From: Tessa Molinari
To: Clerk
Subject: Public Comment for August 18th City Council Meeting Regarding Sanctuary City Ordinance Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 12:13:35 PM
Attachments: Sanctuary Ordinance.docx
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Dear Members of Napa City Council,
Thank you for making time for a discussion about adopting a true Sanctuary City Ordinance for our community.
I have worked in ag here in the Napa Valley for close to 20 years. A conversation I had with a colleague in the spring of 2025 about current events made an impression on me. They said if they were ever sent to a detention center, that they would die. Those were their words. “I would die.” And I knew they weren’t joking, but instead referring to the fact that they wouldn’t have access to their CPAP machine prescribed for their sleep apnea and simply wouldn’t receive enough oxygen needed to survive.
My colleague has all their proper documentation yet dying in a detention center was on their mind.
Just think about how many people are living their daily lives here in Napa County with similar fears.
Consider the following:
·
70.6% held in ICE detention have no criminal conviction according to data current as of
July 11, 2026-TraceReports.
· According to Human Right’s Watch, The mortality rate of deaths in ICE custody is at its highest level in over a decade and has more than doubled since Trump’s second term began.
·
Immigration agents have a mandate to arrest and detain as many people as possible. It’s no secret they have a history of racial profiling and operate unlawfully and violently to meet this mandate. And now we’re hearing that ICE wants to spend $20 million on gloves that produce an electric shock when activated with direct skin contact.
Another concerning fact is the change in TPS for many:
·
The Temporary Protected Status of a total of about 1 million individuals from 29 countries has either been terminated or is threatened to be terminated. This means that people who have built a life here are losing their jobs, their health insurance, and are at risk of being detained with no safe place to call home.
ICE does not make our communities safe.
We do not want our city to cooperate with ICE in any way.
Our Napa community needs this Sanctuary ordinance to know where their city stands. Show us that you have our backs.
Another thing that creates more fear than safety is Flock cameras. ALPRs, Automated License Plate Readers have been sold to cities under the “safer communities” sales pitch, yet there is no conclusive study that shows they reduce crime. What they do is violate our privacy and assist in increased racial profiling, often leading to dangerous police encounters.
Like ICE, Flock Cameras put our community at risk. They do keep us safe.
We want Flock Cameras out of Napa and a Sanctuary Ordinance.
Thank you,
A Farmer and Concerned Community Member
City of Napa
Downtown Parking Structure
Feasibility Study
City Council Presentation
August 18, 2026
Meet the Team
City of Napa Consultant Team
Economic Development Division
Neal Harrison
Brendan Hurley
Parking Division
Tony Valadez
Public Works Department
Drew Hayes
Walker Consultants
Justin Chang
Chrissy Mancini Nichols
Ben Weber
Sherwood Design Engineers
Ryan Gregory
McCarthy Building Company
Fernando Sanchez
2 Purpose of the Feasibility Study
Goal: Provide Council sufficient technical,
financial, and strategic information to
determine whether and where the City should
proceed with a future parking structure
Phase 1A: Feasibility and Site
Recommendation: Evaluate four sites for
recommendation and Council consideration
• March – August 2026
Phase 1B: Preliminary Design Documents:
Schematic level design and funding model on
preferred site
• By end of 2026
3 Project Timeline
4 Downtown’s Shared Parking System
A new garage is not a substitute for parking management; it is a potential expansion of the shared supply after years of management improvements and increasing development pressure.
Shared supply
4 garages, surface lots,
and on-street spaces
serve multiple
destinations
Supply: 1,775 spaces
Parking Exempt
District
New non-residential
development may pay
fees instead of building
all parking on-site
$23k/space
PBIA Funding
PBIA revenue supports
maintenance, but the
system is not self-
sustaining
~$250,000/yr in
assessment revenue
Management First
Enforcement, wayfinding,
and policy improvements
help make existing
spaces work better
$1.25M grants and
contributions over past
few years
5 Today's Baseline
Includes:
• Existing Condition +
• First Street Hotel
Project (loss of ~215
spaces)
We are reaching the limit
of our effective parking
supply at 85%
Based on a 2025 parking
study
6 Project Basis – Why Build More Parking?
PARKING
DEMAND
- - - - -
Peak reaching 85%
- - - - -
Expected development
will continue to
increase demand
PARKING IMPACT
FEE FUND
- - - - -
$13.5M in fund
- - - - -
Fees: non-res projects
in Exempt District
shared parking
EVOLVING
DOWNTOWN
- - - - -
Diversifying growth
- - - - -
Housing, businesses,
lodging, tourism. Local
and visitor parking
SHARABLE
PARKING SUPPLY
- - - - -
A downtown asset
- - - - -
Range of parking
options well-connected
to destinations
7 Evaluation Criteria & Conceptual Layouts
©
Garage Location Options & Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation
Criteria
Questions Considered
Parking Supply How many net new spaces are
created?
Cost & Efficiency What is the cost per net new parking
space?
Location & Access Does it serve downtown, Oxbow,
employees, residents, visitors, and
future growth?
Site Availability Can the property realistically be
acquired or developed?
Community Input What did businesses, residents, and
stakeholders prefer?
Redevelopment
Potential
Does it support other downtown
redevelopment opportunities?
9 #1. Napa Sanitation
Site Napa Sanitation Pump Station
Owner Napa San (negotiating property sale)
Efficiency Strong – 390+ net new spaces w/ no/little
displacement of existing parking
Access Good access from Soscol Ave and north end of
downtown
Proximity North end of downtown and close to Oxbow
Considerations Sensitivity to surrounding homes; transition zone in DTSP; partially in floodway; farmer’s
market
Redevelopment Can serve central and north end of downtown, Oxbow, and existing and future Cinedome uses
390–460
net new spaces
$73.3K
cost / net new space
0 existing spaces displaced Highest net new supply, no existing parking displacement, and lower cost per net new space
*Masing study rendering, not fully designed or final
1 0
#2. Lot X/ X West
320-410
net new spaces
$98.3K
cost / net new space
60-170
existing spaces displaced
Strong location and capacity, but it displaces
existing parking and raises Farmer’s Market
and gateway concerns
Site Lot X and X West Surface Public Parking
Owner City + Private owner (land sale of options 1 &
2)
Efficiency High space count but displaces 60-170
existing spaces
Access Good access from Soscol Ave and north end
of downtown
Proximity North end of downtown and close to Oxbow
Considerations Variety of site use and footprint options; partially in floodway; farmer’s market
Redevelopment Can serve central and north end of downtown, and Oxbow; variables for Cinedome
redevelopment and Napa San site
*Masing study rendering, not fully designed or final
1 1
#3. Lot A
170-230
net new spaces
$143.4K
cost / net new space
77 existing spaces displaced
The site is City-owned and well located, but
has the lowest yield and highest cost per net
new space
Site Lot A Surface Public Parking
Owner City
Efficiency Least efficient site due to small size &
displacement of existing parking
Access Good access from key downtown streets – 1st
and 3rd
Proximity Downtown core, Riverfront, and County offices Considerations Higher cost due to adjacent buildings;
opportunity for ground floor activation
Redevelopment Could replace 2
nd Street Garage but low yield of
net new spaces; support other development
sites in the core
*Masing study rendering, not fully designed or final
1 2
#4. Lot K
290-370
net new spaces
$95.1K
cost / net new space
120
existing spaces displaced The site serves south downtown and County- area redevelopment, but has acquisition
uncertainty and displaces existing spaces
Site Lot K Surface Public Parking
Owner Napa County (unsure willingness to discuss
property sale)
Efficiency High space count but displaces 100+ existing surface parking spaces
Access Strong access routes from Coombs and 3
rd
Proximity Downtown core, Riverfront, and County offices Considerations Opportunity for commercial activation or public space. Mind the view of Presbyterian Church;
Close to 5
th and 2nd St garages.
Redevelopment Could serve redevelopment of County
buildings, 2nd St Garage, and other
opportunities
*Masing study rendering, not fully designed or final
1 3
Napa San Lot X
Lot A Lot K
• All 4 sites place most major
destinations within a ~10
minute walk
• Napa San and Lot X best
serve north end of Downtown
and the Oxbow
• Lot A and Lot K provide
strongest immediate access to
Downtown core, and
concentrates parking near
existing garages
• Walkshed analysis suggests
location alone does not
eliminate any site
Walkshed Analysis
1 4
Community Outreach & Feedback
©
Outreach tested site preferences & design priorities
The outreach process included internal city staff review, targeted stakeholder meetings, a citywide survey, and an open house
700+
Mailers to nearby
addresses
~550
Online survey
responses
~50
Open house
attendees
Targeted Outreach
• Developers and
property owners
• Business and
transportation groups
• Downtown Association
• Chamber of Commerce
Citywide Outreach
• Survey April 9-June 5
• Open house May 27
• Media, social media,
and newsletter
coverage
1 6
Community Feedback
Topic What We Heard
Need for supply Stakeholder input was near-universal that more parking supply is needed
Napa San Rated well for number of spaces, enabling development, and location convenience
Lot X/X West Viewed as convenient but concerns focused on Farmer’s Market displacement and gateway impacts
Lot A Central location, but comments emphasized small net gain and site constraints
Lot K Strong location/access; potential as employee parking hub but County ownership is uncertain
Design Priorities Rated Very or
Somewhat Important (n=546
respondents)
• Traditional/contextual
design 84%
• Rooftop solar and green features
– 72%
• Space guidance signage – 61%
• Bike parking – 56%
High ranking open-ended
responses
• Ensuring location for the farmers
market
• Potential employee parking
• Prioritize safety and cleanliness
Outreach did not identify a perfect site; however, Napa San was rated as the best overall balance of supply, location, cost-effectiveness, and implementation feasibility 1 7
Cost Comparison
©
Preliminary Cost Comparison of Site Options*
Napa San
(Option 1)
Lot X
(Option 1)
Lot A
(Option 1)
Lot K (Sullivans)
(Option 1)
# of Net Spaces 466 322 172 368
Base+Site (w/o Land Costs) $29,600,000 $27,100,000 $20,800,000 $30,300,000 “All-in” (w/o Land Costs)
Cost / Net Spaces
$34,100,000
$ 73,300
$31,600,000
$ 98,300
$24,700,000
$143,400
$35,000,000
$ 95,000
Base + Site Cost includes:
•Required code compliant systems: architectural, parking, egress (stairs & elevators), structural, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, interior lighting, required EV chargers, fire life safety. •Site prep & demo: grading, underground utilities, landscape, hardscape. •Reflects current Northern CA market with metric costs for design, preconstruction, insurance, bonds, contingencies.
“All-in” Cost includes:
•Façade skin system: mid-range durable architectural system on 4 sides – 4 level coverage. •Parking technology: electrical conduit rough-in for future installation. •*Cost estimates are preliminary for planning level purposes only *Cost considerations in Next Phase:
•Cost analysis will be refined with
chosen site option
•Land / Property acquisition
•Permitting & Agency fee
•Delivery method
•Design development:
•Façade coverage percentage
•Ground level amenities
•Structural system
1 9
Takeaways from Cost Comparison
• More spaces = greater value. Larger garages spread fixed costs across more parking spaces.
• Displaced parking – Replacing existing surface parking reduces the net benefit and increases the cost per space.
• Many factors will affect the final cost – Including façade, technology, and other amenities.
• Napa San is the most cost-effective option because it provides the highest net parking gain at the lowest cost per net new space. • Estimates are at a high-level. Phase 1B will refine costs, design, and identify opportunities to improve efficiency and funding . 2 0
Summary & Recommendation
©
Comparative Analysis
• Napa San is the only site with the
highest net new supply and no
real existing parking
displacement, strongest support
from the community
• Lot X and Lot K are feasible
alternatives, but each adds
acquisition complexities,
displacement, or other issues
• Lot A is centrally located but
provides the smallest net gain at
the highest unit cost
Napa San is the best site to carry into design and funding work (Phase 1B); it does not commit the City to construction
2 2
Recommendation: Proceed with Phase 1B on Napa San
SUPPLY
BOOST
- - - - -
~390-460 net new
- - - - -
Location ideal to serve downtown
and Oxbow. Reserved and
transient parking options
SITE
AVAILABILITY
- - - - -
Napa San District willingness
- - - - -
Is open to sell and in early
discussions with City about
disposition
COMMUNITY
OUTREACH
- - - - -
Strong support
- - - - -
Business-owners, developers,
public - space count, proximity,
and catalyst potential
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
- - - - -
Lowest cost per space
- - - - -
High yield of new spaces; no
existing parking displacement;
efficient site design options
ENABLES FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
- - - - -
In Downtown and close to Oxbow
- - - - -
Off-site parking option for
Cinedome site and farmers' market;
Oxbow proximity
2 3
Potential Capital Funding Stack / O&M Costs
Available Funding Source* Projection*
Parking Impact Fee & Existing Funds $13,542,010
Estimated Capital Cost (Napa San) $29.6M - $34.1M
Estimated Ongoing Ops & Maintenance
Costs
$135,000 -
$260,000/year
Potential Additional Funding Sources
• Future Parking License Agreements
(First St. Hotel, Franklin)
• Other public-private partnerships
• EIFD Bonding
• New Market Tax Credits (only w/
larger dev)
• General Fund Transfer/Debt Financing
• Paid Parking Revenue
*Funding is available, but a capital gap remains. Phase 1B to refine cost model and realistic funding stack *Cost estimates are preliminary for planning level purposes only 2 4 Next Steps: Phase 1B
Based on City Council direction, Phase 1B will be completed by the end of 2026:
• Refine Design: Parking structure schematic designs &
preliminary engineering
• Refine Costs: Model more specific costs and delivery options • Build Funding/Financing Approach: Options for funding stack • Return to Council: Bring back refined concept, cost, funding strategy, and implementation choices
2 5
Staff Recommendation
1. Receive a report and presentation on the Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study Phase 1A
2. Identify the Napa Sanitation District property (1210 West Street) as the preferred site for continued evaluation; and
3. Direct staff to proceed with Phase 1B of the Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study.
2 6
Additional Slides
©