of the owners to
make the property financially viable, renting out the facility for weddings, birthday/other parties, sports leagues/competitions would impose undue stress on this residential neighborhood.
As the Council considers this use permit, I urge you to set these limits on the property’s use.
Iris Barrie
From:
Mary Luros
To:
Clerk
Subject:
Fwd: Approve Le Petit Elephant - Do Not Be Swayed by NIMBY Voices Date:
Thursday, May 9, 2024 10:23:59 AM
Mary Luros
Councilmember, District 3
City of Napa
PO Box 660 /
955 School Street, Napa, CA 94559
Phone
(707) 258-7800 x5284
[email protected]
Website
www.cityofnapa.org
Social
www.facebook.com/CityOfNapa
· @CityOfNapa
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Sarah Gillihan
Date:
May 9, 2024 at 8:42:27
AM PDT
To:
Mary Luros <[email protected]>
Cc:
Scott Sedgley <[email protected]>, Liz Alessio
<[email protected]>, Beth Painter <[email protected]>, Bernie Narvaez <[email protected]>
Subject:
Approve Le Petit Elephant - Do Not Be Swayed by NIMBY Voices
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Ms. Luros and valued members of our Napa City Council, Thank you for your service to our community. As a constituent in your district and homeowner in Alta Heights,
I'm writing in support of the proposed site
for Le Petit Elephant at 15 Chapel Hill Drive.
I trust you will not let a
minority of 'Not In My Backyard" voices sway your decision to approve a trusted childcare provider from expanding to serve more families in our community, as well as utilize a large piece of Alta Heights real estate that has gone left unused.
While I do not have childcare-aged children, I do see how vital LPE has been to friends, who are trying to build a life here and contribute to our economy and community. Without this childcare option, my friends would have to
make some very tough decision when it comes to their careers and whether they could stay in Napa County.
As you know, the reality is parents in Napa Valley are in a childcare crisis.
There is only one childcare spot for every four children in the county, and most are for the ages 2 and over.
The lack of availability and cost of
childcare prevents parents like my colleagues and friends from staying in the workforces.
Napa County is aging, and not allowing successful childcare facilities like LPE to expand to meet the demand prevents families (and their tax dollars) from staying in Napa Valley. I am saddened by the voices and actions of my neighbors who are raising false flags to garner your attention. I believe that LPE can address concerns around traffic and safety as effectively on 15 Chapel Hill as it has at its current location on Laurel Street.
I hope you'll join me in supporting the next generation of Napa natives by supporting this valued business.
Sincerely,
Sarah Gillihan
From:
Christine Tedstrom
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Scott Sedgley
;
Beth Painter
;
Charlie Tedstrom
Subject:
LPE Advocates
Date:
Tuesday, May 14, 2024 12:29:15 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Good Afternoon,
We hope this email finds you well. We are writing on behalf of LPE and in support of the new site they would like to open in Alta Heights.
Our family has been with LPE for over a year and
we
are expecting our second baby,
who arrived just before Easter, to also receive care from LPE starting this summer.
Our older son did not start his childcare journey at LPE and his care prior to his enrollment in LPE left a lot to be desired, especially considering the expense of infant care.
As parents we made the call to move him to LPE at the age of one and we have not regretted that decision for a single moment. Since starting at LPE, we have seen our son blossom in his development as well as see a visible change in his demeanor outside of school.
He is more confident, curious, and interactive with us and other people.
He is given the opportunity to be outside frequently, learn valuable new skills, and form some of his first friendships.
He is very clearly happy and excited to attend
school every day. We have never once doubted his comfort or safety while in the hands of LPE's well-trained staff, who we hold the utmost trust in guiding our son through these critical development years.
As parents, it is hard to find the trusting and collaborative relationship we have found with LPE. This is made especially hard by how few options there are for infant care in the valley. It would be a huge blow to the community to deny this permanent space for LPE both in terms of our children's development and parents' abilities to contribute to the community.
We sincerely hope this project gains the support of the community to move forward.
Thank you for your time,
Christine + Charlie Tedstrom
--
Christine Tedstrom
From:
Stevie Stacionis
To:
Clerk
;
Scott Sedgley
;
Liz Alessio
;
Beth Painter
;
Mary Luros
;
Bernie Narvaez
Subject:
Support for Child Development Center in Alta Heights
Date:
Tuesday, May 14, 2024 12:34:33 PM
[EXTERNAL]
To Whom It May Concern:
The Childcare Crisis in America--but especially in Napa--is out of control and destroying residents' and especially small business owners' ability to function in society. We are all losing as a result. It blows my mind that any resident of Napa would contest using an existing space for a new and improved childcare center that could benefit so many local families.
Please take this as a strong vote in support of Le Petit Elephant's expansion and the Child Development Center in Alta Heights.
Thank you.
--
Stevie Stacionis
author,
Resilient Wine
owner,
Bay Grape
Oakland & Napa
owner,
MAMA Oakland
founder,
Bâtonnage Forum
shop line: 510-686-3615
From:
Callan DeBruyn
To:
Clerk
;
Scott Sedgley
Subject:
Letter of Support for Le Petit Elephant Moving to Chapel Hill Date:
Tuesday, May 14, 2024 2:50:31 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Hello Mayor Sedgley and Napa City Clerk Team,
Thank you for your consideration of LPE's use of the Chapel Hill site for their new facility.
I will be at a trade show in Chicago the evening of the council meeting so unable to attend in person. I appreciate your advance review of my remarks as an operator of a business in Napa County and as an LPE parent.
My name is Callan deBruyn and my husband and I relocated from the Midwest to the North Bay in 2018. We made this transition so that I could grow my family's business, US Wine Transport, which had just moved from Sonoma County to Napa County. This was an exciting
opportunity for my career, but it was also a gamble. We knew that we wanted to start a family and that the Napa area offered less support for parents and children than what we could find in Minnesota. Additionally, we were moving away from most of our family support and understood that reliable, affordable, childcare was going to be a critical, but hard to find resource.
In taking this leap, we
have been able to grow my family business from six employees who work in our American Canyon office to 14. We also achieved our goal of expanding our family by having our first daughter in the summer of 2022.
Our business takes being family owned and operated to heart. We pride ourselves on providing a job and benefits that allow our employees to take the best care of their families and thrive in the Napa area. This commitment gets harder and harder to meet with our newfound understanding of how rare and expensive most childcare options in Napa
are
though.
I have a colleague who had a daughter about a year before we had ours. She didn't know that she had to get on a waitlist for daycare in her first trimester to have a shot at getting in by the time her maternity leave ended and was therefore left scrambling to piecemeal childcare options together. She has a really good job, but a private nanny will cost conservatively $25/hour in Napa, at 40 hours per week and conservatively $4,000/month, this wasn't functional for her. As a business, we adapted and she brought her daughter in to work some days, and she works from home some days while she waits
to get off of a waitlist for daycare. I am proud of how we responded to her need as a company, but this has been stressful and taxing for all of us and disappointing that there aren't more viable options available to her and her family.
Luckily, I learned from her experience and was on the waitlist at LPE before we had even publicly announced our pregnancy. Should we decide to have another baby, LPE will once again be the first to know to ensure that our infant spot is secured before I return to work.
I'm sure you'll get many letters of support about LPE's program, it is indeed stellar. The community that Milli has developed is wonderful and her holistic view of what it takes to raise a family and the role that a childcare facility can play in that raising is truly unique.
The lack of turnover in her staff is incredible and gives us great confidence that our daughter is well cared for and will be well prepared for kindergarten. It's such a gift that her teachers can afford to live where they work. We utilize her monthly date nights every chance we get and have never once had a traffic problem getting into the parking lot for drop off or pick up.
As someone who operates a business in Napa County though, I'm hopeful that my experience can help shed a little more light on the critical need that LPE fills from a broader community perspective. I have colleagues that are holding off on starting families because they have seen how difficult it is to find childcare; even with our generous policies around paid family leave giving them as much time as possible to plan for it. From a recruiting perspective, I don't know that I could honestly endorse a young family moving here that didn't have incredible means or a desire to not have children. I am hopeful this will change.
I have empathy for the Alta Heights neighbors who don't want to see this addition to their neighborhood. What I would ask of you and of them is to give us a chance. We want nothing more than to be a positive part of the community and I am confident that we'd be an asset. As a group, we are respectful, kind, and most interested in knowing that our kids are loved and cared for while we are at work. There are many parts about LPE's expansion that would be a direct potential benefit to these neighbors. As fro the things that that they see as inconvenient or troublesome, I can assure you that we'll do our part to make them as functional as possible. Any community needs new life to grow and sustain itself. Without LPE, it would be impossible for us to stay. I am hopeful that you'll endorse Milli's plan and make it just a little easier for more families living in this area to access the same wonderful benefits that our daughter gets to experience.
Thank you again for your consideration.
Callan deBruyn
Callan DeBruyn
Business Development
Direct:
612-232-4879
Email
:
[email protected]
www.uswinetransport.com
From:
Katy Wilson
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Scott Sedgley
;
Mary Luros
Subject:
Re: LPE Support
Date:
Wednesday, May 15, 2024 9:51:09 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Hi Again-
I want to clarify the issues with the parking lot. The parking lot as a whole is never full, but because all of the teachers have to park in the back as
required by the landlord, that area becomes full. There is always space in the front parking area, but the parents are always wanting to park closer to where the kids are and it ends up being in the same area where the teachers are required to park.
Thank you!
Katy
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 6:22
AM Katy Wilson
wrote:
Good Morning-
My name is Katy Wilson. My
husband
David Meneses and I live at
Our 2 year old attends LPE
and we do not know what we would do without it. When we first started at LPE a year and a half ago, we were out of options. We have some family helping, but we both work full time. I have a very demanding job running our own winery and also working as a consulting winemaker for four other wineries. LPE has been a lifesaver.
On the weekends, we are often heading out of town for
activities. There are very few family-centered activities in Napa. We would love to be able to stay in town more often and spend our time in the town that we live in.
We often take advantage of the Date Night that LPE offers once per month. We usually go out to a restaurant and almost always run into other parents who are out on a date night as well. The Date Night are good for all of the parents and also good for local's support of Napa's restaurants.
The parking lot at LPE's
current location has been an issue. It can be very crowded and I am constantly worried that a kid is going to run out in front of me. It is hard to navigate.
I am not able to attend the meeting on Tuesday, but I hope that you will take my letter of support into consideration.
Thank you,
--
Ma
y
1 5
, 2024
To The Ladies & Gentlemen of the Napa
City Council
We are writing today in support of the Le Petit Elephant (LPE) permit application at 15
Chapel Hill Dr. in the Alta Heights neighborhood
to create a new campus for our nursery school and
the greater community. Currently our
two
year old is enrolled and attends LPE. The program at LPE has been absolutely wonderful for our child to begin her learning adventure and allowing her to gain social skills with peers. The teaching and admin team at LPE are incredibly kind, professional a nd
personable.
They also p
rovide extremely reliable childcare, which seems to hard to come by in Napa. Both my wife and I are working professionals as well as homeowners in Napa. Without quality childcare we would have to consider being a single income household, which is not a f
easible option for most due to the high cost of living in Napa. That decision would also likely lead to us having to consider moving away from Napa and seeking new employment elsewhere. LPE has been good stewards of the community and a good neighbor in o ur current leased location in the
Westwood neighborhood on Laurel St.
The new proposed location would allow our campus to find a full time home and no longer deal with worries of whether or not the landlord at our current campus will discontinue or not renew our lease.
If that were to happen then that would lead to
some 100 or so families looking for a new school program and childcare, which is not readily available in Napa. A fact to support this argument is that most early year (0 -
5 year) childcare
pro
grams in Napa are on waitlists that can take up to a year or so for a space to open.
We understand there has been and will be opposition to this application. We’ve seen negative comments online about our school and founder, which is not very neighborly as they have no basis. A lot of the opposition we’ve seen also circles around traVic
congestion and how that
inconveniences the residents of Alta Heights. While we can sympathize with their concerns, we personally live a few houses down from McPherson Elementary on Yajome St . So we know about
the short surge in traVic in the morning an
d afternoon pick
-
up windows, however we do not view its
as a nuisance or inconvenience. We see this as a need and part of a family community. A positive of LPE in regards to traVic is that unlike schools in the NVUSD, we do not have set drop oV and pic k
-
up times. Rather families can drop between 7:30
-
9:00 AM and pick
-
up between 3:30
-
5:30P . So the
additional traVic for the proposed LPE campus in Alta Heights will not have a major impact the on the current traVic issue since not all families drop oV/ pick up at the same time.
The new proposed
campus will allow LPE to service and oVer childcare to more Napa families, as well as after school programs for children 5
-
12 after NVUSD schools let out further helping Napa families. The increased enrollment will also require and crea
te more jobs
.
Additionally the campus will be
available as a community center for rent outside of LPE school hours. Lastly the LPE proposal is set to oVer a set number of spaces for “camps” when NVUSD has scheduled breaks, furth er helping
working families in the Napa community. The positives that this proposal oVers far outweighs the short surge of traVic inconvenience
.
If the Planning Commission and its members want Napa to be home to working families, then we strongly urge a Yes vote and approval on this LPE application as well as others that may be brought to a vote in the future
. The Napa Planning Comm
ission
unan
imously passed this project
with glowing reviews
Sincerely,
Michael, Erin and Stella Abernathy
From:
Katherine Mayall
To:
Clerk
;
Scott Sedgley
;
Beth Painter
Subject:
LPE/Relocation to Alta Heights
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 1:18:53 PM
[EXTERNAL]
To Whom it May Concern,
I am writing to express my steadfast support for Le Petit Elephant's
relocation and
expansion in Alta Heights. I am a Napa resident and parent with two children at LPE. I also live right down the street from LPE's current location. Although I know several Alta Heights community members are resistant to the idea of having LPE join their neighborhood, but as a current LPE neighbor I know that they are actually incredibly fortunate and that having the expanded LPE in their backyard
is truly a benefit to their
neighborhood. I know that I will be sad for LPE to no longer be my neighbor.
There are several key points I wanted to raise in this letter:
1 .
We are so fortunate to call Napa home, with its
picturesque landscapes and
world-class wineries. However, Napa as a whole is not doing enough to support working families and make this a truly family friendly community. There is a dearth of things to do with young children in Napa and our weekends often require us to travel into Sonoma, Marin, SF and beyond to find fresh activities
to
do with the kids. LPE's proposed expansion plan addresses this significant shortfall in our community
by providing extended programming and space for
Napa kids and youth.
2 .
As a current neighbor of LPE, I can speak to the so-called traffic/congestion caused by the school -- which is to say, there is none. Preschools do not operate like elementary schools with fixed drop off and start times. Children trickle in during about a two hour period from 7:30-9:30am and are picked up by parents at varying times in the afternoon depending on parents' working schedules and children's ages and temperaments. There is not the sort of "traffic rush" that you see at preschools. Also, a decent number of parents (myself included) walk or bike to the school for pick up and drop off, reducing the number of cars.
3 .
Finally, Milli Pintacsi runs a tight ship. She is well respected by LPE parents as a loving, nurturing caregiver and as parents, we are incredibly responsive to any requests she makes of us. I have no doubt that in the new location, she will similarly ensure families using those facilities follow any established rules and act respectfully of neighbors and the broader Alta Heights community.
The importance of accessible and reliable childcare cannot be overstated. It enables parents to pursue their careers, contribute to the local economy, and ultimately support their families. Furthermore, quality early childhood education sets the foundation for children's future success, promoting cognitive, social, and emotional development during their formative years.
Expanding Le Petit Elefant Preschool will not only benefit individual families but also contribute to the overall well-being and prosperity of our community. By investing in
our children's future, we are investing in the future of Napa, ensuring a strong and vibrant community for generations to come.
Best,
Katy Mayall
From:
Clerk
To:
Clerk
Subject:
FW: Workforce Alliance Report
Date:
Friday, May 17, 2024 9:53:29 AM
From:
Milli Pintacsi
Sent:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 2:29 PM
To:
Ricky Caperton <
[email protected]
>
Cc:
Angela Alvarez-Cendejas <
[email protected]
>
Subject:
Workforce Alliance Report
[EXTERNAL]
Hello Ricky and Angie,
I just wanted to add the attached document, specifically page 14, to our packet for the city council members. It lays out the need for childcare and the conundrum we are in with the workforce in Napa.
https://www.workforcealliancenorthbay.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/North-Bay- Napa-Workforce-Report-4.17.23.pdf
Thank you!
Warmly,
Milli

Milli Pintacsi
Founder
Le Petit Elephant Nursery
and Preschool

707-690-8797
www.LePetitElephantNapa.com
“It takes a village to raise
a child"

**This email may contain
confidential and privileged
material for the sole use of
the
intended recipient(s).
Any review, use,
distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are
not
the intended
recipient (or authorized to
receive for the recipient),
you are hereby notified to:
(i) delete
the message and
all copies; (ii) do not
disclose, distribute or use
the message in
any
manner; and (iii) notify the
sender immediately.**
Workforce Alliance
of
the
North Bay
Labor Market Analysis & Strategy
APRIL
202
3
2 About
Lightcast is the world’s leading
authority on job skills, workforce talent, and
labor market dynamics, providing expertise that empowers businesses, edu- cation providers, and governments to find the skills and talent they need and enabling workers to unlock new career opportunities. Headqu artered in Bos-
ton, Massachusetts, and Moscow, Idaho, Lightcast is active in more than 30 countries and has offices in the United Kingdom, Italy, New Zealand, and In- dia. The company is backed by global private equity leader KKR.
Lightcast
Acknowledgements
L
ightcast gratefully acknowledges the support of
Workforce Alliance of the North Bay
. A
special thank you goes to
Bruce Wilson
and
Sylwia Palczewska
for their leadership,
collaboration, and commitment to the success and prosperity of the North Bay
region and all
of the counties
–
individual and collectively
–
that comprise it.
This report is prepared for
Workforce Alliance of the North Bay
by Lightcas
t. The content is
solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of Workforce Alliance of the North Bay
. Proper acknowledgement of Lightcast should be
included in publications, presentations, or other develope d materials.
3 Contents
Overview
4 Economic Overview
7 Key Industries
7 Occupations and Skills in Demand
9 Real
-
Time Job Demand as Reflected in Job Postings Data
10 Digital Skills
1 2
Workforce Capacity and Alignment to Local Industry Needs
1 3
Demog
raphics, Workforce and Community Characteristics
1 3
Focus for Workforce Development Investments
1 6
Strategi
c Recommendations
1 7
Strategic Partnership Framework
1 8
Phase 1
–
Talent Attraction
18 Phase 2
–
Transferable Skills
20 Phase 3
–
Technical and Certificate Programs
2 2
Phase 4
–
Advanced Skill Sets
22 Phase 5
–
Information Gap
23 Phase 6
–
Starting Early
2 4
Advancing the Str
ategic Framework as a Community
24
4 Overview
5 The
Workforce Alliance of the North Bay
(
WANB)
retained Lightcast
to conduct a custom analysis,
providing insights to the state of workforce in the North Bay region, with focused breakouts of each
c
ounty within the WANB region. This first breakout summary focuses on
Napa County. The
organization’s goal is to understand the
North Bay counties’ baseline economic conditions, current workforce capacity, job demand, key skills gaps, and the strategic opportunities created by industry shifts, migration trends, and the rise of remote work since the Covid -
19 pandemic.
Insights presented in this report will inform local
workforce priorities to help align education and
skills
training investments with emerging
industry needs and facilitate the economic
mobility of citizens along key career pathways.
Which industries drive your local economy,
which occupations and skills are most important
to those industries, and where might t
here be
gaps between industry needs and the talent
development pipeline?
A comprehensive talent alignment strategy balances focus on the now, near, and far:
▪
Matching current workforce with job openings in the near -
term;
▪
Attracting and retaining a skilled
talent pool in the region;
▪
Addressing the unique barriers to labor force participation for different target populations
▪
Providing visible on
-
ramps and bridges to high quality career pathways;
▪
Leveraging and improving the responsiveness of short
-
term train
ing and workforce develop-
ment funds to target key skills gaps;
This repo
rt provides insights
and recommendations to help
drive workforce investment
priorities and the development
of
collaborative community
partnerships.
6 ▪
Aligning post
-
secondary certificate and degree programs with industry needs;
▪
Back mapping industry needs into K
-
16 education; and
▪
Building the awareness of high
-
potential career pathways for
those currently in the education
pipeline or in career transition.
Strategic recommendations are intended to be actionable for a wide range of stakeholders including workforce and economic development organizations, K
-
12 and higher education systems, commu-
nity and civic leaders, and policy makers.
Advancing community goals will require stakeholders to
(1) c
oordinate and collaborate
; (2) f
ollow the lead of employers
;
and
(3) f
ocus on skills.
7 Economic Overview
–
Napa County
Key In
dustries
Napa
County’s main industries are diverse, reflecting the nature of the region as well as its workforce. When looking at a 2
-
digit NAICS breakdown, Napa County’s largest industries are Manufacturing and
Accommodation & Food Services, followed by Government.
Th
e table below provides a detailed breakdown of the Top 10 industries at a more granular 3 -
digit
NAICS level, shedding light on their expected growth, average earnings and location quotient 1 .
Reflecting Napa County’s unique setting, the share of jobs in Be verage Manufacturing is 75.22
times larger than the national average. In addition to this extraordinarily large location quotient (LQ), Beverage
Manufacturing
provides more employment than the next two largest industries, combined.
With the
exception of Local Government, the remaining Top 10 industries are expected to grow or stay level in upcoming years, with the largest (percentage) growth forecasted within the Accommodation and Social Assistance Industries.
1 Location Quotient quantifies the concentration of a particular industry, occupation or cluster. It can reveal what makes a particular region unique in comparison to the national average.
8 Industry (3
-
digit NAICS)
20 22
Jobs
2028
Jobs
2022
-
2028
Change
2022
-
2028
% Change
A
vg.
Earnings
2028
LQ
Beverage
(
and Tobacco Prod-
uct
)
Manufacturing
12,555
13,061
506
4%
$103,867
75.22 Food Services and Drinking
Places
6,929
8,270
1,340
19%
$46,704
1.30 Local
Government
5,840
5,691
-
149
-
3 $115,010
0.81 Accommodation
4,022
4,955
932
23%
$58,316
5.27 State Government
3,980
4,091
110
3%
$114,537
1.55 Administrative and Support
Services
3,435
3,437
2 0%
$55,664
0.66 Support Activities for
Agriculture and Forestry
3,363
4,018
654
19%
$65,737
13.53 Social Assistance
3,018
3,685
667
22%
$39,931
1.39 Specialty Trade Contractors
2,896
2,911
16 1%
$87,991
0.95 Ambulatory Health Care
Services
2,859
3,330
471
16%
$109,792
0.71 In order to
better guide training and upskilling efforts and understand the strengths and weaknesses of the region, it is important to not only look at the industries expecting the largest growth, but also at those expecting the largest shed of jobs, as a way of anti cipating potential talent pools that will
be available in the region.
In Napa County, Food Services and Drinking Places and Accommodation are the industries expect- ing the highest growth in upcoming years, with a combined total of 2,272 new jobs by 2028. O n the
other hand, Hospitals, Educational Services and Local Government are forecasted to experience the greatest decreases, with a total of 500 lost jobs. Facilitating the relocation of workers from one industry to another can help promote economic stabili
ty and lateral mobility across industries.
Spotlight on Beverage Manufacturing (Winemaking):
It is no surprise that Napa County has an extraordinary concentration of employment and output in the Beverage
Manufacturing industry
, with 3% continued growth pr
ojected
through 2027.
High average earnings per job within Beverage Manufacturing reflects the industry’s diversified staffing pattern
-
offering jobs
across a broad spectrum of functions, education/skills
requirements, and salary ranges.
Within the industry, demand for severa
l higher wage professional
roles is expected to grow by 2028. Sales Representatives, General Operation Managers and First -
Beverage
manufacturing, with
a
75.22 location
quotient is expected
to see 3% growth
through 2027.
9 Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers expect a 4% increase in wages, placing their average wages between $38 and $49 pe
r hour.
This provides unique opportunities for industry leaders and workforce development partners to build high
-
mobility career pathways across different occupation subsectors, i.e. production, sales and marketing, business and financial operations, admin
istrative support. More detail on the require-
ments, average wages and expected growth for Beverage Manufacturing Occupations can be found in Appendix 1.
In contrast, staffing patterns in Food Services
&
Drinking Places and Accommodation do not show
the sa
me breadth of opportunity or wage potential. As an example, First -
Line Supervisors of Food
Preparation and Serving Workers earn a median hourly wage less than the MIT living wage
2 for a
single adult with no children in Napa County ($21.62/hr or $44,970 annually).
According to
Mercer’s Inside Employees’ Minds
2022 report
3 , retail and hospitality employees are
“raising concerns about their long
-
term financial wellness and are looking for increased support from their employers.” Wage increases seen during and after the Covid -
19 pandemic have been
diluted by inflation and persistent workforce shortages make it difficult for employers to offer pre- dictable scheduling or flexibility. In order to retain hospitality employees, it will be necessary for employers to keep pace with compe
nsation in adjacent industries and address workplace policies that affect employee engagement.
Occupations and Skills in Demand
2 https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06055
3 https://www.mercer.us/our
-
thinking/2022
-
inside
-
employees
-
minds
-
in
-
the
-
retail
-
industry.html
10 The top three jobs (by volume) in Napa County are
Farmworkers
&
Laborers, Home Health
&
Personal Care
Aides, and Cashiers. Automation Indices above 100 for
Farmworkers
&
Laborers, Cashiers, Waiters
&
Waitresses, and Fast Food
&
Counter Workers indicate
those jobs have
an above average risk of being
displaced as industries automate tasks
.
In
spite of high
aut
omat
ion indices
, demand for most frontline roles in
Napa County’s key industries is projected to grow
robustly, likely
exacerbating current worker shortages
.
Eight of the Top 10 occupations in Napa County earn median wages below $40,000 (and fall below
$30,000 when adjusted for Napa County’s cost of living) while Registered Nurses and General &
Operations Managers command the highest wages, with yearly wages over $100k. The table below provides more detail on the Top 10 occupations in Napa County.
Top 10 Occupations
-
by volume
2022
Jobs
2028
Jobs
2022
-
2028 %
Change
2022
Hires
Annual
Openings
2028
LQ
Automation
Index
Median
Annual
Earnings
Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop,
Nursery, and Greenhouse
3,524
3,896
11%
6,849
656
11.51 113
$33,187
Home Health and Personal Care Aides
2,602
3,141
21%
1,961
520
1.35 93.6
$30,243
Cashiers
1,922
1,901
-
1%
1,902
362
1.12 105.5
$33,530
Waiters and Waitresses
1,810
2,118
17%
2,411
450
1.84 129.8
$33,488
Retail Salespersons
1,554
1,628
5%
1,356
243
0.81 93.4
$34,653
Registered Nurses
1,528
1,493
-
2%
322
86 0.88
85.3 $134,493
Fast Food and Counter Workers
1,411
1,623
15%
2,045
363
0.89 130.8
$34,133
General and Operations Managers
1,401
1,536
10%
794
150
0.86 82.2
$102,419
Demonstrators and Product Promoters
1,264
1,296
3%
1,169
238
53.87 106.9
$38,230
Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
1,231
1,436
17%
1,225
219
2.38 124.5
$34,777
Real
-
Time Job Demand as Reflected in Job Postings Data
Lightcast supplements traditional survey
-
based labor market information sources with proprietary real
-
time job postings data, which provides more timely intelligence on demand for occupations, skills,
and levels of education within a selected geography. The forward -
looking nature of job post-
ings data captures current and emerging labor market trends, of particular interest for communities working to align education and training programs to rapidly -
evol
ving industry needs.
Automation Indices for
some occupations indicate
those jobs have a high risk
of displacement as
industries automate tasks.
11 Napa County had a total of
27,229 unique job postings
during 2022. Monthly postings volume hit
a peak in March 2022 with 2,926 postings, then ticked downward to end the year with 1,737 post- ings in December.
Employers with the largest number of postings in Napa County during 2022 represented Healthcare/Hospital systems, Hotels and Resorts, State Government, and Accounting -
Related
Services. Job postings demand for accounting services were centered with Moss Ad ams, a large
public accounting firm with a Napa office specializing in services to wineries and vineyards.
A diverse array of specialized skills
that are prevalent in Food Service,
Accommodation, Retail Sales, and
Healthcare are in demand in Napa
County
. Many of the top common
skills are transferable across indus-
tries and can provide a durable
foundation for future career path-
ways.
An important set of skills that have
gained more relevance in recent
years are software skills. For some
occupations and jo
b titles, software skills become essential, core skills. For other occupations, they are important complements that might provide an advantage to a worker interviewing or attempting to relocate into another occupation.
In Napa County, more traditional Mi
crosoft Office skills are in highest demand and are also fre- quently listed in worker profiles, reflecting a balance of supply and demand. Less traditional soft- ware skills, such as SAP Applications and SQL, with a gap between demand and the frequency listed
in profiles provide opportunities for targeted training efforts.
Another important aspect when looking
at Job Postings are the specific creden-
tials or qualifications demanded by em-
ployers in the region. In Napa County,
qualifications related to the Healt
hcare
industry experience the highest de-
mand, with
Registered Nurse, Basic
Life Support (BLS) Certification and
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Certification (CPR) requested the
most often in job postings.
151
154
156
168
183
760
797
1,170
1,624
1,796
HyperText Markup…
SQL (Programming Language)
Google Workspace
Operating Systems
SAP Applications
Microsoft Word
Microsoft PowerPoint
Microsoft Outlook
Microsoft Office
Microsoft Excel
Postings
971
985
1,215
1,220
1,333
1,512
1,617
1,635
1,654
2,228
Hotel Operations
Food Safety and Sanitation
Auditing
Selling Techniques
Housekeeping
Accounting
Merchandising
Nursing
Marketing
Restaurant Operation
Postings
12 Digital Skills
In line with trends identified in
Lightcast research
Rural’s Rise
4 , job postings have increased in
Napa County while postings were down significantly in San Francisco County during 2022 as com-
pared to 2019
.
However, an analysis of skills demand growth does not indicate a significant in- crease in technology skills demand that rural population centers outside of Silicon Valley may have anticipated. Rather than an abrupt increase in tech
nology skills demand, Napa County should ex-
pect organic demand growth as legacy sectors adopt digital skills requirements across functions, including frontline roles
.
County
Unique Job Postings
January
-
December 2019
Unique Job Postings
January
-
December
2022
Percentage change
San Francisco
425,618
371,533
-
13%
Napa
17,419
27,229
+56%
Some digital skills are foundational, for example data entry, e -
mail, e
-
commerce transactions, and
timekeeping software. Others are industry
-
specific skills, such as restaurant servers using a
point
-
of
-
sale interface or nursing assistants using Epic, an electronic medical records system. Investing in digital skills development, even for frontline roles can pay off in higher wages and reduced productivity bottlenecks.
5 4
https://lightcast.io/resources/research/rurals
-
rise
5 https://nationalskillscoalition.org/wp
-
content/uploads/2023/02/NS
C
-
DigitalDivide_report_Feb2023.pdf
13 Workforce Capacity and Al
ignment to Local
Industry Needs
Demographics, Workforce and Community Characteristics
Napa County’s population
is projected to shrink 3% by 2030
, shedding nearly 4,500 residents.
The expected decrease is concentrated in two race and ethnicity categories: White, non -
Hispanic
residents (
-
10,000+) and American Indian or Alaskan Native, Non
-
Hispanic (
-
90).
The region
experienced a net loss of 882 residents in 2020 (5,319 inbound and 6,201 outbound migrations), drawing and losing residents primarily from/to other counties in California. The high est
net out
-
migration was to Solano County, Lake County, Sonoma County, Sacramento County, and Ada County, I
daho
.
When building a community workforce strategy, it is help- ful to dive deeper into population trends to identify which age cohorts are expected t
o grow as a share of the re-
gion’s population. By 2030, Napa County is
projected to
see a declining youth population tempered by a mod-
erate increase in 35
–
54 -
year
-
olds,
generally considered
to be in their prime
-
earning years. An increasing number
of older r
esidents, ages 75+ will place increased demand
on regional health
care systems that are already grappling
with workforce shortages.
Surrounding counties in the North Bay region are expected to see growth in younger population, ages 15
-
24, a trend that Napa
County employers
should plan to leverage for staffing entry
-
level
jobs in key frontline industries like Beverage Manufacturing, Food Services and Drinking Risk of retirement is high
in the region
and the mile-
nial population is lower
than the national average
.
14 Places, and Accommodation.
To attract young talent, it will be key to demonstrate career pathway pote
ntial via the foundational skills gained in these entry -
level roles.
Napa County’s unemployment rate in November 2022 was 3.15%, decreasing from 3.68% 5 years before and from a peak of 9.08% during the 2020 pandemic year.
A threat to Napa County’s full
economic recovery is a decreasing labor force participation rate
-
the t
otal of the county’s
citizens who are employed or officially considered unemployed divided by total population over age
16. Shrinking labor force participation, even when unemployment is low, means fewer people are able or willing to engage in the workforc
e.
Indicators
Napa County
Population (2022)
135,886
Labor Force (Sept. 2022)
70,669
Jobs
(2022)
81,473
Unemployment Rate (Nov. 2022)
3.16%
Unemployment in 2020
9.08%
Labor Force Participation Rate (Nov. 2022)
60.78%
Labor Force
Participation Rate (2017)
65.19%
According to the US Census Bureau’s
American Community Survey (ACS)
,
Napa County’s 4.9%
poverty level is well below the national average of 9.1%, however the cost of living is significantly higher than the
national average
–
which impacts citizens and the workforce in many ways. Child- care costs, which can be a driver of labor force participation, are a higher share of household income in Napa County than elsewhere in the US. For medium U S
counties (populatio
n 100,000
-
499,999), the median yearly price for infant center
-
based care in 2022 was $11,354 in 2022, 13.9%
of family income. By comparison,
Napa County families pay a median $18,909, a 17.3% share of their income.
Indicators
Napa County
Median
Household Income
$92,219
% Poverty Level
4.9%
Cost of Living
144.1
Childcare
P
rice as
S
hare of Family Income
6 17.3%
Median
Y
early Childcare Price
7 $18
,
909
6 Infant Center Based 2022
7 Infant Center Based 2022
15 According to the ACS, j
ust 1.4% of Napa County commuters take public
transportation to work, with
the vast majority (74.9%) driving alone to work
-
another financial consideration when gasoline
prices are high
.
How do available jobs in Napa County match up to residents’ education levels?
The majority of jobs (65%) in Napa County require either no formal education or a high school diploma only, while 22% require a Bachelor’s degree and 5% a graduate degree or higher.
However,
Associate’s, Bachelor’s and
graduate degree holders are
oversupp
lied in Napa County
relative to job demand which
indicates
many residents may be
underemployed in roles with
lower requirements
.
This dynamic, coupled with worker
preferences for roles with
predictable hours and flexibility
could drive those with more
edu
cation and sought
-
after skills
(thus, more bargaining power) to
seek employment outside of Napa
County
or seek a job that can be performed remotely.
In fact, 7.3% of Napa County residents report working exclusively from home –
exactly the national
average.
Just under 30,000 Napa County residents commute to other counties for work, with roughly 15% of those commuting to either Marin or San Francisco County. 36,000+ workers commute to Napa County, with more than 35% of those coming from neighboring Solano Cou nty.
25%
40%
7%
1%
22%
5%
15%
18%
21%
9%
24%
13%
No Formal Education
Required
High School Diploma
or Equivalent
Some College, Non-
Degree Award
Associate's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate Degree and
Higher
Population
at
Educational Level
Jobs Requiring
Educational Level
16 Focus for Workforce Development Investments
Of particular interest to workforce development organizations are jobs in demand that require credentials beyond high school, but not necessarily a degree. Training for those roles can often be funded through federal and state workforce development program s and provides an entry point to
high
-
mobility career pathways. Top posted jobs in Napa County that require more than a high school diploma but not a Bachelor’s degree include Bookkeeping, Accounting
&
Auditing Clerks, Nursing
Assistants, Licensed Practica
l
&
Licensed Vocational Nurses, and Automotive Service Technicians &
Mechanics.
As additional education and credentials are obtained, these middle skill jobs can serve as a springboard for career pathway advancement and economic mobility. For example, the
top “next
-
step” jobs for Bookkeeping, Accounting
&
Auditing Clerks are Accountants
&
Auditors and Financial
Managers, both of which offer a significant salary differential.
Feeder Occupation
Opportunity
O
ccupations
Mean Salary
Difference
▪
Bookeeping,
Accounting and
Auditing Clerks
▪
Accountants and Auditors
▪
Financial Managers
$27,305
$70,101
▪
First
-
Line Supervisors of Office and
Administrative Support Workers
▪
Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks
$13,503
$6,026
▪
Property, Real
Estate, and
Community Association Managers
$7,787
▪
Credit Counselors
$9,956
17 Strategic Recommendations
These recommendations
are designed to help Workforce Alliance of the North Bay leaders and their community partners cultivate a
sustainable workforce pipeline that nurtures the growth of key industries, employers, and jobs that provide long
-
term career development and economic mobility
for citizens of Napa County.
Understanding Macro Trends
The walls between economic and workforce
development have come down as regions recognize
that talent drives economic growth, and the availability of skilled talent is a top concern for companies considering whether to locate or expand in an area.
Successful regions are promoting the capacity of
their
current workforce
in addition to
a cohesive strategy for
building a sustainable and adaptable talent pipeline
-
giving employers the confidence they can grow. It is
important to shorten the feedback loops between
economic and workforce development an
d align around
shared targets for attracting high
-
quality jobs to the
region while simultaneously building a skills
development pipeline that fuels continued growth
-
a
virtuous circle.
The historically tight labor market is unlikely to reverse course as the drivers of local and national workforce shortages are largely structural
-
rather than situational. While short
-
term interventions
ca
n show impact, communities should invest in cross
-
sector planning and innovation to develop
creative strategies that address long
-
term demographic trends, industry shifts and the effects of digital disruption across sectors.
Workforce alignment has evolved
from “selling” candidates for jobs to “selling” job opportunities to citizens. Alongside efforts to attract business to locate and expand, regions must also focus on the drivers of talent retention and attraction, with a compelling value proposition aroun d high
-
mobility
career opportunities and vibrant quality of life.
In the North Bay region, there are unique challenges around several key industries as well as
unique opportunities given
the
proximity to the Bay Area’s tech ecosystem and the impl ications of
changes in work arrangements/preferences since the Covid -
19 pandemic. If not addressed, low
labor force participation and high cost of living could be a drag on continued economic recovery.
Undersupply of jobs for degree
-
holders could fuel cont
inued out
-
migration.
Workforce alignment has
evolved from “selling”
candidates for
jobs to
“selling” job opportunities
to citizens.
18 A
Strategic Partnership Framework
Strategic recommendations are organized around
six phases
of talent attraction/development,
each with its own planning horizon, unique set of key stakeholders, and time -
to
-
payoff for the
community. A comprehensive community strategy will invest simultaneously in all phases -
to
compound future benefits and buffe
r against shifts in market conditions. An effective workforce strategy should also be integrated with community planning for housing, infrastructure (i.e. broadband, transportation), childcare, and livability amenities.
PHASE 1
-
Talent Attraction (0 to
6 Months)
Focus:
Better matching of current workforce with local job openings; attracting skilled out -
of
-
market
talent to fill jobs where demand eclipses local workforce capacity.
▪
Labor market data cannot substitute for direct consultation with the end -
cu
stomers of your
area’s talent “supply chain”
–
local employers. Leverage your data to provide a shared understanding of local labor market conditions and augment this with primary accounts of employers’ current hiring needs/challenges, emerging skills requ irements, and their
expectations for future demand.
19 ▪
Encourage employers to examine job descriptions and confirm that skills and experience requirements match job responsibilities. Coach job
seekers to include in
-
demand specialized
skills and qualifications
, as well common skills and software skills on their resume and online profiles.
▪
Seek immediate labor force participation gains by reducing fragmentation in job search and career support services across the region; develop centralized ways to market job op
portunities and promote programs available to support immediate employment (i.e. childcare subsidies, short term reskilling programs).
▪
Help employers widen their talent pools by considering non -
traditional or “hidden” talent
-
for
example, veterans transit
ioning back into civilian life or the formerly incarcerated -
and
promote skills
-
based hiring as a better measure to assess whether a candidate can successfully perform a job.
Recent findings by Bain & Company
8 , using Lightcast data
indicate that more than 60% of middle
-
skill jobs require a bachelor’s degree when, in
actuality, a four
-
year degree is not a good proxy fo
r the skills needed to perform the job.
Putting the focus on skills over degrees in the hiring process widens potential talent pools and aligns criteria more closely with future job performance.
▪
Work with industry partners to market local hospitality, food
service, and personal care jobs
as “launchpads” where workers can build in
-
demand transferable skills. Promote employers
in those industries that provide upskilling, career development, and/or tuition reimbursement for further education.
9 ▪
Remote work is successfully drawing disabled workers off the sidelines 10 . Work with local
industry and employer group
s to assess where you might build pockets of remote
-
enabled
employment opportunities targeted for Napa County’s disabled population.
▪
Understand the concerns of current and potential workers about the jobs and quality of life in your community. With industr
y and economic development partners, establish a profile of your key targets for talent attraction. Leverage migration trends data (see below) to identify competitive markets for relocation, especially markets where relocating to the North Bay area may pro
vide a comparative wage gain. For example, the five markets below are ranked by
8 https://www.bain.com/insights/eliminate
-
a
-
degree
-
of
-
difficulty
-
hire
-
for
-
skills
-
not
-
school
9 https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/hotels
-
new
-
job
-
pitch
-
career
-
growth
-
5194865/
10 https://fortune.com/2023/02/24/remote
-
work
-
disabled
-
employment
-
record
-
high
-
remote
-
work
-
office
-
man-
dates/
20 the opportunity to attract Registered Nurses, which will continue to be a vital role in Napa County as the aging population grows and requires more health
care services.
County
Total Pool of
RNs
Earnings Gain if
Relocate
Los Angeles, CA
94,720
$11.09
Salt Lake, UT
12,746
$13.00
San Francisco, CA
12,488
$7.44
Maricopa, AZ
40,551
$14.32
DuPage, IL
11,047
$13.87
▪
Drive out
-
of
-
market prospects to a website that
sells the advantages of living and working in
your region, based on an understanding of their top concerns.
▪
Leverage tech industry dispersion and remote work trends as an opportunity to attract technology workers to fill key roles now or work remotely from
the North Bay area. Identify
whether there are opportunities to transition displaced H1 -
B Visa holders to local technology
roles, even in legacy industries.
▪
Partner with destination marketing organizations in the North Bay region to promote opportunities
to live and work to area visitors. Leverage the region’s natural assets and concentration of hospitality amenities to attract remote or contract/contingent workers, (like travel nurses). Promote local opportunities to current remote workers through network ing
events and/or marketing in those “third spaces” where remote workers congregate.
PHASE 2
-
Transferable Skills (6 Months to 2 Years)
Focus:
U
pskilling and reskilling workers already in your area with short -
term training and creden-
tials that are nimble
enough to evolve with market demand
▪
Confirm with employer partners their hiring timeline projections for key positions (i.e. plan to hire 15 new production workers in Q3) and the skills required to qualify for the roles. Where the skills of available talen
t don’t match up, work with employers and training providers to spin up responsive short
-
term credentialing programs.
▪
Create incentives to upskill/reskill by prioritizing programs that are short -
term, low or no cost,
provide stackable
(micro)credentials and rolling enrollment opportunities. Incentivize employers to offer upskilling to incumbent workers on
-
the
-
job or to hire an employee before
21 training commences. Connect training and upskilling to “next jobs” along priority pathways.
Bac
kfill vacated roles with new entrants from bridge programs.
▪
Work with industry partners in food services, accommodation, and hospitality to standardize the foundational training and credentialing as skills are obtained on the job. Once training pathways ar
e standardized, provide group upskilling opportunities (in a digital format where possible to reach the largest number of workers).
▪
Ensure that local human services organizations are fully integrated into the Workforce Development System/One Stop and
work with these organizations to address the barriers to labor force participation for targeted talent pools in the community. This will allow businesses to access untapped labor pools.
▪
Prioritize digital upskilling, even for frontline roles -
to address
digital skills gaps and promote
economic mobility.
Recent research by the National Skills Coalition
11 estima
tes that 36% of
workers in the hospitality industry have limited or no digital skills and this “digital skill divide disproportionately impacts workers of color, low
-
income individuals, and rural residents.”
According to recent
Brookings research
12 , “workers that qualify for jobs that require even one digital skill can earn an average of 23% m
ore than in a job requiring no digital skills. Moving
from a job requiring no digital skills to one requiring at least three can increase pay by an average of 45%.”
▪
Consult with local industry/employers to identify industry -
specific digital skills that cou
ld be
conferred on the job or in short
-
term “boot camp” settings. For example, Lightcast identifies the following emerging digital skills that are in
-
demand in the retail sector: Ecommerce, Point
of sale systems, Retail analytics (e.g. SAS), and Robotics.
▪
Investigate the viability of
“Returnships”
13 to draw displaced workers back into jobs by
providing training in the latest digital skills/
technologies, networking opportunities, job
placement and support.
▪
Identify prospective talent pools for education and upskilling to meet future demand, where public workforce development funds can be best leveraged. Within the four North Bay counties, the
re are
152,695
residents with a high school diploma only, or some college
11 https://nationalskillscoalition.org/resource/publications/the -
ne
w
-
landscape
-
of
-
digital
-
literacy/
12 https://www.brookings.edu/research/as
-
the
-
digitalization
-
of
-
work
-
expands
-
place
-
based
-
solutions
-
can
-
bridge
-
the
-
gaps/
13 https://www.aarp.org/work/job
-
search/returnships
-
adult
-
internships/
22 credits, but no degree
-
that could be targeted for middle skill technical roles or incentivized to complete a degree program.
PHASE 3
-
Technical and Certificate Programs (2 to 4 Y
ears)
Focus:
N
ear
-
term alignment of forecasted industry demand with local talent development program- ming to facilitate attainment of the most relevant degrees and certifications
▪
Confirm with employers the key post
-
secondary programs that confer high
-
demand
skills and
credentials. Collaborate to promote and drive enrollment in these preferred programs of study.
▪
Define with cross
-
sector partners what constitutes a “good job” in the region. Identify a list of targeted “good jobs” that require post
-
secondary tr
aining/credentials. Identify the career
pathways that lead to those jobs and where those jobs can lead with even more education, training, and experience.
▪
Develop on
-
ramps to high
-
demand, high
-
potential pathways that are projected to grow in the
next sever
al years. Provide bridges to priority pathways from industries and jobs with less potential for mobility.
▪
Consider how earn and learn models like Apprenticeship can be applied –
even in non
-
traditional industries.
▪
Promote successful workforce alignment to
attract new business investment in the region.
Align business attraction with the region’s talent development strengths.
PHASE 4
-
Advanced Skill Sets (4 to 7 Years)
Focus:
L
ong
-
term alignment of higher education programming to develop a sustainable high ly
-
skilled pipeline for the region’s driver industries
▪
Map where employers are participating on industry advisory boards at local colleges and universities, advising on the alignment of program curriculum to success in the and the knowledge, skills, and ab
ilities that set up students for (1) successful job placement; and (2) lifelong career development.
▪
Aggregate input across boards to provide better intelligence to all organizations in the talent development system. Promote collaboration across institutio ns to fill programming gaps in
the region, or downsize or sunset programs where industry demand isn’t sufficient to provide
23 employment for graduates. Collaborate to drive enrollment in programs of study that fuel local industry needs.
▪
Improve speed to mark
et of skilled talent (credential attainment) by facilitating seamless articulation agreements between community college and university programs and where possible, providing credit for prior learning.
▪
Improve attachment to job opportunities in your market
by supporting employers’ capacity to
offer internships for current college & university students. Work with career services departments to drive employer participation in career fairs, collaborate on specialized career fairs that appeal to employers’ hirin
g priorities
-
by industry or sector.
PHASE #5
-
Information Gap (7 to 10 Years)
Focus:
B
uild awareness of high
-
demand high
-
potential career pathways with industry
-
aligned pro-
gramming in middle and high schools.
▪
Provide semi
-
annual labor market updates to K
-
12 leaders and policy makers to
communicate current and emerging skillsets that
set up students for future success.
▪
Establish a list of entry
-
level job requirements across industries. Leverage youth funds to provide earn and learn opportunities that combine hourly work with foundational skills development and career counseling.
▪
Grow t
he number of programs offering dual enrollment opportunities that confer post -
secondary credits and industry
-
recognized credentials to increase the likelihood of post -
secondary enrollment
and/or attachment to the workforce after graduation.
▪
Communicate
preferred credentials/degrees and local programs of study that fuel industry needs and connect the dots to enrollment.
▪
Backmap established local career pathways into K
-
12 and cultivate future talent by fostering
industry partnerships with local high schoo
ls to offer a range of career experiences. Provide
awareness of local opportunities and relevance for classroom learning through business/plant tours, job shadows, industry
-
supported classroom projects, work experience,
and more.
24 PHASE #6
-
Starting Early
: 10 to 15 Years
Focus:
D
raw students to foundational career and technical education programs by sparking inter- est in STEM and the world of work.
▪
Promote the work of
local STEM
partnerships
to galvanize community support for
programming that builds foundational skills, interests and aptitudes for the jobs of tomorrow.
▪
Grow access to out
-
of
-
school enrichment programs that focus on future employa bility skills,
including Junior Achievement, 4
-
H Clubs, Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCA programs, coding
camps, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and more. Connect young people participating in those programs to information about career and technical education programs a vailable to them in
middle and high school.
▪
Leverage local community college and university resources to provide youth summer camps, hackathons, and other ways to “try out” a career program of study.
Advancing this strategic framework as a community
will
require
stakeholders to:
1. Coordinate and collaborate
across organizations,
understanding that the work cannot be
accomplished in siloes. Each partner organization brings unique expertise, networks, and resources to the table and should understand their org
anization’s role in
advancing
key
pieces of the
overall
strategy.
2. Follow the lead of employers
,
the end
-
users of your region’s talent “supply chain.” Focus
on the benefits to employers of collaborating
-
even with competitors
-
to grow the pool of
talent for all and the skills that are aligned to
common industry pain points.
3. F
ocus on
skills
,
the common language that brings together job seekers, employers, and educators for mutual benefit.
25 Occupation
% of Total Jobs
in Industry (2022)
Employed in
Industry
(2022)
Employed
in Industry
(2028)
Projected %
Change (2022
-
2028)
Median
Hourly
Earnings
Typical Entry
Level
Education
Typical On
-
The
-
Job Training
Demonstrators and Product
Promoters
10.40%
1,196
1,224
2%
$18.38
No formal
educational
credential
Short
-
term on
-
the
-
job training
Separating, Filtering, Clarifying,
Precipitating, and Still Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders
9.50%
1,097
1,104
1%
$29.42
High school
diploma or
equivalent
Moderate
-
term
on
-
the
-
job
training
Packaging and Filling Machine
Operators and Tenders
6.90%
801
811
1%
$22.22
High school
diploma or
equivalent
Moderate
-
term
on
-
the
-
job
training
Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop,
Nursery, and
Greenhouse
6.60%
756
756
0%
$15.96
No formal
educational
credential
Short
-
term on
-
the
-
job training
Sales Representatives, Wholesale
and Manufacturing, Except
Technical and Scientific Products
5.30%
613
637
4%
$38.19
High school
diploma or
equivalent
Moderate
-
term
on
-
the
-
job
training
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and
Material Movers, Hand
3.20%
364
379
4%
$17.59
No formal
educational
credential
Short
-
term on
-
the
-
job training
Waiters and Waitresses
3.20%
364
380
5%
$16.10
No formal
educational
credential
Short
-
term on
-
the
-
job training
Bartenders
2.50%
285
305
7%
$16.06
No formal
educational
credential
Short
-
term on
-
the
-
job training
Retail Salespersons
2.40%
279
291
4%
$16.66
No formal
educational
credential
Short
-
term
on
-
the
-
job training
General and Operations Managers
2.00%
227
237
4%
$49.24
Bachelor's
degree
None
First
-
Line Supervisors of
Production and Operating Workers
1.90%
223
232
4%
$36.96
High school
diploma or
equivalent
None
Appendix 1
26 Industrial Truck and
Tractor
Operators
1.90%
218
226
4%
$21.38
No formal
educational
credential
Short
-
term on
-
the
-
job training
Merchandise Displayers and
Window Trimmers
1.80%
209
218
5%
$17.74
High school
diploma or
equivalent
Short
-
term on
-
the
-
job training
Industrial Production Managers
1.40%
166
171
3%
$61.11
Bachelor's
degree
None
Sales Managers
1.40%
161
166
3%
$62.60
Bachelor's
degree
None
Maintenance and Repair Workers,
General
1.40%
159
164
3%
$23.23
High school
diploma or
equivalent
Moderate
-
term
on
-
the
-
job
training
Market Research Analysts and
Marketing Specialists
1.40%
158
170
7%
$36.98
Bachelor's
degree
None
27 Contact
Susan Koehn
Senior
Consultant
www.
lightcast.
io
From:
John Millea
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Scott Sedgley
;
Beth Painter
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant - Use Permit Appeal
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 5:17:45 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley & Councilmember Painter,
Thank you for taking the time to consider this wonderful project. We write in support of permitting Le Petit Elephant (LPE) daycare to relocate to 15 Chapel Hill Drive. We live in District 2 and both of our children attend LPE -- without LPE we would not be able to live in Napa and go to work every day. The proposed family-based community spaces
are sorely needed and will be welcomed by parents and kids. This is a rare chance to expand childcare in Napa and the project should be embraced and unanimously approved by the City Council. LPE will be a blessing and an asset to Alta Heights and Napa.
LPE's new home will allow more families to live and work in Napa, more businesses to recruit and retain employees, and most importantly, provide safe, reliable, and excellent early childhood education for more of Napa's youngest residents. We are very excited about the new site.
The appeal letter dated 4/15/24 on the other hand was disheartening. Those opposed originally cited safety and traffic concerns which were addressed at the 4/4/24 Planning Commission meeting, but on appeal it seems their new aim, knowing the
financial requirements of purchasing and operating, is to limit what LPE can do in hopes of stopping the project.
The letter can be summarized as:
"We love
daycare but
here are a bunch of ideas to kill the entire project."
We apologize for the lengthy notes below and do not want to sound negative, but the appeal letter needs to be directly addressed:
The letter copied multiple paragraphs without attribution from a 1969 court case,
Lawrence v. Zoning Board of Appeals from the Supreme
Court of Connecticut
(
https://casetext.com/case/lawrence-v-zoning-board-
of-appeals
)
:
In this case, a resident wanted to keep goats and chickens on his residential property, the town and its zoning commission said he could not have them, and he appealed.
The state supreme court ultimately upheld the
finding of the zoning commission and noted:
"In applying the law to the facts
of a particular case, the board is endowed with a liberal discretion, and its action is subject to review by the courts only to determine whether it was unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal." Toffolon v. Zoning Board of Appeals,
155
Conn. 558, 560
,
236 A.2d 96
.
We are
unclear why this case was used
because the decision supports the idea that the Planning Commission was correct in approving
LPE's
use permit.
The excerpt from the court case on page 2, paragraph 1 of the
letter
states the opposite of the appellant's argument:
"I
n the absence of
a complete prohibition of the claimed incidental use in the ordinance, it will be deemed that the legislative intent was to include it."
The appellants point to no
complete prohibition of the proposed community space incidental use as approved by the Planning Commission. We again are not sure why this section was included.
The letter states that the proposed use is "completely different" from the previous use as a religious facility.
However, t
he previous use of the
church had weekend and evening activities and is similar, not completely different, to what LPE is proposing. Per the City's 4/4/24 staff report:
"
From
1956 to 2021, the Site served as a religious institution, offering worship services, religious education, and a meeting place for faith-based clubs and organizations. The existing church building contains a Cultural Hall, which includes a stage and gymnasium historically used to host sports, religious, and community events. A kitchen and serving area are attached to the Cultural Hall, traditionally used for food service during religious group activities and events."
The letter authors are firmly opposed to having a community space available for rent at the site.
However, any member of the public can rent
the Alta Heights Elementary School Cafeteria/Multi-Purpose Room (
https://facilities.facilitron.com/56fdfc1c3411b11100cc6a98 ). Members of the
Alta Heights community rented it themselves on March 21 at 6pm to meet about this very project. It is difficult to see how LPE's proposed use 300 feet away is substantially different or unreasonable. How other childcare facilities in other jurisdictions utilize their space is not relevant to the Napa Municipal Code or the Napa 2040 General Plan.
The letter makes many dubious CEQA claims in an effort to see what sticks.
There is negligible expansion of the building per CEQA section 15301,
CEQA section 15301(p) has nothing to do with this project (family daycare home with 14 or fewer children), this project is very much an infill project per section 15332, this is a single project of one type at one time so there is no cumulative impact and 15300.2 (b) does not apply, and the traffic study says the project will not have a significant impact on vehicles miles traveled or a significant impact on emergency access, so 15300.2 (c) is not applicable (see also staff report section VII).
In short, please rely on the
experts employed by or contracted with the City of Napa to make CEQA determinations. Unfortunately it has become a California tradition to derail projects using CEQA and I hope you can see past it.
The letter threatens legal action if you approve the project.
Please do not
fear such threats from a vocal few -- the families of Napa are behind this project!
We love
living in Napa and want to raise our children here. LPE will be an excellent neighbor, attract new families to Napa, and with time will earn the trust and admiration of its new neighborhood.
Thank you again for your consideration,
John Millea & Allison Hinko
From:
Scott Wagner
To:
Clerk
;
Scott Sedgley
;
Beth Painter
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant Pre School
Date:
Friday, May 17, 2024 9:30:44 AM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear City of Napa City Council,
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to you today to emphasize the vital importance of Le Petit Elephant preschool's relocation to Alta Heights. As a member of this community, I believe this move holds significant benefits for our families, particularly in terms of accessible, affordable and reliable childcare services.
First and foremost, the availability of affordable childcare is a pressing need for both Napa's families and workforce. As the cost of living continues to rise, parents are increasingly faced with the challenge of finding quality care for their children without breaking the bank. By relocating Le Petit Elephant to Alta Heights, we have an opportunity to address this need directly. Affordable childcare options not only alleviate financial strain on families but also contribute to the overall well-being and stability of our community.
I oversee about 40 staff members in Napa and when my organization opened a new site in Solano County, a significant number of my staff asked to be transferred to that location because of the high cost of living in Napa. Affordable childcare is essential to maintaining a robust and vibrant workforce. It is unsustainable for Napa to rely on people commuting in from other communities to fuel our economy. We need to invest in things like affordable, quality childcare to ensure that people both want to stay in this community and can afford to do so.
Importantly, Le Petit Elephant has built a reputation for excellence in childcare, providing parents with the peace of mind they need to focus on their work knowing that their children are in capable hands. By relocating to Alta Heights and through its expansion, Le Petit Elephant can continue to serve as a reliable partner to Napa's working families, supporting their professional endeavors while nurturing the development of their children.
The relocation of Le Petit Elephant preschool to Alta Heights is not only beneficial for the families directly served by the center but also for the broader community of Napa. By providing affordable, dependable childcare services, Le Petit Elephant plays a vital role in supporting working parents and promoting the well-being of our children. I urge you to support this move, knowing that it will have a positive impact on the lives of countless families in our community.
Finally, as a parent of two young kids who attend Le Petit Elephant, I cherish the opportunity to participate on date nights once a month when the school stays open late so that parents can invest in their relationships or in self care. In addition, I would greatly appreciate it if my wife and I did not need to commute to Yountville on Saturdays so that my kids can learn tee-ball, basketball, and/or soccer at the Yountville Library. Our parents and kids who live in South
Napa deserve to have easy access to afterschool and weekend enrichment activities.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Scott Wagner
Ma
y
1 5
, 2024
To The Ladies & Gentlemen of the Napa
City Council
We are writing today in support of the Le Petit Elephant (LPE) permit application at 15
Chapel Hill Dr. in the Alta Heights neighborhood
to create a new campus for our nursery school and
the greater community. Currently our
two
year old is enrolled and attends LPE. The program at LPE has been absolutely wonderful for our child to begin her learning adventure and allowing her to gain social skills with peers. The teaching and admin team at LPE are incredibly kind, professional a nd
personable.
They also p
rovide extremely reliable childcare, which seems to hard to come by in Napa. Both my wife and I are working professionals as well as homeowners in Napa. Without quality childcare we would have to consider being a single income household, which is not a f
easible option for most due to the high cost of living in Napa. That decision would also likely lead to us having to consider moving away from Napa and seeking new employment elsewhere. LPE has been good stewards of the community and a good neighbor in o ur current leased location in the
Westwood neighborhood on Laurel St.
The new proposed location would allow our campus to find a full time home and no longer deal with worries of whether or not the landlord at our current campus will discontinue or not renew our lease.
If that were to happen then that would lead to
some 100 or so families looking for a new school program and childcare, which is not readily available in Napa. A fact to support this argument is that most early year (0 -
5 year) childcare
pro
grams in Napa are on waitlists that can take up to a year or so for a space to open.
We understand there has been and will be opposition to this application. We’ve seen negative comments online about our school and founder, which is not very neighborly as they have no basis. A lot of the opposition we’ve seen also circles around traVic
congestion and how that
inconveniences the residents of Alta Heights. While we can sympathize with their concerns, we personally live a few houses down from McPherson Elementary on Yajome St . So we know about
the short surge in traVic in the morning an
d afternoon pick
-
up windows, however we do not view its
as a nuisance or inconvenience. We see this as a need and part of a family community. A positive of LPE in regards to traVic is that unlike schools in the NVUSD, we do not have set drop oV and pic k
-
up times. Rather families can drop between 7:30
-
9:00 AM and pick
-
up between 3:30
-
5:30P . So the
additional traVic for the proposed LPE campus in Alta Heights will not have a major impact the on the current traVic issue since not all families drop oV/ pick up at the same time.
The new proposed
campus will allow LPE to service and oVer childcare to more Napa families, as well as after school programs for children 5
-
12 after NVUSD schools let out further helping Napa families. The increased enrollment will also require and crea
te more jobs
.
Additionally the campus will be
available as a community center for rent outside of LPE school hours. Lastly the LPE proposal is set to oVer a set number of spaces for “camps” when NVUSD has scheduled breaks, furth er helping
working families in the Napa community. The positives that this proposal oVers far outweighs the short surge of traVic inconvenience
.
If the Planning Commission and its members want Napa to be home to working families, then we strongly urge a Yes vote and approval on this LPE application as well as others that may be brought to a vote in the future
. The Napa Planning Comm
ission
unan
imously passed this project
with glowing reviews
Sincerely,
Michael, Erin and Stella Abernathy
From:
Katherine Mayall
To:
Clerk
;
Scott Sedgley
;
Beth Painter
Subject:
LPE/Relocation to Alta Heights
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 1:18:53 PM
[EXTERNAL]
To Whom it May Concern,
I am writing to express my steadfast support for Le Petit Elephant's
relocation and
expansion in Alta Heights. I am a Napa resident and parent with two children at LPE. I also live right down the street from LPE's current location. Although I know several Alta Heights community members are resistant to the idea of having LPE join their neighborhood, but as a current LPE neighbor I know that they are actually incredibly fortunate and that having the expanded LPE in their backyard
is truly a benefit to their
neighborhood. I know that I will be sad for LPE to no longer be my neighbor.
There are several key points I wanted to raise in this letter:
1 .
We are so fortunate to call Napa home, with its
picturesque landscapes and
world-class wineries. However, Napa as a whole is not doing enough to support working families and make this a truly family friendly community. There is a dearth of things to do with young children in Napa and our weekends often require us to travel into Sonoma, Marin, SF and beyond to find fresh activities
to
do with the kids. LPE's proposed expansion plan addresses this significant shortfall in our community
by providing extended programming and space for
Napa kids and youth.
2 .
As a current neighbor of LPE, I can speak to the so-called traffic/congestion caused by the school -- which is to say, there is none. Preschools do not operate like elementary schools with fixed drop off and start times. Children trickle in during about a two hour period from 7:30-9:30am and are picked up by parents at varying times in the afternoon depending on parents' working schedules and children's ages and temperaments. There is not the sort of "traffic rush" that you see at preschools. Also, a decent number of parents (myself included) walk or bike to the school for pick up and drop off, reducing the number of cars.
3 .
Finally, Milli Pintacsi runs a tight ship. She is well respected by LPE parents as a loving, nurturing caregiver and as parents, we are incredibly responsive to any requests she makes of us. I have no doubt that in the new location, she will similarly ensure families using those facilities follow any established rules and act respectfully of neighbors and the broader Alta Heights community.
The importance of accessible and reliable childcare cannot be overstated. It enables parents to pursue their careers, contribute to the local economy, and ultimately support their families. Furthermore, quality early childhood education sets the foundation for children's future success, promoting cognitive, social, and emotional development during their formative years.
Expanding Le Petit Elefant Preschool will not only benefit individual families but also contribute to the overall well-being and prosperity of our community. By investing in
our children's future, we are investing in the future of Napa, ensuring a strong and vibrant community for generations to come.
Best,
Katy Mayall
From:
Clerk
To:
Clerk
Subject:
FW: Workforce Alliance Report
Date:
Friday, May 17, 2024 9:53:29 AM
From:
Milli Pintacsi
Sent:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 2:29 PM
To:
Ricky Caperton <
[email protected]
>
Cc:
Angela Alvarez-Cendejas <
[email protected]
>
Subject:
Workforce Alliance Report
[EXTERNAL]
Hello Ricky and Angie,
I just wanted to add the attached document, specifically page 14, to our packet for the city council members. It lays out the need for childcare and the conundrum we are in with the workforce in Napa.
https://www.workforcealliancenorthbay.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/North-Bay- Napa-Workforce-Report-4.17.23.pdf
Thank you!
Warmly,
Milli

Milli Pintacsi
Founder
Le Petit Elephant Nursery
and Preschool

707-690-8797
www.LePetitElephantNapa.com
“It takes a village to raise
a child"

**This email may contain
confidential and privileged
material for the sole use of
the
intended recipient(s).
Any review, use,
distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are
not
the intended
recipient (or authorized to
receive for the recipient),
you are hereby notified to:
(i) delete
the message and
all copies; (ii) do not
disclose, distribute or use
the message in
any
manner; and (iii) notify the
sender immediately.**
Workforce Alliance
of
the
North Bay
Labor Market Analysis & Strategy
APRIL
202
3 232 N Almon St. Moscow, ID 83843
(208) 883
-
3500 | FAX: (208) 882
-
3317
www.lightcast.io
2 About
Lightcast is the world’s leading
authority on job skills, workforce talent, and
labor market dynamics, providing expertise that empowers businesses, edu- cation providers, and governments to find the skills and talent they need and enabling workers to unlock new career opportunities. Headqu artered in Bos-
ton, Massachusetts, and Moscow, Idaho, Lightcast is active in more than 30 countries and has offices in the United Kingdom, Italy, New Zealand, and In- dia. The company is backed by global private equity leader KKR.
Lightcast
232 N Almon Street
Moscow, ID 83843
lightcast.io
Acknowledgements
L
ightcast gratefully acknowledges the support of
Workforce Alliance of the North Bay
. A
special thank you goes to
Bruce Wilson
and
Sylwia Palczewska
for their leadership,
collaboration, and commitment to the success and prosperity of the North Bay
region and all
of the counties
–
individual and collectively
–
that comprise it.
This report is prepared for
Workforce Alliance of the North Bay
by Lightcas
t. The content is
solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of Workforce Alliance of the North Bay
. Proper acknowledgement of Lightcast should be
included in publications, presentations, or other develope d materials.
3 Contents
Overview
4 Economic Overview
7 Key Industries
7 Occupations and Skills in Demand
9 Real
-
Time Job Demand as Reflected in Job Postings Data
10 Digital Skills
1 2
Workforce Capacity and Alignment to Local Industry Needs
1 3
Demog
raphics, Workforce and Community Characteristics
1 3
Focus for Workforce Development Investments
1 6
Strategi
c Recommendations
1 7
Strategic Partnership Framework
1 8
Phase 1
–
Talent Attraction
18 Phase 2
–
Transferable Skills
20 Phase 3
–
Technical and Certificate Programs
2 2
Phase 4
–
Advanced Skill Sets
22 Phase 5
–
Information Gap
23 Phase 6
–
Starting Early
2 4
Advancing the Str
ategic Framework as a Community
24
4 Overview
5 The
Workforce Alliance of the North Bay
(
WANB)
retained Lightcast
to conduct a custom analysis,
providing insights to the state of workforce in the North Bay region, with focused breakouts of each
c
ounty within the WANB region. This first breakout summary focuses on
Napa County. The
organization’s goal is to understand the
North Bay counties’ baseline economic conditions, current workforce capacity, job demand, key skills gaps, and the strategic opportunities created by industry shifts, migration trends, and the rise of remote work since the Covid -
19 pandemic.
Insights presented in this report will inform local
workforce priorities to help align education and
skills
training investments with emerging
industry needs and facilitate the economic
mobility of citizens along key career pathways.
Which industries drive your local economy,
which occupations and skills are most important
to those industries, and where might t
here be
gaps between industry needs and the talent
development pipeline?
A comprehensive talent alignment strategy balances focus on the now, near, and far:
▪
Matching current workforce with job openings in the near -
term;
▪
Attracting and retaining a skilled
talent pool in the region;
▪
Addressing the unique barriers to labor force participation for different target populations
▪
Providing visible on
-
ramps and bridges to high quality career pathways;
▪
Leveraging and improving the responsiveness of short
-
term train
ing and workforce develop-
ment funds to target key skills gaps;
This repo
rt provides insights
and recommendations to help
drive workforce investment
priorities and the development
of
collaborative community
partnerships.
6 ▪
Aligning post
-
secondary certificate and degree programs with industry needs;
▪
Back mapping industry needs into K
-
16 education; and
▪
Building the awareness of high
-
potential career pathways for
those currently in the education
pipeline or in career transition.
Strategic recommendations are intended to be actionable for a wide range of stakeholders including workforce and economic development organizations, K
-
12 and higher education systems, commu-
nity and civic leaders, and policy makers.
Advancing community goals will require stakeholders to
(1) c
oordinate and collaborate
; (2) f
ollow the lead of employers
;
and
(3) f
ocus on skills.
7 Economic Overview
–
Napa County
Key In
dustries
Napa
County’s main industries are diverse, reflecting the nature of the region as well as its workforce. When looking at a 2
-
digit NAICS breakdown, Napa County’s largest industries are Manufacturing and
Accommodation & Food Services, followed by Government.
Th
e table below provides a detailed breakdown of the Top 10 industries at a more granular 3 -
digit
NAICS level, shedding light on their expected growth, average earnings and location quotient 1 .
Reflecting Napa County’s unique setting, the share of jobs in Be verage Manufacturing is 75.22
times larger than the national average. In addition to this extraordinarily large location quotient (LQ), Beverage
Manufacturing
provides more employment than the next two largest industries, combined.
With the
exception of Local Government, the remaining Top 10 industries are expected to grow or stay level in upcoming years, with the largest (percentage) growth forecasted within the Accommodation and Social Assistance Industries.
1 Location Quotient quantifies the concentration of a particular industry, occupation or cluster. It can reveal what makes a particular region unique in comparison to the national average.
8 Industry (3
-
digit NAICS)
20 22
Jobs
2028
Jobs
2022
-
2028
Change
2022
-
2028
% Change
A
vg.
Earnings
2028
LQ
Beverage
(
and Tobacco Prod-
uct
)
Manufacturing
12,555
13,061
506
4%
$103,867
75.22 Food Services and Drinking
Places
6,929
8,270
1,340
19%
$46,704
1.30 Local
Government
5,840
5,691
-
149
-
3 $115,010
0.81 Accommodation
4,022
4,955
932
23%
$58,316
5.27 State Government
3,980
4,091
110
3%
$114,537
1.55 Administrative and Support
Services
3,435
3,437
2 0%
$55,664
0.66 Support Activities for
Agriculture and Forestry
3,363
4,018
654
19%
$65,737
13.53 Social Assistance
3,018
3,685
667
22%
$39,931
1.39 Specialty Trade Contractors
2,896
2,911
16 1%
$87,991
0.95 Ambulatory Health Care
Services
2,859
3,330
471
16%
$109,792
0.71 In order to
better guide training and upskilling efforts and understand the strengths and weaknesses of the region, it is important to not only look at the industries expecting the largest growth, but also at those expecting the largest shed of jobs, as a way of anti cipating potential talent pools that will
be available in the region.
In Napa County, Food Services and Drinking Places and Accommodation are the industries expect- ing the highest growth in upcoming years, with a combined total of 2,272 new jobs by 2028. O n the
other hand, Hospitals, Educational Services and Local Government are forecasted to experience the greatest decreases, with a total of 500 lost jobs. Facilitating the relocation of workers from one industry to another can help promote economic stabili
ty and lateral mobility across industries.
Spotlight on Beverage Manufacturing (Winemaking):
It is no surprise that Napa County has an extraordinary concentration of employment and output in the Beverage
Manufacturing industry
, with 3% continued growth pr
ojected
through 2027.
High average earnings per job within Beverage Manufacturing reflects the industry’s diversified staffing pattern
-
offering jobs
across a broad spectrum of functions, education/skills
requirements, and salary ranges.
Within the industry, demand for severa
l higher wage professional
roles is expected to grow by 2028. Sales Representatives, General Operation Managers and First -
Beverage
manufacturing, with
a
75.22 location
quotient is expected
to see 3% growth
through 2027.
9 Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers expect a 4% increase in wages, placing their average wages between $38 and $49 pe
r hour.
This provides unique opportunities for industry leaders and workforce development partners to build high
-
mobility career pathways across different occupation subsectors, i.e. production, sales and marketing, business and financial operations, admin
istrative support. More detail on the require-
ments, average wages and expected growth for Beverage Manufacturing Occupations can be found in Appendix 1.
In contrast, staffing patterns in Food Services
&
Drinking Places and Accommodation do not show
the sa
me breadth of opportunity or wage potential. As an example, First -
Line Supervisors of Food
Preparation and Serving Workers earn a median hourly wage less than the MIT living wage
2 for a
single adult with no children in Napa County ($21.62/hr or $44,970 annually).
According to
Mercer’s Inside Employees’ Minds
2022 report
3 , retail and hospitality employees are
“raising concerns about their long
-
term financial wellness and are looking for increased support from their employers.” Wage increases seen during and after the Covid -
19 pandemic have been
diluted by inflation and persistent workforce shortages make it difficult for employers to offer pre- dictable scheduling or flexibility. In order to retain hospitality employees, it will be necessary for employers to keep pace with compe
nsation in adjacent industries and address workplace policies that affect employee engagement.
Occupations and Skills in Demand
2 https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06055
3 https://www.mercer.us/our
-
thinking/2022
-
inside
-
employees
-
minds
-
in
-
the
-
retail
-
industry.html
10 The top three jobs (by volume) in Napa County are
Farmworkers
&
Laborers, Home Health
&
Personal Care
Aides, and Cashiers. Automation Indices above 100 for
Farmworkers
&
Laborers, Cashiers, Waiters
&
Waitresses, and Fast Food
&
Counter Workers indicate
those jobs have
an above average risk of being
displaced as industries automate tasks
.
In
spite of high
aut
omat
ion indices
, demand for most frontline roles in
Napa County’s key industries is projected to grow
robustly, likely
exacerbating current worker shortages
.
Eight of the Top 10 occupations in Napa County earn median wages below $40,000 (and fall below
$30,000 when adjusted for Napa County’s cost of living) while Registered Nurses and General &
Operations Managers command the highest wages, with yearly wages over $100k. The table below provides more detail on the Top 10 occupations in Napa County.
Top 10 Occupations
-
by volume
2022
Jobs
2028
Jobs
2022
-
2028 %
Change
2022
Hires
Annual
Openings
2028
LQ
Automation
Index
Median
Annual
Earnings
Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop,
Nursery, and Greenhouse
3,524
3,896
11%
6,849
656
11.51 113
$33,187
Home Health and Personal Care Aides
2,602
3,141
21%
1,961
520
1.35 93.6
$30,243
Cashiers
1,922
1,901
-
1%
1,902
362
1.12 105.5
$33,530
Waiters and Waitresses
1,810
2,118
17%
2,411
450
1.84 129.8
$33,488
Retail Salespersons
1,554
1,628
5%
1,356
243
0.81 93.4
$34,653
Registered Nurses
1,528
1,493
-
2%
322
86 0.88
85.3 $134,493
Fast Food and Counter Workers
1,411
1,623
15%
2,045
363
0.89 130.8
$34,133
General and Operations Managers
1,401
1,536
10%
794
150
0.86 82.2
$102,419
Demonstrators and Product Promoters
1,264
1,296
3%
1,169
238
53.87 106.9
$38,230
Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
1,231
1,436
17%
1,225
219
2.38 124.5
$34,777
Real
-
Time Job Demand as Reflected in Job Postings Data
Lightcast supplements traditional survey
-
based labor market information sources with proprietary real
-
time job postings data, which provides more timely intelligence on demand for occupations, skills,
and levels of education within a selected geography. The forward -
looking nature of job post-
ings data captures current and emerging labor market trends, of particular interest for communities working to align education and training programs to rapidly -
evol
ving industry needs.
Automation Indices for
some occupations indicate
those jobs have a high risk
of displacement as
industries automate tasks.
11 Napa County had a total of
27,229 unique job postings
during 2022. Monthly postings volume hit
a peak in March 2022 with 2,926 postings, then ticked downward to end the year with 1,737 post- ings in December.
Employers with the largest number of postings in Napa County during 2022 represented Healthcare/Hospital systems, Hotels and Resorts, State Government, and Accounting -
Related
Services. Job postings demand for accounting services were centered with Moss Ad ams, a large
public accounting firm with a Napa office specializing in services to wineries and vineyards.
A diverse array of specialized skills
that are prevalent in Food Service,
Accommodation, Retail Sales, and
Healthcare are in demand in Napa
County
. Many of the top common
skills are transferable across indus-
tries and can provide a durable
foundation for future career path-
ways.
An important set of skills that have
gained more relevance in recent
years are software skills. For some
occupations and jo
b titles, software skills become essential, core skills. For other occupations, they are important complements that might provide an advantage to a worker interviewing or attempting to relocate into another occupation.
In Napa County, more traditional Mi
crosoft Office skills are in highest demand and are also fre- quently listed in worker profiles, reflecting a balance of supply and demand. Less traditional soft- ware skills, such as SAP Applications and SQL, with a gap between demand and the frequency listed
in profiles provide opportunities for targeted training efforts.
Another important aspect when looking
at Job Postings are the specific creden-
tials or qualifications demanded by em-
ployers in the region. In Napa County,
qualifications related to the Healt
hcare
industry experience the highest de-
mand, with
Registered Nurse, Basic
Life Support (BLS) Certification and
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Certification (CPR) requested the
most often in job postings.
151
154
156
168
183
760
797
1,170
1,624
1,796
HyperText Markup…
SQL (Programming Language)
Google Workspace
Operating Systems
SAP Applications
Microsoft Word
Microsoft PowerPoint
Microsoft Outlook
Microsoft Office
Microsoft Excel
Postings
971
985
1,215
1,220
1,333
1,512
1,617
1,635
1,654
2,228
Hotel Operations
Food Safety and Sanitation
Auditing
Selling Techniques
Housekeeping
Accounting
Merchandising
Nursing
Marketing
Restaurant Operation
Postings
12 Digital Skills
In line with trends identified in
Lightcast research
Rural’s Rise
4 , job postings have increased in
Napa County while postings were down significantly in San Francisco County during 2022 as com-
pared to 2019
.
However, an analysis of skills demand growth does not indicate a significant in- crease in technology skills demand that rural population centers outside of Silicon Valley may have anticipated. Rather than an abrupt increase in tech
nology skills demand, Napa County should ex-
pect organic demand growth as legacy sectors adopt digital skills requirements across functions, including frontline roles
.
County
Unique Job Postings
January
-
December 2019
Unique Job Postings
January
-
December
2022
Percentage change
San Francisco
425,618
371,533
-
13%
Napa
17,419
27,229
+56%
Some digital skills are foundational, for example data entry, e -
mail, e
-
commerce transactions, and
timekeeping software. Others are industry
-
specific skills, such as restaurant servers using a
point
-
of
-
sale interface or nursing assistants using Epic, an electronic medical records system. Investing in digital skills development, even for frontline roles can pay off in higher wages and reduced productivity bottlenecks.
5 4
https://lightcast.io/resources/research/rurals
-
rise
5 https://nationalskillscoalition.org/wp
-
content/uploads/2023/02/NS
C
-
DigitalDivide_report_Feb2023.pdf
13 Workforce Capacity and Al
ignment to Local
Industry Needs
Demographics, Workforce and Community Characteristics
Napa County’s population
is projected to shrink 3% by 2030
, shedding nearly 4,500 residents.
The expected decrease is concentrated in two race and ethnicity categories: White, non -
Hispanic
residents (
-
10,000+) and American Indian or Alaskan Native, Non
-
Hispanic (
-
90).
The region
experienced a net loss of 882 residents in 2020 (5,319 inbound and 6,201 outbound migrations), drawing and losing residents primarily from/to other counties in California. The high est
net out
-
migration was to Solano County, Lake County, Sonoma County, Sacramento County, and Ada County, I
daho
.
When building a community workforce strategy, it is help- ful to dive deeper into population trends to identify which age cohorts are expected t
o grow as a share of the re-
gion’s population. By 2030, Napa County is
projected to
see a declining youth population tempered by a mod-
erate increase in 35
–
54 -
year
-
olds,
generally considered
to be in their prime
-
earning years. An increasing number
of older r
esidents, ages 75+ will place increased demand
on regional health
care systems that are already grappling
with workforce shortages.
Surrounding counties in the North Bay region are expected to see growth in younger population, ages 15
-
24, a trend that Napa
County employers
should plan to leverage for staffing entry
-
level
jobs in key frontline industries like Beverage Manufacturing, Food Services and Drinking Risk of retirement is high
in the region
and the mile-
nial population is lower
than the national average
.
14 Places, and Accommodation.
To attract young talent, it will be key to demonstrate career pathway pote
ntial via the foundational skills gained in these entry -
level roles.
Napa County’s unemployment rate in November 2022 was 3.15%, decreasing from 3.68% 5 years before and from a peak of 9.08% during the 2020 pandemic year.
A threat to Napa County’s full
economic recovery is a decreasing labor force participation rate
-
the t
otal of the county’s
citizens who are employed or officially considered unemployed divided by total population over age
16. Shrinking labor force participation, even when unemployment is low, means fewer people are able or willing to engage in the workforc
e.
Indicators
Napa County
Population (2022)
135,886
Labor Force (Sept. 2022)
70,669
Jobs
(2022)
81,473
Unemployment Rate (Nov. 2022)
3.16%
Unemployment in 2020
9.08%
Labor Force Participation Rate (Nov. 2022)
60.78%
Labor Force
Participation Rate (2017)
65.19%
According to the US Census Bureau’s
American Community Survey (ACS)
,
Napa County’s 4.9%
poverty level is well below the national average of 9.1%, however the cost of living is significantly higher than the
national average
–
which impacts citizens and the workforce in many ways. Child- care costs, which can be a driver of labor force participation, are a higher share of household income in Napa County than elsewhere in the US. For medium U S
counties (populatio
n 100,000
-
499,999), the median yearly price for infant center
-
based care in 2022 was $11,354 in 2022, 13.9%
of family income. By comparison,
Napa County families pay a median $18,909, a 17.3% share of their income.
Indicators
Napa County
Median
Household Income
$92,219
% Poverty Level
4.9%
Cost of Living
144.1
Childcare
P
rice as
S
hare of Family Income
6 17.3%
Median
Y
early Childcare Price
7 $18
,
909
6 Infant Center Based 2022
7 Infant Center Based 2022
15 According to the ACS, j
ust 1.4% of Napa County commuters take public
transportation to work, with
the vast majority (74.9%) driving alone to work
-
another financial consideration when gasoline
prices are high
.
How do available jobs in Napa County match up to residents’ education levels?
The majority of jobs (65%) in Napa County require either no formal education or a high school diploma only, while 22% require a Bachelor’s degree and 5% a graduate degree or higher.
However,
Associate’s, Bachelor’s and
graduate degree holders are
oversupp
lied in Napa County
relative to job demand which
indicates
many residents may be
underemployed in roles with
lower requirements
.
This dynamic, coupled with worker
preferences for roles with
predictable hours and flexibility
could drive those with more
edu
cation and sought
-
after skills
(thus, more bargaining power) to
seek employment outside of Napa
County
or seek a job that can be performed remotely.
In fact, 7.3% of Napa County residents report working exclusively from home –
exactly the national
average.
Just under 30,000 Napa County residents commute to other counties for work, with roughly 15% of those commuting to either Marin or San Francisco County. 36,000+ workers commute to Napa County, with more than 35% of those coming from neighboring Solano Cou nty.
25%
40%
7%
1%
22%
5%
15%
18%
21%
9%
24%
13%
No Formal Education
Required
High School Diploma
or Equivalent
Some College, Non-
Degree Award
Associate's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate Degree and
Higher
Population
at
Educational Level
Jobs Requiring
Educational Level
16 Focus for Workforce Development Investments
Of particular interest to workforce development organizations are jobs in demand that require credentials beyond high school, but not necessarily a degree. Training for those roles can often be funded through federal and state workforce development program s and provides an entry point to
high
-
mobility career pathways. Top posted jobs in Napa County that require more than a high school diploma but not a Bachelor’s degree include Bookkeeping, Accounting
&
Auditing Clerks, Nursing
Assistants, Licensed Practica
l
&
Licensed Vocational Nurses, and Automotive Service Technicians &
Mechanics.
As additional education and credentials are obtained, these middle skill jobs can serve as a springboard for career pathway advancement and economic mobility. For example, the
top “next
-
step” jobs for Bookkeeping, Accounting
&
Auditing Clerks are Accountants
&
Auditors and Financial
Managers, both of which offer a significant salary differential.
Feeder Occupation
Opportunity
O
ccupations
Mean Salary
Difference
▪
Bookeeping,
Accounting and
Auditing Clerks
▪
Accountants and Auditors
▪
Financial Managers
$27,305
$70,101
▪
First
-
Line Supervisors of Office and
Administrative Support Workers
▪
Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks
$13,503
$6,026
▪
Property, Real
Estate, and
Community Association Managers
$7,787
▪
Credit Counselors
$9,956
17 Strategic Recommendations
These recommendations
are designed to help Workforce Alliance of the North Bay leaders and their community partners cultivate a
sustainable workforce pipeline that nurtures the growth of key industries, employers, and jobs that provide long
-
term career development and economic mobility
for citizens of Napa County.
Understanding Macro Trends
The walls between economic and workforce
development have come down as regions recognize
that talent drives economic growth, and the availability of skilled talent is a top concern for companies considering whether to locate or expand in an area.
Successful regions are promoting the capacity of
their
current workforce
in addition to
a cohesive strategy for
building a sustainable and adaptable talent pipeline
-
giving employers the confidence they can grow. It is
important to shorten the feedback loops between
economic and workforce development an
d align around
shared targets for attracting high
-
quality jobs to the
region while simultaneously building a skills
development pipeline that fuels continued growth
-
a
virtuous circle.
The historically tight labor market is unlikely to reverse course as the drivers of local and national workforce shortages are largely structural
-
rather than situational. While short
-
term interventions
ca
n show impact, communities should invest in cross
-
sector planning and innovation to develop
creative strategies that address long
-
term demographic trends, industry shifts and the effects of digital disruption across sectors.
Workforce alignment has evolved
from “selling” candidates for jobs to “selling” job opportunities to citizens. Alongside efforts to attract business to locate and expand, regions must also focus on the drivers of talent retention and attraction, with a compelling value proposition aroun d high
-
mobility
career opportunities and vibrant quality of life.
In the North Bay region, there are unique challenges around several key industries as well as
unique opportunities given
the
proximity to the Bay Area’s tech ecosystem and the impl ications of
changes in work arrangements/preferences since the Covid -
19 pandemic. If not addressed, low
labor force participation and high cost of living could be a drag on continued economic recovery.
Undersupply of jobs for degree
-
holders could fuel cont
inued out
-
migration.
Workforce alignment has
evolved from “selling”
candidates for
jobs to
“selling” job opportunities
to citizens.
18 A
Strategic Partnership Framework
Strategic recommendations are organized around
six phases
of talent attraction/development,
each with its own planning horizon, unique set of key stakeholders, and time -
to
-
payoff for the
community. A comprehensive community strategy will invest simultaneously in all phases -
to
compound future benefits and buffe
r against shifts in market conditions. An effective workforce strategy should also be integrated with community planning for housing, infrastructure (i.e. broadband, transportation), childcare, and livability amenities.
PHASE 1
-
Talent Attraction (0 to
6 Months)
Focus:
Better matching of current workforce with local job openings; attracting skilled out -
of
-
market
talent to fill jobs where demand eclipses local workforce capacity.
▪
Labor market data cannot substitute for direct consultation with the end -
cu
stomers of your
area’s talent “supply chain”
–
local employers. Leverage your data to provide a shared understanding of local labor market conditions and augment this with primary accounts of employers’ current hiring needs/challenges, emerging skills requ irements, and their
expectations for future demand.
19 ▪
Encourage employers to examine job descriptions and confirm that skills and experience requirements match job responsibilities. Coach job
seekers to include in
-
demand specialized
skills and qualifications
, as well common skills and software skills on their resume and online profiles.
▪
Seek immediate labor force participation gains by reducing fragmentation in job search and career support services across the region; develop centralized ways to market job op
portunities and promote programs available to support immediate employment (i.e. childcare subsidies, short term reskilling programs).
▪
Help employers widen their talent pools by considering non -
traditional or “hidden” talent
-
for
example, veterans transit
ioning back into civilian life or the formerly incarcerated -
and
promote skills
-
based hiring as a better measure to assess whether a candidate can successfully perform a job.
Recent findings by Bain & Company
8 , using Lightcast data
indicate that more than 60% of middle
-
skill jobs require a bachelor’s degree when, in
actuality, a four
-
year degree is not a good proxy fo
r the skills needed to perform the job.
Putting the focus on skills over degrees in the hiring process widens potential talent pools and aligns criteria more closely with future job performance.
▪
Work with industry partners to market local hospitality, food
service, and personal care jobs
as “launchpads” where workers can build in
-
demand transferable skills. Promote employers
in those industries that provide upskilling, career development, and/or tuition reimbursement for further education.
9 ▪
Remote work is successfully drawing disabled workers off the sidelines 10 . Work with local
industry and employer group
s to assess where you might build pockets of remote
-
enabled
employment opportunities targeted for Napa County’s disabled population.
▪
Understand the concerns of current and potential workers about the jobs and quality of life in your community. With industr
y and economic development partners, establish a profile of your key targets for talent attraction. Leverage migration trends data (see below) to identify competitive markets for relocation, especially markets where relocating to the North Bay area may pro
vide a comparative wage gain. For example, the five markets below are ranked by
8 https://www.bain.com/insights/eliminate
-
a
-
degree
-
of
-
difficulty
-
hire
-
for
-
skills
-
not
-
school
9 https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/hotels
-
new
-
job
-
pitch
-
career
-
growth
-
5194865/
10 https://fortune.com/2023/02/24/remote
-
work
-
disabled
-
employment
-
record
-
high
-
remote
-
work
-
office
-
man-
dates/
20 the opportunity to attract Registered Nurses, which will continue to be a vital role in Napa County as the aging population grows and requires more health
care services.
County
Total Pool of
RNs
Earnings Gain if
Relocate
Los Angeles, CA
94,720
$11.09
Salt Lake, UT
12,746
$13.00
San Francisco, CA
12,488
$7.44
Maricopa, AZ
40,551
$14.32
DuPage, IL
11,047
$13.87
▪
Drive out
-
of
-
market prospects to a website that
sells the advantages of living and working in
your region, based on an understanding of their top concerns.
▪
Leverage tech industry dispersion and remote work trends as an opportunity to attract technology workers to fill key roles now or work remotely from
the North Bay area. Identify
whether there are opportunities to transition displaced H1 -
B Visa holders to local technology
roles, even in legacy industries.
▪
Partner with destination marketing organizations in the North Bay region to promote opportunities
to live and work to area visitors. Leverage the region’s natural assets and concentration of hospitality amenities to attract remote or contract/contingent workers, (like travel nurses). Promote local opportunities to current remote workers through network ing
events and/or marketing in those “third spaces” where remote workers congregate.
PHASE 2
-
Transferable Skills (6 Months to 2 Years)
Focus:
U
pskilling and reskilling workers already in your area with short -
term training and creden-
tials that are nimble
enough to evolve with market demand
▪
Confirm with employer partners their hiring timeline projections for key positions (i.e. plan to hire 15 new production workers in Q3) and the skills required to qualify for the roles. Where the skills of available talen
t don’t match up, work with employers and training providers to spin up responsive short
-
term credentialing programs.
▪
Create incentives to upskill/reskill by prioritizing programs that are short -
term, low or no cost,
provide stackable
(micro)credentials and rolling enrollment opportunities. Incentivize employers to offer upskilling to incumbent workers on
-
the
-
job or to hire an employee before
21 training commences. Connect training and upskilling to “next jobs” along priority pathways.
Bac
kfill vacated roles with new entrants from bridge programs.
▪
Work with industry partners in food services, accommodation, and hospitality to standardize the foundational training and credentialing as skills are obtained on the job. Once training pathways ar
e standardized, provide group upskilling opportunities (in a digital format where possible to reach the largest number of workers).
▪
Ensure that local human services organizations are fully integrated into the Workforce Development System/One Stop and
work with these organizations to address the barriers to labor force participation for targeted talent pools in the community. This will allow businesses to access untapped labor pools.
▪
Prioritize digital upskilling, even for frontline roles -
to address
digital skills gaps and promote
economic mobility.
Recent research by the National Skills Coalition
11 estima
tes that 36% of
workers in the hospitality industry have limited or no digital skills and this “digital skill divide disproportionately impacts workers of color, low
-
income individuals, and rural residents.”
According to recent
Brookings research
12 , “workers that qualify for jobs that require even one digital skill can earn an average of 23% m
ore than in a job requiring no digital skills. Moving
from a job requiring no digital skills to one requiring at least three can increase pay by an average of 45%.”
▪
Consult with local industry/employers to identify industry -
specific digital skills that cou
ld be
conferred on the job or in short
-
term “boot camp” settings. For example, Lightcast identifies the following emerging digital skills that are in
-
demand in the retail sector: Ecommerce, Point
of sale systems, Retail analytics (e.g. SAS), and Robotics.
▪
Investigate the viability of
“Returnships”
13 to draw displaced workers back into jobs by
providing training in the latest digital skills/
technologies, networking opportunities, job
placement and support.
▪
Identify prospective talent pools for education and upskilling to meet future demand, where public workforce development funds can be best leveraged. Within the four North Bay counties, the
re are
152,695
residents with a high school diploma only, or some college
11 https://nationalskillscoalition.org/resource/publications/the -
ne
w
-
landscape
-
of
-
digital
-
literacy/
12 https://www.brookings.edu/research/as
-
the
-
digitalization
-
of
-
work
-
expands
-
place
-
based
-
solutions
-
can
-
bridge
-
the
-
gaps/
13 https://www.aarp.org/work/job
-
search/returnships
-
adult
-
internships/
22 credits, but no degree
-
that could be targeted for middle skill technical roles or incentivized to complete a degree program.
PHASE 3
-
Technical and Certificate Programs (2 to 4 Y
ears)
Focus:
N
ear
-
term alignment of forecasted industry demand with local talent development program- ming to facilitate attainment of the most relevant degrees and certifications
▪
Confirm with employers the key post
-
secondary programs that confer high
-
demand
skills and
credentials. Collaborate to promote and drive enrollment in these preferred programs of study.
▪
Define with cross
-
sector partners what constitutes a “good job” in the region. Identify a list of targeted “good jobs” that require post
-
secondary tr
aining/credentials. Identify the career
pathways that lead to those jobs and where those jobs can lead with even more education, training, and experience.
▪
Develop on
-
ramps to high
-
demand, high
-
potential pathways that are projected to grow in the
next sever
al years. Provide bridges to priority pathways from industries and jobs with less potential for mobility.
▪
Consider how earn and learn models like Apprenticeship can be applied –
even in non
-
traditional industries.
▪
Promote successful workforce alignment to
attract new business investment in the region.
Align business attraction with the region’s talent development strengths.
PHASE 4
-
Advanced Skill Sets (4 to 7 Years)
Focus:
L
ong
-
term alignment of higher education programming to develop a sustainable high ly
-
skilled pipeline for the region’s driver industries
▪
Map where employers are participating on industry advisory boards at local colleges and universities, advising on the alignment of program curriculum to success in the and the knowledge, skills, and ab
ilities that set up students for (1) successful job placement; and (2) lifelong career development.
▪
Aggregate input across boards to provide better intelligence to all organizations in the talent development system. Promote collaboration across institutio ns to fill programming gaps in
the region, or downsize or sunset programs where industry demand isn’t sufficient to provide
23 employment for graduates. Collaborate to drive enrollment in programs of study that fuel local industry needs.
▪
Improve speed to mark
et of skilled talent (credential attainment) by facilitating seamless articulation agreements between community college and university programs and where possible, providing credit for prior learning.
▪
Improve attachment to job opportunities in your market
by supporting employers’ capacity to
offer internships for current college & university students. Work with career services departments to drive employer participation in career fairs, collaborate on specialized career fairs that appeal to employers’ hirin
g priorities
-
by industry or sector.
PHASE #5
-
Information Gap (7 to 10 Years)
Focus:
B
uild awareness of high
-
demand high
-
potential career pathways with industry
-
aligned pro-
gramming in middle and high schools.
▪
Provide semi
-
annual labor market updates to K
-
12 leaders and policy makers to
communicate current and emerging skillsets that
set up students for future success.
▪
Establish a list of entry
-
level job requirements across industries. Leverage youth funds to provide earn and learn opportunities that combine hourly work with foundational skills development and career counseling.
▪
Grow t
he number of programs offering dual enrollment opportunities that confer post -
secondary credits and industry
-
recognized credentials to increase the likelihood of post -
secondary enrollment
and/or attachment to the workforce after graduation.
▪
Communicate
preferred credentials/degrees and local programs of study that fuel industry needs and connect the dots to enrollment.
▪
Backmap established local career pathways into K
-
12 and cultivate future talent by fostering
industry partnerships with local high schoo
ls to offer a range of career experiences. Provide
awareness of local opportunities and relevance for classroom learning through business/plant tours, job shadows, industry
-
supported classroom projects, work experience,
and more.
24 PHASE #6
-
Starting Early
: 10 to 15 Years
Focus:
D
raw students to foundational career and technical education programs by sparking inter- est in STEM and the world of work.
▪
Promote the work of
local STEM
partnerships
to galvanize community support for
programming that builds foundational skills, interests and aptitudes for the jobs of tomorrow.
▪
Grow access to out
-
of
-
school enrichment programs that focus on future employa bility skills,
including Junior Achievement, 4
-
H Clubs, Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCA programs, coding
camps, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and more. Connect young people participating in those programs to information about career and technical education programs a vailable to them in
middle and high school.
▪
Leverage local community college and university resources to provide youth summer camps, hackathons, and other ways to “try out” a career program of study.
Advancing this strategic framework as a community
will
require
stakeholders to:
1. Coordinate and collaborate
across organizations,
understanding that the work cannot be
accomplished in siloes. Each partner organization brings unique expertise, networks, and resources to the table and should understand their org
anization’s role in
advancing
key
pieces of the
overall
strategy.
2. Follow the lead of employers
,
the end
-
users of your region’s talent “supply chain.” Focus
on the benefits to employers of collaborating
-
even with competitors
-
to grow the pool of
talent for all and the skills that are aligned to
common industry pain points.
3. F
ocus on
skills
,
the common language that brings together job seekers, employers, and educators for mutual benefit.
25 Occupation
% of Total Jobs
in Industry (2022)
Employed in
Industry
(2022)
Employed
in Industry
(2028)
Projected %
Change (2022
-
2028)
Median
Hourly
Earnings
Typical Entry
Level
Education
Typical On
-
The
-
Job Training
Demonstrators and Product
Promoters
10.40%
1,196
1,224
2%
$18.38
No formal
educational
credential
Short
-
term on
-
the
-
job training
Separating, Filtering, Clarifying,
Precipitating, and Still Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders
9.50%
1,097
1,104
1%
$29.42
High school
diploma or
equivalent
Moderate
-
term
on
-
the
-
job
training
Packaging and Filling Machine
Operators and Tenders
6.90%
801
811
1%
$22.22
High school
diploma or
equivalent
Moderate
-
term
on
-
the
-
job
training
Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop,
Nursery, and
Greenhouse
6.60%
756
756
0%
$15.96
No formal
educational
credential
Short
-
term on
-
the
-
job training
Sales Representatives, Wholesale
and Manufacturing, Except
Technical and Scientific Products
5.30%
613
637
4%
$38.19
High school
diploma or
equivalent
Moderate
-
term
on
-
the
-
job
training
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and
Material Movers, Hand
3.20%
364
379
4%
$17.59
No formal
educational
credential
Short
-
term on
-
the
-
job training
Waiters and Waitresses
3.20%
364
380
5%
$16.10
No formal
educational
credential
Short
-
term on
-
the
-
job training
Bartenders
2.50%
285
305
7%
$16.06
No formal
educational
credential
Short
-
term on
-
the
-
job training
Retail Salespersons
2.40%
279
291
4%
$16.66
No formal
educational
credential
Short
-
term
on
-
the
-
job training
General and Operations Managers
2.00%
227
237
4%
$49.24
Bachelor's
degree
None
First
-
Line Supervisors of
Production and Operating Workers
1.90%
223
232
4%
$36.96
High school
diploma or
equivalent
None
Appendix 1
26 Industrial Truck and
Tractor
Operators
1.90%
218
226
4%
$21.38
No formal
educational
credential
Short
-
term on
-
the
-
job training
Merchandise Displayers and
Window Trimmers
1.80%
209
218
5%
$17.74
High school
diploma or
equivalent
Short
-
term on
-
the
-
job training
Industrial Production Managers
1.40%
166
171
3%
$61.11
Bachelor's
degree
None
Sales Managers
1.40%
161
166
3%
$62.60
Bachelor's
degree
None
Maintenance and Repair Workers,
General
1.40%
159
164
3%
$23.23
High school
diploma or
equivalent
Moderate
-
term
on
-
the
-
job
training
Market Research Analysts and
Marketing Specialists
1.40%
158
170
7%
$36.98
Bachelor's
degree
None
27 Contact
Susan Koehn
Senior
Consultant
From:
John Millea
To:
Clerk
Cc:
Scott Sedgley
;
Beth Painter
Subject:
Le Petit Elephant - Use Permit Appeal
Date:
Thursday, May 16, 2024 5:17:45 PM
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mayor Sedgley & Councilmember Painter,
Thank you for taking the time to consider this wonderful project. We write in support of permitting Le Petit Elephant (LPE) daycare to relocate to 15 Chapel Hill Drive. We live in District 2 and both of our children attend LPE -- without LPE we would not be able to live in Napa and go to work every day. The proposed family-based community spaces
are sorely needed and will be welcomed by parents and kids. This is a rare chance to expand childcare in Napa and the project should be embraced and unanimously approved by the City Council. LPE will be a blessing and an asset to Alta Heights and Napa.
LPE's new home will allow more families to live and work in Napa, more businesses to recruit and retain employees, and most importantly, provide safe, reliable, and excellent early childhood education for more of Napa's youngest residents. We are very excited about the new site.
The appeal letter dated 4/15/24 on the other hand was disheartening. Those opposed originally cited safety and traffic concerns which were addressed at the 4/4/24 Planning Commission meeting, but on appeal it seems their new aim, knowing the
financial requirements of purchasing and operating, is to limit what LPE can do in hopes of stopping the project.
The letter can be summarized as:
"We love
daycare but
here are a bunch of ideas to kill the entire project."
We apologize for the lengthy notes below and do not want to sound negative, but the appeal letter needs to be directly addressed:
The letter copied multiple paragraphs without attribution from a 1969 court case,
Lawrence v. Zoning Board of Appeals from the Supreme
Court of Connecticut
(
https://casetext.com/case/lawrence-v-zoning-board-
of-appeals
)
:
In this case, a resident wanted to keep goats and chickens on his residential property, the town and its zoning commission said he could not have them, and he appealed.
The state supreme court ultimately upheld the
finding of the zoning commission and noted:
"In applying the law to the facts
of a particular case, the board is endowed with a liberal discretion, and its action is subject to review by the courts only to determine whether it was unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal." Toffolon v. Zoning Board of Appeals,
155
Conn. 558, 560
,
236 A.2d 96
.
We are
unclear why this case was used
because the decision supports the idea that the Planning Commission was correct in approving
LPE's
use permit.
The excerpt from the court case on page 2, paragraph 1 of the
letter
states the opposite of the appellant's argument:
"I
n the absence of
a complete prohibition of the claimed incidental use in the ordinance, it will be deemed that the legislative intent was to include it."
The appellants point to no
complete prohibition of the proposed community space incidental use as approved by the Planning Commission. We again are not sure why this section was included.
The letter states that the proposed use is "completely different" from the previous use as a religious facility.
However, t
he previous use of the
church had weekend and evening activities and is similar, not completely different, to what LPE is proposing. Per the City's 4/4/24 staff report:
"
From
1956 to 2021, the Site served as a religious institution, offering worship services, religious education, and a meeting place for faith-based clubs and organizations. The existing church building contains a Cultural Hall, which includes a stage and gymnasium historically used to host sports, religious, and community events. A kitchen and serving area are attached to the Cultural Hall, traditionally used for food service during religious group activities and events."
The letter authors are firmly opposed to having a community space available for rent at the site.
However, any member of the public can rent
the Alta Heights Elementary School Cafeteria/Multi-Purpose Room (
https://facilities.facilitron.com/56fdfc1c3411b11100cc6a98 ). Members of the
Alta Heights community rented it themselves on March 21 at 6pm to meet about this very project. It is difficult to see how LPE's proposed use 300 feet away is substantially different or unreasonable. How other childcare facilities in other jurisdictions utilize their space is not relevant to the Napa Municipal Code or the Napa 2040 General Plan.
The letter makes many dubious CEQA claims in an effort to see what sticks.
There is negligible expansion of the building per CEQA section 15301,
CEQA section 15301(p) has nothing to do with this project (family daycare home with 14 or fewer children), this project is very much an infill project per section 15332, this is a single project of one type at one time so there is no cumulative impact and 15300.2 (b) does not apply, and the traffic study says the project will not have a significant impact on vehicles miles traveled or a significant impact on emergency access, so 15300.2 (c) is not applicable (see also staff report section VII).
In short, please rely on the
experts employed by or contracted with the City of Napa to make CEQA determinations. Unfortunately it has become a California tradition to derail projects using CEQA and I hope you can see past it.
The letter threatens legal action if you approve the project.
Please do not
fear such threats from a vocal few -- the families of Napa are behind this project!
We love
living in Napa and want to raise our children here. LPE will be an excellent neighbor, attract new families to Napa, and with time will earn the trust and admiration of its new neighborhood.
Thank you again for your consideration,
John Millea & Allison Hinko